RoR: Forum

Jingos Michael! After saying all that about me you can be mean to me until the end of time if you want to!

You look intelligent, so let's go at it:

Let then the blazing levin-flash of Michael be hurled!

Cheers for the invite to kitchen, I'll know where to go if I get hungry.
But then you were joking, weren't you? (Please say you were, because if not, I just wasted a whole lot of typing!)

It's humour on three fun-loving levels. Fiened ignorance, extended metaphore and...one other. Of course it's a joke!

What does "passed over" mean anyway?
You seem to have missed a pretty obvious point that if you can't communicate it, it ain't obvious.

By 'passed over' I mean unsaid. It is as if I should start to explain such words as coat, apartment, wife. The terms and points I leave out, but which I am perfectly capable of communicating, are equally obvious (to me at least).

Here is the point you missed in arguing against "tragic beauty" and calling people's sentiments shameful. I don't think any one of those posters, especially not Barbara, found any beauty in her predicament in itself (the tragedy). It was a horrible situation. The real beauty was in her reaction to it, her ability to judge a thorny issue in the middle of all that emotional turmoil and loss and preserve value as she understood it and held it.

As always, of course, I have missed nothing.

You're right! I agree! It is the exactly for the reaction, not for the predicament for which the offenders have been arrested. It is this the praise of this reaction as beauty, which you reaffirm now, which I find shameful and repugnant.

You would do well to look at her from the Socratic command of tabula rasa, "I only

And you, and those on this thread you defend, would do well to remember the dead end of that old Greek's philosophy.

This work of art is the direct equivalent to Plato's dialogue which we may consider as interchangible for the purposes of this issue. If you re-read your above quote "The real beauty was....value as she understood it and held it" you will see that it applys identically in this, more ancient, fable.

Likewise Romeo & Juliete, another fable where the reaction of the lovers is presented to us as 'beautiful tradgedy'. You know how that play ends. I admit the genius of The Bard's insight, but in every Shakespeare play a lie has its hidden function.

So too the fables I have exampled: Socrates, Romeo & Juilette, Barbara Branden.

the sentiments you found so "shameful" in the posters was nothing more than empathizing with Barbara's plight

No, I think it is as you say above- an aesthetic appreciation of beauty in Barbara's response to the plight. Today I'm the aesthetics police: You're busted.

I repeat myself. I think Barbara did the right thing, but I call this contempt. There is no beauty in her fable as there is no such thing as tragic beauty (perhaps the examples above make this more clear now).

Next time you entertain the in-laws or smoothe the way for yourself with a public servant by witholding comments or white lies ask yourself if this deciet an extention of fraternaty or of contempt. Family life tends to be built on mutual contempt, and there are plenty of TV shows and good movies which run this theme. When you're talking to your gentle old grandmother and don't rebuke her for wanting to bring back conscription you're doing the same thing as Barbara and the same thing you do to the creatures you are forced to deal with at the vehical registration office. It is contempt.

Or would you say that the latter is an example of selfishness where the fomer two are not?

[Edited because it had some weird/bad HTML tags.]

(Edited by Joseph Rowlands
on 5/26, 3:32pm)

Post 41

Friday, July 29, 2005 - 4:17am

David Elmore said

        " If we feel we have to lie to another person, we don't really care about that person. We don't respect that person's ability to deal with reality -- and that is the true measure of friendship and love."

       Well, as far as agreeing with that, as HAL-9000 would say...
       "I'm sorry Dave. I can't do that."

        To be sure, Barbara LIED to her mother, and, Nathaniel added a new lie. This was all out of dis-respect, contempt, non-caringness, un-lovingness? Such is the inherent meaning of 'compassion?' --- I don't think so.

        In a narrow context, I'd usually agree with you, 'on principle.' But to imply that no 'principle' has exceptions delineatable is to consider the term 'principle' as an absolute in an intrinsicist framework. Keep in mind that even Aristotle distinguished a 'relative' absolute from an 'absolute' one. The former is how *I* see the O'ist virtue-'principles.' Can one say 'guidelines?' --- (Besides, in the legal-world, lawyers make a career out of pointing out the legal-exceptions to some law argued as a 'precedent' [ie: legal-'principle'], non?)

        Consider the virtue 'honesty'. If one was to take how Rand described/defined it in Galt's speech as fundamentalistically literal, Barbara might as well have paraphrased Bones McCoy in answering her mother and said "We're done, mom." --- What worthwhileness to one's self or others would there have been in that (beyond knowing that one 'dutifully' stuck to a selflessly accepted dogma)?

      Such a 'literalist' view of absolutes, principles, and, especially, virtues (which Rand never argued in terms of "Ignore 1 just 1 time and you're immoral/evil") makes one a bad candidate to work on a cancer-pediatric ward, methinks, or even to deal with anyone in a serious pain (mental or physical)-of-a-situation (kids or adults.) --- "You're parents were dismembered, kids; get over it." "She was eaten alive, Mike; bummer. Wanna get a drink?" "He's still burning alive, Sharon, but..." --- Get my drift?

     To be sure, there's principles and there's Principles; there's absolutes and there's Absolutes. One needs to keep in mind that some (others, such as kids, though not only them) go by principles and are taught 'absolutes' (think of beginning math...before getting into modular or trig) that are really only 'contextual,'...until, if they do, reach a 'full' context (which is to say, contemporary expert knowledge appreciation in whatever the subject.) I'm not arguing that all P or A are 'relative,' merely that some are, for some people, in some situations.

      Granted, there's mucho ambiguity where 'compassion' is properly distinguishable from 'pity' and where 'benevolence' falls (as well as including "What-more beyond pure generosity?") in the O'ist ethics, as well as when LYING to those one loves is morally ok without dis-respect; but I argue it's still ambiguous, and not all that delineated. Indeed, it's what I'd include under what Nathaniel called 'gaps' in O'ism.

      In short, can't one accept such decisions in such situations as...personal Judgement-Calls?

      Barbara did the right thing. So did Nathaniel. I'd have done the same.

J-D

Post 42

Friday, January 19, 2007 - 7:33am

This post just came up on my screen from the archives, and is so extraordinary that it deserves another read.

Consider it especially in light of the subsequent character accusations against Barbara and Nathaniel -- including those by the person who thought this story so important and revealing that he chose to make it an article.

"Irony" doesn't seem a word adequate for the occasion.

Post 43

Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 9:34am

Man, can this woman write, or what?

Sam

Post 44

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 - 11:43pm

I disliked this article.

The part I did like was seeing the extent to which Nathaniel was willing to work towards making someone happy at the end of her life. Without focusing on whether this was really the right thing to do, it showed how a person can go to great lengths for someone they value. I didn't see the action as a sacrifice on his part, but as a pursuit of a value and the act dramatically gave focus to the extent of the value being pursued. I could see doing something like this as a salute to a person that meant something to you. I don't know if any of this applied, but that was the sense I got from it.

I also don't have a problem with lying to someone who's going to die. I fully appreciate the contextual nature of the virtues, and how under some conditions it makes sense in order to pursue the values.

But given all of that, the story left me thinking that this was not a good relationship between Barbara and her mother. To be unable to tell the truth to someone, because that person doesn't think you're capable of making your own choices in life (or that you've screwed them up), takes away from the story. I would hope under similar circumstances to be able to say something like "I know you want the best for me, but I really am happy with my choice. It was the best thing for me, and my life has improved. There's no reason to fear because I am happy and my life is successful".

I'd also hope that I didn't have to try to make a case for my actions on someone's deathbed, and that my relationship with them was close enough that I would have conveyed all of this beforehand, and that we would be close enough that they would understand.

I guess if they're still unwilling to trust my decisions, this situation might play out like this. If I valued them in spite of that particular distrust in my decision making, I just might end up trying to make their last days happy ones like this.

But I would never feel proud of it and be interested in sharing that with other people. It would not be the way I would want to remember our relationship. It would be a small blight, something to try to look past for the sake of the greater values that were involved. I would consider it a failing in the relationship. Yes, given the situation, it might have been the best act I could do, but only because I wasn't able to convince her beforehand that I was making good choices for myself.

Post 45

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 - 5:55am

Excellent analysis, Joe.

Ed

Post 46

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 - 7:33am

Needless to say, I love this article.

It is unfortunate we cannot choose the parents we are born with, nor convince them to alter their behavior to be more rational when we are children growing up. Our parents are the ones with the developed rational capacity, not us. They are the ones who who teach us and who predominantly set the terms of the relationship, not vice-versa.

We can love our parents in so many different ways, though, that straightforwardness in specific issues becomes a minor aspect of it all�one that is not really important at the time of dying.

Barbara's beautiful article is a tribute to that love and to valuing that love.

Also, Barbara has seen many cases over the years of people who have cut themselves off from their parents because of oversimplifying parent-son/daughter love, imagining that they were practicing integrity or justice (or some other virtue) in an Objectivist manner, and then lived to bitterly regret it once their parents passed on. Far too many people.

For all the virtues one practices in Objectivism, heartache, regret and guilt are not the end values one seeks or should seek. Yet these have been the results.

Barbara's article is a warning against that and a sanction of the fact that it is OK to perceive defects in one's parents that one cannot change and still love them deeply. There is nothing wrong with doing that at all. That is certainly nothing to be ashamed of. Often we have to make the best with what we cannot control. Recognizing when this is the case is nothing more than holding reality as the standard.

Choosing the best value for our lives in such a case is... well... choosing the best value. That is a virtue and a fine selfish one at that.

Michael

Post 47

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 - 10:51am

I loved the article. Barbara writes so beautifully of a deeply touching scene.

I thought Joseph's comments on Nathaniel's offer were very perceptive, directly on point, and well expressed.

I disagree with Joseph's statement regarding Barbara and her mother's relationship. It is very common that a parent can't get past seeing their child as a child in some aspect or another. Or feeling a need to 'mother' - even long after the child is grown. I don't know anything of their relationship outside of this article, but I can imagine a healthy relationship that was warm and loving despite Barbara having to say, now and then, "Mom, I'm a grown up now! I'll take care of that." Asserting her self in that way, even an occasional squabble would be appropriate - unless her mother was on her death-bed.

That was my take. So many of these articles (and the responses to them) let us exercise our minds in ferreting out the principles and applying them. This article goes beyond that and is like a little jewel - a small work of art. Thank you, Barabara, for sharing that.

Post 48

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 - 11:20am

MSK, your interpretation of Barbara's article is so at odds with the article, it comes off like you're trying to rationalize your liking of it. This was not an article about accepting your parent's defects. That was at most a tangential point. The article was about lying to a loved one on her deathbed, and going through quite an effort to do it. The end where Rand said she would have done the same thing was not her saying she would have overlooked some defects. It's like you haven't even read the same article. With the same evidence, I could argue that the article is about staying on friendly terms with an ex-spouse.

Steve, I would agree that a deathbed is no time to squabble, and that the other person might have some hang-ups they just can't overcome entirely. But this article goes further. They plot and enact a grand lie in order to ease her mother's worries. This isn't a minor squabble or difference of opinion. The emotional appeal of this act is based on the premise that this is of monumental importance to the mother. If they went through all that effort for something that the mother didn't really care about, I doubt this article would be getting the same reactions it does. So my reading of it is that this is a major issue, and that her mother really, really thinks she screwed up.

And again, is this kind of defect in a presumably otherwise wonderful relationship the kind of thing you would want to immortalize? Downplaying the importance of the defect just downplays the meaning of the act.

Post 49

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 - 12:39pm

hmmm, Joseph, I'd look at our disagreement like this:
1) It isn't a major issue because we both are in complete agreement that lying is wrong under all but a few, very minor or infrequent occasions (gun at head, beside the death bed, etc.)
2) We both seem to agree that her mother's emotional well-being is a value (the disagreement is how far to go to maintain it.)
3) I read the article as her mother's having a long term insistence on telling a grown woman who she should be married to. I don't want to go into the 'facts' any farther because I have no personal knowledge and don't want to make comments on other people's psychology or on the style of family interactions (some families have 'getting into each other's business' as the norm).
4) The first sentence of the article says what Barbara wants to achieve - a different view of Nathaniel than what arises from some of the hateful things said about him on the Internet and to state that Ayn Rand's position of the absolute nature of morality is either being misunderstood or misapplied - I'd guess in regards to the split.
5) I don't feel comfortable with 'immortalizing' a defect. Or with a story that could be taken to promote lies. But in the context of her intentions (what I speak of in item #4). So, we agree on that, but I don't think the story came across that way.

Finally, I don't just don't think our disagreement has enough meat on it to do much chewing - unless you see something I'm missing.
(Edited by Steve Wolfer
on 1/24, 12:39pm)

(Edited by Steve Wolfer
on 1/24, 12:41pm)

Post 50

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 - 10:14pm

Joe,

I assure you I read the same article as you did and I assure you I was not rationalizing anything.

I see the love being valued by Barbara. You apparently see some need by her to glorify a defect.

For the life of me, I can't see where you get that view at all, but I will not call it rationalization (as you are quick to do). I get more the impression that you don't like Barbara.

We have different values.

Michael

Post 51

Thursday, January 25, 2007 - 2:09am

Steve, feel free to call me Joe. Now let me just comment on your post.

Number 2 on your list claims we have a disagreement on how far we should go to maintain someone's emotional well-being. While we certainly might have a disagreement, I don't think we do here. I don't consider Barbara's (or Nathaniel's) actions as immoral, and I can even understand them given the situation. So at least in this example, I don't think we disagree (or not a significant amount).

I agree with point 4 that she had a goal in writing it, and we could even say that it worked well for that goal.

Point 5 seems to be the bigger disagreement. Just the part where you say the story doesn't come off that way. Your first post, and many others, have praised the writing as a deeply touching scene, and even a small work of art. Certainly praise has been thrown at this piece, far more than I think it deserves. As I said, I think the intensity of the scene, the "deeply touching" part, hinges on the importance her mother placed on her getting back with Nathaniel. It's the degree of her worry that makes the act so thoughtful. If she didn't really care one way or another, it would seem preposterous that Barbara and Nathaniel would go to such lengths to deceive her. The only thing that seems to turn those actions into something praiseworthy is because it's of such importance to her mother.

So again, the degree to which the scene is touching is directly proportional to the conflict. It's only because her mother really thought poorly of her choices, and deeply believed she was incapable of making the right choice, that the scene had any positive connotations at all. Certainly others on this thread have talked about her potentially going to the grave earlier if Barbara had told the truth. It seems to me that it is fairly well recognized by the people on this thread that the conflict of opinions was major.

The difference is, I see that as a reason to dislike the article. Instead of being a beautiful moment, I think this story highlights a serious defect in the relationship.

I wonder if we really judged it as a work of art, what we would see. We would see a relationship that didn't involve basic trust, and for no apparent reason, a strong devotion on the daughter's part. We would see a relationship that ended on a lie, and with one side pretending that their choices were wrong in life, even though they knew they weren't. We would see the glorification of this kind of relationship. Is that really life as it could and ought to be? No need to answer.

Perhaps there's not enough meat to chew. For my part, I just want to make my own position clear. I'm not pointing a finger and saying anything is immoral. I'm saying that this story was not beautiful and touching to me, because it revolved around a relationship that lacked genuine trust, at least in the highlighted area. That they made the best of the situation is fine, but as I said before, it's not something I'd feel proud about and want to share.

Post 52

Thursday, January 25, 2007 - 2:40am

MSK, in your earlier post, you said "Barbara's article is a warning against that and a sanction of the fact that it is OK to perceive defects in one's parents that one cannot change and still love them deeply."

I know for some concrete-bound mentalities, the fact that you can find a message in an article is enough to claim the article is about that message. It ignores the wider themes, and the fact that most of the article had nothing to do with that. In this case, it's preposterous to read this piece and think that is the theme or major message she's conveying. I think you lack basic reading comprehension skills.

I know it's easy for you to try to reflect the rationalization point back at me. But it doesn't work. I've written an article on spotting rationalizations, and yours fits just fine. You're trying to prove this article is great (and more widely, that Barbara is great). I point out a flaw, and suddenly you say the article is all about overlooking such defects in a relationship. The evidence doesn't support that view (it goes against the theme, the title, the bulk of the story, and the conclusion). It's also the very first time you've mentioned it in this two-year old thread.

Speaking of lacking reading comprehension skills, I didn't say that Barbara has some need to glorify a defect. I said that this piece ended up highlighting and revolving around the defect. My criticism is for this article, and not the author. I have no way of knowing whether she recognized ahead of time that her article was putting a blight on her relationship with her mother at the center of attention. I'd have to assume not, and it's clear from the article that that definitely wasn't her purpose.

Post 53

Thursday, January 25, 2007 - 3:46am

Joe,

There is an impression I wish to elaborate on for clarity. You just wrote:

"So again, the degree to which the scene is touching is directly proportional to the conflict. It's only because her mother really thought poorly of her choices, and deeply believed she was incapable of making the right choice, that the scene had any positive connotations at all."

I don't find the conflict in the manner you posited as the driving element of the story's degree of intensity in my own response. There is a maternal context that is missing in your formulation (and in others where you use phrases like "relationship that didn't involve basic trust" and so forth). The impression I get is that you are implying Barbara's mother thought she was a screw-up and did not have the capacity to make a proper choice about the men in her life. Please correct me if I am wrong in this impression.

But this is where the maternal context comes in. A mother makes all the important decisions for her infant. All of them. Many mothers find it difficult to let go of this type of caring that is honed and tested over the years of her child's growth. These mothers do not see their daughters (or sons) as screw-ups and distrust them for some reason like that. They simply do not accept that their babies have grown up and became adults. The mothers still want to care for their children. They do not want to let go.

There is also the emotional involvement of wanting the best for their children. From the view of Barbara's mother, NB was the best, or at least a person she trusted to look out for Barbara (care for her dear child) once she was gone.

I do not see this as a distrust of Barbara by her mother so much as a refusal to let go of the past and come to terms with these maternal emotions�let them grow and mature, so to speak.

Also there is another element Barbara stated that her mother had grown to love NB as a son-in-law (she used the word "fond"). This means that her mother had her own value in NB at stake, also.

There are many elements and possibilities to this context other than "Barbara screwing up." Frankly, I don't see distrust at all in their relationship in the manner you imply.

To me, the intensity of conflict comes from Barbara's acknowledgment and acceptance of this emotional "defect" in her mother and how she chose to honor the enormous amount of love she held for her mother in getting around it. Notice the depth of this love in the first half of her article, where she paints a very poignant portrait of a remarkable woman of courage and integrity.

This parental letting go problem is a very common one, one that is hardly covered at all in Objectivist literature (except some post-Rand literature on psychology), one that has caused much damage over the years from people misunderstanding how to apply Objectivist principles and making horrible mistakes. Barbara's story shows a proper manner of dealing with it at a critical moment in life�one that Ayn Rand even sanctioned.

This story has great practical value as an example of how to approach a widespread parental problem. It is not intended to be art.

But even if it were so intended, Rand certainly was not trying to "immortalize" the Rearden family's defects as the point of Atlas Shrugged by presenting their conflicts and shortcomings. Her focus was on "immortalizing" how Hank Rearden solved the problems for himself.

The same goes for Barbara.

The only difference is that she loved her mother. Rearden apparently did not love his. But both acted rationally, albeit unconventionally, in the end according to their respective values.

(I just read your post to me. (Sigh...) It is more than obvious that we disagree about my reading skills and all the other errors you make about me. My capacity was not the issue anyway.

Sorry about the "glorify" thing, though. I was using it as a synonym for your word "immortalize." I should have used that. But maybe you meant a different meaning? The synonym appeared quite proper from the context.

btw - I don't need to "prove" this article is great, or that Barbara is too for that matter. Both stand on their own merits and they are duly acknowledged and praised by many intelligent people, some much more intelligent than I am. But for the record, I do admire and praise both.)

Michael

Post 54

Thursday, January 25, 2007 - 7:09am

Obviously, I really didn't read the piece as Joe did.

People on their death beds typically don't think all that clearly. Just the prospect of imminent death is stressful and often distorts their thinking and feelings; the physical processes of dying almost always do. Anyone who has ever watched someone go through that process -- and I have witnessed it repeatedly -- knows that the last things one should expect of the dying are lucidity and rational priorities.

A loving mother, especially a dying one, desperately wants her daughter to be happy. No doubt Barbara's mother had seen the emotional ravages of the marital estrangement on her daughter and was deeply worried about her. Would Barbara ever find love again? Would she grow miserable and bitter? It's not necessarily that she thought poorly of Barbara's choices and values; I think she just didn't want Barbara to remain distraught and alone -- and so she harbored a wish that, somehow, Nathaniel and Barbara might work things out.

Under such circumstances, if you love your dying mother and don't wish her to suffer needlessly, you place a priority on comforting and reassuring her. It's not a "defect" -- her misplaced values, or something like that -- that you are giving weight and value, or pandering to. It's her needless anguish that you are trying to assuage.

What Barbara and Nathaniel did was simply give a beloved, dying woman some reassurance that everything would be okay for her daughter -- that Barbara would not face the prospect of living life alone and unhappy -- that for her, there would be a "happy ending."

That's all.

As for Barbara's reason for sharing this post -- and mine for recalling it to everyone's attention -- I saw it as a clear refutation of the widespread character smears against her and, especially, Nathaniel. The monochromatic portrait of Nathaniel that has been offered by his critics is that of a complete "user," a monster manipulator who doesn't give a damn about anyone except himself. This anecdote shows that portrait to be fundamentally distorted, to say the least. He went the extra mile -- many miles, actually -- solely to comfort...whom? The dying mother of his estranged wife. Separated from Barbara, he certainly didn't owe that to her or to her mother. But he did it anyway, solely out of abiding love and benevolence of spirit.

That was what I perceived to be Barbara's intended motive in sharing the piece. In addition, I found value in the closing passage about Ayn Rand, whose own endorsement of such deathbed "deceptions" suggests that she had a far more contextually nuanced notion of honesty than some might think or expect.

Post 55

Thursday, January 25, 2007 - 8:06am

I liked and was very touched by Barbara's article. I was quite surprised by the discussion following it. I in fact got a bit rattled trying to understand some of it. I think it goes to the heart of how various people try to integrate principles into their lives. To insist on absolute "honesty" regardless of context or purpose or results seems robotic to me. The context involves an intimate personal knowledge that perhaps only a daughter could feel for her mother and vice versa. Thus Barbara and Hong could appropriately handle the same situation quite differently. I think there is no better way to honor a person than to make them feel valued and that they have achieved their goals and purpose. That their life meant something at the moment of their death. Only the person that knows them the most intimately will know how to do this. I think Barbara achieved that with her mother and I feel privileged that she has shared the story with me in the form of this article.

Post 56

Thursday, January 25, 2007 - 8:56am

I liked the article. When you are with someone you care about at death, the priority is always their wants and desires. This is not because their wants and desires are always valid, but because you value your loved one on their deathbed and accept them in total. Someone who requires total honesty in such a situation, regardless of the dying person's wishes has not come to terms with the finality of the situation or does not regard true love as exception making.

Jim

Post 57

Thursday, January 25, 2007 - 6:16pm

That was a touching story. I'm glad I revisited it. It certainly is not easy watching someone go through dialysis and I can see why Barbara's mother did not want to continue the treatments. It is hell and prolongs the inevitable, but it is up to the patient to decide when they have had enough. My late brother-in-law, who was diabetic, was on dialysis a couple of times a week and his health quickly deteriorated, he lost a leg and he died of a heart attack at the age of 35.

Barbara wrote:

During the period before her death, my mother, who was very fond of Nathaniel, spoke to me about him. He and I had been separated for more than a year at this time. She said, "Barbara, I would die in perfect peace except for one thing. Your separation from Nathaniel. I am so worried about you, and I so very much wish that you two were together."

Barbara gave her mother the one thing she needed on her death bed, when her dying wish was to have Barbara and Nathaniel together. It was a small gesture to try to make her mother happy in the short-term when all she had was short-term.

I have come to know Barbara very well, and she is not the type of person who tells people what they want to hear. She is very straightforward and is also quite perceptive about people. It is not in her nature to lie, especially to her mother. The separation obviously upset her mother a lot. This little white lie could only do more good than harm at the end of her mother's life. Why upset the mother over this issue? What she told her mother was correct in the context, and the fact that Ayn and Nathaniel went along with it actually doesn't surprise me much.

Kat

Post 58

Thursday, January 25, 2007 - 7:57pm

[Note: The purpose of this post is to defend Joe's stated, ideological position here; as against detractors]

Deconstructing Rowlands:

The part I did like was seeing the extent to which Nathaniel was willing to work towards making someone happy at the end of her life.

Bottom line:
Joe acknowledges "work" that helps to make meaningful folks happy. Joe acknowledges specifically, that N. Branden did such work (implying that that was virtuous of him).

Scorecard:
Joe -- 1
Detractors -- 0

I also don't have a problem with lying to someone who's going to die.

Bottom line:
Joe acknowledges the contextual nature of virtue -- as against a rationalist, Kantian, floating-abstraction "ideal" of moral action.

Scorecard:
Joe -- 2
Detractors -- 0

But given all of that, the story left me thinking that this was not a good relationship between Barbara and her mother. To be unable to tell the truth to someone, because that person doesn't think you're capable of making your own choices in life (or that you've screwed them up), takes away from the story. I would hope under similar circumstances to be able to say something like "I know you want the best for me, but I really am happy with my choice. It was the best thing for me, and my life has improved. There's no reason to fear because I am happy and my life is successful".

Bottom line:
Joe acknowledges that the best relationships are those which needn't rely on deceit in order to thrive. That the best ways in which humans can relate to one another to successfully achieve their highest values -- are ways contrary to the employment of intentional duplicity. Joe shows his valuing of this better way to relate to others, by admitting he'd personally hope "to be able" to tell the truth (and have the TRUTH -- rather than a lie -- be what it is that turns out to make another happy).

Joe acknowledges that that would be such a good relationship, such a perfect friendship with another. In this way, Joe sounds a lot like Aristotle ...

Perfect friendship is based on goodness.
Only the friendship of those who are good, and similar in their goodness, is perfect. For these people each alike wish good for the other qua good, and they are good in themselves. And it is those who desire the good of their friends for the friends� sake that are most truly friends, because each loves the other for what he is, and not for any incidental quality. Accordingly the friendship of such men lasts so long as they remain good; and goodness is an enduring quality. Also each party is good both absolutely and for his friend, since the good are both good absolutely and useful to each other.
--http://www.infed.org/biblio/friendship.htm

... In other words, Joe is not slamming Barbara's or Nathaniel's actions in this context -- instead, Joe is showing a personal hope to have something better than they had should he find himself in "Barbara's position" (the position of losing a loved one). In short, he's not saying that the actions taken by Barbara and Nathaniel were wrong -- he's illustrating how entire situations can be better than this (ie. that this was not a "romantic" story at all, NOT in Rand's sense of the term).

Scorecard:
Joe -- 3
Detractors -- 0

I guess if they're still unwilling to trust my decisions, this situation might play out like this. If I valued them in spite of that particular distrust in my decision making, I just might end up trying to make their last days happy ones like this.

Bottom line:
Joe acknowledges that -- in the same shoes -- he'd likely do what Barbara did. It's just that he'd have hoped not to have had to have "grown" into those shoes.

Scorecard:
Joe -- 4
Detractors -- 0

It would not be the way I would want to remember our relationship. It would be a small blight, something to try to look past for the sake of the greater values that were involved.

Bottom line:
Joe acknowledges that the plethora of values to be had in relating to others is of such great richness and vastness, that to draw focus on an instance where truth and honesty were discarded in a relationship -- is like focusing on a cold sore on an otherwise-beautiful woman's face (to paraphrase Rand). It (ie. deceit) is just not metaphysical important -- and focus on the metaphysically-unimportant necessarily detracts from the truly important things in our lives. What's unimportant should be treated so.

Scorecard:
Joe -- 5
Detractors -- 0

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/25, 7:58pm)

Post 59

Friday, January 26, 2007 - 12:21am