RoR: Forum

She defined 'love' as a response to values, and the greatest love to one's highest values...

that is - love is hierarchial....

(Edited by robert malcom on 2/28, 12:55pm)

Post 121

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - 2:39pm

In any case, I still object to the validity of the "love is exception-making" claim, quip, definition, aphorism, or what-have-you, for the reasons stated at length above.

Ted

Post 122

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - 3:20pm

I do recall Rand having been quoted as saying that "Love is exception making." Where, and by whom, sorry. Why you have a prob with the idea, I don't understand, but...no matter. I see a lot of meaning there.
However, it certainly is not a 'definition', but merely a 'description.' Both, of course, are contextual, and, without the context, one can find worth in it or find such lacking...for one's own meanings. Too many play with Rand's 'definitions' apart from the context she gave such in...as though such was to be regarded as COSMIC DEFINITIONS FROM MT. OLYMPUS. And then complain that "Well, that doesn't apply to 'X'. Gotta be careful on non-contextual applications of both.
LLAP
J:D

Post 123

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - 3:30pm

John, when you say that you don't understand my objections, is it lack of clarity on my part, or just perhaps some different missing premisses? Like I said, I am suspicious of the quote/definition/what-have-you and was just registering such. If what I have said is ambiguous, I'll gladly clarify. Given the number of sanctions, someone out there gets my point.

But I also understand those who take the quote in a different way, and don't believe I've called anyone a raging subjectivist over it. I just don't see how one can integrate that quote as stated into the rest of Rand's philosophy. And I do believe that when it was stated, it was not stated with any very clear explanation, thus leaving the context ungiven.

This horse seems just about beat dead enough otherwise.

Ted

Post 124

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - 4:00pm

Ted:
Re the quote given 'without any clear explanation', true. The 'context' however, was the interviewer/colleague's subject-referencing. As I said, sorry; don't know where. But, a 'context' was there.---Re the quote being difficult to integrate "as stated into the rest of Rand's philosophy," let's be clear here: 'Rand's philosophy', as delineated, has nothing explicit about 'love', whether oriented at objects, processes or significant-others (romantic or otherwise.) There is no explicit Philosophy-of-Sex/Humanity/Love/etc since all would be sub-categorized under Philosophy of Mind (Human) which was never spelled out...except 'aesthetically' in her fiction. I see no 'problem' on integrating what is 'fittable' but not necessarily 'implied.'
LLAP
J:D

Post 125

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - 4:23pm