Jon wrote:
You hadn’t written that you would[n't] survive. You said your happiness would be unaffected.
Not exactly. I had to dig to find Post 197 in which I said:
I have a woman in my life that I love and I do what I can to contribute to her happiness within the bounds of reason. I am basically happy whether alone or with others -- or if I do find myself in an unhappy social situation, I have enough assertiveness to change that situation quickly.
I can see why my meaning there might not come across clearly. I said I am "basically happy whether alone or with others." This means that, if I lost her, my basic level of happiness as an "island" would remain unaffected while my additional experience of happiness arising from having her in my life clearly would vanish.
Great power and opportunity come from learning happiness in solitude as an "island" without a life-or-death feeling of "needing" others.
EDIT:
Jon also wrote:
Rand wrote that love involves, “I need you.”
In the case of Hank Rearden "needing" Dagny Taggart, yes. But his life did not end when Dagny left him. Surely he will go forward and find a more suitable mate.
Ayn Rand also wrote in her journals:
Actually, the parasite's attitude is: first, "Help me, because I'm weak and you're strong, I need you so much"; then second, when he got what he wanted: "Don't be so damn conceited, I don't need you at all." Here, the parasite got the effect and forgot the cause. In regard to his appeal, the parasite is humble and begs for charity—so long as the creator will not permit him anything else. The moment the creator is demoralized and disarmed through the creed of altruism, the parasite turns arrogant and demands help as his rightful due, as the creator's duty. "Help me because I need you," then becomes an order, a command—not a plea.
(Edited by Luke Setzer on 1/12, 9:24am)
|
