About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Post 20

Sunday, November 25, 2007 - 10:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Okay, "Objectivism, marriage and duogamy"...or triogamy...or whatever one can justify on the grounds of one's "highest values," depending on how many there are.

I can remember taking Nathaniel Branden's "Romantic Love" course back in 1965, during the affair between him and Rand. In the Q&A, someone asked a question about the rationality of having more than one partner. I can remember Branden's answering that this was out of the question unless the respective partners were "giants" (his term).

I had to laugh when I heard that. I think I was the only one laughing. I don't think Branden or anyone else was aware of how absurd that sounded. Of course, I didn't know at the time that Branden was involved in just such a relationship. So he evidently considered himself and Rand as "giants" and therefore as a distinguished exception to the rule.

- Bill




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 7:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I had to laugh when I heard that. I think I was the only one laughing. I don't think Branden or anyone else was aware of how absurd that sounded. Of course, I didn't know at the time that Branden was involved in just such a relationship. So he evidently considered himself and Rand as "giants" and therefore as a distinguished exception to the rule.


Aristotle, when he was 37 or so, married Pythias who was 18, and subsequently taught in Politics that the best age for a man and woman to marry, were, coincidently, 37 and 18.

Post 22

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 12:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ahhh - so there's still hope in me finding a late 30's some, huh....:D

Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Post 23

Sunday, December 16, 2007 - 3:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
We just finished discussing Atlas Shrugged Part 3 Chapters I-V last night at our Merritt Island chapter of PROPEL Florida.

I have noticed that Ayn Rand conveniently made the protagonists wealthy enough to divorce their unloving spouses or to drop their fizzling romances without great financial consequence.  Unfortunately, in the real world, most people cannot afford this so easily.  I would have liked to have seen how she would have handled a typical middle class couple in such a situation -- not necessarily "the folks next door" but perhaps a noble soul of limited means attempting to leave an emotionally abusive spouse and the financial ramifications of such a move, especially with children involved.  She did depict Cherryl Taggart as choosing suicide as her only way out of her marriage to James Taggart -- not the best possible option in my view.

As it stands now, the novel offers little in the way of a concrete template for such people.  This does not stop some of them from engaging in wishful thinking and evading such harsh facts in their pursuits of new romances when they "feel" their marriages have become loveless.  I have seen this happen too many times and, well, sometimes they get what they want and many other times the whole effort proves itself something that should never have happened in the first place.

I find the romances in the novels the most, er, unrealistic of the "romantic realism" of her artwork.  Again, I base this on my candid observations of how people act when they mischaracterize their own passionate feelings of "being in heat" as "being in love."  Yawn, yawn, I know -- Lord Buzz Killer speaks again.

A variance of the saying, "A bird in hand is worth two in the bush," also applies here.  I snickered at how Dagny Taggart "just knew" she had to leave Henry Rearden -- "a cock in hand" -- for John Galt -- "a cock not yet in her bush" -- based on her feelings of the moment in the valley.  Granted, the author intended to make the point that one should not continue a romance after it has run its course and become burdensome compared to "better things out there" and I would have a hard time arguing against the choices the characters made in the end.  However, in real life, other factors like marital commitments, children, finances, jealousy, etc. make such "flighty flaky flibbertigibbet" choices poor ones indeed.

I am related by marriage to someone who had two children out of wedlock to one woman, left her to marry another woman to bear three more children, then left her for his second wife to bear even more children.  The man will have to work until his dying day to support all these relationships and has already had one heart attack from all the stress.  I just do not see this as a path of reason.

Sorry, I just do not trust horniness that much!  At least prostitution enjoys a certain basic honesty that contrasts sharply with the willful self-delusion to which too many supposed "romances" fall victim.  I cannot say the same for flings that generate hope for one or both parties yet in the end bring disaster to them and to those close to them.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 12/16, 3:15am)


Post 24

Sunday, December 16, 2007 - 8:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I am related by marriage to someone who had two children out of wedlock to one woman, left her to marry another woman to bear three more children, then left her for his second wife to bear even more children.  The man will have to work until his dying day to support all these relationships and has already had one heart attack from all the stress.  I just do not see this as a path of reason.


In this day and age of all manner of contraceptions, this is reprehensible.....


Post 25

Sunday, December 16, 2007 - 10:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This Panamanian man wanted a son -- a "mini-me" -- and was willing to do whatever it took to make it happen.  Many Latino men have a certain machismo attitude about this deeply ingrained in their culture.  Now that he finally has one, he is not too happy with the kind of man into which his son is growing.

As I implied in my previous post, I look at what other people do, evaluate carefully, and learn what I can from their mistakes so I do not repeat them.


Post 26

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 - 1:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Luke,

 

“I snickered at how Dagny Taggart "just knew" she had to leave Henry Rearden … based on her feelings of the moment in the valley.”

 

Indeed …

 

"Emotions are not tools of cognition; to be guided by … desires whose source, nature and meaning one does not know—is to turn oneself into a blind robot, operated by unknowable demons (by one's stale evasions), a robot knocking its stagnant brains out against the walls of reality which it refuses to see."

;-)

 

Ed


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 27

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 8:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke, post 23 was excellent, and although I sanctioned it, I felt I should also say so publicly and explicitly.

Lord Buzzkill? Not in the least.

Ted Keer

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 28

Thursday, December 20, 2007 - 11:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Lord Buzzkill? Not in the least. (Ted Keer)

Indeed, Luke. Maybe you're...Lord CommonSense?

Oooh, I like that!

:-)

Erica


Post 29

Thursday, December 20, 2007 - 6:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I appreciate the kind words of those who sanctioned my earlier post.  Long timers here will recall the heat I have taken over the years for my critiques of unexamined romantic urges and their consummations and consequences in various discussion threads.  Perhaps I will write an article about this in the future with the tentative title: "Lord Buzz Killer Speaks!"

Sanction: 21, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 21, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 21, No Sanction: 0
Post 30

Wednesday, March 5, 2008 - 7:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm surprised by the degree of negativity displayed in Mr. Setzer's post 23. Presented as down-to-earth common sense, it comes across as anti-romantic idealism. Of course Rand didn't have her characters dealing with divorce-related financial troubles in Atlas Shrugged. It's a fiction novel. We don't see characters going to the bathroom, either, but that doesn't make the novel fundamentally "unrealistic".

No one would dispute that the man who wanders from woman to woman, siring children along with way, does not have it together. But this doesn't prove that it is somehow rationalistic to seek out passionate long-term romance, and to settle for nothing less.

Dagny's "shock of recognition" at meeting Galt for the first time is a dramatization of a very real, very beautiful phenomenon. If one knows exactly what he is looking for in a woman, it doesn't take long to recognize it when he sees it. There is a rational, existential counterpart to the traditional, romanticized version of "love at first sight."

My fiancee and I began falling in love the night we met. The past 3 years has been a long, wonderfully revealing justification of what we both felt that first night. We had both dated Objectivists before, and we knew what we were looking for, so when we saw it in each other we jumped at the chance to be together. Certainly, there was a great deal of horniness involved, but the fount of that sexual desire was a series of rational, automatized metaphysical value-judgments. Is this what you call "willful self-delusion?"

Mr. Setzer, for someone who has written very thoughtful posts on a variety of subjects for a long time, I'm surprised at your pessimism. The quest to find one's ideal lover is not a childish, rationalistic game reserved for dime-store romance novels. It's an essential part of a full and happy life.

I encourage any who are interested in this topic to read some of my thoughts and experiences:

Love at First Sight - http://danedgeofreason.blogspot.com/2007/04/love-at-first-sight.html

Initial Sexual Attraction - http://danedgeofreason.blogspot.com/2007/04/initial-sexual-attraction.html

The Morality of Monogamy -
http://danedgeofreason.blogspot.com/2007/04/morality-of-monogamy.html

The Psycho-Epistemology of Sexuality (6 Parts) - http://danedgeofreason.blogspot.com/2007/07/psycho-epistemology-of-sexuality-parts.html

--Dan Edge

Post 31

Wednesday, March 5, 2008 - 9:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dan Edge writes

I'm surprised by the degree of negativity displayed in Mr. Setzer's post 23. Presented as down-to-earth common sense, it comes across as anti-romantic idealism. Of course Rand didn't have her characters dealing with divorce-related financial troubles in Atlas Shrugged. It's a fiction novel. We don't see characters going to the bathroom, either, but that doesn't make the novel fundamentally "unrealistic".

I reply:

In -Atlas Shrugged- Hank Reardon puts the fix in to get a divorce from Lillian. She cannot do anything about since Hank is considered too important by the Powers That Be to interfere with. Lillian is up the creek. Not a cent for her. She is worried about finances. So is the rest of Hank's family which is why they are scared witless that he will take a walk.

Bob Kolker



Post 32

Wednesday, March 5, 2008 - 1:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

There is a rational, existential counterpart to the traditional, romanticized version of "love at first sight."


Well said

Post 33

Wednesday, March 5, 2008 - 9:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I tend to agree with Dan.  I would add the point that intense, passionate love is always a bit of a risk.  I mean look at what happened to Ayn and Nathaniel!  But while you can't take risk completely out of the equation, you can help minimize it by waiting for a long period of time before doing things like moving in together, combining finances and having children. 

The initial euphoria phase will wear off eventually.  What's left after that is the true depth of your connection.  But the initial euphoria phase is also one of the great thrills of being a human being.  It just needs to be approached with honesty and self-awareness. 


Post 34

Thursday, March 6, 2008 - 1:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wonderfully said Dan! Plus I agree with all of it! BTW, wise choice! :)

Michael

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 35

Thursday, March 6, 2008 - 8:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I tend to agree with Luke, contra Dan and -- by extension -- Michael Newberry (though I'm still in rough agreement with what Michael Dickey and Pete brought focus to).

I get the idea that Rand romanticized love and I think that that's neat. She also rationalized love almost as much as any others have (I can only think of 3 exceptions). She, perhaps more than any other, married the concepts of romance and rationality.

Love's one of the least understood things in the universe, right up there next to income tax codes. There's a good reason that love is commonly misunderstood -- and Rand was zealous in her attempts to quench man's thirst for a never-seen-before romantic rationalism. I think she went too far the other way though.

Like Cutting Crew says, I've been in love before. Surely everyone would agree that there are different referents for the one term: love. A father shouldn't love his daughter in the same way he loves her mother, unless it's in the deep south (or in England, right up until the end of WWII).

Rand even mentioned that love is something that is, in principle, measurable (i.e., that there's not simply one kind or one intensity to it). Some fruitful conceptions of love can be found in Aristotle and in M. Scott Peck. Aristotle and Peck maintained a dividing line between 2 kinds of love: romantic & fraternal.

Rand married these 2 loves in fiction, and attempted to do so (with N. Branden) in reality. Romantic love is rooted in acquisitive desire, and it is this kind of love that is inappropriate for father-daughter and mother-son relations (or the homosexual counterparts to these). Fraternal love is not rooted in acquisitive desire.

After experiencing love in many ways (though never with farm animals), I've arrived at an understanding of it that best explains my experiences. My weathered, robust, and personal understanding of it is that there are 2 main kinds (mentioned above) and that they can co-exist/co-evolve alongside one another (the 2 loves can "make love" with each other).

;-)

That said, for a conclusion to this affair, I would defer to the wisdom in Pete's post 33.

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/06, 8:11pm)


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 36

Friday, March 7, 2008 - 2:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If Dan has really achieved that ideal, then I am very happy for him.  Not everyone does and some fools literally shipwreck themselves trying to achieve it.  I will be very curious to see where his relationship is after he has experienced marriage, children, commingling of finances, in-laws, etc.  All of these change the romance considerably, especially since each of these facets places demands on one's limited time and energy.  In addition, research such as that documented in the television show Bullshit! suggests the "falling in love" hormones change over time and lead to a dissipation of those initial feelings.  I will admit that deeper intellectual values can forge a lifelong bond, however.

My main point is that in romance, as in so many other areas of human life, the "perfect" is the enemy of the "good" and, more often, the "good enough."

RJK wrote:

In -Atlas Shrugged- Hank Reardon puts the fix in to get a divorce from Lillian. She cannot do anything about since Hank is considered too important by the Powers That Be to interfere with. Lillian is up the creek. Not a cent for her. She is worried about finances. So is the rest of Hank's family which is why they are scared witless that he will take a walk.

I actually meant the more common case of a productive spouse getting shafted by an unproductive spouse in divorce court.  I saw this documented recently by a regular on the SOLO Passion forum.  It happens far too often.  I have witnessed it happen to coworkers.  It provides very good cause to exercise due caution about "falling in love" and its usual consequence, marriage.

EDIT: I encourage Dan and his fiancee to read

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Setzer/Experiencing_Objectivism_through_Quicken.shtml

and discuss their general attitudes about how they relate to money from their souls.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 3/08, 5:25am)


Post 37

Friday, March 7, 2008 - 4:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
==============
My main point is that in romance, as in so many other areas of human life, the "perfect" is the enemy of the "good" and, more often, the "good enough."
==============

Indeed! As I've recently maintained, you don't have to be perfect FOR each other in order to be perfect WITH each other. And, what's paradoxically mind-boggling, is that the reverse is equally true!

Wrap your head around THAT conundrum once, and see what insights arise.

;-)

Ed
[also happy for Dan]
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/07, 4:06pm)


Post 38

Friday, September 11, 2009 - 9:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So how's that marriage going, Dan?

Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Post 39

Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 5:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I am sad to learn that Dan's marriage ended after such a brief duration but happy to learn that he is doing well in life. I try to warn people that getting married is like diving into a bed of roses with an unknown number of thorns, but few people want to hear the words of "Lord Buzz Killer." Oh, well.

Persons considering marriage had better prepare to dig deeply into their souls to determine what truly matters most to them and to verify that their values complement rather than disrupt those of their respective lovers. Visit this site to get an idea of what can happen when things go south in a marriage and how Catholics deal with it. (The program admits any couple of any faith or even of no faith.) Secularists need a similar program. I do not think divorce always solves problems but instead introduces new problems, especially when children are involved.

If someone asked me to summarize better sexual relations in two words, I would qualify my answers this way:

DEEPER VALUE: "Listen intensely."
SHALLOWER VALUE: "Decriminalize prostitution."

There is a quote which comes close to the truth yet falls short of it due to the "s" word, "sacrifice":

"Love is a verb. Love is something you do: the sacrifices you make, the giving of self. If you want to study love, study those who sacrifice for others. Love - the feeling - is a fruit of love the verb." -- Stephen R. Covey

Small modifications would make this passage resonate with the Objectivist view of love, I think.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 9/15, 7:51am)


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.