RoR: Forum

Sadly Rand is imprecise here--does she mean romantic love? Or love, as in the love of a friend for another friend? Or is it the love one has from one's children or parents? Which is the love at issue? (I suppose the context would tell and she is talking about romantic love.) Romantic love, however, involves many other factors besides admiration for someone's moral virtues, although that is an indispensable element. There must, for example, be a multilevel appeal--sexual, emotional, aesthetic, stylistic and such--some of which involves quite accidental aspects of persons (skin texture, the shape of lips, tilt of the head, eye color, what have you). Indeed, Rand herself reportedly fell in love with Frank O'Connor on first sight. How did she know about his moral character? There is no way, from what we know, yet she is supposed to have fallen in love with him. I suspect she became genuinely and probably justifiably infatuated, based on his various visible attributes; then when they met up he turned out to be a fitting potential mate and they fell in love. And that is how I believe these things would go in the best of all possible worlds. The idea that Rand is reported to have communicated to Branden at the end of their relationship, namely, that just because she is such a great person Branden ought to be in love with her is nonsense--indeed, it is a kind of vulgar Platonism, thinking love is purely abstract.

Post 1

Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 5:11pm

I think that love at first sight is really nothing more than projection in the Jungian sense; and in Rand's case, she had a preconceived notion of the ideal man with a certain appearance, and Frank O'Conner happened to fit the look. It certainly would seem Platonic; the Tall, Gaunt redhead was Rand's particular choice of archetype.

Post 2

Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 5:18pm

Rand: "the emotional price paid by one man for the joy he receives from the virtues of another."

I think that where Objectivism went wrong is in the concept that what we love in someone is solely his virtues. This means that if we discover that virtue 3 & 4 really are not present, only 1, 2, and 5, we can and should reasonably stop loving the person. That, in effect, is what Rand did, or said she did, with regard to Nathaniel. She concluded that he did not possess certain qualities she thought he had, and so she decided, like turning off a tap, to stop loving him. She did not succeed, as she could not have; she merely mixed her love with hatred, and turned it into a poison that nearly destroyed her.

What we love in another person is precisely that person, the total, the gestalt in effect. Not this virtue or that, this way of speaking or that, this turn of phrase or gesture, this shape or limb or that, but the complexity and richness of the whole person. We love even the idiosyncrasies that in someone else might not be loveable; we love them because they are part of that richness.

This is not to say that if your lover turns out to be an axe-murderer, you would continue to love him. You would not, because you were deluded -- likely deluded yourself at least in great part -- about the entire nature of the person, about everything that made him tick. He is, in his entirety, someone other than you thought him to be,

Barbara

Post 3

Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 5:34pm

Barbara, if only I had read this a few years ago. Very well put, thank you.

Post 4

Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 6:03pm

I read this quote only recently and thought it referred to the general emotion of love. It is in the early part of Galt's 70 page speech where many general issues are dealt with. I think it applies to my own experience.

Romantic love, on the other hand, is a lot less rational than this...

Post 5

Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 9:21pm

My view is that romantic love is rational, if by that is meant that it is just right for people when all the traits Barbara lists are present and there is no inner conflict one has stemming from one's own maladjustments (like being really fond of someone who hurts one). I think one might put it this way: there are a-rational--not irrational--components to healthy romantic love.

Post 6

Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 1:18am

Tibor: "there are a-rational--not irrational--components to healthy romantic love. "

Yes. But we certainly do not know what all -- even most -- of those components are. We know very little about the subconscious sources of our attractions and love -- for instance, why a certain face seems to us the most beautiful in the world even when we know that objectively it is not -- why a certain voice seems to have magical intonations -- why a particular combination of masculine and feminine qualities seems to us the ideal. . . I could go on an on.

I think that when we love we feel a sense of completeness with the person we love, as if -- and it may really be so -- the person possesses qualities which add to those we possess in just the right measure. I've observed about others, and it certainly is true in my own case, that we usually tend not to be drawn to someone exactly like we are, , but rather to someone who is quite unlike us in many ways. For instance -- to oversimplify -- in my introvert days I was drawn to more extroverted men; when I lived much too much in my mind, I was drawn to more earthy and practically-oriented men.

I'm interested in other opinions on these matters. What do you think?

Barbara

Post 7

Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 1:59am

"This is not to say that if your lover turns out to be an axe-murderer, you would continue to love him. You would not, because you were deluded -- likely deluded yourself at least in great part -- about the entire nature of the person, about everything that made him tick. He is, in his entirety, someone other than you thought him to be"

Barbara,

Is not this example analogous to the situation Rand faced? When she discovered Nathaniel's deception, was it not equivalent to her finding out that he was secretly an axe murderer?

"I'm interested in other opinions on these matters. What do you think?"

I think it is true in some cases and not true in others. I have known some couples where one partner completes the other in different areas and it seems to work well. Like they did have some opposite and complimentary traits.

However, in other cases both partners were very similar in attitude and interests and that was what seemed to work well for them.

I have experienced both and I can't tell you which is better. All I can say is that it is important that you both share the same values, or if you don't, that your values can happily co-exist alongside one another.

Post 8

Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 4:25am

Barbara, we quite agree. My point is only that it's best to characterize these components as "a-rational"--which is a value neutral--rather than as "irrational"--which would be a derogatory attribute--whatever they are, however well or badly we know them. Even if one is attracted to someone with an objectively objectionable attribute--say, a (nasty) gruff voice, a (destructively) placid disposition--this attraction isn't irrational. It's just a fact about one, based on such dormant, "who knows where they come from," aspects of one's emotional makeup. (This is, of course, part of the "mystery" and also, often, irritant of romantic love--a person can be smitten quite surprisingly, especially in youth when one is not yet well acquainted with oneself.)
(Edited by Machan on 2/17, 4:27am)

Post 9

Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 7:35am

Sorry, I must modify my skewed statement (a bit intentional actually) that "romantic love is a lot less rational" than what is stated in the quote. What I really meant is that romantic attraction is much more complex, very hard to explain sometimes, especially for smitten youths, like what Tibor said. So I am in agreement with Barbara and Tibor on what they said in their posts.

Another thing that makes romantic love more complicated is that, when you find the person with all the attributes that you love and can't be more perfectly suited for you, he or she may not be in love with you! (Arrrrrgh). What would you do? I think the most reasonably thing to do has to be to de-love the person!

Post 10

Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 7:44am

Hong wrote:

Another thing that makes romantic love more complicated is that, when you find the person with all the attributes that you love and can't be more perfectly suited for you, he or she may not be in love with you! (Arrrrrgh). What would you do? I think the most reasonably thing to do has to be to de-love the person!

Three possible responses when jilted with the killer phrase, "Let's just be friends."

"Next!"
"Honey, I have enough friends already."
"Of course we can just be friends. Since you are my friend, why don't you fix me up with your friend Mary (John) over there? I noticed she (he) looks pretty hot!"

Luke Setzer

(Edited by Luther Setzer on 2/17, 7:57am)

Post 11

Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 8:32am

Some thoughts:

The three major virtues -- rationality (of the mind), productiveness (of the body), pride (of the emotions) -- offer a unified standard by which to judge potential partners as worthy or unworthy of our attentions and affections. Any one without the other two spells trouble.
The phenomenon of codependence and enabling takes place when productive people get bound emotionally with unproductive people and crutch their shortcomings.
A sensation of attraction, like a sensation of hunger, does not alone tell a person whether a given person or consumable will enhance or degrade that person's life. Judicious reasoning needs to take place in the role of lover just as much as in the role of eater lest one let oneself consume poison of either the emotions or the body.
A circle of rational and caring friends can offer additional psychological visibility for one's relationship with one's lover as one embarks on group dates, helping one to ground oneself to reality despite the heady feelings one may experience. They may see vicious traits to which one has erroneously blinded oneself -- or notice virtuous traits that have escaped one's notice.
A fully mature and independent adult will have less fear of a breakup than an adolescent because that adult will (1) not suffer the infantile need for unconditional love and (2) accept the natural law that all relationships are temporary. Such an adult would see relationships as a process rather than a goal, a way to spend time that creates greater value than does spending time alone.

Luke Setzer

(Edited by Luther Setzer on 2/17, 8:54am)

Post 12

Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 9:15am

Hi Barbara,

I think that where Objectivism went wrong is in the concept that what we love in someone is solely his virtues. This means that if we discover that virtue 3 & 4 really are not present, only 1, 2, and 5, we can and should reasonably stop loving the person. That, in effect, is what Rand did, or said she did, with regard to Nathaniel. She concluded that he did not possess certain qualities she thought he had, and so she decided, like turning off a tap, to stop loving him. She did not succeed, as she could not have; she merely mixed her love with hatred, and turned it into a poison that nearly destroyed her.

When Iread this I thought of Joe Rowlands excellent article on emotions as being responses to previous vlaue judgments. It can take awhile to reconcile the emotion of loving someone for their virtues when faced with the lack of them. You would continue to have a positive emotional reaction (love) based on your previous experience, but it would be at odds with the reality of your new information. So, I guess I'm saying that I don't think Objectivism is wrong on this one, but it does need to be clarified.

Regards,

Ethan

Post 13

Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 9:38am

Luther,
I like your responses #1 and #3 very much. Unfortunately I (and I believe most people too) can't just turn our emotion on and off like a faucet. For me it would take about 30 minutes to 30 days, depending on situation!

The consequence of this two-way process in a romantic relationship is, I believe, that most people will have to settle for somebody less than his/her perceived ideal.

I also completely agree with you that a mature adult "would see relationships as a process rather than a goal".

Precisely. And it is a never-ending process for as long as the relationship last!

Post 14

Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 10:08am

Hong wrote:

Unfortunately I (and I believe most people too) can't just turn our emotion on and off like a faucet. For me it would take about 30 minutes to 30 days, depending on situation!

Your comment illustrates the importance of maintaining a strongly egoistic mindset at all times. Many seem to build their entire lives around their relationships rather than building their relationships around their lives. The following diagram from an article I wrote can help a person keep his role as "Lover" in perspective.

I hope this diagram and its article helps some people to maintain their focus on rational egoism. It can remind a jilted lover that he has many other roles and values he can pursue to enhance his life. To build one's entire life around another person manifests vicious altruism to the core!

Luke Setzer

Post 15

Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 4:47pm

Hong, you raise an interesting question: what do we do when the person we love does not love us?

I assume you are speaking of romantic love. I think we do, in an important sense, ultimately cease loving, in the sexual-romantic sense, the person who does not return our feeling. But depending on the reality and depth of our love, it can be a long and painful process -- not the process of turning off a tap. If our love was based on reality, we will not stop loving and caring for the person, but the specifically romantic element, the longing and the passion will dissipate.

The reason I think this is the following. To give an extreme example: as children, many of us fantasized that we could fly, and longed to do so. But one day we realized that this is impossible, and we did not spend the rest of our lives heartbroken because we cannot flap our arms and soar into the stratosphere. Or, if we are writers, we do not weep inconsolably because we are not the greatest writer who ever lived. In other words, we cannot indefinitely long for that which we truly and fully believe to be impossible. If we continue to long for it, then in some sense we still believe it to be possible.

If, for instance, we see the person we love happily involved with someone else, clearly indifferent to us romantically and sexually, fully committed to monogamy -- I do not believe that we will indefinitely remain passionately in love. For a long time, yes; indefinitely, not likely. Or say that we fall in love with someone whom we learn is homosexual, and has been consciously so since early childhood -- then I do not believe our sexual desires will indefinitely remain attached to that person. In both these instances, we will understand that the love we seek is impossible, realistically, of attainment from that person, and we no more will forever suffer because of it than for the fact that we cannot flap our arms and fly. A sadness may remain, a wistfulness for what can never be, but not an acute and living pain.

Barbara

Post 16

Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 5:02pm

Marcus, you asked if Rand had not discovered that Nathaniel was, in her view, the equivalent of an axe-murderer. Slight problem: whatever she concluded, there is a rather noticeable difference between deception and murder. Let us keep at least one eye on reality.

I probably wasn't fully clear on another issue you questioned. When I said that lovers tend to have complementary and unlike qualities, I did not mean that they are unlike in their most fundamental view of life and basic values. If they are, I don't believe the relationship can work.

Barbara

Post 17

Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 5:05pm

Luther, one day -- but not this day or the next -- I'll take you up on your characterization: "the infantile need for unconditional love."

That's meant to be a teaser.

Barbara

Post 18

Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 5:27pm

"Marcus, you asked if Rand had not discovered that Nathaniel was, in her view, the equivalent of an axe-murderer. Slight problem: whatever she concluded, there is a rather noticeable difference between deception and murder. Let us keep at least one eye on reality."

Barbara,

Don't you think most men/ women would find the image of their partner radically changed if they suddenly discovered that he/ she had been cheating on them for a long period of time?

(Don't get me wrong here. I am not justifying Rand's denunciations of Nathaniel and yourself. Judging from the facts I know, that actually was "her" immoral action and not the affair itself.)

Post 19

Friday, February 18, 2005 - 5:47am