Relationships

[basimpson22]

Where does the philosophy of objectivism place relationships? Are relationships important in the philosophy of objectivism? And I am speaking of relationships in a broad sense but feel free to specify various types of relationships.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Aristocrates

[Philip Coates]

Yes they are of prime importance. Rand once said that the only irreplaceable value is another human being. (That you care about, obviously).

Man is not an island.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Reidy]

Are you talking about personal relationships or about the Aristotelian category of relation? The Objectivist literature has lots about the first but nothing specifically Objectivist about the second. On the other hand, I don't see any special problems for Objectivism in the second case.

[basimpson22]

As Phillip pointed in another post, I've again posed another broad question. I realize that the time to cover the breadth of the question would be unfair to ask of any single person, so I will try to narrow the discussion here as well as in my other topic. I'm not sure what the Aristotelian category of relation is? I found this interesting bit online. http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/2s.htm

As I'm sure you already knew(seriously) its easy to see here, where Rand derived her views on relationships. Anyways, the need to post about this topic came from a personal level. I don't find in my life any relationships that fit the description of the 3rd kind. I have a very beautiful gf but simply put, we don't have much in common. She's highly religious. She gets real frustrated when I present logic that contradicts her beliefs or that simply contradicts her behavior, ha. She is not a contemplator at all. I believe in another topic Duance pointed out how men outnumber women in the area of philosophy. She does love to talk about hair, and shoes, and clothes. I know that in Aristotle's time male-male relationships were valued much more than male-female. Is it because they/we naturally have more in common? Lol, I saw a comedian a few months ago who actually spoke about this. He is a husky, middle-aged black man. Wish I could remember his name. In fact, the deepest mental connection I've ever had in a relationship was with a man even though it turned out that we were actually in a "mixed friendship". I was willing to overlook this for a while due to his ability to challenge me mentally. That's the key! I want to be challenged mentally but in a constructive way and i don't get that from my gf. Why doesn't she understand that? What Rand presented with Dagny and Henry was a relationship founded in something similar to this. They challenged each other constructively. Are there any ways to bring my relationship with my gf closer to the 3rd kind? I'm spacing out right now. I was up all night studying.

Just thought of another question. Do contemporary "american values" prevent these types of relationships?

Edited March 21, 2011 by Aristocrates

[Xray]

As Phillip pointed in another post, I've again posed another broad question. I realize that the time to cover the breadth of the question would be unfair to ask of any single person, so I will try to narrow the discussion here as well as in my other topic. I'm not sure what the Aristotelian category of relation is? I found this interesting bit online. http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/2s.htm

As I'm sure you already knew(seriously) its easy to see here, where Rand derived her views on relationships. Anyways, the need to post about this topic came from a personal level. I don't find in my life any relationships that fit the description of the 3rd kind.

What exactly do you mean by "description of the 3rd kind"?

I have a very beautiful gf but simply put, we don't have much in common. She's highly religious. She gets real frustrated when I present logic that contradicts her beliefs or that simply contradicts her behavior, ha. She is not a contemplator at all.

Aristocrates, what struck me when reading this is that you don't mention love. Do you love your girlfriend?

That's the key! I want to be challenged mentally but in a constructive way and i don't get that from my gf. Why doesn't she understand that? What Rand presented with Dagny and Henry was a relationship founded in something similar to this. They challenged each other constructively. Are there any ways to bring my relationship with my gf closer to the 3rd kind? I'm spacing out right now. I was up all night studying.

What you have written reminds me of a passage in Nathaniel Branden's essay "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand"

http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/benefits_and_hazards.html

It looks like quite few clients who sought N. Branden's help had similar thoughts as you, and I have the feeling NB's take on this may be helpful to you. The whole article is a must-read imo. It treats every aspect of Objectivism from the invaluable perspective of someone who has been there.

Here is an excerpt:

Nathaniel Branden: So here in Ayn Rand’s work is an ethical philosophy with a great vision of human possibilities, but no technology to help people get there, and a lot of messages encouraging self-condemnation when they fail to get there.

Her readers come to me and they say; “Boy, it was so great. I read her books and I got rid of the guilt that the Church laid on me. I got rid of the guilt over sex. Or wanting to make money.” “Why have you come to see me?,” I ask. “Well, now I’m guilty about something else. I’m not as good as John Galt. Sometimes I’m not even sure I’m as good as Eddie Willers,” they respond.

Rand might respond, “But these people are guilty of pretentiousness and grandiosity!” Sure they are, at least some of the time. Although when you tell people, as Rand did, that one of the marks of virtue is to value the perfection of your soul above all things, not your happiness, not your enjoyment of life, not the joyful fulfillment of your positive possibilities, but the perfection of your soul, aren’t you helping to set people up for just this kind of nonsense?

A man came to me a little while ago for psychotherapy. He was involved in a love affair with a woman. He was happy with her. She was happy with him. But he had a problem; he wasn’t convinced she was worthy of him—he wasn’t convinced she was “enough.” And why not? Because, although she worked for a living, her life was not organized around some activity comparable to building railroads. “She isn’t a Dagny Taggart.” The fact that he was happy with her seemed to matter less to him than the fact that she didn’t live up to a certain notion of what the ideal woman was supposed to be like.

If he had said, “I’m worried about our future because, although I enjoy her right now, I don’t know whether or not there’s enough intellectual stimulation there,” that would have been a different question entirely and a far more understandable one. What was bothering him was not his own misgivings but a voice inside him, a voice which he identified as the voice of Ayn Rand, saying “She’s not Dagny Taggart.” When I began by gently pointing out to him that he wasn’t John Galt, it didn’t make him feel any better—it made him feel worse!

http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/benefits_and_hazards.html

Edited March 21, 2011 by Xray

[basimpson22]

Sorry i didn't specify. I was talking about the 3rd kind of friendship Aristotle identifies. "A friendship for the good" Where you help one another develop and have the same set of core values.

Love does exist where it isn't named. Also, my idea of love isn't well defined. Love, in my opinion, is a mystical concept. I'd "love" to explore it.

That was a thought provoking article. It seems that this guy tried to beat himself into the Galt mold. I find it funny that people would feel guilty for not meeting up to the standards of a fictional hero. He failed to be rational.

[Mike Hansen]

Sorry i didn't specify. I was talking about the 3rd kind of friendship Aristotle identifies. "A friendship for the good" Where you help one another develop and have the same set of core values.

Love does exist where it isn't named. Also, my idea of love isn't well defined. Love, in my opinion, is a mystical concept. I'd "love" to explore it.

That was a thought provoking article. It seems that this guy tried to beat himself into the Galt mold. I find it funny that people would feel guilty for not meeting up to the standards of a fictional hero. He failed to be rational.

Well you're not going to get anywhere without a definition!

Even if the definition isn't perfect the act of refining it is enlightening in itself.

Mike

[caroljane]

Aristo, are you interested in any video games, spectator sports or particular bands or types of music? They are sort of the male equivalent of shoes and clothes. Interests, not entities with an intellectual ranking of those who are interested in them. I write this as one who is not interested in shoes and clothes, though when I was a young woman I made an effort.

[basimpson22]

Aristo, are you interested in any video games, spectator sports or particular bands or types of music? They are sort of the male equivalent of shoes and clothes. Interests, not entities with an intellectual ranking of those who are interested in them. I write this as one who is not interested in shoes and clothes, though when I was a young woman I made an effort.

I didn't associate her interests with her level of intelligence. I understand that to her shoes and clothes are highly aesthetic. She is very intelligent. I believe the problem has to do with apathy and effort. We are actually in a long distance relationship. I'm in Tennessee and she is in Miami. I'm a full-time student with a part-time job and she has a full-time job. You can imagine that we have difficulty finding time to talk. In the past I've been the one to barrage her with calls and texts. I needed her active attention to feel loved. I've become better about that though. Objectivism has helped me with this. O-ism has been the source of a renewed confidence for me. I believe the lack of it was a reason I acted that way(with all the calls and text). Also OL is great because it is a safe and healthy outlet for me. I get my fix here on OL, lol.

[williambyron]

The subject of this thread is the entire reason I have joined these forums, Aristocrates. I am wondering if my views and beliefs and submission to it means I must tread a lonely path of solitude. Is it possible to have friendships and deeper relationships when I am at the whims of my views? I've had many girlfriends who I'm sure wondered 'why can't he just be easier?', and even friends, relatives, and so forth.

[anthony]

The subject of this thread is the entire reason I have joined these forums, Aristocrates. I am wondering if my views and beliefs and submission to it means I must tread a lonely path of solitude. Is it possible to have friendships and deeper relationships when I am at the whims of my views? I've had many girlfriends who I'm sure wondered 'why can't he just be easier?', and even friends, relatives, and so forth.

Hi and welcome, William!

I'm interested.

Which views and beliefs?

Why "submission" to them? And how are you at their whims?

For myself, the 'why can't he just be easier' rings a bell!

Tony

[williambyron]

Hi Tony- thanks for the warm welcome.

By being at the whims of, I simply mean that we see things for how they are, not as we want them to be. The sun rises every day whether I think it does or not... objective, not subjective. I'm sure you can relate! With me, I've got that plus my unrelated-if-connected low interest in alchohol. It's got me thinking, as time goes on, my circle of friends will somewhat decrease, due to me not being able to allow myself to compromise my feelings.. but, enough about me. I didn't mean to interupt the flow of your original posting!

[basimpson22]

The subject of this thread is the entire reason I have joined these forums, Aristocrates. I am wondering if my views and beliefs and submission to it means I must tread a lonely path of solitude. Is it possible to have friendships and deeper relationships when I am at the whims of my views? I've had many girlfriends who I'm sure wondered 'why can't he just be easier?', and even friends, relatives, and so forth.

Hello Bill! So you ask if it is possible to have friendships and deeper relationships when you're at the whims of your views? Well, I have the same problem as Tony. You should add specifics. What views of yours compromise your relationships? Also, I believe you may be putting too much responsibility on yourself. It seems you've made yourself the antagonist. You shouldn't feel guilty for not giving people exactly what they expect be it girlfriends, or relatives, or whoever. Aristotle talks about the three types of relationships: relationships of pleasure, of utility, and of shared virtue. The last is probably the most rare and seems to be the one you're seeking. That doesn't mean you should shirk relationships that aren't at that level. You haven't interrupted anything at all!

Edited March 25, 2011 by Aristocrates

[anthony]

The subject of this thread is the entire reason I have joined these forums, Aristocrates. I am wondering if my views and beliefs and submission to it means I must tread a lonely path of solitude. Is it possible to have friendships and deeper relationships when I am at the whims of my views? I've had many girlfriends who I'm sure wondered 'why can't he just be easier?', and even friends, relatives, and so forth.

Hello Bill! So you ask if it is possible to have friendships and deeper relationships when you're at the whims of your views? Well, I have the same problem as Tony. You should add specifics. What views of yours compromise your relationships? Also, I believe you may be putting too much responsibility on yourself. It seems you've made yourself the antagonist. You shouldn't feel guilty for not giving people exactly what they expect be it girlfriends, or relatives, or whoever. Aristotle talks about the three types of relationships: relationships of pleasure, of utility, and of shared virtue. The last is probably the most rare and seems to be the one you're seeking. That doesn't mean you should shirk relationships that aren't at that level. You haven't interrupted anything at all!

That's well said, Aristocrates!

(You have got me playing a game of combinations like yours - Platomedes, etc. )

But yes, I agree, more information required from William; he has me thinking he's a reticent Objectivist...which is the best type, by the way. (Then, I would say that, of course.)

Tony

[williambyron]

Thank you. I can certainly assure you there is nothing reticent about me, sir. At least, not in the sense of holding back, but it all depends on the context. I am much more inclined to say nothing and let people make their own mind up, but this isn't due to being reticent.. it'd due to being disinterested in talking about myself, which this post doesn't support. I can give you a quick example, in that a friend who I enjoy and I have such a strong disagreement, I'd just rather avoid him. That disagreement is that he believes drug addiction is a disease and I believe it's a choice. It goes on and on and exhausts me, but I won't exhaust you by talking about it now. Basically, I can't relax from things if I believe them to be true. I'm sure some of you can relate. And by 'I can't relax', I don't mean I can't stop having a debate, or settle down. Not at all. But my mind doesn't rest after considering it, and I'm reluctant to talk about anything else meaningful. Then again, joining this site- perhaps I'll have more people to talk to. Thanks for listening.

[basimpson22]

That's understandable that you're frustrated by this. The belief that drug addiction is a disease may help your friend to excuse himself or other people who have a drug addiction. This belief, although fallacious, may be convenient and comforting to him. Logic is often denied, delayed or ignored for reasons such as this. For example, its easier for many to believe that there is a life beyond this, and they may be so attached to this belief that denying it would have a debilitating effect. In many more cases the acceptance of logic has a positive effect. Regardless, I don't believe a friend's refusal of logic in certain instances justifies avoiding him/her. Where logic wins is in asking yourself if this single disagreement should prevent you from enjoying your friend's company.

Edited March 25, 2011 by Aristocrates

[basimpson22]

woops, hit reply instead of edit

Edited March 25, 2011 by Aristocrates

[Selene]

William:

Welcome to OL.

Delaware NYC ?? Do you mean NY State?

What do you enslave yourself doing for the tax base that supports the state?

Also, I think there is a credible debate as to whether certain "drug" addictions are "diseases" rather than choices.

Welcome aboard.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I can give you a quick example, in that a friend who I enjoy and I have such a strong disagreement, I'd just rather avoid him. That disagreement is that he believes drug addiction is a disease and I believe it's a choice. It goes on and on and exhausts me...

William,

Welcome to OL.

I have an addiction section here on the forum. You might want to look at it.

I have a question for you. What if both of you were wrong? And both of you were right at the same time?

If a heart attack can mean many things, why does addiction have to mean one thing only?

Think about this formulation:

Some addictions are a disease.

Some addictions are bad conscious choices.

Some addictions are a mix of the two.

Also, as addictions occur over time, they have phases and intensities. So at any given moment, one aspect is stronger than another.

If you are really interested, you might want to look into neuroscience a bit, especially at how synapses occur with dopamine and serotonin, and at neuroplasticity. Maybe throw in looking at some experiments with addicting animals like rats and monkeys (there is plenty of material on this out there). And your friend might want to look into ethics a little deeper.

Michael

[williambyron]

Thank you Selene, Mr. Kelly-

you've certainly given me more to think about. Which is always a good thing!

I meant to respond much sooner than just now. I am quite glad to have found this forum, and this community. So thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts and knowledge. Means more than you know.

And I am in both Delaware (the State) and NYC. I'm a busy boy.