Love defined in one sentence?

[BaalChatzaf]

Domonique was a flake-oid.

Bob the expert on women. Without Dominique there's no Fountainhead story.

I don't have to be an expert on either gender. I can recognize a flake-oid.

[anthony]

Must be I'm the only one under-impressed by "love is exception making", to me it looks obvious, a given, even redundant: that's love, for chrissakes. And an exception to what or whom? Everybody, (though not everything). One sees and treats a loved one differently, 'exceptionally' - of highest esteem - to anybody else. She needs your kidney - she's got it.

In the early-Dominique state, Wynand pointed out she'd invert (wrongly, I assume he means) her value hierarchy, that she would happily sacrifice her top virtue, independence of mind as her greatest "gift" to her beloved. While not seeing her blatant self-contradiction in that. Then she went and self-sacrificed it to Peter Keating. Go figure.

[ThomasHägg]

And just like you say, Dominique is probably not a perfectly rational woman at all times.

And Ayn was?

No. I didn't intend that sentence to be taken literal. My main point was that Dominique showed signs of irrationality.

[Selene]

And just like you say, Dominique is probably not a perfectly rational woman at all times.

And Ayn was?

No. I didn't intend that sentence to be taken literal. My point was that Dominique showed signs of irrationality. Ayn Rand was more rational than Dominique though. At least seemingly.

I will suppress a chuckle...

So you think is was "more rational" to have the husband and wife of the respective parties openly condone and agree with an arrangement that was probably destructive to all of the parties involved?

A...

[ThomasHägg]

And just like you say, Dominique is probably not a perfectly rational woman at all times.

And Ayn was?

No. I didn't intend that sentence to be taken literal. My point was that Dominique showed signs of irrationality. Ayn Rand was more rational than Dominique though. At least seemingly.

I will suppress a chuckle...

So you think is was "more rational" to have the husband and wife of the respective parties openly condone and agree with an arrangement that was probably destructive to all of the parties involved?

A...

Go ahead and chuckle, that's why I edited my comment just before you replied ;) I don't have the insight to judge Ayn Rands life with such detail.

At least she was incredibly productive. Was dominique productive "to her ability" as well? I don't know.

[anthony]

If rationality meant never taking a chance, thinking with complete knowledge, having prescience about outcomes, trying and never failing - then we'd be perfect, or logical robots. Dominique did show signs of irrationality, deliberately by the author, Thomas. Mixed premises, it is often called. Bringing herself to her full potential (under her own steam) was Rand's portrayal of the heroine who didn't start out "perfect".

[Selene]

And just like you say, Dominique is probably not a perfectly rational woman at all times.

And Ayn was?

No. I didn't intend that sentence to be taken literal. My point was that Dominique showed signs of irrationality. Ayn Rand was more rational than Dominique though. At least seemingly.

I will suppress a chuckle...

So you think is was "more rational" to have the husband and wife of the respective parties openly condone and agree with an arrangement that was probably destructive to all of the parties involved?

A...

Go ahead and chuckle, that's why I edited my comment just before you replied ;) I don't have the insight to judge Ayn Rands life with such detail.

At least she was incredibly productive. Was dominique productive "to her ability" as well? I don't know.

No problem.

I do that also.

A...

[ThomasHägg]

If rationality meant never taking a chance, thinking with complete knowledge, having prescience about outcomes, trying and never failing - then we'd be perfect, or logical robots. Dominique did show signs of irrationality, deliberately by the author, Thomas. Mixed premises, it is often called. Bringing herself to her full potential (under her own steam) was Rand's portrayal of the heroine who didn't start out "perfect".

I agree.

[Wolf DeVoon]

If rationality meant never taking a chance, thinking with complete knowledge, having prescience about outcomes, trying and never failing - then we'd be perfect, or logical robots. Dominique did show signs of irrationality, deliberately by the author, Thomas. Mixed premises, it is often called. Bringing herself to her full potential (under her own steam) was Rand's portrayal of the heroine who didn't start out "perfect".

I agree.

Completely wrong.

[anthony]

Do tell. An assertion is no argument.

[Brant Gaede]

If rationality meant never taking a chance, thinking with complete knowledge, having prescience about outcomes, trying and never failing - then we'd be perfect, or logical robots. Dominique did show signs of irrationality, deliberately by the author, Thomas. Mixed premises, it is often called. Bringing herself to her full potential (under her own steam) was Rand's portrayal of the heroine who didn't start out "perfect".

Dominique had the wrong idea--a premise--buried into her psychology which affected her behavior. She was perfectly rational and logical off that.

Gail did too. Rand explained how he got that way. She did not explain how Dominique did. Because of Howard Gail was destroyed by his mistake and because of Howard Dominique found (correction and) redemption. Dominique was Rand's most courageous character--herself "in a bad mood."

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Do tell. An assertion is no argument.

He's not trying to argue.

You aren't either. You're lecturing. That's what us posters frequently do. Many of our "arguments" are faux, but they do heat up. Wolf said, "I don't agree" using different words. That's acceptable as far as it goes. It's painful for me--and especially Wolf--to read what you have to say about that novel and its characters. In graduate school--and we are in grad school here on this novel--there is a different protocol used than the lecture--it's modesty. If you are going for a PhD for instance--we aren't--your dissertation is supposed to increase knowledge, including that of your academic adviser. You start ignorant and you know you are ignorant and you are therefore modest, not about yourself and your ability--be arrogant if you want--but about what you know respecting what you are trying to find out. Otherwise, do it on something else. Don't waste everybody's time, including your own.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

Let's consider Dominique's backstory, as told by Guy Francon -- a healthy, athletic girl on horseback, jumping hedges IIRC. Lots of evidence throughout the novel that she's bright and beautiful and independent. In a rational society Dominique would have been perfectly happy. But no. Her time was the heydey of Hearst (Gail Wynand) and Addams (Catherine Halsey) and O'Neill ("kitchen sink" tragedies).

 

Ask yourselves what would happen to a healthy, rational girl in today's world?

 

Susceptible as they are to social feedback, praise and rejection — more so than adults — teens often do what peers want them to do, or what they think peers want them to do, rather than what we might say is rational. [Washington Post]

 

[anthony]

"It's painful for me..."[brant]

Conversely, it's wonderful for me.

Instead of some perfect, complete and Platonic individual, a being above reality, 'born' that way and who can do little wrong - Rand showed a woman who had to struggle for what she learned. She clearly had a self-sacrificial premise to start (can anyone argue?) and I think you know what Rand thought of sacrifice. Dominique changed when she finally understood that. Maybe you know what effort it takes to realize the truth, accept it, and to change oneself?

I think you're missing the boat if you think this lass can be explained by psychology alone.

Perhaps it would help if you referred to The Romantic Manifesto to know what Rand was on about. It always seems odd to me how little those writings are read or understood.

"Romanticism is a category of art based on the recognition of the principle that man possesses the faculty of volition".

[...]

"If man does not possess volition, then his life and his character are determined by forces beyond his control..."

It is also named Romantic Realism, for good reason.

If you want a Platonic hero who has no relation to life and your life, that's your business.

I love self-made heroes who are 'real'.

My "lectures" I hope and try, have a strong base in fact and my experience, as well as a pretty good understanding of O'ist principles. I will be mistaken at times or in parts, but you or anybody will have to apply your own conceptual understanding and experiences to them before you fault them - and give better reasons than you have, not assertions or arguments ad hominem.

No, I don't know I'm ignorant. And I don't waste anyone's time, they can avoid me easily enough. I may even strike a chord with a few. You can't win 'em all...

[Brant Gaede]

Let's consider Dominique's backstory, as told by Guy Francon -- a healthy, athletic girl on horseback, jumping hedges IIRC. Lots of evidence throughout the novel that she's bright and beautiful and independent. In a rational society Dominique would have perfectly happy. But no. Her time was the heydey of Hearst (Gail Wynand) and Addams (Catherine Halsey) and O'Neill ("kitchen sink" drama).

Ask yourselves what would happen to a healthy, rational girl in today's world?

Oh. Dominique was a victim? Gimme a break. Catherine was a victim. Catherine gets pity, not Dominique.

--Brant

who was "Addams"?

Patrick O'Neill?--"kitchen sink"?--have you been watching too much television?

[Brant Gaede]

No, I don't know I'm ignorant. And I know I don't waste anyone's time. I may even strike a chord with a few. You can't win 'em all...

I know I'm ignorant. That is, I want to displace my ignorance. As for what I know, I know what that is. I've been modest about it for over four decades. I don't think you'll ever achieve modesty. Ayn Rand never did nor did she try. You have at least that much in common. But Rand is a primary source. I only discuss her in the context of what others say about her and her work here on OL--reactively. If I tried it your way I'd go spend several years researching it and writing it for a book. Of the three main bios of Rand only Barbara's didn't grate on me, but she didn't focus on Rand's ideas. Heller's bio was second-rate Barbara and Burns' wasn't good enough on the ideas overall, but she did get into the ARI archives which was a good reason to read her. I finished neither Heller nor Burns. I will finish Burns--with annotations from the first page.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

Dominique was a victim?

That's not what I meant. Let's let it be what Rand said, herself in a bad mood.

[Brant Gaede]

Dominique was a victim?

That's not what I meant. Let's let it be what Rand said, herself in a bad mood.

Okay. I grok that. Then in a rational society Rand's first novel would have been the projected last one she didn't write.

--Brant

[anthony]

No, I don't know I'm ignorant. And I know I don't waste anyone's time. I may even strike a chord with a few. You can't win 'em all...

I know I'm ignorant. That is, I want to displace my ignorance. As for what I know, I know what that is. I've been modest about it ...

--Brant

"Ignorant" - in terms of all the knowledge out there in the world?

Then, every single person is ignorant, has always been.

'Certainty', however - that what you know, you know, and can't be denied or taken away, by anyone - is not arrogance. It hardly matters if it were. Whose judgement counts the most?

And you are not ignorant.

For modesty, well I had a Brit upbringing so I could know it better than most.

I "achieved" it for about my first 50 years. I understand its implicit harm, although it is not all bad.

As you note, modesty won't be a big part of my life for the rest of it. I'm enjoying things more than I ever did.

[anthony]

Do tell. An assertion is no argument.

He's not trying to argue.

You aren't either. You're lecturing. That's what us posters frequently do. Many of our "arguments" are faux, but they do heat up. Wolf said, "I don't agree" using different words. That's acceptable as far as it goes. It's painful for me--and especially Wolf--to read what you have to say about that novel and its characters. In graduate school--and we are in grad school here on this novel--there is a different protocol used than the lecture--it's modesty. If you are going for a PhD for instance--we aren't--your dissertation is supposed to increase knowledge, including that of your academic adviser. You start ignorant and you know you are ignorant and you are therefore modest, not about yourself and your ability--be arrogant if you want--but about what you know respecting what you are trying to find out. Otherwise, do it on something else. Don't waste everybody's time, including your own.

--Brant

I'd still like to see an argument. It's implied I've been trashing Dominique. I resent that. I'm one I believe who gives her the proper, deserved credit, by my appreciation of what she was and moreso what she became. Only additionally can I confirm my reading of it by Rand's known standards of literature, art, ethics and cognition. "A being of volitional consciousness".

Rand's novel is not going to be at all comprehended via Kantian aesthetics, the Sublime, etc. This is the sense I've got here.

(To try in fact, would be the greatest injustice to her).

She gives CONTENT. By portrayal she shows us the inner identifies of the minds of these men and women.

Romanticism without mystic 'sublimity' and emotional 'beauty'.

Still, of course many emotions are there to be felt by the reader, as a rightful consequence of thinking and action, stronger than an emotionalist could render them.

She shows in action the character of her characters, their volition, morals and virtues as things of 'beauty in truth', if one can see them. As well as the ugliness of other morals and other minds.

So much for art having nothing to do with morality..

If one misses Dominique's self-contradiction, in her independent, uncompromising rationality -vs. - her voluntary sacrifice of self when it came to ideals of romantic love - then much understanding is lost.

Alternately, what basically does Kant offer but to feel the sublimity, see the beauty -- both without content, causality or reason or identity. Applying his inchoate theory to Rand has to be wrong beyond wrong, cognitively and morally. One must judge her novels by objective standards. It goes to show me how insidiously Kantian ideas of art have sunk in generally.

[BaalChatzaf]

I'd still like to see an argument. It's implied I've been trashing Dominique. I resent that. I'm one I believe who gives her the proper, deserved credit, by my appreciation of what she was and moreso what she became. Only additionally can I confirm my reading of it by Rand's known standards of literature, art, ethics and cognition. "A being of volitional consciousness".

Rand's novel is not going to be at all comprehended via Kantian aesthetics, the Sublime, etc. This is the sense I've got here.

(To try in fact, would be the greatest injustice to her).

She gives CONTENT. By portrayal she shows us the inner identifies of the minds of these men and women.

Romanticism without mystic 'sublimity' and emotional 'beauty'.

Still, of course many emotions are there to be felt by the reader, as a rightful consequence of thinking and action, stronger than an emotionalist could render them.

She shows in action the character of her characters, their volition, morals and virtues as things of 'beauty in truth', if one can see them. As well as the ugliness of other morals and other minds.

So much for art having nothing to do with morality..

If one misses Dominique's self-contradiction, in her independent, uncompromising rationality -vs. - her voluntary sacrifice of self when it came to ideals of romantic love - then much understanding is lost.

Alternately, what basically does Kant offer but to feel the sublimity, see the beauty -- both without content, causality or reason or identity. Applying his inchoate theory to Rand has to be wrong beyond wrong, cognitively and morally. One must judge her novels by objective standards. It goes to show me how insidiously Kantian ideas of art have sunk in generally.

I am no Kantian, and I still think Dominique is a flake and a semi crazy-lady.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Dominique was a victim?

That's not what I meant. Let's let it be what Rand said, herself in a bad mood.

Okay. I grok that. Then in a rational society Rand's first novel would have been the projected last one she didn't write.

--Brant

Sometimes I talk too much. This is going to be one of those times. I cannot abide watching TV and don't have it in the house, although I switch it on in hotel rooms occasionally because there must be something interesting on 50 or 60 channels, right? -- wrong! -- nothing but obscenity, violence, lies, and feigned hoopla. Same thing happens in libraries. Same basic assumption, there must be something interesting in 50 or 60 thousand volumes on the shelf, right? Hah.

Which brings me to Ayn Rand. Her entire output is about ten inches wide in hardback. Absent in most libraries. Daniel Steele has two entire shelves, and Barbara Cartland could fill an aisle in paperback. Biography? -- bah! You can browse an hour or two and see thousands of books celebrating the great and good in football, baseball, politics, war, used car marketing, movie stars, finger painting, and ancient Rome. Nothing about Ayn Rand.

She wrote three novels and Anthem, a novelette. It took a lifetime to do that little. It means something to us, but it's nothing compared to Steven King, John Grisham, or Tom Clancy. Objectivism can be summarized on a 3x5 card. Kant and Marx have hundreds of thousands of academic instructors, two million scholarly papers, and books by the carload. Rand scholars are hilarious. Machan's crap is required reading for his students, a fat little cottage industry.

Anyway, back to Miss Rand. No one talks about Anthem or We The Living. So it boils down to two books: a dystopian fantasy about justice, and a drama about recognizably real people and real situations that was picked up by Warner Bros. The 1949 movie grossed $400,000 less than its production budget. Critics yawned.

Not much to say about Roark, is there? An architect. How heroic is that? And Bob feels entitled to piss on Dominique.

-- oh, but Atlas! -- miles of discussion and analysis and pontificating about metaethical conjunctivitis and whether Eddie WIllers was a capable railroad executive (suitably portrayed by a hip black guy) or a sexless, tongue-tied Charlie Brown banging his head against the wall, smitten by the little Red Haired Girl. I'd feel better if Bob pissed on Dagny for being slow-witted. It took her a thousand pages to quit her job.

Like I said, I talk too much. Bottom line: The Fountainhead was Rand's masterpiece. It magnetized Branden.

[Brant Gaede]

I'd still like to see an argument. It's implied I've been trashing Dominique. I resent that. I'm one I believe who gives her the proper, deserved credit, by my appreciation of what she was and moreso what she became. Only additionally can I confirm my reading of it by Rand's known standards of literature, art, ethics and cognition. "A being of volitional consciousness".

Rand's novel is not going to be at all comprehended via Kantian aesthetics, the Sublime, etc. This is the sense I've got here.

(To try in fact, would be the greatest injustice to her).

She gives CONTENT. By portrayal she shows us the inner identifies of the minds of these men and women.

Romanticism without mystic 'sublimity' and emotional 'beauty'.

Still, of course many emotions are there to be felt by the reader, as a rightful consequence of thinking and action, stronger than an emotionalist could render them.

She shows in action the character of her characters, their volition, morals and virtues as things of 'beauty in truth', if one can see them. As well as the ugliness of other morals and other minds.

So much for art having nothing to do with morality..

If one misses Dominique's self-contradiction, in her independent, uncompromising rationality -vs. - her voluntary sacrifice of self when it came to ideals of romantic love - then much understanding is lost.

Alternately, what basically does Kant offer but to feel the sublimity, see the beauty -- both without content, causality or reason or identity. Applying his inchoate theory to Rand has to be wrong beyond wrong, cognitively and morally. One must judge her novels by objective standards. It goes to show me how insidiously Kantian ideas of art have sunk in generally.

We were talking about you critically ad hominening a statement Rand made using Wynand. A statement she deeply and profoundly agreed with. You were all wrong. Instead of re-examining that you go off on another Kant rant.

You seem to see everything through what you imagine are Objectivist filters. It ends up in second-hand subjectivism and you've no clue.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Dominique was a victim?

That's not what I meant. Let's let it be what Rand said, herself in a bad mood.

Okay. I grok that. Then in a rational society Rand's first novel would have been the projected last one she didn't write.

--Brant

Sometimes I talk too much. This is going to be one of those times. I cannot abide watching TV and don't have it in the house, although I switch it on in hotel rooms occasionally because there must be something interesting on 50 or 60 channels, right? -- wrong! -- nothing but obscenity, violence, lies, and feigned hoopla. Same thing happens in libraries. Same basic assumption, there must be something interesting in 50 or 60 thousand volumes on the shelf, right? Hah.

Which brings me to Ayn Rand. Her entire output is about ten inches wide in hardback. Absent in most libraries. Daniel Steele has two entire shelves, and Barbara Cartland could fill an aisle in paperback. Biography? -- bah! You can browse an hour or two and see thousands of books celebrating the great and good in football, baseball, politics, war, used car marketing, cinema, finger painting, and ancient Rome. Nothing about Ayn Rand.

She wrote three novels and Anthem, a novelette. It took a lifetime to do that little. It means something to us, but it's nothing compared to Steven King, John Grisham, or Tom Clancy. Objectivism can be summarized on a 3x5 card. Kant and Marx have hundreds of thousands of academic instructors, two million scholarly papers, and books by the carload. Rand scholars are hilarious. Machan's crap is required reading for his students, a fat little cottage industry.

Anyway, back to Miss Rand. No one talks about Anthem or We The Living. So it boils down to two books -- a dystopian fantasy about justice, and a drama about recognizably real people and real situations that was picked up by Warner Bros. The 1949 movie grossed $400,000 less than its production budget. Critics yawned.

Not much to say about Roark, is there? An architect. How heroic is that? And Bob feels entitled to piss on Dominique.

-- oh, but Atlas! -- miles of discussion and analysis and pontificating about metaethical conjunctivitis and whether Eddie WIllers was a capable railroad executive (suitably portrayed by a hip black guy) or a sexless, tongue-tied Charlie Brown banging his head against the wall, smitten by the little Red Haired Girl. I'd feel better if Bob pissed on Dagny for being slow-witted. It took her a thousand pages to quit her job.

Like I said, I talk too much. Bottom line: The Fountainhead was Rand's masterpiece. It magnetized Branden.

I haven't yet seen the AS movies. Thanks for reminding me why.

If Bob doesn't confine himself to math and science he moves into areas as an Aspie--his kind of Aspie--he's totally incompetent in. I don't think he knows he just called Ayn Rand, not Dominique, "a flake and a semi crazy-lady [sic, sic, sic]" or that Dominique was Rand's most courageous character.

I'm not going to try to deconstruct the rest of what you wrote. It needs work but you're up to it or not as you please.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

Dominique was Rand's most courageous character

Just had to put it up again.

Thank you, Brant.