Love and Ownership

[CSpeciale]

The typical Randian Hero (Howard Roark, John Galt) claims ownership to the reflection of himself (Dominique Francon, Dagny Taggert respectively). What do they claim ownership to and why? Certainly not her mind? Roark told Dominique that he gives Dominique "my ego and my naked need." What does he mean by this? Galt told Dagny that he "loves her more than he loves his life." Is this a relative statement, due to the fact that the world he currently lives in is a world without value? If he and Dagny both lived happily in Atlantis, would Galt not love her more than his life, since in these conditions, he could give his life more meaning? Or is this statement and absolute? How and why?

I've been studying objectivism for over a year now... this is one of a few concepts that still confuse me.

[Selene]

Christopher:

Out of curiosity, is this your choice of phrasing, or, Ayn's?

"...claims ownership to the reflection of himself..."

You ask eternal questions...

Potentially, a great thread...

Adam

[CSpeciale]

Ayn's. It was my understanding that this is how 'true love' is treated; that a Man can see the woman he claims as his own, and no one else's. After all, Roark was nearly defaced when he heard that Dominique had chosen to marry Peter Keating, and Galt feels anchored to his life by Dagny Taggart, happy merely for the fact that she exists, but knowing he'd be happier if she belonged to him. He was jealous of Rearden-if only for a moment--and he's claimed he has *earned* Dagny, just as Dagny felt she has earned Galt. Similarly, she had only earned Rearden, prior to her change in mind and loyalty to defending Mankind after meeting Galt. Is this also not a relative action?

I'm saying that earnings imply ownership, and rewards for one's virtues, just as a paycheck implies achievement, and rewards for one's hardwork. But isn't ownership of a person precisely what John Galt rejected from Twentieth Century?

[Selene]

Chris:

Thanks.

Having read Ayn in my teen years and being "captured" by her concepts of romantic love which differs from other classical forms of love.

Eros, versus, agape, versus philia.

For example, Greek philosophers at the time of

Plato

and other ancient authors have used forms of the word to denote love of a spouse or family, or affection for a particular activity, in contrast to

philia

(an affection that could denote friendship, brotherhood or generally non-sexual affection) and

eros

, an affection of a sexual nature.

Thomas Jay Oord

has defined

agape

as "an intentional response to promote well-being when responding to that which has generated ill-being."

[3]

"Romantic love, in the full sense of the term, is an emotion possible only to the man (or woman) of unbreached self-esteem: it is his response to his own highest values in the person of another—an integrated response of mind and body, of love and sexual desire. Such a man (or woman) is incapable of experiencing a sexual desire divorced from spiritual values."

One of her powerful statements that I have accepted since then is, "Show me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life."

Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself. No matter what corruption he's taught about the virtue of selflessness, sex is the most profoundly selfish of all acts, an act which he cannot perform for any motive but his own enjoyment -- just try to think of performing it in a spirit of selfless charity! -- an act which is not possible in self-abasement, only in self-exaltation, only in the confidence of being desired and being worthy of desire. He will always be attracted to the woman who reflects the deepest vision of himself, the woman whose surrender permits him to experience -- or fake -- a sense of self-esteem. The man who is proudly certain of his own value, will want the highest type of woman he can find, the woman he admires, the strongest, the hardest to conquer -- because only the possession of a heroine will give him the sense of achievement, not the possession of a brainless slut.

Your thoughts?

Adam

[CSpeciale]

Pride is an earned reward as well. Galt, Dagny, and Howard all have it. They live honestly, just, and rationally. They stand knowing that they are right. We can say that Howard chose Dominique because, even though she was not his perfect woman at the time he met her, he knew she was *capable* of becoming that perfected woman, and so he waited patiently for her, never changing his love for her, or redirecting his love to a different woman. Even if Howard had met another girl like Dagny, Howard would still choose Dominique, because she's the hardest for him to win. And for Galt, Dagny is the hardest for him to win. What is it they are winning?

[caroljane]

Do the women want to "own" the men in the same way?

[Guyau]

Be mine.

Your heart belong to me.

You belong to me.

My heart belongs to Daddy.

This kind of ownership is a wondrous characteristic of those in that fever of which they say “If there’s a cure for this, I don’t want it, I don’t need it.” My statements here are only acknowledgements of the feeling and its wide enjoyment in the wide culture in our time and long before Rand. I don’t know why this ownership element works; presumably there are various levels of explanation. I do know that the ring on my finger means I belong to the guy wearing a ring just like it.

Christopher, best wishes with your writing and with romance. (I have one bit of old-guy advice. If ever you declare yourself to someone with whom you have fallen in love and you are rejected, please remember: in three days, the pain will be less.)

Stephen

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Concerning psychological visibility: a, b

[CSpeciale]

Do the women want to "own" the men in the same way?

Presumably, yes. Does this imply that romantic love, in it's truest form, is an agreement? Or must one permit the other to own and to be owned? Only a slave acts on permission. Roark would not permit Dominique to obey him blindly, to revoke her marriage to Keating, because her mistake was something she had to learn herself how to fix. That was the only way he wanted her, and that was the only way which she could want to be loved.

I guess what I think is the contradiction between these relationships is the agreement of two people saying one can run the other's life, and vice-versa, despite how neither person may give up their mind, yet it is by the mind which these people run their life.

[caroljane]

Stephen, the folie (or sagesse) a deux is everything, as you and I know, and the indivisible unity that can ensue.

i was thinking of Dominique and Dagny's willingness or wish to "be owned", not quite the same as Galt and Roark's wish for ownership.

[CSpeciale]

i was thinking of Dominique and Dagny's willingness or wish to "be owned", not quite the same as Galt and Roark's wish for ownership.

I remember reading somewhere that Rand suggests that it is natural for the feminine psyche to be dominated by a man, not to dominate. I think I disagree on this, in the real world. Perhaps this is the factor I've left out.

[anthony]

i was thinking of Dominique and Dagny's willingness or wish to "be owned", not quite the same as Galt and Roark's wish for ownership.

I remember reading somewhere that Rand suggests that it is natural for the feminine psyche to be dominated by a man, not to dominate. I think I disagree on this, in the real world. Perhaps this is the factor I've left out.

I agree with your disagreement. Her personal values as applied to her philosophy.

Not at all an integral part of Objectivism, thank god.

[caroljane]

i was thinking of Dominique and Dagny's willingness or wish to "be owned", not quite the same as Galt and Roark's wish for ownership.

I remember reading somewhere that Rand suggests that it is natural for the feminine psyche to be dominated by a man, not to dominate. I think I disagree on this, in the real world. Perhaps this is the factor I've left out.

I agree with your disagreement. Her personal values as applied to her philosophy.

Not at all an integral part of Objectivism, thank god.

I agree with you both. But it is a factor that helped make the Fountainhead especially, such a hot seller!

[CSpeciale]

Galt told Dagny that he "loves her more than he loves his life." Is this a relative statement, due to the fact that the world he currently lives in is a world without value? If he and Dagny both lived happily in Atlantis, would Galt not love her more than his life, since in these conditions, he could give his life more meaning? Or is this statement and absolute? How and why?

What about this question. Any thoughts?

[CSpeciale]

Would it be right to say that his statement is not relative for two clear reasons?

1. Dagny Taggart is in fact John Galt's heroine.

2. John Galt's love for Dagny is a love measured higher than his value for his life.

I would think that the statement itself could imply one of two things. The first being: Galt is saying he would die for Dagny. But i cant see him doing that, I see Galt as a man who would strive to keep BOTH of them alive. Which bring me to the second possible implication: John Galt is living with Dagny in a world where there ARE no values higher than Dagny.

If I may work from there now: John Galt's *second* truest love is to himself. If he can love his life in a world without values, he could certainly love his life just AS MUCH as he does in Atlantis. So even if Galt encountered more women who were just like Dagny, in the newborn Atlantis, John Galt would not change his love, because he'd only want to live through Atlantis with Dagny by his side...

Does this sound correct?

[MrBenjamatic]

The typical Randian Hero (Howard Roark, John Galt) claims ownership to the reflection of himself (Dominique Francon, Dagny Taggert respectively). What do they claim ownership to and why? Certainly not her mind? Roark told Dominique that he gives Dominique "my ego and my naked need." What does he mean by this? Galt told Dagny that he "loves her more than he loves his life." Is this a relative statement, due to the fact that the world he currently lives in is a world without value? If he and Dagny both lived happily in Atlantis, would Galt not love her more than his life, since in these conditions, he could give his life more meaning? Or is this statement and absolute? How and why?

I've been studying objectivism for over a year now... this is one of a few concepts that still confuse me.

Roark knew Dominique wanted his ego. It sexually attracted her which attracted him. His architecture and his virtue sexually attracted Dominique, which sexually attracted Roark. Henry Rearden was attracted by Dagny wearing his bracelet. If Dominique truly hated the fact that Roark had an ego, if she was not attracted by that, Roark would not want her. Roark's ego rested on his great ability to think, his architecture reminded him of it and he wanted to see her in his architecture for the same reason that Rearden wanted to see his Rearden metal bracelet around Dagny's wrist. I know that much. Women, pretend to themselves they want to dominate the man, but really want to be dominated by him. Men pretend they want to be dominated by the woman but then can't resist dominating them. What I just said does not necessarily apply, I don't think, to sadistic women and masochistic men. Dagny was attracted to and bedded Rearden because of his ego (based on his ability to think) and his metal and company (which is evidence of his ability to think). Hank was attracted to Dagny because he knew it. Sexual attraction, I think, is introspective. If you think you consider yourself worthless (in other words: want to die), you will want to bed a rotter. If you know you are valuable and you want to live, you bed the most virtuous person of the opposite sex you can find. You love others for their virtues. This is self-evident to me. I would need her to be virtuous (Roark provoked and needed Dominique to be virtuous throughout the book). That is probably what Rand meant by naked need. Sex is a celebration of life. I think the ownership wanted is of her love. I can't justify why John would love Dagny more than his life but I know it was the right thing for him to say. He loved her and to have a love of yours die, I'm sure would be unbearable, especially for such a perfect couple as Dagny and John.

I also thought I would paste a comment left on Piekoff's facebook, by a David Chako, in regards to Dagny's love life, which I think is very relevent.

"She was in love with herself, and therefore, with each of Francisco, Hank, and John in turn, as she grew into her self and evolved into the complete person that was potential when she met Francisco, in process when she met Rearden, and complete when she met Galt. At each stage, the man in question was the ideal counterpoise to her own self worth and goals, and don't think she wouldn't fall out of love with Galt if he changed away from her ideal -- or she changed away from his. But those who have found their Galt or Dagny, as full grown adults, know how unlikely such a change is once one has settled with oneself and then, from that adult perspective, consciously chosen a mate.

"She was entranced by Galt, and he by her, because their values formed a perfect complement to one another, a whole that was more than the sum of its parts, in such exquisite harmony and understanding that Dagny felt it as a magnetic pull so strong she dared not resist or lose her soul. It is simple, elegant, irresistable. And in that recognition, nothing less can ever be acceded to again"

[Brant Gaede]

I don't like the previous post.

--Brant

[caroljane]

I don't understand the penultimate post. Talk about arbitrary assertions! "What women really want" confounded Freud, but MrBenjamatic has figured it out.

[Selene]

First of all, all women do not have the same wants, or, needs.

Here is a headline...all men do not have the same wants, or, needs.

Sometimes, I do believe in that old homily that children should be seen and not heard.

[Brant Gaede]

First of all, all women do not have the same wants, or, needs.

Here is a headline...all men do not have the same wants, or, needs.

Sometimes, I do believe in that old homily that children should be seen and not heard.

If this was only true of chickens, too.

--Brant

[CSpeciale]

I don't like the previous post.

--Brant

What don't you like about it? I actually did like it... it cleared a bit of my confusion

[caroljane]

I don't understand about the chickens. Are they trying to cross the road again?

[Selene]

I don't understand about the chickens. Are they trying to cross the road again?

Maybe the damn things are trying to come home to roost again!

[MrBenjamatic]

First of all, all women do not have the same wants, or, needs.

Here is a headline...all men do not have the same wants, or, needs.

Sometimes, I do believe in that old homily that children should be seen and not heard.

Yes. What I said was in reference to Rearden, Galt (I think), Francisco and Dagny and Dominique and Howard. When I was writing that I forgot about everyone else. The very existence of weird fetishes would wipes my theory away.

[caroljane]

I don't understand about the chickens. Are they trying to cross the road again?

Maybe the damn things are trying to come home to roost again!

Will the dumb clucks never learn? You Can't Go Home Again, Y'All!

The cows found that out when they got out of the cab, suitcases in hooves, and found the door was locked.

[caroljane]

Far Side cartoon.