ThomasHägg Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 Sigh.“Why have you been staring at me ever since we met? Because I’m not the Gail Wynand you’d heard about. You see, I love you. And love is exception-making. If you were in love you’d want to be broken, trampled, ordered, dominated, because that’s the impossible, the inconceivable for you in your relations with people. That would be the one gift, the great exception you’d want to offer the man you loved.”Being "broken, trampled" etc, all of those things may of course be ok to some degre, if by it there is also some gain and it is self-chosen. On the other hand, if it leads to ones total destruction, including if it leads to the destruction of ones morality in general, it is clearly immoral.So, the problem here is not calling love an "exception-making", even if the exception is accepting a treatment such as she describes, but rather doing it as a "sacrifice".- “Sacrifice” is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue. Thus, altruism gauges a man’s virtue by the degree to which he surrenders, renounces or betrays his values (since help to a stranger or an enemy is regarded as more virtuous, less “selfish,” than help to those one loves). The rational principle of conduct is the exact opposite: always act in accordance with the hierarchy of your values, and never sacrifice a greater value to a lesser one. This applies to all choices, including one’s actions toward other men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jules Troy Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 I had a one nighter with a realllllly hot lady named Dominique. I never wanted that night to end.One sentence? One word is all I need.25 years later it is still:Daaaaaaaayyyyummmmmm!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf DeVoon Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 Sigh.“Why have you been staring at me ever since we met? Because I’m not the Gail Wynand you’d heard about. You see, I love you. And love is exception-making. If you were in love you’d want to be broken, trampled, ordered, dominated, because that’s the impossible, the inconceivable for you in your relations with people. That would be the one gift, the great exception you’d want to offer the man you loved.”Being "broken, trampled" etc, all of those things may of course be ok to some degre, if by it there is also some gain and it is self-chosen. On the other hand, if it leads to ones total destruction, including if it leads to the destruction of ones morality in general, it is clearly immoral.So, the problem here is not calling love an "exception-making", even if the exception is accepting a treatment such as she describes, but rather doing it as a "sacrifice".Had a lot of experience with women, have you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 Sigh.“Why have you been staring at me ever since we met? Because I’m not the Gail Wynand you’d heard about. You see, I love you. And love is exception-making. If you were in love you’d want to be broken, trampled, ordered, dominated, because that’s the impossible, the inconceivable for you in your relations with people. That would be the one gift, the great exception you’d want to offer the man you loved.”Being "broken, trampled" etc, all of those things may of course be ok to some degre, if by it there is also some gain and it is self-chosen. On the other hand, if it leads to ones total destruction, including if it leads to the destruction of ones morality in general, it is clearly immoral.So, the problem here is not calling love an "exception-making", even if the exception is accepting a treatment such as she describes, but rather doing it as a "sacrifice".- “Sacrifice” is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue. Thus, altruism gauges a man’s virtue by the degree to which he surrenders, renounces or betrays his values (since help to a stranger or an enemy is regarded as more virtuous, less “selfish,” than help to those one loves). The rational principle of conduct is the exact opposite: always act in accordance with the hierarchy of your values, and never sacrifice a greater value to a lesser one. This applies to all choices, including one’s actions toward other men.You have the right end of the stick Thomas, "exception making" are Wynand's words and error, not Rand's.But I argue with your adjustment, in that broken trampled etc. can never be OK, either actively or passively - or to any degree. There is no "gain" that's acceptable, and making it "self-chosen" is self-contradictory. It is all sacrificial.From the quote, 'the degree' is here an altruist measurement. ["...by the degree to which he surrenders..."AR](Exception taking - no. Exceptional making - not quite; but whatever - love as exception making is contrary to Rand's thinking, post #21). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 Hello,This is my first post to this forum. I attempting to define love in one sentence and would appreciate any feedback.Love is an emotional response to the rational scrutiny of a person who epitomizes one’s most sacred values.Thanks in advance,ChrisThat might be a cause of love for some people. What if love is just long term lust? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 Hello,This is my first post to this forum. I attempting to define love in one sentence and would appreciate any feedback.Love is an emotional response to the rational scrutiny of a person who epitomizes one’s most sacred values.Thanks in advance,ChrisThat might be a cause of love for some people. What if love is just long term lust?Lust for love--that'll work.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 Sigh.“Why have you been staring at me ever since we met? Because I’m not the Gail Wynand you’d heard about. You see, I love you. And love is exception-making. If you were in love you’d want to be broken, trampled, ordered, dominated, because that’s the impossible, the inconceivable for you in your relations with people. That would be the one gift, the great exception you’d want to offer the man you loved.”Being "broken, trampled" etc, all of those things may of course be ok to some degre, if by it there is also some gain and it is self-chosen. On the other hand, if it leads to ones total destruction, including if it leads to the destruction of ones morality in general, it is clearly immoral.So, the problem here is not calling love an "exception-making", even if the exception is accepting a treatment such as she describes, but rather doing it as a "sacrifice".- “Sacrifice” is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue. Thus, altruism gauges a man’s virtue by the degree to which he surrenders, renounces or betrays his values (since help to a stranger or an enemy is regarded as more virtuous, less “selfish,” than help to those one loves). The rational principle of conduct is the exact opposite: always act in accordance with the hierarchy of your values, and never sacrifice a greater value to a lesser one. This applies to all choices, including one’s actions toward other men.You have the right end of the stick Thomas, "exception making" are Wynand's words and error, not Rand's.But I argue with your adjustment, in that broken trampled etc. can never be OK, either actively or passively - or to any degree. There is no "gain" that's acceptable, and making it "self-chosen" is self-contradictory. It is all sacrificial.From the quote, 'the degree' is here an altruist measurement. ["...by the degree to which he surrenders..."AR](Exception taking - no. Exceptional making - not quite; but whatever - love as exception making is contrary to Rand's thinking, post #21).She wrote it. It's hers. She re-endorsed it in the forward to the 25th anniversary edition.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 Because they are her words spoken by her created character? Think about it Brant. That would make whatever Toohey said and did morally right. Clearly, her exposition about love above contradicts Wynand's thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf DeVoon Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 Wynand's words and errorJaw-droppingly, almost willfully wrong. And then worse in your next post, as if Toohey had made an exception for passionate romantic love commensurate to Wynand's. Mistakes of this size are not made innocently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 Rand would advocate "wanting to be "broken, trampled, ordered, dominated ..." as a full expression of love! Taking it, or giving it?C'mon fellas.And if not Wynand's error, certainly Dominique's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 Wynand's words and errorJaw-droppingly, almost willfully wrong. And then worse in your next post, as if Toohey had made an exception for passionate romantic love commensurate to Wynand's. Mistakes of this size are not made innocently.You are wrong. "Commensurate" no. Comparison, yes. I point out that not every word of Rand - in her novels - is to be taken as text book literalism.As in reality, there are people who make mistakes and have wrong premises. Dominique was one - for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 Rand would advocate "wanting to be "broken, trampled, ordered, dominated ..." as a full expression of love! Taking it, or giving it?No she wouldn't. You got that right. Dominique set up the entire situation for getting Howard to ravish her and she got it good and hard. Later in the novel she even called it "rape." Rand subsequently explained that, "If it was rape, it was rape by engraved invitation."This culture is much more sensitive to rape and rape issues today than in the 1940s. Also, blowing up buildings out of ego*.--Brant*which Roark had no (Objectivist rendered) philosophical (and, frankly, moral) right to doThe Fountainhead is a lot more fun than We the Living and Atlas Shrugged, for different reasons as in different reasons that made Roark a free man, first from society (the Soviet Union [the first novel]) and second in society (the United States [the third novel])--free to indulge his ego (which is why Rand said [speculation] that she liked what people seemed to mean when they said, "God bless America.") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 It's coming back, been a long time since reading TF. Seems Wynand was right (about Dominique's "error" of premise) since didn't she refuse her own happiness to go on and marry Keating she despised? Sort of:- You don't feel you deserve the best, choose the worst and make a complete job of the self-sacrifice. She came back, however, once she discovered differently. (Her volitional consciousness).In opposition to love allowing, causing or making an "exception", I think in Rand's reckoning romantic love is to be wholly 'congruent' with oneself in reality and congruent with an other's values and self-value. As I read her. Not an impossible abstract ideal beyond reach, but the continuing furtherance of the real values and virtues you both have. Not an exception, the same, only more and better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 Ayn was a classic submissive.My guess is she would try to "top from the bottom" as the D/s "code book" discloses.A lot of that was done by Dominique in TF. Hence the "rape scene."A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 This thread becomes funny when you read the original title. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jules Troy Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 What have I done!!??Lmao! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 Because they are her words spoken by her created character? Think about it Brant. That would make whatever Toohey said and did morally right. Clearly, her exposition about love above contradicts Wynand's thinking.This is nutz. Rand was crazy about Wynand. She'd never not endorse such a statement by him on THAT subject. Did you read the novel in little pieces?--BrantTony, it's offensive--to bring something like that to a place like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf DeVoon Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 Because they are her words spoken by her created character? Think about it Brant. That would make whatever Toohey said and did morally right. Clearly, her exposition about love above contradicts Wynand's thinking.This is nutz. Rand was crazy about Wynand. She'd never not endorse such a statement by him on THAT subject. Did you read the novel in little pieces?--Brantmore exception-makingGuts Regan in Penthouse LegendKira (and Andre) in We The LivingGalt in Atlas FFS!“You will follow me, if we are what we are, you and I, if we live, if the world exists, if you know the meaning of this moment and can't let it slip by, as others let it slip, into the senselessness of the unwilled and unreached.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 “Why have you been staring at me ever since we met? Because I’m not the Gail Wynand you’d heard about. You see, I love you. And love is exception-making. If you were in love you’d want to be broken, trampled, ordered, dominated, because that’s the impossible, the inconceivable for you in your relations with people. That would be the one gift, the great exception you’d want to offer the man you loved.”Brant, Look at this again and you'll see that Wynand recognized the flaw in Dominique - she'd willingly sacrifice herself to the man she loved, by allowing him the one "exception" she wouldn't allow from anyone else, of degradation by him.What does Rand say in all references to romantic love?Love is not a sacrifice.Dominique finally came round to that realization, so Rand made her point.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasHägg Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 Rand would advocate "wanting to be "broken, trampled, ordered, dominated ..." as a full expression of love! Taking it, or giving it?C'mon fellas.And if not Wynand's error, certainly Dominique's.This was what I thought at first, but then again the "broken, trampled" doesn't necessarily mean absolutely broken or fataly hurt. It can just be a way of illustrating selfishness and the acceptance of selfishness on the part of her lover. Not even necessarily rational such. (And just like you say, Dominique is probably not a perfectly rational woman at all times. Allthough if I remember it correctly, Rand did say that Dominique was "like [her] on a bad day".)If enterpreted as a rational statement I propose it could mean, then it can absolutely not be supposed to "hurt" you more than you gain from it, so it is not quiet a sacrificial form. This is of course the only reason why it being "self-chosen" or not even matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 Domonique was a flake-oid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf DeVoon Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 Domonique was a flake-oid. Bob the expert on women. Without Dominique there's no Fountainhead story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 And just like you say, Dominique is probably not a perfectly rational woman at all times.And Ayn was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 Domonique was a flake-oid. Bob the expert on women. Without Dominique there's no Fountainhead story.The psychological un-reality of the characters she created makes for Rand's "artificial recreations of reality." Their psychologies have to be twisted and traduced to make the stories work. The only major character in her last two novels I can think of this not applying to is Ellsworth M. Toohey, who was distilled from a real person.Rand was, par excellence, not a naturalist. The last person on this list I can think of qualified to comment on esthetics or "romantic realism" (and emotions), is Bob. He's an Aspie. The man can't even spell "Dominique." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 Domonique was a flake-oid. Bob the expert on women. Without Dominique there's no Fountainhead story.The same is true for Dagny in Atlas Shrugged.The Fountainhead has four main subsections labeled with each of the main male protagonists. Rand could have called the novel Dominique. Dominique laid three of them. (Dagny got three heroes, Kira two.) Rand must have held her nose writing about Keating bedding Dominique. (Toohey was too old and monstrous and repulsive. My own father was a combination of Keating [looks] and Wynand [brains], with the second-hander in common with both.)I think here was so little warm up to Rand's heroes having sex is that the women heroes were already ready--no foreplay needed--so get the damn thing on! Rand got the masculine perspective from a woman's perspective to that extent. What she never got right was a man's biological felt need to get it on which is more sublimated and more complicated in a woman who has to be careful about who is going to help her make her babies. Adolescence does not exist in Rand's sexual world. Nature wants even young teenagers to make babies. A woman knows better than she as a girl about what is personally best for her. DNA only cares about DNA and an expected life expectancy that hardly hits 30, especially for a woman who has the danger of dying while giving birth. Because of their big heads and the upright posture, human beings don't just pop out--but my father did in 1909--like puppies. Absent sanitation and the germ theory (knowledge) of disease a woman getting pregnant in her 40s was looking at a death sentence as her body wasn't as strong as it used to be for fighting off infections, especially germs introduced by mid-wifery.Rand wanted grownups, not adolescences growing up. Ironically, maybe not, her grownups themselves didn't grow much, except into heroic retirement from strife and struggle. Then they were no longer very interesting, so Rand ended their novels. "If you live you burn" may have applied to Rand's life--I think it did and I think she got burned up for sundry reasons including health and age--but not John Galt tracing "in space the sign of the dollar." THE END Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now