Love defined in one sentence?

[ThomasHägg]

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.

[Jules Troy]

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!!!

[Wolf DeVoon]

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?

[anthony]

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).

[BaalChatzaf]

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,

Chris

That might be a cause of love for some people. What if love is just long term lust?

[Brant Gaede]

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,

Chris

That might be a cause of love for some people. What if love is just long term lust?

Lust for love--that'll work.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

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

[anthony]

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.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Wynand's words and error

Jaw-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.

[anthony]

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.

[anthony]

Wynand's words and error

Jaw-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.

[Brant Gaede]

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 do

The 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.")

[anthony]

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

[Selene]

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...

[moralist]

This thread becomes funny when you read the original title.

Greg

[Jules Troy]

What have I done!!??

Lmao!

[Brant Gaede]

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?

--Brant

Tony, it's offensive--to bring something like that to a place like this?

[Wolf DeVoon]

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?

--Brant

more exception-making

Guts Regan in Penthouse Legend

Kira (and Andre) in We The Living

Galt 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.”

[anthony]

“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..

[ThomasHägg]

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.

[BaalChatzaf]

Domonique was a flake-oid.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Domonique was a flake-oid.

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

[Selene]

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

And Ayn was?

[Brant Gaede]

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."

[Brant Gaede]

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