Love defined in one sentence?

[ThomasHägg]

Ironically, most of the heroism of her heroes is abstract and you (almost?) never see them sweat or experience fear. It's an adolescent's view of heroism. Clean and neat. As such it's a starting point. Double irony: Ayn Rand lived a staggeringly heroic life. Triple irony: she didn't tend to dwell on that. She seemed almost oblivious to it.

Right as rain, beautifully put.

I'm not a huge fan of her novels, but what about in Atlas Shrugged for example? (This was, by the way, the book I disliked the most; But then of course, I only read it once and that was before I fully understood the basic premises of her philosophy)

Rands fictional heroes certainly experience both fear and work that is hard on them. Not that they are virtues. Courage and productive work are. They experience both pleasure and pain. But Rands way of writing is mostly meant not to focus on or describe these "feelings" to the reader. She doesn't want the reader to feel them at a whim, but rather she tries to provide him with the values needed to recreate the feeling accurately when it is rational, either as a general part of life or as it is needed in order to understand her fiction. These subtleties are very well portrayed here. http://www.shmoop.com/atlas-shrugged/dagny-taggart.html

(Not related to the link above) Dagny fears getting stuck in one place without any controll. She fears the irrational. She fears loosing Galt.

Is Hank Rearden a hero in this book? I would think so. Yet he fears the similar situation of being cornered and loosing his lifes work.

Is Galt fearless? Perhaps. I don't remember. Could he be in real life? I'm not sure. Would it really be bad if he was? Not on its own. Not unless it also made him irrational or was due to irrationality on some level.

I would say that fear is a feeling we experience in the face of a dilemma that we are unable to overcome. We lose confidence. Because fear makes a person hesitant and fidgety in his thinking, it can render a person more moldable by others. It can render him highly irrational. This is where we need courage. We need to focus on and do what we actually know is right. Starting again from the most basic axioms if it is needed; We may not percieve or understand every detail, but this way we can raise ourselves up once again.

Try google-searching the book for mentionings of "fear"

And when it comes to work and sweat; To do your best and to work hard when it is needed (even if you don't enjoy it), is clearly highly valued in all her works.

Howard Roark was a "hero", was he not?. And he sweat when he was working hard manual labour, drilling into the granite with a drill that he had to hold and push into the stone. It may not have been a kind of labour he enjoyed the most, but it was necessary at the time.

Describing "productive work", in "The Objectivist Ethics", Rand wrote;

It is not the degree of a man’s ability nor the scale of his work that is ethically relevant here, but the fullest and most purposeful use of his mind.

(Underlining added by me)

At the very least, it should be said that Rand mostly did not try to describe "übermensch". Her "heroes", which all carry some "flaws" of their own, may seem a bit "square" at times, but they are certainly not "perfect" in any other sense than the (emphasis on quotes) "moral perfection" used by Rand herself. A "perfection" that included admitting and dealing with ones mistakes, if one made them.

I think there is some problem here as English is not your first language although you write it very, very well for that. There are subtlies that might grate on someone like myself. As such they wouldn't be worth investigation so please don't ask for specifics for it wouldn't change anything.

If you were a young adult American reading AS shortly after publication and through the 1960s you'd have had a different experience than the one you had for the whole culture has since shifted and now the novel creaks in many ways it didn't then. I myself--I read it in 1963 in paperback of all things--will never read it cover to cover again, but read it in pieces. Sometimes I just throw it open anywhere, but usually I'm after something specific.

In pure literary terms, The Fountainhead is her best work. Not her greatest--that's AS.

I'm going to try to adjust to the way you are coming at Rand and her philosophy because of the obvious work you've done respecting it. There is going to be inevitable cultural friction and grating. The biggest caution for you is your tendency to lecture us on this material. Don't change--that is, don't worry too much about it. I'll merely recast your statements from you telling us to more like you asking us. The subtle thing is questions are frequently really statements, but questions go down easier. (You have asked questions too.) A lot of people have come to this site without a fraction of what you know to tell us what is what. They all fail for their actual agenda is dishonest and self-serving hubris and they are both ignorant and usually not all that intelligent.

--Brant

I really respect this.

Thank you for your compliment. I know language can be a potential barrier, but I will read and evaluate any arguments you may want to present me with, to the best of my ability.

So far, I have also re-read my own arguments - as well as yours - and I see nothing essential to the discussion that I would want to change about them.

If you see any flaws at all of mine that you would like to point out - originating from language difficulties or else - I would be thankful if you did so, because being corrected is probably one of the most effective ways for me to find out where I need to improve, both in the realm of philosophy and on my english.

I think I might agree with you on the differences between The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. AS being one of those books that I will have to come back to in the future, when I know a little more about certain subtles, in both previously mentioned realms.

The first time I read it - as a socialist gone libertarian - it felt like a fist to the gut. Literary. I still had a very superficial understanding of objectivist morality. I could agree with its ethics when it corelated with libertarianism, but other than that it truly felt horrible. As I still have not re-read it, I'm not sure if this was only due to my own misunderstandings at the time or perhaps also due to poor language used by Rand... or maybee it was just horrible? It'll be interesting when I get there.

And on the subject of certain persons or things being "square"; I guess I might come off as such. Just know that it might be due to limits in my language, rather than philosophy. And on a forum such as this, I will be trying my best to be accurate.

Completely off topic;

- Fun fact; "Brant" actually means "steep" (as in "a steep hill") or "a depth" in Swedish. So now you know at least 1 word!

[Brant Gaede]

It's not about essentials. Your essentials are fine. Off hand i'd say you are too much in the mind instead of the body too. That is, you seem to be on the premise of right knowledge. When some module is determined to be wrong or deficient, remove and fix and/or replace. There are people like that, but I'm hardly sure you are one of them. And it might be a Swedish thing too. Rand was like that in that her brains over-powered the rest of her. My Father also. Very brainy people seem to tend to lack a normal brain-body ratio balance. Richard Feynman, the physicist, was a huge exception. We are all the same and all different.

--Brant

[anthony]

...man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life,

with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

Absolutely correct unless you fall in love. As J. Geils put it: Love stinks.

Love is exception-making.

I quote this again, because I think this is a highly irrational statement. (Sorry Wolf, but don't missunderstand me. I'm not saying you are an irrational being.)

Why do you love? Why do I love? Is there no reason? Of course there is. Showing love is not an exception to reason. Showing love is not an exception to selfishness. (Rational selfishness.)

When feeling "love", it is of course a feeling. But it results from the same kind of processes as other emotions and is therefore still linked to reason.

Otherwise it would seem to me that one has to reject Rands writing on emotions in general as well.

If love is emotionally objectionable it's the best indicator it isn't or wasn't love. There was a woman who used to regularly feed me a line something very close to "Love is exception-making", I don't recall exactly. I made "exceptions" (constantly) believing her, and found ultimately she needed sacrifices to ratify her sense of self. Hell, I was in lust, not love, and she was thrilling, and I was warned all the way through by the sick feeling it all gave me. So no excuses, but I'd run a mile if I heard it now. Trust those emotions, know where they originate and never over ride them.

[Brant Gaede]

How about love is excuse making? I love you so I overlook the bad thing you did or something else I don't like? "Exception making" makes it easier to accept without thinking. Or, exception making helps in making excuses.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Ironically, most of the heroism of her heroes is abstract and you (almost?) never see them sweat or experience fear. It's an adolescent's view of heroism. Clean and neat. As such it's a starting point. Double irony: Ayn Rand lived a staggeringly heroic life. Triple irony: she didn't tend to dwell on that. She seemed almost oblivious to it.

Right as rain, beautifully put.

I'm not a huge fan of her novels, but what about in Atlas Shrugged for example? (This was, by the way, the book I disliked the most; But then of course, I only read it once and that was before I fully understood the basic premises of her philosophy)

Rands fictional heroes certainly experience both fear and work that is hard on them. Not that they are virtues. Courage and productive work are. They experience both pleasure and pain. But Rands way of writing is mostly meant not to focus on or describe these "feelings" to the reader. She doesn't want the reader to feel them at a whim, but rather she tries to provide him with the values needed to recreate the feeling accurately when it is rational, either as a general part of life or as it is needed in order to understand her fiction. These subtleties are very well portrayed here. http://www.shmoop.com/atlas-shrugged/dagny-taggart.html

(Not related to the link above) Dagny fears getting stuck in one place without any controll. She fears the irrational. She fears loosing Galt.

Is Hank Rearden a hero in this book? I would think so. Yet he fears the similar situation of being cornered and loosing his lifes work.

Is Galt fearless? Perhaps. I don't remember. Could he be in real life? I'm not sure. Would it really be bad if he was? Not on its own. Not unless it also made him irrational or was due to irrationality on some level.

I would say that fear is a feeling we experience in the face of a dilemma that we are unable to overcome. We lose confidence. Because fear makes a person hesitant and fidgety in his thinking, it can render a person more moldable by others. It can render him highly irrational. This is where we need courage. We need to focus on and do what we actually know is right. Starting again from the most basic axioms if it is needed; We may not percieve or understand every detail, but this way we can raise ourselves up once again.

Try google-searching the book for mentionings of "fear"

And when it comes to work and sweat; To do your best and to work hard when it is needed (even if you don't enjoy it), is clearly highly valued in all her works.

Howard Roark was a "hero", was he not?. And he sweat when he was working hard manual labour, drilling into the granite with a drill that he had to hold and push into the stone. It may not have been a kind of labour he enjoyed the most, but it was necessary at the time.

Describing "productive work", in "The Objectivist Ethics", Rand wrote;

It is not the degree of a man’s ability nor the scale of his work that is ethically relevant here, but the fullest and most purposeful use of his mind.

(Underlining added by me)

At the very least, it should be said that Rand mostly did not try to describe "übermensch". Her "heroes", which all carry some "flaws" of their own, may seem a bit "square" at times, but they are certainly not "perfect" in any other sense than the (emphasis on quotes) "moral perfection" used by Rand herself. A "perfection" that included admitting and dealing with ones mistakes, if one made them.

I think there is some problem here as English is not your first language although you write it very, very well for that. There are subtlies that might grate on someone like myself. As such they wouldn't be worth investigation so please don't ask for specifics for it wouldn't change anything.

If you were a young adult American reading AS shortly after publication and through the 1960s you'd have had a different experience than the one you had for the whole culture has since shifted and now the novel creaks in many ways it didn't then. I myself--I read it in 1963 in paperback of all things--will never read it cover to cover again, but read it in pieces. Sometimes I just throw it open anywhere, but usually I'm after something specific.

In pure literary terms, The Fountainhead is her best work. Not her greatest--that's AS.

I'm going to try to adjust to the way you are coming at Rand and her philosophy because of the obvious work you've done respecting it. There is going to be inevitable cultural friction and grating. The biggest caution for you is your tendency to lecture us on this material. Don't change--that is, don't worry too much about it. I'll merely recast your statements from you telling us to more like you asking us. The subtle thing is questions are frequently really statements, but questions go down easier. (You have asked questions too.) A lot of people have come to this site without a fraction of what you know to tell us what is what. They all fail for their actual agenda is dishonest and self-serving hubris and they are both ignorant and usually not all that intelligent.

--Brant

I really respect this.

Thank you for your compliment. I know language can be a potential barrier, but I will read and evaluate any arguments you may want to present me with, to the best of my ability.

So far, I have also re-read my own arguments - as well as yours - and I see nothing essential to the discussion that I would want to change about them.

If you see any flaws at all of mine that you would like to point out - originating from language difficulties or else - I would be thankful if you did so, because being corrected is probably one of the most effective ways for me to find out where I need to improve, both in the realm of philosophy and on my english.

I think I might agree with you on the differences between The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. AS being one of those books that I will have to come back to in the future, when I know a little more about certain subtles, in both previously mentioned realms.

The first time I read it - as a socialist gone libertarian - it felt like a fist to the gut. Literary. I still had a very superficial understanding of objectivist morality. I could agree with its ethics when it corelated with libertarianism, but other than that it truly felt horrible. As I still have not re-read it, I'm not sure if this was only due to my own misunderstandings at the time or perhaps also due to poor language used by Rand... or maybee it was just horrible? It'll be interesting when I get there.

And on the subject of certain persons or things being "square"; I guess I might come off as such. Just know that it might be due to limits in my language, rather than philosophy. And on a forum such as this, I will be trying my best to be accurate.

Completely off topic;

- Fun fact; "Brant" actually means "steep" (as in "a steep hill") or "a depth" in Swedish. So now you know at least 1 word!

Brant goose.

Joseph Brant.

Brant Lake.

County of Brant Ontario

Brantford, Ontario

Karl Hjalmar Branting

Irving Brant, my grandfather. He wrote many books.

More seriously, I'm assuming you read AS in English, not Swedish.

--Brant

[anthony]

It's about "knowing" and being known, in the end. ("Visibilty" by NB puts it well). The complete package of a person that one accepts as a 'given', always comes with minor imperfections, in the grand scheme of what she is. If something so unexpected arises that blows your comprehension of her out of the water, that would be a tough one. Trust might not be regained, and forgiveness could be too much like making excuses or rationalization.

[Brant Gaede]

I'm sure Brant will reply. He's an interesting guy worth talking to. However, I'd like to interject.

...man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life,

with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

Absolutely correct unless you fall in love. As J. Geils put it: Love stinks.

Love is exception-making.

Man--a man--is and is not an heroic being. Those are conclusions; viewpoints. Not a philosophy but Rand made heroism part of her philosophy. Her philosophy is mostly cultural, not intellectual. Ironically, most of the heroism of her heroes is abstract and you (almost?) never see them sweat or experience fear. It's an adolescent's view of heroism. Clean and neat. As such it's a starting point. Double irony: Ayn Rand lived a staggeringly heroic life. Triple irony: she didn't tend to dwell on that. She seemed almost oblivious to it.

--Brant

I always thought of this as meaning the ideal man. Not just any man. And her philosophy makes this clear as well.

"Man--a man--is and is not an heroic being." That would depend on what you compare man to and what the values of a hero are wouldn't it? And what you consider "a real man". Context means a lot. Dirty and sweaty can show you worked hard or it can show you worked inefficiently. Clean and neat the opposite. And yes of course, culture influence her work. She wasn't immune to it and from her writing it would seem she didn't expect anyone to be.

"Double irony: Ayn Rand lived a staggeringly heroic life." So you say, but apparently not according to her own thinking, I gather from one of your earlier comments?

"Triple irony: she didn't tend to dwell on that. She seemed almost oblivious to it." Yet she herself moralized and said she had lived her life according to her philosophy? This doesn't add up.

Let me try this again.

Any man could be an ideal man depending on his thinking and conguent actions. Her ideal man would also be way up there in the brain and productive department.

Rand's heroic life is what she had to go through to make herself, escape from Soviet Russia, utterly master a hard new language (except for her accent, which I loved), persevere to become a successful novelist in the 1930s and 1940s and then to spend 13 years working on Atlas Shrugged with the extra brain twisting needed to write Galt's speech over two very intense years.

My use of "sweaty" meant in the context of moral and/or physical danger--not drilling granite--and it can be taken purely metaphorically. It was heroic for Roark, however, not the work as such, but to be there to do that work since he couldn't do architecture at that time in his life.

Yep, it doesn't add up. But that was her.

--Brant

[anthony]

Ironically, most of the heroism of her heroes is abstract and you (almost?) never see them sweat or experience fear. It's an adolescent's view of heroism. Clean and neat. As such it's a starting point. Double irony: Ayn Rand lived a staggeringly heroic life. Triple irony: she didn't tend to dwell on that. She seemed almost oblivious to it.

Right as rain, beautifully put.

I'm not a huge fan of her novels, but what about in Atlas Shrugged for example? (This was, by the way, the book I disliked the most out of Rands so far; But then of course, I only read it once and that was before I fully understood the basic premises of her philosophy)

Rands fictional heroes certainly experience both fear and work that is hard on them. Not that they are virtues. Courage and productive work are. They experience both pleasure and pain. But Rands way of writing is mostly meant not to focus on or describe these "feelings" to the reader. She doesn't want the reader to feel them at a whim, but rather she tries to provide him with the values needed to recreate the feeling accurately when it is rational, either as a general part of life or as it is needed in order to understand her fiction. These subtleties are very well portrayed here. http://www.shmoop.com/atlas-shrugged/dagny-taggart.html

You highlighted a significant aspect of good and great writing. The best authors seldom need to emotionalize, (E.g. "she felt scared") they let the facts speak for themselves, so the reader envisages the resulting emotion for himself. As we do in reality. Fiction is conceptual presentation, not didactic information. A "hero" and any central character is a highly evolved concept too, the concept one takes away with one. Rand was very bare on emotions in her novels - not that they are unimportant, but because she considered them so important, although implicit, I think.

[ThomasHägg]

Ironically, most of the heroism of her heroes is abstract and you (almost?) never see them sweat or experience fear. It's an adolescent's view of heroism. Clean and neat. As such it's a starting point. Double irony: Ayn Rand lived a staggeringly heroic life. Triple irony: she didn't tend to dwell on that. She seemed almost oblivious to it.

Right as rain, beautifully put.

I'm not a huge fan of her novels, but what about in Atlas Shrugged for example? (This was, by the way, the book I disliked the most; But then of course, I only read it once and that was before I fully understood the basic premises of her philosophy)

Rands fictional heroes certainly experience both fear and work that is hard on them. Not that they are virtues. Courage and productive work are. They experience both pleasure and pain. But Rands way of writing is mostly meant not to focus on or describe these "feelings" to the reader. She doesn't want the reader to feel them at a whim, but rather she tries to provide him with the values needed to recreate the feeling accurately when it is rational, either as a general part of life or as it is needed in order to understand her fiction. These subtleties are very well portrayed here. http://www.shmoop.com/atlas-shrugged/dagny-taggart.html

(Not related to the link above) Dagny fears getting stuck in one place without any controll. She fears the irrational. She fears loosing Galt.

Is Hank Rearden a hero in this book? I would think so. Yet he fears the similar situation of being cornered and loosing his lifes work.

Is Galt fearless? Perhaps. I don't remember. Could he be in real life? I'm not sure. Would it really be bad if he was? Not on its own. Not unless it also made him irrational or was due to irrationality on some level.

I would say that fear is a feeling we experience in the face of a dilemma that we are unable to overcome. We lose confidence. Because fear makes a person hesitant and fidgety in his thinking, it can render a person more moldable by others. It can render him highly irrational. This is where we need courage. We need to focus on and do what we actually know is right. Starting again from the most basic axioms if it is needed; We may not percieve or understand every detail, but this way we can raise ourselves up once again.

Try google-searching the book for mentionings of "fear"

And when it comes to work and sweat; To do your best and to work hard when it is needed (even if you don't enjoy it), is clearly highly valued in all her works.

Howard Roark was a "hero", was he not?. And he sweat when he was working hard manual labour, drilling into the granite with a drill that he had to hold and push into the stone. It may not have been a kind of labour he enjoyed the most, but it was necessary at the time.

Describing "productive work", in "The Objectivist Ethics", Rand wrote;

It is not the degree of a man’s ability nor the scale of his work that is ethically relevant here, but the fullest and most purposeful use of his mind.

(Underlining added by me)

At the very least, it should be said that Rand mostly did not try to describe "übermensch". Her "heroes", which all carry some "flaws" of their own, may seem a bit "square" at times, but they are certainly not "perfect" in any other sense than the (emphasis on quotes) "moral perfection" used by Rand herself. A "perfection" that included admitting and dealing with ones mistakes, if one made them.

I think there is some problem here as English is not your first language although you write it very, very well for that. There are subtlies that might grate on someone like myself. As such they wouldn't be worth investigation so please don't ask for specifics for it wouldn't change anything.

If you were a young adult American reading AS shortly after publication and through the 1960s you'd have had a different experience than the one you had for the whole culture has since shifted and now the novel creaks in many ways it didn't then. I myself--I read it in 1963 in paperback of all things--will never read it cover to cover again, but read it in pieces. Sometimes I just throw it open anywhere, but usually I'm after something specific.

In pure literary terms, The Fountainhead is her best work. Not her greatest--that's AS.

I'm going to try to adjust to the way you are coming at Rand and her philosophy because of the obvious work you've done respecting it. There is going to be inevitable cultural friction and grating. The biggest caution for you is your tendency to lecture us on this material. Don't change--that is, don't worry too much about it. I'll merely recast your statements from you telling us to more like you asking us. The subtle thing is questions are frequently really statements, but questions go down easier. (You have asked questions too.) A lot of people have come to this site without a fraction of what you know to tell us what is what. They all fail for their actual agenda is dishonest and self-serving hubris and they are both ignorant and usually not all that intelligent.

--Brant

I really respect this.

Thank you for your compliment. I know language can be a potential barrier, but I will read and evaluate any arguments you may want to present me with, to the best of my ability.

So far, I have also re-read my own arguments - as well as yours - and I see nothing essential to the discussion that I would want to change about them.

If you see any flaws at all of mine that you would like to point out - originating from language difficulties or else - I would be thankful if you did so, because being corrected is probably one of the most effective ways for me to find out where I need to improve, both in the realm of philosophy and on my english.

I think I might agree with you on the differences between The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. AS being one of those books that I will have to come back to in the future, when I know a little more about certain subtles, in both previously mentioned realms.

The first time I read it - as a socialist gone libertarian - it felt like a fist to the gut. Literary. I still had a very superficial understanding of objectivist morality. I could agree with its ethics when it corelated with libertarianism, but other than that it truly felt horrible. As I still have not re-read it, I'm not sure if this was only due to my own misunderstandings at the time or perhaps also due to poor language used by Rand... or maybee it was just horrible? It'll be interesting when I get there.

And on the subject of certain persons or things being "square"; I guess I might come off as such. Just know that it might be due to limits in my language, rather than philosophy. And on a forum such as this, I will be trying my best to be accurate.

Completely off topic;

- Fun fact; "Brant" actually means "steep" (as in "a steep hill") or "a depth" in Swedish. So now you know at least 1 word!

Brant goose.

Joseph Brant.

Brant Lake.

County of Brant Ontario

Brantford, Ontario

Karl Hjalmar Branting

Irving Brant, my grandfather. He wrote many books.

More seriously, I'm assuming you read AS in English, not Swedish.

--Brant

Yes. Reading translations usually lead to a lot of missed context, in my experience. However I don't read German well enough for example, so I might choose to read an English translation instead. Had to do that with "Das Kapital".

[anthony]

My question for proponents of "sacrifice" in the name of love stands.

However I do have one question for whyNOT about his signature; Do you mean to say that altruism and selfishess are not true opposites? If so, then I would like to ask if you could show me how, because so far this would seem incorrect to me. And independence would certainly stand against altruism, but would also require selfishness.

Take the Galt quote: "It is your mind they want you to surrender -- all those who preach the creed of self-sacrifice...Those who start by saying: "It is selfish to pursue your own wishes, you must sacrifice them to the wishes of others" -- end up by saying: "It is selfish to uphold your convictions, you must sacrifice them to the convictions of others"."

Of course selfishness and altruism are opposites - but more narrowly, I think the component of selfishness which most opposes altruism, is the virtue of independence (of mind). A consciousness which is ultimately its own authority and final judge, cannot be surrendered or ruled by an altruist doctrine which demands its sacrifice.

The easy targets, those non-independent-minded, can be:

"The doctrine of self-sacrifice does not offend them: they have no sense of self or of personal value--they do not know what it is that they are asked to sacrifice..." [selfishness without a Self, AR]

Without an undermining of your convictions and sense of self, altruism and altruists can't survive, but it is the necessary precursor to controlling your actions, i.e., service to others.

[Wolf DeVoon]

   Tony's view of Objectivism: solid, simple

[anthony]

Ah, at it again, Wolf.

My last post contained Rand's quotes in it which I played off, (logically, I think) for my own argument, so Is Rand's Objectivism solid and simple too? have I misinterpreted her anywhere?

If you have a reasoned counter-argument, let me hear it.

Obviously, with all these rude retorts, I've struck a sore spot. It looks like there's sentimental attachment to sacrifice and self-sacrifice. I find it incredible from Rand readers. (Brings to mind Kant, somehow...)

But I'll try again from what I deduce from Rand:

If the value held in a loved one, from the past to the present and for the envisaged long term, transcends whatever you can possibly do for her, everything you do do, is NOT a sacrifice, and not "exception-making", either.

Her value to you is above it all, and calling an act for her "sacrificial" is self-contradictory (and frankly, insulting).

As corollary, if it is, or becomes, or is even considered self-sacrificial, it implies decreased value in her - so - no longer, love.

Solid and simple.

[Brant Gaede]

"Deduce from Rand" can be good or bad, right or wrong. As can she. A working premise that she is not wrong is another matter. That's Rand101. That's Rand for starters.

--Brant

[anthony]

"Deduce from Rand" can be good or bad, right or wrong. As can she. A working premise that she is not wrong is another matter. That's Rand101. That's Rand for starters.

--Brant

I'm not shy to induce and deduce from my own life experiences, either. If I observed Rand's ideas didn't fit with them, I'd say so.

Seriously?

Is it sacrifice in general, or only in the realm of love, which is being quibbled about here?

Something I was sure was never in doubt.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Let's go back to the thread topic, please. Define love in one sentence. Thanks.

[ThomasHägg]

My question for proponents of "sacrifice" in the name of love stands.

However I do have one question for whyNOT about his signature; Do you mean to say that altruism and selfishess are not true opposites? If so, then I would like to ask if you could show me how, because so far this would seem incorrect to me. And independence would certainly stand against altruism, but would also require selfishness.

Take the Galt quote: "It is your mind they want you to surrender -- all those who preach the creed of self-sacrifice...Those who start by saying: "It is selfish to pursue your own wishes, you must sacrifice them to the wishes of others" -- end up by saying: "It is selfish to uphold your convictions, you must sacrifice them to the convictions of others"."

Of course selfishness and altruism are opposites - but more narrowly, I think the component of selfishness which most opposes altruism, is the virtue of independence (of mind). A consciousness which is ultimately its own authority and final judge, cannot be surrendered or ruled by an altruist doctrine which demands its sacrifice.

The easy targets, those non-independent-minded, can be:

"The doctrine of self-sacrifice does not offend them: they have no sense of self or of personal value--they do not know what it is that they are asked to sacrifice..." [selfishness without a Self, AR]

Without an undermining of your convictions and sense of self, altruism and altruists can't survive, but it is the necessary precursor to controlling your actions, i.e., service to others.

Well written.

I think I'm detecting another subtle difference here, although I could be wrong because my morning coffee has not fully kicked in yet.

It would seem that the independence that you are refering to is the mind itself, or at least a very early impulse to think? Then I can understand and agree with you.

The definition of independence I was referring to was a more consciously developed characteristic in the life of a human being, that would still of course require an inherently" independent" mind according to the previous definition described above.

I may have used both definitions in the past actually. I wonder if there is a better term for either one or if it would be better to more accurately describe them as "inherent" and "developed"?

(It could also be that I missunderstood you, of course.)

Anyhow, I think this has been very interesting so far. I'm very happy I joined this forum.

[ThomasHägg]

Let's go back to the thread topic, please. Define love in one sentence. Thanks.

Love is the expression of one’s values, the greatest reward you can earn for the moral qualities you have achieved in your character and person, the emotional price paid by one man for the joy he receives from the virtues of another.

or

To love is to value.

The last one being the most logical, but perhaps the least engaging, as it doesn't mention emotions in particular.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Let's go back to the thread topic, please. Define love in one sentence. Thanks.

Love is the expression of one’s values, the greatest reward you can earn for the moral qualities you have achieved in your character and person, the emotional price paid by one man for the joy he receives from the virtues of another.

or

To love is to value.

The last one being the most logical, but perhaps the least engaging, as it doesn't mention emotions in particular.

And that's how babies are made? Joy received from the virtues of another?

(facepalm)

Dear blockheads, love is not good news. It empties your wallet. You and the loved one will be separated by death, provided that misunderstandings and hardships don't kill the initial flush of romance in the first couple months. Love is emphatically not about values or moral qualities, takes no notice of unrequited love, or the bond between parent and child (another exasperating wallet emptier). The way you've framed this discussion amounts to a rope-a-dope liturgy consecrating friendship and explaining pet ownership. Jingoistic love of God and Country.

Quit quoting theory. Look at Rand's love life, or her fiction. Massive trainwrecks.

[ThomasHägg]

Let's go back to the thread topic, please. Define love in one sentence. Thanks.

Love is the expression of one’s values, the greatest reward you can earn for the moral qualities you have achieved in your character and person, the emotional price paid by one man for the joy he receives from the virtues of another.

or

To love is to value.

The last one being the most logical, but perhaps the least engaging, as it doesn't mention emotions in particular.

And that's how babies are made, huh?

I was just about to post another message that included the line "Without questioning my past love life, if you don't mind". Guess I should have. I've got to be honest, you're not coming of as a very caring person so far.

What kind of "exceptions" does your "love" imply? Exceptions to everything? And why could I not have a child with a woman based on my description of love? Does the penis really care? slapfacepalm

[ThomasHägg]

Let's go back to the thread topic, please. Define love in one sentence. Thanks.

Love is the expression of one’s values, the greatest reward you can earn for the moral qualities you have achieved in your character and person, the emotional price paid by one man for the joy he receives from the virtues of another.

or

To love is to value.

The last one being the most logical, but perhaps the least engaging, as it doesn't mention emotions in particular.

That's how babies are made? Joy received from the virtues of another?

(facepalm)

Dear blockheads, love is not good news. It empties your pockets. You and the loved one will be separated by death, if misunderstandings and hardships don't kill the initial flush of romance in the first couple years. It is emphatically not about values or moral qualities. The way you've framed this whole discussion is a rope-a-dope ringer for friendship or pet ownership. Best friends forever (BFF) in tween parlance.

As long as it's also a romantic sexual relationship, BFFs sounds like marriage...

There is quiet a difference between pet ownership and regular friendship isn't there? "It empties your pockets"? Is this some sort of requirement? And the death you speak of is not chosen. Death happens to us all sooner or later.

If there are no values involved at all, then who needs love? I could just go see a prostitute. Sounds like it would actually cost me less.

[Wolf DeVoon]

If there are no values involved at all, then who needs love? I could just go see a prostitute. Sounds like it would actually cost me less.

You talk as if "values" are universal, no difference between men, women, children, dykes or dicklickers.

[ThomasHägg]

If there are no values involved at all, then who needs love? I could just go see a prostitute. Sounds like it would actually cost me less.

You talk as if "values" are universal, no difference between men, women, children, dykes or dicklickers.

I don't even know how to respond to this... But I'm pretty sure I never said that. You talk as if values are not necessary at all.

So I guess our conversation ends here. That is unless you want to provide an argument rather than a picture. I'm not holding my breath.

[ThomasHägg]

Quit quoting theory. Look at Rand's love life, or her fiction. Massive trainwrecks.

(I should have responded to this earlier)

Because making mistakes is easy.

You can't honestly say that you got everything you know only from first hand experiences. In anything, you need a theory of how things works. You think ahead all the time. You can make it explicit or you can figure out the details as you go along. Results will tell what you did and when. That doesn't mean that you can't revise a theory if it turns out to be innacurate in some regard.

Rand did some great things, but she also made mistakes. She adjusted to reality, like we all do. (Some would say she didn't adjust enough, but that's a different story and one I couldn't tell.)

Objectivists can make mistakes and re-adjust without necessarily having to reject Objectivism (or the congruent conclusions in Rands writing, if you prefer I separate the two).

I think this would be the perfect note for me to end on for now.

[Brant Gaede]

"Massive trainwrecks"? She pretty much got what she wanted. She was powerful and big.

I have no idea why you say that about her fiction unless you rend out the reader's thinking things through to myriad conclusions leavened by reality. After almost 60 years, we're still talking about AS. "Quit quoting theory" is not an argument against quoting theory either. If you have one start a thread about it, and with more than that.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

Jeez, Brant. You're on a roll this morning. Trump can't win a debate, we can't prove there's no God, and Ayn Rand got what she wanted.