SoloHQ: Forum

Forum

Forum : Article Discussions : Romance & Rationalism

Friday
May 10, 2002

Romance & Rationalism by Lindsay Perigo

In seeking a romantic partner, many Objectivists begin with a floating abstraction called John Galt, or Howard Roark, or Dagny Taggart - characters from Ayn Rand's novels. These characters always know their own minds, never falter, never experience fear, doubt, or confusion, never err, never belch, never break wind, never fumble when uncorking the wine. They are without flaw, failing or foible. In reality, they don't exist. But such is the power of Ayn Rand's projection of them that many Objectivists will settle for nothing less in their own lives. The consequences of this rationalistic attitude are personal misery & destruction ... (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (15 messages)

Friday, May 10, 2002 - 7:06am

I don't find Rand's formulation of romantic love as troublesome as some people do. Indeed, her identification in Atlas of what is implied by the type of people we find attractive hit me with a strong beam of light and was instrumental in helping me reevaluate my approach in this area. As with many of Rand's observations and principles, I find more difficulties in how people understand or implement what she said than in what she actually said. The fact that she often failed to "follow her own advice" shows that eloquently enough. Is she or Objectivism at fault because some people fail to distinguish between fictional characters and real life? I would argue, "no."

Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 9:59am

I am married to my ideal mate and I am totally content. Weather he ‘burps’ or ‘stumbles with the wine cork’, has never been an issue because it is not an important thing. Priorities people! Priorities! All the important things are there in my 'hero'. His sense of life is equal to mine and we have never felt it necessary to sacrificing anything for each other, nor to change each other in any way. We recognize a kindred spirit when we find one. When that recognition is there, we become friends. When it is strong and equally beneficial and rewarding to both, we become partners.

Rand writes about being the best possible person that you have the ability to be. Dishwasher, or doctor. Not to do so would be self-destructive. Not every life will be of ‘heroic proportions.’ A life lived to the best of your ability and awareness is all she asks. I agree with Rand’s romantic concept.

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 12:36am

Linz, you wrote: "Yet were she [Ayn Rand] here to argue the point with me, I believe I could bring her round."

That's as funny a line as I've read in a long time!

You also wrote: "I would remind her that her love for her husband of fifty years, Frank O'Connor - someone by no means of the artificial stature of any of her fictional heroes - proved to be far more real, enduring & rewarding than that for the "John Galt" in her life, Nathaniel Branden."

She would respond that Nathaniel turned out not at all to be the John Galt in her life; that the true John Galt was Frank.

You wrote: "But the mind must accept, to be rational about it, that the body has reasons which, as yet - & Rand notwithstanding - the mind knows not of."

I agree that we don't know the reasons yet, but Rand would have you shot at sunrise for the expression.

I think Nathaniel made a very good point in his interview in The Free Radical when he spoke of our recognition that a person we are physically attracted to shares our view of sex, that we recognize a kindred spirit sexually.

Barbara

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 1:12am

Yes!

Ms. Branden, that was my favorite post of yours, thus far.

Are you saying that it's easy to tell if someone likely shares your sexual personality, instantly? And that is what draws people together sexually?

Would a sense like that, manifest as body language?

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 2:28am

Now why on earth are you reading the *old* version of Romance & Rationalism at this late stage? As it happens, I deleted that line about Nathaniel & Frank as one of the revisions I made in the recent version:

http://www.solohq.com/Articles/Perigo/Romance_and_Rationalism_Revisited_and_Revised.shtml

I don't doubt that Rand would have me shot at dawn, or before, for that line about the mind not yet knowing all the reasons. But I subscribe to the David Kelley view that if something is true, whether Rand acknowledged its truth or not, it cannot conflict with Objectivism.

Folk have told me they found this article helped *them* break free of rationalism in their romantic pursuits. That'll do me.

Linz

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 4:50am

Linz, might you possibly reprint that in a booklet and mail it to all living Objectivists? :) It is a stumbling block most of them run into head-first. I did it myself for a long time, and learned the hard way.

It is wonderful to share a set of core values with someone, but it has been proven to me time and again that this is not enough. It is a start, to be certain, but there are so many other factors involved. I think the sexual connection hits the nail on the head, so to speak, as a shared sense of life is paramount to the success of a relationship.

Thanks for posting this.

Jennifer

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 11:12pm

Linz, the version of "Romance and Rationalism" to which I responded was the one referred to under "Solo Romance." I had no idea it was outdated.

You wrote: "But I subscribe to the David Kelley view that if something is true, whether Rand acknowledged its truth or not, it cannot conflict with Objectivism."

I subscribe to the same view, which I think I've made clear many times -- which is why I wrote that I agreed that the body has reasons that the mind does not yet understand.

Why are you huffy about my response? I liked your article.

Barbara

Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 4:20pm

Not huffy - just disconcerted to find the old version still in circulation after I had so recently updated it, & a portion I had seen fit to delete being quoted, to boot.

Linz

Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 9:04pm

Fair enough, Linz.

Barbara

Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 9:08pm

Orion wrote: "Are you saying that it's easy to tell if someone likely shares your sexual personality, instantly? And that is what draws people together sexually?"

I can't prove it, but I think it is the case - at least in my experience. As to how it manifests itself in body language, that's a fascinating question, which I've never thought about, but will. I'm sure it would have to manifest itself in body language.

Barbara

Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 5:36am

Barbara, I've noticed the same thing, but can't put my finger on why, specifically. Mutual attraction must manifest itself in some kind of mirroring in body language. Interesting tangent.

John

Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 11:43am

(Barbara, I've noticed the same thing, but can't put my finger on why, specifically. Mutual attraction must manifest itself in some kind of mirroring in body language. Interesting tangent.

John)

Anyone here familiar with Jung's theory of animus/anima projection, and how it might relate to this?

Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 12:52pm

Is anyone here familiar with Mark Riebling? I came across a piece writen by him called Atlas Shagged, which thoughtfully critiques Objectivist views on human sexuality and romance, and I found it to be particularly relevant. I would say my own views on the subject closely align with his.

Interestingly, Riebling is more well known as an author of books on defense policy and security issues. He wrote a book (pre 9-11) called Wedge, which documents how turf wars between the FBI and CIA undermine US national security. He's currently a Director at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.

He is also a Rush fan!

Sunday, November 6 - 6:43pm

Linz,

This was a terrific article. Does anyone have any suggestions about how to help new Objectivists with rationalism? People really shouldn't have to spend years of their lives on hold waiting for perfection or dealing with misconceptions of Objectivism.

Jim

Sunday, November 6 - 8:40pm

James - Peikoff's course, Understanding Objectivism, is an extensive debunking of rationalism. Joe Rowlands has several excellent articles right here that would be helpful. But you've given me an idea for my next article. "Rationalism - A Trap for Young Players." I shall be sure to litter it with useful tips! :-)

Linz