Re: PHIL: Egoism (Was ART: What Art Is)

From: Technotranscendence (
Date: Mon May 29 2000 - 20:32:17 MDT

On Sunday, May 28, 2000 11:32 PM Dan Fabulich
> That's easy for you to say (as they say). I suppose the difference
> between real love and the love depicted in, say, Atlas Shrugged is...
> is... what?
> Surely not simply failing to share your philosophical views? That
> seems excessively bitter.
> The feeling is there. At a minimum, the altruism is there (in the
> normal sense of the term, not Ayn Rand's contrived version). How
> could you tell the difference between these characters and characters
> who loved each other fully?

One must also remember that Rand and Nathaniel Branden did not see love as
deriving from shared philosophical beliefs, but shared virtues. Also, they
both see sense of life -- one's general feeling about "life, the universe,
and everything" -- as a major component in love, friendship, and esthetic
response. Sense of life and consciously held convictions (e.g., one's
philosophy), in this view, can clash.

I would also add other components. With me, e.g., physical attraction and
sexual drive are very important. One could say my "sense of life" responds
to that in others, but those two elements are not always completely under
control of the other person. Certainly, some people are just not attractive
to me, no matter what they do. (I'm sure many people feel the same about
me, so I'm not acting here as if I'm some sort of Narcissus or Adonis.
Would that I were that good looking!:) Ditto for sexual drive, though that
seems more malleable than physical attractiveness.

My two cents!

Daniel Ust

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:12:05 MDT