On Monday, May 29, 2000 3:23 AM Nadia QueeneMUSE@aol.com wrote:
> > 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?
> Sigh.... If that's love, baby... I can tell you, I'd hate to be with any
> those cold fish....
I think Rand had some interesting insights on relationships, but her
philosophical stance got the better of her. In this area, her theory
triumphed over reality in many ways.
> Besides finding that kind of "love" a truly boring relationship, I dont
> to get into what I think of her hero worshop requirements surrounding men.
> Rand, Brandon,
Actually, Branden -- derived from "Ben Rand" = "son of Rand."
> Barbara, her husband... really creepy stuff... plus her ideas
> about sex. It's all to dreadful and terrible and adolescent and
I wouldn't say "creepy," just weird -- as if that's much of change.:) The
funny thing is more how the affair was carried on openly.
As for her views on sexuality in general, I find them more a projection of
her peculiar personality than as firmly grounded in Objectivism. She seem
to reduce all sex to a power struggle -- like Camille Paglia. That said, if
her ideas on sexuality don't dovetail with the rest of her ideas, the
question to ask is what would better fit the latter. I actually think
Nathaniel Branden's books on romantic love -- _The Psychology of Romantic
Love_ and _The Romantic Love Question and Answer Book_; yet they didn't work
for me as pickup books!:) -- might better fit the bill here, though I by no
means think he's got the market cornered here, and there's lots of work to
be done. (This is assuming that his work has some validity. I believe it
> At this time I'd like to politely excuse myself... I think there's someone
> across the room who wants to talk about cumina, pelagia and
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:12:06 MDT