| | I agree with you, Tibor. And with trepidation of going off-topic, I want to add some things.
Too often I run into Objectivists who are looking for some generic storybook figure, some walking collection of abstract virtues and principles, some Dagny or Rearden or Roark, etc. I often smile to myself, knowing full well that if they did encounter such an entity, they probably wouldn't be able to stand being around them for more than an hour.
The reason is that we are not just collections of generic, abstract philosophical premises. We are not floating brains, and our bodies aren't just carrying cases for them. We are, each of us, something very unique and specific, and both mind and body. In both of those aspects, we are also individuated. We are not generic abstractions; we are concrete particulars, with many unique characteristics. When we define man as "a rational animal" we tend to focus on the adjective, not the noun, and the genus "man," not the specific "me."
Finding someone generically "good" or even "great" is not sufficient grounds for a particular attraction. The question is: good or great for whom? Moral character is important, but not enough. Intelligence is important, but not enough. Beauty is a plus, not enough, perhaps not even necessary. In fact, being all-around "wonderful" is not enough. I've met any number of wonderful women. I've been involved with several. But I've found very few wonderful women are wonderful for me.
Moral character and intelligence define only the initial boundary lines of possible personal interaction. They circumscribe the "set" of possible candidates for friendship or romance. But that's just the beginning.
This is a lesson most people who've done "computer dating" learn quickly. Frequently you run across some "profile" that sounds perfect...on paper (or on the screen). The photo image, plus the list of qualities, interests, values and virtues, are compelling. And sometimes when you meet that person, you find that he or she wasn't at all deceptive in their self-description. You have to acknowledge that on all those Big Things they are truly admirable.
But then you discover that all the "little things" you never even thought of are constant nagging sources of friction. We say "the chemistry wasn't right."
And what are the "chemical" ingredients? Lots of things.
Do you share the same temperament and moods? Are you an indoor or outdoor person? A day or night person? Optimist or pessimist? Is your mental style abstract or concrete or metaphorical? Are you quiet or verbal? Do you both like the same kinds of music? What kind of energy level do you both have? Are you fastidiously neat, or relaxed and casual? Do you share the same sense of humor? Are you both tactile and physically demonstrative, or physically withdrawn? Do you like to verbalize everything, or leave a lot to unspoken implications? Etc., etc.
If you think such matters are petty and unimportant, try to live around someone who doesn't mesh with you on a number of those levels. And to "mesh" may not even mean to be alike: sometimes differences can complement rather than be points of friction.
On the plus side, sometimes the "particulars" can line up so well and create so powerful an attraction that even supposed Big Things -- such as explicit philosophical agreement -- seem to fade to insignificance. We are, after all, looking for romantic partners, not debating partners.
All of which is to say that relationships are built on a host of individuating, not just generic qualities. Think of gears meshing, or of the right key for the right lock.
And don't bother writing up a list of such particulars. As we evolve in life, the priorities we place on those things are always shifting and changing.
What's the relevance of all this here? Well, we were discussing the relevance of Rand's personal life; and our answer has to be based on the fact that we haven't a clue what two people really see in each other. I suppose one moral implication is that we should cut people a lot of slack about their particular romantic choices, and not bother to draw weighty philosophical or psychological inferences about them for their selections. Because attractions are so particular and unique, its virtually impossible to know the answer to the question, "What in the world does she/he see in her/him?" All we can know is that the partners must have touched each other on a profoundly personal, individual level that even the participants may not fully understand.
|
|
