About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Page 14Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 280

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 8:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Based on the most recent posts by Jon and Hong, I clearly need to define key terms.

Dependence: A condition in which an individual cannot survive without the support of another person.

Codependence: A destructive relationship between two or more dependent people, or between a dependent and an enabler.

Independence: A condition in which an individual can survive without the support of another person.

Interdependence: A productive relationship between two or more independent people.

Given how much dependence versus independence gets discussed in the Objectivist literature, I feel surprise that I need to explain them here.

Of course I would expect a committed couple to work as a team and be able to "depend" on each other to work toward mutually agreeable goals and values.  In the end, though, the ultimate responsibility for your life falls on your own shoulders -- not those of anyone else, including your spouse.  To expect otherwise is to fall into the codependence trap.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 281

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 8:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

You hadn’t written that you would survive. You said your happiness would be unaffected.

Rand wrote that love involves, “I need you.”

So, with a dictionary and a sufficient quantity of cluelessness, I can prove that Rand was a codependent.

Jon


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 282

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 9:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon wrote:

You hadn’t written that you would[n't] survive. You said your happiness would be unaffected.

Not exactly.  I had to dig to find Post 197 in which I said:

I have a woman in my life that I love and I do what I can to contribute to her happiness within the bounds of reason.  I am basically happy whether alone or with others -- or if I do find myself in an unhappy social situation, I have enough assertiveness to change that situation quickly.

I can see why my meaning there might not come across clearly.  I said I am "basically happy whether alone or with others."  This means that, if I lost her, my basic level of happiness as an "island" would remain unaffected while my additional experience of happiness arising from having her in my life clearly would vanish.

Great power and opportunity come from learning happiness in solitude as an "island" without a life-or-death feeling of "needing" others.

EDIT:

Jon also wrote:

Rand wrote that love involves, “I need you.”

In the case of Hank Rearden "needing" Dagny Taggart, yes.  But his life did not end when Dagny left him.  Surely he will go forward and find a more suitable mate.

Ayn Rand also wrote in her journals:

Actually, the parasite's attitude is: first, "Help me, because I'm weak and you're strong, I need you so much"; then second, when he got what he wanted: "Don't be so damn conceited, I don't need you at all." Here, the parasite got the effect and forgot the cause. In regard to his appeal, the parasite is humble and begs for charity—so long as the creator will not permit him anything else.  The moment the creator is demoralized and disarmed through the creed of altruism, the parasite turns arrogant and demands help as his rightful due, as the creator's duty. "Help me because I need you," then becomes an order, a command—not a plea.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 1/12, 9:24am)


Post 283

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 11:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sarah: And as for the Fred quote, how is "Hey, Jane, what say we go to my place at lunch for a roll in the hay?" in any way a "perfectly reasonable suggestion?"

Too often I hear men twist this issue.  The "PC" environment of today still does not forbid sexual advances in the workplace - only unwanted ones.  If Jane tells the guy in no uncertain terms that she is not interested, then further advances are the problem.  You will not be open to lawsuits for expressing initial sexual interest, rather only when you persist and know the attention is unwanted.




Post 284

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 11:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bob,

I'm not talking in terms of law, I'm talking in terms of personal relationships. How is inviting someone for a quickie with no emotional involvement reasonable?

Sarah

Post 285

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 12:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke clarified,
This means that, if I lost her, my basic level of happiness as an "island" would remain unaffected while my additional experience of happiness arising from having her in my life clearly would vanish.

Jon, I don't think this is the worst scenario at all. I believe for some people, their basic level of happiness would be greatly elevated if their spouse is gone.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 1/12, 3:01pm)


Post 286

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 12:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sarah,

I was a unclear.  I was actually responding to the erroneous assumption that seems to happen too often with men - assuming that the 'sexual harrassment' protection afforded women (OK both genders technically but...) is somehow anti-sex and anti-male.  It is not. 

In response to your question though:  If this type of question is asked in a private, non-threatening and sincere way, and if the response is accepted without protest (either outcome),  then the question is asked in good faith and is reasonable.  I don't happen to think it'd be terribly effective mind you, but that's irrelevent.  A quickie with no emotional involvment may very well be perfectly acceptable to both parties - or not.


Post 287

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 12:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ah, I see.

Post 288

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 12:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Luke clarified,

This means that, if I lost her, my basic level of happiness as an "island" would remain unaffected while my additional experience of happiness arising from having her in my life clearly would vanish.
Jon, I don't think this is the worst scenario at all. I believe for some people, their basic level of happiness would greatly elevated if their spouse is gone.



Isn't this why so many get divorced?


Post 289

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 5:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Parasites. Right, thanks, Luke.

(Luke added content to his post #282. I didn’t see it until just now.)


Post 290

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 8:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon wrote and edited: "If "assedness" had any role in "laidom" then I cannot begin to express my delight...Edit: I mean making up words."

It must have had a role, so please delight in it, but I am sure making up new words had nothing to do with rather, I think, "laidom" was an enlarged sub-conscious response to "assedness".

Not sure you want to take credit for that.

Michael


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 291

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 5:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon wrote:

Parasites. Right, thanks, Luke.

You are quite welcome!  Always glad to help.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 292

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 8:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

And you HAVE helped! Now I can complete the query Hong made…



Spouse: “I hope I can depend on you.”

Clueless: “Great power and opportunity come from learning happiness in solitude as an island.”

S: “If I die tomorrow, will you mind?”

C: “The happiness you contribute clearly would vanish, but my basic level of happiness as an "island" would remain unaffected.”

S: “I wasn’t asking your island.”

C: “Let’s talk about parasites instead.”

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 293

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 9:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon, your mischaracterization of my viewpoint as "clueless," along with your dropping of the context in which I would or would not assure my wife she could "depend" on me, amount to malevolence.  The same goes for those who sanction your venomous replies with Atlas icons.  I get the impression that some here on RoR abandon reason in favor of mindless emotionalism in the context of familial relations.

If my wife said she wanted to commit murder of an innocent, and she wanted me to "depend" on her, would she have any right to do that?

What if she wanted to embark on a doomed financial venture that I knew for a fact would fail but of which she had total conviction?  Should she be able to demand that she "depend" on me for "support" in pursuing her "dream"?

Everything I have stated remains fully consonant with Objectivism and its ethic of rational egoism.  I have successfully defended all of my points.  You have not.

I can see you have some sort of axe to grind with me, but I wonder what motivates such.

If you or your sanctioners have a problem with me as a human being, say it already!


Post 294

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 10:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
[oh my - the flow is going off the charts]

Post 295

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 10:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

S: “If I die tomorrow, will you mind?”
C: “Not if you are a murderer. Context!”

Luke, you introduced codependency into the discussion. Why did you do that? Which discussant or argument was that addressing? Until you can explain this, I have to consider it a smear of all the fine people who were kicking your butt. None of them were falling into any codependent traps when you introduced it. You just wanted to change the subject and hope no one noticed.


See, I could now go into a diatribe about the impossibility of coercive monopolies under capitalism. I could then say that all my points are consonant with Objectivism—but I’d still be clueless, right?

Jon


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 296

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 10:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon asked:

Luke, you introduced codependency into the discussion. Why did you do that?

It has total relevance to the issue of happiness, the moral purpose of man's life.  Some people here have acted as if their happiness depends entirely on their romantic relationships.  This places the power of achieving happiness completely into the hands of another.  No rational person would do that.  Such relationships may add a considerable degree of happiness to one's life, but to depend entirely on another for happiness amounts to codependence.

Leonard Peikoff himself notes in his book on Objectivism that the central purpose of a person's life is productive work consonant with one's own happiness.  Productive work is the only activity that can maintain a person's right relationship with thought, reality, and values. Neither social relationships nor recreational pursuits can replace it.

Perhaps you can post an article for us sharing your viewpoint on what role a romantic relationship plays in a person's overall flourishing in this world.  I may do the same.


Post 297

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 10:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

"Some people here..."

Who? Which post?

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 298

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 10:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon Letendre asked:

Who? Which post?
 
These people in these posts implied that their happiness depends on their respective spouses:
 
Hong Zhang in Post 276:

How to be Married and Still be Single
 
Hong Zhang in Post 278:

Are you kidding me? Of course I depend on my husband and he depends on me too. Otherwise why do we bother to get married? And I consider it a big advantage of marriage: to always have somebody to depend on.

So when your wife says "I hope I can depend on you", what do you answer?   "No no no, honey, please don't depend on me."? Is that what you would say?


Jon Letendre in Post 281:

Rand wrote that love involves, “I need you.”

Now if these parties meant only that their margin of happiness increased due to their spouses, then their admissions will corroborate my statements about margins as the proper role of romantic relationships in happiness with productive work as the central role.  However, such admissions will also refute Jon's malevolent mockery of my statements over the last few days.


Post 299

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 11:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon,
Looks like the parties Luke is up against include you, me, and Rand. I think we better give Luke a break so he may calm down and come back to his senses. I apologize to Luke for having made those entirely unnecessary comments . 


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Page 14Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.