Love and Selfishness

Ayn Rand Institute ^ | February 6, 2002 | Gary Hull

[riley1992]

Great piece.

[GWfan]

There are many types of love. The one dimensional view depicted here is typical of Rand followers. This brand of love is based on 'what you can do for me'. How depressing and hopeless. There is not one human who can measure up to anothers standard. This article's title should be edited to simply read Selfishness.

[LeeMcCoy]

"The time, effort and money you spend on behalf of someone you love are not sacrifices, but actions taken because his or her happiness is crucially important to your own."

A great article and an opinion that I agree with entirely.

[riley1992]

The one dimensional view depicted here is typical of Rand followers. This brand of love is based on 'what you can do for me'.

Did you even read the article?

[gjenkins]

"This brand of love is based on 'what you can do for me'. How depressing and hopeless. There is not one human who can measure up to anothers standard. This article's title should be edited to simply read Selfishness."

Nope. People surpass my standards daily ... whether they are explicitly doing something for me or not. By living rational and moral lives they are indeed doing something that benefits me. What we find depressing and hopeless is that love should be value-neutral and thus a duty.

[RJCogburn]

There is not one human who can measure up to anothers standard.

Beg your pardon, Pilgrim. My sweetie, Ms. Eula Goodnight, certainly does.

[GWfan]

Yes. This article turns love into a sensual, selfish experience and it makes love one dimensional.

Unconditional love is the highest form of love. But I believe in God. My definition is that God is love and that He loves me unconditionally. If you truly love someone, you should be willing to lay down your life for them. Is that selfish?

If love is defined without knowing God or knowing His nature, then it is indeed sad and selfish.

[Tokhtamish]

Those who argue that love demands self-denial must hold the bizarre belief that it makes no personal difference whether your loved one is healthy or sick, feels pleasure or pain, is alive or dead.

Remember how Orwell wrote about how the Burmese Communist Party came up with a written text that it's member were to use for marriage proposals ? When ideologues try to regiment their feelings along the lines of how they think people Ought to be, they say things as silly as this.

For richer for poorer ? In sickness and in health ? Or does Randian love last only so long as I am rich and you are young and pretty ?

[riley1992]

Unconditional love is the highest form of love.

It most certainly is and you will find it in God and a puppy, nowhere else.

If you truly love someone, you should be willing to lay down your life for them. Is that selfish?

The article doesn't dispute that. What it says is that love is selfish to a certain degree. If I am in love with a man, his happiness means everything to me but it is naive to say that how his love for me makes me feel doesn't matter to me. It matters greatly as it well should.

[GWfan]

It does dispute it, as it states that love should not be offered indiscriminately. We are called to love all people, for those who are most unworthy are most in need of love. This is not the same as loving their actions. The example the author gives of 'loving the sinner and hating the sin' is ridiculous. God is just. He loves us, even you, but He hates sin.

[Noumenon]

"The time, effort and money you spend on behalf of someone you love are not sacrifices, but actions taken because his or her happiness is crucially important to your own."

And what's wrong with that? Come on - reject the Kantian-Hegelian axis of evil. You can do it...

[palo verde]

Hi GWFan
long time, no see
I am happy to see you
Hi RJ
thank you for posting this article
I find it interesting
I don't favor sacrifice
I think God loves us all equally, infinitely, and unconditionally
As for conditional love -- you can only give yourself what you give another
if you don't allow freedom to the one you love, you are depriving yourself of freedom
Also I don't think the author realizes it is by loving our brother, that we love ourself
it is our own love we experience, when we love our brother
Love, Palo

[riley1992]

It does dispute it, as it states that love should not be offered indiscriminately.

You are speaking of a spirtual 'Love Thy Neighbor' form of love. The piece is speaking mostly toward the love between a man and woman and that had better be offered discriminately, I hardly think you can disagree with that.

He loves us, even you

He even loves poor, heretical, little ole me? Gee, thanks.

[spunkets]

"My definition is that God is love and that He loves me unconditionally."

If someone rejects Him, He will reject them. That rejection is refered to as damnation. That's a condition some miss.

[D-fendr]

Might as well ask a beaver about the proper use of chainsaws.

Rand-ism is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far.

[palo verde]

hi spunkets
I can't imagine God would stop loving anyone, no matter what
because why would He deprive Himself of the joy of loving them
Plus with His infinite wisdom and understanding, why would He damn them for making a mistake
We have free will to choose God, or not to
For me choosing God is the way to my happiness
but wouldn't it be unfriendly of God to damn me if I made the poorer choice for myself
Love, Palo

[GWfan]

There are 4 distinct types of love. The author attempts to 'mix it up' by confusing sensual love with unconditonal love. Here are the 4:

1.sensual love, that which stimulates the senses. ie: enjoying a sunset, eating a good meal, having sex.

2. family love, not sensual in nature. A mother's love for her children.

3. love of friends, not sensual, but brought about by common interests.

4. unconditional love or undeserved love, not sensual. Genuine concern for others. Not born of self-interest. This is the agape of the Bible. This is God's love for us.

I think that the author of this article is mixing unconditional love and senusual love to make his point. It just doesn't fly with me.

[GWfan]

Good morning Palo! I hope all is well with you. I have to get to work! I freep mail you later. ;)