Selfish Romance

First, an update on the dorm:

The new chart. *sigh of relief*

So... they didn't go for my idea of dividing out the dishes, or the dishwasher, the sink, the toilet and everything else-- but at least we're not running through 108 eggs every week. The chart is, as you can see, *much* smaller than it was last time around, so I've got that going for me. Which is nice.

[Insert topics segway]

Greetings, Objectivist friends!

Ha! Funny, right? Get it? That would imply there's still a person in this morally-obtuse, socialist commune who sees Ayn Rand as something other than a figurative punching bag! I'm keeling over! Every single person you know, with virtually no exception, is adamantly and unknowingly a proponent of slavery through overbearing government.

Besides me, of course - your fearless leader of liberty and truth, as evidenced by a brilliant quote of Miss Rand's that has remained at the foot of my blog since its founding.

Anyway, the audience for this post is anyone. If you like politics and philosophy, consider it an elaboration on Randian ideas-- expanding upon her theories to improve social conditions for society by way of improvement in personal, loving interaction. If you just like girls/boys (in that way), consider it a long piece of dating advice, with the occasional interjection from an old, angry Russian. If neither of those prospects interests you, feel free to go. So that you didn't feel it was a total waste of your time, here's a picture of my adorable cat in his awkward pose by the Christmas tree.

Photo Cred: Mallory Oveson

I've brought you here to discuss the meaning of romance, and how a very particular form of 'selfishness' can amplify the utility gained through romantic relationships. Before you point a crooked finger with "RANDROOOOOOOOID" ...hear me out. I have my own critiques of Rand (too much government for my taste), but she's damn-well respected for a reason. Mostly because she's right when nobody wants her to be. Bear with me and bring an open mind, friend-- we all have a little something to learn from our former-Russian comrade.

Here's a concise video (¡y con subtítulos españoles!) with the Randian position I'm going to argue. For those who can't video, a transcription of what she says is provided below.

"You fall in love with a person, because you regard him or her as a value, and because they contribute to your personal happiness. Now, you couldn't fall in love with a person by saying: 'You mean nothing to me. I don't care whether you live or die, but you need me, and therefore I am in love with you.' If someone offered love of that kind, everyone would regard that as a deadly insult. That isn't love. Therefore, romantic love is a selfish emotion. It is the choice of a person as a great value, and what you fall in love with is the same values-- which you choose-- embodied in another person."
-Ayn Rand

"Deep stuff."
-Me

So let me give you some background. Skip the blue if you know what's up.

Ayn Rand's code of morality asserts that if you want to do anything- do it. And if you don't, that's immoral (assuming you could). But only for certain definitions of "want."

Rational people, she figures, are those who apply reason to their circumstance, and choose actions with the goal of maximizing their own long-term happiness. Therefore, if you "want" to rob a bank, on a whim, you aren't condoned to do so by Rand, because what you really don't want is to end up in jail (and if you sat down and thought about it, for even a second, you'd probably reach the same conclusion).

In essence, it's a philosophy of intelligent selfishness. Since "intelligent" and "selfish" are essentially the defining characteristics of "asshole," Rand doesn't get a lot of attention these days.

But don't think of it like that. It's not that kind of selfish. Rand has often replaced the term with "self-esteem" which, given people's modern interpretation of words, is a better description of what we're looking at here. You need self-esteem-- and lots of it. Because you aren't going to be happy otherwise.

To reiterate Rand a little bit, imagine the following scenario: your boyfriend/girlfriend/significant other pulls up in a car by your house to deliver an important message to you, in person. S/he says: "Look, I don't actually get anything out of being with you. I'm not happier when I'm around you, and I'd really rather spend my time with someone else instead. But I know that you need me, and so I, in my benevolent selflessness, will remain with you, and in love with you, but for your sake alone."

And you say something like: "I've got two fists and roughly zero reasons to stop myself."

But seriously, nobody wants that! Screw that "love!" True love is when person A wants person B, for being B, and person B wants person A, for being A. True lovers treat each other like precious diamonds, not like slave drivers.

At this point you might be thinking simple enough, I go after the one that I want-- and that's a good starting place. Lots of the "sympathetic" types try to date the ones they don't want, in an attempt to make "unwanted" people feel better about themselves. Please don't do that. The funny thing about love is that there really is somebody for everybody, and the fact that you see them as undesirable doesn't mean that everyone else will too. It's just a matter of preference. When you go to the ice cream shop, you don't pick up vanilla when you want chocolate in order to give vanilla some business. Vanilla's responsible for advertising itself-- and it's doing just fine, thank you very much. I freaking can't get enough vanilla ice cream.

There are disastrous consequences resulting from the inevitable break-up of a relationship founded on pity (unless you don't break-up, in which case, welcome to hell). Not only do both parties get a nice, hefty feel-bad session, the unlucky man or woman you strived to help will proceed to torture his own self-esteem-- the very worst of pains. In the dating world, this is called "leading on." In the world of economics, it's called idiocy (or, more accurately, "irrationality").

The second piece to accompany your conclusion is that you have to follow through. You actually have to go after the ones you want. Fear and nervousness can be really self-destructive in large quantities, especially when it comes to romance. If you want someone, it's your task to decide if they're worth going for, by carefully analyzing the scenario with your mind. With reason. If they're worth it-- by the long-term benefits outweighing the costs, according to the values you ascribe, then you have a moral obligation to go forth and romance. Allowing your laziness, shallowness, nervousness, fear, or any other short-sighted emotion get in the way of that, is wrong. It's unfair to you.

I'm not suggesting, as I worry far too many people misunderstand, that we should adopt some heartless, calculated philosophy where one discards his emotions in favor of cold, hard logic. Emotions and logic go hand-in-hand, especially when the goal in the first place is to create happy emotions. In any given happenstance, it's the job of people to internally evaluate their emotions, what inspired them, and what they should do about them. However, none of them should let his emotions influence his judgement. It's easy to get carried away and satisfy an emotion felt in the present, but do so in a way that dictates many negative emotions to come for the future. Long-term happiness should be favored to that of the short-term, and distinguishing between the two requires that people be in-tune with their feelings, as well as their thinking mind. Reason, then, should be the means by which decisions are processed, and emotions should be the acknowledged product of those decisions.

Rand says it better, if you're willing to take a whole entire five minutes out of your day to watch her. A younger her, mind you.

I'm very curious about the reader's thoughts on this, and on Ayn Rand-- please leave a comment if you feel so inclined.