I got a comment on one of my previous mails. The comment is given below in italics.
I know this is late, but still...
You know what I'm thinking? When you/I/we say that love is "earned" by means of 'virtue', 'virtue' needs to be defined. And virtue - like anything else that is moral - is a very subjective thing. After what I've been through, 'virtue' has begun to acquire a new meaning these days. So, I think to resolve this argument -- for my sake -- for once and for all, let us try to define virtue.
Initially, I used to believe virtues could be 'counted', as in I could make a list of characteristics -- which I (again it's 'I' - a subjective issue here) deemed worthy -- and then say whether I loved (I'm talking of all kinds of love here) a person or not depending on how many of these characteristics he/she had. And then when he/she started losing these characteristics, I would then stop loving that person. I've since come to realize that this is wrong.
So, back to defining virtue. This is what I believe in now: the only virtue that ultimately matters in a person is whether that person is 'good' at heart or not. Again, by trying to see whether a person is good or not, I'm wary of falling into the 'characteristics list' trap. To me, whether a person is good or not, is solely based on the same three principles
Ayn Rand propounded -- egoism, reason and freedom. A set of core values -- that is all! And this is where I believe I'm making the shift from being judgmental -- which is what made me 'love' people on the basis of my 'characteristics list' -- to being perceptive and understanding -- which is what now makes me aware of the "goodness" in them.
When we start disliking people on the basis of the 'characteristics list', I feel we are being less understanding of their situation and circumstances. Like Atticus Finch, we need to put ourselves in their shoes and feel what they are feeling. What we dislike are merely faults in them. The faults don't matter -- they just obstruct our view of the bigger picture. Working on them does, however. And this is where the 'goodness' comes into play.
Not having the courage to make a life-altering decision might be an indication of cowardice, which could make you not 'love' someone. Throwing insults out of anger is also not justified, which could also make you fall out of 'love'. But when someone tries to undo every 'bad' thing -- by summoning the courage to make that life-altering decision, by regretting every insult -- that is when you need to stop, become Atticus Finch, and start feeling.After all, we are beings of emotion, even though we bide by reason. Maybe it makes us weak, but then it is also what makes us love.-- The double dashes give me away.PS: Turn on the word verification.
Now to my reply .
I realize the importance and implications of what you have stated above fully, It was mighty important for you to make the shift from being judgemental to being perceptive and understanding, that’s the only way you could have done certain things which you couldn have done otherwise. You believed in certain core values or rather the 'characteristic list' and am sure you still continue to believe them but you were caught in the classic inner conflict of heart vs mind(emotion vs reason). Your mind said that she doesn’t meet your characteristic list or rather a part of it and hence you cannot love her the way you want to but your heart refused to take this as a justification. Though your mind damned her your heart still longed for her and you had to come up with some thing really convincing that would resolve this conflict and this has to be done before taking any further steps. And trust me the explanation above was quite convincing.
You said "To me, whether a person is good or not, is solely based on the same three principles ,Ayn Rand propounded -- egoism, reason and freedom. A set of core values -- that is all! " You agree that these are core values , these form the basis on which a person should base his code of life. And I hope you also agree that what ever virtues or the 'characteristic list' we form, every virtue can be traced back to one of these core values. Lets say we call the core three as primary values and the rest of the virtues in the list as derived values. Now it is safe to assume that a person who meets all the primary virtues requirements would inevitably meet the derived virtue requirements. Now if you see that one of the derived values is not being met in a person in whom you believed all the primary virtues were met, then there exists a contradiction, being a proponent of Ayn rand its not much use to tell you that "Contradictions doesn’t exists' remember A is A . Then where did this anamoly creep in, the only place I see is that you have made an error in judgement when you believed that the person met all primary virtues.
You said " And this is where I believe I'm making the shift from being judgmental -- which is what made me 'love' people on the basis of my 'characteristics list' -- to being perceptive and understanding -- which is what now makes me aware of the "goodness" in them. " I have a clarification here what do you precisely mean by goodness here? You seem to suggest that charateristic list and goodness are two different planes . For me they are one and same, I don differentiate between the two for me if a person meets the charateristic list he is good and if a person is good he meets my charateristic list. Going by what I have stated, a person is either good or bad (absolutes black or white) but I guess you are ready to accept people for their varying levels goodness ( grey areas) i.e giving justifications to peoples vices and accepting them for the fraction of goodness in them, this is what I infer when u say "What we dislike are merely faults in them. The faults don't matter -- they just obstruct our view of the bigger picture. "
And to your final comment " After all, we are beings of emotion, even though we bide by reason. Maybe it makes us weak, but then it is also what makes us love." I believe being beings of emotion or reason has nothing to do with our ability to 'make us love' .
5 comments:
Let's take this to the next level.
Shortcomings in your reply:
1) You still haven't defined virtue -- which I have. Unless you define it for yourself you won't recognize love even if it stares at you in the face. Maybe you already have it defined, but I would like to see it in writing.
2) You haven't explained the link between the core values and the characteristics list, which is absolutely crucial and central to your argument and mine.
Now for my refutation:
1) There is no heart and there is no mind, there is but one consciousness in which reason and emotion -- not necessarily conflicting in nature -- play their own roles. From your reply, I gather you consider the "heart" as weak (again your connotation of "heart" is "being unreasonable" whereas I think one of "emotional cognition" is better), which is not necessarily the case. When you say "your mind damned her" your reasoning is myopic. My "mind" viewed her action and her action alone, and found it rather unpleasant. If I had left it at that, things wouldn't have transpired as they now have. But I needed to know the "motive" behind the action, the "reason", and only by learning of it on my own would I be able to come to an honest conclusion, because I know she loves me and since contradictions don't exist, she would never do anything that I would find unpleasant. So what do I do? I analyse her action in detail, and after learning of the reason (on my unbiased own) I realised she did nothing wrong. I found her "motive" perfectly reasonable. This is not justifying a vice (you are confusing vice with faults and mistakes I think), but seeing beyond the obvious. And what helped me realise this? The emotion behind the action. So what's true now? The action or the emotion?
2) Your argument has a hole here:
"Now it is safe to assume that a person who meets all the primary virtues requirements would inevitably meet the derived virtue requirements." -- by saying this what you are implying is that two people with the same set of core values -- primary values as you have put it -- need to have the same set of "derived values", which is not true, and this is where you need to probe further. The main line of reasoning behind my argument in the earlier comment was that people with the same set of core values can have different ""derived values" and hence different "perceptions" of the same issue! And this is why I drew the parallel to Atticus Finch, in that you need to become understanding of people's motives -- you have not referred to this point in your reply.
In order to substantiate this I bring to your memory a classic example from Fountainhead -- One issue: Ellsworth Toohey. Three perceptions: Steve Mallory, Gail Wynand, Howard Roark. Core values: Same. Need I say more?
Each of these three characters had three different ways of reacting to the same situation, each unique and independent, and each correct in its own way. Why? Because the "derived values" -- even though different -- had the same origin. So is Mallory wrong in choosing to shoot Toohey? Or is Roark wrong in being blind to what Toohey is doing to him? You will find a lot of instances even in Atlas Shrugged of how people with the same core values have different "derived values".
3) You seek a clarification regarding "goodness" -- The "goodness" I talked about is the "reason" and the "motive" behind the actions, as explained already. For that alone will lead us onto the truth.
4) "You seem to suggest that charateristic list and goodness are two different planes . For me they are one and same, I don differentiate between the two for me if a person meets the charateristic list he is good and if a person is good he meets my charateristic list."
The question you need to ask yourself -- provided you agree that different "derived values" can result from a base core set -- is how broad, or rather, how narrow should your characteristic list be? Needless to say, the above theorem of yours fails -- on both counts. A person can meet your characteristics list and still not have the same set of core values, and a person can meet your core values and have a different characteristics list of his/her own. Just tell me if you need an example, and I'll provide one in the next reply (I'm sure this isn't going to end soon). So what do you need? Characteristics list compatibility or core value compatibility? Spouse or soul mate?
4) The Black and White Issue: You are right -- one needs to seek everything out in black and white. But the problem with your seeking everything in black and white is that you seem apprehensive of confronting the border.
For want of a graphical tool, I ask you to visualise this. Consider a 2 mile long line, with a point exactly at the middle, separating a mile of "white" and a mile of "black", the "black" part starting at the 0 mile mark and the "white" part ending at the 2 mile mark.
I see you standing at the 1.25 mile mark and calling out at those behind you but still above the 1 mile mark, and therefore on the "white" side, "you're in the black, you are a bad person, you and I are not compatible." Get what I mean? I think you are conscientiously keeping away from the border and are not willing to find the exact point at which the black ends and the white begins. With all due respect to all that you've gone through, I still believe you didn't/haven't go/gone the extra distance. I believe, with her, I have neared the demarcating point with this incident that you have raked up.
Seeking the emotion behind the action and validating it does not mean willing to settle for less or compromising with the gray areas. I believe there is but a fine line between giving up on something believing it to be in the gray and seeking the truth about something that could still be in the "white".
Ayn Rand's philosphy is powerful and very true. Rather than being entrenched in it, one needs to constantly challenge it to understand its depth and beauty, rather than being content with a superficial understanding. This is where the significance of the methods used when translating theory to practicality comes to the fore. Improper methods can undermine even the greatest of philosophies. It is easy and -- if I may so say -- convenient to blame it on an error of judgment rather than validating the methods one uses to arrive at a conclusion. Contradictions can have many sources.
5) As said earlier, faults and mistakes are not synonymous with vices. I think this is self-explanatory. On second thought, I should explain this. Again, Atlas Shrugged provides a wonderful example of this in the form of the interactions between Francisco d'Anconia and Hank Rearden. Rearden, initially, could see only the actions and hence thought of Arconia as a man of vices, but he later understands the truth.
A fault or a mistake is an action, whereas a vice is the "motive" or "reason" behind the action. To me, all your conclusions are based on the actions and not the "motives". This is why I stress upon the need for the proper methods. So by basing your conclusions on the action, you are being short-sighted. You need to look at the "motive" and if that motive is good enough, then that is all that matters. As far as I can see, she loves you, and you're just refusing her because you are just looking at her actions, and are probably afraid that you might be compromising on your integrity (which, I think, you won't) by going back on what you decided -- it takes a lot of courage, I know.
Maybe all that she needs is a little bit more of reassuring that you'll be there for life -- is that too much to ask?
6) I don't understand the meaning behind "being beings of emotion or reason has nothing to do with our ability to 'make us love'" -- mere refutation is not enough. You need to substantiate. In fact, I find this reccurring at quite a few places in your reply:
a) How do you say that the characteristic list and goodness are one and the same? Where is the link? How did you draw the conclusion? I have refuted this hypothesis by the way, so it really doesn't matter to me how you arrived at that theorem.
b) "you had to come up with some thing really convincing" -- did you pause to think why this "some thing" would have been convincing to me? You seemed to have "judged" my action without "perceiving" the "motive" behind it. You don't explain how you arrived at this trite opinion of yours.
7) Gail Wynand said it beautifully when he says an emotion that changes didn't exist in the first place. I think the emotion that you had for her is still alive inside you, but you are desperately trying to make yourself believe otherwise. One reason may be that her actions (the faults/mistakes) remind you of what certain characters do in Ayn Rand's books, but I think there is a fundamental difference between her and them -- the "motive". All I'm asking you to do is to look at the motive. If you already have, fine, move on. If not, then I ask you to do so. Because I don't want you to pass this up. Don't let vanity masquerade as pride and make you blind.
8) Since I love confusing people, I'm discovering that compatibility is something that goes beyond core values. What I mean is, even when the core values match, love can still be boring. Go figure ;)
-- Awaiting your reply.
PS: I checked your blog only today, so pardon the delay in replying.
-- Me again.
@anon : I just saw your reply. I shall post my reply soon. In the mean while , I jus wanna ask one question " Can you see yourself living your life with a person whose core values are totally different from yours ?"
I'm afraid that's a rhetorical question. I don't see the point behind you asking me this.
However, I'm quite curious as to why you ask. I can't see how my earlier comment led to your asking this, for nowhere have I said anything which might make you want to ask me this.
The answer is no. I thought that was a given.
@anon : Thanks !
I jus din wanna assume thats all.
Post a Comment