| | John, thanks for the reply.
First off I agree that Tolkien does imply a platonic ideal, as you say. But he goes on, in the next breath, to decry it. Like Ted said, "Love is practical." Now Ted didn't actually say that exactly -- but, if I can speak for him here and now, that's what he meant.
So, when you ask how that's better than Rand's idea of love I'd have to say that it is only in those times where Rand's idea is more ideal than practical. Of course, that's question-begging -- because I haven't outlined which times Rand's idea is more ideal than practical (but mere stated that it will be sometimes). However, instead of just pulling thoughts out of my wee-hoo from an armchair, the reason that I know that Rand's idea will sometimes be too ideal in practice is because of having "been there / done that."
I call it John Galt Syndrome, and it's when folks look for perfect soul-mates -- it's when minor flaws are blown out of proportion as with a high-power microscope. Ever see a dust-mite under a high-power microscope? It's one of the scariest things I've ever seen, yet never will there ever be a time when I need actually fear one of them. That's proportion, and it's what's lost when folks have become stricken with John Galt Syndrome.
So you're saying better to take on a huge risk by not taking the utmost care because the reward is higher. But in what manner do you not take utmost care? Do you care enough to find someone who shares your values? Any values at all? How about taking a risk on someone who shares none of your values? Is the reward more optimal that way because the risk is higher? I'm saying that dust-mites aren't really something to spend time in hiding from, and that John Galts aren't really something to spend time in pursuit of. It's an instance of the Gambler's fallacy:
=========================
Desperately Seeking "John": If I just hold out ... just a little while longer ... I'll meet "him" and then, and then, I'll be happy.
Tolkien: But your life is more than half over now, and what you're doing isn't working. Searching for your perfect soul-mate is, on net, decreasing your potential happiness.
Desperately Seeking "John": I know, I know. But I read Atlas Shrugged, and it was real for Dagny, and I want that, too. You can't blame me for wanting what I want and for wanting better (than life affords).
Tolkien: Yes I can. I can blame your relative unhappiness on your very own unrealistic expectations.
Desperately Seeking "John": You know something? You're right. You're kinda' cute, too. Do you want to go out for dinner, J.R.R.?
=========================
The fallacy that should be avoided is thinking one can find the platonic ideal of a mate, that you could find someone that shares 100% all of your values, as opposed to finding a mate that shares enough of your core values where you can flourish together and cultivate a long-term healthy relationship.
Exactly.
"But to avoid refraining from taking the utmost care in relating to the mate you have or mates you will have -- because that's necessary for your optimized benefit."
Ok, so don't take utmost care in relating to your mate? John, you must've missed it but I used a double-negative (avoid refraining). Relating well to others is a necessary step toward human flourishing. "Active listening" -- a psychology concept -- is probably the most important tool for that.
Ed
|
|
Nearly all marriages, even happy ones, are mistakes: in the sense that almost certainly (in a more perfect world, or even with a little more care in this very imperfect one) both partners might be found more suitable mates. But the real soul-mate is the one you are actually married to.
