Man Breathes Life Into the World, Woman Breathes Life Into Man

I made a statement on my Facebook account some time ago. The statement sprung from wondering why Ayn Rand never had children, yet wrote something as profoundly inspiring as The Fountainhead – so much so that it would be accurate to say it has survival value.

The statement that came to me was that

“Man breathes life into the world, and woman breathes life into man”.

I will take the time to explore this statement today, and how the dots have become connected internally for me, in regards to how accurate I was in my original remark – yet was unable to fully explain the statement then, even to my own self.

To begin, Ayn stated throughout the course of her life that the purpose of her work was to depict the ideal man.

Take note of the italicized her in that sentence, because while Ayn was human, she was of the female gender.

A woman.

While some of her critics state that Ayn was very masculine, I think, the exact opposite was true to the highest degree possible.

I am in fact convinced that Ayn’s achievements are the full expression of her sex’s specific potential.

Which is not to be confused with the eternal success and monumental human achievement of her written works, and in what they expressed on philosophical, moral, ethical, and other levels – profound advancements that we all benefit from today.

What I am referring to is the uniquely female, deeply feminine under current of her work – to depict the ideal man.

Her unparalleled passion for this depiction – rarely seen in human history — throughout her work and entire life, I think, is her most overlooked and grossly undervalued achievement, and correspondingly the greatest female achievement possible.

Primarily, and perhaps strictly female to this high of a degree, because she did psychologically what only women are capable of physically – producing life and giving birth to man.

And she did it on a scale never before seen in the form of her epic novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

Ayn Rand breathed and continues to breathe life into every man willing and able to receive it (in the form of inspiration).

This is the true essence of the purpose she declared for her work, to depict the ideal man.

To depict is to breathe into. And every man has the potential to live congruently – to live his ideals.

This is why, I think, Ayn never chose to have children. Imagine how difficult it is to give physical birth to a child. Now think of doing that psychologically your entire life.

And doing it better than any woman before you ever has on so grand a scale – in such a  way that the breath is permanent and ever lasting.

A legacy of the successful depiction of the ideal man.




The mental “click” I had today is that

“Man breathes life into the world, and woman breathes life into man.”

is the clearest example possible in our race of a complementary difference between the sexes.

It is the fountainhead complementary difference that I think, all others are subsequent of and stem from.

It is the core reason we have founding fathers of the American States and not founding mothers. Yet behind the founding fathers and their generation were the women who supported them absolutely and completely — mothers, wives, daughters, sisters, friends, and everything in between.

It is the same reason Rand’s heroes were primarily men.

It is the cardinal reason Rand was writing books about such men – who do in fact exist – and not out designing buildings and running steel mills herself.

Doing such things was not of higher importance and value to her than writing about such men and achievements — in an age when such men and achievements were and are, scorned and damned by the many.

This was a correct and proper judgment on her part – the same way it is not in a man’s best self interest to attempt to physically produce life.

A strange, but appropriate comparison.

On the reverse, the destruction of this complementary difference is a destruction of both ends. Feminism is a modern expression of such destructive force. Attributing human characteristics to one gender or the other – one that belongs to both, not one or the other – is another expression of this destructive force, as Hammer unknowingly points out here from David Deida.

Quoting both Hammer and David (who Hammer quotes)

“There is an assumption made by this statement that totally ignores the differences between men and women. That assumption is that a woman’s truth is the same as a man’s. That she is capable of making choices for herself now that will be predicated on how she will feel ten minutes from now. From The Way of the Superior Man, Chapter 16:

“Keeping your word” is a masculine trait, in men or women. A person with a feminine essence may not keep her word, yet it is not exactly “lying.” In the feminine reality, words and facts take a second place to emotions and the shifting moods of relationship.”

Integrity is not a masculine trait. It is a human trait equally practice-able by both sexes.

It should be noted, the best women I have ever known, are women of integrity. And I should add, this statement by David Deida is a confession that he believes love to be irrational.

To the contrary, love, and especially romantic love as noted by Nathaniel Branden, is and can only be fully rational*.

*You can’t love any one without a specific and conditional reason. To love without reason is to love unconditionally. To love unconditionally is to love “everyone”, and in the process, no one, because you are making your self incapable of loving any one person more than the next.

Just try saying to some one you love “I love you because you are no better and no worse than the next person, so it might as well be you”.

(This is an impossible contradiction that is an attempt to make the process of valuing, valueless. Valuing no one person more than the next is also an anti-reality half court shot at “equality as an absolute”).

David’s view is contradictory, as especially noted by “… may not keep her word, yet it is not exactly “lying”.”

Of course it is. In fact it is lying in the most exact sense possible. You literally couldn’t be lying any more than you would be in such a situation and course of action.

It should be noted, some thing being popular in parts of the world does not make it right — a la “conventional wisdom“.




On two separate notes concerning Hammer’s post, which are of relevance to this post, Hammer is actually reaffirming one of my primary points on “rape”.

I quote Hammer

“Before I begin though, I want to assert that Anthony is creating a false dichotomy between sexual assault and rape. These are one in the same, and to try to define rape as anything other than sexual assault is just plain wrong.”

What Hammer does not realize – hence the use of the world false – is that rape and sexual assault, are NOT one in the same at present (and that this is not mend-able).

As noted in the cartoon embeded in “In Defense of Rape”, the cartoon uses the word “rapist”, not “sexual assaultist”.

This is illustrated that way for a number of reasons. One of those reasons is specifically that rape has long been detached from it’s chain to sexual assault as a synonymous term (if there ever even was a significant one to begin with).

“Rape”, by today’s standards, is completely undefined — or in other words, is unlimited and can be attributed to almost any act conceivable. As noted in previous posts, it has devolved into a modern day version of calling someone a “witch”.

It has no meaning in common use, the same way exercise, food, diet, health, and fitness are given no exact meaning.

The problem is that the unrelenting vague usage of this term is abhorrently harmful to a free society, and your very survival and quality of life as a young man. It’s pillaging affects nearly every facet of your life, and especially in your relationships with women (and subsequently vice-versa).

The threat this poses in the 21st century cannot be understated.

If this wasn’t clear earlier, it may have been partially my fault. I will not apologize though. If you can’t run with the big dogs, speak up, catch up, or stay on the porch. I don’t force anyone to read this blog.




The second point I will make stems from a comment left on Hammer’s blog from Lance, who I have met, like, and think highly of.

To quote

“To be totally honest, I thought the post was a reach and intended to be imflammatory for the sake of controversy. I say this with utmost respect for Dream’s writing, because I’ve been a fan of his life hacking endeavors and blogging for awhile. “

While I hold no such opinion of Lance or his blog, I find the act, in and of itself, of acting inflammatory and “for the sake of controversy”, deplorable to the highest of degrees.

I would sooner stick a pencil in my eye. I live, write, and work for my own sake. I have no reason and no desire to live through others, and would take my own life before doing so.

Or in the words of James Galt ;),

“I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

Such a thing is worse than death. It is the impossible compromise of evil and good existing in reality. It is worse than evil. It is anti-existence.




In summary of the original topic and points, my statement, that is of my own design, is the pinnacle expression of the complementary difference between the sexes.

“Man breathes life into the world, and woman breathes life into man.”

The intellectual – if you can call it that – glob of mindless feminism would have you destroy such a difference. Destroy because feminists seek to destroy everything, the same way collectivists seek to destroy man as the individual that he is.

Put more literally, the highest expression of femininity is to breathe life into man. Physically this is giving birth. Psychologically, as in Rand’s case, it was inspiring the ideal in men to surface in every man. It is up to such men to live the ideal which is possible to them.

Which is to say, the highest expression of masculinity, is to breathe life into the world, for your own reasons, and for your own sake.

“Behind every great man stands a great woman.”*

Ayn Rand stands behind us all — the men of the mind.

– Anthony Dream Johnson


*Ironically, this is an “adopted feminist slogan”. I find this highly amusing, yet also tragic, as another example of feminists adopting an idea that is the intellectual equivalent of a cyanide pill — in their corrupted use of it, as a complete rejection of the highest feminine expression possible.

About Anthony Dream Johnson

CEO, founder, and architect of The 21 Convention, Anthony Dream Johnson is the leading force behind the world's first and only "panorama event for life on earth". He has been featured on WGN Chicago, and in the NY Times #1 best seller The Four Hour Work Week.    His stated purpose for the work he does is "the actualization of the ideal man", a purpose that has led him to found and host The 21 Convention across 3 continents and for 6 years in a row. Anthony blogs vigorously at and

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

38 Responses to Man Breathes Life Into the World, Woman Breathes Life Into Man

  1. Dv7 March 11, 2011 at 6:03 pm #

    Do you consider yourself an Objectivist in the Ayn Rand persuasion?

  2. Hammer March 11, 2011 at 8:45 pm #

    I very much agree with your definitions of masculinity and femininity in this post. I think that this is a good, succinct way of describing this polarity.

    Wanted to take issue with your point about love though. Love is an emotion, and as such, is inherently irrational. Any attempt to define the “why” behind the emotion of love is at best a backwards rationalization. I suppose that in this sense, I am in agreement with Deida in his belief that love is irrational.

    Philosophy, and in particular moral philosophy/ethics, is by definition a backwards rationalization of our hardwired emotional reaction to events. You observe within yourself an emotional response to an external stimulus that denotes it as either good or bad in your mind, and you then try to come to some unifying theory as to how your mind comes to these normative judgments. I happen to think that Objectivism is a very good model, particularly in its foundations, but it is still merely a simplified model of a complex black box.

    • Anthony Dream Johnson March 11, 2011 at 9:22 pm #

      James Galt will respond to this. My response will follow suit and cover any remaining and appropriate bases.

    • James Steele II March 12, 2011 at 12:37 pm #

      Philosophy, and in particular moral philosophy/ethics, is by definition a backwards rationalization of our hardwired emotional reaction to events.

      Both mans, emotional and cognitive mechanisms begin tabula rasa. As such the choice to use reason ( free will and in this case to make value judgements) will to an extent determine the conditioned emotional response that man feels with regard to particular existents. I agree with your analogy of the black box, however in regard to the emotional perception to a particular.

      “Wanted to take issue with your point about love though. Love is an emotion, and as such, is inherently irrational. Any attempt to define the “why” behind the emotion of love is at best a backwards rationalization. I suppose that in this sense, I am in agreement with Deida in his belief that love is irrational.”

      Rand regards love as ” the emotional response of one man to the virtues of another, the spiritual payment given in exchange for the personal, selfish pleasure which one man derives from the virtues of another man’s character.”

      I would refine Rands thoughts on love and distinguish between the rational and the emotional by the following –

      Love is not an inherently emotional response, even based upon Rands above description. It may contain an emotional response if conditioned as described above, but that does not make it inherently so. I propose love as being the highest concept that man might use to denote the value he places upon a particular existent, percept or concept. Value judgements require the rationally determined physical standard in reality that is mans life. That mans life denotes the set point on the gauge by which man proceeds to rationally judge the value of an existent, percept or concept requires logically that man must love himself before he can proceed to rationally determine his love for another. Love proceeds from a process of reason and judgement. Love is not blind, nor irrational.

      I believe that the emotion people often mistake for love is more often than not, and should be more appropriately denoted as, lust. To denote an emotional response to something as ‘love’, without any thought process involved assumes no value judgement has been made, or that the value judgment has been automatic. Perhaps it has on a biological level. But man is a conscious, rational animal who is capable of free will, i.e. the choice to use his rational faculty, and is able to decide upon his course of action by this means.

      • James Steele II March 12, 2011 at 12:38 pm #

        Sorry that first parapgraph is missing some quotation marks.

      • Hammer March 13, 2011 at 3:23 pm #

        Any concept of an “ideal man” presupposes that in fact we are not born tabula rasa. Further, there is ample evidence for instinct present at birth, for example, a fear of heights. This is not a minor point. There are specific pathways in the brain for every emotion. The representation in our world of these pathways can manifest itself in different ways, but emotions are universal and hardwired. Paul Ekman’s research has given ample evidence for this fact. Love is not excluded from those emotions.

        It honestly really sounds to me like you’re speaking without much knowledge of behavioral psychology, because there is a large body of fMRI research that totally flies in the face of your understanding of cognition and in particular rationality. Decisions are made in the lower brain before the prefrontal cortex. They are then backwards rationalized in the prefrontal cortex, and acted upon. This order of events is important because it allows for someone looking at your brain scan to know what decision you will make for a given choice upwards of 7 seconds before you do. Thoughts come to us, we do not come to them. With training we are capable of controlling our attention, but that’s it.

        If you are in love with someone, and then they drastically change; maybe they have a near death experience, for example; falling out of love with them is not as simple as just choosing to no longer be in love with them. The best you can do is choose to focus your attention on things that will either distract you from the emotions or focus on the negative elements of that relationship in order to decondition yourself out of love over time. But those feelings aren’t going to instantly go away. Anyone who disagrees with that has never been in love before.

        • James Steele II March 14, 2011 at 5:52 pm #

          I made no claim that I had any understanding of behavioural psychology. I was just offering an opinion based upon my thoughts. Admittedly I have read little around the topic of behavioural psychology and appreciate your insights into the area in this discussion. The concept of love is something that I have though much about from an epistemological perspective without much consideration for its inherent psycho-physiological aspects.

          The point I was making however was the distinction between love and emotions. I do not consider love to be an emotion as I said. I agree that our emotions are to an extent hardwired, yet as you make a point of saying with regard to training, they can also be affected by a degree of environmental conditioning.

          So the question is do our emotions determine our actions independently of our rationality, or are our emotions merely percepts that provide us with information about a particular existent (in the same manner as our other sensory organs do), that we are then able to subsequently rationally analyse and choose to act upon?

          In your first comment you said “Philosophy, and in particular moral philosophy/ethics, is by definition a backwards rationalization of our hardwired emotional reaction to events.”

          This is only true if we attempt to ascribe a ‘why’ to our emotions, basing them (joy in particular) as the moral standard instead of analysing it as a sensory input which we can apply our rational mind to and judge based upon a rationally determined moral standard in reality. It is possible then that we can identify that which ‘feels’ good but we rationally know not to be good for us and vice versa.

          In most cases we trust our senses to provide us with valid information. Sometimes the information provided though is not valid, for whatever reason, and our sensory perception is diminished or affected. The same could be said of our emotions.

          Ok, my comment regarding emotional mechanisms as tabula rasa was, in retrospect and in light of your comment, incorrect in the face of modern science. We have hardwired emotional responses to particular existents. But the example you gave actually goes to support my point IF we consider that love is not an emotion but instead a concept denoting a degree of intensity on the spectrum of rational value judgement.

          I’ll try to explain what I mean as best as I can.

          You gave the example of being in love with someone. In this instance you may indeed be in love with that person based upon your rational evaluation of their virtues and subsequent values. Based upon this and also due to an inherent hardwiring you may also feel an emotional response to this person (As I am attempting to keep love distinct from emotion I’ll denote the emotion as joy).

          Now, your rational judgement of this person will be based upon whatever characteristics you personally value perhaps including the joy that this person invokes within you. So your joy will to an extent determine your love for this person as that perception will be providing you with information about this person (this person makes me joy, what do I think about feeling joy?).

          Ok so let’s say that person cheats on you. Depending again on your value judgement you will determine whether or not you still love this person based upon this new information (for arguments sake let say that you value monogamy above all else). So based upon this you would rationally decide you no longer love this person.

          But, I am in agreement with you that the joy that this person invokes will not automatically change just because you change your rational judgement of this person based upon new information. The difference though is whether or not your emotional responses are the standard as to whether you judge love by them or you instead choose a rationally determined standard of value. In the case of a rationally determined standard of value then you could look to condition yourself away from this like you said – “The best you can do is choose to focus your attention on things that will either distract you from the emotions or focus on the negative elements of that relationship in order to decondition yourself out of love over time.” As a real life example, I thought I was madly in love with a girl I went to college with. In retrospect I realise that I was merely chasing an emotion of lust for this particular girl. At that point I had made no attempt to rationally judge this girl and so irrationally pursued her. She proceeded to play me for a chump, making me chase her until it got to the point where I realised I was getting nowhere. I still felt lust (which I mistook for love) for her but rationally I had judged her as being of little value (a pain in the ass who couldn’t make here mind up whether she was coming or going). Leaving her alone suddenly resulted in her chasing me. I still felt the lust I felt previously at that point, but my rational judgement was to ignore her and not have anything to do with her.

          If emotions are perecpts providing information regarding our relationship with reality then they still require a process of conceptualisation in order to incorporate information regarding that particular existent into the sum of mans knowledge.

          Rand considered that emotions are percepts that are subconsciously based upon the conscious standard that is set rationally. I think you are right in that we now have more knowledge suggesting inherent emotional responses and I think that it is unlikely that these emotions are wholly a response to a rationally defined moral standard. But I don’t think this presupposes that those emotional responses dictate action necessarily. If in some cases they do then the subsequent action is irrational and probably likely to be subject to backwards rationalization. But if the emotion is treated as a percept and rationally analysed within the sum of mans knowledge then any subsequent action taken can be said to be a process of rationality.

          I assume that this paper is one you have read?

          I just did a quick search to find some material to have a read through. I’ll read the article to see what it’s about. I’d like to hear any further thoughts you have though as I find this area fascinating.

          • Hammer March 14, 2011 at 7:26 pm #

            I think we’re in agreement on just about everything save this definition of love.To me, love is an emotional response, and the word “like” more closely represents what you are referring to as “love.” So it is possible to dislike or even despise someone who you are still in love with.

            Your attempt to redefine the word love sounds a lot like Anthony’s attempt at redefining the word rape, which I also completely disagree with. According to wordnet, love is “a strong positive emotion of regard and affection.” I think the operative word there is “emotion.” It is, by definition, an emotion, and not a value judgment.

            As someone who has been in love twice, I can say with confidence that the emotion you experienced with that girl in college was not love. I can also say that from the perspective of someone who has experienced this emotion toward a woman, which I will label “infatuation,” but not the true love emotion, it can be hard to relate to the latter, particularly since you so often see people mistaking the former for the latter. Still, that doesn’t mean that the love doesn’t exist.

            Most people, in my opinion, are incapable of love. Not because the emotional hardwiring is not there, but because most people are not comfortable enough in their own skin or their ability with women to experience it. Neediness and addiction to attention are very powerful emotions, and without getting past them, one can never experience love. In any case though, that was an almost completely unrelated tangent.

            • Anthony Dream Johnson March 14, 2011 at 7:57 pm #

              There is some thing way off in your basic premises Hammer. Not only on love and certain aspects of our rape discussion, but other topics I’ve seen you write about on your blog as well. Sinn and David Deida come to mind.

              I’ll address them when the time is right.

              In the meantime, I suggest “The Psychology of Romantic Love”, to both you and James. It will run contrary to your accepted ideas at present Hammer. It will help James understand what he is currently grasping at but cannot yet fully explain.

              • Hammer March 14, 2011 at 9:59 pm #

                I’d agree that we’re starting from different basic premises, particularly with regard to the biology of cognition and decision making, Still, while I’m no expert on the subject, I feel pretty confident in my ability to back up everything that I’ve stated on this thread with empirical evidence, which is to suggest that my basic premises are the correct ones, at least based on the current body of information available in the subjects.

                • Anthony Dream Johnson March 14, 2011 at 10:13 pm #

                  Millions of people fear saturated fat and cholesterol like the plague, and spend 30-60 minutes a day for years on end spinning their wheels on treadmills to “protect their heart” and “improve their cardio” and burn that “spare tire”.

                  The best of those people have loads of “evidence” to back up their claims and practices. Decades worth. Very compelling arguments in some cases. And seemingly “common sense” observations, like fat makes you fat, and animal fat clogs your heart.

                  Of course, none of this shit is based in reality to even the slightest degree.

                  This doesn’t necessarily negate all or even any of what you have stated, or the evidence you are basing your claims off of — but it does show that the facts of reality are not always on the side of the person who can argue better or who can compile more references.

                  • Hammer March 15, 2011 at 6:47 am #

                    Actually, this shows just that. The evidence never showed that saturated fat was harmful, and the experimental evidence overwhelmingly vindicates it. People were too quick to jump to conclusions based on conjecture, which sounds a lot more like what you are doing with regard to your reliance on philosophy as opposed to behavioral psychology. Nutritional science is uniquely bad, and psychology, particularly neuropsych, has a much higher level of rigor.

                    By nature you are a zealot. This is good in a lot of ways, but it also lends itself toward a tendency to put on blinders and be extremely close minded to “inconvenient facts.” You remind me a lot of the Against Me song “I was a teenage anarchist.”

                    There are many examples of this in your writing, starting with your understanding of nutrition, particularly your negative views toward starches, grouping the starch with the plant toxins they often come with. Similarly, with your views on exercise science, your immersion in the HIT world has left you blind to the possibility that some people may have better gains on alternative protocols, particularly people on the beginner to intermediate side of the training age graph, and/or people with adrenal issues.

                    This observation comes to an impossible climax with regards to your understanding of government and natural rights. One gets the impression, reading your writings on the subject, that Jefferson was a genius who conjured the Declaration of Independence out of thin air, when in fact he was borrowing his ideas from John Locke, including the idea of man’s natural rights to life, liberty and property. This would be unnecessary, except that you attempt to make enormous logical leaps based on this document that are completely inconsistent with what is actually there, and more importantly, what was intended.

                    I like Objectivism, and Rand’s work in general. I think that rational self interest is a succinct way to describe the primary human compulsion. Again though, Rand’s work is not the end all, be all. Dr. Harris had a recent post on his philosophical influences, and his criticisms of Rand were stated better than I ever could (although I enjoyed Atlas much more than he obviously did, despite the cartoonish characters). See that here:

                    • James Steele II March 15, 2011 at 8:42 am #

                      Dr Harris, though I respect much of his writing, makes no real argument against Objectivism other than ‘I don’t like it’

                      To call it weak is absurd, when all other philosophical frameworks that I am aware of stem from either mysticism or scocialism, both far more weak than a philosophy based in objective reality.

                    • Anthony Dream Johnson March 15, 2011 at 9:42 am #

                      Of course Dr. Harris hasn’t made a real argument against objectivism. He’s too busy applying individualism to nutrition.


                      #facepalm 😉

                    • Anthony Dream Johnson March 15, 2011 at 9:33 am #

                      You’ve long dis-owned the ideal as a fully consistent and fully possible manifestation of reality. Not perfect, ideal. I think, every thought you think, is a compromise between what’s right and what’s “necessary”.

                      A compromise between good and evil you see as necessary for living life in an anti-ideal age.

                      What makes you think I care what Jefferson intended in that document compared to what’s possible by it? Jefferson’s achievement was the greatest in the history of mankind. He was the individual who made the founding document of the greatest country on earth possible, and had inscribed in it a reflection of reality — that every man on this earth has a right to his life and liberty.

                      You only see the value in this to the extent that you value your individual life and liberty. My value of such rights is absolute — to the full extent.

                      My value is, dare I say it, ideal.

                      Ask yourself, what’s yours?

              • James Steele II March 15, 2011 at 4:04 am #

                Brandens book are on my reading list already. I am looking forward to them.

                I think it absolutely is appropriate to redefine love. If we accept that it is an emotion then until we can accurtately map a universal neural pathway (I am not sure of sample sizes from other studies but that one I linked only had 20, not particularly convincing of a universal finding) through which that emotion is invoked in people then it is possible to accurately label it as such. The problems with this lie in the information provided by people regading their emotions to corroborate with such data.

                To say that you don’t think I felt love is correct, but then I would ask you how you would know you or I felt love without the above evidence? Certainly in the current state of science we cannot know with certainty what others are feeling emotionally. Sure their are particular behaviours etc that are associated with particular emotinoal states but these emotional states are predominantly measured via subjective questionnaires as far as I am aware.

                Rand thought of love as an emotion because she assumed that emotions were responses entirely determined by a rationally determined standard of value. Logical inference from this would suggest that the emotion of love is therefore rational. But because we know that emotions to an extent are hardwired genetically we have to conclude that this hypothesis is incorrect. This doesn’t mean that love is still considered an emotion, it means that emotions are merely percept that go towards our designation of love rationally.

                • Hammer March 15, 2011 at 6:59 am #

                  Asking me how I would know if I felt love is like asking me how I would know if I felt an orgasm. It’s that obvious, particularly when you’ve felt that infatuation/neediness combination prior to it, which most of us have.

                  The null hypothesis is that love is an evolutionary adaptation that has evolved to aid in survival of the young by keeping the father around past conception to raise his child. It does not occur in the prefrontal cortex, which is where consciousness and rationality exist. It would take an overwhelming level of proof to redefine love as anything other than a hardwired emotional response, even without a complete understanding of the neurological pathway.

                  • James Steele II March 15, 2011 at 8:39 am #

                    “It would take an overwhelming level of proof to redefine love as anything other than a hardwired emotional response, even without a complete understanding of the neurological pathway.”

                    I am merely suggestnig it is redfined as a concept. The idea of an evolutionary adaptation in emotional response to enable survival fo the young is all well and good. I am not saying it does not exist, nor am I disagreeing where this comes from. I am merely saying that it is inapproriate to label it as love. Out of curiosity I have been asking various people around me to define love and the differences in definition were startling. even more startling was that almost none were able to rationally present why they thought that. All I want to do is propose a definition that is more consistent with rationality.

                    • Hammer March 15, 2011 at 9:11 am #

                      Objectivism is an ethical framework, not a political one. There are many similar ethical frameworks that begin with an objective reality, one of the many ways in which objectivism is “derivative.” As a political framework, it is pretty weak.

                      If you were going to design a political structure in which you are being randomly assigned parents, if we’re being honest with ourselves, it would look relatively similar to the US today with a social safety net at the bare minimum standard of sustenance, education and healthcare, and then a massive potential for upward mobility.

                      I think that my definition of love as a unique evolutionarily adapted emotion is pretty rational and logically consistent. Any further attempt to define it is like trying to describe the color red.

                    • Anthony Dream Johnson March 15, 2011 at 9:40 am #

                      Objectivism is a philosophy of reason.


                    • James Steele II March 15, 2011 at 10:31 am #

                      Then you admit that you have no choice over who you love?

                    • James Steele II March 15, 2011 at 11:17 am #

                      Or that you have no control over your emotions and you hold them as your moral standard?

                    • Hammer March 15, 2011 at 11:36 am #

                      You have some control over who you fall in love with based on your allocation of attention in the courting phase of a relationship, but at the end of the day, love is not a choice. Both of these statements hold true for all emotions.

                      As for a moral standard, love is not in and of itself in any way connected to morality. I would advise someone to use a moral standard in making choices about who you allocate attention toward in order to avoid future relationship problems, but it is possible to fall in love with someone who violates your morals.

            • Anthony Dream Johnson March 14, 2011 at 8:37 pm #

              I will mention: whatever it is that I sense in your writing, is the same thing I sensed when I met you in person. I can only describe it as a subtle hostility at present — and it wasn’t directed at me, the same way it’s not directed at me now.

              I will add, this should not be taken to mean I do not like you as a person and did not enjoy meeting you. These are observations.

  3. Dv7 March 11, 2011 at 11:20 pm #

    You mean John Gault?

  4. Dv7 March 11, 2011 at 11:22 pm #

    I mean John Galt.

  5. James Steele II March 12, 2011 at 12:51 pm #


  6. Anthony Dream Johnson March 12, 2011 at 1:29 pm #


  7. MikeG March 13, 2011 at 2:23 am #

    Rampant androcentrism and anthropocentrism.

    • hippie bullshit detector March 13, 2011 at 9:37 am #

      did you learn those words in college?

    • Anthony Dream Johnson March 13, 2011 at 10:03 am #

      Mike … that’s hysterical.

      Of course I am the most important person in my own universe.
      Of course reason is my absolute.
      Of course life is good — and my standard of value there of.
      Of course being a man, in and of itself, is primary to my understanding of the world, and the pinnacle of the unique excitement and enjoyment of it.

      As far as I’m concerned, what you intended as a negative comment, was actually a profound compliment. What you just said is the equivalent of calling me an “utterly selfish, absolute, egoist”.


  8. Anthony Dream Johnson March 15, 2011 at 12:17 pm #

    “You have some control over who you fall in love with”

    Man has free will. Mature romantic love cannot develop without a man’s willingness for it to develop.

    Man’s free will is invincible.

    • Anthony Dream Johnson March 15, 2011 at 4:45 pm #

      “Of course, there are many people who are heavily invested in the belief that love is inherently mysterious and mocks all efforts at rational understanding. Such people may even believe that understanding kills romantic love. This is tantamount to saying that consciousness kills.”


  1. Profoundly Disturbing, Supremely Immoral | The Dream Lounge - March 13, 2011

    […] of the American States lived the contrary — when it proved absolutely necessary — and inspired countless generations to follow in the evidence provided by their […]

  2. 2 Things That Made Me Cry | The Dream Lounge - April 10, 2011

    […] the contrary, fully rational men are also deeply, and passionately emotional. The two are complementary, and are in no way opposed to one another, as some would claim — and as some have on this […]

  3. My Experience Meeting the Greatest Man Living: Ron Paul | The Dream Lounge - August 22, 2011

    […] of Ayn Rand in the left hand side of the picture. I cannot help but grin at the idea that Ayn Rand stands behind Ron and I. &nbsp This post released on 22. Aug, 2011 &nbsp « Friction is his Fuel: Why Ron […]

Make your mark