Looking at his first objection, selfless love isn’t meaningful love, Ayn Rand states, “A selfless disinterested love is a contradiction in terms: it means that one is indifferent to that which one values” (Rand, #?) Meaning a person who is selfless, values others, but being disinterested, by this I take as meaning detached in a sense, the person is loving not because they love the values of a person but because they are suppose to love all people. Rand states that going along with being selfless Rand states, “Any action one takes to help another person must be chosen within the full context of one’s own goals and values” (Rand #?). Rand is suggesting that for someone to be charitable to others, they must deem it fit in regards to their own
…show more content…
With Eros the attention one puts toward the desire of something could result in the highest of highs, if the desire is filled for that short time that that specific desire is wanted achieving that desire would be a short and sweet triumph. Though the feeling of indulging in this desire would cause a lot of pleasure, it would be short lived, followed by a new yearning for a new desire that caught the lover’s eye. With Philia the risk of friendship can consume someone, by finding others whose morals and values complement them, they risk falling in and out of love. The lover is at a greater risk of finding a person, who has values that benefit them for a while, and then eventually those values change and all the time and energy spent working toward this fulfilling friendship would have been for nothing. Now Agape although it might not have as high of highs also doesn’t have as low of lows. The heartbreak felt with agape, if any is felt at all, is short lived and less painful than anything experienced by Eros or Philia. With Agape not only does the lover have less of a chance of getting hurt, but the beloved is also at less of a chance to experience lows within the relationship. To inflict pain, in this case emotional pain, upon someone is morally wrong. Therefore to put oneself in a position that could impose pain on oneself or others would be morally wrong. Therefore loving everyone equally, may not be the most passionate or emotional, but it is the safest, most sound ideal that everyone should
With Eros the attention one puts toward the desire of something could result in the highest of highs, if the desire is filled for that short time that that specific desire is wanted achieving that desire would be a short and sweet triumph. Though the feeling of indulging in this desire would cause a lot of pleasure, it would be short lived, followed by a new yearning for a new desire that caught the lover’s eye. With Philia the risk of friendship can consume someone, by finding others whose morals and values complement them, they risk falling in and out of love. The lover is at a greater risk of finding a person, who has values that benefit them for a while, and then eventually those values change and all the time and energy spent working toward this fulfilling friendship would have been for nothing. Now Agape although it might not have as high of highs also doesn’t have as low of lows. The heartbreak felt with agape, if any is felt at all, is short lived and less painful than anything experienced by Eros or Philia. With Agape not only does the lover have less of a chance of getting hurt, but the beloved is also at less of a chance to experience lows within the relationship. To inflict pain, in this case emotional pain, upon someone is morally wrong. Therefore to put oneself in a position that could impose pain on oneself or others would be morally wrong. Therefore loving everyone equally, may not be the most passionate or emotional, but it is the safest, most sound ideal that everyone should