Ruth Institute Blog

In response to my earlier post about romantic love being more like addiction and quite a lot less like some deep spiritual connection, the comments section noted that my worldview is “sterile.”

Maybe.

But this view of romance is also most likely true.  Having a clear eyed view of the world has many advantages.

But that worldview is liberating.  Think about it.  In the realm of love and marriage, knowing the truth about the nature of romantic love can save a person from the disappointments consequent of unrealistic expectations.  This leads to happiness.  The fantasy realm of romanticism can lead to some very bad consequences.  Heck, don’t take it from me.  Just read Madam Bovary.

Theodore Dalrymple discusses some of the bad effects of sentimentality, a necessary precursor of the idealization of romantic love.  (Emphasis added).

WE should try hard to think clearly, said the great French scientist, mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal, for such is the foundation of morality.

Sentimentality is one of the worst enemies of clear thought and therefore of morality.  It is the preference of what we would like to be true over what actually is true, it persuades us that we are more compassionate than we really are. It is a form of make-believe. British public policy in many fields has been riddled with sentimentality for many years with disastrous effects on our society and on our economy. We are now paying a heavy price.

Perhaps the main advantage that liberalism has over conservatism in the winning of hearts and minds is that it appeals so strongly to sentimentality.  It is, in Dalrymple’s words “a form of self-flattery. It permits us to indulge in poor-them-generous-us fantasies.”

Dalrymple brings examples such as foreign aid, welfare and others to illustrate poor-them-generous-us fantasies.  He could very well have also brought the example of marriage redefinition.

The example works quite well.  By advocating for redefinition, people can buy cheap grace by advocating that we bring the goods to the supposedly downtrodden.

It also requires a preference for what we would like to be true rather than what is actually true.  For instance, it requires people to believe demonstrable falsehoods such as the interchangeability of men and women as parents, the dispensability of fathers as parents, and other things Dr. J. has so eloquently enumerated in her posts and podcasts.

And like the examples that Dalrymple brings in his article, it may wind up turning a small problem into a huge one if it is actually implemented.

Remember what happened the last time the sentimental lefties got their hands on the institution of the family?

Most muggers probably come from  radically loveless homes but they come from loveless homes because family  structure was destroyed by the fatuous, sentimental notion that if only family relations could be based upon love and affection, and nothing but love and affection, without the influence of convention or contractual obligation, then personal happiness would be complete.

And so was created the inferno of the British inner city. It is economic reality that will put paid to our sentimental dreams but at the cost of much suffering that could have been avoided if only we had taken the trouble to think well.

Maybe if we just close our eyes and wish hard enough, a same sex relationship will be just the same as male-female relationship.  Maybe if we hold on to our four leaf clovers and say the right incantations, same sex parenting will not have the bad effects that other forms of widespread fatherlessness have.  Maybe if we do the right dance around the fire to drums played at the right rhythm, the laws necessary to enact same sex marriage will not create the predicted havoc.

Then again, maybe not.