Whenever I think of the drowning child thought experiment it makes me recall the quote from Sir Arthur Eddington - "Even if religion and morality are dismissed as illusion, the word "Ought" still has sway."
Even in the 12 step addiction recovery program, one of the sayings go”this is a selfish program” because it’s of priority to self care and look at that when you self care, you actually learn to get sober.
There are a lot of "sayings", but the first step is to say you are Powerless and your life is Unmanageable, 2nd is Came to Believe in a power Greater than yourself and 3rd is to turn your Will and Life over to that power (god, as you understood god)......so.....?
the 12 step addiction program has a piss poor track record and pales in comparison to what is actually recommended by experts: extensive therapy and psychiatry to get to the bottom of the addiction. Addiction is partly genetic and partly a symptomatic. In fact, more often than not, it's really just a symptom more so than it's own condition: self medication for a deeper underlying psychological problem. No one decides to flood their brain with mind altering substances in spite of the nasty side effects those substances have unless their unaltered mind is a much more hellish one to live with; so hellish that escaping it is worth the damage.
@Satya Kowledge I believe there is a difference between caring for yourself and being selfish. I feel self care is putting your self first in your time of need, where being selfish if putting yourself first because you feel you are somehow superior to others. I understand that from an outside perspective that can appear as being selfish but I feel that if we communicated better and were more understanding of each other's needs we wouldn't see this as selfish but see it as an opportunity to be selfless and give that person the time and space they need.
badass means strong, evil means weak, not the same ¡ she was just evil and weak, I mean if you think like her you are not a figther, you are with the man, part of the system, of injustice, , she took the easy route
That "guy" is Mike Wallace and your judgement "You are evil incarnate" is only so because you have a religious belief. Modified capitalism and majority rule were the only non religious things she was asked about.
well people that follow her have gained power (cause that is very easy for them) and have implemented policies (or lack of) that harmed and destroyed, even killed millions of people around the world
Finally a good video on Objectivism! Thank you sir, for not jumping to conclusions and blind hate, and having an open mind (or rather an active mind, as Ayn Rand would say) I would like to extend on a few points you made in the video. First, the drowning child. Here's what Rand herself said: "The proper method of judging when or whether one should help another person is by refefence to one's own rational self-interest and one's own hierarchy of values: the time, money or effort one gives or the risk one takes should be proportionate to the value of the person in relation to one's own happiness. To illustrate this on the altruists' favorite example: the issue of saving a drowning person. If the person to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper to save him only when the danger to one's own life is minimal; when the danger is great, it would be immoral to attempt it: only a lack of self-esteem could permit one to value one's life no higher than that of any random stragner. (And, conversely, if one is drowning, one cannot expect a stranger to risk his life for one's sake, remembering tha one's life cannot expect a stranger to risk his life for one's sake, remembering that one's life cannot be as valuable to him as his own.) If the person to be saved is not a stranger, then the risk one should be willing to take is greater in proportion to the greatness of that person's value to oneself. If it is the man or woman one loves, then one can be willing to give one's own life to save him or her - for the selfish reason that life without the loved person could be unbearable." Regarding the free will issue, here's what Rand said about that: "Man’s consciousness shares with animals the first two stages of its development: sensations and perceptions; but it is the third state, conceptions, that makes him man. Sensations are integrated into perceptions automatically, by the brain of a man or of an animal. But to integrate perceptions into conceptions by a process of abstraction, is a feat that man alone has the power to perform-and he has to perform it by choice. The process of abstraction, and of concept-formation is a process of reason, of thought; it is not automatic nor instinctive nor involuntary nor infallible. Man has to initiate it, to sustain it and to bear responsibility for its results. The pre-conceptual level of consciousness is nonvolitional; volition begins with the first syllogism. Man has the choice to think or to evade-to maintain a state of full awareness or to drift from moment to moment, in a semi-conscious daze, at the mercy of whatever associational whims the unfocused mechanism of his consciousness produces." And lastly, I think it is worth pointing out that Rand herself directly rejected the kind of society we see in BioShock: "Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: . . . a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government."
Wouldn't the notion that free will does not exist obliterate any and all ethical systems? How can one choose to do the "morally correct" thing when they can't choose to do anything at all? I believe this goes for every ethical system, not just objectivism.
Nature will destroy a person to the extent a person accepts an irrational morality. But the force of ideas are much faster to change behavioure and can do it in a more radical way than evolution. Just think of people who choose death for their faith.
That is the intent, based on the psychological ego/ego ethical argument, and it applies to other moral theories as well. Essentially we are selfish beings and we cannot do what is impossible. So if you just look at the theories, free will does not exist.
[O]ne’s duty in a calling, is what is most characteristic of the social ethic of capitalistic culture, and is in a sense the fundamental basis of it. It is an obligation which the individual is supposed to feel and does feel towards the content of his professional activity, no matter in what it consists, in particular no matter whether it appears on the surface as a utilization of his personal powers. Or only of his material possessions (as capital). - Max Weber psmag.com/economics/protestant-worth-ethic-real-65544
I’m reading “Capitalism: the unknown ideal” by Ayn Rand. I find most of her ideas to be foreign to my world view, her arguments unconvincing, and her examples ill fitting. Yet, I admire her intellectual and moral courage to state unambiguously what she feels and thinks, and let the chips fall where they may. Regrettably, too few of our public figures are brave enough to do that.
I'm only vaguely familiar with her work, but Carl Jung wrote about "the shadow" of our Id being our true selves and Nietzsche wrote "beyond good and evil" and the amoral superman. Richard Dawkin's "the Selfish Gene" described best how our species as an animal has a balance between other lone and group species from a biological point of view. On her free market idea's, she seems to be an anarchist in it's purest form of a society of no government.
@@patrickmcgoohan115 she is far from being an anarchist. Objectivism posits an inherent need for government - but that its *only* purpose is to protect individual rights - anything else is considered an overreach. Anarchism is the absence of government. Free markets need government to create the legal framework to uphold private property (police), arbitrate disputes (court system), and protect citizens against foreign invaders (military).
@@patrickmcgoohan115 That is not an accurate description of her philosophy. If you actually listen to objectivists speak, none of them espouse anarchist views, what they do suggest is a state that only exists to protect individual rights.
@@zylo999 Yes, exactly and that "state" IS the role of the government in essence - acting as referee in the public's pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately it never really plays that way, the government eventually swing towards the Marxist end of the spectrum....as we are now witnessing in current.
Good to see someone young who understands what she meant and does a good job of explaining it. I think those who aren't comfortable with rational selfishness, or with not doing one''s duty, mostly don't understand her overall message. They can't get away from their own indoctrination of doing duty, believing they are being unselfish, despite doing it unwillingly and with resentment.
I would not want to live in a world without altruism. Our Constitution states that the government is to provide for the COMMON (shared) GOOD. I'm grateful that I have compassion for others. Helping others is the greatest joy in life.
I personally found that people who hate her the most, never read her. At least read For the New Intellectual, cover to cover. All of her prophecies have come true or are coming true.
With the drowning child experiment I still think it's a good idea to save the child since it's still in your best interest to do so as you'll find a lot of joy in saving him and a lot of pain in the weight you'd inevitably carry if you chose to let a child die. However I agree there's no obligation to do so from compassion, but an obligation out of self interest to your psyche.
The pain you feel comes from the fact that you were created to feel that not helping the child is morally wrong. If you were raised in a society where there is zero expectation of acting towards another person well-being, you never know, you might not care, and feel no guilty about not helping. Now if you believe that the sense of guilty is inherent to your condition as a human being, and independent of the culture, then you already disagree with rand philosophy and are closer to kant.
@@blendingdude3429 OBJECTION! We aren't raised to feel bad for one's death, specie sustainability is in our genes. Ethics weren't decided by a God, values are hold because they minimize death. As Ayn Rand puts it herself : "Ethics aren't a mystic fantasy nor a social convention, but an objective métaphysical necessity of survival, by the nature of life." This is why we could choose to not save the child : maybe it's too dangerous. If it's not, there's no reason not to and as a game développer I can assure you that going out your way to do a sidequest is never left unrewarded.
You save that child also cos it sets a good example for society. None of us can accomplish everything on our own. When ppl start feeling we have no obligation to others, we will soon set the example/ tone for others to feel that they have no obligations to us. Which would cos ppl like parents to feel they gave no obligations to their kids, policemen to feel they have no obligation to stop murders or robbery, firemen to feel they have no obligation to stop fires etc. This undoubtedly would create a dystopia for everyone
I find it unsettling that people hate her and the idea of individualism.. there are literally people out there that think its fair to repress talent and unique qualities in someone.. I can only imagine they hate her because of Atlas Shrugged.. I can appreciate that.. But I love The Fountainhead.. i related to it 100%, literally within the first chapter of the book. I cant help but find a very simple film to be the most insightful.. Helen Parr: "Everyone is special, Dash.." Dash Parr: "which is the same as saying nobody is" - The Incredibles.
You are a sharp young man Mr. Grey Winsler. Her philosophy actually mirrors the founding of the USA, and she understood the USA was based on individualism, self interest and a free market. I think the existence of the USA actually validated her thoughts of freedom. She loved the way the USA was founded, and despised the evil of being told you are to live your life for the state. But I have something I doubt you have yet Mr Winsler. I am old enough to have experienced some of our founding of individual liberty. I earned degrees, worked for a lot of employers, and started my own business. My business is in a recreational industry (engines for RC cars) that has no regulation, (just taxes), and it is the most exciting thing that ever happened to me, (and I used to race motocross). Man, after working for all those people, (most who worked for somebody else, and learned, before they started their business), and all that part time school, when my business took off, I felt a sense of freedom that I never knew existed. You have not experienced that yet Mr. Winsler, and most have no idea it exists. Capitalism belongs to the citizens, so we can use our minds to chase our dreams, creating the glory of all of mankind---while getting rich!!! It is called communism when the government runs the economy, (into the ground). Can anybody answer me this? How can any of us follow our dreams, with out capitalism in our hands, and a brain in our head? Answer: We can't.
You mention and skip across "free will" without stating how it is understood and can be proved objectively. So to suggest it may destroy the foundations of objectivism is arbitrary and invalid. Free will merely means to choose to _think_ or evade that process. One can act according to a volitional process of thought, or not. If not, then it is whim, superstition, peer pressure etc. Sam Harris has not addressed this at all.
The highest tribute to Ayn Rand, is that her critics must distort everything she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individual’s rights to freedom of action, speech, and association; self-responsibility, NOT self-indulgence; and a live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an END, not the MEANS of others’ ends. How many critics would dare honestly state these ideas and say, ” . . .and that’s what I reject"?
Rand fled communism and her thinking is all based on that. She's not even aware she has all the rights she has. She's railing against an enemy that isn't there. And she also advocates laize e fire capitalism for example. Making the same Utopian mistakes that communism made in not taking into account human nature.she assumed itd all be okay because those creating wealth would be "enlightened". Her ideas are in my opinion half baked.
@@amanonplanetearth78 Slaves work for food and wage slaves work for a wage to buy food. That's why laissez faire capitalism is so efficient and profitable. The only economic system that is even more efficient and profitable is real slavery.
I loved your final comment and how we judge people by how happy they make others, and I agree with Rand in that there’s nothing wrong with helping others. Helping others is one of the pillars of Judaism for example (the religious philosophy I hold to) but I find tremendously abhorrent is trying to impose helping others which then makes solidarity absent. Take taxes for example, they’re supposed to be for a greater good but then you could go to jail if you refuse to pay them. I don’t see it as act of solidarity, rather as an act of violence.
I read fountainhead years ago and it did change my life. I congratulate you for providing a brief intro and summary of objectivism, which i can send to people. I always cherish your work and infact got into Persuation after watching your video of trump. Hope to see more from you at a higher frequency
+SUDHANSHU SINGH It's a great read. And I'm glad you're enjoying the videos--comments like this keep me motivated. Frequency has never been my strong suit, but you can expect to see something in the next week or so!
Fantastic Video. Did you start playing Bioshock again in preparation? :D I really like the analogies with drowning children, since they force us to rethink many moral stances we have. Gray, have you seen Singer's appearance in the film "Examined Life"? He uses the analogy there to speak about consumerism vs. moral obligations.
There are so many bits of knowledge to be borrowed from Rand. Although I have not adopted her philosophies as my own, I do understand how she came up with her ideals. Following her own philosophy, she passed on her nuggets of wisdom and did good things. She is her best example.
Not everyone who is accused of being perverse and immoral turns out to be messenger of enlightenment. Most just remain perverse and immoral, destined to become a footnote in history, or else forgotten altogether, like Ayn Rand will be. Theres good reason she rarely appears in syllabi of University courses, be it philosophy, literature, economics or modern history.
@Lightest Asian LOL you bash rand and believe in peterson? Rand is closer to petersons self help BS than she is to marx. Marx is very complex and what people do not understand is that he mainly made observations. People think he invented communism but he rather used the hegelian school of thought to analyse economic systems. He was an absolute genius (I do not advocate communism). Hegel is notriously difficult and so is marx. Thats why peterson can bash him so easily (he either does not get him, or he does it on purpose). Rand and peterson both advocate for self help in a way (rand does so slightly more intelligently). Both are absolute intellectual trash though. You seem to be rational man of science, read wittgenstein you will like it. Leave peterson to the losers
I need clarification in regards to the first mention of Kant. Kant was a moral objectivist, he assumed that there were moral facts which we could discern. And reason is how we can discern said facts. Are you stating that Rand's view is a different type of objectivism?
The worst reason for doing anything is because you are looking for thanks and rewards. If you think you will get no thanks or rewards, you will not do it despite it may be the best course of action. The second worst reason for doing anything is because it makes you feel good. For if it was the appropriate action, and you did not feel good about it...it would never get done. If however upon examination _it is clearly seen that the action is better for everyone_ and is carried out free of the fetters of hoping to receive reward/thanks or feeling good about it, _then on that basis_ so called altruism is being approached...
Wow! Amazing job putting into perspective her philosophy! I feel lots of people read The Fountainhead and find a reason to be selfish and surpress others with their power. But you explained and laid everything out beautifully!
I believe in individualism, self worth determines who you are as a person. As well as multiple measurements of this concept. Like a worth of who are in the fields of morality, intelligence, cleverness, valor, success, reputation, strength, and charisma. Most people succeed in one of these fields or another, and measure personal value with categories appealing to themselves. I personally value morality above all else, considering how moral decisions can effect the outcome and future immensely.
Awesome video thanks for making it. Reading Fountainhead did change my life.....I compare reading Atlas Shrugged (though brilliant) to drinking a glass of poison from a very very angry lady BUT Fountainhead changed my life.
Gray Winsler what do you think of Atlas Shrugged? I’m actually gonna listen to the audio version once I finish listening to Fountainhead on my iPhone give it a second try now that my life is in a different place. I’ve read FH twice and now I’m listening to listening to it. I think Mathew Patrick is Ellsworth Monkton Toohey.
It does sound quite nice, though I think in my opinion an unregulated capitalistic structure would infringe on people’s freedoms just due to the way power structures work really. I don’t know if I have understood her philosophy well enough but that’s just my stance on this. What does anyone else think?
10 months late but here I am. There is no way that an unregulated capitalistic structure could infringe on people's freedom. Freedom means the absence of coercion (murdering, stealing, fraud). By definition, if nobody is coercing you, you are free to live your life as best you are able and as you see fit.
@Orla Watson I don’t really understand what you mean. How is it not “freedom in its truest sense” because people aren’t born equal? People are not equal in any respect. That doesn’t affect freedom at all. Is “freedom in the truest sense” some kind of egalitarian whim-worship society?
Libertarians are right about some things but I find they often go too far towards ideological extremes. For example, I had one tell me that all building codes should be eliminated and if people die in a fire then their relatives can just seek monetary damages in court. Another one told me it shouldn't be illegal to drive as fast as you want through a residential neighborhood where children are playing as long as you don't hit one. Then another said there shouldn't be statutory rape laws because it should be up to the parents if their children have sex. Come on now. There have to be some rules.
@ Josh Anderson - Rules like speed limits and building codes are often the result of learning from past experiences. For example large numbers of people have died in fires because exit doors were locked so now we have laws mandating push bars on emergency exits. What's wrong with learning from past mistakes and not repeating them?
Great video! I've never looked into Rand's ideas too deeply, but as a regular viewer of Stefan Molyneux's channel, I have been peripherally aware of her general approach for a while now. You gave me some info that I wasn't aware of, and it makes me want to read her books to get a more in depth picture of objectivism. Thanks!
Tim Mahagin I agree with that. Forced goodness is not goodness. I believe the only function of the government should be defended others from theft, violence and deprivation of personal freedom. As for Stefan, yeah there have been a few times when I've almost stopped listening to him, and while I don't agree with him on everything(I'm not an Atheist for example), and sometimes I feel his debates with listeners ignore the rules of debate in order to "win", I do enjoy hearing what he has to say and ultimately I think he's doing his best to make the world "better".
I've just started to study Ann Rand. I rejected her for a while based on the things I had heard of her philosophy or the people that follow her philosophy but I began to think about how most philosophers become the object of our projections, to the egos projections, similar to how neitchze's concept of the superman became a projection for the nazis. I believe Rand's idea of objectiveism is more related to the idea of rejecting the collective idea of morality, which can be represented in society or nationality or religion. What Rand perhaps describes is an ideal state, it sounds like game theory, where we all get what we need but work together without taking from each other. Of course we do not live in anything close to this state, the ego rules, especially in Western society but in all humans societies, thus I believe rand is misunderstood or perhaps appropriated to one's own ends. Interesting stuff though, thank you for the video, I'll continue to study more
I havent read any of her philosophy, but i from what i can tell of this video, i seem to share her views almost completely. I think i’ll give it a try somewhere down the road.
He was essentially asking if she was an evil bitch who wanted to set the world on fire and she just replied Yes this woman got bigger balls than Big Daddy
Ayn Rand is correct in perceiving love as selfish, she is right that wanting to do something good or bad is a result of your own thoughts and for your own reasons making it selfish. Human action is driven by selfishness. That does not mean objectivist philosophy is correct. One of the biggest complaints waged against her philosophy is that as a collective over valuing the individual will lead to costs to others; the most common example is Government intervention. The government should not simply prevent people from infringing on the rights of others but mandatory help is seen as a violation of pure self determination according to Rand. If humans have free will then self determination is integral to our success but not everything is within our control. Statistically speaking the class your born in is the class you'll die in; doing well or doing poorly might not be a result of your own work. Saying that one success entirely made through there selfish actions ignores that factors outside of the control of the individual.
By definition, love is self-less. What she describes is something other than love that she calls love, plain and simple. Many people do not know what love is, Rand is just another.
yes that is a big contradiction of a "philosophy" that can't be applied in the real world, unless is used to justify injustice, and that is exactly what is happening right now
I agree. Another fundamental mistake I think Ayn Rand makes is that she assumes that those strong now will be strong forever. But the truth is the weak and needy have a way of becoming the strong and productive and vice versa. We all have spent time leaning on the altruism of humanity at some point. Even Ayn Rand was forced on Medicare when he ignorant smoking habit gave her lung cancer. Her own hubris forced her to survive off the goodwill of others in the end. She of course spun it that she had been forced to pay taxes, and thus why should not selfishly take of Medicare. But it went entirely over her head, that if she had never had that safety net she would have died.
If I have been wrong on any comment Mr. Harris dont get offended with my disagreement on freewil because I did not have freewill to believe and reason out the thoughts which I have, which is that freewill does exist.
Rand idea of selfishness also requires that individual take full responsibility for their action, something most people do not want to do and is contrary to the socialist doctrine.
Bigotry is the sign that you have become an adult. Shortly before her death Ayn Rand snitched under the hood of Medicare and social security which I think is the opposite of what she should have done according to her beliefs. Yeah, man, preach water and drink wine.
SilverBladeHero 15 I'll go with that. Pragmatism over conformity to the own beliefs. I'll cherrypick the atheism and "yes" to abortion of her . The rest of her ideas, yeah, whatever.
They believe in collectivism in the sense that other people are responsible for their failures and successes which is partly true. People contribute to both because you live with others and nothing happens if others aren't willing to contribute to what you think should happen but ultimately you're responsible for making successes or failures happen. Only you can be responsible for that. It's nobody else's fault that you can't convince them to go along with what you want.
Any moral code must accept free will as a basic premise. The concept of value only makes sense to a human able to act on alternatives. If you deny free will you are nothing more than a clock tick tock tick tock....
I tend to think that we don't have free will in the sense that our input determines our output. Each of us is a system which is an expression of a larger system. Everything comes in from outside us - genetic material, experiences, information, moral codes... We are a location in which all of these things interact and metamorphose into something else. We think we make decisions, but really what happens is that influences from outside of us compete or coalesce and something results for which we take credit, but because we are the product of all that comes from outside of us, no other decision could have been arrived at. This doesn't mean that moral ideas are irrelevant, because they are a major part of what is flowing through us and shaping our actions. We think we have moral principles, but moral principles have us. We are like computers on a network, and ideas, about morality or anything else, shape our behaviour even though we don't actual chose them. They chose us. An idea or moral code arises from the intellectual stew of humanity and attaches itself to those individuals who happen to have had the kind of experiences which predispose them to be attracted to it. Within them it has a life of its own, but may later be driven out or modified by a different idea or moral code.
"At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst. " [Aristotle - Politics] At the other end of the spectrum, a legal system which dictated every choice would be death for free will and a 'hell' - for free speech and free trade - would follow [paraphrasing Rev6v8].
It’s interesting that video games come up in this discussion because Ayn Rand’s philosophy describes the mind set of a gamer. In games, I only help others if it benefits me. I only help others for a reward. If all I get are some karma points, I kill them and take whatever they have that I’d want. However free will doesn’t really exist in games because a game almost always pushes you down a predefined path
But science can say with absolute certainty that whatever your neurons fire is predetermined randomly by laws of physics, how can you fit free will into that? There are many cases of people with head injuries who lost control over their own selfs and their personalities changed a lot, for no more than an anatomical and biochemical changes in their brain. I think there is no free will.
As 100% egocentric egoist, I cannot imagine an individual who can survive the onslaught of community. The collective mind set has tons of negative aspects, but as long as community does not oppress its members, but rewards them for their talents and fulfill their ambitions, altruism would be more logical to follow, than focus on your own ass and assuming that everything will go fine, if you priorities yourself by default. Again, I am not saying that blue pill + Matrix or 1984 are good worlds to live. I am saying that Brotherhood of Nod > Fighting Club. Even though it is impossible to objectively analyze the Rand's philosophy, and have perfectly correct result, it is possible to analyze the philosopher. And if you are too lazy to search, just open wiki and look why her parent immigrated to USA. Funny enough, people like her were whining that their homeland was turned into cinders and will never be strong again. Yeah sure, top 2 superpower from 1945 to 1989 and tons of memes with my brethren. (Sad trombone)
I'm a teacher, and teaching is the most selfish thing I do. I earn a living, prepare children to contribute to society in a positive and moral manner, and make myself feel wonderful both at the head of the classroom and in knowing that I have done my best to make the world I live in a better place. If you are earnest in your efforts, teaching is one of the purest forms of rational self-interest available.
I agree with you and I applaud you, I wish I had you as one of my teachers when I was in school. I also wish there were more teachers like you in Elementary, Middle and High Schools and especially Colleges. I say that with honesty and respect for you, because unfortunately there are too many teachers and professors now, more than ever who are communist, and socialist sympathizers are! The laughable but sad fact is that, they condemn Fascism and Nazism (as they should) but praise the other two, knowing fully well how many people have died under Communist takeovers. "Fascism, Nazism Socialism Communism are just Superficial Variations of the Same Monstrous Theme; Collectivism." - Ayn Rand
@@elgrigorio1 Instead of placing the blame for the killings you mention on communism or socialism ideas, we should place it on the same self-centered individuals (or, in their most extreme manifestations - monsters - such as Joseph Stalin guy and those around him, as well as every government in today's world which exerts too much control over our lives, protecting the interests only of themselves and their rich sponsors) that Ayn Rand supports in her books and who, in the name of those ideologies, committed those heinous crimes. What I am trying to say is that the ideologies that promote equality and justice are not to blame, but rather those perfidious scumbags who ruthlessly toppled their predecessors in order to take over the control of the country, and who then continue their rule by doing the very same things they were supposedly fighting against, producing the similar inequality in the society that existed before them, where the only thing that changed was the names of those in positions of power and wealth.
Quick fact. There was government regulation forbiding trade with outside world. That is what created problems in rapture. Interestingly that they had to add that govn regulation so they could create logical narrative. That would go against free trade principle that is essetial part of Objectivism.
Atlas shrugged really did change my life - or my mind, at least. It put in the spot light so many mental road blocks that I never realised were there. I think the portrayed characters are a touch unrealistic - even idealistic - but I don't think it's really about how the characters live and act but the philosophy they embody. On free will ... I don't think it's an illusion. Before I make a decision to do anything, I can visualise multiple different actions and pick one. Admittedly, the number of actions is limited by my imagination and my emotions may cause me to prefer some action over another but I still believe I always have a choice, no matter how hard the choice may be. Of course, that would be the illusion. Thinking I have a choice when in fact I don't. In practice, even if I have a choice, it may not matter too much because once I've acted all the other possible actions remain figments of my imagination and I will never know if I would have acted any of them out in the moment. Probably, all things considered, a middle ground should be sought on the question of free will. In theory I think I have free will but I live in a universe on a planet and exist as an animal - my environment and my form have their own forces which are either out of my control or automatic and these forces can influence my choices. Perhaps this is the illusion. If I lived entirely by reason, my choices might be automatic. If I lived entirely by emotion my choices might be automatic (assuming emotion and reason could be separated) but by combining the two into a single system I end up with conflicting motives one sending me to one extreme, the other to another extreme and the multiplicity of possible choices - my free will - comes from the effort to integrate the motives. Our perception of or our actuation of free will could stem from the triune brain (or some more complex structure of brain regions) and our efforts to integrate them into a single unit which must handle the consequences of ALL of its actions no matter how contradictory they are.
If a scientist is to discover any true knowledge he needs a mechanism to sort true from false knowledge. If there is no free will there is no way of knowing if the content of his mind is true or false because he has no choice in rejecting contradictions. The content of his mind is determined. So for science to have any ability to find truth free will needs to be true.
Nature is the standard of logic. If you feel like you might observe a contradiction you know your interpretation is wrong. Look closer, think and you will discover why.
your argument seems to necessitate 'absolute truth'. I'm not arguing against free will (I absolutely believe free will is a reality, if poorly (unequivocally incoherently) defined).
[O]ne’s duty in a calling, is what is most characteristic of the social ethic of capitalistic culture, and is in a sense the fundamental basis of it. It is an obligation which the individual is supposed to feel and does feel towards the content of his professional activity, no matter in what it consists, in particular no matter whether it appears on the surface as a utilization of his personal powers. Or only of his material possessions (as capital). - Max Weber psmag.com/economics/protestant-worth-ethic-real-65544
What I mean is, people who flat out say “she’s just for right-wing crackpots” have only heard that from other leftists who only watched a snippet of one of her interviews and never read more than 5 pages of her works. I think Objectivism has some great points, but I certainly wouldn’t say it’s the only valid philosophy and that she was right about everything. You have clearly read her works and the feeling I got from your video is that you agree with her on some points, but not necessarily everything, and that’s perfectly fine. I’ve never met or heard of anyone who read her works and didn’t appreciate at least some aspect of her philosophy.And even the points they might not necessarily agree with, they’ll most likely acknowledge where they came from. I appreciate it when people take the time and effort to study something and to draw their own conclusions and not merely parrot someone else because they believe everything that person says or because they side with a certain ideology. I find most leftists detest her for no other reason that because it goes without saying that if you identify as a leftist, you must hate Ayn Rand.
+Fil Piovano Your assessment it correct. I certainly don’t subscribe to Objectivism wholly, but there are aspects I appreciate, and I definitely don’t think it is “evil” as some suggest. And on a personal level, The Fountainhead did have a big impact on me when I first read it. Unfortunately, the problem you’re bringing up is not exclusive to Rand. People seem to be increasingly dogmatic and adhere to the opinions of whatever group they cling to, regardless of facts or their own analyses. Republicans can’t believe in climate change. Democrats can’t support the 2nd Amendment. Generally speaking, a persons stance on one issue can be used to predict their stance on every other issue, which shows conformity and acceptance rather than critical thought. Worse yet, it’s contributing to our increasing polarization. In any case, glad you’re not part of the herd. Best, GW
You are so right, but maybe this quote could explain why people don't like to read her: "There is a very good reason why there are always piles of six to ten copies of Atlas Shrugged in every thrift store and used book store in the country. (My local used bookstore has so many copies they won’t accept any more). It’s terrible. The plot is contrived, the characters are unbelievable and flat (just as an example, every “hero” is gorgeous, muscular, and charismatic, every “villain” is ugly, repellent and physically inferior), its defining moment is a 20 page speech (seriously) and its underlying principles are sociopathic. The only reason it stays in print is because the Ayn Rand Foundation prints up copies and distributes them for free to schools and universities."
It funny, I only got into Rand _after_ I learned that she basically had the same philosophy as me. Looking out for #1. My responsibility in my life is to myself, and by default I don't owe anybody anything (although in reality, I owe quite a few people a favour or two). But that's just it, its always in your best interest to return a favour. And I, selfish though I am, feel morally obligated to do so. I find that, when combined with a healthy understanding that what goes around comes around, Rand's philosophy has led me to be more honest, more reliable, and more helpful than I was before.
As a person who has read all of Ayn Rand's novels and as many of her treaties as I can lay my hands on, I think it is important to understand what she meant by selfishness. She maintained that an individual has the right to pursue his or her (I refuse here to be PC!) happiness, provided that, during the course of such pursuit, no force was initiated against any other person. She also believed that there are only two rights - the right to your life (and therefore to self-defense) and the right to the pursuit of happiness, and that no person has the right to initiate force against another person. From this it follows that the only function of government should be to protect its citizens against force from other citizens or from external sources. Once these basics are understood, then the rest of her philosophy falls into place and can be seen as highly moral. The problem that most humans have is that we consider ourselves to be rational beings, whereas we are actually nature's newest experiment and the vast majority of us (myself included) are incapable of purely rational thought, unclouded by emotion and uninfluenced by environmental phenomena. Ayn Rand herself was unable to escape this, as was evidenced by her own pretty chaotic personal life, but this does not mean that objectivism can be dismissed. It is probably amongst the purest of philosophies.
Well said, most people say that Ayn Rand didn't have emotions to speak of. But when you watch her interviews it is very clear she loved life and this amazing beautiful world and she also loved her family. She was always so grateful to be where she put herself. I haven't read all of her works yet but I am slowly making my way through Atlas Shrugged. It takes a lot of deep thought because she brings up so many interesting points. One beautiful thing about her writing is that you can read her books just to enjoy the book.
The part about saving the drowning child reminds me of discussions on alignment in D&D where people would claim that a character that wouldnt go out of their way to save someone was evil, since saving the person was good and in their mind not saving the person is thus evil. I always had trouble finding arguments to explain that inaction is not the opposite of performing the action. So like from your example many people would say not saving the child would be evil, but it isnt. If you threw the child into the water to drown, that would be evil. Not taking action to save someone else is not evil, it just isnt "good".
Work with others in your rational self-interest, what's so hard to understand? Nothing impractical about that. You just have to try see past the bad connotation selfishness has and judge altruism harsher as well. Objectivism doesn't reject the group or its rules, it just says that the self takes precedence before everything else.
I recently started listening to Ayn Rand's theories again (I'm a left-wing socialist all the way) after I realised I was judging her ideas for the people I thought who believed it. I gotta say, I don't agree but she ayn't a moron (and yes that was a horrible pun)
Jason Schneijder Why are you a Socialist? Not trying to argue, I'm genuinely curious. What makes you entitled to the rich man's work? Why value non-living entities/ organizations over individuals/individualism?
That's all I ask of anybody that claims to be a rational person in the world. Understand something truly and then make your decision. The mere act of knowing will make you better.
I recently found my own meaning in life, and I have to say that Ayn Rand nailed it pretty much on the head. When the future is so similar to the past, and most actions being forgotten, should we not just rely upon our own duty to act accordingly in our favor instead of to the will of the global conscience? If our favor goes against the greater good, then do so; if it goes with the grain, go with it. We do have the free will, but the freedom of that will only depends on our unconscious selfishness. I however believe in regulations for the greater good. Protecting my self-interest, with the act of helping others as well, should be allowed. Ayn Rand would oppose that notion, but that is as far as I would say I oppose her values.
If you are acting in your true self interests you would want regulations as to protect you and your children or whatever you care about. So I don't see why it would be mutually exclusive
She hated Kant, yet the video begins with a number of ideas that are straightforwardly Kantian, such as the concept of a duty to oneself. Then we move on to the crude Leibnizian blunder of attributing all knowledge to reason. What is worthwhile in her writings is cribbed from much better thinkers, and of the rest, the less said the better.
"A man's moral obligation is to do what he wishes provided his which does not depend primarily on other men." Isn't that what any CEO does? Depending on all of his employees to work to achieve his goal which is more profit? Any great corporation depends on the fact that humans have basic needs like eating, drinking and sheltering but that it would be impossible for all of the human population to be hunter/gatherers because of how many humans there is. Therefore, the only way for an individual to obtain such things is to work. In other words, You are free to stay within these boundaries. So what is the difference between slavery and labor? Well, you get paid yes, but that money that you make is needed to pay the necessities you need. And what is even weirder, is how we determine the price of those necessities: It's the total time of labor+material costs+a mark up for profit. So when you work for a company, you get paid only a part of your contribution to a product but you have to pay the totality of costs when paying for a product plus a mark-up. So how is that not exploitation?
+Ludwigvan yah, and the market makes pretty dumb decisions. we produce so much stuff that only people need, who are dead inside or stuff that is never being sold, because it could not compete. People waste their precious lifetime and energy on this crap. just to buy dumb stuff to get over this fact in their free time. Also, companies don't only compete for money in delivering the best product. they also compete by producing cheaper, using poor materials, letting work under poor conditions, not paying taxes or airing the most annoying advertisement. Then, why do you evaluate a system, that tries to overcome the market-based production, over the category of money instead of thinking about why the 'communist' called governments obviously still produced articles instead of goods? seems like you don't know Marx :/ Socialist 'marxist' economies do not have much to do with Marx' analysis and critique. Marx himself said he was not a marxist. By the way, right now our products are ridiculously cheap and more functional than humankind and our planet can take. Don't you think we could decrease the speed a little now and think about the fact that we submit our life and resources to a huge blind machine? Last, the workers are being exploited. not the clients.
Friendly suggestion: read "Economics In One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt, or simply watch any number of the Milton Friedman or Thomas Sowell videos on UA-cam. It seems your frame of reference/premises are a bit off.
Its all about monetary economics but you may not understand it if you are still stuck in a barter economy. What monetary economics or finance base capitalism offers is the freedom of choice which leads to more individual satisfaction. In a communist model of economy, everyone is deprived of his or her own happiness in more or less extent. For the same reason, it needs to be implemented with brute statist force and cannot at all work with just mutual voluntary agreement.
I don't critique her on "zero sum" or "altruism". I critique "ego alone" and no "indebtedness". We are a "society of egos", "indebted" to each other for our daily needs.. We do not survive alone. I live in a society of millions where every wish depends "on other men" (meaning men and women) - every single wish. I depend on regulated acts. I did not build the sidewalk, the road, water and food system, car I drive, etc. I do not call myself when my mom or child needs medical help, I call doctors and EMT professionals, NO ONE lives apart from this - even the "prepper" who lives in the woods. He is still protected by civil and military authority, paid for by society. It is absurd to say "man as end in himself" unless that man lives completely alone, and never gets anything from anyone else, not even a road. It sounds like she acknowledges "cooperation"; in fact, it sounds like Rand made a case for a "collective consciousness" more than an "individual one." I am very glad she got Medicare and Social Security at the end of life - this pretty much tells the whole story. And, I mean that - I'm glad she got help through the "compulsion" of a Social Security and Medicare law.
Gray Winsler Is this Ginger bullying something special to US/UK? Frenchs and Germans don't seem to be doing this. I don't know about Italians or Scandinavians, but I guess they're not doing it either.
Does objectivism really depend so much on free will? As i understand it, it's grounded more on man's dependance on his ability to reason, that on whether that ability is enacated by free will or not.
Interesting veiew on bioshock, as I do see not only a perverted viewpoints on objectivism but more on Arco capitalism. I should try out books on Ayn Rand's work.
“The question isn’t who is going to let me; it’s who is going to stop me.”
― Ayn Rand
Whenever I think of the drowning child thought experiment it makes me recall the quote from Sir Arthur Eddington - "Even if religion and morality are dismissed as illusion, the word "Ought" still has sway."
Even in the 12 step addiction recovery program, one of the sayings go”this is a selfish program” because it’s of priority to self care and look at that when you self care, you actually learn to get sober.
+Deborah Ezeta Hmmm, that’s interesting.
I had to tell my friend that the other day.
There are a lot of "sayings", but the first step is to say you are Powerless and your life is Unmanageable, 2nd is Came to Believe in a power Greater than yourself and 3rd is to turn your Will and Life over to that power (god, as you understood god)......so.....?
the 12 step addiction program has a piss poor track record and pales in comparison to what is actually recommended by experts: extensive therapy and psychiatry to get to the bottom of the addiction. Addiction is partly genetic and partly a symptomatic. In fact, more often than not, it's really just a symptom more so than it's own condition: self medication for a deeper underlying psychological problem. No one decides to flood their brain with mind altering substances in spite of the nasty side effects those substances have unless their unaltered mind is a much more hellish one to live with; so hellish that escaping it is worth the damage.
@Satya Kowledge I believe there is a difference between caring for yourself and being selfish. I feel self care is putting your self first in your time of need, where being selfish if putting yourself first because you feel you are somehow superior to others. I understand that from an outside perspective that can appear as being selfish but I feel that if we communicated better and were more understanding of each other's needs we wouldn't see this as selfish but see it as an opportunity to be selfless and give that person the time and space they need.
3:52 Somehow I knew Bioshock would come up somewhere.
I love the clip at the beginning. The guy is essentially saying "You are evil incarnate" and she says "Yes".
I know--thought it was such a badass response I had to open with it.
Thanks, Tim! It's great seeing all the convos in the comments.
badass means strong, evil means weak, not the same ¡ she was just evil and weak, I mean if you think like her you are not a figther, you are with the man, part of the system, of injustice, , she took the easy route
That "guy" is Mike Wallace and your judgement "You are evil incarnate" is only so because you have a religious belief. Modified capitalism and majority rule were the only non religious things she was asked about.
well people that follow her have gained power (cause that is very easy for them) and have implemented policies (or lack of) that harmed and destroyed, even killed millions of people around the world
When you saw the thumbnail at 3 am and thought it was about No Country for Old Men
Finally a good video on Objectivism! Thank you sir, for not jumping to conclusions and blind hate, and having an open mind (or rather an active mind, as Ayn Rand would say)
I would like to extend on a few points you made in the video. First, the drowning child. Here's what Rand herself said:
"The proper method of judging when or whether one should help another person is by refefence to one's own rational self-interest and one's own hierarchy of values: the time, money or effort one gives or the risk one takes should be proportionate to the value of the person in relation to one's own happiness.
To illustrate this on the altruists' favorite example: the issue of saving a drowning person. If the person to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper to save him only when the danger to one's own life is minimal; when the danger is great, it would be immoral to attempt it: only a lack of self-esteem could permit one to value one's life no higher than that of any random stragner. (And, conversely, if one is drowning, one cannot expect a stranger to risk his life for one's sake, remembering tha one's life cannot expect a stranger to risk his life for one's sake, remembering that one's life cannot be as valuable to him as his own.) If the person to be saved is not a stranger, then the risk one should be willing to take is greater in proportion to the greatness of that person's value to oneself. If it is the man or woman one loves, then one can be willing to give one's own life to save him or her - for the selfish reason that life without the loved person could be unbearable."
Regarding the free will issue, here's what Rand said about that:
"Man’s consciousness shares with animals the first two stages of its development: sensations and perceptions; but it is the third state, conceptions, that makes him man. Sensations are integrated into perceptions automatically, by the brain of a man or of an animal. But to integrate perceptions into conceptions by a process of abstraction, is a feat that man alone has the power to perform-and he has to perform it by choice. The process of abstraction, and of concept-formation is a process of reason, of thought; it is not automatic nor instinctive nor involuntary nor infallible. Man has to initiate it, to sustain it and to bear responsibility for its results. The pre-conceptual level of consciousness is nonvolitional; volition begins with the first syllogism. Man has the choice to think or to evade-to maintain a state of full awareness or to drift from moment to moment, in a semi-conscious daze, at the mercy of whatever associational whims the unfocused mechanism of his consciousness produces."
And lastly, I think it is worth pointing out that Rand herself directly rejected the kind of society we see in BioShock:
"Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: . . . a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government."
Good one on the self esteem part
That hits when u think of it 👍
Thank you for citing the direct quotes.
Wouldn't the notion that free will does not exist obliterate any and all ethical systems? How can one choose to do the "morally correct" thing when they can't choose to do anything at all? I believe this goes for every ethical system, not just objectivism.
Yes. All values a knowledge presuppose free will.
Julia maybe morality is a development of evolution.
Nature will destroy a person to the extent a person accepts an irrational morality. But the force of ideas are much faster to change behavioure and can do it in a more radical way than evolution. Just think of people who choose death for their faith.
That is the intent, based on the psychological ego/ego ethical argument, and it applies to other moral theories as well. Essentially we are selfish beings and we cannot do what is impossible. So if you just look at the theories, free will does not exist.
[O]ne’s duty in a calling, is what is most characteristic of the social ethic of capitalistic culture, and is in a sense the fundamental basis of it. It is an obligation which the individual is supposed to feel and does feel towards the content of his professional activity, no matter in what it consists, in particular no matter whether it appears on the surface as a utilization of his personal powers. Or only of his material possessions (as capital). - Max Weber
psmag.com/economics/protestant-worth-ethic-real-65544
I’m reading “Capitalism: the unknown ideal” by Ayn Rand. I find most of her ideas to be foreign to my world view, her arguments unconvincing, and her examples ill fitting. Yet, I admire her intellectual and moral courage to state unambiguously what she feels and thinks, and let the chips fall where they may. Regrettably, too few of our public figures are brave enough to do that.
I'm only vaguely familiar with her work, but Carl Jung wrote about "the shadow" of our Id being our true selves and Nietzsche wrote "beyond good and evil" and the amoral superman. Richard Dawkin's "the Selfish Gene" described best how our species as an animal has a balance between other lone and group species from a biological point of view. On her free market idea's, she seems to be an anarchist in it's purest form of a society of no government.
Explain what she said was wrong? Do u disagree with her capitalistic views
@@patrickmcgoohan115 she is far from being an anarchist. Objectivism posits an inherent need for government - but that its *only* purpose is to protect individual rights - anything else is considered an overreach. Anarchism is the absence of government. Free markets need government to create the legal framework to uphold private property (police), arbitrate disputes (court system), and protect citizens against foreign invaders (military).
@@patrickmcgoohan115 That is not an accurate description of her philosophy. If you actually listen to objectivists speak, none of them espouse anarchist views, what they do suggest is a state that only exists to protect individual rights.
@@zylo999 Yes, exactly and that "state" IS the role of the government in essence - acting as referee in the public's pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately it never really plays that way, the government eventually swing towards the Marxist end of the spectrum....as we are now witnessing in current.
Good to see someone young who understands what she meant and does a good job of explaining it. I think those who aren't comfortable with rational selfishness, or with not doing one''s duty, mostly don't understand her overall message. They can't get away from their own indoctrination of doing duty, believing they are being unselfish, despite doing it unwillingly and with resentment.
I would not want to live in a world without altruism. Our Constitution states that the government is to provide for the COMMON (shared) GOOD. I'm grateful that I have compassion for others. Helping others is the greatest joy in life.
I love the step up in production quality :D
Great Vid!
Thank you! =)
I personally found that people who hate her the most, never read her. At least read For the New Intellectual, cover to cover. All of her prophecies have come true or are coming true.
With the drowning child experiment I still think it's a good idea to save the child since it's still in your best interest to do so as you'll find a lot of joy in saving him and a lot of pain in the weight you'd inevitably carry if you chose to let a child die.
However I agree there's no obligation to do so from compassion, but an obligation out of self interest to your psyche.
The pain you feel comes from the fact that you were created to feel that not helping the child is morally wrong. If you were raised in a society where there is zero expectation of acting towards another person well-being, you never know, you might not care, and feel no guilty about not helping. Now if you believe that the sense of guilty is inherent to your condition as a human being, and independent of the culture, then you already disagree with rand philosophy and are closer to kant.
@@blendingdude3429 OBJECTION! We aren't raised to feel bad for one's death, specie sustainability is in our genes. Ethics weren't decided by a God, values are hold because they minimize death. As Ayn Rand puts it herself : "Ethics aren't a mystic fantasy nor a social convention, but an objective métaphysical necessity of survival, by the nature of life."
This is why we could choose to not save the child : maybe it's too dangerous. If it's not, there's no reason not to and as a game développer I can assure you that going out your way to do a sidequest is never left unrewarded.
You save that child also cos it sets a good example for society. None of us can accomplish everything on our own. When ppl start feeling we have no obligation to others, we will soon set the example/ tone for others to feel that they have no obligations to us. Which would cos ppl like parents to feel they gave no obligations to their kids, policemen to feel they have no obligation to stop murders or robbery, firemen to feel they have no obligation to stop fires etc. This undoubtedly would create a dystopia for everyone
I find it unsettling that people hate her and the idea of individualism.. there are literally people out there that think its fair to repress talent and unique qualities in someone..
I can only imagine they hate her because of Atlas Shrugged.. I can appreciate that.. But I love The Fountainhead.. i related to it 100%, literally within the first chapter of the book.
I cant help but find a very simple film to be the most insightful..
Helen Parr: "Everyone is special, Dash.."
Dash Parr: "which is the same as saying nobody is"
- The Incredibles.
You are a sharp young man Mr. Grey Winsler. Her philosophy actually mirrors the founding of the USA, and she understood the USA was based on individualism, self interest and a free market. I think the existence of the USA actually validated her thoughts of freedom. She loved the way the USA was founded, and despised the evil of being told you are to live your life for the state. But I have something I doubt you have yet Mr Winsler. I am old enough to have experienced some of our founding of individual liberty. I earned degrees, worked for a lot of employers, and started my own business. My business is in a recreational industry (engines for RC cars) that has no regulation, (just taxes), and it is the most exciting thing that ever happened to me, (and I used to race motocross). Man, after working for all those people, (most who worked for somebody else, and learned, before they started their business), and all that part time school, when my business took off, I felt a sense of freedom that I never knew existed. You have not experienced that yet Mr. Winsler, and most have no idea it exists.
Capitalism belongs to the citizens, so we can use our minds to chase our dreams, creating the glory of all of mankind---while getting rich!!! It is called communism when the government runs the economy, (into the ground).
Can anybody answer me this? How can any of us follow our dreams, with out capitalism in our hands, and a brain in our head?
Answer: We can't.
Your last words were the best abut living in a world ruled by emotions...on how you make others feel.
thanks for this video, I was kinda struggling to understand that.
+PyroNexus22 Sure, glad the video helped.
Does anyone know the name of the music in the background... Thanks!
Loved it, very well presented! helped quickly explain Rand to my friend! thank you very much!
Thanks Kat!
Great video. Sad that I'm just now learning about her.
Suppressed in our modern education system in fear the state will lose the power it has.
never too late to learn
You mention and skip across "free will" without stating how it is understood and can be proved objectively. So to suggest it may destroy the foundations of objectivism is arbitrary and invalid.
Free will merely means to choose to _think_ or evade that process. One can act according to a volitional process of thought, or not. If not, then it is whim, superstition, peer pressure etc.
Sam Harris has not addressed this at all.
Indeed
Can anyone tell me what the name of that background music is?
The highest tribute to Ayn Rand, is that her critics must distort
everything she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason,
not force; the individual’s rights to freedom of action, speech, and
association; self-responsibility, NOT self-indulgence; and a
live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an
END, not the MEANS of others’ ends. How many critics would dare
honestly state these ideas and say, ” . . .and that’s what I reject"?
Well said
Rand fled communism and her thinking is all based on that. She's not even aware she has all the rights she has. She's railing against an enemy that isn't there. And she also advocates laize e fire capitalism for example. Making the same Utopian mistakes that communism made in not taking into account human nature.she assumed itd all be okay because those creating wealth would be "enlightened". Her ideas are in my opinion half baked.
Jack 1059 - Yeah Ayn Rands entire philosophy is essentially a reaction to her escape from the USSR when she was younger.
Doesn't work with laissez faire capitalism because most people will be wage slaves.
@@amanonplanetearth78 Slaves work for food and wage slaves work for a wage to buy food. That's why laissez faire capitalism is so efficient and profitable. The only economic system that is even more efficient and profitable is real slavery.
I loved your final comment and how we judge people by how happy they make others, and I agree with Rand in that there’s nothing wrong with helping others. Helping others is one of the pillars of Judaism for example (the religious philosophy I hold to) but I find tremendously abhorrent is trying to impose helping others which then makes solidarity absent. Take taxes for example, they’re supposed to be for a greater good but then you could go to jail if you refuse to pay them. I don’t see it as act of solidarity, rather as an act of violence.
I read fountainhead years ago and it did change my life. I congratulate you for providing a brief intro and summary of objectivism, which i can send to people. I always cherish your work and infact got into Persuation after watching your video of trump. Hope to see more from you at a higher frequency
+SUDHANSHU SINGH It's a great read. And I'm glad you're enjoying the videos--comments like this keep me motivated. Frequency has never been my strong suit, but you can expect to see something in the next week or so!
I love the clip at the beginning
Fantastic Video. Did you start playing Bioshock again in preparation? :D
I really like the analogies with drowning children, since they force us to rethink many moral stances we have. Gray, have you seen Singer's appearance in the film "Examined Life"? He uses the analogy there to speak about consumerism vs. moral obligations.
thank you for your hard work. I have a paper on Ayn Rand's philosophy and this helped a lot.
Glad to hear it!
I was going to skip this video, but once he said Chick-Fil-A; I had to laugh and kept listening...
There are so many bits of knowledge to be borrowed from Rand. Although I have not adopted her philosophies as my own, I do understand how she came up with her ideals. Following her own philosophy, she passed on her nuggets of wisdom and did good things. She is her best example.
Rand died penniless and reliant on social security to live. Thank goodness for social programs for the common good. She is proof she was wrong.
What is the music used, anyone?
I seem to recall a Florentine fellow during the Italian Renaissance whose writings were also called perverse and immoral.
Not everyone who is accused of being perverse and immoral turns out to be messenger of enlightenment. Most just remain perverse and immoral, destined to become a footnote in history, or else forgotten altogether, like Ayn Rand will be. Theres good reason she rarely appears in syllabi of University courses, be it philosophy, literature, economics or modern history.
X4rrr You can hardly call her just a footnote in history. She’s had a huge influence whether or not you agree with her views.
@@tartanhandbag that might also be because western academia has become nothing more than a foucauldian meta-orgy
the prince?
I want to hear the philosophy, of the people, who dissect them.
8:45 "You can harvest the little sister or you can save her"
Great video! This was a good analysis.
0:24 Is when I smashed that like button.
Yeah, neither politically correct nor apologetic.
You only have a limited grasp of reality and ideas, run your life on emotion & don't seem to be very intelligent.
Lightest Asian u r correct
Lightest Asian thank u mam and all the best for ur work. And... Make sure ur foundation was strong.
@Lightest Asian LOL you bash rand and believe in peterson? Rand is closer to petersons self help BS than she is to marx. Marx is very complex and what people do not understand is that he mainly made observations. People think he invented communism but he rather used the hegelian school of thought to analyse economic systems. He was an absolute genius (I do not advocate communism). Hegel is notriously difficult and so is marx. Thats why peterson can bash him so easily (he either does not get him, or he does it on purpose). Rand and peterson both advocate for self help in a way (rand does so slightly more intelligently). Both are absolute intellectual trash though. You seem to be rational man of science, read wittgenstein you will like it. Leave peterson to the losers
Rand's philosophy changed my life. What an amazing women that graced our world!
Yeah! It's even better now that she greedy shill left it.
Ayn Rand died living in public housing on social security and Medicare. LOL
Lmao 🤣
I need clarification in regards to the first mention of Kant. Kant was a moral objectivist, he assumed that there were moral facts which we could discern. And reason is how we can discern said facts. Are you stating that Rand's view is a different type of objectivism?
I read her works as a teenager and then again in my mid 20’s. However, I still disagree with her philosophy more than I agree with it.
yeah... this seems to miss all the obvious flaws in her ideas.. unfortunatly.
As a Rush fan, I was exposed to Rand at an early age and it shaped me as a person profoundly. Good vid.
Thank you Sir!
Fantastic interview with Neal Peart in Rolling Stone 2012.
www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/neil-peart-rush-new-lp-248712/
He is missed greatly.
I would be very interested in hearing you talk about Nietzsche-especially since you just made a video about Rand.
I'm very intrigued by rands philosophy. But I have the feeling that its quite ahead of our time. People generally refuse to think that way.
The worst reason for doing anything is because you are looking for thanks and rewards. If you think you will get no thanks or rewards, you will not do it despite it may be the best course of action.
The second worst reason for doing anything is because it makes you feel good. For if it was the appropriate action, and you did not feel good about it...it would never get done.
If however upon examination _it is clearly seen that the action is better for everyone_ and is carried out free of the fetters of hoping to receive reward/thanks or feeling good about it, _then on that basis_ so called altruism is being approached...
you must be talking about yourself- all people do not do good for thanks or rewards.
Wow! Amazing job putting into perspective her philosophy! I feel lots of people read The Fountainhead and find a reason to be selfish and surpress others with their power. But you explained and laid everything out beautifully!
Thank you, Brittany!
I believe in individualism, self worth determines who you are as a person. As well as multiple measurements of this concept. Like a worth of who are in the fields of morality, intelligence, cleverness, valor, success, reputation, strength, and charisma. Most people succeed in one of these fields or another, and measure personal value with categories appealing to themselves. I personally value morality above all else, considering how moral decisions can effect the outcome and future immensely.
Great work- thanks
Thanks Dorothy:)
Awesome video thanks for making it. Reading Fountainhead did change my life.....I compare reading Atlas Shrugged (though brilliant) to drinking a glass of poison from a very very angry lady BUT Fountainhead changed my life.
Haha, glad you enjoyed the vid. I prefer Fountainhead as well.
Gray Winsler what do you think of Atlas Shrugged? I’m actually gonna listen to the audio version once I finish listening to Fountainhead on my iPhone give it a second try now that my life is in a different place. I’ve read FH twice and now I’m listening to listening to it. I think Mathew Patrick is Ellsworth Monkton Toohey.
It does sound quite nice, though I think in my opinion an unregulated capitalistic structure would infringe on people’s freedoms just due to the way power structures work really. I don’t know if I have understood her philosophy well enough but that’s just my stance on this. What does anyone else think?
10 months late but here I am.
There is no way that an unregulated capitalistic structure could infringe on people's freedom. Freedom means the absence of coercion (murdering, stealing, fraud). By definition, if nobody is coercing you, you are free to live your life as best you are able and as you see fit.
@Orla Watson I don’t really understand what you mean. How is it not “freedom in its truest sense” because people aren’t born equal? People are not equal in any respect. That doesn’t affect freedom at all. Is “freedom in the truest sense” some kind of egalitarian whim-worship society?
Took me 15 second to subscribe. That's a record. As a philosophy major I know your videos will help me out
+Josue Gonzalez Appreciate the sub, Josue! Mostly political content at the moment, but planning to get some more philosophy in the mix soon.
Best,
GW
Thanks for the video
Libertarians are right about some things but I find they often go too far towards ideological extremes. For example, I had one tell me that all building codes should be eliminated and if people die in a fire then their relatives can just seek monetary damages in court. Another one told me it shouldn't be illegal to drive as fast as you want through a residential neighborhood where children are playing as long as you don't hit one. Then another said there shouldn't be statutory rape laws because it should be up to the parents if their children have sex. Come on now. There have to be some rules.
@ Josh Anderson - Rules like speed limits and building codes are often the result of learning from past experiences. For example large numbers of people have died in fires because exit doors were locked so now we have laws mandating push bars on emergency exits. What's wrong with learning from past mistakes and not repeating them?
@ Josh Anderson - I wasn't suggesting that you said or implied it. My observation was of some other libertarians that I have encountered.
uhm , republicans are the ones against regulations
Moral personal rules, if you kill somebody it's still ilegal, but you wont kill them not because of the law but because it benefits you personaly
@O.P. Yates people should be their own moral cumpas and not get into trouble because of what they think, not because of what the law says
Great video! I've never looked into Rand's ideas too deeply, but as a regular viewer of Stefan Molyneux's channel, I have been peripherally aware of her general approach for a while now. You gave me some info that I wasn't aware of, and it makes me want to read her books to get a more in depth picture of objectivism. Thanks!
Micah Gunnell try the virtue of selfishness. most the time I find myself really wanting to disagree with her... but most of the time I just can't.
Tim Mahagin I agree with that. Forced goodness is not goodness. I believe the only function of the government should be defended others from theft, violence and deprivation of personal freedom. As for Stefan, yeah there have been a few times when I've almost stopped listening to him, and while I don't agree with him on everything(I'm not an Atheist for example), and sometimes I feel his debates with listeners ignore the rules of debate in order to "win", I do enjoy hearing what he has to say and ultimately I think he's doing his best to make the world "better".
Rob Vel Thanks for the recommendation! I'll check that one out.
Great video. Informative.
Thank you, Nishant!
I've just started to study Ann Rand. I rejected her for a while based on the things I had heard of her philosophy or the people that follow her philosophy but I began to think about how most philosophers become the object of our projections, to the egos projections, similar to how neitchze's concept of the superman became a projection for the nazis. I believe Rand's idea of objectiveism is more related to the idea of rejecting the collective idea of morality, which can be represented in society or nationality or religion. What Rand perhaps describes is an ideal state, it sounds like game theory, where we all get what we need but work together without taking from each other. Of course we do not live in anything close to this state, the ego rules, especially in Western society but in all humans societies, thus I believe rand is misunderstood or perhaps appropriated to one's own ends. Interesting stuff though, thank you for the video, I'll continue to study more
I havent read any of her philosophy, but i from what i can tell of this video, i seem to share her views almost completely. I think i’ll give it a try somewhere down the road.
Sander Cohen u won’t regret it good luck on ur journey man
'Ahh... Yes' at the beginning!
He was essentially asking if she was an evil bitch who wanted to set the world on fire and she just replied Yes
this woman got bigger balls than Big Daddy
I will be buying The Fountainhead now. Thanks for this. Great stuff.
Can we apply objectivism to the current state of affairs concerning #believe all women?
People who preach rand like billionaires and politicians seem to forget that rand spoke of RATIONAL self interest
Ayn Rand is correct in perceiving love as selfish, she is right that wanting to do something good or bad is a result of your own thoughts and for your own reasons making it selfish. Human action is driven by selfishness. That does not mean objectivist philosophy is correct. One of the biggest complaints waged against her philosophy is that as a collective over valuing the individual will lead to costs to others; the most common example is Government intervention. The government should not simply prevent people from infringing on the rights of others but mandatory help is seen as a violation of pure self determination according to Rand. If humans have free will then self determination is integral to our success but not everything is within our control. Statistically speaking the class your born in is the class you'll die in; doing well or doing poorly might not be a result of your own work. Saying that one success entirely made through there selfish actions ignores that factors outside of the control of the individual.
By definition, love is self-less. What she describes is something other than love that she calls love, plain and simple. Many people do not know what love is, Rand is just another.
Most people dont work hard. (on themselves)
subg88 I love you only has real meaning if you use the word "I"
yes that is a big contradiction of a "philosophy" that can't be applied in the real world, unless is used to justify injustice, and that is exactly what is happening right now
I agree. Another fundamental mistake I think Ayn Rand makes is that she assumes that those strong now will be strong forever. But the truth is the weak and needy have a way of becoming the strong and productive and vice versa. We all have spent time leaning on the altruism of humanity at some point.
Even Ayn Rand was forced on Medicare when he ignorant smoking habit gave her lung cancer. Her own hubris forced her to survive off the goodwill of others in the end. She of course spun it that she had been forced to pay taxes, and thus why should not selfishly take of Medicare. But it went entirely over her head, that if she had never had that safety net she would have died.
If I have been wrong on any comment Mr. Harris dont get offended with my disagreement on freewil because I did not have freewill to believe and reason out the thoughts which I have, which is that freewill does exist.
Great video! Thanks!
Rand idea of selfishness also requires that individual take full responsibility for their action, something most people do not want to do and is contrary to the socialist doctrine.
Rick Haworth almost no one does it, in fact. Almost everyone plays victim to something
Bigotry is the sign that you have become an adult.
Shortly before her death Ayn Rand snitched under the hood of Medicare and social security which I think is the opposite of what she should have done according to her beliefs.
Yeah, man, preach water and drink wine.
@@hermask815 She did what she needed to get ahead, I see no contradiction
SilverBladeHero 15
I'll go with that. Pragmatism over conformity to the own beliefs.
I'll cherrypick the atheism and "yes" to abortion of her .
The rest of her ideas, yeah, whatever.
They believe in collectivism in the sense that other people are responsible for their failures and successes which is partly true. People contribute to both because you live with others and nothing happens if others aren't willing to contribute to what you think should happen but ultimately you're responsible for making successes or failures happen. Only you can be responsible for that. It's nobody else's fault that you can't convince them to go along with what you want.
Any moral code must accept free will as a basic premise. The concept of value only makes sense to a human able to act on alternatives. If you deny free will you are nothing more than a clock tick tock tick tock....
I tend to think that we don't have free will in the sense that our input determines our output. Each of us is a system which is an expression of a larger system. Everything comes in from outside us - genetic material, experiences, information, moral codes... We are a location in which all of these things interact and metamorphose into something else. We think we make decisions, but really what happens is that influences from outside of us compete or coalesce and something results for which we take credit, but because we are the product of all that comes from outside of us, no other decision could have been arrived at. This doesn't mean that moral ideas are irrelevant, because they are a major part of what is flowing through us and shaping our actions. We think we have moral principles, but moral principles have us. We are like computers on a network, and ideas, about morality or anything else, shape our behaviour even though we don't actual chose them. They chose us. An idea or moral code arises from the intellectual stew of humanity and attaches itself to those individuals who happen to have had the kind of experiences which predispose them to be attracted to it. Within them it has a life of its own, but may later be driven out or modified by a different idea or moral code.
mughat Very true. Self interest MUST come first. Sadly, with the Left, it doesn't.
"At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst. " [Aristotle - Politics] At the other end of the spectrum, a legal system which dictated every choice would be death for free will and a 'hell' - for free speech and free trade - would follow [paraphrasing Rev6v8].
we have NO CHOICE but to accept free will.
니로다 가미니 파띠바다 아리야사까 드까 ~ verily he is mad, North by Nor'west, who thinks he can choose to be or not to be.
It’s interesting that video games come up in this discussion because Ayn Rand’s philosophy describes the mind set of a gamer. In games, I only help others if it benefits me. I only help others for a reward. If all I get are some karma points, I kill them and take whatever they have that I’d want. However free will doesn’t really exist in games because a game almost always pushes you down a predefined path
You have the same voice as Michael from Lessons from the Screenplay
Great video by the way
Thank you!!
The problem is I don't believe free will can ever be scientifically denied.
@sebatian Science can't ever say with absolute certainty that 'free will' does not exist.
But science can say with absolute certainty that whatever your neurons fire is predetermined randomly by laws of physics, how can you fit free will into that? There are many cases of people with head injuries who lost control over their own selfs and their personalities changed a lot, for no more than an anatomical and biochemical changes in their brain. I think there is no free will.
You got my attention at BioShock lol. I swear I wasn't understanding the theory at all until you made that connection.
+KANALYRAN22 Haha. I’ve always said you can learn a lot by playing video games.
Very good conclusion in my opinion. Nice video.
I've been so confused, trying to understand the hate and issue about Rand. Thank you for breaking it down clearly! This really helped me.
As 100% egocentric egoist, I cannot imagine an individual who can survive the onslaught of community. The collective mind set has tons of negative aspects, but as long as community does not oppress its members, but rewards them for their talents and fulfill their ambitions, altruism would be more logical to follow, than focus on your own ass and assuming that everything will go fine, if you priorities yourself by default.
Again, I am not saying that blue pill + Matrix or 1984 are good worlds to live. I am saying that Brotherhood of Nod > Fighting Club.
Even though it is impossible to objectively analyze the Rand's philosophy, and have perfectly correct result, it is possible to analyze the philosopher. And if you are too lazy to search, just open wiki and look why her parent immigrated to USA.
Funny enough, people like her were whining that their homeland was turned into cinders and will never be strong again.
Yeah sure, top 2 superpower from 1945 to 1989 and tons of memes with my brethren. (Sad trombone)
I'm a teacher, and teaching is the most selfish thing I do. I earn a living, prepare children to contribute to society in a positive and moral manner, and make myself feel wonderful both at the head of the classroom and in knowing that I have done my best to make the world I live in a better place.
If you are earnest in your efforts, teaching is one of the purest forms of rational self-interest available.
I agree with you and I applaud you, I wish I had you as one of my teachers when I was in school. I also wish there were more teachers like you in Elementary, Middle and High Schools and especially Colleges. I say that with honesty and respect for you, because unfortunately there are too many teachers and professors now, more than ever who are communist, and socialist sympathizers are! The laughable but sad fact is that, they condemn Fascism and Nazism (as they should) but praise the other two, knowing fully well how many people have died under Communist takeovers.
"Fascism, Nazism Socialism Communism are just Superficial Variations of the Same Monstrous Theme; Collectivism."
- Ayn Rand
@@elgrigorio1 Instead of placing the blame for the killings you mention on communism or socialism ideas, we should place it on the same self-centered individuals (or, in their most extreme manifestations - monsters - such as Joseph Stalin guy and those around him, as well as every government in today's world which exerts too much control over our lives, protecting the interests only of themselves and their rich sponsors) that Ayn Rand supports in her books and who, in the name of those ideologies, committed those heinous crimes. What I am trying to say is that the ideologies that promote equality and justice are not to blame, but rather those perfidious scumbags who ruthlessly toppled their predecessors in order to take over the control of the country, and who then continue their rule by doing the very same things they were supposedly fighting against, producing the similar inequality in the society that existed before them, where the only thing that changed was the names of those in positions of power and wealth.
Quick fact. There was government regulation forbiding trade with outside world. That is what created problems in rapture. Interestingly that they had to add that govn regulation so they could create logical narrative.
That would go against free trade principle that is essetial part of Objectivism.
Atlas shrugged really did change my life - or my mind, at least. It put in the spot light so many mental road blocks that I never realised were there. I think the portrayed characters are a touch unrealistic - even idealistic - but I don't think it's really about how the characters live and act but the philosophy they embody.
On free will ... I don't think it's an illusion. Before I make a decision to do anything, I can visualise multiple different actions and pick one. Admittedly, the number of actions is limited by my imagination and my emotions may cause me to prefer some action over another but I still believe I always have a choice, no matter how hard the choice may be.
Of course, that would be the illusion. Thinking I have a choice when in fact I don't. In practice, even if I have a choice, it may not matter too much because once I've acted all the other possible actions remain figments of my imagination and I will never know if I would have acted any of them out in the moment.
Probably, all things considered, a middle ground should be sought on the question of free will. In theory I think I have free will but I live in a universe on a planet and exist as an animal - my environment and my form have their own forces which are either out of my control or automatic and these forces can influence my choices.
Perhaps this is the illusion. If I lived entirely by reason, my choices might be automatic. If I lived entirely by emotion my choices might be automatic (assuming emotion and reason could be separated) but by combining the two into a single system I end up with conflicting motives one sending me to one extreme, the other to another extreme and the multiplicity of possible choices - my free will - comes from the effort to integrate the motives.
Our perception of or our actuation of free will could stem from the triune brain (or some more complex structure of brain regions) and our efforts to integrate them into a single unit which must handle the consequences of ALL of its actions no matter how contradictory they are.
If a scientist is to discover any true knowledge he needs a mechanism to sort true from false knowledge. If there is no free will there is no way of knowing if the content of his mind is true or false because he has no choice in rejecting contradictions. The content of his mind is determined. So for science to have any ability to find truth free will needs to be true.
mughat there are no contradictions in an objective nature, check your premises and you will find why you mispercieved reality to be contradictive.
Nature is the standard of logic. If you feel like you might observe a contradiction you know your interpretation is wrong. Look closer, think and you will discover why.
My comment was about free will. To check your premises you need free will to do it.
your argument seems to necessitate 'absolute truth'.
I'm not arguing against free will (I absolutely believe free will is a reality, if poorly (unequivocally incoherently) defined).
[O]ne’s duty in a calling, is what is most characteristic of the social ethic of capitalistic culture, and is in a sense the fundamental basis of it. It is an obligation which the individual is supposed to feel and does feel towards the content of his professional activity, no matter in what it consists, in particular no matter whether it appears on the surface as a utilization of his personal powers. Or only of his material possessions (as capital). - Max Weber
psmag.com/economics/protestant-worth-ethic-real-65544
I don’t think I’ve ever come across someone who dislikes Ayn Rand who has actually read her works.
+Fil Piovano You think I dislike Rand personally?
What I mean is, people who flat out say “she’s just for right-wing crackpots” have only heard that from other leftists who only watched a snippet of one of her interviews and never read more than 5 pages of her works. I think Objectivism has some great points, but I certainly wouldn’t say it’s the only valid philosophy and that she was right about everything. You have clearly read her works and the feeling I got from your video is that you agree with her on some points, but not necessarily everything, and that’s perfectly fine. I’ve never met or heard of anyone who read her works and didn’t appreciate at least some aspect of her philosophy.And even the points they might not necessarily agree with, they’ll most likely acknowledge where they came from. I appreciate it when people take the time and effort to study something and to draw their own conclusions and not merely parrot someone else because they believe everything that person says or because they side with a certain ideology. I find most leftists detest her for no other reason that because it goes without saying that if you identify as a leftist, you must hate Ayn Rand.
+Fil Piovano Your assessment it correct. I certainly don’t subscribe to Objectivism wholly, but there are aspects I appreciate, and I definitely don’t think it is “evil” as some suggest. And on a personal level, The Fountainhead did have a big impact on me when I first read it.
Unfortunately, the problem you’re bringing up is not exclusive to Rand. People seem to be increasingly dogmatic and adhere to the opinions of whatever group they cling to, regardless of facts or their own analyses. Republicans can’t believe in climate change. Democrats can’t support the 2nd Amendment. Generally speaking, a persons stance on one issue can be used to predict their stance on every other issue, which shows conformity and acceptance rather than critical thought. Worse yet, it’s contributing to our increasing polarization. In any case, glad you’re not part of the herd.
Best,
GW
I see her more as a woman looking in from the outside of a mans world who found her voice in a medium you could probably compare to mad men.....
You are so right, but maybe this quote could explain why people don't like to read her: "There is a very good reason why there are always piles of six to ten copies of Atlas Shrugged in every thrift store and used book store in the country. (My local used bookstore has so many copies they won’t accept any more). It’s terrible. The plot is contrived, the characters are unbelievable and flat (just as an example, every “hero” is gorgeous, muscular, and charismatic, every “villain” is ugly, repellent and physically inferior), its defining moment is a 20 page speech (seriously) and its underlying principles are sociopathic. The only reason it stays in print is because the Ayn Rand Foundation prints up copies and distributes them for free to schools and universities."
great video!
It funny, I only got into Rand _after_ I learned that she basically had the same philosophy as me. Looking out for #1.
My responsibility in my life is to myself, and by default I don't owe anybody anything (although in reality, I owe quite a few people a favour or two). But that's just it, its always in your best interest to return a favour. And I, selfish though I am, feel morally obligated to do so.
I find that, when combined with a healthy understanding that what goes around comes around, Rand's philosophy has led me to be more honest, more reliable, and more helpful than I was before.
"Chick-fil-A is closed on sundays" - Ayn Rand
As a person who has read all of Ayn Rand's novels and as many of her treaties as I can lay my hands on, I think it is important to understand what she meant by selfishness.
She maintained that an individual has the right to pursue his or her (I refuse here to be PC!) happiness, provided that, during the course of such pursuit, no force was initiated against any other person.
She also believed that there are only two rights - the right to your life (and therefore to self-defense) and the right to the pursuit of happiness, and that no person has the right to initiate force against another person.
From this it follows that the only function of government should be to protect its citizens against force from other citizens or from external sources.
Once these basics are understood, then the rest of her philosophy falls into place and can be seen as highly moral.
The problem that most humans have is that we consider ourselves to be rational beings, whereas we are actually nature's newest experiment and the vast majority of us (myself included) are incapable of purely rational thought, unclouded by emotion and uninfluenced by environmental phenomena.
Ayn Rand herself was unable to escape this, as was evidenced by her own pretty chaotic personal life, but this does not mean that objectivism can be dismissed. It is probably amongst the purest of philosophies.
Phil Curtis
What is your take on stoicism?
Phil Curtis Purest? What exactly do you mean?
Well said, most people say that Ayn Rand didn't have emotions to speak of. But when you watch her interviews it is very clear she loved life and this amazing beautiful world and she also loved her family. She was always so grateful to be where she put herself.
I haven't read all of her works yet but I am slowly making my way through Atlas Shrugged. It takes a lot of deep thought because she brings up so many interesting points. One beautiful thing about her writing is that you can read her books just to enjoy the book.
Nice vid, you've got yourself a sub!
Good video. Preparing myself for Atlas Shrugged. (y)
The part about saving the drowning child reminds me of discussions on alignment in D&D where people would claim that a character that wouldnt go out of their way to save someone was evil, since saving the person was good and in their mind not saving the person is thus evil. I always had trouble finding arguments to explain that inaction is not the opposite of performing the action. So like from your example many people would say not saving the child would be evil, but it isnt. If you threw the child into the water to drown, that would be evil. Not taking action to save someone else is not evil, it just isnt "good".
Ayn Rand was a genius.
It seems none can disagree on that much.
She certainly had an active mind which goes with genius. But genius doesn't necessarily produce a positive influence
She was also a badass.
Dani Owen Agreed 👍
Work with others in your rational self-interest, what's so hard to understand? Nothing impractical about that. You just have to try see past the bad connotation selfishness has and judge altruism harsher as well. Objectivism doesn't reject the group or its rules, it just says that the self takes precedence before everything else.
In regards of the child example and her philosopby a quote from Bioshock Andrew Ryan" a man chose a slave obey"
Good video bud
I recently started listening to Ayn Rand's theories again (I'm a left-wing socialist all the way) after I realised I was judging her ideas for the people I thought who believed it. I gotta say, I don't agree but she ayn't a moron (and yes that was a horrible pun)
Atlas Zevi ok Adolf
Atlas Zevi Edgy
socialism is evil
Jason Schneijder Why are you a Socialist? Not trying to argue, I'm genuinely curious. What makes you entitled to the rich man's work? Why value non-living entities/ organizations over individuals/individualism?
That's all I ask of anybody that claims to be a rational person in the world. Understand something truly and then make your decision. The mere act of knowing will make you better.
I recently found my own meaning in life, and I have to say that Ayn Rand nailed it pretty much on the head.
When the future is so similar to the past, and most actions being forgotten, should we not just rely upon our own duty to act accordingly in our favor instead of to the will of the global conscience? If our favor goes against the greater good, then do so; if it goes with the grain, go with it. We do have the free will, but the freedom of that will only depends on our unconscious selfishness.
I however believe in regulations for the greater good. Protecting my self-interest, with the act of helping others as well, should be allowed. Ayn Rand would oppose that notion, but that is as far as I would say I oppose her values.
Glad to see you neither wholly approve of, nor wholly dismiss Rand. Not many people can do that.
If you are acting in your true self interests you would want regulations as to protect you and your children or whatever you care about. So I don't see why it would be mutually exclusive
I truly have a hard time understanding how people come into reasoning enough to label something, or somebody "evil" it all sounds juvenile to me
very well done, sir!
+a alien Thank you!
She hated Kant, yet the video begins with a number of ideas that are straightforwardly Kantian, such as the concept of a duty to oneself. Then we move on to the crude Leibnizian blunder of attributing all knowledge to reason. What is worthwhile in her writings is cribbed from much better thinkers, and of the rest, the less said the better.
"A man's moral obligation is to do what he wishes provided his which does not depend primarily on other men."
Isn't that what any CEO does? Depending on all of his employees to work to achieve his goal which is more profit? Any great corporation depends on the fact that humans have basic needs like eating, drinking and sheltering but that it would be impossible for all of the human population to be hunter/gatherers because of how many humans there is. Therefore, the only way for an individual to obtain such things is to work. In other words, You are free to stay within these boundaries.
So what is the difference between slavery and labor? Well, you get paid yes, but that money that you make is needed to pay the necessities you need. And what is even weirder, is how we determine the price of those necessities: It's the total time of labor+material costs+a mark up for profit. So when you work for a company, you get paid only a part of your contribution to a product but you have to pay the totality of costs when paying for a product plus a mark-up. So how is that not exploitation?
It is not exploitation because you voluntarily chose to work.
You are extremely privileged if you think the typical worker has any opportunities to make their own products.
+Ludwigvan yah, and the market makes pretty dumb decisions. we produce so much stuff that only people need, who are dead inside or stuff that is never being sold, because it could not compete. People waste their precious lifetime and energy on this crap. just to buy dumb stuff to get over this fact in their free time.
Also, companies don't only compete for money in delivering the best product. they also compete by producing cheaper, using poor materials, letting work under poor conditions, not paying taxes or airing the most annoying advertisement.
Then, why do you evaluate a system, that tries to overcome the market-based production, over the category of money instead of thinking about why the 'communist' called governments obviously still produced articles instead of goods? seems like you don't know Marx :/
Socialist 'marxist' economies do not have much to do with Marx' analysis and critique. Marx himself said he was not a marxist.
By the way, right now our products are ridiculously cheap and more functional than humankind and our planet can take. Don't you think we could decrease the speed a little now and think about the fact that we submit our life and resources to a huge blind machine?
Last, the workers are being exploited. not the clients.
Friendly suggestion: read "Economics In One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt, or simply watch any number of the Milton Friedman or Thomas Sowell videos on UA-cam.
It seems your frame of reference/premises are a bit off.
Its all about monetary economics but you may not understand it if you are still stuck in a barter economy. What monetary economics or finance base capitalism offers is the freedom of choice which leads to more individual satisfaction. In a communist model of economy, everyone is deprived of his or her own happiness in more or less extent. For the same reason, it needs to be implemented with brute statist force and cannot at all work with just mutual voluntary agreement.
You look like Howard Roark (Of the book, not the movie)
I don't critique her on "zero sum" or "altruism". I critique "ego alone" and no "indebtedness". We are a "society of egos", "indebted" to each other for our daily needs.. We do not survive alone. I live in a society of millions where every wish depends "on other men" (meaning men and women) - every single wish. I depend on regulated acts. I did not build the sidewalk, the road, water and food system, car I drive, etc. I do not call myself when my mom or child needs medical help, I call doctors and EMT professionals, NO ONE lives apart from this - even the "prepper" who lives in the woods. He is still protected by civil and military authority, paid for by society. It is absurd to say "man as end in himself" unless that man lives completely alone, and never gets anything from anyone else, not even a road. It sounds like she acknowledges "cooperation"; in fact, it sounds like Rand made a case for a "collective consciousness" more than an "individual one." I am very glad she got Medicare and Social Security at the end of life - this pretty much tells the whole story. And, I mean that - I'm glad she got help through the "compulsion" of a Social Security and Medicare law.
The fact that you had RAND, BIOSHOCK, AND HARRIS in the SAME VIDEO makes you my favourite person in the world right now!!!!
+Jason Ng =)
How is this carrot talking
+Andrew peterson This is a valid, philosophical question.
Gray Winsler
Is this Ginger bullying something special to US/UK?
Frenchs and Germans don't seem to be doing this. I don't know about Italians or Scandinavians, but I guess they're not doing it either.
Does objectivism really depend so much on free will? As i understand it, it's grounded more on man's dependance on his ability to reason, that on whether that ability is enacated by free will or not.
Interesting veiew on bioshock, as I do see not only a perverted viewpoints on objectivism but more on Arco capitalism.
I should try out books on Ayn Rand's work.