My parents taught me to think for myself with encouragement to be a good person and be kind. Some of Ayn Rands books where in my house at various times in the 50's and 60's but never got the feeling she was a cult figure. I read Rand in my early years but her writing was not exciting enough for me but her concepts of individuality were effective.
Meh I thought her ideas were interesting when I was a bit younger but quite a bit of it is just uncompromising levels of a funny shade of hyper-capitalist Max Stirner type egoism with hyper roided Nietzscheisms, which is like alright n all but I like people and kinda wanna actively cooperate with others as I assume 90% of people on earth would like to do who aren't sociopathic. Not a rip on Nietzsche cuz he's comparatively a more temperate thinker and I think he toes the line between the importance of the individual on its own and the importance of the individual being a part of an emergent collective of individuals better than a lotta folks, especially better than Rand who's philosophy is summarised in the briefest possible way of "look out for #1 always forever and if you don't then you're a pussy" But ykno I also live in Britain, a country that Ayn Rand would not hesitate one fucking millisecond to say is a socialist dystopic hellscape. It by no means is but guaranteed universal healthcare is pretty lit so yeah I'm a dirty commie Miss Rand 😤🔨🔴🔴⚫⚫ I'm also just gonna bookend this by saying I'm by no means an expert I'm literally some under 20 year old who hasn't academically studied philosophy to any extent chiming in on the comment section of a Lex Fridman podcast clip video but I like Nietzsche and don't claim to know much about Stirner and I only know Rand's work from the Fountainhead, which I thought was a bangin book
@Shay Quegan I thought Rand was crazy for years. I took out some interviews of her from the library once to get direct exposure to her. I knew it was time to move beyond the second hand info I had been getting. She just sounded nuts in those interviews. So I dismissed her. Years pass and I become curious about her again. I was reading some left wing news outlet on an old murder from the 1930's (maybe the 1920s). Anyway, the writer/"journalist" is really writing about how evil and satanic Ayn Rand is because she defended this murderer (a child murderer) as living free and by his own ideals, etc. At once, I thought, "this can't be right." He must be misconstruing something that Rand had indeed said about the murderer, but stretching what she said for his own purposes. The article just had hyperbole all over it. I looked into what Rand had actually said about the murder and the murderer. I don't recall exactly what she said but I did see plain as day that the article stretched and lied about what she had really said. Ironically perhaps, it was some dishonest leftist that motivated me to read her and get interested in her again. The second time around was a good experience. She isn't a panacea but she has incredible value and should not be dismissed. You're correct about people who hate her are people who've not properly checked her out. Anyone who belongs to a group (church, company, clique, etc) wants to signal to the other members that they are authentic members of the group. Hating Ayn Rand is one way of letting your fellow leftists know that you are a truly committed leftist and also that the views of the left are already correct, therefore is no need to read "the enemy", it would just waste your time or worse: make you realize that your views aren't as correct as you thought they were.
I read some of her essays years ago (70's -80's). Her novels were much too long for me. Because I'm fascinated with language I read her explanation of the term laissez faire capitalism. It was during the time of Louis XIV, the sun king. Louis sent his finance minister to meet with the leading business leaders of the day to ask, what can we do to help you. One brave soul spoke up and said "Laissez nous faire:" (Leave us alone)
that phase now has to be said to the ruling elite , the ruling elite are solipsistic along with Neo Liberals ,, neo-socialism should be create taking from its failures since the French revolution capitalism did not succeed in offering Liberty, equality & fraternity brother hood the same people who said Laissez nous Faire then have become greedy capitalist, and forgot how many people died to bring in Capitalism and do away with feudalism, yet not very long after Socialism is capitalism shadow
It translates literally to "Leave us to do" or a little more roughly to "Leave us to work" or "Leave us to make". To understand "faire" better, it's used on goods to say where something is made from in French. Made in China is "Fait en Chine". Sometimes you'll see "Fabriqué", but most of the goods sold to French speakers I've seen says fait. And "What did you do this weekend?" is "Qu’as-tu fais ce week-end?"
I was old -- I was introduced to Rand in my early 30's. I read Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged (in the proper sequence of course) and I had been fore-warned about Galt's 80 page speech, which did seem somewhat daunting, but when I got to it I had no trouble reading and rejoicing in it -- It summarized so eloquently, a personal philosophy which I had spent many years trying to synthesize, She changed my life. I was so privileged to hear her speak twice at Ford Hall Forum in Boston. Her mind was so quick that, yes, she did appear abrupt and curt, but that was just her brilliant mind already 2 pages ahead of everyone else (including those poor college students who did, honestly, ask silly questions. Unfortunately, I doubt those talks were recorded. Alas.
Two reasons why Rand is so disliked: 1/ She had a caustic public persona -- She attacked everyone, even those who agreed with most of her ideas (right-libertarians, conservatives, Christians). And she cultivated a cult of personality which drew derision from everyone on the outside. 2/ Our present zeitgeist is overwhelmingly dominated by Marxism, Critical Theory, and Postmodernism. Which advance the ideas that there is no such thing objective truth, and that all human interaction is a power struggle between collectives stratified by class, race, gender. Individuality, rational self-interest, and objectivity (objectivity beyond the walls of Critical Theory) are viciously attacked, censored, and sometimes treated as domestic terrorism. In other words, we live in a Fountainhead alternate universe where Ellsworth Toohey won.
Agree with your first point to some degree. She came across as caustic (maybe the Russian accent was something to do with it, by the way). I think the "cult" thing is overblown, but there was a bit of that.
#2 is just absurd. Marxism is pretty objective in it's critique of capitalism. Most of it focuses on it's tendency to self-sabotage and cause a crisis. You don't need any moralism to explain it. I don't care for critical theory or postmodernism, but Marxism itself is not in any way anti-objective. The Randian definition of "objective" is just bizarre to me. It just sounds like her making decrees from on high and calling them "objective". Also, collectivism can be rational self-interest. It's pretty damn rational for workers to organize a union so they can bargain for higher pay.
@@marshallsweatherhiking1820 Marxism might be objective to you but it is highly contentious and so much so that it's claim to be based on facts is weak. Marx's claim of the increased immiseration of the proletariat and the ever-increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, in relative terms, was not an accurate forecast, notwithstanding any claims today about the "one per cent" (and to some extent, even that is overblown). So much so that a lot of Marxists were tearing their proverbial hair out in the late 19th Century about why this hadn't happened (so we got a switch to critiques of affluence and "consumerism" instead). The labour theory of value - the base for the rest of the economics of Marx - was full of holes. The misallocation of resources that you get if prices are taken out of the equation is, again, another huge problem. Collectivism can be self-interested to a group of people trying to use their mass to leverage higher pay, just as it can be self-interested for those uninterested in being in a union, or for consumers seeking value for money, to be wary about entities such as the closed shop, massive strikes, and so on.
I have watched all her interviews and she was a good listener and always left room for arguments. I wouldn't say anyone from the interview felt attacked. You have to watch the interview with Mike Wallace.
Rand really went overboard with the "selfishness is the highest good" thing." There's a place for selfishness but humans evolved as social creatures with a strong instinct to contribute to the common good.
to the benefit of those they care about. the family, the tribe, etc. Not to be a utility taken advantage of, a slave to labor for others till the death
@@Aphotic_One yeah guess what she supports capitalism and all bad stuff in capitalism. She said "socialism means being everybody is a slave to everybody" and she thinks capitalism is right because you have one boss, and if you want to achieve something and you can achieve that while working under that boss then it's ok to work under him even if he didn't treated you well.
Yup. It’s best to cherry pick than to believe in something 1000% in. When you’re with family and friends, it’s ok to be the most caring, sympathetic guy in the room. But when you’re at work or in an environment you wouldn’t necessarily call home, it’s ok to be an objectivist. Do your own thing, try to be the best in the room, and screw the feelings of others
I first learned of Rand via Neil Peart. And The 2112 Album by RUSH. 10:09 "Prevalent In Culture" 11:33 "Fearhold On Freedom" 12:15 "Freedom Versus Feelings Versus Facts" 19:27 "The Job, and The Wife and The Compromises,... And The Comfort" 19:33
Rush is amazing. I didn’t realize as a fourteen year old kid that I was learning such levels of philosophy that have stuck with me for life. The album 2112 was huge in my intellectual development
@@dankelly7712 that is his failure, not hers. I would have been interested to hear him explain how the philosophy that saved Rush's career was no longer relevant. Maybe it was simply a case that he acquired enough material wealth to buy anything he wanted so now what got him there wasn't important anymore, he could pull the ladder up behind him. Did self reliance and determination and individualism become less important as the bank account grew? to paraphrase the guy from Wall Street and apply it to the months between Caress of Steel and 2112.... a man looks into an abyss and sees nothing staring back at him. In that moment, man finds his character, and THAT is what keeps him out of the abyss. Did Neil eventually discard his character?
Discovering Ayn Rand in the bookstore changed my life for the better. Altruism is used by big government to gain power over masses. I think she would argue that it's beneficial to be altruistic when it's not forced. If done by choice it is beneficial. Besides, there are two sides to every coin.
News flash. Some people that DO have kids are way worse to them compared to any of Rands ideologies in the subject. Being a parent isn’t a guaranteed softener. Some people are still pieces of shit regardless.
"Well, I know they've always told you selfishness was wrong. Yet it was for me, not you, I came to write this song." - Lyrics to the song Anthem by Rush.
@@camphor_dance here you go, dummy... *Rolling Stone: This is somewhat random, but you were interested in the writings of Ayn Rand decades ago. Do her words still speak to you?* Neil Peart: Oh, no. That was 40 years ago. But it was important to me at the time in a transition of finding myself and having faith that what I believed was worthwhile. I had come up with that moral attitude about music, and then in my late teens I moved to England to seek fame and fortune and all that, and I was kind of stunned by the cynicism and the factory-like atmosphere of the music world over there, and it shook me. I’m thinking, “Am I wrong? Am I stupid and naïve? This is the way that everybody does everything and, had I better get with the program?” For me, it was an affirmation that it’s all right to totally believe in something and live for it and not compromise. It was a simple as that. On that 2112 album, again, I was in my early twenties. I was a kid. Now I call myself a bleeding heart libertarian. Because I do believe in the principles of Libertarianism as an ideal - because I’m an idealist. Paul Theroux’s definition of a cynic is a disappointed idealist. So as you go through past your twenties, your idealism is going to be disappointed many many times. And so, I’ve brought my view and also - I’ve just realized this - Libertarianism as I understood it was very good and pure and we’re all going to be successful and generous to the less fortunate and it was, to me, not dark or cynical. But then I soon saw, of course, the way that it gets twisted by the flaws of humanity. And that’s when I evolve now into . . . a bleeding heart Libertarian. That’ll do. Link to original article: www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/neil-peart-rush-new-lp-248712/
She knew history..she knew human nature ...and so did our Founding Fathers,,,whom she loved and highly respected. Today most of us ,including "Intellectuals " know neither except to change and distort it to suit there own ends.
it's the objectivism people who are truly objective get viewed as aggressive or being negative cus people cannot handle being neither affirmed nor denied
While I don't agree that it is necessarily immoral to live for other people like Rand did, it is demonstrably immoral to force someone to live for other people. Most people today believe that helping other people is morally virtuous, and I tend to agree, but that ideal has been twisted into the concept that nobody would help another person if they were not forced to do so, so we must force them through taxation, ultimately funding welfare programs, infrastructure, etc. Then, those who believe everyone must be forced to help others simply shout anyone down that disagrees, decrying them as selfish and greedy - when in reality, we just don't want a government gun pointed at our heads FORCING us to contribute.
It's about values, if you value someone, and you will get something at the end for your interest, then you contribute. Otherwise, you don't have a reason if your values diverge. Otherwise, in the end, it might be that you have contributed to ISIS or some radical cult. You have to know what you are contributing to.
@@stancyke5456 Social Security is immoral indeed, but it's not 'welfare' in any sense. SS is just a classic Ponzi scheme enforced at the point of a gun. Since she was forced to pay into that scheme, she certainly had every right to get a payout towards the end. The fact that it's increasingly less lucrative as time passes is entirely the fault of those who imposed it on an entire nation, not Rand. I have to laugh whenever anyone thinks they're making some valid point against her philosophy on such a shaky foundation.
Her explanation of why people reject it is pretty good, and is not really insulting, like saying "oh you're just lazy and don't want to work" although it's pretty close to that. Some people have a deep fear of life, of making choices, and facing the consequences, especially when they can't predict the outcome, which is often the case. Living is scary, no doubt, and you don't always get lucky. There are those who have little to no problem with this, and others who are extremely bothered by it. Also growing up, we all come to that point where we have to assume the responsibility for our own survival, and though we may not like it, we also know it's not fair to burden someone else with it, because they are facing the same problems. Enter the "Gospel of Envy". But some people fall into envy, and may believe others have it easier, and therefore "ought to" share their good fortune with the "less fortunate" - which seems on the surface to be a moral good. And it is....as long as it's voluntary. But the envious are not satisfied with voluntary contributions, because they want more than seems justifiable to ask, and more so, they don't like to feel indebted, or ingratiated to their benefactors. They reject the humility of being the beggar who can't be the chooser. So they want a state run charity, anonymous, and to not be checked up on too closely on how they spend their entitlements. They want none of the stigma that comes from being dependent on charity, and would rather be seen as entitled to it. Thus welfare is inevitably subject to abuse, and in reality, never fails to be abused. And in the process of being codified into law, becomes absolutely tyrannical. When that happens - as it always does - the envious then claim it wasn't what they intended [it wasn't "real" socialism] and we need to just try again, and again, and again.
I read Ayn Rand s Fountainhead at 16 years old Atlas Shrugged at 19 and the rest by 25…I saw Ayn Rand speak at the Ford Forum in Boston in 1973 ish…she wore a coral color dress…she changed my life …my children and grandchildren all believe in objectivism and have read Rand too..I’m 70 now and have lived my life by Rands ideas..lol mostly!
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged . One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.” John Rogers
Why do people hate her? For the same reason people hate anyone: because they disagree with her. She believed in the virtues of capitalism. So anyone who is a socialist or communist will dislike her. But the reason she loved capitalism was because she grew up in communist Russia. Would any of the socialists of today still love socialism if they had to live in that environment? Doubtful. Quotes from The Fountainhead: “Ask anything of men. Ask them to achieve wealth, fame, love, brutality, murder, self-sacrifice. But don’t ask them to achieve self-respect. They will hate your soul. Well, they know best. They must have their reasons. They won’t say, of course, that they hate you. They will say that you hate them. It’s near enough, I suppose. They know the emotion involved.” - Dominique (367). Ayn Rand’s probable response to people who accuse her of hating people: “The person who loves everybody and feels at home everywhere is the true hater of mankind. He expects nothing of men, so no form of depravity can outrage him. . . . One can’t love man without hating most of the creatures who pretend to bear his name.” - Gail Wynand (461). She loves the best of humanity, their highest potential, not the mass of them. And in her opinion, people hate her because she is selective in who she likes and she wants people to be better than they are. People will “accept anything except a man who stands alone. They recognize him at once. By instinct. There’s a special, insidious kind of hatred for him. . . . They’ve got to force their miserable little personalities on every single person they meet. The independent man kills them-because they don’t exist within him and that’s the only form of existence they know. Notice the malignant kind of resentment against any idea that propounds independence. Notice the malice toward an independent man” (635).
Came across your page and this video today. I love stimulating and thought provoking conversations. Keep it up!
3 роки тому+27
I just do not understand why so many people hate Ayn Rand, i do not agree with her about everything, but i see the good points and there is more to learn than more to disagree...
She did say some bizarre stuff like a woman should not be president and had horrible views on native people saying Europeans where justified in mass murder and displacement.
3 роки тому
@@Kefka. people is to light to listen to opinions nowadays...
@@Kefka. I'm not sure what quote you are referring to, however most of the natives died from disease. Most did not understand the concept of land ownership or rights, and even if they did there would be no way to determine to which tribes/natives the land belonged to. This barely scratches the surface since they were already brutalizing and mass murdering each other before the Europeans arrived. Some even had slaves as well. So they were not always treated fairly but yes there were justifications for the violence and "displacement" that occurred. The natives would have flourished much more in a society that respected individual rights, compared to their constant warring, ignorance, and general stone-age living.
@@Kefka. You are so thoroughly and educated you need to find something besides commenting you're not qualified even remotely The level of Your IQ is astounding
Many great speeches in the book. John Gault's speech towards the end of the book was epic too. Long winded, but everything was said that needed to be said. Ayn Rand had a very unique mind.
"Well, I know they've always told you selfishness was wrong. Yet it was for me, not you, I came to write this song." - Lyrics to the song Anthem by Rush.
I finally understand the selfishness. It's about acknowledging your OWN sovereignty and your OWN importance. Take of yourself and protect your rights like you would for the community. And if everyone does that the community becomes very strong
Being part of the community is inherently going to require you to not be selfish to some extent. It needs to be balanced out. But in general selfishness is bad.
The funny thing about this, and so many discussions of Rand, is why We The Living rarely gets mentioned. I have the DVD of the movie made of it (not easy to find) and it's basically an early autobiography of her life during the Russian Revolution and it's right up there with Dr. Zhivago in bringing the revolution's horrors to light. Also read the novel and it's amazing how accurate the movie is to the novel.
Saw the Zhivago movie when living in Canada in the 1960's and that resonated . Read the " The Gulag Archipelago" in the 1980's and not long after discovered Ayn Rands book . Those two books and others have had a major effect on my thoughts about life .
@@DaralenManta Actually, there's more individualism in the novel, it's just that the transition period to Bolshevism kept everyone quiet. Russians are a very emotional people who had those suppressed. This is the country of Tolstoy, Pasternak, great Chess minds and creative performers in figure skating, gymnastics and ballet. It's really a shame their leadership was so bad over the centuries.
@@rockcabbage Which is fine as a study. But tiring to live by. I can't tell you much much happier I became once I reintroduced faith into my life, for example. I can still absolutely be objective about it. But my 'soul', my 'being' certainly needs a little bit of the unobjective. Hehe. It's tiring always being right... ;)
thank you for having this webcast. it truly has enriched my life. you not interrupting guest is truly so good i forgot what a great host should do. your silence sometime is pure genius
@Dick Johnson , Rogan does interrupt some, but he's silent compared to the news shows and interviews I remember from back when I had a television. Those people were unreal! All anyone did was talk over whomever they'd specifically brought on camera to hear!
People who bash my beloved Ayn Rand have one thing in common: They've never read one of her books cover to cover. They cherry pick a few words, then cry about it. Many of her core concepts are badly misunderstood. I only wish that I could have met her, and probably could have (I lived in NYC from '73-'82). Bummer.
Hitchens was an unapologetic commie and supported the Iraq War and every war since 1990. He didn't apologize for that either. Fyi: Selfish people mind their own damn business. Hitchens and Neocons would've learned that from Rand if they weren't actual mole people.
@@musopaul5407 I don't understand how he still has any supporters. I guess old school Atheism+ people who don't know anything else about him or his views who just liked watching him dunk on Creationists.
@@musopaul5407 Don't get me wrong there were plenty of gigantism suffering dinosaurs that needed to be brought down and he did so. Mother Theresa comes to mind. However he didn't even make it to retirement age. His trajectory through life was confused. Like most Atheists he's a victim of adhering to negative philosophies. Negating a false ideology doesn't tell you how to live. You can't just spend your life being the asteroid; You need to eventually learn how to be a mammal.
@@musopaul5407 Hitchens was great to watch when he'd do his take downs of religious morality. But Atheism runs into the same problems that Libertarianism does. It's like moving out of your parents house: It's just the first step to independence. It doesn't tell you what to actually *do* with that independence. That's what I mean by negative philosophies. It's just "not government" or "not church". Well... that doesn't narrow life down much. If you just do anything you feel like your life will be a disaster. Humans need a code of ethics. Look at the Amazing Atheist now. He's a basket case. Calling himself the 'Amazing Nihilist' now. Painted his face blue and into Wicca and other hokey BS. Why even leave the damn church??
If you're referring to the Baby Boomers, you have to realize that their narcissism took the unusual shape of it being collective in nature, that they thought of themselves in the terms of "us". "We're" going to change the world, etc. They thought it was the height of insult to label the X generation as the "me" generation, but of course, we didn't care because we didn't think in those collective terms that they did.
I just read the fountainhead and quite frankly I found the narrative of the first half so enjoyable and the characters so well written that it was easy to trudge through the philosophies and ideas of the later chapters
I read all of these when I was 12 ...and even when I was 12 I knew it was bullshit .. they were based on Idealistic archetypal hero industrialist characters that may exist somewhere in the world but Is obviously not the norm. They were OK reads but I enjoyed Science-fiction more because I knew at least someday it might be true
Yep and any wonder a video to brainwash the youth comes out right now. Umm, Ann Rand's addressing the value of liberty from those who care nothing about human well-being is hardly something nobody cares about. Are we to ignore the Cubans, French, Brits and world in their demonstrations against kings and globalist's? Pure NLP cucking minds.
There are three types of people that take issues with Ayn Rand: Those who have read her, those who haven't, and those that know some of her personal history. In her interpersonal life she wasn't a very kind person. People that aren't kind, shouldn't expect kindness, or even basic respect. They should know from reflecting on their own behavior that no one has to treat you nicely. They are only beholden to the consequences, be them whatever they may. Does Ayn Rand espouse some decent ideas? Absolutely. Some of her ideas are excellent. However, she tends to drive the idea to insane points. This is where those who have read her may take issue. The rest were literally programmed to her by a socialist leaning academia.
Using the altruism term is a dualistic partisan trap. Someone called me altruistic once. I'm not altruistic. I don't want to be a martyr. I don't want to sacrifice myself for others. I want what's good for me. But not just for me. For everyone. What's good for everyone is good for everyone. What's good for some and not others is bad for everyone. Detrimental. Fatal even. That's what we need to learn in this world. The individual and the collective are both important. If I fight for my own rights it's not just for me. It extends to everyone. This is how I live my life. I fight for my rights to take precedent over government and developers taking over land around me. Then I join with my neighbors to support their rights the same. During the pandemic, under quarantine, I use protocols to protect others which in turn protects me as well. I definitely felt my instinct to protect my species there. I want a living wage. I want everyone to have a living wage. It's obviously doable. Better for everyone. Those who fight against it are making more than living wages but what's good for some but not others is bad for them as well. There are consequences in what is not sustainable. That extends to the whole of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Standard of living. Health and well being. Freedom of speech and belief. All of it.
I applaud your statement, I am 64 what is happening in this world with wars In Israel and Ukraine, ruling elite are solipsistic, war is all is happening, we are into the 21 century yet we as human beings fail to be more diplomatic, we are going back into feudalism.
Many of your statements seem to be malformed, and as such cannot fall under such a broad axiom of "good for all." Let's look at one of them: the "living wage," so-called. Who defines how much a "living wage" is? If we let individuals decide, they would all ask for more than they need. If we let the government decide, they will definitely NOT make a decision that is "good for all" (they might not give enough for some who need it, they might take too much from businesses and cause bankruptcy). Once this magical number has been determined, what do we do about businesses that cannot afford to pay it? Many restaurants, for example, only have a 5% or less profit margin. Should these businesses just shut down? Wouldn't this result I'm MORE poverty? Anyone can just declare something that is "good for all." Watch: NO ONE SHOULD MURDER ANYONE ELSE. See how easy that is? Now, try and make it happen with government. It's never going to happen, and you can even cause more harm in the pursuit of this unrealistic goal. Wise and intelligent shouldn't rely on such simplistic philosophies.
What protocols? And if you voluntarily lived “under quarantine” you traded your freedom and others’ freedom for your fear. Quarantining for the plandemic does not protect the species, it endangers it.
In my twenties I read a great deal of what Ayn Rand had written, both her novels and her essays. Additionally, I studied with her "intellectual heir" Leonard Peikoff. I know Ayn Rand's work quite well. I'm now 75 years old and I can honestly say that my opinion of her hasn't changed. Her politics is excellent, her ethics is good, her metaphysics and epistemology are fair, but better than most. Her novels are awful! They're cartoonish. That anyone would be enthralled by her novels, as many people are (mostly, but not only, young people) is a mystery to me. Why is she so hated? In addition to the things your guests say, there's the additional fact of her style - she's extremely aggressive and dismissive of others. The result is that those others respond by being aggressive and dismissive of her. I think that if Rand had been less aggressive and less dismissive of others (and by 'others' I mean almost everyone else), her ideas would have been much more widely accepted. BTW, Leonard Peikoff is far and away the very best professor I ever had.
> That anyone would be enthralled by her novels, as many people are (mostly, but not only, young people) is a mystery to me. Her novels concretize her philosophy. Peikoff, in _Understanding Objectivism_, says many people, including people who claim to be Objectivists, hold ideas as mystical ideals, split from concretes, not as abstracted FROM concretes. The intellectual hold of mysticism remains strong, even among subjectivists.
dcissignedon :: Your explanation of "why" she is so hated was a perfect description of her style of writing. I was in a bookstore, one day, they had a vast collection of her books of essays. She was so controversial, I decided to find out for myself ... I read essay after essay after essay ... I felt that she was in-your-face with her opinions ; very inflexible ... rigid. She "sounded" unhinged. Your adjectives :: "aggressive" and "dismissive" was exactly how I felt about her style. It made _me feel_ that _she felt_ we were all lucky to be her contemporaries and experiencing her great "wisdom". It's too bad she wasn't brilliant enough to realize her aggressive, confrontational approach would turn people off ! I got over the initial reaction and decided to focus on what she was trying to "say" ... there was an excellent reason to be very sceptical of her beliefs :: she offered no critical analysis of capitalism offered none of the horrific consequences of free-market capitalism I didn't read any history of the Suffragettes in her essays no history of Native-Americans slavery ? --- forget it ! her views on Israeli/Palestine were equally horrible She was very bitter about the Bolshevics. She had every right to be because she actually experienced the Russian Revolution, but her bitterness superseded the objectivity she loved so much. As she got older, I think she realized that people thought of her as completely amoral and without human compassion. Her interview with Mike Wallace ... she was far-less aggressive and dismissive ... she looked like a wounded bird ... unable to fly to the great heights of her mafioso-style essays and _Atlas Shrugged._
I never read Rand’s more popular books. She won me over with this small, short book, “The Virtue of Selfishness”. I was young, late 20’s, and profoundly impressed with her message, but more so by her command of the language and vocabulary.
@@Afreshio Why? In her example, she said a selfish man would put his family first (over random desires) since his family has a higher value. I often feel people get hung up on the title and definition of the word "selfishness". I really feel a better word for today would be "self-interest". So a better title would be "The Virtue of Self-Interest".
Rand was unique in articulating brilliantly the most deep pathology in the American society. Everything for myself and I don't care about other people. She changed the definition of altruism in order to defame it. She tried to create a foundation for a morality which accepts disabled beggars on the street hoping to meet someone to get some money to survive the next day, but she failed. It is logically impossible to argue that you have no obligation to the state or society to pay taxes for other people needs and the same time to receive from society the basic means in order just to exist as a professional or person ...
"I remember saying when I was 15, why is morality all about other people?" It says a lot Brook basically holds the same moral philosophy as when he was 15. "Why is it like that?" Because humans are social animals and cooperation is ingrained in our dna. There is a reason that essentially every major moral philosophy has some aspect of sacrifice and giving to others as a fundamental basis. You think the age of massive depression, loneliness and alienation just happens to coincide with the age of radical individualism? Only serving yourself and chasing your own pleasure feels like shit. It leaves an empty hole in your soul that no amount of money, consumption, or capitalist definitions of success can ever fill.
@@barnardcarbajal8506 Mate, philosophy does not imply there's a degree. Philosophy is how you perceive and interpret the world around you. How many times have you heard something like, "My philosophy is..." from someone without a degree
"Radical individualism"... I think you are conflating the narcissist online woke types with the self made man. The narcissistic woke types seek nothing but approval from what ever fad is popular which is basically the opposite of Rands definition of selfishness. The ones crying "me me me look at what ever Gender I just made up, and look at how special I am because of - insert John Oliver hot take.exe - !" are the lonely depressed ones you are talking about because their sense of self is not self generated. It is all approval click bait. "Only serving yourself and chasing your own pleasure" just tells me you have actually done little reading into the matter at all - because Objectivism lit covers this. They are not hedonistic.
A few things: Rand is the midwit writer par excellence. Just because Milton Friedman was wrong about some things doesn’t mean Rand was right. Rand, when compared to other thinkers and writers, stands or falls on the strength of her prose and “philosophy”-can anyone say she was a great or even good mind compared to any of her contemporaries let alone the greats?
I was one that was extremely interested as soon as I heard the ideals and ethics of rand. I truly believe this philosophical concept is the most accurate I've ever seen
I am 65, I read atlas shrugs at the age of 45, and the fountain head, when I was 50 while working as a security contractor in Iraq. There is no wrong order, and I have reread both since.
The reason she is so disliked is because she is brutally individualistic, so much so that she said she would outlaw the word "give" in her ideal enviroment
How tf would society operate under such conditions? If you take a second to actually think about that quote it's impossible to implement, for somebody so obsessed with making her philosophy practical Ayn Rand runs into a lot of problems.
Grew up in brutal soviet state, so it's trauma. She never gave therapy a option I think. She must've rejected therapy and all that, I bet. A shame. @@AntonAdelson
@@sspbrazil Except they are not. Self-preservation is second to the preservation of offspring if already having reproduced. Self-interest is only a biological function to the extent of passing on and protecting our genetic information. Societal involvement and selflessness at the macro level also flow downstream to self, and to our offspring. She was just making a desperate attempt to rationalize being a piece of shit. That is all. And she did it poorly. All you need to understand human behavior aside from current societal influence is to look at biology. So either she failed horribly, or I am a genius and need to write my OWN book full of teenage desperation and ego.
They were very dismissive of any counter arguments and just labeled many of the people who dislike Rand's ideas as either women of religious people. There are plenty of reasons to live for a greater common good that are not based on religion or any other type of indoctrination. And I honestly have a hard time relating to someone that says "Morality is not about other people" with such joy
>There are plenty of reasons to live for a greater common good that are not based on religion or any other type of indoctrination The common good is mystical, thus its defended w/intuition, not reason.
She definitely didn’t believe I the victim mentality. I think after Covid a lot of people are fed up and have adopted this attitude. Your fear is not my responsibility, a hold on my freedom.
Why is someone who is against Forced Altruism a bad radical person. ? She is not against charitable acts if that is your free decision and it makes you feel good ...so then that too is selfish ? Where is the morality in someone putting a gun to your head and forcing you io give to a social cause you may disagree with..Like full term Abortion ? Ayn was hated because she was logical and respected the individual,s free will and his ability to assume the responsibility of his actions, free of emotion and social bias. Anything else and you are not a full ,mature intelligent adult person
@@rongenise7006 She was a Pragmatist and not a Martyr. It did not make sense to her to refuse" free stuff " that was handed to her even if she thought that it went counter to her beliefs....She was not Socrates if you know what I mean. That certainly did not make her a charlatan!
I read Atlas Shrugged and felt that her message of the power of an individual to overcome difficult circumstances was a valuable message. However, her philosophy clearly associates poverty with moral failing and that to me is a complete failure in the understanding of the circumstances of the modern world. I cannot agree that the hard working people of this country who don't earn enough to live a life of dignity are morally deficient. I heard two proponents of Ayn Rand talk about what they believe to be the obstacles to people's understanding or acceptance to Rand's philosophy but I think they miss the mark.
Maybe one of your best Lex. I read Atlas when young, my dad's favorite. It was a large part of my singing in a punk band in 1984 about government corruption. I was outcasted then because society did not see the future we are now living. I published my book 18 years ago and discussed what I thought was coming... I found it doesn't matter how loud I sang or the words I used, some people are not going to hear.
Why don't people like Ayn Rand? Rand on Native Americans: "They had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages.” Rand on Muslims: “The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it’s the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are.” Rand on America: "the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and, in its original founding principles, the only moral country in the history of the world."
I have less of a problem with Rand the person, and more of a problem with some of her champions. The most outspoken lovers of Ayn Rand I've come across are the worst human beings I've had to interact with. Why's that related? There must be something that draws egotists and others to her work.
Aw geez.. I read Atlas Shrugged and am going to read the Fountainhead, and now I'm informed this order of reading is not a great decision? Well.. I'm going to read it anyway...
There's nothing _wrong_ with reading her books out of order...it's just that it helps to understand her progression of thought to read them in order. I think a lot of people get turned off by reading Atlas and never 'get' what Rand was on about by never reading We The Living or The Fountainhead.
It's all the same stuff to be honest. Half way through Atlas, you get her point. Nothing further is to be had by reading the rest, it's just more exaggerated acting out of this same idea. Same with Fountainhead. When you understand her, you understand her. There's really no need for all the pages.
The way you can tell Rand fans are FOS is that they think people that disagree don't understand it. What new did she bring to objectivism that Mises or Hayak didn't cover?
@@ericridenour322 "I argue with different gas station attendants every morning about Ayn Rand before I start my important job" - thanks for that amazing work of fiction.
@@cyberedge881 yeah but if I know something about a subject that others dont I wouldn't go around beating others over the head about it cos 'you just don't get it'. why i think theyre fos cos if it is really groundbreaking you don't have to koolaid it so hard, it just holds its own. I got more from reading human action!
@@ericridenour322 yeah works the same for most subjects she coincidentally coincides with. I think rationality is so easy a concept to understand and expand upon in different directions. critiquing pure reason, now that is interesting to me. i often think Rand judged a book by its cover and never picked it up and never read anything after Aristotle (incl plato).
While it's possible for some people to be completely self-interested and still contribute positively to society, when there are too many purely self-interested people in places of power the society will become dysfunctional... and possibly violent. If a huge chunk of society is just outright neglected because the system can't find a place for them whatsoever, they are extremely unlikely to abide by rules set by people in power. Certainly not if their survival itself becomes difficult. People always make the claim that socialism fails due to human nature, but don't realize that the same criticism applies to capitalism whenever it goes too far in concentrating wealth on one end and neglecting a large chunk of people on the other. Fighting for survival is human nature too, and so is violence. People will fight and steal if there is no other choice. They will also band together. Just read history. The stability of society clearly requires at least a middle ground.
capitalism doesnt concentrate wealth. It lowers prices making things more affordable for the poor. Pf course if you have a half capitalist society and constantly drain all of your gains buy wasteful spending, then the benefits of lower prices evaporate
Pure capitalism does concentrate weatlh - that's why we have income/inheritance taxes and trustbusters (in the past) to say, congrats, you won!, here are your millions/billions...but to keep this game going - we need to keep the chips moving - ensure competition - and help some people get started. Prob is - we do very little of that. We have crony capitalism where the govt (referees that were supposed to make it good game/competition) have been taken over by the players (corporations/billionaires/unions). The US system can work. 1st step is take money out of politics. Politicians wont do it. We can - 26 states allow public referendums. Social media changes everything. It enables those with fewer resources (money, lawyers, access/control of press) to take on those with the 'power'. Look at the result so MeToo. A few with no power wiped the floor with a couple of sociopaths. Same power ration here - the will of the US pop. vs. worldwide corporations and the media they one. We just need to put aside all the issues that are most important to us personally until we get a system fix (money out of politics) b/c we will not get logical/effective solns to any problem when monied interests affect the soln. If everyone has this issue front and center on social media - signature, ballots...all follow. Easy peasy. Trillions wasted year after year and we sit and watch - seemingly spellbound.
"People always make the claim that socialism fails due to human nature," No. Socialism / collectivism fail because if you concede the principle that man's duty is to the collective, then no amount of sacrifice is enough. If you claim the slightest bit of anything to be yours, you have immediately failed the test.
I don't think Rand recognized "irrational selfishness" in her zeal to lionize the virtue of selfishness. Yaron implied that he agreed. It's a basic editorial fallacy to define something as only its good version. I think Rand called it the "frozen abstraction" fallacy. The idea that one cannot reason incorrectly, held by some Objectivists, also partakes of that fallacy. If you reason wrongly, they argue, you aren't truly reasoning. By that token, if you do math incorrectly, you aren't really doing math. If you think inaccurately, you aren't truly thinking. And so on.
Have not yet started the video, but here are my initial thoughts since I have thought of this a good deal. A: her fictional writing was tiedious and felt like a chore to read for many. B: her philosophy suffers from the same problem marx had although to a vastly lesser extent. It's great on paper, but people such and are frequently cruel, dishonest, irresponsible and irrational. C: It frequently ignores the external costs of things. There are actions that indirectly impact others, like some one over pumping water from their land and draining a water table shared by others, or fumes from a papermill making a town borderline unlivable from the smell. D: perhaps most importantly for reasons why she is hated by so many, her philosophy is almost always visibly championed by douchebags. All that said, I think her method of thought is mostly right, just needs to be moderately applied. It's these all or nothing stances that create problems.
Rand isn't even good on paper. Anybody that's actually bothered to read Marx would know that he actually marveled over the accomplishments of capitalism pretty explicitly. Where he had significant issues was the tendency of the owner class to treat the workers like equipment or work animals. A system where the owners owned the factories and businesses, but everything else was done in a capitalist market based way would be consistent with hiss beliefs, but still be nearly entirely what we've got from a practical perspective.
" but people such and are frequently cruel, dishonest, irresponsible and irrational." It's this type of collectivism mind trap thinking and conception of reality why Rand is not understood. Humans aren't born evil or born to be servants, they are insetad taught these beliefs by the same collective system you are defending and supporting, hence the term mind trap.
I feel like maybe people are glossing over the fact that she was SUPER elitist. Like her stance on disabled people, and the homeless. She was not a good person, how can her ideas be interpreted through a different lense? I am just so confused by this lack of humanity...
Even though it was a poor critique of Objectivism, I honestly think the otherwise excellent video game Bioshock is one biggest reasons why younger people (idk, lets say under 30 or 40) are more curious about Rand's ideas. They are novel concepts to a lot of people, and even though it's kind of a critique (or at least a hyperbolic deconstruction of her ideas gone wrong), her ideas being attached to something almost universally considered to be of high quality rubs off. I've heard quite a few people say that this game was what got them curious about reading Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
Completely agree its an oversimplification and hyperbolic, but I do think it taps into that feeling that you cannot completely distil collectivism from society (the follow up questions are should you distil it and on what rational or metaphysical basis or logic are you sure thats a good idea). And that's why the world of Bioshock failed, it had leaders so ideological they couldn't address some of these societal needs, and some of the gaps of their logic and stability.
That's because most of her fiction is adolescent and simplistic as is her so-called "Objectivism." I have never met or read any philosopher or novelist who took Rand seriously.
@@thomasjones53 I think that's the problem. People read it without the education or critical thinking to really get what's on the page, and so they view it as being this magical writing. The reality though is that Galt's Gulch is a cartoonish and extremely naive view of what that really was when it existed. A society where people are just doing their own thing tends to break down due to people getting into conflicts and the less desirable things not being done without some degree of force or bribe to make it happen.] In some respects it's a beautiful idea, but it's incredibly naive to think that is possible without infinite supplies of resources and people to put a higher premium on cooperation than following a leader.
Evil people deny reality, hate reality, hate truth, hate GOD, so naturally, they hate Rand. Just like Jesus said if they hate you, they have hated him first.
I've always believed her extreme positions were a reaction to all that she saw in the Soviet. Many Russians viewed the 1900's as the Century which would be theirs, prosperity, freedom, progress etc. Ayn probably felt she must be an absolute anti.
Ayn Rand was a philosophical pit-bull as she never backed down against her detractors. She was a refreshingly intelligent spokeswoman for her thoughts. Being a physics professor, I can both admire and appreciate that fact - whether or not I’m in agreement on a particular point of discussion. Her views were her own as my views are my own. America has become an overflowing toilet of one-size (i.e., idea, notion, opinion etc.) fits all mental turds.
For the life of me I don't understand why sociologists insist on this all or none, one or the other argument all of the time. Social housing has existed along side private ownership for a while now. It isn't necessarily Stalinism if you're not arguing against private ownership. It can exist for the poor and those on low incomes without being totalitarian in nature. It already does and has for some time. That is self evident. Ayn Rand is very fatalistic in that sense. She exaggerated the nature of socialism in a capitalist economy. It doesn't necessarily lead to Communism. It can, don't get me wrong but there are so many factors and steps involved in that.
She's hated because her ideas go against leftist ideology. Period, end of story. Everything else is aesthetic. If she were just as strident and harsh but she was instead parroting leftist talking points, she would be universally beloved by the left as a feminist-socialist firebrand. Additionally, she's disrespected by a good swath of family-oriented, community-minded conservatives, and shunned by centrists who are trained to believe she's radioactive, but if you're talking about actual hate, she is hated by the left because they hate anything that goes against leftism.
Well my reason is her «Romantic Manifesto» where she claims that the best art should be of «a beautiful woman in an evening dress» or that the height of dance is tap-dancing. To paraphrase CS Lewis, whom she hated with a particular vehemence, «After a person has said that, why attend to anything else she has said on any subject in the whole world?».
Regarding why many get angry over the intellect and insight of Ayn Rand. I don't think the reason is "radical," it's even simpler than that, and hard to believe. I am not claiming to know all. But, I majored in Psychology for two years decades ago, prior to when leftist extremists infiltrated the school system heavily. The reason for the miss placed anger is jealously, disbelief of being wrong. The "Id", ego and superego is fragile, even for those in society that seem smart or in high positions. The dislike for Ayn Rand from the same people dislike Thomas Sowell.
When a person of intelect puts forward an idea that is so simple that it makes years of your life seem worthless, there is anger. Rand's biggest critics are pseudo intellectuals with a short attention span and an inferiority complex. Unfortunately, they are the majority in 2024
@@unsaidatom2310 so if someone criticize your favorite person it means they must be pseudo intellect 😂 that shows your intelligence buddy. I'm studying philosophy and nature for a long time and i disagree with her on almost everything (except one or two thing), her moral code is inheritly flawed, her views on altruism is wrong, her views and understanding on the concept of loving all was wrong aswell, and her views on capitalism ufffff i don't understand how someone can justify such views.
@@aniqalam8231 ohhh triggered! I can't imagine what it's like to be so fragile that I'd write a reply to a thumbs up in a comment on yt? Maybe a little less "studying philosophy and nature..." and a little more actual study of how the comments section of yt works 😆 Next time try going for full intelect rather than psuedo, and maybe we can even have a coherent conversation!
12:27 And this is why so many unusually talented people don't think "the rules" apply to them. No compromise, even in the interpersonal realm. Society at large may be able to tolerate them, but if they are in your personal life, yikes.
I suppose the detail for the individual, is in the timing. When did the individual in question first read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged? If the individual was past their Young Idealist phase over the age of 25, maybe 30 on average, there probably won't be much appeal. Unless you and or your family recently escaped from a communist regime of course.
I read and reread all of Rand's fiction during my teens and twenties. Finally got my brother to read it in his 50s. Now it's spread through the family to his son and nephew who both read Rand after graduating from college. All hooked. But maybe that all goes back to my mother, who was a huge Rand fan and raised us to be strong and independent.
@@carladewitt1947 Probably between the age of 14 or 15 and 25 would be typical for when Rand's works would have maximum impact upon a developing mind. Of course, the same could probably be said for most sociological or philosophical works. On average, of course; there are always exceptions.
@@greenmedic88 Agreed. Those puberty years, when all the hormones are raging, we feel things so much more intensely. It makes sense that these are the years most influential to the world view we carry with us the rest of our lives.
@@carladewitt1947 I'm thinking more from a cognitive development standpoint (which is naturally influenced by the endocrine system), as it's generally acknowledged that brain development is complete in the mid 20s on average. This is not to say that anyone over the age of 25 suddenly becomes resistant to previously unknown concepts, but generally they won't have the same impact as if they had been introduced at an earlier age.
What I tell my co-workers when they freak out over people not wearing masks, simple but powerful quote. I may have to memorize it and repeat it as a extreme personal freedom advocates mantra!
@@anonymous108 there’s a difference between fear and justified public health policy. There’s a difference between fear and rational reactions to threats. If someone was wildly firing bullets, you might have the police keeping people at a distance for their safety. Now some knucklehead might say that it is their individual choice to get shot in the head by a bullet and while that’s true, it’s not a very good strategy for Living very long. I think a better way to interpret the quote is simply to say the decisions should not be made based merely on fear, but by taking a rational look at risk and whatever other evidence you can. But human brains can’t spend forever on every decision so sometimes it’s quicker to Just say “unsafe“ and move on.
6:27 Michael Malice, a typewriter has a mechanical slotted locking key named the caps-lock key. To unlock the caps-lock, you just press down on the shift key again--and the slotted section with an L-shaped bend pops back out of there to get lowercase by default again. No one back then had to keep pressing with one finger to keep the capital letters coming out like you are trying to paint as a mental picture. Our family had an old mechanical typewriter a bunch of years prior to having an electric typewriter.
I was thinking the exact same thing, but was that always true? The typewriters I used in the sixties were probably a few generations beyond what she was using.
@@JaimeWarlock I used 2 different manual typewriters before using an electric in high school. Then we replaced our borrowed uncle's family manual with our own electric. This was the transition that took place from the 1960s to 1970s. There may have been electric models pre-dating what we ended up getting, but likely one would have to shell out more coins for the newest, latest innovation right out of the lab of the time of that invention years prior. Our electric had a manual carriage return paddle while slightly more feature-filled newer electrics had power carriage return keyboard buttons. A few years later the typing class got to use IBM Selectric ball-based typewriters where the carriage never moved, just the type-ball shuttled across the platten roller. Obviously, there was a more primitive time when the manual typewriter had only uppercase and fewer punctuation marks. But there was likely a very short time when there was no shift lock key, but humanity has been doing innovative things with mechanisms for thousands of years so it would not have taken very long to come up with a caps-lock key using the slotted channel locking bolt mechanism--a period likely within a few months at most. Ref the Antikythera Mechanism There was a clock-like mechanism that was dated to have been unbelievably old--many thousands of years. It was rock-encrusted and made of a metal alloy. It was reverse-engineered using x-rays and after 3 or more generations of scientists looking at the thing. It was a clockwork mechanism that accurately predicted both lunar and solar eclipses to a very high precision several centuries before the events were to take place. Not bad considering some people in the Christian church thought that the sun revolved around the Earth (see Galileo Galilei), and Islam thought even worse that the world was flat and that the sun set into a dark muddy spring about 1000 years after Ancient Greeks calculated the size of the moon, size of the Earth, distance to the Sun and size of the Sun to within the measurement accuracy of the ancient time. Ref UA-cam masked arab Does the Quran really say the Sun sets in a muddy spring? Famous quotation from Jacque Fresco - This shit's got to go! Fresco saw that Muslims were backward when it came to thinking about physics such as Newtonian physics that included the universal gravitational constant--this because they thought that the world was flat and that people on the "bottom" of the Earth would fall downward off of the oblate spheroid shaped planet where their homeland knew the real direction of downward. Fresco used static electricity and a balloon to show the Islamic mosque leader that a static electrical charge between the balloon and fine particles could have the particles stick all over the balloon including the bottom. When the mosque leader was convinced by Fresco's demonstration, he told the members of the mosque to listen to what Fresco was saying. Fresco died in 2017 at or slightly older than 100 years old. So Muslims largely probably continue to believe the writing in the Koran which cannot be changed which intimates in ambiguous Arabic that the world is flat.
It's obvious, if you think about it for longer than 5 minutes. "Greed is good" directly contradicts billions of years of evolution that turned us into a social species. Back in the golden age, if you were a selfish prick you had an unfortunate hunting accident and didn't make it back to the tribe.
Greed is good lying, stealing, and cheating isn't. If the tribe kills you for being greedy and wanting stuff but not harming anyone they literally killed you for nothing.
@@collinblatchford It's willfully ignorant to ignore the fact that greed, more often than not, creates lying, cheating and stealing. Greed creates those 3 so often that we as a society assume "greedy person" measns "a liar, a thief and a cheat."
The problem imo is the use of the word "greed." When I read Atlas, it seemed to me that regardless of the words used, it was actually the villains who were classically greedy and envious in demanding what they didn't earn and what their own corruption and incompetence consistently destroyed, whereas the heroes were merely unwilling to be slaves to the greedy demands of the lazy or to be manipulated by their accusations of being greedy. The folks brandishing "greedy" were generally useless parasites and sponges who use a pretense of morality to steal and coopt what they didn't earn and couldn't competently even maintain. In that context, it makes sense to side with the allegedly "greedy", over those who were actually greedy. Kinda like how today we have a redefinition of prejudice based on grace (no g) that's a perfect inversion of reality, where the "anti" folks are actually the worse instances of what they claim to be against. If you pay attention to the money printing, bailouts, etc, as well as the "get awake, go out of business" phenomenon, it's almost a carbon copy of what she was warning about.
@@TheJeremyKentBGross ok,you believe in objectivism, kool. Greed doesn't become a good thing just because the Russian philosopher lady says so. Having children is a great way to wordlessly understand that life only gets good when you THINK OF OTHERS. There are a ton of people out there that think Ms Rand is giving them permission to be selfish assholes, but mythicly moral and selfish person only exists in her book. The peope who only think of themselves and their profits do NOT give a fuck about the rest of us. It sounds great to the most greedy self-centered people in the world for a reason.
@@alienwarrior9408 You sound like you didn't read a word I said, and projected a bunch of stuff on me I don't think. Just to start, I don't consider myself an objectivist, and I don't idolize "the Russian lady", I merely analyzed the work from my own impressions of it's merits from my own reading, and while it's not a complete accurate understanding of all sides of the world, or fantastically written as a novel, there were clearly a few things she understood very well and better than the average person. Also greedy assholes don't need permission, and not all of them are at the top. You could say Elon Musk is greedy, but I don't see it that way. He's the kind of hyper productive guy that's generally bettering the world with his work, even if he may be said to have done a shady thing or two. Who else is making electric cars and trying to get us into space? If some folks are envious of him (which I get, the dude is IRL Tony Stark), and say "it's not fair" there aren't enough useless genderqueer blue haired Karens of transgender color in charge of critical stuff at Space X, or we need to appropriate it, Musk wouldn't be the bad guy for saying "shove off." They aren't doing 100 hours a week to make stuff happen, wouldn't likely be competent enough anyway if they did. They don't deserve to be treated as if they are or even could be equally capable if given a forced opportunity, because there's no justification for it. On the other hand we definitely have people who are abusing wealth to control the government in totally selfish and greedy ways, although you could ironically draw parallels between a lot of them and Rands villains as well, even if not all. Why do you have Disney+ when you know what's happening in China? Or what have you. There's plenty of evil shit done for sure, but that's not the MO of everyone, or of Shruggeds heroes and villains. As for "her book being an excuse..." man EVERYTHING is an excuse if you want it to be. You can do any evil thing and say: "God will forgive me", or "it's racial justice", or whatever you wish. That doesn't mean you are right. And just because you have a vindictive stick up your @$$ doesn't mean I read the same things from the books that you did, assuming you even read it at all and aren't basing your hate on hearsay from whatever tribe you hailed from.
@@collinblatchford we don't live in a world where we can afford to do that yet. Until war is untenable in the human conscious there will be forceful theft.
I enjoy all principals & the stimulating conversation. Manufactured groupthink still obtains in societies and workplaces, creating danger for anyone questioning orthodox talking points. Therefore the Howard Roark dilemma continues to have relevance.
I have only just found Ayn Rand. The statement at about 3:40 said it exactly: 'Wow! That's what I have been looking for my whole life.' I live in the UK. We do not have a capitalist society. We have a left wing Labour party and a so-called right wing Conservative party; along with a few minority parties. Listening to Ayn, I realised that both parties deliver a socialist agenda. When people label something or a view centre right in the UK, what they are really saying is the centre right of socialism. There is no real conservatism or capitalism. It disappeared a long time ago. That, to me, was an epiphany. It helped me see what is happening to the country I live in. It was like seeing the matrix. Once you see this, you can not unsee it!
Smashing everything is ethical and moral at times. To say it isn’t is to fail to see the ability to slowly boil and reject the immediacy to rectify the wrong. The issue is WHEN is it ethical to do so.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. -- Paul Krugman
By the year 2005 or so, it will be clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's. -- Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize turned clown pundit
If Atlas Shrugged as a movie didn't convince you how completely flawed her ideas were, you basically enjoy when people suffer or die for your own profit. So many ideas about, "I just don't care if workers die if my product is good." I'll engage the idea for sure, no problem. Her ideas are complete ass and if you like them, you might just enjoy the suffering of your fellow man if it makes your life better. This whole talk was honestly a horrible representation of what her ideas actually are if you read them. I don't get it, Lex. You are usually so much better.
Nice virtue signaling and grandstanding. I doubt you’ve even read Rand. There are a lot of problems with Rand but that is clearly a sophomoric and very shallow reading of what Rand was saying
@@themadmattster9647 So you're not going to respond to her core beliefs best being represented on book/film being complete shit? Any child watching would not understand why the leading people are literally cruel assholes on purpose because of belief in their own productive virtue. There's a reason Disney is popular and not the works of Rand which seeks to turn the bad guy into the good guy, just because she thinks communism sucks. Maybe you could expound a bit on the parts of her beliefs you agree with to counteract, instead of throwing ad hominem attacks next time. Have a nice day, even though it doesn't serve me personally!
@@damonhage7451 Thanks for engaging again, while not addressing a single thing I said, except to say it's not true. Lex would not approve. You can't just say someone is dishonest and there is it, it's all settled. Address a single point, or please, just keep engaging by not engaging. Brilliant. But seriously, all sarcasm aside, I appreciate the mostly not insulting comments. I did go back and read some more about Rand's extremely stupid ideals just to reminds myself how much many of them are true and how many more are based in fear and falsehoods and the desire for it to be ok to fuck people over and not save a drowning baby because you're having a nice day and it's not your fault. Have a good one, buddy! Thanks for, haha, engaging in someone who challenges your beliefs. We should all do it more. Take care.
I can't think of any other author who created such a profound shift in my thinking as a young man. I've read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead several times now. I love these books. The shame of our 'fast food culture' is that the size of the books - and the fact that less people read - will keep most people from being exposed to these important ideas.
I waded through Atlas Shrugged maybe a decade ago. I've also read Anthem, The Virtue of Selfishness, and a bit of Objectivism. While I'm glad I read AS, and I agree with so much of it, I do think it was WAY longer than it needed to be. She could have gotten her ideas across just as well in half the length. I also think the reason there were virtually no children in the novel (aside from the perfectly behaved kids in John Galt's paradise) is that in real life parents are forced to be massively self-sacrificing (altruistic) in order to raise decent kids. That obviously doesn't square well with her notions. I do think that her ideas are VERY important however. She must be rolling over in her grave with the "Woke" nightmare playing out before our eyes. All just my take of course.
@@paxonearth Definitely too long - especially the chapter 'This is John Galt Speaking'. If memory serves it's a 90 page monologue. I always have to prep myself before tackling that chapter. Do some light stretching...get hydrated. Lol !!! I see your point on the issue of kids - but I suspect that Rand would view parenthood as an act of 'selfishness' - not altruism. In a sense, raising a child is the act of creating a more perfectly actualized version of your self. Also, having raised two kids to adulthood, I can say that - though sacrifice is part of parenthood - the net benefit is extremely gratifying. It pays in dividends long after the sacrifice ends. There are many things that can be picked apart about her books - but the ideas are so strong that I suspend disbelief and criticism and just go along for the ride.
I fell in love with Ayn Rand when Dominique speaks of smashing the statue of Helios. Dominique took me by the hand and led me into Objectivism. I have always wondered what might have happened if Dominique and Dagny ever met. I,d love to have this conversation with someone else who has read Ayn Rand deeply and often.
Hello Clare. I like your question. I have discussed this same possibility with friends. It seems like both characters simply want to be around others who are being honest, who are normal, who enjoy being human, and who stick to their standards and ethics instead of selling out. Both women frustrated by not finding many others with these traits. Both happy when they find such people. It seems like Dagny stays optimistic and continues to happily go about her business despite it all, while Dominique got much more resigned and cynical. I like to think that both women would learn wise things from the other person while talking together.
The best thing to do with Ayn Rand is actually ask people to read her books, because they are awfully written, pitiable nonsense. Sure, some idiots like her, but then so many people read the national enquirer. Brooks pretends that it's 'radical' but then just describes clear confirmation bias, not a personal challenge.
I like Ayn Rand's perspective on a multitude of things....we may not completely agree on everything, but ultimately I concur with her perspective in many ways. I even went so far as to use her information among others in one of My philosophy classes when presented with the notion of "altruism" and it's alternatives. I concluded that there is no such thing as true "altruism"...there is no one who does anything for anyone without some form of ulterior motive whether it be praise and acknowledgment for that which they did for an individual, a community, self-gratification and elation, or a belief that their actions will grant them favor with Our Creator....there is ALWAYS something they seek to attain though their actions and choices concerning others....there is 0 chance that there is 0 desired recompense on some level whether individual, communal, societal, psychological or spiritual. Even if someone chooses to remain anonymous for contributions to a cause or a community, etc., they're still personally self-interested for how it makes them perceive or feel about themselves...so there is an ulterior motive even then. To suggest truly objective "altruism" based upon it's very definition is ever performed by anyone living or dead is merely delusional...those who tend to argue against this perception simply aren't willing to unbiasedly perform introspective analyses and face whatever may come without attempting to explain it away in some quasi-self justification method/coping mechanism rather than facing it head on for what it truly is and accepting it as it stands before them without attempting to defend themselves from themselves...even in that moment they prove the very point by feeling some force of utmost urgency to defend themselves from their own inner workings. It may be frustrating, enraging, or even depressing for them to come to grips with but the only way to know yourself truly is by accepting even the things you chose to push into some dark recess of your own mind in order to maintain a delusion about yourself because you may like yourself better that way......but it's not who you truly are and many times such people fear because they care about what external sources think and feel about them, that those same forces they seek to appease by not accepting themselves fully...instead wearing a mask for so long they lose themselves to the act would not like or accept them without the mask they've adopted to interact in the vast majority of their societal interactions. I'm not one to say it would be right to harm another in order to maintain self interest unless that someone were threatening to do you harm initially thereby justifying self-interest in survival situations....if it's you or I...I'll be damned if I'm gonna go if I can take out that which is trying to force their will upon me when I can just as likely send them in My place so to speak as an example...her psychological analyses coupled with her philosophy make a great deal of sense when people are truly honest and open with themselves rather than trying to fit in to molds pre-designated for them and labels assigned to those various molds as well as whether fallible finite beings in their "infinite wisdom" determined if those molds and labels were assigned a more negative or positive connotation by their own personal agendas and desires derived from their own biases. Enlightened ethical egoist and libertarian individualist if it's of any consolation or consequence.....do with it what you will.
I think the problem with Ayn Rand and Carl Marx are they are both ideas people. The problem with ideas however is reality doesn't care about how smart your ideas are, either they work or they don't or they work in a way that are unintended. I think there is a problem in America where you have this idea of socialism vs capitalism/individualism vs collectivism, when the reality is they are not mutually exclusive, and that in a democracy you don't end up with a perfect version of one ideology you end up with a mixture of a lot of ideas that sometimes work unexpectedly well together and sometimes they don't. The fact remains however pure libertarian capitalisms nor pure communist socialism will never exist, it doesn't matter what you think your rights are as an individual or a collective the world/nature does not care if you survive so sometimes we have to work with other people who believe things that might make no sense to us in order for us to survive. The other thing is that two people who disagree could both be wrong, and it is also possible that two people who disagree could both be right.
If you look at her life, I think you can see why people would be cautious about her ideas. She had an unbelievably destructive love life that blew up her own marriage and the marriage of her best friends- all based on her supposedly “objective” ideas. She was a philosopher who’s ideas didn’t even work for herself. Why should we believe her?
shelleyjensen :: Good comment, kinda reminds me of Jordan Peterson's "philosophy". Philosophers whose ideas don't actually work for them or anyone else ; although, Peterson gave common sense advice but who needs common sense advice from a philosopher ? We all -- well, most of us -- have common sense. It's called "common" for a reason.
@@cliffgaither70% of blacks grow up without a father in the home. It's a racist idea to dismiss those teaching common sense through the internet. You're just butthurt because he's a conservative and popular. Be honest with yourself. No one considers peterson a philosopher except those looking to give him the title than retroactively denigrate him for it like you.
@chazzbranigaan9354 :: I don't know Y you bring up the issue of "70% of black children grow up without fathers". It doesn't have anything to do with my comment about Peterson and his bogus title of philosopher :: 1. Peterson's reputation and his "life lessons" are falling apart and will end next to Rand's unobjective, "objectivism". He is ending as a whining weasel the moment there is a repulse drive against his destructive terminologyies that brings down the reputation of academic institutions. I am not one of the people who has ever claimed he was a philosopher just to tear him down. His rather nasty political beliefs are typical of the right-wing, to which he has always been a part of it but tried to keep it hidden during his earlier stages of public awareness. He is not a "conservative". He's a walking drugstore with many self-delusions about his intellect that are gift-wrapped in many convoluted word salads. 2. Your "statistical" number of 70% ... is as bogus as Peterson's analytics. The correct percentage is 56.7% of African-"American" kids w/o fathers. ( 61% of single mothers are white ! ) No matter ! If you are defending Peterson, it's understandable you would be incorrect about facts.
Rand’s philosophy could also be interpreted as you are actually living for other people by focusing on your own achievement, since your focus results in a net benefit to others without a directly altruistic aim. Altruism is just altruism. It exhausts resources. Randian’s philosophy results in altruism indirectly, but with a creation of resources.
Not to mention that there is nothing stopping people from donating or engaging in charity because they genuinely want to and it makes them happy to give to people
The problem arise because most people dont do nuance. They read Rand's philosophy and think they themselves are an ubermensch(Rand ripped the idea from Nietzsche so using the term here) . And in that believe, think it's right or justified to be a complete narcissist cunt to everyone because, they are not ubermenschs and being "selfish" is the only moral thing to do to those that are lesser than you. There no nuances in this understanding. Even if you are, better than most in a field, you are not an island. You didnt build your own car, your house, pave the roads, generate your own electricity, etc. You live in a society. That's not to say altruism is required or needed, but a certain lvl of inter cooperation makes interactions and society as a whole function. Again, not that Rand doesnt raise good points, but people dont do nuance and think it's a carte blanche do be a narcissist dick.
What Ayn Rand considered to be Freedom was/is dangerous to me because, like Donald Trump. she was intellectually sloppy. She assumed the dimensions of what she designated as freedom represented a universal construct that was both benign and without systemic consequence She talked reason and rational self-interest but she pandered to emotion and personal sovereignty that required the willing violation of personal boundaries to accommodate her "freedom" and world view. She expected abject compliance with her personal authority as a condition of her society.
My parents taught me to think for myself with encouragement to be a good person and be kind. Some of Ayn Rands books where in my house at various times in the 50's and 60's but never got the feeling she was a cult figure. I read Rand in my early years but her writing was not exciting enough for me but her concepts of individuality were effective.
it's very ayn rand to have the head of the ayn rand on your show about critiquing ayn rand lol. naive
*Ayn* *Rand* *was* *such* *a* *complete* *fake,* *a* *manufactured* *icon* *of* *the* *Right,* *and* *when* *that* *succeeded* *they* *want* *on* *to* *create* *FOX* *News* *and* *all* *kinds* *of* *other* *brainwashing* *ops* *against* *Americans* *to* *undermine* *democracy* *by* *calling* *it* *communism,* *or* *collectivism.*
She has absolutely no idea what individuality is.
Irony being that valuing her read of the concept doesn't make you much of an individual or free thinker at all
Focus your mind
Everyone I have met that has claimed to hate Ayn Rand ..on further investigation I find they have not read her…they take the opinion of others ..
You don’t need to read her shit to know she’s a fraud
Meh I thought her ideas were interesting when I was a bit younger but quite a bit of it is just uncompromising levels of a funny shade of hyper-capitalist Max Stirner type egoism with hyper roided Nietzscheisms, which is like alright n all but I like people and kinda wanna actively cooperate with others as I assume 90% of people on earth would like to do who aren't sociopathic. Not a rip on Nietzsche cuz he's comparatively a more temperate thinker and I think he toes the line between the importance of the individual on its own and the importance of the individual being a part of an emergent collective of individuals better than a lotta folks, especially better than Rand who's philosophy is summarised in the briefest possible way of "look out for #1 always forever and if you don't then you're a pussy"
But ykno I also live in Britain, a country that Ayn Rand would not hesitate one fucking millisecond to say is a socialist dystopic hellscape. It by no means is but guaranteed universal healthcare is pretty lit so yeah I'm a dirty commie Miss Rand 😤🔨🔴🔴⚫⚫
I'm also just gonna bookend this by saying I'm by no means an expert I'm literally some under 20 year old who hasn't academically studied philosophy to any extent chiming in on the comment section of a Lex Fridman podcast clip video but I like Nietzsche and don't claim to know much about Stirner and I only know Rand's work from the Fountainhead, which I thought was a bangin book
@Shay Quegan
I thought Rand was crazy for years. I took out some interviews of her from the library once to get direct exposure to her. I knew it was time to move beyond the second hand info I had been getting. She just sounded nuts in those interviews. So I dismissed her.
Years pass and I become curious about her again. I was reading some left wing news outlet on an old murder from the 1930's (maybe the 1920s). Anyway, the writer/"journalist" is really writing about how evil and satanic Ayn Rand is because she defended this murderer (a child murderer) as living free and by his own ideals, etc. At once, I thought, "this can't be right." He must be misconstruing something that Rand had indeed said about the murderer, but stretching what she said for his own purposes. The article just had hyperbole all over it.
I looked into what Rand had actually said about the murder and the murderer. I don't recall exactly what she said but I did see plain as day that the article stretched and lied about what she had really said. Ironically perhaps, it was some dishonest leftist that motivated me to read her and get interested in her again. The second time around was a good experience. She isn't a panacea but she has incredible value and should not be dismissed.
You're correct about people who hate her are people who've not properly checked her out. Anyone who belongs to a group (church, company, clique, etc) wants to signal to the other members that they are authentic members of the group. Hating Ayn Rand is one way of letting your fellow leftists know that you are a truly committed leftist and also that the views of the left are already correct, therefore is no need to read "the enemy", it would just waste your time or worse: make you realize that your views aren't as correct as you thought they were.
You need to meet more people.
@Justin Bradburn that's cool n all but whats it got to do with me
Michael Malice looks just like Ayn Rand.
Lol. I came here to make the same one too. This was the first comment listed. Well done
hahahaha awesome comment
There never will be a better comment on this channel than this.
Aren't all the guys here Russian Jews (escaping communism) like Rand?
Lol
I read some of her essays years ago (70's -80's). Her novels were much too long for me. Because I'm fascinated with language I read her explanation of the term laissez faire capitalism. It was during the time of Louis XIV, the sun king. Louis sent his finance minister to meet with the leading business leaders of the day to ask, what can we do to help you. One brave soul spoke up and said "Laissez nous faire:" (Leave us alone)
"Laissez nous faire" = "Just let us do"
that phase now has to be said to the ruling elite , the ruling elite are solipsistic along with Neo Liberals ,, neo-socialism should be create taking from its failures since the French revolution capitalism did not succeed in offering Liberty, equality & fraternity brother hood the same people who said Laissez nous Faire then have become greedy capitalist, and forgot how many people died to bring in Capitalism and do away with feudalism, yet not very long after Socialism is capitalism shadow
Her novels were too long because she was too proud for an editor, and she was a mediocre writer.
It translates literally to "Leave us to do" or a little more roughly to "Leave us to work" or "Leave us to make". To understand "faire" better, it's used on goods to say where something is made from in French. Made in China is "Fait en Chine". Sometimes you'll see "Fabriqué", but most of the goods sold to French speakers I've seen says fait. And "What did you do this weekend?" is "Qu’as-tu fais ce week-end?"
@@fenixrising1972 Awful writer, and terrible philosopher.
I was old -- I was introduced to Rand in my early 30's. I read Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged (in the proper sequence of course) and I had been fore-warned about Galt's 80 page speech, which did seem somewhat daunting, but when I got to it I had no trouble reading and rejoicing in it -- It summarized so eloquently, a personal philosophy which I had spent many years trying to synthesize, She changed my life. I was so privileged to hear her speak twice at Ford Hall Forum in Boston. Her mind was so quick that, yes, she did appear abrupt and curt, but that was just her brilliant mind already 2 pages ahead of everyone else (including those poor college students who did, honestly, ask silly questions. Unfortunately, I doubt those talks were recorded. Alas.
Rand made no explanation to caring or human relationships indepth on an individual basis
ew
Two reasons why Rand is so disliked:
1/ She had a caustic public persona -- She attacked everyone, even those who agreed with most of her ideas (right-libertarians, conservatives, Christians). And she cultivated a cult of personality which drew derision from everyone on the outside.
2/ Our present zeitgeist is overwhelmingly dominated by Marxism, Critical Theory, and Postmodernism. Which advance the ideas that there is no such thing objective truth, and that all human interaction is a power struggle between collectives stratified by class, race, gender. Individuality, rational self-interest, and objectivity (objectivity beyond the walls of Critical Theory) are viciously attacked, censored, and sometimes treated as domestic terrorism. In other words, we live in a Fountainhead alternate universe where Ellsworth Toohey won.
Agree with your first point to some degree. She came across as caustic (maybe the Russian accent was something to do with it, by the way). I think the "cult" thing is overblown, but there was a bit of that.
#2 is just absurd. Marxism is pretty objective in it's critique of capitalism. Most of it focuses on it's tendency to self-sabotage and cause a crisis. You don't need any moralism to explain it. I don't care for critical theory or postmodernism, but Marxism itself is not in any way anti-objective. The Randian definition of "objective" is just bizarre to me. It just sounds like her making decrees from on high and calling them "objective". Also, collectivism can be rational self-interest. It's pretty damn rational for workers to organize a union so they can bargain for higher pay.
@@marshallsweatherhiking1820 Marxism might be objective to you but it is highly contentious and so much so that it's claim to be based on facts is weak. Marx's claim of the increased immiseration of the proletariat and the ever-increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, in relative terms, was not an accurate forecast, notwithstanding any claims today about the "one per cent" (and to some extent, even that is overblown). So much so that a lot of Marxists were tearing their proverbial hair out in the late 19th Century about why this hadn't happened (so we got a switch to critiques of affluence and "consumerism" instead). The labour theory of value - the base for the rest of the economics of Marx - was full of holes. The misallocation of resources that you get if prices are taken out of the equation is, again, another huge problem.
Collectivism can be self-interested to a group of people trying to use their mass to leverage higher pay, just as it can be self-interested for those uninterested in being in a union, or for consumers seeking value for money, to be wary about entities such as the closed shop, massive strikes, and so on.
Ageee
I have watched all her interviews and she was a good listener and always left room for arguments. I wouldn't say anyone from the interview felt attacked. You have to watch the interview with Mike Wallace.
Rand really went overboard with the "selfishness is the highest good" thing." There's a place for selfishness but humans evolved as social creatures with a strong instinct to contribute to the common good.
to the benefit of those they care about. the family, the tribe, etc. Not to be a utility taken advantage of, a slave to labor for others till the death
@@Aphotic_One yeah guess what she supports capitalism and all bad stuff in capitalism. She said "socialism means being everybody is a slave to everybody" and she thinks capitalism is right because you have one boss, and if you want to achieve something and you can achieve that while working under that boss then it's ok to work under him even if he didn't treated you well.
There is no such things as "the common good."
Yup. It’s best to cherry pick than to believe in something 1000% in.
When you’re with family and friends, it’s ok to be the most caring, sympathetic guy in the room. But when you’re at work or in an environment you wouldn’t necessarily call home, it’s ok to be an objectivist. Do your own thing, try to be the best in the room, and screw the feelings of others
I first learned of Rand via Neil Peart. And The 2112 Album by RUSH.
10:09 "Prevalent In Culture"
11:33 "Fearhold On Freedom"
12:15 "Freedom Versus Feelings Versus Facts"
19:27 "The Job, and The Wife and The Compromises,...
And The Comfort" 19:33
Rush is amazing. I didn’t realize as a fourteen year old kid that I was learning such levels of philosophy that have stuck with me for life. The album 2112 was huge in my intellectual development
Peart moved away from her in his latter years
Sea-spray blurs my vision The waves roll by so fast Why must my crew desert me When I'm lashed, helpless to the mast?
@@dankelly7712 that is his failure, not hers. I would have been interested to hear him explain how the philosophy that saved Rush's career was no longer relevant. Maybe it was simply a case that he acquired enough material wealth to buy anything he wanted so now what got him there wasn't important anymore, he could pull the ladder up behind him.
Did self reliance and determination and individualism become less important as the bank account grew?
to paraphrase the guy from Wall Street and apply it to the months between Caress of Steel and 2112.... a man looks into an abyss and sees nothing staring back at him. In that moment, man finds his character, and THAT is what keeps him out of the abyss.
Did Neil eventually discard his character?
"People always told you that selfishness is wrong, but it was for me, not you, that I wrote this song" -Neil Pert, Anthem
Discovering Ayn Rand in the bookstore changed my life for the better. Altruism is used by big government to gain power over masses. I think she would argue that it's beneficial to be altruistic when it's not forced. If done by choice it is beneficial. Besides, there are two sides to every coin.
>she would argue that it's beneficial to be altruistic when it's not forced
No,she condemned all altruism as evil.
@@TeaParty1776by definition altruism would be evil based on her ethics.
@@Jackaroo. True, but do you mean something special?
@@Jackaroo. True ,because Rands definitions are based on the evidence of the senses.
@@Jackaroo. True, by Rands observation-based definition.
I went through my Rand stage 30 years ago and have long wondered if Miss Rand would have changed some of her views if she had children.
News flash. Some people that DO have kids are way worse to them compared to any of Rands ideologies in the subject. Being a parent isn’t a guaranteed softener. Some people are still pieces of shit regardless.
yup she was a childless cat lady
I read The Fountainhead when I was 14. Quite literally changed the course of my life. Subtlety, but without question a change of course
Fine. Now giant read The Communist Manifesto and Capital by Marx. Then, perhaps, you will realize what a fool Rand really was.
Live day-after-day through Soviet oppression and you'll realize what kind of fool you really are.@@syourke3
Both of you are cringe.
@@syourke3 Those books and everything we know of Marx's failed legacy only reinforce Rand's views.
@@syourke3 I’ve read The Communist Manifesto. I was not compelled.
"Well, I know they've always told you selfishness was wrong. Yet it was for me, not you, I came to write this song." - Lyrics to the song Anthem by Rush.
Written by a young, idealistic, yet woefully naive Neil Peart who, when he finally matured, distanced himself from Rand's dumpster "philosophy".
@@camphor_dance here you go, dummy...
*Rolling Stone: This is somewhat random, but you were interested in the writings of Ayn Rand decades ago. Do her words still speak to you?*
Neil Peart: Oh, no. That was 40 years ago. But it was important to me at the time in a transition of finding myself and having faith that what I believed was worthwhile. I had come up with that moral attitude about music, and then in my late teens I moved to England to seek fame and fortune and all that, and I was kind of stunned by the cynicism and the factory-like atmosphere of the music world over there, and it shook me. I’m thinking, “Am I wrong? Am I stupid and naïve? This is the way that everybody does everything and, had I better get with the program?”
For me, it was an affirmation that it’s all right to totally believe in something and live for it and not compromise. It was a simple as that. On that 2112 album, again, I was in my early twenties. I was a kid. Now I call myself a bleeding heart libertarian. Because I do believe in the principles of Libertarianism as an ideal - because I’m an idealist. Paul Theroux’s definition of a cynic is a disappointed idealist. So as you go through past your twenties, your idealism is going to be disappointed many many times. And so, I’ve brought my view and also - I’ve just realized this - Libertarianism as I understood it was very good and pure and we’re all going to be successful and generous to the less fortunate and it was, to me, not dark or cynical. But then I soon saw, of course, the way that it gets twisted by the flaws of humanity. And that’s when I evolve now into . . . a bleeding heart Libertarian. That’ll do.
Link to original article: www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/neil-peart-rush-new-lp-248712/
Peart peaked in his 20s. No shame in that. Anthem was created by a genius who cares what happens after that.
@@Invinovari your just trolling with that nonsense.
@@scotteagles4864Spoken like a true puppet to the commie progressives and corporate collectivists. True believers trading their zombie knowledge.
if you look at America today and the road we are on, you have to wonder what kind of crystal ball Ayn Rand was looking into.
Russia. You don't need a crystal ball when you have lived through extremes others are drifting through.
A shitty one…
Yeah, a dystopian hellscape. On the Left, and on the Right. So inspiring.
@@duderama6750 doesn't mean its not accurate
She knew history..she knew human nature ...and so did our Founding Fathers,,,whom she loved and highly respected. Today most of us ,including "Intellectuals " know neither except to change and distort it to suit there own ends.
it's the objectivism people who are truly objective get viewed as aggressive or being negative cus people cannot handle being neither affirmed nor denied
While I don't agree that it is necessarily immoral to live for other people like Rand did, it is demonstrably immoral to force someone to live for other people. Most people today believe that helping other people is morally virtuous, and I tend to agree, but that ideal has been twisted into the concept that nobody would help another person if they were not forced to do so, so we must force them through taxation, ultimately funding welfare programs, infrastructure, etc. Then, those who believe everyone must be forced to help others simply shout anyone down that disagrees, decrying them as selfish and greedy - when in reality, we just don't want a government gun pointed at our heads FORCING us to contribute.
It's about values, if you value someone, and you will get something at the end for your interest, then you contribute. Otherwise, you don't have a reason if your values diverge. Otherwise, in the end, it might be that you have contributed to ISIS or some radical cult. You have to know what you are contributing to.
You know Rand was on welfare at the end of her life? Lmao
You do realize that, under capitalism, workers are forced to work for a capitalist under the threat of starvation, right?
But, no problem accepting the military and police/fire umbrella of safety
@@stancyke5456 Social Security is immoral indeed, but it's not 'welfare' in any sense. SS is just a classic Ponzi scheme enforced at the point of a gun. Since she was forced to pay into that scheme, she certainly had every right to get a payout towards the end. The fact that it's increasingly less lucrative as time passes is entirely the fault of those who imposed it on an entire nation, not Rand. I have to laugh whenever anyone thinks they're making some valid point against her philosophy on such a shaky foundation.
Rands' philosophys lead to self responsibility, also I don't think the majority of people will ever understand free will and self determination.
Most of us were brainwashed by parents.
It also leads to selfish, empathy bereft d bags
Her explanation of why people reject it is pretty good, and is not really insulting, like saying "oh you're just lazy and don't want to work" although it's pretty close to that. Some people have a deep fear of life, of making choices, and facing the consequences, especially when they can't predict the outcome, which is often the case.
Living is scary, no doubt, and you don't always get lucky. There are those who have little to no problem with this, and others who are extremely bothered by it. Also growing up, we all come to that point where we have to assume the responsibility for our own survival, and though we may not like it, we also know it's not fair to burden someone else with it, because they are facing the same problems.
Enter the "Gospel of Envy".
But some people fall into envy, and may believe others have it easier, and therefore "ought to" share their good fortune with the "less fortunate" - which seems on the surface to be a moral good. And it is....as long as it's voluntary. But the envious are not satisfied with voluntary contributions, because they want more than seems justifiable to ask, and more so, they don't like to feel indebted, or ingratiated to their benefactors. They reject the humility of being the beggar who can't be the chooser.
So they want a state run charity, anonymous, and to not be checked up on too closely on how they spend their entitlements. They want none of the stigma that comes from being dependent on charity, and would rather be seen as entitled to it.
Thus welfare is inevitably subject to abuse, and in reality, never fails to be abused. And in the process of being codified into law, becomes absolutely tyrannical. When that happens - as it always does - the envious then claim it wasn't what they intended [it wasn't "real" socialism] and we need to just try again, and again, and again.
And she end up on welfare.
@@jameseverett9037 wow
Hey Lex, more of this. Other lightning bolt intellectuals, conflicting perspectives/personalities from admirers/students/advocates. Bright, intelligent, considered, sincere, committed individuals. Really enjoyed this. Gratitude!
agreed. completely true dude
@Daniel Dashnaw absolutely, especially yarron brook, vaush debated him and he got embarrassed
@Daniel Dashnaw
Pseudo-intellectual
Original
I've heard smarter conversation between a drunk at a bar and the counter top
@@QuinoaIsPeople
Dont hate on the true prophets of our time!
I read Ayn Rand s Fountainhead at 16 years old Atlas Shrugged at 19 and the rest by 25…I saw Ayn Rand speak at the Ford Forum in Boston in 1973 ish…she wore a coral color dress…she changed my life …my children and grandchildren all believe in objectivism and have read Rand too..I’m 70 now and have lived my life by Rands ideas..lol mostly!
Those would be some interesting memoirs. Cheers.
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings
and Atlas Shrugged . One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with
its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable
to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
John Rogers
Why do people hate her? For the same reason people hate anyone: because they disagree with her.
She believed in the virtues of capitalism. So anyone who is a socialist or communist will dislike her. But the reason she loved capitalism was because she grew up in communist Russia. Would any of the socialists of today still love socialism if they had to live in that environment? Doubtful.
Quotes from The Fountainhead: “Ask anything of men. Ask them to achieve wealth, fame, love, brutality, murder, self-sacrifice. But don’t ask them to achieve self-respect. They will hate your soul. Well, they know best. They must have their reasons. They won’t say, of course, that they hate you. They will say that you hate them. It’s near enough, I suppose. They know the emotion involved.” - Dominique (367). Ayn Rand’s probable response to people who accuse her of hating people: “The person who loves everybody and feels at home everywhere is the true hater of mankind. He expects nothing of men, so no form of depravity can outrage him. . . . One can’t love man without hating most of the creatures who pretend to bear his name.” - Gail Wynand (461). She loves the best of humanity, their highest potential, not the mass of them. And in her opinion, people hate her because she is selective in who she likes and she wants people to be better than they are. People will “accept anything except a man who stands alone. They recognize him at once. By instinct. There’s a special, insidious kind of hatred for him. . . . They’ve got to force their miserable little personalities on every single person they meet. The independent man kills them-because they don’t exist within him and that’s the only form of existence they know. Notice the malignant kind of resentment against any idea that propounds independence. Notice the malice toward an independent man” (635).
Came across your page and this video today. I love stimulating and thought provoking conversations. Keep it up!
I just do not understand why so many people hate Ayn Rand, i do not agree with her about everything, but i see the good points and there is more to learn than more to disagree...
She did say some bizarre stuff like a woman should not be president and had horrible views on native people saying Europeans where justified in mass murder and displacement.
@@Kefka. people is to light to listen to opinions nowadays...
@@Kefka. I'm not sure what quote you are referring to, however most of the natives died from disease. Most did not understand the concept of land ownership or rights, and even if they did there would be no way to determine to which tribes/natives the land belonged to. This barely scratches the surface since they were already brutalizing and mass murdering each other before the Europeans arrived. Some even had slaves as well. So they were not always treated fairly but yes there were justifications for the violence and "displacement" that occurred. The natives would have flourished much more in a society that respected individual rights, compared to their constant warring, ignorance, and general stone-age living.
@@Kefka. You are so thoroughly and educated you need to find something besides commenting you're not qualified even remotely The level of Your IQ is astounding
@@hyperreal but they thrived before the Europeans arrived
The "money" speech by Francisco is absolutely brilliant.
Many great speeches in the book. John Gault's speech towards the end of the book was epic too. Long winded, but everything was said that needed to be said.
Ayn Rand had a very unique mind.
I've never read Rand but I've listened to a lot of Rush.
The man or the band?
@@fryloc359 rush the band of course-peart based entire songs and albums(2112) off her work IIRC
"Well, I know they've always told you selfishness was wrong. Yet it was for me, not you, I came to write this song." - Lyrics to the song Anthem by Rush.
She spoke to Neil.
Ignorance is bliss.
I finally understand the selfishness. It's about acknowledging your OWN sovereignty and your OWN importance. Take of yourself and protect your rights like you would for the community. And if everyone does that the community becomes very strong
Ok. Sure. Riiiight.
@@rongenise7006 if something is good for the collective but harms you the individual, think twice
Being part of the community is inherently going to require you to not be selfish to some extent. It needs to be balanced out. But in general selfishness is bad.
Selfishness is a moral view, not a political view.
@@TeaParty1776 but it has political ramifications
The funny thing about this, and so many discussions of Rand, is why We The Living rarely gets mentioned. I have the DVD of the movie made of it (not easy to find) and it's basically an early autobiography of her life during the Russian Revolution and it's right up there with Dr. Zhivago in bringing the revolution's horrors to light. Also read the novel and it's amazing how accurate the movie is to the novel.
My buddy has that dvd as well. It's a good adaptation of the book.
Kira! The music was lovely
Saw the Zhivago movie when living in Canada in the 1960's and that resonated . Read the " The Gulag Archipelago" in the 1980's and not long after discovered Ayn Rands book . Those two books and others have had a major effect on my thoughts about life .
That novel depressed the hell out of me. Imagine being the only person in your world fighting for individualism.
@@DaralenManta Actually, there's more individualism in the novel, it's just that the transition period to Bolshevism kept everyone quiet. Russians are a very emotional people who had those suppressed. This is the country of Tolstoy, Pasternak, great Chess minds and creative performers in figure skating, gymnastics and ballet. It's really a shame their leadership was so bad over the centuries.
I don’t dislike her; we were never acquainted. I do find her writing tedious.
John Galt's diatribe in Atlas Shrugged is the pinnacle of tedium.
Hmm? 60 pages of monologue is too much for you? That doesn't engage you? Hmph.
@@rockcabbage the monologues aren't the big issue, it's the 120 pages she uses to explain what she meant in the 60 pages.
@@stuffhappens5681 I would argue that objectivism is much more like neoliberalism for conservatives.
@@rockcabbage Which is fine as a study. But tiring to live by. I can't tell you much much happier I became once I reintroduced faith into my life, for example. I can still absolutely be objective about it. But my 'soul', my 'being' certainly needs a little bit of the unobjective. Hehe.
It's tiring always being right... ;)
thank you for having this webcast. it truly has enriched my life. you not interrupting guest is truly so good i forgot what a great host should do. your silence sometime is pure genius
bingo! 100% spot on.
Thumbs up. Silence can often be pure genius, I agree. Well said.
@Dick Johnson , Rogan does interrupt some, but he's silent compared to the news shows and interviews I remember from back when I had a television. Those people were unreal! All anyone did was talk over whomever they'd specifically brought on camera to hear!
People who bash my beloved Ayn Rand have one thing in common: They've never read one of her books cover to cover. They cherry pick a few words, then cry about it. Many of her core concepts are badly misunderstood. I only wish that I could have met her, and probably could have (I lived in NYC from '73-'82). Bummer.
"I have always found it quaint, and rather touching, that there is a movement in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough".
- Hitchens
God damn, do I miss Christopher Hitchens. Thank you sir, great quote.
Hitchens was an unapologetic commie and supported the Iraq War and every war since 1990. He didn't apologize for that either.
Fyi: Selfish people mind their own damn business. Hitchens and Neocons would've learned that from Rand if they weren't actual mole people.
@@musopaul5407 I don't understand how he still has any supporters. I guess old school Atheism+ people who don't know anything else about him or his views who just liked watching him dunk on Creationists.
@@musopaul5407 Don't get me wrong there were plenty of gigantism suffering dinosaurs that needed to be brought down and he did so. Mother Theresa comes to mind.
However he didn't even make it to retirement age. His trajectory through life was confused. Like most Atheists he's a victim of adhering to negative philosophies. Negating a false ideology doesn't tell you how to live.
You can't just spend your life being the asteroid; You need to eventually learn how to be a mammal.
@@musopaul5407 Hitchens was great to watch when he'd do his take downs of religious morality. But Atheism runs into the same problems that Libertarianism does. It's like moving out of your parents house: It's just the first step to independence. It doesn't tell you what to actually *do* with that independence. That's what I mean by negative philosophies. It's just "not government" or "not church". Well... that doesn't narrow life down much.
If you just do anything you feel like your life will be a disaster. Humans need a code of ethics. Look at the Amazing Atheist now. He's a basket case. Calling himself the 'Amazing Nihilist' now. Painted his face blue and into Wicca and other hokey BS. Why even leave the damn church??
Ironically she is criticized for saying that it's not good to be altruistic by the most narcissistic generation in memory.
SO WELL SAID AND SURING THE WOKE CULTIST TAKEOVER?!
If you're referring to the Baby Boomers, you have to realize that their narcissism took the unusual shape of it being collective in nature, that they thought of themselves in the terms of "us". "We're" going to change the world, etc. They thought it was the height of insult to label the X generation as the "me" generation, but of course, we didn't care because we didn't think in those collective terms that they did.
I haven't read those other ones, but Anthem by Ayn Rand is amazing. Short, sweet, to the point: a dystopian classic.
could not agree more. 1000% perfect
Enjoyed it a lot. Just as good, as interesting, if you totally disagree with her views. 102 pages
I just read the fountainhead and quite frankly I found the narrative of the first half so enjoyable and the characters so well written that it was easy to trudge through the philosophies and ideas of the later chapters
I read all of these when I was 12 ...and even when I was 12 I knew it was bullshit ..
they were based on Idealistic archetypal hero industrialist characters that may exist somewhere in the world but Is obviously not the norm.
They were OK reads but I enjoyed Science-fiction more because I knew at least someday it might be true
@@stevebuss69 you read and dismissed all of Ayn rand's work by 12? Lol it sounds silly even when I type it
Atlas Shrugged coupled with the movie Idiocracy: Now a reality
Yep and any wonder a video to brainwash the youth comes out right now. Umm, Ann Rand's addressing the value of liberty from those who care nothing about human well-being is hardly something nobody cares about. Are we to ignore the Cubans, French, Brits and world in their demonstrations against kings and globalist's? Pure NLP cucking minds.
Everything the government does is at the barrel end of a gun. Totally agree with your statement
Commie detected
There are three types of people that take issues with Ayn Rand: Those who have read her, those who haven't, and those that know some of her personal history.
In her interpersonal life she wasn't a very kind person. People that aren't kind, shouldn't expect kindness, or even basic respect. They should know from reflecting on their own behavior that no one has to treat you nicely. They are only beholden to the consequences, be them whatever they may.
Does Ayn Rand espouse some decent ideas? Absolutely.
Some of her ideas are excellent. However, she tends to drive the idea to insane points. This is where those who have read her may take issue.
The rest were literally programmed to her by a socialist leaning academia.
Using the altruism term is a dualistic partisan trap.
Someone called me altruistic once. I'm not altruistic. I don't want to be a martyr. I don't want to sacrifice myself for others. I want what's good for me. But not just for me. For everyone.
What's good for everyone is good for everyone. What's good for some and not others is bad for everyone. Detrimental. Fatal even. That's what we need to learn in this world.
The individual and the collective are both important.
If I fight for my own rights it's not just for me. It extends to everyone.
This is how I live my life.
I fight for my rights to take precedent over government and developers taking over land around me. Then I join with my neighbors to support their rights the same.
During the pandemic, under quarantine, I use protocols to protect others which in turn protects me as well. I definitely felt my instinct to protect my species there.
I want a living wage. I want everyone to have a living wage. It's obviously doable. Better for everyone. Those who fight against it are making more than living wages but what's good for some but not others is bad for them as well. There are consequences in what is not sustainable.
That extends to the whole of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Standard of living. Health and well being. Freedom of speech and belief. All of it.
I applaud your statement, I am 64 what is happening in this world with wars In Israel and Ukraine, ruling elite are solipsistic, war is all is happening, we are into the 21 century yet we as human beings fail to be more diplomatic, we are going back into feudalism.
Many of your statements seem to be malformed, and as such cannot fall under such a broad axiom of "good for all." Let's look at one of them: the "living wage," so-called. Who defines how much a "living wage" is? If we let individuals decide, they would all ask for more than they need. If we let the government decide, they will definitely NOT make a decision that is "good for all" (they might not give enough for some who need it, they might take too much from businesses and cause bankruptcy). Once this magical number has been determined, what do we do about businesses that cannot afford to pay it? Many restaurants, for example, only have a 5% or less profit margin. Should these businesses just shut down? Wouldn't this result I'm MORE poverty?
Anyone can just declare something that is "good for all." Watch: NO ONE SHOULD MURDER ANYONE ELSE. See how easy that is? Now, try and make it happen with government. It's never going to happen, and you can even cause more harm in the pursuit of this unrealistic goal. Wise and intelligent shouldn't rely on such simplistic philosophies.
What protocols? And if you voluntarily lived “under quarantine” you traded your freedom and others’ freedom for your fear. Quarantining for the plandemic does not protect the species, it endangers it.
In my twenties I read a great deal of what Ayn Rand had written, both her novels and her essays. Additionally, I studied with her "intellectual heir" Leonard Peikoff. I know Ayn Rand's work quite well. I'm now 75 years old and I can honestly say that my opinion of her hasn't changed. Her politics is excellent, her ethics is good, her metaphysics and epistemology are fair, but better than most. Her novels are awful! They're cartoonish. That anyone would be enthralled by her novels, as many people are (mostly, but not only, young people) is a mystery to me. Why is she so hated? In addition to the things your guests say, there's the additional fact of her style - she's extremely aggressive and dismissive of others. The result is that those others respond by being aggressive and dismissive of her. I think that if Rand had been less aggressive and less dismissive of others (and by 'others' I mean almost everyone else), her ideas would have been much more widely accepted. BTW, Leonard Peikoff is far and away the very best professor I ever had.
Reading the Objectivist philosophy books IS the way to go. More intellectually stimulating.
> That anyone would be enthralled by her novels, as many people are (mostly, but not only, young people) is a mystery to me.
Her novels concretize her philosophy. Peikoff, in _Understanding Objectivism_, says many people, including people who claim to be Objectivists, hold ideas as mystical ideals, split from concretes, not as abstracted FROM concretes. The intellectual hold of mysticism remains strong, even among subjectivists.
dcissignedon ::
Your explanation of "why" she is so hated was a perfect description of her style of writing.
I was in a bookstore, one day, they had a vast collection of her books of essays. She was so controversial, I decided to find out for myself ... I read essay after essay after essay ...
I felt that she was in-your-face with her opinions ; very inflexible ... rigid. She "sounded" unhinged.
Your adjectives :: "aggressive" and "dismissive" was exactly how I felt about her style. It made _me feel_ that _she felt_ we were all lucky to be her contemporaries and experiencing her great "wisdom". It's too bad she wasn't brilliant enough to realize her aggressive, confrontational approach would turn people off !
I got over the initial reaction and decided to focus on what she was trying to "say" ... there was an excellent reason to be very sceptical of her beliefs ::
she offered no critical analysis of capitalism
offered none of the horrific consequences of free-market capitalism
I didn't read any history of the Suffragettes in her essays
no history of Native-Americans
slavery ? --- forget it !
her views on Israeli/Palestine were equally horrible
She was very bitter about the Bolshevics. She had every right to be because she actually experienced the Russian Revolution, but her bitterness superseded the objectivity she loved so much.
As she got older, I think she realized that people thought of her as completely amoral and without human compassion. Her interview with Mike Wallace ... she was far-less aggressive and dismissive ... she looked like a wounded bird ... unable to fly to the great heights of her mafioso-style essays and _Atlas Shrugged._
dcissignedon ::
"Aggressive" and "dismissive" are not good characteristics of any so-called "philosopher".
@@cliffgaither The content of your unfocused mind is noted.
I never read Rand’s more popular books. She won me over with this small, short book, “The Virtue of Selfishness”. I was young, late 20’s, and profoundly impressed with her message, but more so by her command of the language and vocabulary.
I hope you abandoned that philosphy when you matured. Otherwise I pity your children and wife, if you had.
@@Afreshio Why? In her example, she said a selfish man would put his family first (over random desires) since his family has a higher value. I often feel people get hung up on the title and definition of the word "selfishness". I really feel a better word for today would be "self-interest". So a better title would be "The Virtue of Self-Interest".
@@JaimeWarlock PREACH!
Love the last few minutes of this talk. Great discussion. Thanks for sharing 👍
Rand was unique in articulating brilliantly the most deep pathology in the American society. Everything for myself and I don't care about other people.
She changed the definition of altruism in order to defame it.
She tried to create a foundation for a morality which accepts disabled beggars on the street hoping to meet someone to get some money to survive the next day, but she failed.
It is logically impossible to argue that you have no obligation to the state or society to pay taxes for other people needs and the same time to receive from society the basic means in order just to exist as a professional or person ...
Michael, Caps Lock had a little forerunner called Shift Lock.
Thank you! I thought it was so funny when he said that.
"I remember saying when I was 15, why is morality all about other people?"
It says a lot Brook basically holds the same moral philosophy as when he was 15. "Why is it like that?" Because humans are social animals and cooperation is ingrained in our dna. There is a reason that essentially every major moral philosophy has some aspect of sacrifice and giving to others as a fundamental basis. You think the age of massive depression, loneliness and alienation just happens to coincide with the age of radical individualism? Only serving yourself and chasing your own pleasure feels like shit. It leaves an empty hole in your soul that no amount of money, consumption, or capitalist definitions of success can ever fill.
You don't understand her philosophy
philosophy implies there's a degree and there is no degree in Rand.
@@barnardcarbajal8506 Mate, philosophy does not imply there's a degree. Philosophy is how you perceive and interpret the world around you. How many times have you heard something like, "My philosophy is..." from someone without a degree
You are so inept there is no individualism now.
It's all group identity.
The hive mind creates depression,loneliness, and alienation.
cum bia
"Radical individualism"... I think you are conflating the narcissist online woke types with the self made man. The narcissistic woke types seek nothing but approval from what ever fad is popular which is basically the opposite of Rands definition of selfishness.
The ones crying "me me me look at what ever Gender I just made up, and look at how special I am because of - insert John Oliver hot take.exe - !" are the lonely depressed ones you are talking about because their sense of self is not self generated. It is all approval click bait.
"Only serving yourself and chasing your own pleasure" just tells me you have actually done little reading into the matter at all - because Objectivism lit covers this. They are not hedonistic.
That was very helpful, about Rand of course but also about Malice and Brook. Thank you.
Empathy has no bearing without action, that my viewpoint, but remember to save time for yourself.
A few things: Rand is the midwit writer par excellence. Just because Milton Friedman was wrong about some things doesn’t mean Rand was right. Rand, when compared to other thinkers and writers, stands or falls on the strength of her prose and “philosophy”-can anyone say she was a great or even good mind compared to any of her contemporaries let alone the greats?
I was one that was extremely interested as soon as I heard the ideals and ethics of rand. I truly believe this philosophical concept is the most accurate I've ever seen
I am 65, I read atlas shrugs at the age of 45, and the fountain head, when I was 50 while working as a security contractor in Iraq. There is no wrong order, and I have reread both since.
The reason she is so disliked is because she is brutally individualistic, so much so that she said she would outlaw the word "give" in her ideal enviroment
Something is seriously wrong with her... Who hurt her?
How tf would society operate under such conditions? If you take a second to actually think about that quote it's impossible to implement, for somebody so obsessed with making her philosophy practical Ayn Rand runs into a lot of problems.
Shr did not say that. She advocated voluntary charity as a rational option to people who deserved it by a good character.
Grew up in brutal soviet state, so it's trauma. She never gave therapy a option I think. She must've rejected therapy and all that, I bet. A shame.
@@AntonAdelson
That’s what the city of Sidon did. Outlaw giving.
Why is there a cult of Ayn Rand is a substantially more interesting question
Because she just reinforces something that any intelligent person already knows, human beings are selfish.
@@sspbrazil Except they are not. Self-preservation is second to the preservation of offspring if already having reproduced. Self-interest is only a biological function to the extent of passing on and protecting our genetic information. Societal involvement and selflessness at the macro level also flow downstream to self, and to our offspring. She was just making a desperate attempt to rationalize being a piece of shit. That is all. And she did it poorly. All you need to understand human behavior aside from current societal influence is to look at biology. So either she failed horribly, or I am a genius and need to write my OWN book full of teenage desperation and ego.
@@RandomPickles human beings are selfish though and mostly motivated by self interest.
@@sspbrazil wow lol
@@RandomPickles
Your 'doing great'
They were very dismissive of any counter arguments and just labeled many of the people who dislike Rand's ideas as either women of religious people. There are plenty of reasons to live for a greater common good that are not based on religion or any other type of indoctrination. And I honestly have a hard time relating to someone that says "Morality is not about other people" with such joy
>There are plenty of reasons to live for a greater common good that are not based on religion or any other type of indoctrination
The common good is mystical, thus its defended w/intuition, not reason.
She definitely didn’t believe I the victim mentality. I think after Covid a lot of people are fed up and have adopted this attitude. Your fear is not my responsibility, a hold on my freedom.
Why is someone who is against Forced Altruism a bad radical person. ? She is not against charitable acts if that is your free decision and it makes you feel good ...so then that too is selfish ? Where is the morality in someone putting a gun to your head and forcing you io give to a social cause you may disagree with..Like full term Abortion ? Ayn was hated because she was logical and respected the individual,s free will and his ability to assume the responsibility of his actions, free of emotion and social bias. Anything else and you are not a full ,mature intelligent adult person
Why did this charlatan avail herself of what you wrongly term forced altruism of social security and Medicare.
@@rongenise7006 She was a Pragmatist and not a Martyr. It did not make sense to her to refuse" free stuff " that was handed to her even if she thought that it went counter to her beliefs....She was not Socrates if you know what I mean. That certainly did not make her a charlatan!
I read Atlas Shrugged and felt that her message of the power of an individual to overcome difficult circumstances was a valuable message. However, her philosophy clearly associates poverty with moral failing and that to me is a complete failure in the understanding of the circumstances of the modern world. I cannot agree that the hard working people of this country who don't earn enough to live a life of dignity are morally deficient. I heard two proponents of Ayn Rand talk about what they believe to be the obstacles to people's understanding or acceptance to Rand's philosophy but I think they miss the mark.
Poverty is not a moral failing, making poor choices and expecting others to have to fix it is
Maybe one of your best Lex.
I read Atlas when young, my dad's favorite. It was a large part of my singing in a punk band in 1984 about government corruption. I was outcasted then because society did not see the future we are now living. I published my book 18 years ago and discussed what I thought was coming... I found it doesn't matter how loud I sang or the words I used, some people are not going to hear.
Why don't people like Ayn Rand?
Rand on Native Americans:
"They had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages.”
Rand on Muslims:
“The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it’s the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are.”
Rand on America:
"the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and, in its original founding principles, the only moral country in the history of the world."
I have less of a problem with Rand the person, and more of a problem with some of her champions. The most outspoken lovers of Ayn Rand I've come across are the worst human beings I've had to interact with. Why's that related? There must be something that draws egotists and others to her work.
See compromise as sacrifice?
Aw geez.. I read Atlas Shrugged and am going to read the Fountainhead, and now I'm informed this order of reading is not a great decision? Well.. I'm going to read it anyway...
I read AS first and still loved The Fountainhead. Enjoy!
There's nothing _wrong_ with reading her books out of order...it's just that it helps to understand her progression of thought to read them in order. I think a lot of people get turned off by reading Atlas and never 'get' what Rand was on about by never reading We The Living or The Fountainhead.
It's all the same stuff to be honest. Half way through Atlas, you get her point. Nothing further is to be had by reading the rest, it's just more exaggerated acting out of this same idea.
Same with Fountainhead. When you understand her, you understand her. There's really no need for all the pages.
The way you can tell Rand fans are FOS is that they think people that disagree don't understand it. What new did she bring to objectivism that Mises or Hayak didn't cover?
Amen
@A S
Some do, but most don't. That is the reality.
@@ericridenour322 "I argue with different gas station attendants every morning about Ayn Rand before I start my important job" - thanks for that amazing work of fiction.
@@cyberedge881 yeah but if I know something about a subject that others dont I wouldn't go around beating others over the head about it cos 'you just don't get it'. why i think theyre fos cos if it is really groundbreaking you don't have to koolaid it so hard, it just holds its own. I got more from reading human action!
@@ericridenour322 yeah works the same for most subjects she coincidentally coincides with. I think rationality is so easy a concept to understand and expand upon in different directions. critiquing pure reason, now that is interesting to me. i often think Rand judged a book by its cover and never picked it up and never read anything after Aristotle (incl plato).
While it's possible for some people to be completely self-interested and still contribute positively to society, when there are too many purely self-interested people in places of power the society will become dysfunctional... and possibly violent. If a huge chunk of society is just outright neglected because the system can't find a place for them whatsoever, they are extremely unlikely to abide by rules set by people in power. Certainly not if their survival itself becomes difficult. People always make the claim that socialism fails due to human nature, but don't realize that the same criticism applies to capitalism whenever it goes too far in concentrating wealth on one end and neglecting a large chunk of people on the other. Fighting for survival is human nature too, and so is violence. People will fight and steal if there is no other choice. They will also band together. Just read history. The stability of society clearly requires at least a middle ground.
Nah
Completely false.
capitalism doesnt concentrate wealth. It lowers prices making things more affordable for the poor.
Pf course if you have a half capitalist society and constantly drain all of your gains buy wasteful spending, then the benefits of lower prices evaporate
Pure capitalism does concentrate weatlh - that's why we have income/inheritance taxes and trustbusters (in the past) to say, congrats, you won!, here are your millions/billions...but to keep this game going - we need to keep the chips moving - ensure competition - and help some people get started. Prob is - we do very little of that. We have crony capitalism where the govt (referees that were supposed to make it good game/competition) have been taken over by the players (corporations/billionaires/unions). The US system can work. 1st step is take money out of politics. Politicians wont do it. We can - 26 states allow public referendums. Social media changes everything. It enables those with fewer resources (money, lawyers, access/control of press) to take on those with the 'power'. Look at the result so MeToo. A few with no power wiped the floor with a couple of sociopaths. Same power ration here - the will of the US pop. vs. worldwide corporations and the media they one. We just need to put aside all the issues that are most important to us personally until we get a system fix (money out of politics) b/c we will not get logical/effective solns to any problem when monied interests affect the soln. If everyone has this issue front and center on social media - signature, ballots...all follow. Easy peasy. Trillions wasted year after year and we sit and watch - seemingly spellbound.
"People always make the claim that socialism fails due to human nature,"
No.
Socialism / collectivism fail because if you concede the principle that man's duty is to the collective, then no amount of sacrifice is enough. If you claim the slightest bit of anything to be yours, you have immediately failed the test.
Ayn rand didn't flip my world upside down. She really confirmed my believes. I felt at home, when I started reading her.
I don't think Rand recognized "irrational selfishness" in her zeal to lionize the virtue of selfishness. Yaron implied that he agreed. It's a basic editorial fallacy to define something as only its good version. I think Rand called it the "frozen abstraction" fallacy. The idea that one cannot reason incorrectly, held by some Objectivists, also partakes of that fallacy. If you reason wrongly, they argue, you aren't truly reasoning. By that token, if you do math incorrectly, you aren't really doing math. If you think inaccurately, you aren't truly thinking. And so on.
Have not yet started the video, but here are my initial thoughts since I have thought of this a good deal. A: her fictional writing was tiedious and felt like a chore to read for many. B: her philosophy suffers from the same problem marx had although to a vastly lesser extent. It's great on paper, but people such and are frequently cruel, dishonest, irresponsible and irrational. C: It frequently ignores the external costs of things. There are actions that indirectly impact others, like some one over pumping water from their land and draining a water table shared by others, or fumes from a papermill making a town borderline unlivable from the smell. D: perhaps most importantly for reasons why she is hated by so many, her philosophy is almost always visibly championed by douchebags. All that said, I think her method of thought is mostly right, just needs to be moderately applied. It's these all or nothing stances that create problems.
Rand isn't even good on paper. Anybody that's actually bothered to read Marx would know that he actually marveled over the accomplishments of capitalism pretty explicitly. Where he had significant issues was the tendency of the owner class to treat the workers like equipment or work animals. A system where the owners owned the factories and businesses, but everything else was done in a capitalist market based way would be consistent with hiss beliefs, but still be nearly entirely what we've got from a practical perspective.
" but people such and are frequently cruel, dishonest, irresponsible and irrational." It's this type of collectivism mind trap thinking and conception of reality why Rand is not understood.
Humans aren't born evil or born to be servants, they are insetad taught these beliefs by the same collective system you are defending and supporting, hence the term mind trap.
A lot of ideologies are mostly championed by douchebags depending on your own leanings and perspectives.
Yup.
I feel like maybe people are glossing over the fact that she was SUPER elitist. Like her stance on disabled people, and the homeless. She was not a good person, how can her ideas be interpreted through a different lense? I am just so confused by this lack of humanity...
Even though it was a poor critique of Objectivism, I honestly think the otherwise excellent video game Bioshock is one biggest reasons why younger people (idk, lets say under 30 or 40) are more curious about Rand's ideas. They are novel concepts to a lot of people, and even though it's kind of a critique (or at least a hyperbolic deconstruction of her ideas gone wrong), her ideas being attached to something almost universally considered to be of high quality rubs off. I've heard quite a few people say that this game was what got them curious about reading Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
Completely agree its an oversimplification and hyperbolic, but I do think it taps into that feeling that you cannot completely distil collectivism from society (the follow up questions are should you distil it and on what rational or metaphysical basis or logic are you sure thats a good idea). And that's why the world of Bioshock failed, it had leaders so ideological they couldn't address some of these societal needs, and some of the gaps of their logic and stability.
What the heck is Bioshock?
@@jamesalexander8872 "What the heck is Bioshock?"
It is a videogame. The setting of that game is a "Utopia according to Objectivism, but gone wrong."
I read her book, Atlas Shrugged, at age 14 and it changed my life!!
That's because most of her fiction is adolescent and simplistic as is her so-called "Objectivism." I have never met or read any philosopher or novelist who took Rand seriously.
@@thomasjones53 I think that's the problem. People read it without the education or critical thinking to really get what's on the page, and so they view it as being this magical writing. The reality though is that Galt's Gulch is a cartoonish and extremely naive view of what that really was when it existed. A society where people are just doing their own thing tends to break down due to people getting into conflicts and the less desirable things not being done without some degree of force or bribe to make it happen.]
In some respects it's a beautiful idea, but it's incredibly naive to think that is possible without infinite supplies of resources and people to put a higher premium on cooperation than following a leader.
Almost as naive as the socialist “Eutopia”.
Evil people deny reality, hate reality, hate truth, hate GOD, so naturally, they hate Rand. Just like Jesus said if they hate you, they have hated him first.
I've always believed her extreme positions were a reaction to all that she saw in the Soviet. Many Russians viewed the 1900's as the Century which would be theirs, prosperity, freedom, progress etc. Ayn probably felt she must be an absolute anti.
Ayn Rand predicted the mess the world is in now.
Like every other thinker for the past 2000 years???
"Predicted"??? LOL
You apparently have not read her books. @@eXWoLL
I guessed I’m a crazy. Behavior that is rewarded is behavior that is repeated. I think the modern incentive system is totally screwing things up.
Facts homie
Ayn Rand was a philosophical pit-bull as she never backed down against her detractors. She was a refreshingly intelligent spokeswoman for her thoughts. Being a physics professor, I can both admire and appreciate that fact - whether or not I’m in agreement on a particular point of discussion. Her views were her own as my views are my own. America has become an overflowing toilet of one-size (i.e., idea, notion, opinion etc.) fits all mental turds.
SHE DIED ON WELFARE.
Exactly The jealous and envy is obvious in the 3 stooges on the panel
For the life of me I don't understand why sociologists insist on this all or none, one or the other argument all of the time. Social housing has existed along side private ownership for a while now. It isn't necessarily Stalinism if you're not arguing against private ownership. It can exist for the poor and those on low incomes without being totalitarian in nature. It already does and has for some time. That is self evident. Ayn Rand is very fatalistic in that sense. She exaggerated the nature of socialism in a capitalist economy. It doesn't necessarily lead to Communism. It can, don't get me wrong but there are so many factors and steps involved in that.
She's hated because her ideas go against leftist ideology. Period, end of story. Everything else is aesthetic. If she were just as strident and harsh but she was instead parroting leftist talking points, she would be universally beloved by the left as a feminist-socialist firebrand.
Additionally, she's disrespected by a good swath of family-oriented, community-minded conservatives, and shunned by centrists who are trained to believe she's radioactive, but if you're talking about actual hate, she is hated by the left because they hate anything that goes against leftism.
Because being closer to truth while still denying truth is slightly better, but still leading toward falsehood.
If nothing else, Rands ideas gave me a permanent intellectual doorman/bouncer. Nobody gets past "the axe".
Well my reason is her «Romantic Manifesto» where she claims that the best art should be of «a beautiful woman in an evening dress» or that the height of dance is tap-dancing.
To paraphrase CS Lewis, whom she hated with a particular vehemence, «After a person has said that, why attend to anything else she has said on any subject in the whole world?».
Regarding why many get angry over the intellect and insight of Ayn Rand. I don't think the reason is "radical," it's even simpler than that, and hard to believe. I am not claiming to know all. But, I majored in Psychology for two years decades ago, prior to when leftist extremists infiltrated the school system heavily. The reason for the miss placed anger is jealously, disbelief of being wrong. The "Id", ego and superego is fragile, even for those in society that seem smart or in high positions. The dislike for Ayn Rand from the same people dislike Thomas Sowell.
When a person of intelect puts forward an idea that is so simple that it makes years of your life seem worthless, there is anger.
Rand's biggest critics are pseudo intellectuals with a short attention span and an inferiority complex. Unfortunately, they are the majority in 2024
@@unsaidatom2310 so if someone criticize your favorite person it means they must be pseudo intellect 😂 that shows your intelligence buddy. I'm studying philosophy and nature for a long time and i disagree with her on almost everything (except one or two thing), her moral code is inheritly flawed, her views on altruism is wrong, her views and understanding on the concept of loving all was wrong aswell, and her views on capitalism ufffff i don't understand how someone can justify such views.
@@aniqalam8231 ohhh triggered!
I can't imagine what it's like to be so fragile that I'd write a reply to a thumbs up in a comment on yt?
Maybe a little less "studying philosophy and nature..." and a little more actual study of how the comments section of yt works 😆
Next time try going for full intelect rather than psuedo, and maybe we can even have a coherent conversation!
12:27 And this is why so many unusually talented people don't think "the rules" apply to them. No compromise, even in the interpersonal realm. Society at large may be able to tolerate them, but if they are in your personal life, yikes.
I suppose the detail for the individual, is in the timing. When did the individual in question first read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged? If the individual was past their Young Idealist phase over the age of 25, maybe 30 on average, there probably won't be much appeal.
Unless you and or your family recently escaped from a communist regime of course.
Or you own a business during a "Plandemic"
I read and reread all of Rand's fiction during my teens and twenties. Finally got my brother to read it in his 50s. Now it's spread through the family to his son and nephew who both read Rand after graduating from college. All hooked. But maybe that all goes back to my mother, who was a huge Rand fan and raised us to be strong and independent.
@@carladewitt1947 Probably between the age of 14 or 15 and 25 would be typical for when Rand's works would have maximum impact upon a developing mind. Of course, the same could probably be said for most sociological or philosophical works. On average, of course; there are always exceptions.
@@greenmedic88 Agreed. Those puberty years, when all the hormones are raging, we feel things so much more intensely. It makes sense that these are the years most influential to the world view we carry with us the rest of our lives.
@@carladewitt1947 I'm thinking more from a cognitive development standpoint (which is naturally influenced by the endocrine system), as it's generally acknowledged that brain development is complete in the mid 20s on average. This is not to say that anyone over the age of 25 suddenly becomes resistant to previously unknown concepts, but generally they won't have the same impact as if they had been introduced at an earlier age.
I’m a fan. I don’t agree everything she believed or espoused nor do I with many of my favourite authors.
you have to reason your statement or it means nothing.
@@gosugosu1280 then it can remain meaningless
11:32 I think this probably the most salient point for today’s America
What I tell my co-workers when they freak out over people not wearing masks, simple but powerful quote.
I may have to memorize it and repeat it as a extreme personal freedom advocates mantra!
It’s a ridiculous point. Taking a stand against mask-wearing wouldn’t have been recognized as promoting freedom by any relevant movement in history.
@@mckernan603 True, but it still is a individuals choice, no matter how insignificant...
@@anonymous108 there’s a difference between fear and justified public health policy. There’s a difference between fear and rational reactions to threats.
If someone was wildly firing bullets, you might have the police keeping people at a distance for their safety. Now some knucklehead might say that it is their individual choice to get shot in the head by a bullet and while that’s true, it’s not a very good strategy for Living very long.
I think a better way to interpret the quote is simply to say the decisions should not be made based merely on fear, but by taking a rational look at risk and whatever other evidence you can. But human brains can’t spend forever on every decision so sometimes it’s quicker to Just say “unsafe“ and move on.
Wage theft, gate keepers, lame ass managers, absurd performance reviews… Mostly assholes rule the world. It’s why you need a trade union
Oh no, that's far too collectivist. Better to express your individuality as a slave to a corporation.
6:27 Michael Malice, a typewriter has a mechanical slotted locking key named the caps-lock key. To unlock the caps-lock, you just press down on the shift key again--and the slotted section with an L-shaped bend pops back out of there to get lowercase by default again. No one back then had to keep pressing with one finger to keep the capital letters coming out like you are trying to paint as a mental picture. Our family had an old mechanical typewriter a bunch of years prior to having an electric typewriter.
I was thinking the exact same thing, but was that always true? The typewriters I used in the sixties were probably a few generations beyond what she was using.
@@JaimeWarlock I used 2 different manual typewriters before using an electric in high school. Then we replaced our borrowed uncle's family manual with our own electric. This was the transition that took place from the 1960s to 1970s.
There may have been electric models pre-dating what we ended up getting, but likely one would have to shell out more coins for the newest, latest innovation right out of the lab of the time of that invention years prior.
Our electric had a manual carriage return paddle while slightly more feature-filled newer electrics had power carriage return keyboard buttons. A few years later the typing class got to use IBM Selectric ball-based typewriters where the carriage never moved, just the type-ball shuttled across the platten roller.
Obviously, there was a more primitive time when the manual typewriter had only uppercase and fewer punctuation marks. But there was likely a very short time when there was no shift lock key, but humanity has been doing innovative things with mechanisms for thousands of years so it would not have taken very long to come up with a caps-lock key using the slotted channel locking bolt mechanism--a period likely within a few months at most.
Ref
the Antikythera Mechanism
There was a clock-like mechanism that was dated to have been unbelievably old--many thousands of years. It was rock-encrusted and made of a metal alloy. It was reverse-engineered using x-rays and after 3 or more generations of scientists looking at the thing.
It was a clockwork mechanism that accurately predicted both lunar and solar eclipses to a very high precision several centuries before the events were to take place. Not bad considering some people in the Christian church thought that the sun revolved around the Earth (see Galileo Galilei), and Islam thought even worse that the world was flat and that the sun set into a dark muddy spring about 1000 years after Ancient Greeks calculated the size of the moon, size of the Earth, distance to the Sun and size of the Sun to within the measurement accuracy of the ancient time.
Ref
UA-cam masked arab Does the Quran really say the Sun sets in a muddy spring?
Famous quotation from Jacque Fresco - This shit's got to go!
Fresco saw that Muslims were backward when it came to thinking about physics such as Newtonian physics that included the universal gravitational constant--this because they thought that the world was flat and that people on the "bottom" of the Earth would fall downward off of the oblate spheroid shaped planet where their homeland knew the real direction of downward. Fresco used static electricity and a balloon to show the Islamic mosque leader that a static electrical charge between the balloon and fine particles could have the particles stick all over the balloon including the bottom. When the mosque leader was convinced by Fresco's demonstration, he told the members of the mosque to listen to what Fresco was saying. Fresco died in 2017 at or slightly older than 100 years old. So Muslims largely probably continue to believe the writing in the Koran which cannot be changed which intimates in ambiguous Arabic that the world is flat.
It's obvious, if you think about it for longer than 5 minutes.
"Greed is good" directly contradicts billions of years of evolution that turned us into a social species. Back in the golden age, if you were a selfish prick you had an unfortunate hunting accident and didn't make it back to the tribe.
Greed is good lying, stealing, and cheating isn't. If the tribe kills you for being greedy and wanting stuff but not harming anyone they literally killed you for nothing.
@@collinblatchford It's willfully ignorant to ignore the fact that greed, more often than not, creates lying, cheating and stealing. Greed creates those 3 so often that we as a society assume "greedy person" measns "a liar, a thief and a cheat."
The problem imo is the use of the word "greed." When I read Atlas, it seemed to me that regardless of the words used, it was actually the villains who were classically greedy and envious in demanding what they didn't earn and what their own corruption and incompetence consistently destroyed, whereas the heroes were merely unwilling to be slaves to the greedy demands of the lazy or to be manipulated by their accusations of being greedy.
The folks brandishing "greedy" were generally useless parasites and sponges who use a pretense of morality to steal and coopt what they didn't earn and couldn't competently even maintain. In that context, it makes sense to side with the allegedly "greedy", over those who were actually greedy. Kinda like how today we have a redefinition of prejudice based on grace (no g) that's a perfect inversion of reality, where the "anti" folks are actually the worse instances of what they claim to be against.
If you pay attention to the money printing, bailouts, etc, as well as the "get awake, go out of business" phenomenon, it's almost a carbon copy of what she was warning about.
@@TheJeremyKentBGross ok,you believe in objectivism, kool. Greed doesn't become a good thing just because the Russian philosopher lady says so. Having children is a great way to wordlessly understand that life only gets good when you THINK OF OTHERS.
There are a ton of people out there that think Ms Rand is giving them permission to be selfish assholes, but mythicly moral and selfish person only exists in her book. The peope who only think of themselves and their profits do NOT give a fuck about the rest of us.
It sounds great to the most greedy self-centered people in the world for a reason.
@@alienwarrior9408 You sound like you didn't read a word I said, and projected a bunch of stuff on me I don't think. Just to start, I don't consider myself an objectivist, and I don't idolize "the Russian lady", I merely analyzed the work from my own impressions of it's merits from my own reading, and while it's not a complete accurate understanding of all sides of the world, or fantastically written as a novel, there were clearly a few things she understood very well and better than the average person.
Also greedy assholes don't need permission, and not all of them are at the top.
You could say Elon Musk is greedy, but I don't see it that way. He's the kind of hyper productive guy that's generally bettering the world with his work, even if he may be said to have done a shady thing or two. Who else is making electric cars and trying to get us into space? If some folks are envious of him (which I get, the dude is IRL Tony Stark), and say "it's not fair" there aren't enough useless genderqueer blue haired Karens of transgender color in charge of critical stuff at Space X, or we need to appropriate it, Musk wouldn't be the bad guy for saying "shove off." They aren't doing 100 hours a week to make stuff happen, wouldn't likely be competent enough anyway if they did. They don't deserve to be treated as if they are or even could be equally capable if given a forced opportunity, because there's no justification for it.
On the other hand we definitely have people who are abusing wealth to control the government in totally selfish and greedy ways, although you could ironically draw parallels between a lot of them and Rands villains as well, even if not all. Why do you have Disney+ when you know what's happening in China? Or what have you. There's plenty of evil shit done for sure, but that's not the MO of everyone, or of Shruggeds heroes and villains.
As for "her book being an excuse..." man EVERYTHING is an excuse if you want it to be. You can do any evil thing and say: "God will forgive me", or "it's racial justice", or whatever you wish. That doesn't mean you are right. And just because you have a vindictive stick up your @$$ doesn't mean I read the same things from the books that you did, assuming you even read it at all and aren't basing your hate on hearsay from whatever tribe you hailed from.
I understand. I just don't agree.
Give more just don't force anyone else to.
@@collinblatchford we don't live in a world where we can afford to do that yet. Until war is untenable in the human conscious there will be forceful theft.
@@johnriggio9781
No one claims there ever wont be
I enjoy all principals & the stimulating conversation. Manufactured groupthink still obtains in societies and workplaces, creating danger for anyone questioning orthodox talking points. Therefore the Howard Roark dilemma continues to have relevance.
I have only just found Ayn Rand. The statement at about 3:40 said it exactly:
'Wow! That's what I have been looking for my whole life.'
I live in the UK. We do not have a capitalist society. We have a left wing Labour party and a so-called right wing Conservative party; along with a few minority parties. Listening to Ayn, I realised that both parties deliver a socialist agenda. When people label something or a view centre right in the UK, what they are really saying is the centre right of socialism. There is no real conservatism or capitalism. It disappeared a long time ago. That, to me, was an epiphany. It helped me see what is happening to the country I live in. It was like seeing the matrix.
Once you see this, you can not unsee it!
Smashing everything is ethical and moral at times. To say it isn’t is to fail to see the ability to slowly boil and reject the immediacy to rectify the wrong. The issue is WHEN is it ethical to do so.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. -- Paul Krugman
By the year 2005 or so, it will be clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's. -- Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize turned clown pundit
This guy did a great debate with Sam seder.... it was very enlightening.... I personally love how he talks about history its sheer fantasy....
It wasn't great, because he constantly interrupted Sam. On the other hand, he made me remember why I chose not to be a libertarian, so that was great.
@@basicguy5785 Sam was defenitly right with the collapsed buildung in Miami
If Atlas Shrugged as a movie didn't convince you how completely flawed her ideas were, you basically enjoy when people suffer or die for your own profit. So many ideas about, "I just don't care if workers die if my product is good." I'll engage the idea for sure, no problem. Her ideas are complete ass and if you like them, you might just enjoy the suffering of your fellow man if it makes your life better. This whole talk was honestly a horrible representation of what her ideas actually are if you read them. I don't get it, Lex. You are usually so much better.
Nice virtue signaling and grandstanding. I doubt you’ve even read Rand. There are a lot of problems with Rand but that is clearly a sophomoric and very shallow reading of what Rand was saying
@@themadmattster9647 So you're not going to respond to her core beliefs best being represented on book/film being complete shit? Any child watching would not understand why the leading people are literally cruel assholes on purpose because of belief in their own productive virtue. There's a reason Disney is popular and not the works of Rand which seeks to turn the bad guy into the good guy, just because she thinks communism sucks. Maybe you could expound a bit on the parts of her beliefs you agree with to counteract, instead of throwing ad hominem attacks next time. Have a nice day, even though it doesn't serve me personally!
@@damonhage7451 Thanks so much for engaging! Glad you thought that through!
@@damonhage7451 Thanks for engaging again, while not addressing a single thing I said, except to say it's not true. Lex would not approve. You can't just say someone is dishonest and there is it, it's all settled. Address a single point, or please, just keep engaging by not engaging. Brilliant.
But seriously, all sarcasm aside, I appreciate the mostly not insulting comments. I did go back and read some more about Rand's extremely stupid ideals just to reminds myself how much many of them are true and how many more are based in fear and falsehoods and the desire for it to be ok to fuck people over and not save a drowning baby because you're having a nice day and it's not your fault. Have a good one, buddy! Thanks for, haha, engaging in someone who challenges your beliefs. We should all do it more. Take care.
@@damonhage7451 Just wanted to add a point of agreement, kind sir. The part at 8:41. This is the big positive of her work. Have a good one.
A much more interesting question is why, alone of almost all "philosophers', does Rand have such passionate, at times, cult-like, devotees?
1. Rand was a terrible fiction writer.
2. You attract more flies with honey than vinegar, and Rand was all vinegar in her attitude
I can't think of any other author who created such a profound shift in my thinking as a young man. I've read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead several times now. I love these books.
The shame of our 'fast food culture' is that the size of the books - and the fact that less people read - will keep most people from being exposed to these important ideas.
I waded through Atlas Shrugged maybe a decade ago. I've also read Anthem, The Virtue of Selfishness, and a bit of Objectivism. While I'm glad I read AS, and I agree with so much of it, I do think it was WAY longer than it needed to be. She could have gotten her ideas across just as well in half the length. I also think the reason there were virtually no children in the novel (aside from the perfectly behaved kids in John Galt's paradise) is that in real life parents are forced to be massively self-sacrificing (altruistic) in order to raise decent kids. That obviously doesn't square well with her notions. I do think that her ideas are VERY important however. She must be rolling over in her grave with the "Woke" nightmare playing out before our eyes. All just my take of course.
@@paxonearth Definitely too long - especially the chapter 'This is John Galt Speaking'. If memory serves it's a 90 page monologue. I always have to prep myself before tackling that chapter. Do some light stretching...get hydrated. Lol !!!
I see your point on the issue of kids - but I suspect that Rand would view parenthood as an act of 'selfishness' - not altruism. In a sense, raising a child is the act of creating a more perfectly actualized version of your self. Also, having raised two kids to adulthood, I can say that - though sacrifice is part of parenthood - the net benefit is extremely gratifying. It pays in dividends long after the sacrifice ends. There are many things that can be picked apart about her books - but the ideas are so strong that I suspend disbelief and criticism and just go along for the ride.
I fell in love with Ayn Rand when Dominique speaks of smashing the statue of Helios. Dominique took me by the hand and led me into Objectivism. I have always wondered what might have happened if Dominique and Dagny ever met. I,d love to have this conversation with someone else who has read Ayn Rand deeply and often.
Hello Clare. I like your question. I have discussed this same possibility with friends. It seems like both characters simply want to be around others who are being honest, who are normal, who enjoy being human, and who stick to their standards and ethics instead of selling out. Both women frustrated by not finding many others with these traits. Both happy when they find such people. It seems like Dagny stays optimistic and continues to happily go about her business despite it all, while Dominique got much more resigned and cynical. I like to think that both women would learn wise things from the other person while talking together.
The best thing to do with Ayn Rand is actually ask people to read her books, because they are awfully written, pitiable nonsense. Sure, some idiots like her, but then so many people read the national enquirer. Brooks pretends that it's 'radical' but then just describes clear confirmation bias, not a personal challenge.
I like Ayn Rand's perspective on a multitude of things....we may not completely agree on everything, but ultimately I concur with her perspective in many ways. I even went so far as to use her information among others in one of My philosophy classes when presented with the notion of "altruism" and it's alternatives. I concluded that there is no such thing as true "altruism"...there is no one who does anything for anyone without some form of ulterior motive whether it be praise and acknowledgment for that which they did for an individual, a community, self-gratification and elation, or a belief that their actions will grant them favor with Our Creator....there is ALWAYS something they seek to attain though their actions and choices concerning others....there is 0 chance that there is 0 desired recompense on some level whether individual, communal, societal, psychological or spiritual. Even if someone chooses to remain anonymous for contributions to a cause or a community, etc., they're still personally self-interested for how it makes them perceive or feel about themselves...so there is an ulterior motive even then. To suggest truly objective "altruism" based upon it's very definition is ever performed by anyone living or dead is merely delusional...those who tend to argue against this perception simply aren't willing to unbiasedly perform introspective analyses and face whatever may come without attempting to explain it away in some quasi-self justification method/coping mechanism rather than facing it head on for what it truly is and accepting it as it stands before them without attempting to defend themselves from themselves...even in that moment they prove the very point by feeling some force of utmost urgency to defend themselves from their own inner workings. It may be frustrating, enraging, or even depressing for them to come to grips with but the only way to know yourself truly is by accepting even the things you chose to push into some dark recess of your own mind in order to maintain a delusion about yourself because you may like yourself better that way......but it's not who you truly are and many times such people fear because they care about what external sources think and feel about them, that those same forces they seek to appease by not accepting themselves fully...instead wearing a mask for so long they lose themselves to the act would not like or accept them without the mask they've adopted to interact in the vast majority of their societal interactions. I'm not one to say it would be right to harm another in order to maintain self interest unless that someone were threatening to do you harm initially thereby justifying self-interest in survival situations....if it's you or I...I'll be damned if I'm gonna go if I can take out that which is trying to force their will upon me when I can just as likely send them in My place so to speak as an example...her psychological analyses coupled with her philosophy make a great deal of sense when people are truly honest and open with themselves rather than trying to fit in to molds pre-designated for them and labels assigned to those various molds as well as whether fallible finite beings in their "infinite wisdom" determined if those molds and labels were assigned a more negative or positive connotation by their own personal agendas and desires derived from their own biases.
Enlightened ethical egoist and libertarian individualist if it's of any consolation or consequence.....do with it what you will.
I think the problem with Ayn Rand and Carl Marx are they are both ideas people. The problem with ideas however is reality doesn't care about how smart your ideas are, either they work or they don't or they work in a way that are unintended. I think there is a problem in America where you have this idea of socialism vs capitalism/individualism vs collectivism, when the reality is they are not mutually exclusive, and that in a democracy you don't end up with a perfect version of one ideology you end up with a mixture of a lot of ideas that sometimes work unexpectedly well together and sometimes they don't. The fact remains however pure libertarian capitalisms nor pure communist socialism will never exist, it doesn't matter what you think your rights are as an individual or a collective the world/nature does not care if you survive so sometimes we have to work with other people who believe things that might make no sense to us in order for us to survive. The other thing is that two people who disagree could both be wrong, and it is also possible that two people who disagree could both be right.
If you look at her life, I think you can see why people would be cautious about her ideas. She had an unbelievably destructive love life that blew up her own marriage and the marriage of her best friends- all based on her supposedly “objective” ideas. She was a philosopher who’s ideas didn’t even work for herself. Why should we believe her?
shelleyjensen :: Good comment, kinda reminds me of Jordan Peterson's "philosophy".
Philosophers whose ideas don't actually work for them or anyone else ; although, Peterson gave common sense advice but who needs common sense advice from a philosopher ? We all -- well, most of us -- have common sense. It's called "common" for a reason.
@@cliffgaither70% of blacks grow up without a father in the home. It's a racist idea to dismiss those teaching common sense through the internet. You're just butthurt because he's a conservative and popular. Be honest with yourself. No one considers peterson a philosopher except those looking to give him the title than retroactively denigrate him for it like you.
@chazzbranigaan9354 ::
I don't know Y you bring up the issue of "70% of black children grow up without fathers". It doesn't have anything to do with my comment about Peterson and his bogus title of philosopher ::
1.
Peterson's reputation and his "life lessons" are falling apart and will end next to Rand's unobjective, "objectivism". He is ending as a whining weasel the moment there is a repulse drive against his destructive terminologyies that brings down the reputation of academic institutions.
I am not one of the people who has ever claimed he was a philosopher just to tear him down. His rather nasty political beliefs are typical of the right-wing, to which he has always been a part of it but tried to keep it hidden during his earlier stages of public awareness. He is not a "conservative". He's a walking drugstore with many self-delusions about his intellect that are gift-wrapped in many convoluted word salads.
2.
Your "statistical" number of 70% ... is as bogus as Peterson's analytics.
The correct percentage is 56.7% of African-"American" kids w/o fathers.
( 61% of single mothers are white ! )
No matter !
If you are defending Peterson, it's understandable you would be incorrect about facts.
@cliffgaither why were you so bothered by that stat?, its clear you are an anti black racist masquerading as a left winger lol. Please grow up
i really love ayn rand's work on individuality and think she is very underappreciated.
Rand’s philosophy could also be interpreted as you are actually living for other people by focusing on your own achievement, since your focus results in a net benefit to others without a directly altruistic aim. Altruism is just altruism. It exhausts resources. Randian’s philosophy results in altruism indirectly, but with a creation of resources.
Not to mention that there is nothing stopping people from donating or engaging in charity because they genuinely want to and it makes them happy to give to people
The problem arise because most people dont do nuance. They read Rand's philosophy and think they themselves are an ubermensch(Rand ripped the idea from Nietzsche so using the term here) . And in that believe, think it's right or justified to be a complete narcissist cunt to everyone because, they are not ubermenschs and being "selfish" is the only moral thing to do to those that are lesser than you.
There no nuances in this understanding. Even if you are, better than most in a field, you are not an island. You didnt build your own car, your house, pave the roads, generate your own electricity, etc. You live in a society. That's not to say altruism is required or needed, but a certain lvl of inter cooperation makes interactions and society as a whole function.
Again, not that Rand doesnt raise good points, but people dont do nuance and think it's a carte blanche do be a narcissist dick.
What Ayn Rand considered to be Freedom was/is dangerous to me because, like Donald Trump. she was intellectually sloppy. She assumed the dimensions of what she designated as freedom represented a universal construct that was both benign and without systemic consequence She talked reason and rational self-interest but she pandered to emotion and personal sovereignty that required the willing violation of personal boundaries to accommodate her "freedom" and world view. She expected abject compliance with her personal authority as a condition of her society.
It's extreamly hard for people to admit they're wrong.