Rand examines the philosophy that holds individual men should be used as sacrificial animals for the group, the fundamental premise of collectivist politics. www.LibertyPen.com
Good. And you can do this by saving your own life, first, and then helping others. Logical! But her definition of altruism is all about fake altruism -- government mandated sacrifice. True altruism is a personal choice. In order to remove victimhood status completely, we merely need to take 100% responsibility for everything others do to us. There is unlimited power in this viewpoint, but few can see it.
I saw a pamphlet once about how to rescue a drowning victim. One of the rules was 'Approach them with your legs first so they don't injure your head and if they panic and flounder you can kick them off to prevent being dragged down with them.' I always thought that was a good metaphor for helping people.
@@RevoltingPeasant123 A better metaphor is that of the young child sitting next to you on an airplane that loses pressure. Put on your own mask, first, then assist the child. It won't do to have you black out while failing to assist the child; then both suffer.
@@RodMartinJr I agree. 3:20 She seems to be trying to make a ridiculous argument against extremist altruism...even arguing everyone can't be an extremist altruist.
@@iloveamerica1966 Great point. In my own scientific research into spiritual action (miracles), I discovered that extreme altruism is the sweet spot. You can't be 99.9999999% there; you have to go all the way to 100% humble, loving, responsible and confident. Reminds me of the derivative of a particular function in first-year calculus class in college. The resultant set was all values of x, with y set at zero, except where x = 0. At the middle of the graph, y equaled plus-or-minus infinity. That graph gave me goose bumps. Sometime after that, I realized that I was looking at a representation of ego (as values of x) compared to power over the physical universe (as values of y). The break at x = 0 is what is called a discontinuity. And this is exactly what is the nature of spirit. The spiritual realm, unlike the continuity-bound physical, is discontinuous in nature. I talk more about these in my books, *_Spirit is Digital, Science is Analog_* *_The Science of Miracles_* *_Proof of God_*
One of her better quotes. But here she has confusion on what true altruism is. She's describing fake altruism -- the selfishness of the Leftist who wants the illusion of safety within the collective. But that safety IS an illusion, because the managers of the collective can decide that you no longer serve any purpose. True altruism is a choice. And when you love others as much as you love yourself, then altruism is the *_only_* way to express that love. We can continue to benefit ourselves, through work and creating value, but we no longer need to be selfish about it. This is what Ms. Rand gets entirely wrong.
mark brown when you’re punished for being successful by having to pay a higher percent of your earnings than everyone else you wouldn’t be happy about it either.
@Smidlee Well said. But when someone loves unconditionally, with 100% purity, they become at-one with God, just as Jesus was. And that's when miracles start to happen. (Reference: *_The Science of Miracles)_*
@@RodMartinJr Ayn Rand's perspective of altruism is that which is foisted upon society by the social engineers who wield power over the masses. Since you say that this is "fake altruism", what term would you ascribe to define what is her definition of altruism?
@@jchis9852 Just that: "fake altruism." She entirely ignores the *_standard_* definition of altruism *_n._* Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness. Her definition looks nothing like the standard definition. What she was describing was "fake altruism."
@@RodMartinJr Psychological altruism means acting out of concern for the well-being of others, without regard to your own self-interest. Biological altruism refers to behavior that helps the survival of a species without benefiting the particular individual who’s being altruistic. What part is she getting wrong?
I suffer from crippling low self esteem, and I see anybody other than me having more value than myself. I’ve always put the need of others before my own, not because I’m a good person, but because I believe that I’m a bad person who doesn’t deserve anything. My therapist asked me to list 5 most important things in my life; I’ve answered family, friends, social justice, animal welfare, and environmental advocacy. My therapist said that no matter who I am or what I am (i.e. parent, teacher, best friend, etc.) the #1 priority in my life should always be “self.” He explained to me that that isn’t selfishness; if I’m not well because my own needs aren’t met, then I can’t take care of my family, protect my friends, nor advocate for any social cause, animals, and the environment. It was as if a light bulb got flipped on in my head.
Have you considered reading _The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem_ by Nathaniel Branden? Despite their split, he was once a pupil of Rand's. I believe the audiobook was uploaded on UA-cam (and narrated by Nathaniel himself).
@@EddVCR Yes, it has (and it still does). The best part about it -- aside from how eloquent and lucid its writing is -- is that since Nathaniel became a practicing psychotherapist for many years, he writes in a way that's engaging to the reader, which differs from the didactic way in which ideological thought systems are typically written. Towards the end of the book, he encourages the reader to engage in what's called "sentence completion exercises," which are exercises designed to promote introspection and a healthy relationship with oneself, or in Nathaniel's words: "Sentence completion is a technique I have developed in my clinical practice that can be used to facilitate self-understanding and personal growth." *Sorry, I had to re-post this comment since my previous comment was deleted for providing a link to a website.* If you want to read the article I intended to link to you, go to Google, then paste this into the search bar: The Art of Living Consciously | The Oxford Club
@@The_Isaiahnator Thank you for the in-depth information on this book! I’m definitely going to check this book out. I’m seriously committing myself to taking care of my mental health, and this will no doubt help me on my journey toward wellness. I appreciate you so much!
Rand's definition of forced altruism reminds me of the time when we first came to the US and my dad was working a very low-paying job to support our family of four. A charity came around the office asking for donations, and the boss shamed my dad into giving nearly half his week's salary. Being Chinese working for a Chinese boss, he would've lost face had he refused. My dad came home near tears, and I never forgot that lesson never to allow anyone to put his hand in my pocket and never be ashamed to say NO.
there is no such thing as forced altruism, the whole thing of altruism is that it doesnt matter your interest it is always forced as you mean nothing compared to the whole. but very solid point and good story.
I would call affirmative action and reparations forced altruism. You have no choice and are presumed guilty committing a wrong and required to surrender a benefit to a person who has not proven he was wronged. @@petejones6827
Her last remark about Altruism demanding the sacrifice of principles is the most frightening thing I've heard. And it seems to be playing out in reality.
She is wrong to assume that altruism is the same thing as equity. The people who demand equity at the cost of principles are hardly being altruistic.... They lie, cast aspersions, and produce all forms of propaganda in service of their ideal. Altruism is marked by integrity following a chain of logic from first principles.
yeah right now in front of us, Altruism is full display, sacrifice for the world, go to work, you'll be fine the elite say, that's on a normal day when there is no pandemic, Corporation and religion all want us to serve them, I serve my family, that's it
@@jacobfaro9571 no... The collective good is ideology that purports to be altruism. Altruism itself is more like a virtue. You aren't doing it just because you claim to be. .. you can only be altruistic or have virtue within context. .. defining the context to necessarily make your actions appear altruistic doesn't make them so. ... Saying "it's for the common good," is a perfect example of the idea of altruism being abused. .. and often that phrase, or one like it will be associated with tyranny.
Tress Braga It’s not remarkable at all. My great grandpa barely had an education and he immigrated to France as an adult. He spoke French perfectly and with no accent.
@Kopliko Kot I was talking about languages, which was what the original commenter was talking about. You don't seem to have very good reading skills. Besides, if writing about philosophy makes you a great person, then you must think that Marx was a great man. And I suspect that's not the case
Rebuild of Eva is shit watch the original instead her accent is simply because of the people she was raised around and it is incredibly difficult to remove that. I assume your grandpa either moved to France early or the country he came from didn’t have a thick accent like that of Russians. Besides, she had already learned Russian and grown up around that. So learning English was brand new and much harder because she was an adult. I respect your grandpa sure, but don’t disrespect the hardship of this women based on no merit of truth
@@thecrimsonfire4921 He fled from the Spanish Civil War, and he was already an adult. Some people talk with no accent at all, and some do. I have an accent when speaking English (probably also because I've never lived in an English speaking country).
Funny comments here. Aside from a bit of shit throwing, the initial comment wasn't even about accent. The woman does actually have a slight accent, noticeable in words like "nothing". The initial comment was about her "command of the english language", being, her ability to speak her thoughts in english fluently, picking her words well and managing to turn her thoughts into the proper words.
No, she's talking about fake altruism -- the selfish need for safety. True altruism is a personal choice, fearless of pandemics. People cowering from a fake pandemic is self-enforced slavery -- something upon which the Leftists thrive.
@@RodMartinJr In that case the next question would be what is thier justification for why they don't think it's not real or real threat. That'd narrow down the motive. But I think people aren't thinking that way. Why is the rhetoric all about sacrificing for the minority, as in the most unable or at risk, at ANY cost of the able or least at risk? That's altruism. They are willing to sacrifice the lives of others and themselves not for safety for them personally but for safety of the less able. That's not selfishness. Sure, some are declaring a total lockdown out of fear for themselves, but that's not the majority. Since we know the majority is NOT as risk. But that's cowardlyness. It's an action of evasion, because it's avoiding the reality that healthy non-elderly people will be fine. The reason why that's not selfishness is because if, in the long run, it you hide away and depend on the state; eventually the state will fail, or your sense of values and sense of life will erode because you are slowly becoming nothing. That's not in your best interest at all. It's suicidal, anti life. Maybe they are trying to run away from a job they hate or a life unfulfilled, or fear of other people's view of them. Who knows, but it's not selfish because they are not appreciating thier future or life. Here is a video discussing the political response from Objectivism Philosophers. Sadly the beginning is cut off. ua-cam.com/video/8WtwxPqCsbY/v-deo.html They are critiquing the viewpoints from Ayn Rand potential perspective. I think it's useful because it's neither, sacrifice for the majority OR sacrifice for the minority.
@@heritic1hero Good points, though I don't understand everything you've stated. Ayn Rand is talking about Collectivists' fake altruism, but missing the larger, truer version of altruism, which is individual choice to help others without needing anything in return. Ayn Rand argues brilliantly for personal liberty and the sanity of Free Market capitalism, as opposed to the Leftist version of coercive capitalism. The pandemic is fake. Leftists are loving the lock down, because it gives them more of the collectivism they desire. Even if the pandemic were real, most people should be free to get the disease, build up antibodies and thus become a shield against its spread to the more vulnerable amongst us. But since the pandemic is fake, we are doubly betrayed by the likes of Fauci and other Globalists. And Trump is playing right into their hands.
@@RodMartinJr I think Altruism is where you give up everything for someone else. It's the original definition, but I know that's a catch 22. So, I think what you say should be called compassion and benevolence. Your ability to relate to others and understand the struggle they are going trough and then taking action to help them along. I agree that should never be forced. But I do think the fundamental principle of altruism is giving up your life for those who are less virtuous without thought or rationality. You know like, finding out who they are, wether it's justified to give them a second chance. Altruism would say that they have the moral high ground simply because they are meek and that since you are not meek you must become on par with them. You are not a "good" person until you do so. Collective social engineering via guilt if you ask me. I totally agree with the rest of the stuff you added though. Whatever this emotion really is it's laying us sideways and going to town without lube. And sorry for being confusing. I always forget that other people haven't heard about some Ayn rand stuff and it intertwines into something complex. but!! simple when it clicks. It's like a math equation. Not to mention I'm working on getting better at writing.
"If a man fails for any reason, his own fault or through accident, It gives him a mortgage on the lives , the earnings, the property, the services of those who have not failed." Concise observation of our society today.
“I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.” ― Thomas Sowell, Barbarians inside the Gates and Other Controversial Essays
Greed is hoarding resources. If you take someone else's wealth and give it to poor people you aren't hoarding resources, you are stealing. Greed and theft are two separate sins.
Not to mention she was more than willing to take what she called hand outs at the end of her life when she needed it. After she derided everyone else for it. Here, she must attempt to disable one of the most powerful, good traits of mankind. In order to give her arguments the illusion of muster. Many in humanity do not have to be forced by government to be kind to one another. And it's certainly os evil to steal from in need who works hard to give to another. However, one doesn't have to cancel out the good virtue and intent behind giving to those in need. And Ayn attempts poorly to do this but manages to actually fleece a great deal of people in the process. She is a hypocrite and a con artist. It takes a lot to see through her act, so i will give her that much.
@@migtvill Rand never took or needed welfare. She did receive social security, but she also paid into it. Social security is a program that you pay into to provide for your own retirement. It is not welfare.
@@migtvill This video refers to people doing "good" deeds and giving to others out of a sense of coercion, or because you feel you owe your self to others. This doesn't mean that you can't take a true act of kindness. If I decided to give a homeless person some food because I had plenty, that's an act of kindness, not altruism. But if I starved myself and gave that homeless man the only food I had, ignoring my own hunger, or if he demanded my food and I obliged out of a sense of duty to do good, that is altruism.
@Teucer Russell Seeing that one of the hipsters was Putin she did a real good job. He even controls USA through Trump if you believe all the media lies KEK
I remember reading her in university back in 1988. I found her fascinating and wonderful. I then read everything she wrote. I don't agree with her on everything but she is spot on on many things.
What were the things you disagreed with? I haven’t read too much of her, I’m curious what you think considering that you have :) [comment is 2y later, I hope you can still see this?]
@@yes7855 She sees and understands the the world and everything in the world as a commodity. For example, you have to be able to extract something from nature or people for it/them to have any real value. I disagree with that: an untouched lake lake or forrest has intrensic value in and if itself regardless of what humans do to it or can get out of it. Same thing with people I agree that people who invent and create things should be admired because they do and have done great things but their inherent worth and value as human beings are no better than anyone else. I am not an atheist. I believe Christ died for my sins and God raised him from the dead and he will one day return. I do agree with her position on altruism. Her position on what is rational and objectivity is too absolute. Yes they do exist and it is possible to clear bias from a topic or idea. However, over and across the grand scale of time, some positions that were once thought of as objective and rational reveal themselves as not.
@@yes7855 I also partly disagree with her opinion on alturism. I agree that you should not be forced to do something altruistic and wrt institution (church, government, charities) it can be pernicious, but it you can do whatever you want with your money and if giving to charities makes you happy, or not, then go ahead.
@@onwilson2 She didn't say to not give to charities, if that makes you happy, good. She says not by force, like taxes. I don't think she ever said that a lake or forest didn't have intrinsic value. It's the individual value that she talks about. Does it have value to you as an individual, it doesn't mean it has no value to others. You talk of extracting something from nature to have value. What value to you does a grain of sand in the dessert have, or a rock on the moon. You are her on earth to survive. to work toward your goals, and to be happy. If those things do not contribute to that then they have no value to you.
@@2tycade Her ideas on the commodification of things comes out quite clearly in her books and novels. I don't recall if she was ever interviewed in this point nor do I recall if she wrote any essays on the subject. The environment was not an issue back then. She is correct that being forced to give is tyranny and not altruism, but you can also give for non-selfish. You are probably right, I have not read any of her books or writings in a very long time.
@Pierre F. Gauthier: I am an anti-fascist and an egalitarianist. It's obvious to anyone with the bare minimum number of necessary and properly working brain cells that demographics are really nothing more than window dressing with varying degrees of persistency. To be clear, Ayn Rand herself...may...not have been a bigot. But, her ideological selfishness, her anti-scientific ignorance, her apparent inability to see beyond herself & see the forest through the trees, etc., caters to white supremacy, with its selfishness, anti-reality and anti-human species ideology. 'Libertaryanism' is, after all, the political arm of white supremacy.
It is amazing to see how thoroughly the caustic thinking of altruism has woven so deeply in the fabric of our society. A lot of us recognize the symptoms but very few recognize the cause and even less know it’s name.
@@mr.e5791 only when godless people twist scripture towards communist ends. Malicious altruism is evil. "The devil disguises hinself as an angel of light" Such peiple are not of the "flock", they are judas goats.
FACT: Ms. Rand's definition of altruism is that of collectivist, fake altruism. It's *_selfish_* rather than selfless. Leftists say, "Give up your rights so we can protect you, until we decide we don't need you any more." That's not true altruism. True altruism is selfless. It's a personal *_decision_* ... a choice ... not a government (collective) mandate. Charity is giving from your own property to help others. That's true altruism. So, your statement is wrong. Ms. Rand is right to argue against Leftism, but she completely does NOT understand spirituality, true love and true altruism. We need freedom to decide whether or not to be selfish. Leftism strips us of that freedom. And when you no longer have self-concern (selfishness), you find your power is no longer limited.
@@RodMartinJr Selflessness is having no regard for oneself. Charity isn't a selfless act. The proper reason for giving charity is that you wish to help which gives you a good feeling and for that reason it is serving your self interest. Ayn Rand doesn't regard charity as bad unless by doing so is apposed to one's own self interest. She doesn't hold that altruism and charity are virtues in and of themselves.
@@MDebou I understand. And you and she are right from a limited perspective. But in the larger scheme of things, you are both dead wrong. There are at least 3 distinct selves, and the natural tendency to conflate these creates a great deal of confusion and self-imposed blindness. First is the most obvious -- the Homo sapiens body. Second is the vulnerable and very physical ego (the false self). Third is the immortal spirit which remains dead asleep to the world in most people. When you focus your attention on ego self (egoism), or animal self (Homo sapiens), you are displaying an inward vector of attention. Selflessness, from a simplistic, literal view, seems to mean a negation of self, but that's not the truest, most benign viewpoint. Selflessness can also be a focus of attention outward *_from_* self, toward *_others._* In fact, look at the true definition of "altruism" (not Rand's narrow definition of fake altruism foisted on us by Leftists). *altruism* _n._ Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness. See the word "others." That's the focus. It's an outward focus; not inward. If a person had "no regard for oneself," then they would quickly die of hunger and/or disease. They would stink from not washing. They would be arrested for not dressing properly. Yet, a person can *_take responsibility_* for the Homo sapiens body for the benefit of others. One can even earn a living, delivering excellent service or products, all for the benefit of others. Your illustration of "charity" is a potent one that has concerned Christians of every age. Yet, you miss the very real possibility of perfect responsibility for self, but 100% outward (non-egoistic) focus on benefiting others. This is not an easy viewpoint to understand. It has taken me at least 50 years to get close to understanding this. To the degree that Ayn Rand did not see these other dimensions of selflessness, she remained blind. Her overall wisdom was good, but it led to a _cul de sac_ of intellectual blindness.
@@maxcohen13 altruism requires sacrifice. That's not the same as charity or benevolence. If I donate to charity without sacrifice to myself, it's benevolence, not altruism.
@Time Warp "You don't think God wants us to be altruistic?" God wants us to love Him more than ourselves and to love our neighbors like ourselves (supporting scriptures below). Regarding neighbors -- and to be technical, it does not say to love them *more* than yourself, but if one were to sacrifice such for one then their love would be great indeed. In Amish communities, people may help others build their houses, help raise their families, and give much of their resources they can out of love and not money, but note that in those communities God is put first in worship and governance; this is why, even in a fallen sinful world with Satan, that it can work to a degree like heaven. However most socialists who try to create a utopia on earth by force, don't know about the first of Jesus's two great commandments, and that is to love God with all of one's heart, soul, and mind. As socialists don't usually believe in God, they really just use the "love & sacrifice" bit as a hook to get folks to put their lives down for the creation and worship of a BIG STATE machine that knows no love. After all, if one does not believe in God, then they really don't know what true love is either. And if one does not worship God, then they will worship a false idol -- and so break Jesus's first commandment. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV, book of Luke, chapter 7, verse 27: "Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, _Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,_ _and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it,_ _Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and_ _the prophets."_ KJV, book of 1 John, chapter 4, verse 8: "He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love." book of Matthew, chapter 6, verse 24 (in the words of our Lord Jesus): _“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will_ _be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon."_ Here are some modern socialists (atheists) worshiping their idol, www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/14/north-korea-sunuiju-metal-tax-kim-statues
I wonder how many young people today could hear this and truly grasp what she is saying. They have been conditioned by this philosophy and trained to immediately react emotionally to what they hear if they think it contradicts their indoctrination.
I'm an young person well according to everyone else I except being an avarice/greed lantern when I took that quiz that one time cause I know one can't keep giving forever
FRWHELAN not indoctrinated here nor do I cry crocodile tears for all downtrodden people as they’re not all salt or the earth. But I’m also not a lolbertardian.
@@eternallylearning2811 That you consider yourself to be eternally learning instead of thinking you know better is the key words to rise above the mount of mediocrazy. I was never educated in intersectionality.... But when I self educated. My neck hairs started rising. Post modernism.... Critical theory... Race studies... Milieu control... Where does it all come from? Well the foremost philosophers tends to be sadists.... And the nazis also wanted people to only see things their way and liked to consider groups as threats. Not just indivdual thoughts against the collective conssensus. Just like the commies. And climate scientists:D
But there is no point in altruism when majority of the species are just sinners who are born to satisfy their selfish sensual pleasures, desires and material comforts. It takes an entire altruistic species to genetically evolve higher consciousness. Today's world is not so happy a place. 8 Billion humans prove that they enjoy LUST and Greed more than seeking a higher purpose. Fear of death and attachment to material things is the cause for many of the world's problems. Being detached from everything and also being devoid of all pleasures while performing all actions for a highest purpose is enough to evolve humans into Gods and Goddesses. But, to teach 8 Billion+++ humans the higher purpose of life is more karma / effort than to let go and let the world realize and come to the same conclusion.
Good stuff. Gave me chills. Last Ted Talks I watched (forced to for college) this kid was saying you should give your entire life to a higher cause. That's not necessarily wrong, but I wouldn't agree it's our duty to "sacrifice" our lives for the "betterment" of mankind. What's the point of successive generations if no one can enjoy their life or have value as an individual?
because there will be MORE overall success than just working for self success. the more people working on cancer cures the better chance we have to get a cancer cure. just is what it is
This is a subtle and sophisticated understanding that is highly inconvenient to today's snake oil salesmen. ideas matter. You can see from the comments that it melts small minds into emotional reactions, not rebuttals.
She is a genius on some things, but she has a blind spot on altruism. True altruism is a choice. What she's describing is Leftist, "fake" altruism -- the selfishness of illusory safety, plus government mandated "selflessness." True altruism is an individual choice.
I have this and I spend hours trying to help others never helping my self this video is spot on but I also have depression so it feeds my depression I was never good enough, but I know others can be.I gave up on myself and every good thought I think of. I give to others. I think of all the people I can't help, and it makes me cry to the point where I don't want to be on this earth, if I can't even do my one duty.
You are worthy and good enough .. Don’t give up on yourself because you must know that the world is a better place with more empathetic people like you
EU politics has been made to be altruistic, putting the needs and wants of foreigners from other continents and cultures above the needs and rights of the EU citizens. Thank you for making this clear for me.
The same can be said for America and the invasion of illegals coming over our unprotected southern border. "We have to let them come here, so they can have a better life." Right. They get free hand-outs provided by the tax payers: Health care. Probably different forms of welfare, including EBT cards, food stamps (or whatever "woke' term used today). They get registered to vote (illegally, of course) by Democrats. Many are human traffickers, some bring in Fentanyl or other illegal drugs.
@@Mark_Chandler why so it's more expensive, less innovation, or rationed? cuz thats whats happens when government controls it. ie: see British dental healthcare vs private lol.
Except, she gets the definition of Altruism wrong. She's talking about selfish (fake) altruism of collectivists clamoring to be "safe" (an illusion) within the collectivist state. True altruism is an individual choice.
I guess suffer from the same issue. But I enjoy it and being sacrificial has become instinctual. It's hard for me to avoid someone who needs help. I am guessing the reason behind my behavior is that I don't really value my life that much. I also enjoy this helping behavior in egoistic way though, as it makes me feel like I am higher and more important than a simple human.
No, this isn't what it appears to be. While I have read everything of Rand, and thoroughly enjoy her works, she does not understand what altruism is or why sacrifice is at times necessary because it requires of one to forego something of a lesser value for something of a greater value. If you reverse that equation, then she is right, but this is not the meaning of altruism or sacrifice.
It has been my observation and experience everywhere I have lived that almost everyone is willing to help his neighbor who is truly in need-if the receiver respects the giver’s right to do it voluntarily and in his own way. So far as I can now recall, no person has ever refused any sincere and logical request of mine for help, whether my need was medical, legal, spiritual, financial, educational, or whatever. In fact, so many hundreds of persons have given me assistance at various times and in various ways that I cannot now possibly recall all their names! There are many sincere and charitable persons who truly want to help their less fortunate fellow men; but they want to perform their charitable acts on a large scale with other people’s money, instead of on the basis of their own individual capabilities and with their own money. Their sincere but misguided idea of helping people is to pass a law to force everyone to contribute to government which, in turn, will distribute the money “to those who need it most.” This concept is sometimes called the “service state” or “welfare government.” The people who hold this concept are especially dangerous because their intentions are so good. The purity of their motives tends to obscure the ultimate evilness of their acts. Source: Dean Russell “Equality and Security” (1952)
Shut up and take your gate to hell vaccine:D Seriously though.... Thx for granting me knowledge of one more person to look up words of wisdom from. My own wisdom comes mostly from computer games.... Soo..... Time to learn better things than how to win crusader kings 2.
This was written in 1952. Times were different then with 100% employment, affordable housing every worker could afford a new car etc and so forth and the tax rate on the top 10% then was at 52.8%. Most vast wealth is inherited and unearned.
What a load of shit. You think the welfare state is a handout. The people who are getting handouts are corporations not paying taxes, rich land owners getting subsidies etc etc. You know how much the welfare state costs compared to the handouts to rich? It doesnt even cover what is stolen from the people by multinationals and the complicit governments. Fucking Ayn Rand. Give me a fucking break.
@@jonathancrawford4339 well dude the way I read this is that the oh so good save the world people are playing right into the hands of people who only have profit motive. And loads of money to make more money by getting the goverment to hand them even more money. All while playing 24/7 propaganda to tell people that they should be oh so good and push their goverment officals to make laws to benefit the 'poor'. While they are blissfully misinformed about how legislation is passed by often corrupt individuals that are in some cases blackmailed or just rely on their party to tell them what to vote. Kinda like how Ayn Rand also warns about it. A Ayn Rand capitalist is someone who makes stuff instead of just make stuff up to get handouts.
I love this woman. Women today would ,and men too, zone this conversation out if their spouse was saying this at dinner or on a date. We have a Republic if the people can keep it....... well it takes a virtuous people and a knowledgeable people to maintain it, and we as a society are not. And the effect is what we see today as government.
@@Mark_Chandler people fault it came to this. A knowledgeable people would not have allowed it. A knowledgeable people would not have allowed a central bank. Or government usurpation of power.
@@ME-jc7xi And therein lies the problem. The powers that be delight in keeping the masses ignorant. Schools only teach the impressionable minds how to be slaves to the system without them knowing it. They are not taught how to be creatively successful and how to achieve independent wealth.
@@jchis9852 exactly what they do and did to slaves. Treat them like mushrooms, feed them shit and keep them in the dark. Common core is prime example of "them" making our children even more unintelligent than the previous generation
@solaroid55 they may know they are scummy bottom feeders but that is not the knowledge I'm speaking of. Responsibility or as I call it,personal responsibility is part of the knowledge needed to be virtuous. You can not be personally responsible without the knowledge needed to know how to be responsible when to be responsible and why . It is far easier to stay ignorant, turn on the TV and zone out than it is to educate yourself on the principles of virtue and put then into action. I would agree with you that knowledge is not all that is needed , as I just stated , Action based upon that knowledge is needed . But action without proper knowledge is very dangerous not just to the individual but to society.
That's fine as your opinion but no religion is provable. The concept of a god is incomprehensible in that we don't have an understanding of all that which existence is comprised. With religion you can only have faith in that which is unknowable
Altruism is also known as codependency (aka self love deficit disorder) and being a people-pleaser. In that context, altruism is self-destructive and serves narcissistic predators; it does not make the world a better place.
Altruism is not also known as codependency. Altruism is giving someone the help they need no matter the consequences. Codependency is allowing someone to continue self-destructive behavior in order to maintain the relationship. In that context, you should spend more time trying to prove your claim before you accept it as true
All her philosophy is coming true today. Notice how we now live in a "pyramid" of victim-hood, where we compete to see who can be the greatest victim. I am so sick and tire of people beginning a conversation or a comment by telling me first and foremost what category of victim(s) they belong to. God help you if you can't fit into one of the politically correct categories of "victim".
What bullocks on this stance. This is altruism taken to an extremist definition. Just for this video I'll make sure to counter one of her last statements in a treatise of mine. No rational justification for it can ever be offered., she says? Well there is, if you study sanatana dharma long enough. You don't need to sacrifice your mind to be altruistic, to agree with the majority when it hampers dharma and life is evil. It's like she never read any of the classics.
"If you help someone expecting something in return you are doing business, not kindness". That is what I have to say about the matter. I don't know what that should be called, but I don't feel obliged to help anyone, nor to put other people's interests above mine. But if I can help, I will help without demanding anything in return. I consider that altruism. If it has another name, let me know and I will consider using it.
This woman described fundamental altruism , not many of us live like monk's giving our last penny. Giving and helping where you see a need is an admirable trait. I see a lot of kindness during this pandemic / financial meltdown. Her broach is a clue to her affiliation.
This was my gut reaction too. Does a philosophy require extremes to be true/false? In other words, a little bit of altruism can go a long way without destroying the self in the process... I just cant get on board with extremes anymore
Nothing wrong with the brooch. You should read up on the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition. Many, I think, Any would like: "Anything worth doing, is worth doing for money." But money is part of life; Mankind trades value for value. I have certain abilities that a company needs to grow (or increase production, etc.). I trade my value for the value the company gives (wages, benefits, etc). My value to the company also includes time from my life that deserves pay.
There are so many reasons I have always struggled with the Christian culture, but not for the reasons that Christianity gives. My whole life at odds with myself because of it. To finally have a healthy relationship with myself, I read a book called “not nice”, and a few years later found Ayn Rand and read “the fountainhead” which put into words what I had been feeling during my life time. So grateful for this woman and others who recognize the truth about altruism.
A well-done interview. Rand was powerful and concise in her analysis of altruism. One error in this video - the radio interview had to have been before 1984, because Ms. Rand died in 1982.
There is one big problem with this theorie. You can not be a human without other humans, you can not be healthy without other humans, you can not even develope human intelligence and a human mind without other humans. You are litterly not evan a functionely able animal without socaity, so if you want to hear it or not, you are nothing without others. What you give to others defines your worth, what others gives to you, defines your life. That is what a sociaty is.
You say it well.How you help the other person so you are helped by the others. Rand was from the russian aristocracy that are in infamy for the psychotic treatment of there own people to the point of making all of them slaves so her words have the value of zero substance.
@@WinnieAmos05 Thats such an absolutist statement to make. Heres how it really works. When you do something "good" your natural reward mechanism kicks in (you get a rush of serotonin and dopamine). Some may say it's Gods sign, if they were ever taught to do so. Equally, we have punishment mechanisms for doing "bad", we call this 'regret', and once it starts it uncontrollable, and this lowers our dopamine. This is why people feel good about helping others. It has nothing to do with the absolutist notion that 'selfishness is a virtue'.. Thats just some cold war individualist vs collectivist propaganda designed to keep Europe, and now the US, in a constant state of profitable civil war. Ayn Rand is a 'pop culture philosopher, meaning she's pushed to the front by (in this case) Wall Street fundamentalists who use it as a brand of moral reasoning that doesn't include collective responsibility, like that of nations, or of tribes, or of family. Thats why all Ayn Rand fanatics are terrible at interacting with women, and men alike. And its why if anyone tells you they take her words for gospel, you can almost guarantee they're terrible people to compromise or do business with. And when this happens in reality, when Ayn Rand fanatics try to do business or trade, their own selfish tendencies shine through, and so the other person does the same in return, which then confirms the bias the fanatic was looking for. Its dumb, absolutist, identity centric cold war nonsense written by someone who was definitely a product of cold war propaganda, and very likely a KJB agent who wants to turn the West towards the kind of attitude that kills nations, tribes, and civilisation.
The vast majority of people stop at a certain definition of altruism and form their opinion on that. Ayn takes that definition and keeps working the problem back further and further in the human experience and how it manifests itself in the macro.
Luke 6:38 “Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.”
Indeed; it doesn't say that other people are more important than yourself or that their needs are above your own. It basically says "Your generosity will return to you."
She is absolutely right. The only variable would be people with intellectual disabilities. needs. I think as a decent society we should support that and take a much harder stance on those that claim hardship without proper vetting
God`s law to love your neighbour as you love yourself implies that you love yourself as well as loving others, which is, correctly, not altruism according to Ayn Rand.
To be completely altruistic is sacrificial. Who is completely altruistic? When you help others and expect nothing, you are contributing to the well being of society as a whole. There is a satisfaction in this, which is in a way, an act of personal benefit, because of how it makes you feel. To be temporarily altruistic in moments, is not evil.
Uh... Heroism is based on altruism, the voluntary sacrifice so that others might live. As an example; if your friend jumped on a grenade and saves the your life would you laugh at him for a sucker or worship his heroism and altruism? .... Altruism has a personal cost, so if someone is rich and gives aid to someone in need - it's not altruism because there's no personal cost. This is separate and distinct from the cost incurred by the poor in enabling they poor life choices but even then the issue is not cut and dried because 'bad things happen to good people'. 1] Altruism then cannot be defined solely evil 2] Receiving aid does not always lead to a dependency on the altruism of others. 3] The basis for defining altruism as evil is logically flawed.
What she said later I the video, "A full altruist would have to find a cannibal village and offer himself as a meak." Close quote. She was right. It is fair to say that whatever mindset a full altruist has, he would have to completely sacrifice his mind, thereby making him stupid. And cannibals, are beneath decent humans as well. A better option in my opinion, for the UltraISO to make the ultimate sacrifice is this; 1. There is a large wilderness preserve in Kenya on the Eastern side of Africa called the Serengeti. The altruist, the Full altruist would also have the option of going to the Serengetti and offering himself as a meal to a pride of lions.
This is exactly the situation we find in the neolithic culture of New Guinea, where individuals are always indebted and mindful of what they owe others. So it better topractice largaise and be alwayes owed something by others than to hoard what you gain so you are thinking about what you have to pay back to those that have given to you. The English translation of this social system is unsurprisingly called "The payback system". So ultruism in PNG is nothing more than a system of blind sense of obligation in which gifts offered can not be refused.
What a remarkable woman she is!! She doesn’t stammer, no mhmm’s or uh’s, nore even slow down to gather her thoughts. Her replies just flows down like it rains. Though I don’t hold altruism like she defines to be the moral code of life, but the Catholic concept of Love ( which is to not help others, but to seek the good of others) - an entirely different concept, I find it fascinating the way she demolishes the doctrine of altruism. The clarity of her argument is brilliant…
Never thought of it this way. Makes sense. I'd extent her view to include the relentless obligation that we must think only of the needs of the next generation at the expence of our own. Moreover, all things being well, parents ought to value their needs first after their children have reached the age of responsibility and have left home. They ought to enjoy the financial and material achievements rather than hoard these in order to pass them on to their offspring who will then continue to perpetuate this 'principle'. I may be wrong - see, guilt pangs already.
@@hubster4477 In this particular case, because the argument makes sense to me, lol. In general, though -- and to answer your question -- I *have* found myself misunderstanding ideas. There are many ideas I still don't fully understand. Some ideas I believe I understand, but I don't agree with them. To make up for this, I try to keep expanding my knowledge with patience and I remain open to considering a wide range of ideas as they're presented to me.
Her own definition perhaps. The biggest flaw is her reasoning. No one shares her definition of altruism. Even if she would be correct in that "altruism" originally meant that, it doesn't matter anymore. Language evolves over time.
Oh my God I was just praying to Jesus about this last night. I’m saying last night I was just praying out my heart to God about this very issue that was tormenting me because it (altruism) makes me miserable. I feel guilty for being happy and I was telling God about it and now your UA-cam video is right in front of my face.
I don't recall anywhere in the new testament where Jesus says to place the needs of others above your own. Be careful when you go outside the gospels; the letters and writings of the disciples are for and of their time.
"Altruism is evil, selfishness is moral." - Ayn Rand This is a core reason for the collapse of society, for her people are utterly selfish, short sighted, and proud to abide by false wisdom as such. There’s nothing evil being a proactive altruist, simply care for others and be mindful of society is how we flourish as a modern human being. Parents sacrifice themselves for their children's future, is it evil? Of course not. Public servants like firefighters dedicate their life to protecting others from disasters. is it evil? Of course not. Everyone works together to overcome a global pandemic, is it evil? Of course not. We are at a crossroads now, please don't be ridiculous and childish.
The ideal situation is that people come together out of common interest and mutual consent. However, there is always some degree of coercion involved. If one is an altruist out of their own heart, then it is true altruism. However, given that human beings live in groups and exchanges for survival's sake are a fact of life among human beings, it is hard to tell whether pone is altruistic out of one's own desire or out of a need to survive any way possible. At least we can say that coercion has been completely excluded; is one altruistic under coercion from other people, or under coercion from one's own impulses?
How about using the Bible to guide us as to what is right and wrong. Sounds like "intellectuals" trying to create their own definitions and explanations of what a moral person does or doesn't do. All of this man made knowledge is meaningless in the eyes of God. His word alone is the truth.
Altruism is the philosophy that dictates that in order to be a moral person you must sacrifice for others that which you value.... and you must receive nothing of value in return. It is based on the writings of French philosopher Auguste Comte whose theory of "positivism" influenced the development of organized "Humanism". _"Altruism is the principle and practice of concern for the well-being and/or happiness of other humans or animals _*_above oneself._*_ "_ *Richard Kraut: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2020 Edition* This theory dictates that man's only valid purpose in life is to sacrifice his needs and desires for the benefit of others - ALL others.
I would suggest that people tend towards altruism because they want to DO something to make the world a better place than it is. More than giving material wealth away, it is the sharing of a gift of immaterial kindness and wisdom without expectation of reward. We live in such a materialistic world that the very notion of selfless action has become a taboo....
As a Christian this is difficult, I want to live to help others but not if its demanded by those who are fully capable of helping themselves. Any advice?
2 Thessalonians 3. 6-15 is good example of the Bible's warning against being idle in your life. "8 nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. 9 It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. 10 For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." (feel free to look up the verses in its entirety) I think if you truly want to help other people, you must help yourself first. And after you help yourself, then you should teach others how to help themselves. If they refuse to help themselves then pain will be their guide. Even though pain is often seen as a negative feeling, it makes for one hell of a teacher if you learn to listen to it.
Not a Christian, but i would just use your discernment. Help those who really need it, and tell those seeking to take advantage to sod off. You do you, just be smart about it.
@@Mark_Chandler what I mean is that there are people who do need help from situations that are not in their control but there are people who would rather do nothing but complain about their situation but wont put in effort or attempt to change their lot in life. Also dont assume someones race or status, also whites suffer too and I'm mixed and live in a trailer and I'm just fine.
At first glance, it seems like the Bible teaches Altruism. But the Bible states that you are to love others as you love yourself, implying that you do have to love yourself as well. If anything, pure Altruism is a corruption of charity. Charity is the pure love of Christ and if the old testament is any indication, sometimes that love is harsh.
I don't think she understands altruism. It comes from empathy which is the ability to feel someone else's pain. Rand seems to only see things from personal perspective.
She is kind of dead on right about ulterior motive of Mother Teresa and what not. Church also in the name of altruism FORCES one to pray before handing out free ration.
The apostle Paul disagree's "Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others."
@Kvothe Windrunner The old and new testament are much more similar than people think. The new testament has some of the most chilling condemnations (the concept of hell and the lake of fire come from Jesus' teachings). While the old testament contains both judgement of sin and promises of undeserved blessing and favor. The book of Isaiah is a good example of this. Paul was one of the top scholars of the jewish scriptures. His writings are like commentaries on the old testament.
Kvothe Windrunner my friend that statement presupposes an objective source in which you can critic the bible, The only world view which has a coherent objective view of morality is the orthodox Christian faith, so (assuming your an athiest) how can you critic the bible if morality is a subjective phenomena. Although I am not familiar with the apologetics behind some of the so called “Atrocities” god has committed, I can say this; in our world view god is the foundation of goodness and so His actions are undoubtedly morale, being the creator of all things and the giver of life- he has no obligation to tell us why in our relative and finite mind things appear bad or why things he does appear to be bad. You may not like this answer but you (one again assuming your an athiest) have not answer to problem of evil.
@Kvothe Windrunner If morality is subjective, is that statement an objective truth? and if it is, what is this objective truth based In or upon? and Ought I accept the truth that all morality is subjective or can I just disregard your logic? and the truth claim that morality is subjective. Epistemically within my worldview, I can know what interpretation of scripture is correct because the church is led by the holy spirit thus making it infallible, outside of the church there is no correct exegesis, the bible was constructed by this infallible church so it has no errors or contradictions- This is my dogmatic view and although I'm not 100% familiar with the old testament and the church's exegesis- I can assure you that the things that seem to you as contradictory to other parts of the texts that have a solid theological explanation, unlike what protestants say it isn't enough to just read the text because we came with our own presuppositions and we need the church's guidance to know what the text is trying to convey or express. Furthermore, what is the "real world", if you mean the external world outside of our consciousness- how do we know if the external world matches up to the stimuli in our heads- so we can never know what we are experiencing is objective. If you mean that we can critique it through conventional empirical means like higher criticism, I would like to return to my prior statement that people bring their own presuppositions to the texts they view.
Mrs. Rand spent her last few years dependent on Social Security. She amassed a popular following but could not honestly count herself among the small elite of hyperproductive people, meaning her philosophy in effect glorified people who were above herself and above most of her followers. One could either interpret this as a sign of ideological purity, in that it wasn't a strictly self-interested philosophy, or that she mistakenly believed herself to be a renaissance man akin to the ideal of John Galt. But 95% of people or more aren't anywhere close to this. It takes exceptional character, most often instilled from childhood since it's incredibly difficult to self-cultivate such from scratch as an adult. She lacked this rare quality, just like most people do by definition. If Ayn Rand wanted to be a true visionary, she should've founded a campaign to improve ordinary adults. And I don't mean another self-help book, where you read it and then struggle hopelessly to muster the sheer level of personal motivation needed to implement its advice. I mean like a program offering several month-long retreats where participants spent that time doing nothing except improving themselves, under constant supervision and accountability by staff, with any and all outside distractions removed. After 90 days or so your brain would literally be rewired, and assuming that could be maintained after you returned home it'd allow one to be far, far more productive with the rest of his/her life, and die having lived a satisfying and meaningful existence. A philosophy that glorified exceptional achievement while failing to acknowledge the general inability of ordinary people to pull this off just comes across as shallow and bankrupt. It's like Jewish moralism in the time of Jesus: eager to condemn people on account of a standard very few could live up to, without offering hope to the deficient masses, whereas Jesus offered a salvation beyond their own power. Libertarianism/Objectivism might've worked if it offered tangible self-improvement over a disinterested "Help yourself oh but if you're not strong enough to do that on your own then too bad." When it treats every man like an island then of course people will reject it and turn to authoritarian collectivist ideologies instead.
I usually love Ayn Rand's interviews and talks. This one is derailed from logic and reality. While some Leftists promote the idea of altruism (fake altruism) to forward their idea of Big, Centralized Control (collectivism), the benign (truer) definition of Altruism has nothing to do with the individual's right to exist. Her definition is entirely wrong on this. Or perhaps, better, there are two forms of Altruism. The one I'm talking about is an individual's choice to help others. Under a totalitarian regime (Leftism), an individual does *_not_* have this choice. They are forced into self-sacrifice for the sake of the collective. In True Altruism, an individual always has a choice, and the choice of selfishness is far more frequently the evil one, just as the selfishness of the Kommissars in a collective is evil. This is the ceiling Ayn Rand created for herself. She could not see beyond it. We must all do better.
@Krishnan Unni Madathil And you would be using the wrong definition. Here's the standard definition: " Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness." You said, "It is not choice alone that distinguishes collectivist societies from individualistic ones." And you didn't read what I wrote clearly enough. Choice is not a defining characteristic between the two types of societies; it's a defining characteristic between True altruism and Fake altruism. In a totalitarian society, if you don't sacrifice yourself, it will be forced upon you; no choice.
@@RodMartinJr In my view, where Rand turns people away and confuses her position is in how she defines selfishness. She goes on to explain her meaning as "rational self interest" but most people define it as including "without regard for others" as do my own dictionaries. Rational self interest makes her position much more sensible than to use the term selfishness. I think it is in this area of her philosophy where further work is needed and the point I believe you are making is the area of her philosophy that requires a lot of clarification
@@scottnovak8903 Our government is NOT altruistic; it is entirely selfish. Spiritual revival? Damn straight! We need to re-invoke the Christianity that existed before Constantine's politicization and spiritual corruption began, 1,700 years ago.
@@MDebou Excellent points. We can all take individual responsibility for our physical selves without being selfish. We could even become a multibillionaire without being selfish. If our focus is always away from self and toward the benefit of others, then turning the other cheek, forgiveness and miracles become effortless. I write about these concepts in depth in my books, *_Proof of God_* *_The Art of Forgiveness_* *_The Science of Miracles_* *_The Bible's Hidden Wisdom_* *_Spirit is Digital, Science is Analog_*
Never actually thought about the altruistic meaning in this dept. Always thought it was meant as being kind where possible. I was off the mark by a mile.
BAD ALTRUISM: Give them a fish they will be fed for a day. (you keep giving them fish for life) GOOD ALTRUISM: Teach them how to fish they will be fed for life.
Terrible! Ayn Rand uses a self serving definition to make it out as if maximizing personal profit was always the best thing. She was always a self serving person just examine her personal life - and her philosophy of hyper individualism reflects that.
I used to always use the word 'altruism' as a synonym for benevolence. I suppose it's important to be specific in your speaking. I believe that people should treat others as you would best deem others should treat you in order to facilitate your maximal development. Sometimes that entails mercy, grace and charity and sometimes that entails nipping your bullshit in the bud and demanding that you display enough dignity to stand up on your own when able, become stronger and more self sufficient at a pace you can tolerate and take shame onto yourself conception when leaching from society with sociopathic disregard. I think my dream project would be to contribute to mapping out a general philosophy for proper behavior and guidance on refining both society's and the individual's path towards optimizing the usefulness of their benevolence so that even orphans and the abused can find stability and wisdom from those that have no specific interest in their development. Get it so strong that the general mosaic of society's behavior acts as a sort of father figure and a caring mother.
Ryan Davis ayn Rand did not believe that government should provide any help to people. Everyone is on their own. Yet she took Medicare benefits when she was ill. Medicare is a government program,
Ryan Davis we also paid taxes for social security and other programs provided for by government. I would rather pay a few dollars more in taxes than the exorbitant premiums the private market would charge.
Rand had many valid insights into the faults of 19th and 20th century philosophy, and this was her most consequential one. Altruism’s greatest threat to man is the most subtle one, the paralysis of one’s reason and inability to make distinctions between acts of benevolence and acts of self-immolation. Mind you, Rand was far from perfect, and I’d argue her views on egoism led to certain moral failings and the fracturing of her movement. There is a danger in overreaction to evil, and in some areas, this happened in her efforts. She will always be controversial even in libertarian circles, but everyone should approach her work with an open mind.
Wow ive always felt that altruism was ultimately self denigrating and leads to a lack of care for others as people only see those who are the sacrificed, inevitably leading to all falling.
@@wonkothesane8691 They have a bigger chance for a kill(food) with a weak or old animal as a target messere genius. They force the prey to seek retribution towards the predator.
![[UA] NAVI проти G2 Esports | Blast Premier Fall Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QWlIm4FGESQ/mqdefault.jpg)
If you are forced to give a gift,,, then it is not a gift.
Yup it,s teft:)
@@maxpayne930 Or a Tax?
How about my money being stolen and given to Israel on a daily basis? Do you consider that a theft?
It is a tribute
If you are forced to comment isn't is still a comment. If you are forced to speak you still speak. This logic is fallacious.
The first rule of lifesaving is to not become a victim yourself.
Good. And you can do this by saving your own life, first, and then helping others. Logical! But her definition of altruism is all about fake altruism -- government mandated sacrifice. True altruism is a personal choice. In order to remove victimhood status completely, we merely need to take 100% responsibility for everything others do to us. There is unlimited power in this viewpoint, but few can see it.
I saw a pamphlet once about how to rescue a drowning victim. One of the rules was 'Approach them with your legs first so they don't injure your head and if they panic and flounder you can kick them off to prevent being dragged down with them.' I always thought that was a good metaphor for helping people.
@@RevoltingPeasant123 A better metaphor is that of the young child sitting next to you on an airplane that loses pressure. Put on your own mask, first, then assist the child. It won't do to have you black out while failing to assist the child; then both suffer.
@@RodMartinJr I agree. 3:20 She seems to be trying to make a ridiculous argument against extremist altruism...even arguing everyone can't be an extremist altruist.
@@iloveamerica1966 Great point. In my own scientific research into spiritual action (miracles), I discovered that extreme altruism is the sweet spot. You can't be 99.9999999% there; you have to go all the way to 100% humble, loving, responsible and confident.
Reminds me of the derivative of a particular function in first-year calculus class in college. The resultant set was all values of x, with y set at zero, except where x = 0. At the middle of the graph, y equaled plus-or-minus infinity. That graph gave me goose bumps. Sometime after that, I realized that I was looking at a representation of ego (as values of x) compared to power over the physical universe (as values of y).
The break at x = 0 is what is called a discontinuity. And this is exactly what is the nature of spirit. The spiritual realm, unlike the continuity-bound physical, is discontinuous in nature.
I talk more about these in my books,
*_Spirit is Digital, Science is Analog_*
*_The Science of Miracles_*
*_Proof of God_*
"The best way to help the poor is by not being one of them."
-Ayn Rand
(attributing the quote to Reverend Ike)
@Guru Amirite
Give your son a lesson in monetary responsibility. Give the beggar a job.
@@Mark_Chandler
Give Tumpelstiltskin tax amnesty for life. Just return him to the private sector immediately.
@Guru Amirite
What do you mean by, "his own economy"?
@Guru Amirite
Thanks. Understood.
@@Mark_Chandler
The next time you're in need of a job, try asking a poor person. See how far you get.
A man is incapable of loving others if he does not love himself. -Ayn Rand
mark brown, when giving becomes a moral imperative, it is no longer benevolent or cheerful. That is exactly what Ayn Rand was talking about.
One of her better quotes. But here she has confusion on what true altruism is. She's describing fake altruism -- the selfishness of the Leftist who wants the illusion of safety within the collective. But that safety IS an illusion, because the managers of the collective can decide that you no longer serve any purpose.
True altruism is a choice. And when you love others as much as you love yourself, then altruism is the *_only_* way to express that love. We can continue to benefit ourselves, through work and creating value, but we no longer need to be selfish about it. This is what Ms. Rand gets entirely wrong.
That's not true though, you could loath yourself but still love others, it's a ridiculous statement...
mark brown when you’re punished for being successful by having to pay a higher percent of your earnings than everyone else you wouldn’t be happy about it either.
@Smidlee Well said. But when someone loves unconditionally, with 100% purity, they become at-one with God, just as Jesus was. And that's when miracles start to happen.
(Reference: *_The Science of Miracles)_*
No one has a higher claim over my life than I do and I'm willing to die for this core belief.
And this sounds more like true altruism than Ms. Rand's definition of fake altruism. True altruism is a choice, not a government mandate.
@@RodMartinJr Ayn Rand's perspective of altruism is that which is foisted upon society by the social engineers who wield power over the masses. Since you say that this is "fake altruism", what term would you ascribe to define what is her definition of altruism?
@@jchis9852 Just that: "fake altruism." She entirely ignores the *_standard_* definition of altruism *_n._* Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness. Her definition looks nothing like the standard definition. What she was describing was "fake altruism."
Abortion
@@RodMartinJr Psychological altruism means acting out of concern for the well-being of others, without regard to your own self-interest. Biological altruism refers to behavior that helps the survival of a species without benefiting the particular individual who’s being altruistic. What part is she getting wrong?
I suffer from crippling low self esteem, and I see anybody other than me having more value than myself. I’ve always put the need of others before my own, not because I’m a good person, but because I believe that I’m a bad person who doesn’t deserve anything.
My therapist asked me to list 5 most important things in my life; I’ve answered family, friends, social justice, animal welfare, and environmental advocacy. My therapist said that no matter who I am or what I am (i.e. parent, teacher, best friend, etc.) the #1 priority in my life should always be “self.” He explained to me that that isn’t selfishness; if I’m not well because my own needs aren’t met, then I can’t take care of my family, protect my friends, nor advocate for any social cause, animals, and the environment. It was as if a light bulb got flipped on in my head.
Have you considered reading _The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem_ by Nathaniel Branden? Despite their split, he was once a pupil of Rand's. I believe the audiobook was uploaded on UA-cam (and narrated by Nathaniel himself).
@@The_Isaiahnator I haven’t. Did it help you out?
@@EddVCR
Yes, it has (and it still does). The best part about it -- aside from how eloquent and lucid its writing is -- is that since Nathaniel became a practicing psychotherapist for many years, he writes in a way that's engaging to the reader, which differs from the didactic way in which ideological thought systems are typically written.
Towards the end of the book, he encourages the reader to engage in what's called "sentence completion exercises," which are exercises designed to promote introspection and a healthy relationship with oneself, or in Nathaniel's words: "Sentence completion is a technique I have developed in my clinical practice that can be used to facilitate self-understanding and personal growth."
*Sorry, I had to re-post this comment since my previous comment was deleted for providing a link to a website.* If you want to read the article I intended to link to you, go to Google, then paste this into the search bar: The Art of Living Consciously | The Oxford Club
@@The_Isaiahnator Thank you for the in-depth information on this book! I’m definitely going to check this book out. I’m seriously committing myself to taking care of my mental health, and this will no doubt help me on my journey toward wellness. I appreciate you so much!
@@The_Isaiahnator I’ve just ordered the book. I can’t wait too gain insight to help me toward mental wellness. Thank you very much, man.
Rand's definition of forced altruism reminds me of the time when we first came to the US and my dad was working a very low-paying job to support our family of four. A charity came around the office asking for donations, and the boss shamed my dad into giving nearly half his week's salary. Being Chinese working for a Chinese boss, he would've lost face had he refused. My dad came home near tears, and I never forgot that lesson never to allow anyone to put his hand in my pocket and never be ashamed to say NO.
@Red Coin he brought no argument, and it was a mistake of you to give one. Such people learn only by getting the same treatment.
I agree with this but also agree that republican populists and Democrat populists should be demanding better pay.
there is no such thing as forced altruism, the whole thing of altruism is that it doesnt matter your interest it is always forced as you mean nothing compared to the whole. but very solid point and good story.
I would call affirmative action and reparations forced altruism. You have no choice and are presumed guilty committing a wrong and required to surrender a benefit to a person who has not proven he was wronged. @@petejones6827
You’re dad employer forced him to do that you know what your dad needed a union tf
Her last remark about Altruism demanding the sacrifice of principles is the most frightening thing I've heard. And it seems to be playing out in reality.
She is wrong to assume that altruism is the same thing as equity. The people who demand equity at the cost of principles are hardly being altruistic.... They lie, cast aspersions, and produce all forms of propaganda in service of their ideal. Altruism is marked by integrity following a chain of logic from first principles.
It is altruistic to aim towards equity, it is not altruistic to sacrifice principles in achieving that goal.
yeah right now in front of us, Altruism is full display, sacrifice for the world, go to work, you'll be fine the elite say, that's on a normal day when there is no pandemic, Corporation and religion all want us to serve them, I serve my family, that's it
@@SKRATCH1988 but it can be if you believe they are secondary to the collective good, which is the primary goal of altruism. The collective good.
@@jacobfaro9571 no... The collective good is ideology that purports to be altruism. Altruism itself is more like a virtue. You aren't doing it just because you claim to be. .. you can only be altruistic or have virtue within context. .. defining the context to necessarily make your actions appear altruistic doesn't make them so. ... Saying "it's for the common good," is a perfect example of the idea of altruism being abused. .. and often that phrase, or one like it will be associated with tyranny.
Her command of the English language is jaw-dropping considering that she was born and raised in Russia.
Tress Braga It’s not remarkable at all. My great grandpa barely had an education and he immigrated to France as an adult. He spoke French perfectly and with no accent.
@Kopliko Kot I was talking about languages, which was what the original commenter was talking about. You don't seem to have very good reading skills. Besides, if writing about philosophy makes you a great person, then you must think that Marx was a great man. And I suspect that's not the case
Rebuild of Eva is shit watch the original instead her accent is simply because of the people she was raised around and it is incredibly difficult to remove that. I assume your grandpa either moved to France early or the country he came from didn’t have a thick accent like that of Russians. Besides, she had already learned Russian and grown up around that. So learning English was brand new and much harder because she was an adult. I respect your grandpa sure, but don’t disrespect the hardship of this women based on no merit of truth
@@thecrimsonfire4921 He fled from the Spanish Civil War, and he was already an adult. Some people talk with no accent at all, and some do. I have an accent when speaking English (probably also because I've never lived in an English speaking country).
Funny comments here. Aside from a bit of shit throwing, the initial comment wasn't even about accent. The woman does actually have a slight accent, noticeable in words like "nothing". The initial comment was about her "command of the english language", being, her ability to speak her thoughts in english fluently, picking her words well and managing to turn her thoughts into the proper words.
This emotion is what is keeping the US from questioning the actions taken over this virus.
No, she's talking about fake altruism -- the selfish need for safety. True altruism is a personal choice, fearless of pandemics. People cowering from a fake pandemic is self-enforced slavery -- something upon which the Leftists thrive.
@@RodMartinJr In that case the next question would be what is thier justification for why they don't think it's not real or real threat. That'd narrow down the motive. But I think people aren't thinking that way.
Why is the rhetoric all about sacrificing for the minority, as in the most unable or at risk, at ANY cost of the able or least at risk? That's altruism. They are willing to sacrifice the lives of others and themselves not for safety for them personally but for safety of the less able. That's not selfishness.
Sure, some are declaring a total lockdown out of fear for themselves, but that's not the majority. Since we know the majority is NOT as risk. But that's cowardlyness. It's an action of evasion, because it's avoiding the reality that healthy non-elderly people will be fine. The reason why that's not selfishness is because if, in the long run, it you hide away and depend on the state; eventually the state will fail, or your sense of values and sense of life will erode because you are slowly becoming nothing. That's not in your best interest at all. It's suicidal, anti life. Maybe they are trying to run away from a job they hate or a life unfulfilled, or fear of other people's view of them. Who knows, but it's not selfish because they are not appreciating thier future or life.
Here is a video discussing the political response from Objectivism Philosophers. Sadly the beginning is cut off.
ua-cam.com/video/8WtwxPqCsbY/v-deo.html
They are critiquing the viewpoints from Ayn Rand potential perspective. I think it's useful because it's neither, sacrifice for the majority OR sacrifice for the minority.
@@heritic1hero Good points, though I don't understand everything you've stated.
Ayn Rand is talking about Collectivists' fake altruism, but missing the larger, truer version of altruism, which is individual choice to help others without needing anything in return. Ayn Rand argues brilliantly for personal liberty and the sanity of Free Market capitalism, as opposed to the Leftist version of coercive capitalism.
The pandemic is fake. Leftists are loving the lock down, because it gives them more of the collectivism they desire.
Even if the pandemic were real, most people should be free to get the disease, build up antibodies and thus become a shield against its spread to the more vulnerable amongst us. But since the pandemic is fake, we are doubly betrayed by the likes of Fauci and other Globalists. And Trump is playing right into their hands.
@@RodMartinJr I think Altruism is where you give up everything for someone else. It's the original definition, but I know that's a catch 22. So, I think what you say should be called compassion and benevolence. Your ability to relate to others and understand the struggle they are going trough and then taking action to help them along. I agree that should never be forced.
But I do think the fundamental principle of altruism is giving up your life for those who are less virtuous without thought or rationality. You know like, finding out who they are, wether it's justified to give them a second chance. Altruism would say that they have the moral high ground simply because they are meek and that since you are not meek you must become on par with them. You are not a "good" person until you do so. Collective social engineering via guilt if you ask me.
I totally agree with the rest of the stuff you added though. Whatever this emotion really is it's laying us sideways and going to town without lube.
And sorry for being confusing. I always forget that other people haven't heard about some Ayn rand stuff and it intertwines into something complex. but!! simple when it clicks. It's like a math equation. Not to mention I'm working on getting better at writing.
@@RodMartinJr and a double heck yah on what you said about fauci. Traitor!
"If a man fails for any reason, his own fault or through accident, It gives him a mortgage on the lives , the earnings, the property, the services of those who have not failed." Concise observation of our society today.
“I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.”
― Thomas Sowell, Barbarians inside the Gates and Other Controversial Essays
Do you want my PayPal address to send me some money?
@Janet A nice assumption there based on my non serious proposition. Well done you. Have a gold star.
Greed is hoarding resources. If you take someone else's wealth and give it to poor people you aren't hoarding resources, you are stealing. Greed and theft are two separate sins.
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day; teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime."
Charge people for teaching them to fish and we will all win. No sacrifice needed.
mark brown No you need to encourage him to buy his own pole and bait, otherwise he would depend on you to catch the fish too!
mark brown if there is no primary investment he has nothing to lose therefore the incentive isn’t there.
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day; give a man a fish everyday, he eats for a lifetime."
- Bernie "free this free that" Sanders.
I quoted this today as well but added in “what do you do if the man is unable to learn?” Is it your responsibility to give him fish forever?
Wow. That is some serious food for thought. So much of what she said is applicable to today.
Fascinating woman, who is incredibly insightful and honest about the human condition.
Not to mention she was more than willing to take what she called hand outs at the end of her life when she needed it. After she derided everyone else for it. Here, she must attempt to disable one of the most powerful, good traits of mankind. In order to give her arguments the illusion of muster. Many in humanity do not have to be forced by government to be kind to one another. And it's certainly os evil to steal from in need who works hard to give to another. However, one doesn't have to cancel out the good virtue and intent behind giving to those in need. And Ayn attempts poorly to do this but manages to actually fleece a great deal of people in the process. She is a hypocrite and a con artist. It takes a lot to see through her act, so i will give her that much.
@@migtvill Rand never took or needed welfare. She did receive social security, but she also paid into it. Social security is a program that you pay into to provide for your own retirement. It is not welfare.
@@migtvill This video refers to people doing "good" deeds and giving to others out of a sense of coercion, or because you feel you owe your self to others. This doesn't mean that you can't take a true act of kindness. If I decided to give a homeless person some food because I had plenty, that's an act of kindness, not altruism. But if I starved myself and gave that homeless man the only food I had, ignoring my own hunger, or if he demanded my food and I obliged out of a sense of duty to do good, that is altruism.
@Teucer Russell Seeing that one of the hipsters was Putin she did a real good job. He even controls USA through Trump if you believe all the media lies KEK
@Teucer Russell when i went to the moon in kerbal space program i think the conclusion was that it was strange that it did not taste like icecream.
It's so refreshing to hear Ayn Rand explain ideas. Thank you for preparing and sharing this video.
I remember reading her in university back in 1988. I found her fascinating and wonderful. I then read everything she wrote. I don't agree with her on everything but she is spot on on many things.
What were the things you disagreed with? I haven’t read too much of her, I’m curious what you think considering that you have :)
[comment is 2y later, I hope you can still see this?]
@@yes7855 She sees and understands the the world and everything in the world as a commodity. For example, you have to be able to extract something from nature or people for it/them to have any real value. I disagree with that: an untouched lake lake or forrest has intrensic value in and if itself regardless of what humans do to it or can get out of it. Same thing with people I agree that people who invent and create things should be admired because they do and have done great things but their inherent worth and value as human beings are no better than anyone else.
I am not an atheist. I believe Christ died for my sins and God raised him from the dead and he will one day return. I do agree with her position on altruism.
Her position on what is rational and objectivity is too absolute. Yes they do exist and it is possible to clear bias from a topic or idea. However, over and across the grand scale of time, some positions that were once thought of as objective and rational reveal themselves as not.
@@yes7855 I also partly disagree with her opinion on alturism. I agree that you should not be forced to do something altruistic and wrt institution (church, government, charities) it can be pernicious, but it you can do whatever you want with your money and if giving to charities makes you happy, or not, then go ahead.
@@onwilson2 She didn't say to not give to charities, if that makes you happy, good. She says not by force, like taxes. I don't think she ever said that a lake or forest didn't have intrinsic value. It's the individual value that she talks about. Does it have value to you as an individual, it doesn't mean it has no value to others. You talk of extracting something from nature to have value. What value to you does a grain of sand in the dessert have, or a rock on the moon. You are her on earth to survive. to work toward your goals, and to be happy. If those things do not contribute to that then they have no value to you.
@@2tycade Her ideas on the commodification of things comes out quite clearly in her books and novels. I don't recall if she was ever interviewed in this point nor do I recall if she wrote any essays on the subject. The environment was not an issue back then. She is correct that being forced to give is tyranny and not altruism, but you can also give for non-selfish. You are probably right, I have not read any of her books or writings in a very long time.
Wow, this really helps explain the rise of victim culture in America.
Not only in Amarica
Most of those victims are, so-called, `conservatives`.
@@MorpheusOne you drunk??
@Hashish: No, I just don't support white supremacy.
@Pierre F. Gauthier: I am an anti-fascist and an egalitarianist. It's obvious to anyone with the bare minimum number of necessary and properly working brain cells that demographics are really nothing more than window dressing with varying degrees of persistency.
To be clear, Ayn Rand herself...may...not have been a bigot. But, her ideological selfishness, her anti-scientific ignorance, her apparent inability to see beyond herself & see the forest through the trees, etc., caters to white supremacy, with its selfishness, anti-reality and anti-human species ideology. 'Libertaryanism' is, after all, the political arm of white supremacy.
It is amazing to see how thoroughly the caustic thinking of altruism has woven so deeply in the fabric of our society. A lot of us recognize the symptoms but very few recognize the cause and even less know it’s name.
Your christianity is part of the problem as well. Altruism is tied into the teaches or indoctrination of jesus
@@mr.e5791 yep religion is part of altruism
the cause is 2000 years of Christianity infiltrating our consciousness
@@mr.e5791 only when godless people twist scripture towards communist ends. Malicious altruism is evil. "The devil disguises hinself as an angel of light"
Such peiple are not of the "flock", they are judas goats.
Its name is talmudic judaism
FACT: Altruism and charity are not synonyms, they are antonyms. Prove me wrong.
Because charity considers another, by definition, you cannot have charity without altruism.
FACT: Ms. Rand's definition of altruism is that of collectivist, fake altruism. It's *_selfish_* rather than selfless. Leftists say, "Give up your rights so we can protect you, until we decide we don't need you any more." That's not true altruism.
True altruism is selfless. It's a personal *_decision_* ... a choice ... not a government (collective) mandate.
Charity is giving from your own property to help others. That's true altruism. So, your statement is wrong.
Ms. Rand is right to argue against Leftism, but she completely does NOT understand spirituality, true love and true altruism. We need freedom to decide whether or not to be selfish. Leftism strips us of that freedom. And when you no longer have self-concern (selfishness), you find your power is no longer limited.
@@RodMartinJr Selflessness is having no regard for oneself. Charity isn't a selfless act. The proper reason for giving charity is that you wish to help which gives you a good feeling and for that reason it is serving your self interest. Ayn Rand doesn't regard charity as bad unless by doing so is apposed to one's own self interest. She doesn't hold that altruism and charity are virtues in and of themselves.
@@MDebou I understand. And you and she are right from a limited perspective. But in the larger scheme of things, you are both dead wrong. There are at least 3 distinct selves, and the natural tendency to conflate these creates a great deal of confusion and self-imposed blindness. First is the most obvious -- the Homo sapiens body. Second is the vulnerable and very physical ego (the false self). Third is the immortal spirit which remains dead asleep to the world in most people.
When you focus your attention on ego self (egoism), or animal self (Homo sapiens), you are displaying an inward vector of attention. Selflessness, from a simplistic, literal view, seems to mean a negation of self, but that's not the truest, most benign viewpoint.
Selflessness can also be a focus of attention outward *_from_* self, toward *_others._* In fact, look at the true definition of "altruism" (not Rand's narrow definition of fake altruism foisted on us by Leftists).
*altruism* _n._ Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
See the word "others." That's the focus. It's an outward focus; not inward.
If a person had "no regard for oneself," then they would quickly die of hunger and/or disease. They would stink from not washing. They would be arrested for not dressing properly. Yet, a person can *_take responsibility_* for the Homo sapiens body for the benefit of others. One can even earn a living, delivering excellent service or products, all for the benefit of others.
Your illustration of "charity" is a potent one that has concerned Christians of every age. Yet, you miss the very real possibility of perfect responsibility for self, but 100% outward (non-egoistic) focus on benefiting others. This is not an easy viewpoint to understand. It has taken me at least 50 years to get close to understanding this.
To the degree that Ayn Rand did not see these other dimensions of selflessness, she remained blind. Her overall wisdom was good, but it led to a _cul de sac_ of intellectual blindness.
@@maxcohen13 altruism requires sacrifice. That's not the same as charity or benevolence. If I donate to charity without sacrifice to myself, it's benevolence, not altruism.
God has blessed this woman with great knowledge.
@Time Warp "You don't think God wants us to be altruistic?"
God wants us to love Him more than ourselves and to love our neighbors like ourselves
(supporting scriptures below). Regarding neighbors -- and to be technical, it does not say
to love them *more* than yourself, but if one were to sacrifice such for one then their love
would be great indeed. In Amish communities, people may help others build their houses,
help raise their families, and give much of their resources they can out of love and not
money, but note that in those communities God is put first in worship and governance;
this is why, even in a fallen sinful world with Satan, that it can work to a degree like heaven.
However most socialists who try to create a utopia on earth by force, don't know about
the first of Jesus's two great commandments, and that is to love God with all of one's
heart, soul, and mind. As socialists don't usually believe in God, they really just use the
"love & sacrifice" bit as a hook to get folks to put their lives down for the creation and
worship of a BIG STATE machine that knows no love. After all, if one does not believe in
God, then they really don't know what true love is either. And if one does not worship God,
then they will worship a false idol -- and so break Jesus's first commandment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KJV, book of Luke, chapter 7, verse 27:
"Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him, _Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,_
_and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it,_
_Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and_
_the prophets."_
KJV, book of 1 John, chapter 4, verse 8:
"He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love."
book of Matthew, chapter 6, verse 24 (in the words of our Lord Jesus):
_“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will_
_be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon."_
Here are some modern socialists (atheists) worshiping their idol,
www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/14/north-korea-sunuiju-metal-tax-kim-statues
HAHAHAHAHA SHE WAS ATHEIST AND HATED CHRISTIANITY
That's funny because Ayn Rand was an atheist.
It is easier to be altruistic than have courage to be responsible for your own system of values.
5:00 this is exactly the attitude I saw among the homeless in Seattle. They actually felt morally superior to their benefactors.
I wonder how many young people today could hear this and truly grasp what she is saying. They have been conditioned by this philosophy and trained to immediately react emotionally to what they hear if they think it contradicts their indoctrination.
I'm an young person well according to everyone else I except being an avarice/greed lantern when I took that quiz that one time cause I know one can't keep giving forever
@Karl Quetzacoatl Please don't link autistic people to bad behaviour autistic people had enough abuse in this society all ready
FRWHELAN not indoctrinated here nor do I cry crocodile tears for all downtrodden people as they’re not all salt or the earth. But I’m also not a lolbertardian.
This is not a "young people" problem. People of all ages has adopted this mindset.
@@eternallylearning2811 That you consider yourself to be eternally learning instead of thinking you know better is the key words to rise above the mount of mediocrazy. I was never educated in intersectionality.... But when I self educated. My neck hairs started rising. Post modernism.... Critical theory... Race studies... Milieu control... Where does it all come from? Well the foremost philosophers tends to be sadists.... And the nazis also wanted people to only see things their way and liked to consider groups as threats. Not just indivdual thoughts against the collective conssensus. Just like the commies. And climate scientists:D
Altruism wouldn't be so bad if the people preaching altruism wouldn't believe only other people should be altruistic.
First time? ;)
Missed the point.
It would still be evil.
👏👏👏👏 Exactly! They send you off to be the giver to others, while hiding there own resources for themselves.
But there is no point in altruism when majority of the species are just sinners who are born to satisfy their selfish sensual pleasures, desires and material comforts. It takes an entire altruistic species to genetically evolve higher consciousness. Today's world is not so happy a place. 8 Billion humans prove that they enjoy LUST and Greed more than seeking a higher purpose.
Fear of death and attachment to material things is the cause for many of the world's problems. Being detached from everything and also being devoid of all pleasures while performing all actions for a highest purpose is enough to evolve humans into Gods and Goddesses. But, to teach 8 Billion+++ humans the higher purpose of life is more karma / effort than to let go and let the world realize and come to the same conclusion.
Good stuff. Gave me chills. Last Ted Talks I watched (forced to for college) this kid was saying you should give your entire life to a higher cause. That's not necessarily wrong, but I wouldn't agree it's our duty to "sacrifice" our lives for the "betterment" of mankind. What's the point of successive generations if no one can enjoy their life or have value as an individual?
because there will be MORE overall success than just working for self success. the more people working on cancer cures the better chance we have to get a cancer cure. just is what it is
damn this is deep. she's genius. i completely agree
It’s huge pile of 💩 by evil small hat
This is a subtle and sophisticated understanding that is highly inconvenient to today's snake oil salesmen. ideas matter. You can see from the comments that it melts small minds into emotional reactions, not rebuttals.
She is a genius on some things, but she has a blind spot on altruism. True altruism is a choice. What she's describing is Leftist, "fake" altruism -- the selfishness of illusory safety, plus government mandated "selflessness." True altruism is an individual choice.
@@RodMartinJr Her definition of altruism is taken directly from the philosopher who coined the term.
@@Biologist19681 And who is that? I've checked several dictionaries and didn't see any mention in the etymology of a "coiner."
I have this and I spend hours trying to help others never helping my self this video is spot on but I also have depression so it feeds my depression I was never good enough, but I know others can be.I gave up on myself and every good thought I think of. I give to others. I think of all the people I can't help, and it makes me cry to the point where I don't want to be on this earth, if I can't even do my one duty.
You are worthy and good enough .. Don’t give up on yourself because you must know that the world is a better place with more empathetic people like you
The need of the hour in these times of lockdown!
All I can say is WOW. no one speaks like this today. Society has been dumbed down so much that most can't even comprehend what she says here. So sad.
Amazing how this is becoming more and more evident in this day and age.
EU politics has been made to be altruistic, putting the needs and wants of foreigners from other continents and cultures above the needs and rights of the EU citizens. Thank you for making this clear for me.
The same can be said for America and the invasion of illegals coming over our unprotected southern border. "We have to let them come here, so they can have a better life." Right. They get free hand-outs provided by the tax payers: Health care. Probably different forms of welfare, including EBT cards, food stamps (or whatever "woke' term used today). They get registered to vote (illegally, of course) by Democrats. Many are human traffickers, some bring in Fentanyl or other illegal drugs.
This was a beautiful speech. I need to re-watch this a few times.
Now this is more clear, thank you late great Ayn Rand
@@Mark_Chandler why so it's more expensive, less innovation, or rationed? cuz thats whats happens when government controls it. ie: see British dental healthcare vs private lol.
Except, she gets the definition of Altruism wrong. She's talking about selfish (fake) altruism of collectivists clamoring to be "safe" (an illusion) within the collectivist state. True altruism is an individual choice.
@@RodMartinJr individual choices are illusory
@@jakefarronmerlin7963 Care to back up your claim? Proof by Assertion fallacy is pretty thin.
@@RodMartinJr Because all our choices are influenced in one way or another by another person or entity.
I have suffered from altruism my entire life, always sacrificing my own desires. I really needed to hear this.
I guess suffer from the same issue. But I enjoy it and being sacrificial has become instinctual. It's hard for me to avoid someone who needs help. I am guessing the reason behind my behavior is that I don't really value my life that much. I also enjoy this helping behavior in egoistic way though, as it makes me feel like I am higher and more important than a simple human.
I agree, it is time to liberate yourself and start healing.
No, this isn't what it appears to be. While I have read everything of Rand, and thoroughly enjoy her works, she does not understand what altruism is or why sacrifice is at times necessary because it requires of one to forego something of a lesser value for something of a greater value. If you reverse that equation, then she is right, but this is not the meaning of altruism or sacrifice.
It has been my observation and experience everywhere I have lived that almost everyone is willing to help his neighbor who is truly in need-if the receiver respects the giver’s right to do it voluntarily and in his own way. So far as I can now recall, no person has ever refused any sincere and logical request of mine for help, whether my need was medical, legal, spiritual, financial, educational, or whatever. In fact, so many hundreds of persons have given me assistance at various times and in various ways that I cannot now possibly recall all their names!
There are many sincere and charitable persons who truly want to help their less fortunate fellow men; but they want to perform their charitable acts on a large scale with other people’s money, instead of on the basis of their own individual capabilities and with their own money. Their sincere but misguided idea of helping people is to pass a law to force everyone to contribute to government which, in turn, will distribute the money “to those who need it most.” This concept is sometimes called the “service state” or “welfare government.” The people who hold this concept are especially dangerous because their intentions are so good. The purity of their motives tends to obscure the ultimate evilness of their acts.
Source: Dean Russell
“Equality and Security” (1952)
Shut up and take your gate to hell vaccine:D
Seriously though.... Thx for granting me knowledge of one more person to look up words of wisdom from. My own wisdom comes mostly from computer games.... Soo..... Time to learn better things than how to win crusader kings 2.
Ok... Now i know where the term jacobins originated:D This dude seems even more drowned out by the looney lefties than Ayn Rand...
This was written in 1952. Times were different then with 100% employment, affordable housing every worker could afford a new car etc and so forth and the tax rate on the top 10% then was at 52.8%. Most vast wealth is inherited and unearned.
What a load of shit. You think the welfare state is a handout. The people who are getting handouts are corporations not paying taxes, rich land owners getting subsidies etc etc. You know how much the welfare state costs compared to the handouts to rich?
It doesnt even cover what is stolen from the people by multinationals and the complicit governments. Fucking Ayn Rand. Give me a fucking break.
@@jonathancrawford4339 well dude the way I read this is that the oh so good save the world people are playing right into the hands of people who only have profit motive. And loads of money to make more money by getting the goverment to hand them even more money. All while playing 24/7 propaganda to tell people that they should be oh so good and push their goverment officals to make laws to benefit the 'poor'. While they are blissfully misinformed about how legislation is passed by often corrupt individuals that are in some cases blackmailed or just rely on their party to tell them what to vote. Kinda like how Ayn Rand also warns about it. A Ayn Rand capitalist is someone who makes stuff instead of just make stuff up to get handouts.
I love this woman. Women today would ,and men too, zone this conversation out if their spouse was saying this at dinner or on a date.
We have a Republic if the people can keep it....... well it takes a virtuous people and a knowledgeable people to maintain it, and we as a society are not. And the effect is what we see today as government.
@@Mark_Chandler people fault it came to this. A knowledgeable people would not have allowed it. A knowledgeable people would not have allowed a central bank. Or government usurpation of power.
@@ME-jc7xi And therein lies the problem. The powers that be delight in keeping the masses ignorant. Schools only teach the impressionable minds how to be slaves to the system without them knowing it. They are not taught how to be creatively successful and how to achieve independent wealth.
@@jchis9852 exactly what they do and did to slaves. Treat them like mushrooms, feed them shit and keep them in the dark. Common core is prime example of "them" making our children even more unintelligent than the previous generation
@solaroid55 takes a virtuous people to self govern. Knowledge is needed to be virtuous.
@solaroid55 they may know they are scummy bottom feeders but that is not the knowledge I'm speaking of. Responsibility or as I call it,personal responsibility is part of the knowledge needed to be virtuous. You can not be personally responsible without the knowledge needed to know how to be responsible when to be responsible and why . It is far easier to stay ignorant, turn on the TV and zone out than it is to educate yourself on the principles of virtue and put then into action. I would agree with you that knowledge is not all that is needed , as I just stated , Action based upon that knowledge is needed . But action without proper knowledge is very dangerous not just to the individual but to society.
These are incredible nuggets of thought! Why are they not being followed today?
This Jewish lady has alot in common with Hitler and Nazi ideology ! Is'nt that what happen in concentracion camps , absence of altruism !?
WHEN GOD IS NOT INVOLVED, YOU HAVE NO VIRTUE,CORE,AND WHAT YOU THINK IS RIGHT.
That's fine as your opinion but no religion is provable. The concept of a god is incomprehensible in that we don't have an understanding of all that which existence is comprised. With religion you can only have faith in that which is unknowable
Altruism is also known as codependency (aka self love deficit disorder) and being a people-pleaser. In that context, altruism is self-destructive and serves narcissistic predators; it does not make the world a better place.
Altruism is not also known as codependency.
Altruism is giving someone the help they need no matter the consequences.
Codependency is allowing someone to continue self-destructive behavior in order to maintain the relationship.
In that context, you should spend more time trying to prove your claim before you accept it as true
Ayn Rand was a wise woman. She dared to say what people don't because they are afraid of not being popular.
Wow. I've never been a fan of hers, but that was powerful.
All her philosophy is coming true today. Notice how we now live in a "pyramid" of victim-hood, where we compete to see who can be the greatest victim. I am so sick and tire of people beginning a conversation or a comment by telling me first and foremost what category of victim(s) they belong to. God help you if you can't fit into one of the politically correct categories of "victim".
What bullocks on this stance. This is altruism taken to an extremist definition. Just for this video I'll make sure to counter one of her last statements in a treatise of mine. No rational justification for it can ever be offered., she says? Well there is, if you study sanatana dharma long enough. You don't need to sacrifice your mind to be altruistic, to agree with the majority when it hampers dharma and life is evil. It's like she never read any of the classics.
"If you help someone expecting something in return you are doing business, not kindness". That is what I have to say about the matter.
I don't know what that should be called, but I don't feel obliged to help anyone, nor to put other people's interests above mine. But if I can help, I will help without demanding anything in return. I consider that altruism. If it has another name, let me know and I will consider using it.
This woman described fundamental altruism , not many of us live like monk's giving our last penny. Giving and helping where you see a need is an admirable trait. I see a lot of kindness during this pandemic / financial meltdown.
Her broach is a clue to her affiliation.
This was my gut reaction too. Does a philosophy require extremes to be true/false? In other words, a little bit of altruism can go a long way without destroying the self in the process... I just cant get on board with extremes anymore
Nothing wrong with the brooch. You should read up on the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition. Many, I think, Any would like: "Anything worth doing, is worth doing for money." But money is part of life; Mankind trades value for value. I have certain abilities that a company needs to grow (or increase production, etc.). I trade my value for the value the company gives (wages, benefits, etc). My value to the company also includes time from my life that deserves pay.
@@johntiggleman4686 Mammon is clearly her God. Father forgive her for she knows not what she speaks.
@@josephpchajek2685 I just love it when people use archaic King James/Aramaic words. Use common modern English, please.
There are so many reasons I have always struggled with the Christian culture, but not for the reasons that Christianity gives. My whole life at odds with myself because of it. To finally have a healthy relationship with myself, I read a book called “not nice”, and a few years later found Ayn Rand and read “the fountainhead” which put into words what I had been feeling during my life time. So grateful for this woman and others who recognize the truth about altruism.
A well-done interview. Rand was powerful and concise in her analysis of altruism. One error in this video - the radio interview had to have been before 1984, because Ms. Rand died in 1982.
Rip some one like Rand doesn’t deserve that much respect though
@@alechennings4774Negative. She deserves plenty.
There is one big problem with this theorie. You can not be a human without other humans, you can not be healthy without other humans, you can not even develope human intelligence and a human mind without other humans. You are litterly not evan a functionely able animal without socaity, so if you want to hear it or not, you are nothing without others. What you give to others defines your worth, what others gives to you, defines your life. That is what a sociaty is.
You say it well.How you help the other person so you are helped by the others. Rand was from the russian aristocracy that are in infamy for the psychotic treatment of there own people to the point of making all of them slaves so her words have the value of zero substance.
Selflessness is always motivated by selfishness.
Right
They want to be called "good" by others.
@@WinnieAmos05 Thats such an absolutist statement to make. Heres how it really works. When you do something "good" your natural reward mechanism kicks in (you get a rush of serotonin and dopamine). Some may say it's Gods sign, if they were ever taught to do so. Equally, we have punishment mechanisms for doing "bad", we call this 'regret', and once it starts it uncontrollable, and this lowers our dopamine.
This is why people feel good about helping others. It has nothing to do with the absolutist notion that 'selfishness is a virtue'.. Thats just some cold war individualist vs collectivist propaganda designed to keep Europe, and now the US, in a constant state of profitable civil war.
Ayn Rand is a 'pop culture philosopher, meaning she's pushed to the front by (in this case) Wall Street fundamentalists who use it as a brand of moral reasoning that doesn't include collective responsibility, like that of nations, or of tribes, or of family.
Thats why all Ayn Rand fanatics are terrible at interacting with women, and men alike. And its why if anyone tells you they take her words for gospel, you can almost guarantee they're terrible people to compromise or do business with.
And when this happens in reality, when Ayn Rand fanatics try to do business or trade, their own selfish tendencies shine through, and so the other person does the same in return, which then confirms the bias the fanatic was looking for.
Its dumb, absolutist, identity centric cold war nonsense written by someone who was definitely a product of cold war propaganda, and very likely a KJB agent who wants to turn the West towards the kind of attitude that kills nations, tribes, and civilisation.
The vast majority of people stop at a certain definition of altruism and form their opinion on that. Ayn takes that definition and keeps working the problem back further and further in the human experience and how it manifests itself in the macro.
Cashier - "Would you like to donate a dollar to the X charity?" Looks expectantly
Most people - "Yes of course!" I'm a good person.........
Altruism isnt in itself evil, it's the idea of the greater good that is evil
I'm so happy I found this woman. I feel like I've been searching for the dichotomy she outlines for many years.
Same here
@solidus: Well, you did make this comment over two years ago; do you still support white supremacy?
Luke 6:38 “Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.”
Unless you're dealing with a narcissist - or a Government.
Indeed; it doesn't say that other people are more important than yourself or that their needs are above your own. It basically says "Your generosity will return to you."
I love this woman.
She is absolutely right. The only variable would be people with intellectual disabilities. needs. I think as a decent society we should support that and take a much harder stance on those that claim hardship without proper vetting
God`s law to love your neighbour as you love yourself implies that you love yourself as well as loving others, which is, correctly, not altruism according to Ayn Rand.
To be completely altruistic is sacrificial. Who is completely altruistic? When you help others and expect nothing, you are contributing to the well being of society as a whole. There is a satisfaction in this, which is in a way, an act of personal benefit, because of how it makes you feel.
To be temporarily altruistic in moments, is not evil.
Uh... Heroism is based on altruism, the voluntary sacrifice so that others might live. As an example; if your friend jumped on a grenade and saves the your life would you laugh at him for a sucker or worship his heroism and altruism? .... Altruism has a personal cost, so if someone is rich and gives aid to someone in need - it's not altruism because there's no personal cost. This is separate and distinct from the cost incurred by the poor in enabling they poor life choices but even then the issue is not cut and dried because 'bad things happen to good people'. 1] Altruism then cannot be defined solely evil 2] Receiving aid does not always lead to a dependency on the altruism of others. 3] The basis for defining altruism as evil is logically flawed.
What she said later I the video, "A full altruist would have to find a cannibal village and offer himself as a meak." Close quote.
She was right. It is fair to say that whatever mindset a full altruist has, he would have to completely sacrifice his mind, thereby making him stupid.
And cannibals, are beneath decent humans as well. A better option in my opinion, for the UltraISO to make the ultimate sacrifice is this; 1. There is a large wilderness preserve in Kenya on the Eastern side of Africa called the Serengeti. The altruist, the Full altruist would also have the option of going to the Serengetti and offering himself as a meal to a pride of lions.
This is exactly the situation we find in the neolithic culture of New Guinea, where individuals are always indebted and mindful of what they owe others. So it better topractice largaise and be alwayes owed something by others than to hoard what you gain so you are thinking about what you have to pay back to those that have given to you. The English translation of this social system is unsurprisingly called "The payback system". So ultruism in PNG is nothing more than a system of blind sense of obligation in which gifts offered can not be refused.
It must be horrible to live with the idea that you always owe everyone around you something.
What a remarkable woman she is!! She doesn’t stammer, no mhmm’s or uh’s, nore even slow down to gather her thoughts. Her replies just flows down like it rains. Though I don’t hold altruism like she defines to be the moral code of life, but the Catholic concept of Love ( which is to not help others, but to seek the good of others) - an entirely different concept, I find it fascinating the way she demolishes the doctrine of altruism. The clarity of her argument is brilliant…
Never thought of it this way. Makes sense. I'd extent her view to include the relentless obligation that we must think only of the needs of the next generation at the expence of our own. Moreover, all things being well, parents ought to value their needs first after their children have reached the age of responsibility and have left home. They ought to enjoy the financial and material achievements rather than hoard these in order to pass them on to their offspring who will then continue to perpetuate this 'principle'. I may be wrong - see, guilt pangs already.
I fear those who misunderstand this argument aren't examining their beliefs carefully enough.
Why is it always other people who are misunderstanding the argument?
@@hubster4477 In this particular case, because the argument makes sense to me, lol. In general, though -- and to answer your question -- I *have* found myself misunderstanding ideas. There are many ideas I still don't fully understand. Some ideas I believe I understand, but I don't agree with them. To make up for this, I try to keep expanding my knowledge with patience and I remain open to considering a wide range of ideas as they're presented to me.
@@TheGreatHsilgne always striving, good!
Ironically, in 1984, Rand summed up the entire COVID agenda in seven and a half minutes. This is spot on!
Ayn drills down deep to reveal the flaws of altruism. Her arguments are flawless.
Her own definition perhaps. The biggest flaw is her reasoning. No one shares her definition of altruism. Even if she would be correct in that "altruism" originally meant that, it doesn't matter anymore. Language evolves over time.
Oh my God I was just praying to Jesus about this last night. I’m saying last night I was just praying out my heart to God about this very issue that was tormenting me because it (altruism) makes me miserable. I feel guilty for being happy and I was telling God about it and now your UA-cam video is right in front of my face.
I don't recall anywhere in the new testament where Jesus says to place the needs of others above your own. Be careful when you go outside the gospels; the letters and writings of the disciples are for and of their time.
I came into this world alone and i will leave this world alone. So take care of yourself before you take care of others.
"Altruism is evil, selfishness is moral." - Ayn Rand
This is a core reason for the collapse of society, for her people are utterly selfish, short sighted, and proud to abide by false wisdom as such.
There’s nothing evil being a proactive altruist, simply care for others and be mindful of society is how we flourish as a modern human being.
Parents sacrifice themselves for their children's future, is it evil?
Of course not.
Public servants like firefighters dedicate their life to protecting others from disasters. is it evil?
Of course not.
Everyone works together to overcome a global pandemic, is it evil?
Of course not.
We are at a crossroads now, please don't be ridiculous and childish.
@RED EYES
Right.
City's grow strong because of old men that plant trees in wich shadow they will never get to take shellter. - some greek proverb
""Altruism is evil, selfishness is moral." - Ayn Rand" Can you please timestamp this? I can't find it.
@She's Here
It’s her famous quote, you can find it online.
The ideal situation is that people come together out of common interest and mutual consent. However, there is always some degree of coercion involved. If one is an altruist out of their own heart, then it is true altruism. However, given that human beings live in groups and exchanges for survival's sake are a fact of life among human beings, it is hard to tell whether pone is altruistic out of one's own desire or out of a need to survive any way possible. At least we can say that coercion has been completely excluded; is one altruistic under coercion from other people, or under coercion from one's own impulses?
Ayn Rand predicted what we’re seeing run rampantly today
How about using the Bible to guide us as to what is right and wrong. Sounds like "intellectuals" trying to create their own definitions and explanations of what a moral person does or doesn't do. All of this man made knowledge is meaningless in the eyes of God. His word alone is the truth.
Maybe, but as a species we've been able to abolish slavery by ourselves, whereas the Bible\Quran etc doesn't specifically forbid it.
Altruism is the philosophy that dictates that in order to be a moral person you must sacrifice for others that which you value.... and you must receive nothing of value in return. It is based on the writings of French philosopher Auguste Comte whose theory of "positivism" influenced the development of organized "Humanism".
_"Altruism is the principle and practice of concern for the well-being and/or happiness of other humans or animals _*_above oneself._*_ "_
*Richard Kraut: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2020 Edition*
This theory dictates that man's only valid purpose in life is to sacrifice his needs and desires for the benefit of others - ALL others.
An evil woman who died a miserable, lonely death.
@John Galt, Pithy response for an "Objectivist" psychopath and born scumbag.
Even funnier, the nasty old bag was on Medicare and Social Security when she expired and went to hell.
Agreed, she was a psychopath.
right
jewish Woman with a jewish few of the world
I would suggest that people tend towards altruism because they want to DO something to make the world a better place than it is. More than giving material wealth away, it is the sharing of a gift of immaterial kindness and wisdom without expectation of reward.
We live in such a materialistic world that the very notion of selfless action has become a taboo....
That's not altruism; it's benevolence.
As a Christian this is difficult, I want to live to help others but not if its demanded by those who are fully capable of helping themselves. Any advice?
2 Thessalonians 3. 6-15 is good example of the Bible's warning against being idle in your life.
"8 nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. 9 It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. 10 For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." (feel free to look up the verses in its entirety)
I think if you truly want to help other people, you must help yourself first. And after you help yourself, then you should teach others how to help themselves. If they refuse to help themselves then pain will be their guide. Even though pain is often seen as a negative feeling, it makes for one hell of a teacher if you learn to listen to it.
Not a Christian, but i would just use your discernment. Help those who really need it, and tell those seeking to take advantage to sod off. You do you, just be smart about it.
@Guru Amirite Exactly. Everything you do is selfish. Literally everything.
@@Mark_Chandler what I mean is that there are people who do need help from situations that are not in their control but there are people who would rather do nothing but complain about their situation but wont put in effort or attempt to change their lot in life. Also dont assume someones race or status, also whites suffer too and I'm mixed and live in a trailer and I'm just fine.
Ayn Rand was a Christ killer. Don’t listen to her opinions
At first glance, it seems like the Bible teaches Altruism. But the Bible states that you are to love others as you love yourself, implying that you do have to love yourself as well. If anything, pure Altruism is a corruption of charity. Charity is the pure love of Christ and if the old testament is any indication, sometimes that love is harsh.
I don't think she understands altruism. It comes from empathy which is the ability to feel someone else's pain. Rand seems to only see things from personal perspective.
She is kind of dead on right about ulterior motive of Mother Teresa and what not. Church also in the name of altruism FORCES one to pray before handing out free ration.
That's because she was a psychopath who didn't understand what caring for others meant.
You are a sheep to the wolves,
Food for thought.
She was brilliant.
The apostle Paul disagree's "Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others."
Good for the apostle Paul. Who decided he's always 100% correct?
Michael Shapiro the dogma of the church my friend
@Kvothe Windrunner The old and new testament are much more similar than people think. The new testament has some of the most chilling condemnations (the concept of hell and the lake of fire come from Jesus' teachings). While the old testament contains both judgement of sin and promises of undeserved blessing and favor. The book of Isaiah is a good example of this. Paul was one of the top scholars of the jewish scriptures. His writings are like commentaries on the old testament.
Kvothe Windrunner my friend that statement presupposes an objective source in which you can critic the bible, The only world view which has a coherent objective view of morality is the orthodox Christian faith, so (assuming your an athiest) how can you critic the bible if morality is a subjective phenomena. Although I am not familiar with the apologetics behind some of the so called “Atrocities” god has committed, I can say this; in our world view god is the foundation of goodness and so His actions are undoubtedly morale, being the creator of all things and the giver of life- he has no obligation to tell us why in our relative and finite mind things appear bad or why things he does appear to be bad. You may not like this answer but you (one again assuming your an athiest) have not answer to problem of evil.
@Kvothe Windrunner If morality is subjective, is that statement an objective truth? and if it is, what is this objective truth based In or upon? and Ought I accept the truth that all morality is subjective or can I just disregard your logic? and the truth claim that morality is subjective. Epistemically within my worldview, I can know what interpretation of scripture is correct because the church is led by the holy spirit thus making it infallible, outside of the church there is no correct exegesis, the bible was constructed by this infallible church so it has no errors or contradictions- This is my dogmatic view and although I'm not 100% familiar with the old testament and the church's exegesis- I can assure you that the things that seem to you as contradictory to other parts of the texts that have a solid theological explanation, unlike what protestants say it isn't enough to just read the text because we came with our own presuppositions and we need the church's guidance to know what the text is trying to convey or express. Furthermore, what is the "real world", if you mean the external world outside of our consciousness- how do we know if the external world matches up to the stimuli in our heads- so we can never know what we are experiencing is objective. If you mean that we can critique it through conventional empirical means like higher criticism, I would like to return to my prior statement that people bring their own presuppositions to the texts they view.
Mrs. Rand spent her last few years dependent on Social Security. She amassed a popular following but could not honestly count herself among the small elite of hyperproductive people, meaning her philosophy in effect glorified people who were above herself and above most of her followers. One could either interpret this as a sign of ideological purity, in that it wasn't a strictly self-interested philosophy, or that she mistakenly believed herself to be a renaissance man akin to the ideal of John Galt. But 95% of people or more aren't anywhere close to this. It takes exceptional character, most often instilled from childhood since it's incredibly difficult to self-cultivate such from scratch as an adult. She lacked this rare quality, just like most people do by definition.
If Ayn Rand wanted to be a true visionary, she should've founded a campaign to improve ordinary adults. And I don't mean another self-help book, where you read it and then struggle hopelessly to muster the sheer level of personal motivation needed to implement its advice. I mean like a program offering several month-long retreats where participants spent that time doing nothing except improving themselves, under constant supervision and accountability by staff, with any and all outside distractions removed. After 90 days or so your brain would literally be rewired, and assuming that could be maintained after you returned home it'd allow one to be far, far more productive with the rest of his/her life, and die having lived a satisfying and meaningful existence. A philosophy that glorified exceptional achievement while failing to acknowledge the general inability of ordinary people to pull this off just comes across as shallow and bankrupt. It's like Jewish moralism in the time of Jesus: eager to condemn people on account of a standard very few could live up to, without offering hope to the deficient masses, whereas Jesus offered a salvation beyond their own power. Libertarianism/Objectivism might've worked if it offered tangible self-improvement over a disinterested "Help yourself oh but if you're not strong enough to do that on your own then too bad." When it treats every man like an island then of course people will reject it and turn to authoritarian collectivist ideologies instead.
Thank you for sharing this video. This is fantastic.
I usually love Ayn Rand's interviews and talks. This one is derailed from logic and reality. While some Leftists promote the idea of altruism (fake altruism) to forward their idea of Big, Centralized Control (collectivism), the benign (truer) definition of Altruism has nothing to do with the individual's right to exist. Her definition is entirely wrong on this. Or perhaps, better, there are two forms of Altruism. The one I'm talking about is an individual's choice to help others. Under a totalitarian regime (Leftism), an individual does *_not_* have this choice. They are forced into self-sacrifice for the sake of the collective. In True Altruism, an individual always has a choice, and the choice of selfishness is far more frequently the evil one, just as the selfishness of the Kommissars in a collective is evil. This is the ceiling Ayn Rand created for herself. She could not see beyond it. We must all do better.
@Krishnan Unni Madathil And you would be using the wrong definition. Here's the standard definition: " Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness."
You said, "It is not choice alone that distinguishes collectivist societies from individualistic ones." And you didn't read what I wrote clearly enough. Choice is not a defining characteristic between the two types of societies; it's a defining characteristic between True altruism and Fake altruism. In a totalitarian society, if you don't sacrifice yourself, it will be forced upon you; no choice.
Sounds like our altruistic government, we need a spiritual revival, Amen.
@@RodMartinJr In my view, where Rand turns people away and confuses her position is in how she defines selfishness. She goes on to explain her meaning as "rational self interest" but most people define it as including "without regard for others" as do my own dictionaries. Rational self interest makes her position much more sensible than to use the term selfishness. I think it is in this area of her philosophy where further work is needed and the point I believe you are making is the area of her philosophy that requires a lot of clarification
@@scottnovak8903 Our government is NOT altruistic; it is entirely selfish. Spiritual revival? Damn straight! We need to re-invoke the Christianity that existed before Constantine's politicization and spiritual corruption began, 1,700 years ago.
@@MDebou Excellent points. We can all take individual responsibility for our physical selves without being selfish. We could even become a multibillionaire without being selfish. If our focus is always away from self and toward the benefit of others, then turning the other cheek, forgiveness and miracles become effortless.
I write about these concepts in depth in my books,
*_Proof of God_*
*_The Art of Forgiveness_*
*_The Science of Miracles_*
*_The Bible's Hidden Wisdom_*
*_Spirit is Digital, Science is Analog_*
Never actually thought about the altruistic meaning in this dept. Always thought it was meant as being kind where possible. I was off the mark by a mile.
Altruism is the number one quality in a good woman.
Listening to Ayn Rand speak is a much more effective anti-smoking PSA than that "every cigarette is doing you damage" crap I saw on TV as a kid.
Excellent
BAD ALTRUISM: Give them a fish they will be fed for a day. (you keep giving them fish for life)
GOOD ALTRUISM: Teach them how to fish they will be fed for life.
Teaching someone to do something is not altruism. Altruism is (more or less) putting the needs of others above your own.
Terrible! Ayn Rand uses a self serving definition to make it out as if maximizing personal profit was always the best thing. She was always a self serving person just examine her personal life - and her philosophy of hyper individualism reflects that.
I used to always use the word 'altruism' as a synonym for benevolence. I suppose it's important to be specific in your speaking. I believe that people should treat others as you would best deem others should treat you in order to facilitate your maximal development. Sometimes that entails mercy, grace and charity and sometimes that entails nipping your bullshit in the bud and demanding that you display enough dignity to stand up on your own when able, become stronger and more self sufficient at a pace you can tolerate and take shame onto yourself conception when leaching from society with sociopathic disregard.
I think my dream project would be to contribute to mapping out a general philosophy for proper behavior and guidance on refining both society's and the individual's path towards optimizing the usefulness of their benevolence so that even orphans and the abused can find stability and wisdom from those that have no specific interest in their development. Get it so strong that the general mosaic of society's behavior acts as a sort of father figure and a caring mother.
what a cool idea. i hope you progress on this!
Ayn Rand went on Medicare when she was dying. Actions speak louder than words.
To your mind what dose her action say? Kind regards Ryan
Ryan Davis ayn Rand did not believe that government should provide any help to people. Everyone is on their own. Yet she took Medicare benefits when she was ill. Medicare is a government program,
I see, thank you for you response, assuming she paid taxes , then why not she already paid for it. I might be missing you point. Kind regards Ryan
Ryan Davis we also paid taxes for social security and other programs provided for by government. I would rather pay a few dollars more in taxes than the exorbitant premiums the private market would charge.
I do.. Im British.
Rand had many valid insights into the faults of 19th and 20th century philosophy, and this was her most consequential one. Altruism’s greatest threat to man is the most subtle one, the paralysis of one’s reason and inability to make distinctions between acts of benevolence and acts of self-immolation.
Mind you, Rand was far from perfect, and I’d argue her views on egoism led to certain moral failings and the fracturing of her movement. There is a danger in overreaction to evil, and in some areas, this happened in her efforts. She will always be controversial even in libertarian circles, but everyone should approach her work with an open mind.
A toy for narcissists when it can be used as a tool for exploitation, as such it is evil indeed.
Benevolence is also a tool for narcissists.
Wow ive always felt that altruism was ultimately self denigrating and leads to a lack of care for others as people only see those who are the sacrificed, inevitably leading to all falling.
You all know that she later had to live off public assistance, right?
Very well said and to me simple commonsense.
I hate victims, they bring out the predator in me.
This is why wolves, and other predators, take out the weak. It maintains the strength of the rest of the flock.
@@wonkothesane8691 Sounds insanely wonky to me!😄
@@wonkothesane8691 They have a bigger chance for a kill(food) with a weak or old animal as a target messere genius. They force the prey to seek retribution towards the predator.