Ayn Rand On Immanuel Kant
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 сер 2024
- Buy For The New Intellectual by Ayn Rand
www.amazon.com...
Buy Atlas Shrugged on Amazon
www.amazon.com...
Buy The Fountainhead on Amazon
www.amazon.com...
Find more books by Ayn Rand
www.amazon.com...
Donate to the Ayn Rand Institute (tax deductible)
ari.aynrand.or...
Music provided by musopen.org.
Ayn does an amazingly good job of explaining Kant to non-philosophers like me. Basically she says Kant believed that if you didn't act like a total zero, then you weren't a good person. Meaning having no ideas, no purpose, and no values.
Kant's moral theory doesn't suggest that ones who lack ideas, purpose and values are considered good people.
The thoery reinforces the values of autonomy, rationality and moral duty.
I think you've been hoodwinked, because that isn't what Kant's theory is about at all.
That's why Non Philosophers should Start from Basic and then Read Direct work of Geniuses Rather than Hearing
kant is a descendant of plato ayn rand is a descendant of aristotle.
Couldn't have put it better myself
Kant himself is anti-dogma and baseless assertions..I have a feeling that she has not read the critique of pure reason. Kant simply tried to chart out the limits of reason ,but he certainly didn't abolish it ,and admired aspects of the empiricist tradition of Hume and Newton. Reading the critique is probably a much better exercise than absorbing Rand's dogmatism.
"Kant originated the technique required to sell irrational notions to the men of a skeptical, cynical age who have formally rejected mysticism without grasping the rudiments of rationality. The technique is as follows: if you want to propagate an outrageously evil idea (based on traditionally accepted doctrines), your conclusion must be brazenly clear, but your proof unintelligible. Your proof must be so tangled a mess that it will paralyze a reader’s critical faculty-a mess of evasions, equivocations, obfuscations, circumlocutions, non sequiturs, endless sentences leading nowhere, irrelevant side issues, clauses, sub-clauses and sub-sub-clauses, a meticulously lengthy proving of the obvious, and big chunks of the arbitrary thrown in as self-evident, erudite references to sciences, to pseudo-sciences, to the never-to-be-sciences, to the untraceable and the unprovable-all of it resting on a zero: the absence of definitions. I offer in evidence the Critique of Pure Reason." - Ayn Rand
That's pretty ironic for Rand to say, since Objectivism is identical to what she just described.
Jason Fisher then use it to prove the existence of anything transcendental
@Jason Fisher literally proven wrong by Godel and Kant centuries ago, Ayn Rand is a not a philosopher and doesn't conform to the rigor that philosophers like Kant actually employs in his critique.
hes the worst. kant is the worst.
People attacking her for not refuting Kant are stupid. She is in a talk show with laymen (not philosophers) as the audience and very limited time. You'd need 20 years to explain Kant's philosophy let alone refute it. Also, of course she is going to give her views on Kant in the framework of her own philosophy, not on the framework of Kant.
If they're so stupid, why is she so blatantly guilty of arguing with straw men?
Kant never, for example, said that, "Phenomenological things are not real." It's much more accurate to describe it as, "You can't really see things as they are because your perceptions preclude you from doing so." She also speaks like he thinks noumena and phenomena aren't somehow intermingled.
It's absolutely amazing.
@@ollaitsrealgood >"You can't really see things as they are because your perceptions preclude you from doing so."
Say that again but slower. You say perception makes it impossible to see things (as they are). That is a contradiction in plain sight.
> She also speaks like he thinks noumena and phenomena aren't somehow intermingled.
What exactly is your evidence that the "noumena" and "phenomena" are intermingled? Kant says it himself that the noumena is unknowable.
yep attack on pure reason is an attack on Aristotle and his descendants trying to separate reason from reality.
Saying that an action has no moral significance is not the same as saying that an action is immoral. Kant makes the distinction of an action like studying for good grades and of a moral action; if you want good grades then you ought to study but it purely optional and dependent on your desires, it is then, in essence, not a moral matter but, rather, a matter of choice. When it comes to moral matters Kant differentialtes them from the aforementioned "aught-to-do actions" by stating that they are the actions you take when you have no goal in mind other than the action itself; if you do something because it makes you feel good then it is not a moral action but an action based on your desires - in other words you want to feel good and helping someone will make you feel good so you, therefore, aught to help them. For Kant such "aught-to-do" actions have no moral significance but they are not immoral. He makes no claim that one type of action is superior to the other or that you shouldn't do these "aught-to-do" things, he even states that actions of moral significance make up a minority of human interaction. It is, at it's core, fundamentally, a classification system of actions imposed by Kant in order for him to be able to apply his moral axioms on only these few trully moral actions. This is why his Categorical Imperative, for exampe, can afford to be as vague as it is; it applies to very few actions and is nothing moral a logical basis for action.
@TranniesRBetter ThanRealWomen It has no moral significance as in it's not a matter of right and and wrong, you can do whatever you want. If you don't want to study you don't have to. The issue is that Rand claims that when Kant says "it has no moral significance" he deems it to be immoral, when he is saying that it has nothing to do with morality.
As far as Rand's "morality is doing what you desire" idea, it doesn't make sense even on its own, because to fulfil a desire you always need to engage in second-order thinking (thinking about thoughts, or in this case thinking about desires) in order to interpret them, and this kind of abstract second-order thinking is the direct result of language, which allows us to form abstract identities that can be held in our mind instead of having to always be continually sense-based. And, as Wittgenstein demonstrated, language is not a private matter. So, even if all want is to follow your desires, to do it in a Rational way (and that's what Ayn Rand preached: the desires of rational individuals do not contradict one another) you must engage in universal moral thinking. Or, in other words, asking yourself "what if everyone did this?"; or as Kant put it 'act only according to that maxim which you would at the same time will become universal law'.
Your skill at evading a focus onto reality is impressive. Your professors would be proud.
Rand's character Katherine in The Fountainhead explicated the transformation of an ordinary pleasant, optimistic girl into a rigid, souless woman, from being directly schooled by an arch Kantian intellectual.
She doesn’t refute Kant’s work, all she does is explain what , in her opinion, is the result of it.
Who understand Kant and can represent his idea the best?
@@kurokamei ua-cam.com/video/Yntk1Zi6iC4/v-deo.html this is all you need
Well obviously she didn't refute them here.
Refutation is relative to evidence from reality. Kant thought that impossible. There is nothing to refute. Kant starts his philosophy after splitting his mind from reality. He never ends the split.
not she refutes him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ayn Rand stole the idea of "Objectivity" and "Reason" from the French Revolutionaries and from the Marxists and Stalinists and from Hitler, etc. Marx talked about "Scientific Socialism" and the battle-cry of the French Revolution was "Reason" and "Science". Stalin and Hitler were also "Reason" and "Science" based. Rand just re-marketed the labels of "Reason" and "Science" to be identified with her version of ideal Capitalism.
He didn’t believe that things in themselves exited in another dimension he believed they are what actually comprise the world and our minds interpreted them into what we experience as phenomenal objects. Dimensions are different regions of space and time. Saying they’re in a separate dimension is just highlighting that she can’t wrap her head around what Kant tried to convey
How did he perceive an other dimension?
@@drsaikiranc he didn’t…
Dimensions are not different regions of space and time, not as she was using it here. Dimension here refers to forms of being that can vary independently. Electrical charge vs. Mass, for example.
In Kant's System, the properties of the object of experience and the properties of the object in experience (eg. before and after synthethis) are uncorrelated in their nature, the nature of the "correlation" being supplied wholely from the Mind. Ie. Are separated degrees of freedom, that is, different dimensions.
Any first year philosophy student who has had a rudimentary exposure to Kant is sufficiently equiped to counter this nonsense.
Feel free to enlighten us.
Kant understood that perception and cognition are possible because of the way we're wired. He, therefore, centered his attention in our mental constitution to account for what, within us, makes knowledge possible. All this means is that we can perceive reality in a certain way and not others, not that "reason is impotent" or that our perceptions are "false". As far as I could tell, Rand never really addresses the problems Kant raises against her flavor for a more naive cut of realism (in this video, she's not even shown trying). She just laments what she believes to be Kant's legacy which she associates with some rampant irrationalism (a perception which is flawed from the ground up since she never managed to understand Kant).
@Edoardo Quarta Hahaha. Buon punto.
@@ekpurdy well, she led the entire clip with a straw man argument. A simple retort from Kant of "I never said that" would have been sufficient.
Sadly, he had been dead for nearly 200 years at the time this was recorded, so she could smear him without immediate reprisal.
True. This woman is a disgrace to liberalism. Even Jefferson who had slaves or Stuart Mill who was member of the East Indian Company are of more importance to liberalism than this witch
i think noting the limits of the rational mind (phenomenal world vs noumenal world) is important, but i agree with rand here that making a morality that's only pure if it doesn't have anything to do with benefitting you as a person is pretty useless
Kant was an idealist. Marx was a materialist (he grounded his ethics in material conditions w/in the real world, flipping Hegels dialectics on its head to reflect your observation that pure reason is useless).
> (phenomenal world vs noumenal world)
Neither is there more Being here and less Being there but it is all together.
-Parmenides
@@redwardstone3651 Marx was an idealist, ie, his intuited, supernatural dialectical process causing the action of matter. His materialism is non-basic.
Existence is existence everywhere. There are no kinds of existence. A pebble exists just as much as the whole universe. Kinds are the minds _perspective on existence_.
You may think of a house as a home or as an investment because you relate it to this rather than that. You rationally know the house as related to this or that. You select which relations you value. They are real, not mystical or subjective. Ideas are mans unique method of identifying reality. They are not mystical or subjective.
I think this is the primary criticism of Kant from Kant, that he basically trivializes philosophy and by extension morality.
But for Ms Rand's philosophy I would have never fathomed why the world around me has always felt wrong.
ayn rand>>>>>>>kant.
Just because you can't understand the preface of Critique of Pure Reason 🤡🤡
Kant, Otto Liebmann are the voices of UNreason.
anyone who believes in kant or altruism becomes a slave and deserves to die. they dont deserve happiness because they cant fend for themselves.
E----emanuel Kant was a real pissant,who was very rarely stable....(Monty Python).
Isn't Rands representation of Kants ideas quite false? If we are using pure reason, we must admit that our senses can only percieve a fraction of reality. Therefore we must be humble. Doesn't Kant also say that we must align our end goals for the will of the good for the other because that ultimatly makes us happier in the moral sense? He isn't promoting blind alturism. I must admit I have not read Kant, only seen representations of his works on youtube.
This is one of the few things I completely disagree with her on.
i will kill any descendant of plato.
Oh dear me. The only thing profound about Ayn Rand here is her lack in understanding philosophy and where Kant stands in it.
But in fact Kant, who had a very similar approach to the place of reason in perception and consciousness as the Buddha and Taoism, is increasingly being proven right by neuroscience anyway.
Ayn Rand is self justification for the immature mind wedded to limited ego states of consciousness. I don’t know why anyone else would take her seriously.
"The philosophy of Kant is a systematic rationalization of every major psychological vice. The metaphysical inferiority of this world (as a “phenomenal” world of mere “appearances”), is a rationalization for the hatred of reality. The notion that reason is unable to perceive reality and deals only with “appearances,” is a rationalization for the hatred of reason; it is also a rationalization for a profound kind of epistemological egalitarianism which reduces reason to equality with the futile puttering of “idealistic” dreamers. The metaphysical superiority of the “noumenal” world, is a rationalization for the supremacy of emotions, which are thus given the power to know the unknowable by ineffable means.
The complaint that man can perceive things only through his own consciousness, not through any other kinds of consciousnesses, is a rationalization for the most profound type of second-handedness ever confessed in print: it is the whine of a man tortured by perpetual concern with what others think and by inability to decide which others he should conform to. The wish to perceive “things in themselves” unprocessed by any consciousness, is a rationalization for the wish to escape the effort and responsibility of cognition-by means of the automatic omniscience a whim-worshiper ascribes to his emotions. The moral imperative of the duty to sacrifice oneself to duty, a sacrifice without beneficiaries, is a gross rationalization for the image (and soul) of an austere, ascetic monk who winks at you with an obscenely sadistic pleasure-the pleasure of breaking man’s spirit, ambition, success, self-esteem, and enjoyment of life on earth. Et cetera. These are just some of the highlights."
-Ayn Rand
Well said.
Buddha philosophy is idealistic as shit
Jevioso Orishas lmao, “ rationalization for the hatred of reason”. His point of view on reason was that human reason was unable to perceive things beyond the limited perceivable concepts. Limited by our sensory organs and our intellectual capacity. The purpose of acknowledging there is a limit to reason and showing that it cannot truly represent reality because it is the creation of our experience limited minds was to discredit metaphysical claims.
William Savage: You really need to work on your analogies.
And thus straw Kant was burnt to a crisp.
Behold the great Ayn Rand.
Lmao you wish
@@hauntologicalwittgensteini2542 well have to arrest you.
She nailed Kant spot on.
Kant just tried to justify Christianity without God.
That's all he ever was. A man who hated reality, so he lived in fantasies.
That's not Kant at all. He made contributions to astronomy, anthropology, physics, logic, mathematics and virtually all of philosophy as we know it. In fact, Kant's greatest contribution to ethics is his famous categorical imperative which is a set of 5 rules to adhere to for moral actions.
He destroyed all ontological arguments from the ancient world onward. He provided critical objections of them but still left a possibility for the existence of God. Sure the categorical imperative is a slave morality, but Rand's liberalism has the same morality present in it. Check out Nietzsche's relevant aphorisms for more.
Lmao when you have no idea what Kant was thinking 🤡
@@CosmoShidan no he didnt he needs to be erased from human history.
@@jarrodyuki7081 What the fuck are you talking about? Kant pioneered how science works by proving that reason cannot function without the senses and vice versa. So don't you dare tell me I haven't read Rand you nazi fuck.
She really should've read Kant before she spewed this.
she is a low grade intellectual propped by the media as something great. Kant is the greatest
@@soheil527 Ayn rand is propped up by the media?
I blame Plato.
burn all of kants books and torture his followers fire all professors who teach his philosophy.
@@jarrodyuki7081 No.
@@ThunderChunky101 yes its where I fight or die. theres a reason dictators and autocrats dont allow philosophers to speak in their societies. westerns societies shouldnt either. journalists left wing activists and religious leaders should be caned too burn in hell. psychologists to an extent too.
@@ThunderChunky101the plato forces are the forces of pure evil.
She has some good points in this but doesn't Aristotle also break down reason into seperate categories which allow us to perceive reality? She fails to mention that because Aristotle was her God and rightly so but she is very disingenious intellectual which makes her philosophy unreliable
The Principal Philosophy of Purpose I'm an amateur of philosophy but if I remember correctly, Aristotle regarded the categories as metaphysical attributes, rather than epistemological. Also, I remember Peikoff stating that Rand emphatically disagreed with Aristotle's categories and cosmology. I think that such statement is in his course on history of philosophy.
fruts821 well from what I've read, his categories represented his thinking on analytics or logic. I can see how that's not epistemology but it's also not metaphysics.
She had her criticisms of Aristotle herself but chose him as her base because the core of his Creed was the greatest intellectual acheivement to build a still better Creed off of.
Aristole is Objectivism's stepping stone.
Rand said that Aristotle “based his ethical system on observations of what the noble and wise men of his time chose to do, leaving unanswered the questions of: why they chose to do it and why he evaluated them as noble and wise.”
Yes. Aristotle was wrong on a great many things. Thank goodness Rand points them out.
Aristotle was not her God, only the sole inspiration for her philosophy but it mainly came from her own mind. So it does not matter if Aristotle used categories to perceive reality, it only matters if she does. This is why YOU are disingenuous as an intellectual because you try to make remarks on her philosophy using the philosophy of someone else as the basis. Also, if Aristotle's categorizations of reality are not metaphysics or epistemology, what are they? You don't seem to know what you are talking about whatsoever.
She was a student of N.Lossky, that's why she disagrees with Kant.
Oooh
That is not "why" she disagrees with Kant
Monumental BS!!!!
bs!!!
kill all the descendant of plato and kant.
I think she doesn't like him
Doesn't like HIS philosophy. It goes totally contrary to the use of reason that represents objectivism.
kant is the worst he needs to be erased from human history.
Why is this lady taken seriously? If she’s trying to say that Kant was just offering a rational edifice for Christian virtue, well Nietzsche already did that much more convincingly a century before her, while reminding us that we must moderate both extreme tendencies.
Maybe someone who was brought up in a time of Analytic Philosophy, she doesn’t really understand Kant’s purpose as a philosopher. The noumena is unknowable simply because the mind regards the world with certain phenomenological preconditions, such as time and space. We mustn’t concern ourselves with the noumena, but rather make a general appeal to the free will, elucidated as pure practical reason, in order to overcome (überwinden) this wash of phenomenological constructs.
This rational intuitionism contrasts with contemporary ideas of logical analysis, which do not seek to provide an à priori explanation for the provenance of mental conceptions, but rather a logical and irrefutable deduction of its entailments which conversely, in eschewing the plausibility of another axiom to provide as the conceptual foundation, affirm its sufficiency.
His mathematic philosophy and conceptions of intuitive rationalism are highly idealistic and incompatible with Russel’s and Whitehead’s fervent belief of mathematics as a sub-category of logical deduction, but it still resounds with an abounding faith in the power of human reason above all else, above all qualitative empirical judgements which cannot contend to be as pure and unimpeachable.
Could I ask you to provide some examples from real life, science or etc. which correlates with your understanding of Kant? Thank you.
> The noumena is unknowable
Have you tried focusing your mind?
Kant set forth the fundamental philosophical pillars of classical liberalism which, among other things, she was a partisan of... so...
Kant destroyed the Enlightenment by splittting mind and reality. Now we have Trump, Biden, the many failures of socialism, a return to Christian fantasies, transgender surgeries and Putin. Cause and effect..
kill all kant philosophers.
Full of strawman[s]. Rand obviously did not read Kant's books thoroughly. Kant asserted the noumenal or thing-in-itself [mere thought] is an illusion if reified, albeit a useful illusion for moral purposes but only an ideal and guide. For Kant, what is real is the phenomenal world which can be empirically justified by Science.
As for morality, one must aligns one's duty toward the impossible-to-achieve-ideal [illusory thing-in-itself] which will facilitate continuous moral progress.
With each growing day, science discovers more proof in Kant and less proof in Rand.
How?
@@drsaikiranc Godel's Incompleteness theorem and his analytic-synthetic distinction. Kant firmly expounded the limit of pure reasoning.
Ayn Rand would be easily forgotten each day as modern science advances. She will be remembered as a woman who f*ucked her follower albeit he already had a wife.
nietsche >>>>>>>fyodor.
Bingo
She misunderstands Kants metaphysics, like most philosophers do
The thing is that she ain't no philosopher lol
Kantian deontology, in special his work in the Groundowrk for the Metaphysics of Ehics, is much more complicated than a simple assertion of doubt vis-à-vis the validity of our perceptions under the process of due understading of the world around us. It's a whole chain of thought lying on the most fundamental logical principles known to man, moreover explored by Habermas, Abel and, to an extent, Hoppe, as directly related to language and communicative action.
Ayn Rand was just a visionary with high-time despise for the ignorance of reason and individualism on acting, important men in society. Nothing more.
kant realized, by the help of Humes scepticism of causality etc, that our mental picture is all we know, not what this picture is a "reflection" of. But we do have the mental picture to guide us and that is where both Kant and Rand goes astray. Kant has an agenda that needs to save christianity, Rand thinks that Kant metaphysics means, that nothing can be known. But our mental picture can be known and since we can survive using only this, it is infinetaly more important than "knowing" the real universe, beyond our mental picture
Pavel Lukacko wrong, Kant says that what we “realize” is based on sense data reflected from the things themselves. But since the things themselves is outside the mind and we have no other path to knowledge than sense data (not Kant), then all we know is what we realize. Our realizations are tools to interact with the things themselves
@@Mandibil "Kant says that what we “realize” is based on sense data reflected from the things themselves. But since the things themselves is outside the mind and we have no other path to knowledge than sense data (not Kant), then all we know is what we realize."
This can be PARTIALLY relevant only for the time when Kant lived. As our achievements show, we have different paths to knowledge - technologies, which EXPAND our perceptual senses.
Kant's epistemology was prejudice and mystical - he was a hostage of his technological realms, when the measurement technologies only were starting to born and develop.
I have a mystical revelation that you are right even tho you present no evidence.
nietzche >>>>> than fyodor.
How embarrassing...
kant is blasphemy.
It's funny to hear Rand smear Kant with things he never said or wrote.
Especially when she was apparently afraid to admit that her own 'philosophy' was self-defeating. The end result of Rand's Objectivism is that might makes right. Distilled down, the resources of all of Earth cannot be shared equally, thus someone will end up controlling them and one's rational self-interest must be to control more than someone else. You may not be able to control it all, but the pursuit is what truly matters.
So how do we avoid everyone looking like a complete greedy asshole akin to Ghengis Khan or Alexander the Great?
I know!!! We'll invent a non-aggression principle from thin air! Anyone who violates our completely subjective non-aggression principle is clearly immoral. And that's how we'll frame it! If you disagree with our 'philosophy' even if you present rational thought and reason of your own, you are not just wrong...you're immoral.
You've done it Ayn!!!!
and that's why she has to smear Kant. He presented valid rationale for his thoughts and she can't argue against them to a solid victory. She labels him as evil instead. She labels altruists as evil although not as evil as Kant. A lesser evil.
But were anyone to take her philosophy to it's only reasonable end, they find themselves in the company of the very fascists she claimed to despise.
If you want to be a real Objectivist. You must accept that Might makes Right or risk being usurped by someone who will. Gee, sounds a lot like a certain Soviet premiere who gained power in the 1930s.
> resources of all of Earth cannot be shared equally
Nature is a resource only after man produces something with it. Hong Kong is a big rock , w/few "natural resources" but it may be the most productive per capita economy because it respects mans productive mind. Your passivity destroys man. There is no Garden Of Eden. Man must labor by the sweat of his mind.
@@TeaParty1776 Humans aren't the only creatures on Earth. There are plenty of resources we ignore and others that aren't accessible to us. There are resources that are consumed without us. To imply this rock is wasted without our presence is pretty arrogant. Earth would be fine without us. It was fine without us for billions of years. Productivity is a very subjective term, depending very much on the economic system in use.
@@DriveCarToBar Only man is morally important. Wild nature has no moral value. Its merely a tool for mans life. Morality is a guide to mans life, not to sacrifice. Productivity is an objective need of mans life. Thats why ecofreaky nihilists, w/their lust for destruction. hate it. Capitalism (indvidual rights) is the most productive economy by far. But its not the Garden Of Eden. Life requires a focused mind, the main enemy of ecofreaky nihilists. Changing nature is mans method of survival. And mans life has gotten better the more he changes nature.
@@TeaParty1776 Morally important? To whom? Important to what? Human morality is nothing more than a subjective set of rules conjured up by a society to suit the conditions of the era on which they live.
I don't know who told you that capitalism is the most productive, but it's not. It's incredibly wasteful. It's dependence on competition generates enormous waste and causes much greater scarcity than would otherwise exist. The profit motive alone serves no purpose but to steal the value of a person's labor, diluting that value and forcing them to expend more labor for lesser results. Capitalism by it's very nature enforces hierarchy on humanity which means it can never be synonymous with individual rights. It must restrict the rights of all to benefit the few at the top.
@@DriveCarToBar Modern mainstream morality is socially subjective. But Ayn Rands morality is a guide to surviving in concrete reality, w/society as a lesser concern.
The vast productive superiority of capitallism does not vanish because of the waste thats created. You probably throw away more waste than the productivity created by individuals in non-capitalist economies. Yet, you still benefit from that superior production. Your concern w/waste is a rationalization of the evasion of the vast productive superiority of capitallism.
Every economic history that Ive read says capitalism is the most productive system. Your claim to an anti-capitalist alternative should be immediately be made known to the Leftists who dominate the modern humanities. They will erect a statue in honor of the person who ends their daily embarassment.
Profit is a metaphysical need of life, not merely a property of capitalism. Every living organism must profit from its actions or it dies. Capitalist profit, from its vastly superior production, increasingly benefits vastly more people than other systems. The miserable failures of non-capitalist economies are public record, available instantly from the capitalist tech that you use to to communicate your faith in the Garden Of Eden.
Economic ,non-political, hierarchy is a need of vast, increasing production. Or do you buy a car and gasoline from dishwashers? The greater that another persons production is than yours, the more he sell to you. I suppose tho that you can buy your next shirt from a homeless person rather than Walmart. This hierarchy requires and has historically had individual rights. Equality requires the violation of individual rights to enforce the equality. Mans productive mind requires freedom from the initiation of force.
Look out onto concrete reality, where man focuses his mind to produce wealth, not inward where your wishes produce life without effort. Youre trying to get high without having to pay. Focus your mind.
After he started talking, I became certain that he is a woman. I only read philosophy as a hobby, even I know she doesn't understand Kant's transcendental idealism.
Your words mean nothing without any arguments.
Your post transcends Rand.
Rand expresses a series of non sequiturs:
she claims that through reason we can objectively know the world (makes no sense: each of us has his IMPRESSION of the world).
She then proceeds to define her "morality" as a series of absolutes derived from INDIVIDUAL interpretation.
She then goes on to propose a political and then an economic model derived from premises that she merely "states" to be true.
That is NOT philosophy: its either delusional or a deliberate attempt to deceive.
Read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Philosophy: Who Needs It, and The Virtue of Selfishness and I challenge you will find the case she makes to be hard-irrefutable.
I'm not about to read a whole book: can you give me a line reference or quote. Make your argument.
If it relates to her argument from Aristotle and attempting to refute Kant, her argument does not stand.
Current thinking on cognitive neuroscience indicates that our view of the world is an internal construction resulting from information perceived from our senses. This is in keeping with Kant and in opposition to Rand and Aristotle (A equals A in the real world as Aristotle would have it, but our mind sees it as B and is a SUBJECTIVE knowing of the external world).
Modern science and psychology indicates that our conscious mind is only aware of momentary (filtered?) sensory input depending on switching mental focus, which in no way gives a full "view" of reality.
Even our conception of reason is SUBJECT to the particular individual's experience.
Current scientific thinking tends towards determinism based on the concept of cause and effect (amongst others see Harris and the current debate on the subject of free will). This is also at odds with Rand. Her arguments for free-will are unconvincing.
It is therefore not possible to deduce absolute "values" or "ethics" since these are cultural constructs and are intrinsically therefore SUBJECTIVE.
In my view, basing a philosophy called Objectivism based on direct knowledge of reality, according to the Aristotelian premise of A=A, fails at first base.
Rand attempts to "deduce" absolute purpose or reason for existence from her (mistaken) belief that her "objective" view of reality permits her to do so: pursuit of happiness, [collectivism = evil], [altruism = evil], property rights, [absolute values and ethics] etc. In my view this is totally mistaken and delusory. In many cases, Rand's views of morality are essentially personal views and bias, seemingly stemming from her own, rather abnormal, psychological profile.
These basic tenets of Rand's thinking do not hold (objective contact with reality, derived absolutist ethics and values, free will): their extension towards philosophy, politics and economics are therefore not worthwhile, since the basic foundation is suspect.
Based on evolutionary theory and cognitive psychology, I would say that we are driven, not to pursue happiness, but to survive, using a synthesis of individual and group behaviour.
You're so off the track, that it's not possible to correct you.
@Bjorn Hagen
You are not making an argument.
Yes, I know.
the categorical imperative must be burned!!!!!
Rand's 'ideas' have been a major influence on the greed-is-good cult that emerged during the end of her lifetime. Her philosophy -- and her acolytes such as Alan Greenspan and Milton Friedman -- have eaten away at our moral behavior for my entire adult life. I'm revisiting Kant right now and find that his ideas provide a needed counterbalance to her corrosive philosophy.
Her ideas did not influence the greed is good culture. She did not preach greed or selfishness with the exploitation of others.
Her goal was to untangle our confusion about the meaning of self-interest. What she offered is a whole new concept of selfishness, in which every man *is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others.* Each man *must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.*
Pseudo-philosopher Ayn Rand couldn't accept that Kant disrupted and anticipated her illusions so she couldn't love peacefully with her absolute egoism and selfish immorality
"selfish immorality"
Talk about an oxymoron...
Go actually inform yourself about Objectivism - or stay an ignoramus, at your own peril.
@@exnihilonihilfit6316😂 You are so stupid that you can't even recognize which combination of words represent an oxymoron, you brainless monkey😂. Why don't you go back to school and learn how ro read before you open your mouth again, dumbass!?
@@oioi9372 Someone got their feelings hurt. Being called ignorant about a subject you know little or nothing about is not an insult; it is a statement of fact.
@@johnnynick3621 only people that got their feelings hurt here are the ones that got triggered by my comment on a woman that was triggered by Kant, namely, cunts. Glad to hear that guys still suck on Rand's tits, but I have a news for you: you need your mommy so bad that you wish that she ever gave birth to a child, but her cunt was just destined not to ever produce anything conscious or rational. Suck up that drool kids, you're a followers of pseudo intellectual witch, which instead of magic pulled out a trick of appearing important for philosophical tradition. Facts speak for themselves; no real brains there, so the case is that she isn't.
Ah yes, illusions such as "existence exists" and "the senses are the base of all knowledge".
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
Ridiculous. Orc lovers think the state owes them a living, as if food must merely be commanded to exist, or sung into existence.
How someone so utterly ignorant and misguided was able to reach so many people is a mystery to me.
He was embracing a primordial, pre-human consciousness that he was born with.
@@cyco_speak3312 I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you read is not what I meant.
@@zamkam I had a suspicion you were referring to Rand, and not Kant (:
Seriously, did my response shed any light on this "mystery" of yours?
@@cyco_speak3312 How can a response based on a misinterpreted statement shed any light on it?
Ignorant how? Misguided in what way?
If you want to see what the world is like 100 years after the human race has fully adopted objectivism is like, just watch Mad Max: Fury Road
Congrats! You managed to create a false dichotomy, strawman, and slippery slope logical fallacies with one sentence.
ekpurdy oh wow you’ve waited a long time to use those words haven’t you?
And you just doubled down on statements with no factual basis and zero substance. Try again. Try to make a semi-intelligent statement that has some content.
ekpurdy no. I choose to troll you.
Being a troll is different than failing to make an intelligent point. Try again.
She's got it all backwards.
Can you explain?
As a survivor of two Communists regimes I have to say, I have no sympathy nor any appreciation for Ayn Rand's work...it's at the same level as Comic Books.
you should oppose plato and kant!!!!!!!!! not ayn rand!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@@jarrodyuki7081 Mate shut the hell up wanking your mouth all around the comment section