Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand digs deep into faith and reason in this series of 1979 clips from the Phil Donahue Show and The Tom Snyder show. http:Libertypen.com
I'm a guy that watches a lot of Ben Shapiro's shows, PJW, Jordan Peterson etc. so you can imagine what my political views are. Ayn Rand helped me see that conservatism is not a steady term and it is not always the best theory for a society model. I agree on everything she says about the market freedom and the invisible hand and still keep learning a lot from this channel's videos. When I first saw her interviews I had an internal conflict of whether should I start believing in God or not, so she helped a lot. Right now, living in a very religious country with mostly left wing political views I feel like a total outcast, but boy I really don't care because facts and reason can never be wrong! Thanks Ayn and LibertyPen!It really means a lot!
It's that guy again like a user commented here she has a spiritual view but it's not Mystical. Meaning she's no disciple of mysterium. Have you heard of Michael Tsarion?
Conservativism, traditionalism are ideas rooted in Mysticism, that is, hyper religiousity, outdated systems and nigh on harmful superstitions in addition to crass collectivisn that seeks to restrict the rights of the individual. It champions irrationality and faith and bemoans, greatly hates innovation and the pursuit of individual delights(See the prohibitionists and the Moral majority), viewing gratification as demonic. It is a movement seeped in romanticism like an ox sinking in quicksand.
I'm always glad to see Rand's atheism turn off people who agree with her stances on Economics, but never really got or paid attention to her philosophy. A core theme in Rand's philosophy is pointing out where the Classical Liberal Thinkers of the Enlightenment went wrong. And where she ultimately thinks they went wrong, was not completely annihilating faith as the source of morality and ethics in philosophy. This is why she holds Kant in contempt so much because he is responsible for the modern day compromise between faith and reason (reason = empirical, scientific etc, whereas religion/faith = emotions, ideals). This is also why Rand criticized conservatism, when she realized how dependent it was on faith/religion. She realized that in order to be a conservative you had to reject the optimistic and idealistic view of human nature and progress, since to be religious requires one to also believe that humanity is evil and only accomplishes good based off the mercy or intervention of God or some other source outside of human grasp or reason. An idea that is a spit in the face in regards to the age of reason.
I would love to hear what she had to say today also. but when she said, "The reason I don't believe in God is because I don't want to destroy reason.", is because religion is based on faith, and not reason. If God were proven by science, by objective reason, she would accept a God, as it would be probable nature.
The older I get, the more I realize that Ayn Rand got a lot of things right...I was shamed for liking her in high school, but as I go back to listen to her with 30 something ears, I am astounded by the quality of her moral philosophy.
She is truly one of the greatest proponents of a morality that does not require a religious basis. It is in our nature to do what is best for us, therefore, what is best for everything and everyone around us.
I think religion is more of a convenient route, where as philosophy as a whole is more of an adventurous route, this being said leading human beings to non thinking closed minded existence. Although religion is an immense significance in history, I think it has also distorted humaness and decency.
You know, Ayn Rand has a major calmness to that first interview guy in the 70s in this video, as man, I do not like his strawmen consinsending foolishness. Reminds me of a certain British presenter that often being condescending and patronising behaviour. My respects to Ayn Rand.
But, Ayn! What about the imminent Christo-Nazi takeover by The Trumpenfuehrer??? "Novelist Ayn Rand declared Corpus Hypercubus to be her favorite painting, and she would spend hours contemplating it at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. She felt a connection between John Galt's defiance over his spiritual ordeal in her novel Atlas Shrugged and Dalí's portrayal of Christ in the painting."
SHe would have considered him a con artist, and a fascist… I suggest you read The Ominous Parallels, by his intellectual heir Leonard Peikoff, and you will see that we are reenacting the Weimar Republic GLOBALLY.
We Have a Dictator in the WHITE HOUSE his name Joe Biden,His Emperor is Nancy Pelosi,she rules with other sith Lords George Soros,These people are evil.
I would have loved to narrow it down with her, because organised religion she's against yet being moral with logic and reason is a form of spiritual reflection and being. Her and Bruce Lee have quite a bit in common.
Life Sucks yet in her works some of her character display a benevolent aspect that goes against the status quo of the other characters, thus their integrity and morality is different and inwardly a lot more pure of what a human being should be. Selfhood perhaps is the better word yet the word psyche in Greek means mind but also Soul, in her work there's a psychological aspect. Have you heard of Bruno Bettelheim book Freud and Man's Soul?
so her theory is better to be called dialectic objectivism and dialectic is a more important word here. i don't want to hurt her, but she is right to be wrong. since most literary and erudite persons are optimistic to humanity.
How does the experience of love relate to reason? Is it simply a matter of reason? Can reason really be helpful if emotions are entirely disregarded? She makes strong points, but it is what she leaves out that bothers me. Reason and logic is based on tautology, yet the experience of existence is much more than this.
Ayn Rand’s philosophy us about tangible, here and now reality, there is nothing else. Values are the things that make you powerful against destruction, that make you survive to live another day under the sun. Reason, and its corollaries, Science and technology, solve problems, make mankind stronger against nature, and give an advantage against the next problem to solve. Emotions are only the results of ideas; fear, hopelessness, sadness are, in the long run, the logical aftermath of a mystical, irrational mind, even if it feels joy or “enlightenment” all the way, when it faces reality as it is. Notice the difference between the student who studies from day one and the one who, by believing there is enough time to study for the test, frantically tries to cram the whole semester the day before, or worse, a mystical student who believe the answers will be revealed to him or her by meditation/prayer/incantation (which also means the student believes on his powerlessness on working towards a degree on his or her own… that is, low self-esteem). Reason is the way to actual enlightenment, the knowledge that you took all the actions needed to procure your food, shelter, and clothing, and those needed to better your lot in life.
@@guillermosahuquillo4499 As it is not possible to get an ought from any is, morality has nothing to do with reason. Her tricky attempt here is to assert something general equating "strong" with "good", without giving any rational grounding in it. So, no, her move here doesn't work and any philosopher who looks into it honestly will agree.
@@konberner170 In her book, The Virtue of Selfishness, she connects the is-ought gap by identifying that source of our concept of value only comes from those entities which face the possibility of death. A rock has no values, but a tree does. Your pet dog has values but not it's chew toy. For man, ethics is a question of if you want something you must enact the cause. Your ultimate value is your life. To know how to live you must understand your nature. She then goes to identify the primary virtue is Rationality. From that if you choose to live, you must hold as supreme values Reason, Purpose and Self-esteem. You achieve these values by implementing the virtues of rationality, honesty, independence, justice, productiveness, and pride. Hobbes, Hume, Kant and Hegel were wrong. There is a way to connect values to facts.
@@BalugaWhale37 Nope. Simple refutation. Note that you you asked "IF" you want to choose to live, and that is then the basis. This is then not a fact, but a choice. Of course one CAN select oughts, and Hume even suggested that he would do so, but there is no fact in nature that supports oughts. Rand was wrong, I just proved it, feel free to try to challenge the obvious here.
@@BalugaWhale37 To be clear while life is indeed a fact of nature, so is death. The goal to keep living, or deciding who else may or may not do so, will be a personal choice, not a fact of nature.
Psalm 8:3-6 says; “When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?“ God did create the heavens and the earth, and He is a God of order, not chaos (1 Corinthians 14:33). We also know that “to be absent from the body is to be present before the Lord…” 2 Corinthians 5:8. She knows of His existence now.
When I compare the success and failures of history, anti-god zeal is far more destructive than pro-god zeal. The values we enjoy in libertine societies never once came from their philosophy. Alway, always they come from one stream of thought. "Service to God is service to fellow man, self sacrifice in service to fellow man without regard for reward in this life paved the way to values which ensure peaceful coexistence."
The facts are literally the opposite. I'm sorry you can't mentally cope with men not living in service to each other. I hope you may someday get quality help and escape your fantasy land.
Oh, I don't know. Maybe Mouist China, Polpot's killing fields, and yes Russia's Bulshivik revolution. Only the largest genocides in recorded history. So religious violence has more history because they've been around longer, but per ideology per year existing, atheism far outstrips any single religion including Islam in perpetrating violence on it's own population much less the populations of competitor nations and/or ideologies. God is not the enemy of science. Maybe some of his followers are but they do not have the corner on that particular market.
>atheism far outstrips any single religion including Islam in perpetrating violence on it's own population much less the populations of competitor nations and/or ideologies. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. First of all, atheism encompasses literally everything that isn't theism, that is belief in a diety. You just can't make a generalization like that without putting the religion-atheism issue as the ESSENTIAL ISSUE when it comes to violence. If that wasn't your belief, then you'd maybe consider other factors like whether the despotic societies you're talking about were following an ethic of altruism, whether they considered human beings disposable to some other end, whether they had the means to a brutal dictatorship as opposed to the middle ages when there was far less coordination, etc. You're not talking about any of that though, you're regarding their religious beliefs as the most important. So when you say that atheism more destructive than religion, you're really making the opposite statement - that religious societies are by their nature far more peaceful than any other (possible) kinds of societies. Care to argue for that particular statement, or do you realize you're full of it?
LFTR is John G.A.L.T.. Freedoms (spirit of light) product and only fortification from terror (spirit of dark) is advancement. Heart of advancement is energy. Life is light.
From Tom Snyder to Sean Hannity ! It wasn't paradise . They weren't perfect but I miss Snyder. Donahue Koppell , Reasoner , Chancellor, Cronkite and so forth . Yes i know this is about Ayn Rand but look how Snyder and Donahue engage her . I have to agree with Bill Maher , We as a Nation are going backwards and the Left is just as responsible for this as the Right !
SunEagle Cherokee Aye never role up your Soul out people will walk all over you like a red carpet. Hence that there's a skill use of persona and ego as in confidence but always keep in check the other layers of Psyche. Psyche does mean mind but also Soul. Bruno Bettelheim book Freud and Man's Soul.
Is here anyone who saw heard felt god? I can't proof that there is no God, but I can proof that there wasn't a God hearable watchable noticable in all the places I have been in the 40 years of my life.
The golden ratio is a fundamental proof of a powerful law that governs the universe that can be nothing less than god. There is absolutely no proof that god exists but existence itself as it is self evident that existence is governed by law. Ayn appears to need a selfie with god before she is willing to concede to any claims that god exists.
Despite not having a god, Objectivism is just as arbitrary as any other philosophy. I don't get how objectivists let this fly over their head. They can't prove that anything they say matters matters.
Where do you get that idea? If you take existence exists and your life is the standard as arbitrary, then what do you take as objective? What would you even regard as proof of anything?
"If you take existence exists and your life is the standard as arbitrary, then what do you take as objective? " I think there's a language barrier here when we address this issue. It's not that both sides on this debate deny the objectivity of reality. We of course have to assume it. The only question is: on which worldview does the objective truth we know from reality make sense? If your worldview is fundamentally contradictory to objective reality, it cannot be true. That's why Saul Spanco says that her philosophy is "arbitrary."
I'm with Mr. Thornback on this one. You're using a concept without understanding what it means. Arbitrary means in the absence of reason, but then what do you regard as reasonable? What's this standard of objectivity you're comparing Objectivism to, and saying it doesn't measure up to that standard? How can you even say the words you're saying without accepting Objectivism's basic axioms?
I liked Atlas Shrugged, but I also like the bible....... do what you will, but lets agree to not use the government to control/regulate/force "us" to conform to "my" views. LibertyPen..... there are lots of liberty lovers who are people of faith. How about trying to work together, instead of trying to divide (for cheap likes)
Clearly he believes that it would be better if libertarians were all atheists and I agree. I doubt he did it for likes, the majority of Americans are religious.
And I think that's a serious problem. Evolution and the laws of physics define reality without the need to believe in any spiritual mumbo jumbo. There is no justifiable reason to believe in life after death or intelligent design. There is not one shred of evidence for either. We have to stop saying that belief in fairy tales is okay. I would never vote for a religious person. Agnostics are almost as bad because they placate religion.
rankandvile agree because Jesus even said to arm yourself with the sword of Truth therefore to get to this point logic and reason forge the Truth. As long as one can see the Bible for what it is like Tolkien has and many great people and yet produced great works then it's OK.
Rand was not a truth seekers. Actually she was an unhappy person, not that her observation about ethics and economic theory are wrong. I felt she had an inner unhappiness that her great accomplishments never 'dissolved'. She was very capable of 'self delusion' I didn't personally know her, but did meet her, the Brandons, Frank O'Conner and Greenspan. I was young and the alternatives at the time were very bleak. Like I left Christianity, I left the Objectives. She on balance was more right than wrong.
Funny, the person in the video does not appear to be unhappy. She seems entirely at peace and very wise. And she comes across as entirely warm and life giving to me.
I would guess that the backing of the "Roman Empire or conquerors" would have been one of the last things on Ayn Rand's mind. You need to do some homework!
I'm a guy that watches a lot of Ben Shapiro's shows, PJW, Jordan Peterson etc. so you can imagine what my political views are. Ayn Rand helped me see that conservatism is not a steady term and it is not always the best theory for a society model. I agree on everything she says about the market freedom and the invisible hand and still keep learning a lot from this channel's videos. When I first saw her interviews I had an internal conflict of whether should I start believing in God or not, so she helped a lot. Right now, living in a very religious country with mostly left wing political views I feel like a total outcast, but boy I really don't care because facts and reason can never be wrong! Thanks Ayn and LibertyPen!It really means a lot!
It's that guy again like a user commented here she has a spiritual view but it's not Mystical. Meaning she's no disciple of mysterium. Have you heard of Michael Tsarion?
I wouldn’t call her a “conservative” she had a lot of distaste for social conservatives and the religious right.
You should check out Stefan Molyneux. He is friends with PJW and has Ayn Rand as one of his greatest inspirations.
Conservativism, traditionalism are ideas rooted in Mysticism, that is, hyper religiousity, outdated systems and nigh on harmful superstitions in addition to crass collectivisn that seeks to restrict the rights of the individual. It champions irrationality and faith and bemoans, greatly hates innovation and the pursuit of individual delights(See the prohibitionists and the Moral majority), viewing gratification as demonic. It is a movement seeped in romanticism like an ox sinking in quicksand.
She rejected all kinds of collectivism, including religion. "Mystics of muscle and spirit" are the same, after all.
I'm always glad to see Rand's atheism turn off people who agree with her stances on Economics, but never really got or paid attention to her philosophy.
A core theme in Rand's philosophy is pointing out where the Classical Liberal Thinkers of the Enlightenment went wrong. And where she ultimately thinks they went wrong, was not completely annihilating faith as the source of morality and ethics in philosophy. This is why she holds Kant in contempt so much because he is responsible for the modern day compromise between faith and reason (reason = empirical, scientific etc, whereas religion/faith = emotions, ideals).
This is also why Rand criticized conservatism, when she realized how dependent it was on faith/religion. She realized that in order to be a conservative you had to reject the optimistic and idealistic view of human nature and progress, since to be religious requires one to also believe that humanity is evil and only accomplishes good based off the mercy or intervention of God or some other source outside of human grasp or reason. An idea that is a spit in the face in regards to the age of reason.
Not just atheism, but anti-theism. It's good to see an anti-theist philosophy that's not communism.
You type and communicate in a way that makes it impossible to follow.
Man. Everytime I listen to her, I’m blown away. She was the best. I wish I would have been alive to meet her.
Damon Hage or find a woman like her and keep the culture going.
SunEagle Cherokee quite a thick Russian accent.
I would love to hear what she had to say today also. but when she said, "The reason I don't believe in God is because I don't want to destroy reason.", is because religion is based on faith, and not reason. If God were proven by science, by objective reason, she would accept a God, as it would be probable nature.
"provable nature".
^Cringe
The older I get, the more I realize that Ayn Rand got a lot of things right...I was shamed for liking her in high school, but as I go back to listen to her with 30 something ears, I am astounded by the quality of her moral philosophy.
She is truly one of the greatest proponents of a morality that does not require a religious basis. It is in our nature to do what is best for us, therefore, what is best for everything and everyone around us.
04:30 people. I love how she processes everything and has the answer ready.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."
George Washington
I think religion is more of a convenient route, where as philosophy as a whole is more of an adventurous route, this being said leading human beings to non thinking closed minded existence. Although religion is an immense significance in history, I think it has also distorted humaness and decency.
Ayn Rand is the best.
Thank Donahue for having her.
Love Rand. A genius and lover of mankind. She deserved a lot more of love in return when she was alive.
You know, Ayn Rand has a major calmness to that first interview guy in the 70s in this video, as man, I do not like his strawmen consinsending foolishness. Reminds me of a certain British presenter that often being condescending and patronising behaviour.
My respects to Ayn Rand.
and people in the Audience were listening. Think about our era now. Sad and pathetic.
" The best way to deal with the poor is don't be one of them"
But, Ayn! What about the imminent Christo-Nazi takeover by The Trumpenfuehrer???
"Novelist Ayn Rand declared Corpus Hypercubus to be her favorite painting, and she would spend hours contemplating it at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. She felt a connection between John Galt's defiance over his spiritual ordeal in her novel Atlas Shrugged and Dalí's portrayal of Christ in the painting."
SHe would have considered him a con artist, and a fascist… I suggest you read The Ominous Parallels, by his intellectual heir Leonard Peikoff, and you will see that we are reenacting the Weimar Republic GLOBALLY.
We Have a Dictator in the WHITE HOUSE his name Joe Biden,His Emperor is Nancy Pelosi,she rules with other sith Lords George Soros,These people are evil.
I would have loved to narrow it down with her, because organised religion she's against yet being moral with logic and reason is a form of spiritual reflection and being. Her and Bruce Lee have quite a bit in common.
Ethics is a science, it is not spiritual in any way.
Life Sucks yet in her works some of her character display a benevolent aspect that goes against the status quo of the other characters, thus their integrity and morality is different and inwardly a lot more pure of what a human being should be. Selfhood perhaps is the better word yet the word psyche in Greek means mind but also Soul, in her work there's a psychological aspect. Have you heard of Bruno Bettelheim book Freud and Man's Soul?
Let's say she has a vision that's spiritual but not mystical.
dranelemakol aye agree.
She's arguing with children.
What she is essentially saying I'm God.
yes, and so is everybody else, if only they knew. It's like Buddhism: everybody is a buddha, but few people know they are.
so her theory is better to be called dialectic objectivism and dialectic is a more important word here.
i don't want to hurt her, but she is right to be wrong. since most literary and erudite persons are optimistic to humanity.
How does the experience of love relate to reason? Is it simply a matter of reason? Can reason really be helpful if emotions are entirely disregarded? She makes strong points, but it is what she leaves out that bothers me. Reason and logic is based on tautology, yet the experience of existence is much more than this.
Ayn Rand’s philosophy us about tangible, here and now reality, there is nothing else. Values are the things that make you powerful against destruction, that make you survive to live another day under the sun. Reason, and its corollaries, Science and technology, solve problems, make mankind stronger against nature, and give an advantage against the next problem to solve. Emotions are only the results of ideas; fear, hopelessness, sadness are, in the long run, the logical aftermath of a mystical, irrational mind, even if it feels joy or “enlightenment” all the way, when it faces reality as it is. Notice the difference between the student who studies from day one and the one who, by believing there is enough time to study for the test, frantically tries to cram the whole semester the day before, or worse, a mystical student who believe the answers will be revealed to him or her by meditation/prayer/incantation (which also means the student believes on his powerlessness on working towards a degree on his or her own… that is, low self-esteem). Reason is the way to actual enlightenment, the knowledge that you took all the actions needed to procure your food, shelter, and clothing, and those needed to better your lot in life.
@@guillermosahuquillo4499 As it is not possible to get an ought from any is, morality has nothing to do with reason. Her tricky attempt here is to assert something general equating "strong" with "good", without giving any rational grounding in it. So, no, her move here doesn't work and any philosopher who looks into it honestly will agree.
@@konberner170 In her book, The Virtue of Selfishness, she connects the is-ought gap by identifying that source of our concept of value only comes from those entities which face the possibility of death. A rock has no values, but a tree does. Your pet dog has values but not it's chew toy. For man, ethics is a question of if you want something you must enact the cause. Your ultimate value is your life. To know how to live you must understand your nature. She then goes to identify the primary virtue is Rationality. From that if you choose to live, you must hold as supreme values Reason, Purpose and Self-esteem. You achieve these values by implementing the virtues of rationality, honesty, independence, justice, productiveness, and pride. Hobbes, Hume, Kant and Hegel were wrong. There is a way to connect values to facts.
@@BalugaWhale37 Nope. Simple refutation. Note that you you asked "IF" you want to choose to live, and that is then the basis. This is then not a fact, but a choice. Of course one CAN select oughts, and Hume even suggested that he would do so, but there is no fact in nature that supports oughts. Rand was wrong, I just proved it, feel free to try to challenge the obvious here.
@@BalugaWhale37 To be clear while life is indeed a fact of nature, so is death. The goal to keep living, or deciding who else may or may not do so, will be a personal choice, not a fact of nature.
Psalm 8:3-6 says; “When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?“ God did create the heavens and the earth, and He is a God of order, not chaos (1 Corinthians 14:33). We also know that “to be absent from the body is to be present before the Lord…” 2 Corinthians 5:8.
She knows of His existence now.
Lot offered his daughters sex slaves to group of men! Lot had sex with his daughters (Genesis 19:) Jesus Christ is not coming back!!
When I compare the success and failures of history, anti-god zeal is far more destructive than pro-god zeal. The values we enjoy in libertine societies never once came from their philosophy. Alway, always they come from one stream of thought. "Service to God is service to fellow man, self sacrifice in service to fellow man without regard for reward in this life paved the way to values which ensure peaceful coexistence."
The facts are literally the opposite. I'm sorry you can't mentally cope with men not living in service to each other. I hope you may someday get quality help and escape your fantasy land.
Revolutionary france
Oh, I don't know. Maybe Mouist China, Polpot's killing fields, and yes Russia's Bulshivik revolution. Only the largest genocides in recorded history. So religious violence has more history because they've been around longer, but per ideology per year existing, atheism far outstrips any single religion including Islam in perpetrating violence on it's own population much less the populations of competitor nations and/or ideologies. God is not the enemy of science. Maybe some of his followers are but they do not have the corner on that particular market.
>atheism far outstrips any single religion including Islam in perpetrating violence on it's own population much less the populations of competitor nations and/or ideologies.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. First of all, atheism encompasses literally everything that isn't theism, that is belief in a diety. You just can't make a generalization like that without putting the religion-atheism issue as the ESSENTIAL ISSUE when it comes to violence. If that wasn't your belief, then you'd maybe consider other factors like whether the despotic societies you're talking about were following an ethic of altruism, whether they considered human beings disposable to some other end, whether they had the means to a brutal dictatorship as opposed to the middle ages when there was far less coordination, etc. You're not talking about any of that though, you're regarding their religious beliefs as the most important.
So when you say that atheism more destructive than religion, you're really making the opposite statement - that religious societies are by their nature far more peaceful than any other (possible) kinds of societies.
Care to argue for that particular statement, or do you realize you're full of it?
dranelemakol Obviously, you have some historical examples of atheist motivated peaceful leadership I have not been introduced to. So please inform me.
LFTR is John G.A.L.T.. Freedoms (spirit of light) product and only fortification from terror (spirit of dark) is advancement. Heart of advancement is energy. Life is light.
From Tom Snyder to Sean Hannity ! It wasn't paradise . They weren't perfect but I miss Snyder. Donahue Koppell , Reasoner , Chancellor, Cronkite and so forth . Yes i know this is about Ayn Rand but look how Snyder and Donahue engage her . I have to agree with Bill Maher , We as a Nation are going backwards and the Left is just as responsible for this as the Right !
The purpose of life is to help others that deserve help. Government is evil
Michael Onstad nobody deserves help.
Michael Onstad There have been good, bad, and ugly governments the sane with monarchy.
SunEagle Cherokee Aye never role up your Soul out people will walk all over you like a red carpet. Hence that there's a skill use of persona and ego as in confidence but always keep in check the other layers of Psyche. Psyche does mean mind but also Soul. Bruno Bettelheim book Freud and Man's Soul.
Is here anyone who saw heard felt god?
I can't proof that there is no God, but I can proof that there wasn't a God hearable watchable noticable in all the places I have been in the 40 years of my life.
The golden ratio is a fundamental proof of a powerful law that governs the universe that can be nothing less than god. There is absolutely no proof that god exists but existence itself as it is self evident that existence is governed by law. Ayn appears to need a selfie with god before she is willing to concede to any claims that god exists.
Order is a man made concept. You can't use it as proof of anything
entjs always hate infjs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Despite not having a god, Objectivism is just as arbitrary as any other philosophy. I don't get how objectivists let this fly over their head. They can't prove that anything they say matters matters.
Where do you get that idea?
If you take existence exists and your life is the standard as arbitrary, then what do you take as objective? What would you even regard as proof of anything?
It is clear that you haven't read the objectivist literature. Otherwise, you'd say that the proof is not sufficient and why.
"If you take existence exists and your life is the standard as arbitrary, then what do you take as objective? "
I think there's a language barrier here when we address this issue. It's not that both sides on this debate deny the objectivity of reality. We of course have to assume it. The only question is: on which worldview does the objective truth we know from reality make sense? If your worldview is fundamentally contradictory to objective reality, it cannot be true.
That's why Saul Spanco says that her philosophy is "arbitrary."
I'm with Mr. Thornback on this one. You're using a concept without understanding what it means. Arbitrary means in the absence of reason, but then what do you regard as reasonable? What's this standard of objectivity you're comparing Objectivism to, and saying it doesn't measure up to that standard? How can you even say the words you're saying without accepting Objectivism's basic axioms?
I liked Atlas Shrugged, but I also like the bible....... do what you will, but lets agree to not use the government to control/regulate/force "us" to conform to "my" views. LibertyPen..... there are lots of liberty lovers who are people of faith. How about trying to work together, instead of trying to divide (for cheap likes)
Clearly he believes that it would be better if libertarians were all atheists and I agree. I doubt he did it for likes, the majority of Americans are religious.
Life Sucks Actually a there are a lot of us Secular folks who think like Tom Snyder . i echo his sentiments .
And I think that's a serious problem. Evolution and the laws of physics define reality without the need to believe in any spiritual mumbo jumbo. There is no justifiable reason to believe in life after death or intelligent design. There is not one shred of evidence for either. We have to stop saying that belief in fairy tales is okay. I would never vote for a religious person. Agnostics are almost as bad because they placate religion.
rankandvile agree because Jesus even said to arm yourself with the sword of Truth therefore to get to this point logic and reason forge the Truth. As long as one can see the Bible for what it is like Tolkien has and many great people and yet produced great works then it's OK.
Rand was not a truth seekers. Actually she was an unhappy person, not that
her observation about ethics and economic theory are wrong.
I felt she had an inner unhappiness that her great accomplishments
never 'dissolved'. She was very capable of 'self delusion'
I didn't personally know her, but did meet her, the Brandons, Frank O'Conner
and Greenspan. I was young and the alternatives at the time were very bleak.
Like I left Christianity, I left the Objectives. She on balance was more right
than wrong.
Funny, the person in the video does not appear to be unhappy. She seems entirely at peace and very wise. And she comes across as entirely warm and life giving to me.
she was a racist to the extreme.. just listen to her talk about Arabs
Ayn sounded a lot like the Dali Lama, she wasn't as good at the soft sell though.
Disappointing! I understand better now why objectivism did not catch on
Objectivism didn't have the backing of the Roman Empire or conquerors to spread as fast as Christianity has done and did.
I would guess that the backing of the "Roman Empire or conquerors" would have been one of the last things on Ayn Rand's mind. You need to do some homework!
Realy selfies U only live for the greater self take the earth and distroy it , sorry to say this women had bad live and dying
You are so right. These people need to stop "distroying" the earth with their selfies. Bang on mate.
That's a man with a wig.
The rabbit hole runs deep.