@@Jazzper79 Jake Jake is right though. It is painful to watch how both the interviewer and Ayn Rand fail to grasp some basic concepts of the philosophy of Nietzsche. After his jumbled introduction representing the ideas of Nietzsche, I expected her to start off by correcting his misinterpretations but she was fully on board. A few basic mistakes: Nietzsche doesn't divide people into masters and slaves. He distinguishes between a master and slave morality. A morality is something you can adopt for yourself, no one has to be stuck in a slave morality. The Übermensch is an idea of an ever more ideal man of the future, there are no Übermenschen in this world. It is incorrect to say Nietzsche rejects the Apollonian (reason / the objective...) and only embraces the Dionysian (the instinctive / subjective / emotions...). There is an interplay between the two.
What I got out of Atlas Shrugged was that one must do for one's self without sacrificing others or being sacrificed to their ends. I saw that people were either geniuses or the Hoi pilloi.
I never interpreted the Übermensch as being such by birth, like Rand did it. However, Nietsche gave examples of Übermenschen like Caesar or Napoleon, which Rand would have interpreted as "parasites" (and rightly so).
This is amazing! Ayn is the most wonderful philosopher and I was so excited to find this! I wish more people understood that she is right about everything and the world should follow her teachings if people want to live long and prosper as free individuals.
jeep2386 cause most people are very dumb and tend to accept the lowest forms of understanding pushed by the fake media and gets their cues from their shallow social surroundings
Uthrashone - To follow Objectivism goes against the idea of it. To be an Objectivist you have to recognize reason as your main virtue, and to put it against everything until you are satisfied, most important of all, Objectivism itself (if you're an Objectivist). This is to teach you how to fish instead of giving you a fish. Because if this, Objectivism mustn't be followed, but scrutinized until either accepted by your reasoning, or proving Objectivism wrong (to which case Objectivism will happily change as it hold reality as the ultimate standard of evaluation).
I would counter argue that Neitzche is the ultimate individualist. He urges each one of us to break free of all restrictive ethical and moral boundaries set by society and religion in order to live our live to the fullest and most creative way and to reach our full potential (Ubermensch). I mean that sounds pretty personal to me
@@ariskythreotis9725 The problem with idolising ''breaking free'' is that you'll ultimately break free from reality itsself. That's why I think Rand is more of an individualist than Nietzsche. Her individualism is based on a rational approach to existence and human nature, not the feeling of a will to power.
The altruist morality makes people hate her as she was an upholder of rational egoism. They don't bother to understand what she is saying. To me, noone makes philosophy as understandable as her!
@ I would highly recommend you read the book 'The Virtue of Selfishness' to get some of the understanding. It is a deep subject, but the more you study it, the more it makes sense, and you realize that altruism is selfdestroying. But you must remember that rational egoism does not mean you should not help others and be a cold fish, it means: do you have the right to exist for your own sake without being a sacrificial animal for others - that is where the line has to be drawn. But read the book.
@ I don't answer your question, because it cannot be answered in a sentence and thereby you will understand it. The question is, do you want to learn and understand or are you on the attack mode and want to rationalize everything? - You would not expect to understand algebra in a sentence, so why are you doing the same to philosophy? I notice you write that you only read some of Atlas Shrugged, and you found it boring. Why did you find it boring? - I think you missed A LOT from your "reading". I know I am an invididual and so are everyone else - and that means, they need to work together with mutual agreement, and not through force which altruism suggest.
@ Altruism means "placing the interest of other above your own" - and it was first used by Auguste Comte - Rand did study this more than anyone. Altruism is a part of mysticism and the german philosopher Emmanuel Kant and he really made it worse than ever. Jeep23862 - if you want to argue, perhaps you should study the history and the consequences of what the morality leads to before you argue about politics. Who has the power? - It really tells me you don't have a clue about objectivism and again, you expect it to answered in a sentence. You should read Capitalism the Unknown ideal and understand that under laissez-faire capitalism, no individual is allowed to used force against other individuals, and it is the job of the government to protect the citizens under objective defined laws. Who has the power? - Reality has the power, and if man does not want to be responsible, then reality will hurt him by his own fault. But that does not mean a rational man does not want to help poor people.
@ Guy, you don't get the philosophy at all and you cannot change the meaning of words according to your own whim. Altruism means what it means - it means "other-ism - it does not mean just kindness. Kindness it a great thing, altruism is not a great thing. - And I don't want to argue with you. If you want to get smarter, then study Ayn Rand.
Wow... I'd be surprised if either of these two ever read so much as a full paragraph of Neitzsche's work. Honestly, you could read nothing more than his Wikipedia summary and you'd have a better grasp of his work than Rand and host
Nietzsche is miles ahead of Rand. The mind can not fathom reality. Objectivism is just another belief. Nietzsche goes to the root of human psychology while Rand is stuck in superficial reasoning.
I LOVE Ayn Rand, she really changed my world view and was the first philosopher I got interested in, but she has a poor understanding of Nietzsche. Which is I sort of get why, the way in which they teach their philosophy is different, and in Beyond Good and Evil Nietzsche states that he is purposely trying to make it seem like he's a little nuts and stuff, but he he also says that you must look under the mask to truly understand what he's saying. He also talks about a new type of philosopher, and I believe Rand is exactly that.
+liam shope Nietzsche came out of a grand Romantic philosophy...he was a supreme ironist...in other words what we SAY might have a REALITY in the UNSAID, so what we MEAN might be the opposite of what we say....Ms Rand spent her life trying to understand her OWN LITERALISM, because that is what ALL philosophy is to her...OBJECTIVISM is a dumbing down of the ancient Greeks, and attempts to tell the believer that they know more than they really know, without reading very much
Thank you, i am a fan of neither but I hope Soren was being satirical. but for Soren - I'm saying your are full of it, but what i don't say is you are on the money, so clearly what i did not say is what you should take away as true as it was unsaid and therefore was my true intent.
She’s not right at 7:39. It being predestined does not mean one cannot choose their destiny. He proclaimed that we should “become who we are”. Meaning ultimately it is up to everyone self to realize their shackles of an indoctrinated morality and get free of it. After all we shall not forget that Nietzsche started to study theology to please his parents but then threw it away to study what his heart desired. That was his destiny. It does not mean you never fail or go another way at first.
@@sohamdave9184 she states that man creates himself by the volitional action of his own mind, a being of self made soul. I don't see a lack of choice in this statement? A person is not fulfilling a destiny, one is not destined to think and create anything of value for oneself, it is a conscious choice to do so.
I was 21 years old when I heard this interview and it made me realize how superficial Ayn Rand's understanding of Nietzsche was, and altogether helped me out of Objectivism.
For anyone who doubts Miss Rand's ignorance, Nietzsche: "Plato is a coward in the face of reality - therefore he takes flight into the ideal; Thucydides has himself under control, therefore he keeps things, too, under his control." Twilight of the Idols, “What I Owe The Ancients,” section 2
And the man was no mystic. Affirmation of life and the earth is core to his philosophy, as opposed to fleeing from life into some imaginary other (spirit) world
My friend, just because Ms. Rand said something does not make it so. I hope you choose to open the doors of your mind to many possibilities in this life, good luck.
I still think in the grand scheme of the history of philosophy, Rand shares slightly more in common with Nietzsche's philosophy than she thinks she does. "The reason for action in the Objectivist philosophy is man's nature…he has to create or acquire everything that he needs to sustain and expand his own life." That sounds quite similar to The Will to Power, to me.
Yes but Nietzsche vaguely applies this will to power to the entire universe. Its this part which is an unbacked assertion. However if you apply it to man (wether you call it "will to power" or state that man must "create or acquire everything that he needs to sustain and expand his own life) this is self evident.
richard hall I've never thought that Nietzsche meant the will to power as anything mystical though. Just something akin to Darwinian survival of the fittest. That which has a tendency to endure, will endure.
That quote sounds a lot like her ideas, but there are subtle problems that make me think you are paraphrasing rather than quoting. And paraphrasing it wrong. I don't think Rand would say that the reason for action is man's nature. She defined life as self generated, goal directed action. It is its own purpose, its own reason. I don;t think she would say "create or acquire". She would simply say create. Acquire is too loose a way to say it, leaving taking from others as a possibility. And the quote doesn't have her emphasis on the human mind as the means of creation. So what is the source of that quote?
The confusion here is what constitutes "reason for action". 1) Why a man must act i.e. is forced to act? (or else he dies) 2) Why does he act? (in a certain way). What is his motivation for the sum of his life's action? Objectivism holds that human nature forces those to act who wish to live. Their particular goals and methods to stay alive might be different. Their ultimate motivation is life and happiness. This could be power over other people(which would be immoral).
+Andy Brice The Will to Power (the book) was a "compilation" of Nietzsche's "previously unpublished notes" put together by his sister after his death. If you know anything about the aforementioned sister, you know that she had a tendency to revise and fabricate work to better match her own views, going so far as to totally reverse some of Nietzsche's positions. It took decades for the resulting mess to be sorted out, and while we know we have the genuine Nietzsche in the works that were published during his lifetime, things that hadn't seen the light of day until dear old sis brought them out are pretty, pretty questionable, and The Will to Power concept really only shows up as mystic/metaphysical in the notebooks his sis published. There, it becomes a universal force suspiciously similar to Schopenhauer's metaphysical will
I agree with some of the things she stated such as the fact that Neitzche's philosophy is subjective and that he disregards reason. However I disagreed with a lot of stuff as well like when she said he's not an individual (his whole philosophy is based on encouraging the individual to reach his full potential) and I generally hoped she would've had a better understanding of Neitzche's work. However what really got me was when she said that her philosophy is the exact opposite of Neitzche's and here I must disagree because some similarities are obvious. However Ayan Rand constantly preaches about the importance of one's self interest and how any action or decision we take should be strictly based on our own benefit. So my question is how can she oppose Neitzche's philosophy (which was in some ways selfish in it's own regard) where the will to power and becoming the Ubermensch is strictly for one's own self interest and benefit. My argument is she says we should what's best for our own self interest but isn't the will to power and becoming the Ubermensch exactly that. I personally believe their philosophies are more connected than she realises or would like to admit since I studied both and discovered many connections but they are most definitely not opposites. I guess the character of Andrew Ryan from Bioshock is a pretty good example of how you can mix both philosophies
I am also well versed in both Rand and Niets. You fail to understand two things Rand mentions here. One, judging by fundamentals, as opposed to judging by superficialities. The whole point of this discussion is to elaborate on this difference. Only by paying attention to superficial things can one see similarities in Objectivism and Nietzsche, which is understandable, as far as it goes. It doesn't go far enough. Two. Rational, objective self-interest, as ideal human nature and reality dictate, as opposed to whim.
Whatever the intended meaning or motives of those who portray Ayn Rand as a Nietzschean, their efforts amount to the claim that she is, in significant philosophical respects, indebted to Nietzsche, and that her work is built on and advances his body of thought. On examination of the relevant facts, however, such claims are totally false. Rand and Nietzsche are not allies, but opposites. And those who claim otherwise are peddling falsehood and injustice. Reading and misunderstanding Nietzsche is understandable, as his writing is often vague and unclear. But reading and misunderstanding Ayn Rand is another matter. Rand’s writing is clear and concise, and her philosophy is vividly non-Nietzschean. Those who claim that she is a Nietzschean are irresponsible at best and malicious at worst. Over the past half century, Nietzsche has risen to great prominence in academic, intellectual, and aesthetic circles, whereas Rand only now is beginning to receive deep and respectful attention. Understanding each of these philosophers’ ideas for what they are-and what they are not-is essential for anyone who takes philosophical ideas and moral justice seriously.
>Over the past half century, Nietzsche has risen to great prominence in academic, intellectual, and aesthetic circles, Thus the intellectual fraud of condemning Rand as alleged Nietzschean while approving mainstream respect for him.
"Over the past half century, Nietzsche has risen to great prominence in academic, intellectual, and aesthetic circles, whereas Rand only now is beginning to receive deep and respectful attention" Good reasons for that, Nietzsche is a giant compared to Rand.
@@mikeb5372 You are just snarky, but give no reasons or facts for your comment, It is so because you said it, like the original comment here, he says Rand's writing is non Nietzschean and it s so because he said it?? same with your snarky comment. What I did say is that COMPARED TO Nietzsche Rand is minuscule, not that she was minuscule. But then again, compared to N. most writers and "philosophies" are minuscule. Tell me (I know no one will) one thing Rand, or most philosophers of the last 500 years, came up with, that N. didn't anticipate and declared?? Look at his writing about psychology, sociology, the ego, nature, women, the "educators", children, sex, life's purpose, Socrates,"the improvers of humanity", the greeks and romans, scholars, affirmation of Life as a first step to all else, the abyss, those who claim they wish to live in "nature", the philosophers of the future, even to some degree "The End Of History", the jews and their history, the Bible and Jesus, the overman and will to power (the main steal of Rand with her "Superior Man" and his purpose as seen in the fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged), etc etc... I mean guys, the evidence is all there!! Her lame excuses and distinctions in these scarce interviews are pathetic. She didn't take his thinking to any "higher" levels, that is in fact the false claim, or tell me where or in what ways she took his ideas or thinking any further?? in fact in some respects she butchered them horribly. Good luck to all here, at least you're readers!! We can disagree to any extent but being readers of actual books like these makes you be a species apart.
her comparison to plato partially misunderstands his escalotogical views. A lot of Nietszche's morality and difference from plato comes from his distaste of the "outlands" or looking to metaphysical worlds instead of reality.
Many individuals in this comment section should go back to epistemology to clearly understand that words and concepts are not the same thing because it strikes me as the main basic reason for their welding of Rand's and Nietzsche's philosophies. A table is not the same as the word "table" which can be used to refer to a rock, so, now generalize that and use it, friends. I recommend you "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Leonard Peikoff, it contains a mmore digestible version of Ayn Rand's "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology".
This is exactly what is called abject plagiarism . Neitzche was the first to employ ‘psychology ‘which he called the queen of sciences which is to be served by all other branches of sciences, to deconstruct and destroy absolute moral values. In his book ‘On the genealogy of Morality ‘ he is analysing the old slave-master societies and ties them to origin of morality. Nazis took advantage of his aphoristic language and appropriated him for their propaganda like Ayn Rand is doing to propagate her doctored Neitzche for her own gains. His conception of the will is not a given agency external to the body as was held previously but ‘a representation ‘ , as held by the famous mathematician Leibnitz, of the perspectives of the mind that is unique to an individual. He was the first to declare ‘God is dead’ , so you can not accuse him of being esoteric. It is too much to discuss here but the above brief should be enough for the honest kindred spirits in search of truth, but not for the plagiarising morons who not only copied his ideas but are blatantly trying to misrepresent one of the sharpest and original minds in philosophy. It is true that many saw their own Neitzche but nobody discredited him like Rand here. Of course everyone is inspired in one way or another inspired by their predecessors , but to disown the very idea you have borrowed is shameful. It’s a shame that it has happened in America!!
Nietzsche never stated that some people are born as either ubermensch and sheeps, totally the opposite ubermensch is an ideal that will never be achieved by any man, men can only be the bridge to it Nietzsche has a provocative style of writing Rand Critique is totally out of scope here
...and here you are only criticising the fact that no ubermench had yet existed in Nietzsche's time, nor till today, but nonetheless he will be born so, if and when he emerges. The bridge is quite plainly a sort of evolutionary bridge, be it genetic or memetic evolution, or both. Nietzsche was very clear about not being about the individual but the type or species. That is almost verbatim, if memory serves.
I think her and Nietzsche's philosophy have MUCH more in common than she's admitting. Some examples, she wants man to be viewed as a 'heroic being' Nietzsche wants a man who will conquer nature and create his own morality Both want a transvaluation of our values, it's just worded differently. Both want an Ubermensch, again worded differently. Coincedence? I think not.
I agree. There is a similar spirit behind both philosophies. That is embracing selfishness, being rational and becoming ubermensch. Both looked down on the altruistic nature of religion and denial of our base instincts. Even if their philosophies are not similar, they complement each other very well and as an individualist I am happy for prescribing to both.
N advocated conquering man, not nature. His nature was chaotic. Hers is orderly. His morality is subjective. Hers is the product of mind knowing reality. He rejected reason for mindless will. You evade her clear statement that the context for any narrow agreement is two radically different philosophies. You drop context.
As she said. . . . She could agree to those out-of-context statements, but fundamentally they don't agree about those topics in the same respect. With some good quotes I think I could find similar out-of-context quotes to conclude that Marx and Hitler had a similar philosophy.
Nietzsche has never considered any political leader as an example of true a superior man, as Ubermensch's nature is all about creating new values on his own, when a politician creates nothing, only reacting to peoples demand, making him fully dependent and not individualistic at all. The creativity and reactivity lays as a base for destinction between strong and weak. Howard Roarke perfectly matches Nietzsche's definition of an Ubermensch, as he is a lonely fearless creator and a destructor of existing values.
Well, she said at 21:50 "I don't think he would ever call himself that". So she acknowledged that Nietszche doesn't consider himself to be a Platonist, but she considers him to be a Platonist.
Those two things are not mutually exclusive. It is possible for someone to think that somebody is a bore and either knowingly or unknowingly be a follower of that somebody or at least agree with that somebody. That probably is unusual but not impossible.
That is debatable. Niets repeatedly spoke of refining the "type" or class of superior people, not individuals. For example, he said something to the order of 'a million people exist only to bring about the one exception'. Niets was essentially an uber aristocrat. That is the word that most readily comes to mind as a one word label.
I wouldn't put much stock in Miss Rand's polemics against other philosophical figures. In this instance, the listener who is genuinely curious about Nietzsche interpretation should compare/contrast this presentation with, e.g., John Richardson's book 'Nietzche's System' (1996). Perhaps in Miss Rand's own time Nietzsche studies hadn't reached the level of sophistication that they've reached in the '90s onward, though there was still Walter Kaufmann's landmark 1949 study; was Rand familiar at all with it? (Leonard Peikoff's 1970 lectures on the history of modern philosophy didn't display any familiarity with it.)
***** Rand's conception of human nature does appear quite different from Nietzsche's; for him the "will-to-power" is fundamental to understanding man whereas Rand (who in her mature thought embraced the Aristotelian tradition) identified human nature with *rational* consciousness. Incidentally I searched youtube for "ayn rand nietzsche" and there's a video of phil prof Stephen Hicks reading his 'Journal of Ayn Rand Studies' article comparing their conceptions of egoism. Fortunately a pdf version can be googled.
Care to mention what she gets wrong instead of simply asserting it? She didn't say that much so it shouldn't be that difficult to point out a thing or two she got wrong.
I contend that one is going to learn more about a person's philosophy by reading that philosopher's works than by reading some asshole academic's view or interpretation of that philosopher's work.
Fantastic! if only we had that kind of intellectual dynamism today. Thus, each of us must develop our own philosophy of reason to the best of our abilities, yes?
It's ridiculous that Rand criticises Nietzsche because of "his general FEEL of his thought." As she herself says at 0:55 It's like a child criticising a giant... because it FEELS like he is wrong. She actually says, "... above all he is certainly NOT an upholder of REASON..." 1:10 imagine the kind of ignorance a person needs to have to say some shit like that.
@@ggrthemostgodless8713 did you even have seeing more than 2 minutes? She said "excepting for his general feel or feeling for individualism" She doesn't criticize Nietzsche for his "feel" she did it for his fundamentals, you dumbass
Nietzsche read Hindu texts as well as his teacher Schopenhauer, but got a totally different view from them - his ubermench - or superman - is nothing but "Aham Brahmasmi" - I am God - from Hindu texts. Rand read him wrong - Nietzsche was not saying we are born in a class or born as superman or slave but it is our WILL to be so - we can either be great or be nothing - it is up to us For example the Greeks had a great religion that taught them that they could be Gods - the lesson got lost in all the noise that Hollywood exploits today - Gods didn't come from the sky - WE are the Gods that is what Greeks were saying and Hinduism says the same thing But Greeks abandoned this great faith and embraced a Master/Slave religion - God is seen as a Master, if we get down on our knees and beg and grovel he will be pleased and give us the good life in Heaven! Greeks chose to be slaves rather than be Gods! What fools! Tat Tvam Asi - You Are That - in Hindu texts says that we become who we are or what we desire - since Christians and Muslims want nothing better to do than mooch of some Sugar Daddy, sit around doing nothing in Heaven, they will be reborn as Trees, pets - Dog, Cat - then they will get to sit around all day doing nothing! Heaven is fools Gold
Eh. He just hails from and inspires people that oppose her tribe. And yes .. her work was tribal. And her disdain here is tribal. I'm not personally inspired by Nietzsche that much, but this is a safe call here.
@@Extra_050 Force a person to put what they are trying to say in explicit terms and you will find it takes the wind out of their sails proportional to how dishonest their thinking is.
Definition of tribe: a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader. Definition of individual: a particular being or thing as distinguished from a class, species, or collection I guess if a is not a one could conclude objectivism is a philosophy of tribal individualism.
What is difference between a useless pile of Stones and the Crystal Clear Water that runs over them?
5 років тому
OK, so practically speaking Randism and Nietzscheism don't have much in common that is not to deny the fact both "philosophies" are in practical terms sterile. Neither offer any practical answers to the problem of how can a highly populated, technically sophisticated prosperous, free yet stable, secure civilised society can adapt, flourish and progress?
I love rand, but to say Nietzsche was not an individualist and that her work has almost nothing to do with him is without a doubt the most stupid thing I've heard her say. Nietzsche's ethics is more similar to hers than aristotle's.
I love listening to rand, though her philosophy does have some problems. 1. How can the human mind be born tabula rasa? The brain is, first of all, an organ. Like any organ, is is subject to biological processes, genes etc... Just like limbs grow to be different lengths, or with different skin color, our brains also have certain things predetermined. Also, the idea that no ideas are innate seems to disregard evolutionary psychology. We can see social structures (which relates to some form of innate idea about structure), even in organisms that barely have any capacity for reason, such as lobsters. 2. I see a problem with her epistemology and metaphysics. She seems to ignore the question of whether we can derive an objective reality and what exactly our criteria of an objective reality is. She just seems to assert that we derive objective reality through our senses, and that's that.
1. She's talking specifically about the mind, not the (whole) brain. The mind is the part of the human brain that has evolved to think rationally. It is the consciousness (us) that thinks for itself. www.dictionary.com/browse/mind?s=t 2. We all can derive objective morality though our senses. She says that man should recognize reason (applied logic) as his main vitrue. Through applying logic, man can objectively derive things.
+Adrian Braysy I also would like to give a response to your two questions. "How can the human mind be born tabula rasa? The brain is, first of all, an organ. Like any organ, is is subject to biological processes, genes etc... Just like limbs grow to be different lengths, or with different skin color, our brains also have certain things predetermined. " Tabula rasa doesn't mean that your brain/mind doesn't have a nature. It does. But it means you aren't born with innate ideas. I'll give you can example. It is hardcoded into the brain that you get angry at injustice. That is predetermined. But what you think of as just vs. unjust changes based on your ideas, which aren't innate. For example, you might hate capitalism because you aren't knowledgeable about economics and you think the world is a zero sum game. You would feel anger when people talked about capitalism and you have no control about whether you feel that way or not (you can react differently, but you will still feel the emotion). As you learn more about economics, you will find that capitalism is the best system that exists, and is moral, and over time, your emotion will change away from anger at the word capitalism. The injustice reaction is still in your brain, but it is the ideas that influence it, and you aren't born with those. "Also, the idea that no ideas are innate seems to disregard evolutionary psychology. We can see social structures (which relates to some form of innate idea about structure), even in organisms that barely have any capacity for reason, such as lobsters." Yes, most evolutionary psychology is hopelessly misled by their philosophy. Primitive animals like lobsters for example (it might get a little more complicated on boundary animals like dolphins or chimps), don't have ideas. They have reflexes. They get some stimulus from their environment, and they react in a certain way to that stimulus. There is no thought involved. Yes some animals are social in the sense that they have interactions with other animals, but they didn't sit down and say "how can we best survive? I know, lets get in groups". No, all lobsters who weren't social like this, died off. There is an evolutionary advantage to living in groups. But that doesn't mean lobsters chose groups or have ideas. "I see a problem with her epistemology and metaphysics. She seems to ignore the question of whether we can derive an objective reality and what exactly our criteria of an objective reality is. She just seems to assert that we derive objective reality through our senses, and that's that." She covers this much more in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and Leonard Piekoff also covers this in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand I believe. The question of can we derive an objective reality has a problem with it's phrasing. Objective reality exists. We can derive objective ideas about reality using reason (of which senses are a part). But we do not "derive objective reality" because reality is not created through consciousness. Not God's consciousness (religion), not Man's consciousness (Kant) and not the individuals consciousness (postmodernism). Existence exists INDEPENDENT of consciousness, which is also the definition she uses for objective, "independent of consciousness". Given that existence, reality, is independent of consciousness (objective), your ideas are objective if what the subject (your mind) was looking at (reality) during the entire process of forming your mental content, using the proper method (reason). Reason consists of 3 parts: sensory data, objective concept formation, and logic. I admit to knowing less about Nietzsche, but I suspect that he thought there was some way in which we acquire knowledge without using the senses.
Innate ideas are the insane claim that man knows reality prior to knowing reality. The only evidence for the cause of ideas is man's direct, immediate, introspective consciousness of his poweto focus his mind and form ideas. Evolutionary study stops prior to mans volitional/conceptual mind. Matter and life cant cause ideas. You "see" social structures?! What are you smoking? Man conceptualizes society.
man is obviously not a tabula rasa. Even rands own characters demonstrate this in their rebellion against the systems they inhabit. Prometheus, Hank Rearden, Dagney Taggart, John Gault, Howard Roark. They clearly each have some extra spark inside them which makes them temperamentally unwilling to submit to the powers that be (demonstrating will to power over their own lives), in contrast to the people of the world around them. In fact I have never seen characters which so well represent the realization of Nietzsche's over-man as these do. From reading them, I surely get they sense that they would will the eternal recurrence, as Nietzsche claimed would be the test of his over-man. In effect, I see a coherent dialectical synthesis between Nietzsche and Rand.
@@HeinrichKonig the fact that practically nobody else around them seems to posses it and they seem to have it fully formed within them from the beginning of their stories. If Rand wanted to demonstrate that anyone would be able to be the kind of people that would follow her philosophy, she could have written a story in which someone starts as less than these ideal men and gradually becomes one. imagine a prequel to atlas shrugged which hank rearden or john gault started off as someone rand would consider repugnant, but that through following the application of reason, he became the man we see in the book she wrote.
To say that you first have to understand what is Nietzsche’s philosophy and then to get the essence at least of Rand’s ideas. You will probably see your mistakes by your own
Nietzsche may talk in the way other philosophers have talked, but never have I received from his writings that some are BORN one way, some ANOTHER....What he says is that through an analysis of history, such have been some conclusions....he makes predictions about how the human race will continue to act as stupidly as it always has....BUT he does not ADVOCATE it, which is where Rand's evaluation goes off the tracks...this charlatan only seeks to CONFUTE Ontology with Morality...and any number of grad students has spoken better upon that topic than Ayn Rand...she's an amateur...and just think who her philosophical contemporary is, dumbing down the world so nobody has to read...L. Ron Hubbard and Ayn Rand ARE TWINS!
It is true that mans mind is not volitional at birth, but his mind is a blank slate, requiring time to develop and form. But that does not negate the fact that volition, the ability to choose, to think, to act according to reason is inherent to human nature once the mind is capable of functioning
Ayn Rand was totally clueless in regard to Nietzsche and his philosophy. Everything she said is opposite to the reality that they DID share many aspects of their philosophy, but still Nietzsche was far superior both in intellectual capabilities and in the ability to express his thoughts as a concise and consistent worldview.
+Louis Cyfear Nope, she just ripped off the best parts of Nietzsche, modified something in a convoluted way, and added the economy/politics bits.. Nothing original IMO.
+MK Warlock Maybe so, but the person she is supposedly debating got his ass kicked. If this was a wrestling match Ayn Rand would have been Hulk Hogan leg dropping a jobber. It wasn't even close.
Both Rand and the interviewer misunderstand and poorly explain Nietzsche ideas. If Rand “blows any minds” it would be a sign that those minds are yet to read other philosophers (Nietzsche in particular!). Nietzsche is a realist, Rand an Idealist. Read everything and refrain from tribalism over literature unless you believe we are all to think the same in perfect unison. Honestly, intellectual areas of debate have descended into jeering sports fandoms.
jeep23862 I wouldn’t advise such an assumption, no. I do not define myself by labels and status yet you seem to have attributed one to me. By doing so you insult before asking a question, and then expect a conversation? Surely text communications provide ample opportunity to think over what you say?
Her philosophy is typically dismissed by serious philosophers are flawed. Only pseudo-intellectuals that like how her thoughts reinforce capitalism and denounce socialism and promote self-determinism which then allows them to be greedy, selfish bastards. And yet they use a system that is not pure capitalism, includes a great deal of socialism and ultimately relies on a social contract that cooperatively and with compromise balances between individual and collective needs. These are the same people that take up positions as civil servants or run corporations that rely on a subservient workforce and yet say that we should all be transactional, self serving, and self-dealing. The hypocrisy would be sad if not interesting for the perverse spectacle that it creates. This woman is not a great thinker. She is simply a product of the years of the iron curtain which she has translated into some universal perspective whose inflexibility is incapable of resolving its own paradoxes.
Your accusation is both illogical and rooted in a profound misunderstanding of my philosophy. First, Objectivism is not some convenient justification for greed or selfishness, as you seem to think. It is a philosophy grounded in reality, reason, individualism, and the moral right to pursue one’s own happiness. To dismiss it as a tool for the selfish few is an act of intellectual cowardice-one that avoids confronting the fact that self-interest is the only rational and moral basis for human action. You attack the idea of capitalism as if it were a perverse creation. In reality, capitalism is the only system that honors individual rights, freedom, and objective justice. It is the only system that allows human beings to live as they choose, based on their own abilities, choices, and values. The notion that capitalism leads to exploitation is a myth propagated by those who have a vested interest in promoting the collectivist ideals that have failed humanity time and again. Your invocation of the social contract as a supposed moral system only demonstrates how deeply embedded you are in the illusions of collectivism, which treat the individual as a slave to the collective. As for your criticism of those who work within this system-be it civil servants or corporate leaders-it is nothing but a projection. The truth is, those who embrace Objectivism reject coercion, whether it comes from the state or from any other collectivist institution. Objectivism does not advocate for a blind pursuit of wealth or dominance over others; it advocates for the freedom to choose and to act in accordance with reason and rational self-interest. The hypocrisy you speak of lies not in my philosophy, but in your own failure to understand or apply principles consistently. You claim that she is the product of the iron curtain-yet it is you who are blind to the paradoxes inherent in collectivism. You seek refuge in the collective, as if compromise and weakness can lead to human flourishing. In reality, compromise with evil, with the denial of individual rights, leads to the destruction of freedom. Her philosophy stands as a consistent, rational response to the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of collectivism
***** Friends don't put philosophy over friendship. I have many friends of various opinion, I don't stop supporting them because they have a chance to make change. I just encourage them to create positive change knowing full well it is out of my hands.
+Jan Andhisfiets So, she was not perfect. She should have taken Gandalf's attitude towards the Ring of Power. "Don't... tempt me Frodo! I dare not take it. Not even to keep it safe. Understand, Frodo. I would use this ring from a desire to do good... But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine." It is the position of Charman of the Federal Reserve that corrupted Greenspan, not Rand's philosophy, which he had clearly abandoned by the late 1990's.
Thanks a lot for this rare upload! I love her voice, her mind and her philosophy. She was such a philosophical genius that I am blown away everytime.
I just hope you come to realize she had a very poor understanding of Nietzsche.
@@jakejake7932 And you probably have a bad understanding of Objectivism since you write that
@@Jazzper79 Jake Jake is right though. It is painful to watch how both the interviewer and Ayn Rand fail to grasp some basic concepts of the philosophy of Nietzsche. After his jumbled introduction representing the ideas of Nietzsche, I expected her to start off by correcting his misinterpretations but she was fully on board. A few basic mistakes: Nietzsche doesn't divide people into masters and slaves. He distinguishes between a master and slave morality. A morality is something you can adopt for yourself, no one has to be stuck in a slave morality. The Übermensch is an idea of an ever more ideal man of the future, there are no Übermenschen in this world. It is incorrect to say Nietzsche rejects the Apollonian (reason / the objective...) and only embraces the Dionysian (the instinctive / subjective / emotions...). There is an interplay between the two.
I guess Im pretty randomly asking but do anyone know a good site to stream new series online?
@Colton Rodrigo I would suggest FlixZone. You can find it by googling =)
What I got out of Atlas Shrugged was that one must do for one's self without sacrificing others or being sacrificed to their ends. I saw that people were either geniuses or the Hoi pilloi.
I never interpreted the Übermensch as being such by birth, like Rand did it. However, Nietsche gave examples of Übermenschen like Caesar or Napoleon, which Rand would have interpreted as "parasites" (and rightly so).
He never called Napoleon or Caesar "übermensch". He only admired certain of their traits and used them as examples. Not the same thing.
This is amazing! Ayn is the most wonderful philosopher and I was so excited to find this! I wish more people understood that she is right about everything and the world should follow her teachings if people want to live long and prosper as free individuals.
No one is "right about everything", but her philosophy is sound and, IMO, important. I myself am an Objectivist.
LucisFerre1 thx good point
Uthrashone try nietzsche!
jeep2386 cause most people are very dumb and tend to accept the lowest forms of understanding pushed by the fake media and gets their cues from their shallow social surroundings
Uthrashone - To follow Objectivism goes against the idea of it. To be an Objectivist you have to recognize reason as your main virtue, and to put it against everything until you are satisfied, most important of all, Objectivism itself (if you're an Objectivist). This is to teach you how to fish instead of giving you a fish. Because if this, Objectivism mustn't be followed, but scrutinized until either accepted by your reasoning, or proving Objectivism wrong (to which case Objectivism will happily change as it hold reality as the ultimate standard of evaluation).
Ayn Rand: “I would not consider Nietzsche an individualist, and above all he’s certainly not an upholder of reason.”
New from Libertarianism․org.
I would counter argue that Neitzche is the ultimate individualist. He urges each one of us to break free of all restrictive ethical and moral boundaries set by society and religion in order to live our live to the fullest and most creative way and to reach our full potential (Ubermensch). I mean that sounds pretty personal to me
@@ariskythreotis9725 The problem with idolising ''breaking free'' is that you'll ultimately break free from reality itsself. That's why I think Rand is more of an individualist than Nietzsche. Her individualism is based on a rational approach to existence and human nature, not the feeling of a will to power.
I had no idea these Q&A had ever existed. Wonderful. Isn't it amazing that universities don't generally recognize her as an important philosopher?
The altruist morality makes people hate her as she was an upholder of rational egoism. They don't bother to understand what she is saying. To me, noone makes philosophy as understandable as her!
@ I would highly recommend you read the book 'The Virtue of Selfishness' to get some of the understanding. It is a deep subject, but the more you study it, the more it makes sense, and you realize that altruism is selfdestroying. But you must remember that rational egoism does not mean you should not help others and be a cold fish, it means: do you have the right to exist for your own sake without being a sacrificial animal for others - that is where the line has to be drawn. But read the book.
@ I don't answer your question, because it cannot be answered in a sentence and thereby you will understand it. The question is, do you want to learn and understand or are you on the attack mode and want to rationalize everything? - You would not expect to understand algebra in a sentence, so why are you doing the same to philosophy?
I notice you write that you only read some of Atlas Shrugged, and you found it boring. Why did you find it boring? - I think you missed A LOT from your "reading".
I know I am an invididual and so are everyone else - and that means, they need to work together with mutual agreement, and not through force which altruism suggest.
@ Altruism means "placing the interest of other above your own" - and it was first used by Auguste Comte - Rand did study this more than anyone. Altruism is a part of mysticism and the german philosopher Emmanuel Kant and he really made it worse than ever.
Jeep23862 - if you want to argue, perhaps you should study the history and the consequences of what the morality leads to before you argue about politics.
Who has the power? - It really tells me you don't have a clue about objectivism and again, you expect it to answered in a sentence. You should read Capitalism the Unknown ideal and understand that under laissez-faire capitalism, no individual is allowed to used force against other individuals, and it is the job of the government to protect the citizens under objective defined laws. Who has the power? - Reality has the power, and if man does not want to be responsible, then reality will hurt him by his own fault. But that does not mean a rational man does not want to help poor people.
@ Guy, you don't get the philosophy at all and you cannot change the meaning of words according to your own whim. Altruism means what it means - it means "other-ism - it does not mean just kindness. Kindness it a great thing, altruism is not a great thing. - And I don't want to argue with you. If you want to get smarter, then study Ayn Rand.
Wow... I'd be surprised if either of these two ever read so much as a full paragraph of Neitzsche's work. Honestly, you could read nothing more than his Wikipedia summary and you'd have a better grasp of his work than Rand and host
Exactly. Her descrition of Nietzche hurt me
She understood his philosophy very well.
Read the wiki she was spot on
Nietzsche is miles ahead of Rand. The mind can not fathom reality. Objectivism is just another belief. Nietzsche goes to the root of human psychology while Rand is stuck in superficial reasoning.
@@owlOFTHEgods-t7z "The mind can not fathom reality" claramente manifiestas tu abdicación a la razón, nada se puede discutir con tu grado de humanidad
Now more than ever we need the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
I LOVE Ayn Rand, she really changed my world view and was the first philosopher I got interested in, but she has a poor understanding of Nietzsche. Which is I sort of get why, the way in which they teach their philosophy is different, and in Beyond Good and Evil Nietzsche states that he is purposely trying to make it seem like he's a little nuts and stuff, but he he also says that you must look under the mask to truly understand what he's saying. He also talks about a new type of philosopher, and I believe Rand is exactly that.
+liam shope Nietzsche came out of a grand Romantic philosophy...he was a supreme ironist...in other words what we SAY might have a REALITY in the UNSAID, so what we MEAN might be the opposite of what we say....Ms Rand spent her life trying to understand her OWN LITERALISM, because that is what ALL philosophy is to her...OBJECTIVISM is a dumbing down of the ancient Greeks, and attempts to tell the believer that they know more than they really know, without reading very much
Thank you, i am a fan of neither but I hope Soren was being satirical. but for Soren - I'm saying your are full of it, but what i don't say is you are on the money, so clearly what i did not say is what you should take away as true as it was unsaid and therefore was my true intent.
"look under the mask..." is like the allegory of the cave" bunch of mystical creations.
She’s not right at 7:39. It being predestined does not mean one cannot choose their destiny. He proclaimed that we should “become who we are”. Meaning ultimately it is up to everyone self to realize their shackles of an indoctrinated morality and get free of it. After all we shall not forget that Nietzsche started to study theology to please his parents but then threw it away to study what his heart desired. That was his destiny. It does not mean you never fail or go another way at first.
Her point is that free will must take priority over any predestination.
Her entire argument is based on the fact you can't chose. But neitzsche says you can.
@@sohamdave9184 she states that man creates himself by the volitional action of his own mind, a being of self made soul. I don't see a lack of choice in this statement? A person is not fulfilling a destiny, one is not destined to think and create anything of value for oneself, it is a conscious choice to do so.
I was 21 years old when I heard this interview and it made me realize how superficial Ayn Rand's understanding of Nietzsche was, and altogether helped me out of Objectivism.
I love the way that Rand agrees with the question.
For anyone who doubts Miss Rand's ignorance,
Nietzsche:
"Plato is a coward in the face of reality - therefore he takes flight into the ideal; Thucydides has himself under control, therefore he keeps things, too, under his control."
Twilight of the Idols, “What I Owe The Ancients,” section 2
She called Nietzsche a Platonist
And the man was no mystic. Affirmation of life and the earth is core to his philosophy, as opposed to fleeing from life into some imaginary other (spirit) world
My friend, just because Ms. Rand said something does not make it so. I hope you choose to open the doors of your mind to many possibilities in this life, good luck.
@7:28 - Like Nietzsche never gave psychological insides to reach the uberman status.
I still think in the grand scheme of the history of philosophy, Rand shares slightly more in common with Nietzsche's philosophy than she thinks she does.
"The reason for action in the Objectivist philosophy is man's nature…he has to create or acquire everything that he needs to sustain and expand his own life."
That sounds quite similar to The Will to Power, to me.
Yes but Nietzsche vaguely applies this will to power to the entire universe. Its this part which is an unbacked assertion. However if you apply it to man (wether you call it "will to power" or state that man must "create or acquire everything that he needs to sustain and expand his own life) this is self evident.
richard hall I've never thought that Nietzsche meant the will to power as anything mystical though. Just something akin to Darwinian survival of the fittest. That which has a tendency to endure, will endure.
That quote sounds a lot like her ideas, but there are subtle problems that make me think you are paraphrasing rather than quoting. And paraphrasing it wrong. I don't think Rand would say that the reason for action is man's nature. She defined life as self generated, goal directed action. It is its own purpose, its own reason. I don;t think she would say "create or acquire". She would simply say create. Acquire is too loose a way to say it, leaving taking from others as a possibility. And the quote doesn't have her emphasis on the human mind as the means of creation.
So what is the source of that quote?
The confusion here is what constitutes "reason for action".
1) Why a man must act i.e. is forced to act? (or else he dies)
2) Why does he act? (in a certain way). What is his motivation for the sum of his life's action?
Objectivism holds that human nature forces those to act who wish to live. Their particular goals and methods to stay alive might be different. Their ultimate motivation is life and happiness. This could be power over other people(which would be immoral).
+Andy Brice The Will to Power (the book) was a "compilation" of Nietzsche's "previously unpublished notes" put together by his sister after his death. If you know anything about the aforementioned sister, you know that she had a tendency to revise and fabricate work to better match her own views, going so far as to totally reverse some of Nietzsche's positions. It took decades for the resulting mess to be sorted out, and while we know we have the genuine Nietzsche in the works that were published during his lifetime, things that hadn't seen the light of day until dear old sis brought them out are pretty, pretty questionable, and The Will to Power concept really only shows up as mystic/metaphysical in the notebooks his sis published. There, it becomes a universal force suspiciously similar to Schopenhauer's metaphysical will
I agree with some of the things she stated such as the fact that Neitzche's philosophy is subjective and that he disregards reason. However I disagreed with a lot of stuff as well like when she said he's not an individual (his whole philosophy is based on encouraging the individual to reach his full potential) and I generally hoped she would've had a better understanding of Neitzche's work. However what really got me was when she said that her philosophy is the exact opposite of Neitzche's and here I must disagree because some similarities are obvious. However Ayan Rand constantly preaches about the importance of one's self interest and how any action or decision we take should be strictly based on our own benefit. So my question is how can she oppose Neitzche's philosophy (which was in some ways selfish in it's own regard) where the will to power and becoming the Ubermensch is strictly for one's own self interest and benefit. My argument is she says we should what's best for our own self interest but isn't the will to power and becoming the Ubermensch exactly that. I personally believe their philosophies are more connected than she realises or would like to admit since I studied both and discovered many connections but they are most definitely not opposites. I guess the character of Andrew Ryan from Bioshock is a pretty good example of how you can mix both philosophies
I am also well versed in both Rand and Niets. You fail to understand two things Rand mentions here. One, judging by fundamentals, as opposed to judging by superficialities.
The whole point of this discussion is to elaborate on this difference. Only by paying attention to superficial things can one see similarities in Objectivism and Nietzsche, which is understandable, as far as it goes. It doesn't go far enough.
Two. Rational, objective self-interest, as ideal human nature and reality dictate, as opposed to whim.
Whatever the intended meaning or motives of those who portray Ayn Rand as a Nietzschean, their efforts amount to the claim that she is, in significant philosophical respects, indebted to Nietzsche, and that her work is built on and advances his body of thought.
On examination of the relevant facts, however, such claims are totally false.
Rand and Nietzsche are not allies, but opposites.
And those who claim otherwise are peddling falsehood and injustice.
Reading and misunderstanding Nietzsche is understandable, as his writing is often vague and unclear.
But reading and misunderstanding Ayn Rand is another matter.
Rand’s writing is clear and concise, and her philosophy is vividly non-Nietzschean.
Those who claim that she is a Nietzschean are irresponsible at best and malicious at worst.
Over the past half century, Nietzsche has risen to great prominence in academic, intellectual, and aesthetic circles, whereas Rand only now is beginning to receive deep and respectful attention.
Understanding each of these philosophers’ ideas for what they are-and what they are not-is essential for anyone who takes philosophical ideas and moral justice seriously.
>Over the past half century, Nietzsche has risen to great prominence in academic, intellectual, and aesthetic circles,
Thus the intellectual fraud of condemning Rand as alleged Nietzschean while approving mainstream respect for him.
"Over the past half century, Nietzsche has risen to great prominence in academic, intellectual, and aesthetic circles, whereas Rand only now is beginning to receive deep and respectful attention"
Good reasons for that, Nietzsche is a giant compared to Rand.
@@ggrthemostgodless8713 Unfortunately the ability to use reason and apply logic accurately eludes most people. You are one of those people
@@mikeb5372
You are just snarky, but give no reasons or facts for your comment, It is so because you said it, like the original comment here, he says Rand's writing is non Nietzschean and it s so because he said it?? same with your snarky comment. What I did say is that COMPARED TO Nietzsche Rand is minuscule, not that she was minuscule. But then again, compared to N. most writers and "philosophies" are minuscule. Tell me (I know no one will) one thing Rand, or most philosophers of the last 500 years, came up with, that N. didn't anticipate and declared??
Look at his writing about psychology, sociology, the ego, nature, women, the "educators", children, sex, life's purpose, Socrates,"the improvers of humanity", the greeks and romans, scholars, affirmation of Life as a first step to all else, the abyss, those who claim they wish to live in "nature", the philosophers of the future, even to some degree "The End Of History", the jews and their history, the Bible and Jesus, the overman and will to power (the main steal of Rand with her "Superior Man" and his purpose as seen in the fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged), etc etc...
I mean guys, the evidence is all there!! Her lame excuses and distinctions in these scarce interviews are pathetic. She didn't take his thinking to any "higher" levels, that is in fact the false claim, or tell me where or in what ways she took his ideas or thinking any further?? in fact in some respects she butchered them horribly.
Good luck to all here, at least you're readers!! We can disagree to any extent but being readers of actual books like these makes you be a species apart.
Wow. She was unique. Powerful.
When was this?
December 13, 1964
Why she uphould reason and not cognition? Or she is meaning the same?
You can't reason (apply logic) without being cognitive.
her comparison to plato partially misunderstands his escalotogical views. A lot of Nietszche's morality and difference from plato comes from his distaste of the "outlands" or looking to metaphysical worlds instead of reality.
Many individuals in this comment section should go back to epistemology to clearly understand that words and concepts are not the same thing because it strikes me as the main basic reason for their welding of Rand's and Nietzsche's philosophies.
A table is not the same as the word "table" which can be used to refer to a rock, so, now generalize that and use it, friends.
I recommend you "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Leonard Peikoff, it contains a mmore digestible version of Ayn Rand's "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology".
This is exactly what is called abject plagiarism . Neitzche was the first to employ ‘psychology ‘which he called the queen of sciences which is to be served by all other branches of sciences, to deconstruct and destroy absolute moral values. In his book ‘On the genealogy of Morality ‘ he is analysing the old slave-master societies and ties them to origin of morality. Nazis took advantage of his aphoristic language and appropriated him for their propaganda like Ayn Rand is doing to propagate her doctored Neitzche for her own gains.
His conception of the will is not a given agency external to the body as was held previously but ‘a representation ‘ , as held by the famous mathematician Leibnitz, of the perspectives of the mind that is unique to an individual.
He was the first to declare ‘God is dead’ , so you can not accuse him of being esoteric. It is too much to discuss here but the above brief should be enough for the honest kindred spirits in search of truth, but not for the plagiarising morons who not only copied his ideas but are blatantly trying to misrepresent one of the sharpest and original minds in philosophy. It is true that many saw their own Neitzche but nobody discredited him like Rand here. Of course everyone is inspired in one way or another inspired by their predecessors , but to disown the very idea you have borrowed is shameful. It’s a shame that it has happened in America!!
Nietzsche never stated that some people are born as either ubermensch and sheeps,
totally the opposite ubermensch is an ideal that will never be achieved by any man, men can only be the bridge to it
Nietzsche has a provocative style of writing
Rand Critique is totally out of scope here
...and here you are only criticising the fact that no ubermench had yet existed in Nietzsche's time, nor till today, but nonetheless he will be born so, if and when he emerges. The bridge is quite plainly a sort of evolutionary bridge, be it genetic or memetic evolution, or both.
Nietzsche was very clear about not being about the individual but the type or species. That is almost verbatim, if memory serves.
I think her and Nietzsche's philosophy have MUCH more in common than she's admitting.
Some examples, she wants man to be viewed as a 'heroic being'
Nietzsche wants a man who will conquer nature and create his own morality
Both want a transvaluation of our values, it's just worded differently.
Both want an Ubermensch, again worded differently.
Coincedence? I think not.
I agree. There is a similar spirit behind both philosophies. That is embracing selfishness, being rational and becoming ubermensch. Both looked down on the altruistic nature of religion and denial of our base instincts. Even if their philosophies are not similar, they complement each other very well and as an individualist I am happy for prescribing to both.
N advocated conquering man, not nature. His nature was chaotic. Hers is orderly. His morality is subjective. Hers is the product of mind knowing reality. He rejected reason for mindless will. You evade her clear statement that the context for any narrow agreement is two radically different philosophies. You drop context.
Again, they have nothing in common. Weren’t you listening?
As she said. . . . She could agree to those out-of-context statements, but fundamentally they don't agree about those topics in the same respect. With some good quotes I think I could find similar out-of-context quotes to conclude that Marx and Hitler had a similar philosophy.
Nietzsche has never considered any political leader as an example of true a superior man, as Ubermensch's nature is all about creating new values on his own, when a politician creates nothing, only reacting to peoples demand, making him fully dependent and not individualistic at all. The creativity and reactivity lays as a base for destinction between strong and weak.
Howard Roarke perfectly matches Nietzsche's definition of an Ubermensch, as he is a lonely fearless creator and a destructor of existing values.
Nietzsche said "Plato was a bore" & she says, he was a follower of Plato .. Nonsense
Well, she said at 21:50 "I don't think he would ever call himself that". So she acknowledged that Nietszche doesn't consider himself to be a Platonist, but she considers him to be a Platonist.
@@Arun-MM whatever he said he considered Plato to be it is irrelevant if in fact he followed or ascribed to Platonist views.
@@crystalgiddens7276 Exactly. 👍🏻
@@zeusssonfire You are either a branch of aristotle or plato. Reason, or mysticism. There is nothing else.
Those two things are not mutually exclusive. It is possible for someone to think that somebody is a bore and either knowingly or unknowingly be a follower of that somebody or at least agree with that somebody. That probably is unusual but not impossible.
Uh, Nietzsche a Platonist....?
Only one mistake: Nietzsche was an individualist, and there is no doubt about it
Rand's point was that he was, but an inferior one compared to her far more integrated variety.
That is debatable. Niets repeatedly spoke of refining the "type" or class of superior people, not individuals. For example, he said something to the order of 'a million people exist only to bring about the one exception'.
Niets was essentially an uber aristocrat. That is the word that most readily comes to mind as a one word label.
Reason should govern the slaves. Divine Will is reserved for the chosen.
I wouldn't put much stock in Miss Rand's polemics against other philosophical figures. In this instance, the listener who is genuinely curious about Nietzsche interpretation should compare/contrast this presentation with, e.g., John Richardson's book 'Nietzche's System' (1996). Perhaps in Miss Rand's own time Nietzsche studies hadn't reached the level of sophistication that they've reached in the '90s onward, though there was still Walter Kaufmann's landmark 1949 study; was Rand familiar at all with it? (Leonard Peikoff's 1970 lectures on the history of modern philosophy didn't display any familiarity with it.)
***** Rand's conception of human nature does appear quite different from Nietzsche's; for him the "will-to-power" is fundamental to understanding man whereas Rand (who in her mature thought embraced the Aristotelian tradition) identified human nature with *rational* consciousness. Incidentally I searched youtube for "ayn rand nietzsche" and there's a video of phil prof Stephen Hicks reading his 'Journal of Ayn Rand Studies' article comparing their conceptions of egoism. Fortunately a pdf version can be googled.
Care to mention what she gets wrong instead of simply asserting it? She didn't say that much so it shouldn't be that difficult to point out a thing or two she got wrong.
***** When I posted that comment, there was no discussion for me to see. Glad you guys discussed. Very interesting. I need to read him myself.
John Ridpath's lectures on Nietzche are what you should look at not Peikoff which was just a general history of philosophy not a detailed description.
I contend that one is going to learn more about a person's philosophy by reading that philosopher's works than by reading some asshole academic's view or interpretation of that philosopher's work.
Fantastic! if only we had that kind of intellectual dynamism today. Thus, each of us must develop our own philosophy of reason to the best of our abilities, yes?
nietzsche was right, so rand too. rand is proposing a model of morality, nietzsche was simply describing the reality.
It's ridiculous that Rand criticises Nietzsche because of "his general FEEL of his thought." As she herself says at 0:55
It's like a child criticising a giant... because it FEELS like he is wrong.
She actually says, "... above all he is certainly NOT an upholder of REASON..." 1:10 imagine the kind of ignorance a person needs to have to say some shit like that.
@@ggrthemostgodless8713 did you even have seeing more than 2 minutes?
She said "excepting for his general feel or feeling for individualism"
She doesn't criticize Nietzsche for his "feel" she did it for his fundamentals, you dumbass
Nietzsche read Hindu texts as well as his teacher Schopenhauer, but got a totally different view from them - his ubermench - or superman - is nothing but "Aham Brahmasmi" - I am God - from Hindu texts. Rand read him wrong - Nietzsche was not saying we are born in a class or born as superman or slave but it is our WILL to be so - we can either be great or be nothing - it is up to us
For example the Greeks had a great religion that taught them that they could be Gods - the lesson got lost in all the noise that Hollywood exploits today - Gods didn't come from the sky - WE are the Gods that is what Greeks were saying and Hinduism says the same thing
But Greeks abandoned this great faith and embraced a Master/Slave religion - God is seen as a Master, if we get down on our knees and beg and grovel he will be pleased and give us the good life in Heaven!
Greeks chose to be slaves rather than be Gods!
What fools!
Tat Tvam Asi - You Are That - in Hindu texts says that we become who we are or what we desire - since Christians and Muslims want nothing better to do than mooch of some Sugar Daddy, sit around doing nothing in Heaven, they will be reborn as Trees, pets - Dog, Cat - then they will get to sit around all day doing nothing!
Heaven is fools Gold
You seem to be an alter ego of mine!!
👏
Eh. He just hails from and inspires people that oppose her tribe. And yes .. her work was tribal. And her disdain here is tribal. I'm not personally inspired by Nietzsche that much, but this is a safe call here.
In what way is her work "tribal"? Anyone can be an Objectivist if he or she believes in the epistemology.
@@Extra_050 He means he is very unfond of the fact she was a jew.
@@ThreeFingerG I suspected that was what he meant. I just wondered whether he'd have the guts to say it explicitly.
@@Extra_050 Force a person to put what they are trying to say in explicit terms and you will find it takes the wind out of their sails proportional to how dishonest their thinking is.
Definition of tribe:
a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader.
Definition of individual:
a particular being or thing as distinguished from a class, species, or collection
I guess if a is not a one could conclude objectivism is a philosophy of tribal individualism.
What is difference between a useless pile of Stones and the Crystal Clear Water that runs over them?
OK, so practically speaking Randism and Nietzscheism don't have much in common that is not to deny the fact both "philosophies" are in practical terms sterile.
Neither offer any practical answers to the problem of how can a highly populated, technically sophisticated prosperous, free yet stable, secure civilised society can adapt, flourish and progress?
They continue to grow and flourish by allowing freedom to continue. When freedom reigns supreme the cream will always rise.
I love rand, but to say Nietzsche was not an individualist and that her work has almost nothing to do with him is without a doubt the most stupid thing I've heard her say. Nietzsche's ethics is more similar to hers than aristotle's.
Dont bother w/evidence. Just puff yourself up.
I don't know about Nietzsche, but Zarathustra was a psychopath.
Misinterpretation
The two most cringe philosophers of all time. Nietzsche and non-binary Nietzche in a single talk. What a treat.
She obviously has never read Nietzsche with honesty ... whatever
I read somewhere she was extremely familiar with past philosophers, she studied it throughout school
Mathieu Fechant Okay, but she debates a Nietszsche scholar and he doesn't complain about being misrepresented.
+Mathieu Fechant She did but hijacked all his insides and claimed it was all hers. A very ugly form of arrogance
Your mindless will to power is noted.
I love listening to rand, though her philosophy does have some problems. 1. How can the human mind be born tabula rasa? The brain is, first of all, an organ. Like any organ, is is subject to biological processes, genes etc... Just like limbs grow to be different lengths, or with different skin color, our brains also have certain things predetermined. Also, the idea that no ideas are innate seems to disregard evolutionary psychology. We can see social structures (which relates to some form of innate idea about structure), even in organisms that barely have any capacity for reason, such as lobsters.
2. I see a problem with her epistemology and metaphysics. She seems to ignore the question of whether we can derive an objective reality and what exactly our criteria of an objective reality is. She just seems to assert that we derive objective reality through our senses, and that's that.
1. She's talking specifically about the mind, not the (whole) brain. The mind is the part of the human brain that has evolved to think rationally. It is the consciousness (us) that thinks for itself. www.dictionary.com/browse/mind?s=t
2. We all can derive objective morality though our senses. She says that man should recognize reason (applied logic) as his main vitrue. Through applying logic, man can objectively derive things.
+Adrian Braysy
I also would like to give a response to your two questions.
"How can the human mind be born tabula rasa? The brain is, first of all, an organ. Like any organ, is is subject to biological processes, genes etc... Just like limbs grow to be different lengths, or with different skin color, our brains also have certain things predetermined. "
Tabula rasa doesn't mean that your brain/mind doesn't have a nature. It does. But it means you aren't born with innate ideas. I'll give you can example. It is hardcoded into the brain that you get angry at injustice. That is predetermined. But what you think of as just vs. unjust changes based on your ideas, which aren't innate. For example, you might hate capitalism because you aren't knowledgeable about economics and you think the world is a zero sum game. You would feel anger when people talked about capitalism and you have no control about whether you feel that way or not (you can react differently, but you will still feel the emotion). As you learn more about economics, you will find that capitalism is the best system that exists, and is moral, and over time, your emotion will change away from anger at the word capitalism. The injustice reaction is still in your brain, but it is the ideas that influence it, and you aren't born with those.
"Also, the idea that no ideas are innate seems to disregard evolutionary psychology. We can see social structures (which relates to some form of innate idea about structure), even in organisms that barely have any capacity for reason, such as lobsters."
Yes, most evolutionary psychology is hopelessly misled by their philosophy. Primitive animals like lobsters for example (it might get a little more complicated on boundary animals like dolphins or chimps), don't have ideas. They have reflexes. They get some stimulus from their environment, and they react in a certain way to that stimulus. There is no thought involved. Yes some animals are social in the sense that they have interactions with other animals, but they didn't sit down and say "how can we best survive? I know, lets get in groups". No, all lobsters who weren't social like this, died off. There is an evolutionary advantage to living in groups. But that doesn't mean lobsters chose groups or have ideas.
"I see a problem with her epistemology and metaphysics. She seems to ignore the question of whether we can derive an objective reality and what exactly our criteria of an objective reality is. She just seems to assert that we derive objective reality through our senses, and that's that."
She covers this much more in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and Leonard Piekoff also covers this in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand I believe. The question of can we derive an objective reality has a problem with it's phrasing. Objective reality exists. We can derive objective ideas about reality using reason (of which senses are a part). But we do not "derive objective reality" because reality is not created through consciousness. Not God's consciousness (religion), not Man's consciousness (Kant) and not the individuals consciousness (postmodernism). Existence exists INDEPENDENT of consciousness, which is also the definition she uses for objective, "independent of consciousness". Given that existence, reality, is independent of consciousness (objective), your ideas are objective if what the subject (your mind) was looking at (reality) during the entire process of forming your mental content, using the proper method (reason). Reason consists of 3 parts: sensory data, objective concept formation, and logic. I admit to knowing less about Nietzsche, but I suspect that he thought there was some way in which we acquire knowledge without using the senses.
Brilliant.
Innate ideas are the insane claim that man knows reality prior to knowing reality. The only evidence for the cause of ideas is man's direct, immediate, introspective consciousness of his poweto focus his mind and form ideas. Evolutionary study stops prior to mans volitional/conceptual mind. Matter and life cant cause ideas. You "see" social structures?! What are you smoking? Man conceptualizes society.
@@damonhage7451 > It is hardcoded into the brain that you get angry at injustice.
No innate ideas. Eg ,Stoics refused to get angry at anything.
man is obviously not a tabula rasa. Even rands own characters demonstrate this in their rebellion against the systems they inhabit. Prometheus, Hank Rearden, Dagney Taggart, John Gault, Howard Roark. They clearly each have some extra spark inside them which makes them temperamentally unwilling to submit to the powers that be (demonstrating will to power over their own lives), in contrast to the people of the world around them. In fact I have never seen characters which so well represent the realization of Nietzsche's over-man as these do. From reading them, I surely get they sense that they would will the eternal recurrence, as Nietzsche claimed would be the test of his over-man. In effect, I see a coherent dialectical synthesis between Nietzsche and Rand.
What makes you think that "spark" was a product of their birth?
@@HeinrichKonig the fact that practically nobody else around them seems to posses it and they seem to have it fully formed within them from the beginning of their stories. If Rand wanted to demonstrate that anyone would be able to be the kind of people that would follow her philosophy, she could have written a story in which someone starts as less than these ideal men and gradually becomes one. imagine a prequel to atlas shrugged which hank rearden or john gault started off as someone rand would consider repugnant, but that through following the application of reason, he became the man we see in the book she wrote.
Rand was a closet fan of Nietzsche and she didn't even know it.
To say that you first have to understand what is Nietzsche’s philosophy and then to get the essence at least of Rand’s ideas. You will probably see your mistakes by your own
I mostly agree with Any Rand's ideas about politics, egoism and individualism. But it looks like she's never read a book from Plato or Nietzche
Her ignorance of Nietzsche's work is disappointing.
Either make an actual argument, or GTFO!
Nietzsche may talk in the way other philosophers have talked, but never have I received from his writings that some are BORN one way, some ANOTHER....What he says is that through an analysis of history, such have been some conclusions....he makes predictions about how the human race will continue to act as stupidly as it always has....BUT he does not ADVOCATE it, which is where Rand's evaluation goes off the tracks...this charlatan only seeks to CONFUTE Ontology with Morality...and any number of grad students has spoken better upon that topic than Ayn Rand...she's an amateur...and just think who her philosophical contemporary is, dumbing down the world so nobody has to read...L. Ron Hubbard and Ayn Rand ARE TWINS!
Man's mind is not AT FIRST a volitional faculty....and the knowledge acquired after walking as a baby may not even be a choice...she is so ridiculous
What?
It is true that mans mind is not volitional at birth, but his mind is a blank slate, requiring time to develop and form. But that does not negate the fact that volition, the ability to choose, to think, to act according to reason is inherent to human nature once the mind is capable of functioning
Ayn Rand was totally clueless in regard to Nietzsche and his philosophy. Everything she said is opposite to the reality that they DID share many aspects of their philosophy, but still Nietzsche was far superior both in intellectual capabilities and in the ability to express his thoughts as a concise and consistent worldview.
Lmfao.. that's not what we just witnessed on this video. That dude got body slammed.
+Louis Cyfear Nope, she just ripped off the best parts of Nietzsche, modified something in a convoluted way, and added the economy/politics bits.. Nothing original IMO.
+MK Warlock Maybe so, but the person she is supposedly debating got his ass kicked.
If this was a wrestling match Ayn Rand would have been Hulk Hogan leg dropping a jobber. It wasn't even close.
+Louis Cyfear she wasn't debating anyone, she was taking questions from students.
Only assertions here and not a single argument/example.
Both Rand and the interviewer misunderstand and poorly explain Nietzsche ideas. If Rand “blows any minds” it would be a sign that those minds are yet to read other philosophers (Nietzsche in particular!). Nietzsche is a realist, Rand an Idealist.
Read everything and refrain from tribalism over literature unless you believe we are all to think the same in perfect unison. Honestly, intellectual areas of debate have descended into jeering sports fandoms.
jeep23862 I wouldn’t advise such an assumption, no. I do not define myself by labels and status yet you seem to have attributed one to me. By doing so you insult before asking a question, and then expect a conversation? Surely text communications provide ample opportunity to think over what you say?
Her philosophy is typically dismissed by serious philosophers are flawed. Only pseudo-intellectuals that like how her thoughts reinforce capitalism and denounce socialism and promote self-determinism which then allows them to be greedy, selfish bastards. And yet they use a system that is not pure capitalism, includes a great deal of socialism and ultimately relies on a social contract that cooperatively and with compromise balances between individual and collective needs. These are the same people that take up positions as civil servants or run corporations that rely on a subservient workforce and yet say that we should all be transactional, self serving, and self-dealing. The hypocrisy would be sad if not interesting for the perverse spectacle that it creates. This woman is not a great thinker. She is simply a product of the years of the iron curtain which she has translated into some universal perspective whose inflexibility is incapable of resolving its own paradoxes.
Your accusation is both illogical and rooted in a profound misunderstanding of my philosophy. First, Objectivism is not some convenient justification for greed or selfishness, as you seem to think. It is a philosophy grounded in reality, reason, individualism, and the moral right to pursue one’s own happiness. To dismiss it as a tool for the selfish few is an act of intellectual cowardice-one that avoids confronting the fact that self-interest is the only rational and moral basis for human action. You attack the idea of capitalism as if it were a perverse creation. In reality, capitalism is the only system that honors individual rights, freedom, and objective justice. It is the only system that allows human beings to live as they choose, based on their own abilities, choices, and values. The notion that capitalism leads to exploitation is a myth propagated by those who have a vested interest in promoting the collectivist ideals that have failed humanity time and again. Your invocation of the social contract as a supposed moral system only demonstrates how deeply embedded you are in the illusions of collectivism, which treat the individual as a slave to the collective. As for your criticism of those who work within this system-be it civil servants or corporate leaders-it is nothing but a projection. The truth is, those who embrace Objectivism reject coercion, whether it comes from the state or from any other collectivist institution. Objectivism does not advocate for a blind pursuit of wealth or dominance over others; it advocates for the freedom to choose and to act in accordance with reason and rational self-interest. The hypocrisy you speak of lies not in my philosophy, but in your own failure to understand or apply principles consistently. You claim that she is the product of the iron curtain-yet it is you who are blind to the paradoxes inherent in collectivism. You seek refuge in the collective, as if compromise and weakness can lead to human flourishing. In reality, compromise with evil, with the denial of individual rights, leads to the destruction of freedom. Her philosophy stands as a consistent, rational response to the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of collectivism
A guide into narcism. Rand adds nothing to this world. She produced ego manics like Alan Greenspan, great for the collective Ayn!
***** Greenspan admired Rand but he says he is a libertarian first. So he wasn't an objectivist.
+Mucky Pup But she stood beside him when he signed his contract with the state.
***** Friends don't put philosophy over friendship. I have many friends of various opinion, I don't stop supporting them because they have a chance to make change. I just encourage them to create positive change knowing full well it is out of my hands.
+Jan Andhisfiets So, she was not perfect. She should have taken Gandalf's attitude towards the Ring of Power. "Don't... tempt me Frodo! I dare not take it. Not even to keep it safe. Understand, Frodo. I would use this ring from a desire to do good... But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine."
It is the position of Charman of the Federal Reserve that corrupted Greenspan, not Rand's philosophy, which he had clearly abandoned by the late 1990's.