‘Moderates’ vs. ‘Extremists’: Ayn Rand’s View
Вставка
- Опубліковано 31 тра 2024
- Listen to the full interview of Ayn Rand titled “The Enemies of ‘Extremism’”
• "The Enemies of 'Extre...
This was Ayn Rand’s answer to a question during a radio interview about “extremism.”
Question: Is it good to be a moderate?
TIMESTAMPS
(00:00) - Intro
(00:10) - Could you tell me what a "moderate" is?
(00:51) - Is it good to be a "moderate"?
Columbia University WKCR, “The Enemies of ‘Extremism’,” 1964.
-------------------------------
Subscribe to ARI’s UA-cam channel to make sure you never miss a video:
ua-cam.com/users/subscription_...
Download or stream free courses on Ayn Rand’s works and ideas with the Ayn Rand University app:
- App Store itunes.apple.com/us/app/ayn-r...
- Google Play play.google.com/store/apps/de...
ARI is funded by donor contributions. You can support our work by becoming an ARI Member or making a one-time contribution: ari.aynrand.org/donate
******
Keep in Touch! Sign up to receive email updates from ARI: aynrand.org/signup
Follow ARI on Twitter: / aynrandinst
Follow ARI on Facebook: / aynrandinstitute
Follow ARI on Instagram: / aynrandorg
Subscribe to the ARI Live! podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
******
Explore these ideas further! ARI's online publication, New Ideal, explores pressing cultural issues from the perspective of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism: newideal.aynrand.org/
Join an upcoming virtual or in-person event: ari.aynrand.org/events/
Visit ARI’s website for more about our content and programs: ari.aynrand.org/
brilliant! and she predicted the way "they" use words now!!
We must keep an archive of physical dictionaries that will make it much harder those who feel the need to weaponize words, speech and thought, to essentially rewrite history.
Bang on. Now play the one on extremism, which came before this one
💯💯💯
I am an ''extremist'' (philosophically speaking).
So actual
She's right about the tags and names. Why do we have to be in one camp or another. Why do you have to be a socialist or a capitalist or a conservative or liberal?
What is with all this labelling and shoving into boxes??
Let me do a thought ieperiment. You are pretty much dying of starvation. You find a can of something and shake it. You know it contains liquid. However, the label has fallen off, it could be a can of soup or of motor oil; or any number of things either nourishing or deadly. Do you consume the contents? Let us do another. You meet someone. If you wish to enter a relationship, do you want that person to be honest or deceitful? You ask around and all whom you ask say they do not believe in labels. Do you adimit that person into your life?
Labels IDENTIFY things. To act, you need ot IDENTIFY what your actions will be directed towards. The difference between a socialist and a cpaitalist is profound, when you ask "why should I work for your outfit" one will produce a wage, which will enable you to buy food, clothing and shelter. The other will produce a gun and tell you "because I said so, now get to work!". Which one will do which? Which country is left, The United States, the best, though far from complete, example of capitalism or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, whose name says it all?
THAT is what lebels do: Increase knowledge by IDENTIFYING what you are looking at and thus lay the foundations for you to turn that knowledge into concepts and evaluate the items to which that all refers
@@SpacePatrollerLaser ..those are things not philosophical discrimination.
The 20th century has been characterised by a lot of economic tripe and political tripe and it has been deadly.
Labels are good and necessary. They are the names of the "file folders" we use to make sure our concepts are well organized. A dog is a type of animal. An animal is a type of living being, etc.
The issue is not with labels, it's with concepts that are vague, undefined, imprecise. If you look at any of these concepts, very often the purpose is to destroy a well established concept and try to sneak in false premises like a trojan horse.
@@alexanderscott2456 ... the labels I speak about are largely sociopolitical , one has to be in some sort of gang.
I've made a late entrance into local politics in my country where things are not going well , and one of the problems i've encountered in council and the municipality is that everything is completely polarised around one label or another and it has all ground to a halt .
@@alexanderscott2456 You are bang on the money!! with Philosophy being the Human Operating System"
Ayn Rand doesnt really understand ideological dialectics.
Being moderate means someone who doesnt take their ideology far, they only take it as necessary as possible, they can also not even be ideological, being moderate also means someone who is much more able to hear others and different ideas than to be too attached in their own views.
Her argument of being "moderate for clearly wrong things" is by itself a strawman and circular reasoning, what she calls "injustice" is not for the moderates, no moderate in their own minds would defend "clearly wrong things". And this is why she is an ideologue, she demonizes others who think the opposite, because she seens incapable of store different philosophies which she does not agree, if she does not agree with something, it has to be necessarily evil for her, and this type of thinking is one which every dangerous person ever constantly harvests.
You reassured me I wasn't entirely clueless 😅
Half truth is a myth.
Half-truth is a moderate's version of truth since full truth would be estremist
My issue with too much personal liberty is that people get exploited. Exploitation will happen regardless, just in different forms. We have a democratic government it listens to us (in theory), are companies and corporations democratic? No, they are not. I don't mind more state control, but it's what type of state control.
If that's your authentic opinion, then I'm not quite sure what you're doing in the comment section of a video about Ayn Rand...
Liberty refers to people able to make free choices in the absence of force. Exploitation refers to treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work. What exactly do these two things have to do with each other? That people would be free to treat people unfairly? Unfair by what standard? The real motivator here is Altruism. That such people would be treated unfair according to altruistic standards. Yet another example of how altruism and liberty are in conflict.
You are a perfect fascist.
actually, "exploitation" refers to nothing.
Because, I like discussing poltiical issues, and seeing other perspectives. Unless you like circle jerks? Do you not watch videos that go against what you think to make your arguments stronger? Or at the very least to know your enemy?@@Luke-lb2cv
this woman is still not even close to being in any way accurate. She defines the words in only the way she feels are the advantage to her agenda. And this makes the whole idea that she is some kind of expert worthless. She is an example of Orwellian behavior.
The projection is palpable.
@@alexanderscott2456projecting what?
@@stevengoldstein114 You accusing Rand of defining words based on emotion rather than looking at reality. That's exactly the purpose of undefinable, undefined terms such as "moderation" and "extremism", which you think are worth defending. And you attack Rand here because you desperately need those smear terms in your arsenal.
@@alexanderscott2456 what is am demonstrating is Ayn Rand is the same as LRon Hubbard. Her philosophy is the same as dianetics and Scientology. And you know that is true.
@@stevengoldstein114 Don't pay any attention to this Steven Goldstein TROLL. He goes on any comment site regarding Ayn Rand and drools his pathetic blather all over the place.... but REFUSES to read a single word Rand has written. He has admitted... PROUDLY... that he's never read anything she wrote... yet he pretends to be a valid critic. He is scared shietlass of what would happen to him if people followed Rand's advice and stopped supporting his meaningless life.