as autonomous beings each and everyone has it within their 'power' to do as they please. this will surely lead to conflict. to minimize conflict and reduce harm to self an individual may grant to another 'a right' in that the grantor says 'i have done right by you by doing or not doing a certain thing'. if the grantee shall reciprocate, conflict is removed and peaceful mutually beneficial actions can be taken.
I love Harry's take on the FDA. I hold the same vitriol towards them. I've even thought about the great minds that would potentially still be alive today without so much regulation stifling innovation just as he brought up. Great job, Harry!
I don't mind admitting I'm a bit stuck. You say, "The mind MUST be free and you MUST be free to act on your mind and it's as simple as that". I was hoping the explanation would go deeper but just gets stuck at MUST, which like the word ought is just saying it is an imperative e.g. rights are right because they're right. What am I missing? I've always thought of rights just as things people in a society agree to give each other for all our benefit. Is that different from what Ayn Rand is saying? Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.
Deltelly Deltelly Deltelly Deltelly just remember: "If you want" (why - value) "then you must" (how - causality, principle). I hope you understand. English is barely my 2nd language. Far from the Humean-Kantian lexicon of useability of the terms "imperative" and "categorical", the case on the Oist conception of rights is just the application of the overall principle "Reality is fundamentally unchangeable, and if want to live you must act according to it." Thus, since "must" implies a choice, Oist ethics reduces the case to the fundamental choice: to live or not to live. Human beings live by their minds. So they must be free to use their minds. How one could not be free to use his mind? To begin, we must acknowledge that mind is a faculty and is volitional. The most important mental process for life is "thinking" (as against imagination, evaluation - they're important, but it's the former that possibilitates the latter). To think, human being must be left, say, unaffected by life-threatening action of other human beings. Afterwards, to act on what he thought of, he must not be stopped if it is his life-important actions. Being overexaustingly exact, we call this condition "freedom" and it means ultimately be not stopped in his life-sustaining actions. Free minds and free markets are corollaries.
You have such a gift for explaining complex ideas in a way that they are easily understandable. you are one of my favorite Objectivist speakers, Dr. Binswanger.
Not yet. We may add webinars to the app in the future, though! In addition to UA-cam, you can also get webinar recordings as audio on our podcast, Ayn Rand Institute Live.
@@AynRandInstitute ty I will rsvp on your website each week or view it on youtube afterwards. Being there for the Q/A is valuable to me so i would go the extra mile to be there.
@@justifiably_stupid4998 To watch them live (Saturdays at 10am Pacific, 1pm eastern), you need an app called Zoom. It's rather cool, with a chat feature and a place to submit questions. 🙂
He says things like, "There is no such thing as a society", which I get. There are only individuals. But he also says around 36:00 that some things are "society's problem". If society doesnt exist, how can it have a problem, and further how could what does not exist solve something? Or is that the actual point he's making. That it isnt actually a problem per se to be be solved. It's as much a problem as society exists?
It's a confusing statement that causes more bother than it's worth imo. When people say "they is no such thing as a society", they mean there is no higher consciousness called society that has desires and needs like the individual does. The statement is a challenge to collectivist rhetoric that often claims to be on the side of society's "wishes". Certainly a society does exist, but as a collection of individuals.
@@MUSTASCH1O Yeah, I would narrow it even more and say a society is a collective of individuals living with a particular purpose in mind.. or common goals/values. Or orderly in some way. But certainly society, or the group, is not capable of thinking for you just as they are not capable of eating for you. Everything ends at the individual.
Oh boy, an argument for why the law should be able to intervene in animal cruelty. Well, the best I can imagine is that if a person is acting so irrationally that they present a danger to themselves such as a suicidal person or a lunatic on the street, the state can step in to protect them because they are not acting rationally. Not just that they're lacking reason, but they appear to not have a rational faculty either permanently or temporarily. If a person is so irrational that they would torture an animal, that person is clearly not rational enough to be treated like a rational person and could be stopped. We know that doing things like lying, cheating, stealing, and killing harm. The person that does them. You could say that a person torturing animals is harming their own mind and that it would be right to step into protect them from themselves.
Rights do not come to us from nature, which knows no rights except cunning and strength. So what then do we base our rights upon? Modern science and evolutionary theory would tell us that all men are not created equal. Men are born with a variety of traits, some are strengths and some are weaknesses. So if science does not present evidence of “rights” and we do not believe that “rights” come from God or some Supreme Being, where do they come from? Philosophically, we are left with some notion that rights come from ourselves - either we as individuals demand and fight for them or the government grants them to us. But are those actually rights in the traditional sense or simply benefits of where we live and which way the political winds are blowing? If "Rights" do not come from God, then it will come from State.
The notion that man is born free, that total freedom is his natural state, and that all rational men want to be free is a myth that got developed in the Age of Enlightenment by French philosophers who hoped that their philosophy would inspire the rise of a new kind of human material which is untainted by the belief in God and cultural traditions and would be ready to fight and die for a new atheistic utopia of reason and science. These philosophers believed that God and cultural traditions are the two major forces which hinder people from being free. Since the Age of Enlightenment, this myth of total freedom and the hope of an atheistic utopia has been perpetuated by several powerful schools of modern philosophy. Most people (who are not obsessed with philosophy and utopian politics) want to be part of religious and cultural groups which can give them a sense of belonging and security. In Dostoevsky’s novel The Brothers Karamazov, the character called Ivan Karamazov says: “I tell you, man has no preoccupation more nagging than to find the person to whom that unhappy creature may surrender the gift of freedom with which he is born. But only he can take mastery of people's freedom who is able to set their consciences at rest.” Dostoevsky was not a utopian like the Enlightenment philosophers and their modern counterparts-he was a man of wisdom.
There is no such a thing as 'rights'. We born without any 'rights', but we need ('to live and prosper') some 'possibilities' and virtues in our life - so we should fight and care for them.
"Rights" are simply rules developed and honored by people who care about experiencing prosperity and peaceful coexistence. For instance, property rights are developed with that goal in mind.
There is no such thing as "Math", we are born without "Math", but we need ('To build bridges and airplanes) some science and technology in our life, so we should learn to calculate with it.
Ludvig von Mises: There is, however, no such thing as natural law and a perennial standard of what is just and what is unjust. Nature is alien to the idea of right and wrong. "Thou shalt not kill" is certainly not part of natural law. The characteristic feature of natural conditions is that one animal is intent upon killing other animals and that many species cannot preserve their own life except by killing others. The notion of right and wrong is a human device, a utilitarian precept designed to make social cooperation under the division of labor possible. All moral rules and human laws are means for the realization of definite ends. There is no method available for the appreciation of their goodness or badness other than to scrutinize their usefulness for the attainment of the ends chosen and aimed at. From the notion of natural law some people deduce the justice of the institution of private property in the means of production. Other people resort to natural law for the justification of the abolition of private property in the means of production. As the idea of natural law is quite arbitrary, such discussions are not open to settlement. State and government are not ends, but means (p. 716).
This word salad is unclear and confused. Rights don’t exist and they certainly don’t guarantee anything. I would refer you to UPB framework that uses simple clear language to more easily express the morality of universalized principles. No one knows what the word “epistemology” means. Stop using it. I suppose ownership could be interpreted as a “right” but ownership is a universal principle, that is immoral to violate.
The word Epistemology is simple; it means "the study of knowledge, and Man's means of acquiring knowledge (my own off-the cuff definition). The problem seems to lie in the fact that so many people (especially modern philosophers) don't even acknowledge that humans CAN and DO acquire knowledge. "We know that we know nothing", they utter, blanking out the fact that THEY are claiming knowledge. This leads, in education, to people like you who cannot understand a word that Dr. Binswanger says, denies the existence of the concept of rights even after he thoroughly and clearly explains it, and the only one who engages in "word salad" with gibberish like "UPB framework" and "ownership".
@@davidblankenau I was legitimately stunned when Stefan Molyneux said that he didn't understand Ayn Rand's ethics. Looking back at his content since 2015 I realize I shouldn't have been.
@@cas343 Yep. He's apparently an intelligent guy who allegedly read and studied Rand. If he can't understand it, how can we expect the average "Joe Blow" (such as some of those responding to this webinar) to have any clue? 😏
Very awesome to have Harry talk to us with such clearity and certainty. Thank you :)
35:50 "I wouldn't approach it."
I love Harry. The only intellectual left at ARI willing to state the blunt truth.
as autonomous beings each and everyone has it within their 'power' to do as they please. this will surely lead to conflict. to minimize conflict and reduce harm to self an individual may grant to another 'a right' in that the grantor says 'i have done right by you by doing or not doing a certain thing'. if the grantee shall reciprocate, conflict is removed and peaceful mutually beneficial actions can be taken.
I love Harry's take on the FDA. I hold the same vitriol towards them. I've even thought about the great minds that would potentially still be alive today without so much regulation stifling innovation just as he brought up. Great job, Harry!
46:35 Please, Dr. Binswanger, please back that up.
Harry B looking good for 75! Please do more videos! Thank you.
“God creates communism”
that’s one hell of a bumper sticker.
I don't mind admitting I'm a bit stuck. You say, "The mind MUST be free and you MUST be free to act on your mind and it's as simple as that". I was hoping the explanation would go deeper but just gets stuck at MUST, which like the word ought is just saying it is an imperative e.g. rights are right because they're right. What am I missing? I've always thought of rights just as things people in a society agree to give each other for all our benefit. Is that different from what Ayn Rand is saying? Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.
Deltelly Deltelly Deltelly Deltelly just remember: "If you want" (why - value) "then you must" (how - causality, principle).
I hope you understand. English is barely my 2nd language.
Far from the Humean-Kantian lexicon of useability of the terms "imperative" and "categorical", the case on the Oist conception of rights is just the application of the overall principle "Reality is fundamentally unchangeable, and if want to live you must act according to it."
Thus, since "must" implies a choice, Oist ethics reduces the case to the fundamental choice: to live or not to live.
Human beings live by their minds. So they must be free to use their minds. How one could not be free to use his mind? To begin, we must acknowledge that mind is a faculty and is volitional. The most important mental process for life is "thinking" (as against imagination, evaluation - they're important, but it's the former that possibilitates the latter). To think, human being must be left, say, unaffected by life-threatening action of other human beings. Afterwards, to act on what he thought of, he must not be stopped if it is his life-important actions. Being overexaustingly exact, we call this condition "freedom" and it means ultimately be not stopped in his life-sustaining actions.
Free minds and free markets are corollaries.
You have such a gift for explaining complex ideas in a way that they are easily understandable. you are one of my favorite Objectivist speakers, Dr. Binswanger.
Was this webinar featured on the ARI app?
Not yet. We may add webinars to the app in the future, though! In addition to UA-cam, you can also get webinar recordings as audio on our podcast, Ayn Rand Institute Live.
@@AynRandInstitute ty I will rsvp on your website each week or view it on youtube afterwards. Being there for the Q/A is valuable to me so i would go the extra mile to be there.
@@justifiably_stupid4998 To watch them live (Saturdays at 10am Pacific, 1pm eastern), you need an app called Zoom. It's rather cool, with a chat feature and a place to submit questions. 🙂
He says things like, "There is no such thing as a society", which I get. There are only individuals. But he also says around 36:00 that some things are "society's problem". If society doesnt exist, how can it have a problem, and further how could what does not exist solve something? Or is that the actual point he's making. That it isnt actually a problem per se to be be solved. It's as much a problem as society exists?
It's a confusing statement that causes more bother than it's worth imo. When people say "they is no such thing as a society", they mean there is no higher consciousness called society that has desires and needs like the individual does. The statement is a challenge to collectivist rhetoric that often claims to be on the side of society's "wishes".
Certainly a society does exist, but as a collection of individuals.
@@MUSTASCH1O Yeah, I would narrow it even more and say a society is a collective of individuals living with a particular purpose in mind.. or common goals/values. Or orderly in some way.
But certainly society, or the group, is not capable of thinking for you just as they are not capable of eating for you. Everything ends at the individual.
Oh boy, an argument for why the law should be able to intervene in animal cruelty. Well, the best I can imagine is that if a person is acting so irrationally that they present a danger to themselves such as a suicidal person or a lunatic on the street, the state can step in to protect them because they are not acting rationally. Not just that they're lacking reason, but they appear to not have a rational faculty either permanently or temporarily. If a person is so irrational that they would torture an animal, that person is clearly not rational enough to be treated like a rational person and could be stopped. We know that doing things like lying, cheating, stealing, and killing harm. The person that does them. You could say that a person torturing animals is harming their own mind and that it would be right to step into protect them from themselves.
Mind blown at minute 4
Rights do not come to us from nature, which knows no rights except cunning and strength.
So what then do we base our rights upon?
Modern science and evolutionary theory would tell us that all men are not created equal. Men are born with a variety of traits, some are strengths and some are weaknesses.
So if science does not present evidence of “rights” and we do not believe that “rights” come from God or some Supreme Being, where do they come from?
Philosophically, we are left with some notion that rights come from ourselves - either we as individuals demand and fight for them or the government grants them to us. But are those actually rights in the traditional sense or simply benefits of where we live and which way the political winds are blowing?
If "Rights" do not come from God, then it will come from State.
Yaaaaaaawwwwwwwnnnnnnnn…. how can anyone take this guy seriously....???
The notion that man is born free, that total freedom is his natural state, and that all rational men want to be free is a myth that got developed in the Age of Enlightenment by French philosophers who hoped that their philosophy would inspire the rise of a new kind of human material which is untainted by the belief in God and cultural traditions and would be ready to fight and die for a new atheistic utopia of reason and science. These philosophers believed that God and cultural traditions are the two major forces which hinder people from being free.
Since the Age of Enlightenment, this myth of total freedom and the hope of an atheistic utopia has been perpetuated by several powerful schools of modern philosophy.
Most people (who are not obsessed with philosophy and utopian politics) want to be part of religious and cultural groups which can give them a sense of belonging and security. In Dostoevsky’s novel The Brothers Karamazov, the character called Ivan Karamazov says: “I tell you, man has no preoccupation more nagging than to find the person to whom that unhappy creature may surrender the gift of freedom with which he is born. But only he can take mastery of people's freedom who is able to set their consciences at rest.”
Dostoevsky was not a utopian like the Enlightenment philosophers and their modern counterparts-he was a man of wisdom.
They come from me.
There is no such a thing as 'rights'. We born without any 'rights', but we need ('to live and prosper') some 'possibilities' and virtues in our life - so we should fight and care for them.
"Rights" are simply rules developed and honored by people who care about experiencing prosperity and peaceful coexistence. For instance, property rights are developed with that goal in mind.
You say there are no rights, but then you go ahead and define them.
sigh.
There is no such thing as "Math", we are born without "Math", but we need ('To build bridges and airplanes) some science and technology in our life, so we should learn to calculate with it.
@@cas343 We're born without shirts, so according to you, there is no such thing as shirts.
...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.
Ludvig von Mises:
There is, however, no such thing as natural law and a perennial standard of what is just and what is unjust. Nature is alien to the idea of right and wrong. "Thou shalt not kill" is certainly not part of natural law. The characteristic feature of natural conditions is that one animal is intent upon killing other animals and that many species cannot preserve their own life except by killing others. The notion of right and wrong is a human device, a utilitarian precept designed to make social cooperation under the division of labor possible. All moral rules and human laws are means for the realization of definite ends. There is no method available for the appreciation of their goodness or badness other than to scrutinize their usefulness for the attainment of the ends chosen and aimed at.
From the notion of natural law some people deduce the justice of the institution of private property in the means of production. Other people resort to natural law for the justification of the abolition of private property in the means of production. As the idea of natural law is quite arbitrary, such discussions are not open to settlement. State and government are not ends, but means (p. 716).
This word salad is unclear and confused. Rights don’t exist and they certainly don’t guarantee anything. I would refer you to UPB framework that uses simple clear language to more easily express the morality of universalized principles. No one knows what the word “epistemology” means. Stop using it. I suppose ownership could be interpreted as a “right” but ownership is a universal principle, that is immoral to violate.
The fact that no one knows what epistemology means is the problem.
The word Epistemology is simple; it means "the study of knowledge, and Man's means of acquiring knowledge (my own off-the cuff definition). The problem seems to lie in the fact that so many people (especially modern philosophers) don't even acknowledge that humans CAN and DO acquire knowledge. "We know that we know nothing", they utter, blanking out the fact that THEY are claiming knowledge.
This leads, in education, to people like you who cannot understand a word that Dr. Binswanger says, denies the existence of the concept of rights even after he thoroughly and clearly explains it, and the only one who engages in "word salad" with gibberish like "UPB framework" and "ownership".
Was this webinar featured on the ARI app?
@@davidblankenau I was legitimately stunned when Stefan Molyneux said that he didn't understand Ayn Rand's ethics. Looking back at his content since 2015 I realize I shouldn't have been.
@@cas343 Yep. He's apparently an intelligent guy who allegedly read and studied Rand. If he can't understand it, how can we expect the average "Joe Blow" (such as some of those responding to this webinar) to have any clue? 😏