Easy to understand because it is logical and reasonable. Men's mind cannot be fooled, so if it is hard to understand something, than it pretends to be irrational bullshit.
This is good stuff. Having a layman discuss at length with philosophers is what non-Objectivists desperately need. She asks a lot of the same questions non-Objectivists would ask.
Gracias por los subtítulos. A pesar de los errores de interpretación/traducción. Y no es que G.A sea mala entrevistando, pienso que lo hace simple a propósito. Y preguntas tan simples pueden parecer una mala entrevista para alguien que esté versado en Objetivismo.
There's one objective reality. And each life form has their own set of senses to perceive the reality. The senses might be different to each kind of life form, but one objective reality still exist nevertheless. And reason is one of the senses (intuitive sense), a tool, unique to human to perceive the objective reality. If there;s a wall nearby, a person may perceive it through their visual sense, another blind person may perceive it through their touch sense, and a bat may perceive it through their audial sense, but nonetheless, the wall is there. If, for example the blind person tried to use his visual sense to perceive the wall and failed, and argued that there's no wall, despite never tried to use his other senses for example his touch sense, then it's his failure see the reality. And that's how people end up divided when it comes to perceiving reality. When they tried to find an objective reality, they may find different version of subjective realities and just end their journey there, and accepting the notion that reality is different for everyone.
@@gianniguy10 I think Dr. B deals more in Psych. Dr. Ghate does not seem to be aware of the "Great Clockmaker" theory, to which Newton subscribed, in which God created the universe and let it go to function on its own. Also he seems not to be aware of Aquinas who said "It is better that a man not believe in God than to believe on faith". In the Medieval mind, the existence and goodness of God were accepted as having been proven by Reason. In that context "On faith" was simply taking God at hs word. And we all know who counselled men to "take them at their word" and was a YUGE fan of Tommy boy (did that make her the first philosophical groupie?)
I have personally talked with H. Binswanger, on more than one occasion, and he has always been consistent in his intellectual expressions & philosophical positions!
If there is no objective reality independent of our thoughts and feeling, why are there so many candidates for the Darwin Award? Which, in 2384 was renamed "Ayn Rand's Revenge"
As for the color blind people: If you ask a color blind person to separate a group of blocks by color, they will separate them into the same groups as a person with normal color-vision. So, yes there is one reality even if a person has a physical defect.
There is one reality, but that doesn't mean having physical defects (or different forms of perception) will give us access to the same aspects of reality. Here's an experiment of a colorblind person sorting m&ms. There are several others on youtube. ua-cam.com/video/0pqH5pX7aZ0/v-deo.html&ab_channel=CameronFTW
I find many of the tenets of objectivism to be true. One of the things that bothers me, though, is that there seems to be a misunderstanding by Onkar and others about Christianity. He stated that Christians can only define God, heaven and eternity in terms of what they are not. Actually, the Bible gives many, many descriptions of these in concrete positive terms. Yes, some of the attributes, such as the eternality of God, are hard to understand because we don't experience those attributes as mankind. Yet, to say that something doesn't exist because it doesn't fit into the way we experience life is, in my opinion, rather shallow and not broad minded.
That is to say that the Christian God is by its very nature supernatural. So this would mean it’s beyond the natural world and existence as it exists. This is quite an extraordinary claim. It rest upon Christians to provide evidence for this being and Christians cannot, for this reason objectivism rejects the idea of a supernatural being outside of existence. Not to mention the myriad of self contractions that are inherent in being such as God. How can an infinite eternal being add or subtract from itself? How does an all loving all knowing God willingly send souls to hell by creating them in the first place? Or is it that God doesn’t have the knowledge? If he does then doesn’t that contradict free will? Theres more but you get the idea… Christian response would be it’s a mystery beyond our understanding which is very convenient but doesn’t answer the question. Which is why many come to understanding that faith is incompatible with reason.
@@brayanzabala3982 It's pronounced "Gaat-tei". As if you "got a" phone, or "got a" cold, or "got a'" car. He's joked about people never getting his name right. No biggie.
ua-cam.com/video/EO68Kvb9fD4/v-deo.html Hans-Herman Hoppe in this speech, addresses what left vs right means and he shows that it is not individualism vs collectivism or capitalism vs socialism. It is equality vs hierarchy and even deeper it is a world view based on socio-biology vs a worldview based on the blank slate view of human nature. Sadly, Rand herself held a blank slate view of human nature which we can forgive her for because she did not have access to the ton of information we have on the related subjects now. Hoppe explains how one of the most important events for humanity was that the northern peoples, ie lighter skinned people, developed greater cognitive skills because of the selection pressures from dealing with the harsh winters from the last mini-ice age (glacial minimum). This changed both the IQ and the reproductive strategies of the various races. This has consequences. Hoppe is the most hated of the Austrians because he has gone down the path of race and sex realism, ie hereditarianism, and included it in his approach to libertarianism. He has gone beyond Rothbard here. Obleftivism at large refuses to do this because it has such a commitment to Rand's blank slate view of individualism that it just won't recognize group differences for fear that it would destroy the entire movement and liberty itself.
As he is describing how people pay homage and ask favors of God, at the same time sounds like he's describing some central government. Different philosophies.
There seems to be the belief here that everyone has a "mind", That is not true, at least empirically. For any person, the mind does not exist automatically, you have to BUILD it. Why do you think so many false philosophies resemble "mental illness"? Here's the score on that: The intellect is a wonderful thing. It can cleave into the heart of a star like a mighty great sword and once there, can dissect the tiniest subnuclear particle better than the finest obsidian scalpel. But it canNOT do any of that on its own: The target, star or subnuclear particle, must be SELECTED. The intellect must be CONFIGURED; great sword or finest obsidian scalpel. The intellect must be brought to the target and must be operated with intent. THIS is the function of the mind. Despite your biological heritage, if you do not develop this system then you do not have a mind -- or a soul. If you doubt me. and I hope you do, observe the current political situation. One party has lost its soul, that having been eaten away by 55 years of its Agenda. The other party gave its soul and mind, away to the lowest from of anthropoid life and became a cult of personality: And we are going to get stuck with one of them. If you want to know which is the worse, it is the one that did so freely, willingly and KNOWGLY. The one that had at least a sense of morality and deliberately sabotaged it in a massive case of Sgt. Schultz Syndrome: ua-cam.com/video/OsXrpxo4uC0/v-deo.html
She is very attractive, luckily I'm tamed enough by my girlfriend to pay attention to her thoughts or I would have heard very little of the conversation.
Such a mediocre interviewer, it's kinda annoying that these 'arbitrary'(in the sense that it deviates from the essence of the discussion in a disturbing manner) questions but Harry never fails to impress! To not bend to the misguidance and stick with a solid philosophical foundation is one of the most difficult things to do and Harry freaking aces it! God bless you Harry!
She asks the basic questions that 99.9% of this planet would ask of an objectivist philosopher. I don't see any issue with the questions she is asking. Especially since you can take someone who has studied Kant for 50 years, and still claim there are multiple realities without any evidence. Even your most educated and advanced philosophers will evade at these most basic questions.
@@DeeperWithDiego If this were not an educational context. I would have an issue with the question. I would have an issue with the question being asked by anyone over 5 years old who ran into a wall and got a nosebleed or told has dad to eff off and found out what Lifebuoy tasted like
Amusing: a philosopher that advocates the purge of emotions from reasoning having as her masterpieces a bunch of ficction books. That tells you something. *EDIT: Maybe Im suposing a relation between art and emotion that Rand doesnt. Thanks Alex Leibovici for pointing that out*.
You are making two assumptions: - that emotions have nothing to do with reason, and - that A. Rand fiction books are the product of emotions. Both assumptions are wrong.
@@alexleibovici4834 My opinion: 1) emotion is an aspect of reasoning (neuroscience shows us the role of emotions in memorization, for example) and Rand is wrong by downplaying it. 2) ficction, sience the very beginig of capitalism, is a substitute of objective analysis (see Robinson in the island, bottle of water in the desert).
@@alexleibovici4834 about 2nd point, im talking about the history of economic thougth by capitalists supporters. There is a tradition of ficctional "analysis". Everything makes sense, once you put ficcional supositions in the place of concrete history.
@@alexleibovici4834 on the 1st point, im not talking about Rands positions on emotions, but about the relation of what she thinks and how Rand and objectivists deal with emotions in their concrete activity. I see ambiguity.
I used to hate Ayan Rand views, but now I am entertaining her views and philosophy of objectivism.
Easy to understand and very meaningful. Thank you!
Easy to understand because it is logical and reasonable. Men's mind cannot be fooled, so if it is hard to understand something, than it pretends to be irrational bullshit.
Excellent. I already saw the whole series of this on the ARI website - courses. It's all free. It gets better, especially on episode 4 and 5.
This is good stuff. Having a layman discuss at length with philosophers is what non-Objectivists desperately need. She asks a lot of the same questions non-Objectivists would ask.
Gracias por los subtítulos. A pesar de los errores de interpretación/traducción.
Y no es que G.A sea mala entrevistando, pienso que lo hace simple a propósito.
Y preguntas tan simples pueden parecer una mala entrevista para alguien que esté versado en Objetivismo.
This is my favorite episode so far (of the first three out as of now). Thank you for putting these out!
Excellent
There's one objective reality. And each life form has their own set of senses to perceive the reality. The senses might be different to each kind of life form, but one objective reality still exist nevertheless. And reason is one of the senses (intuitive sense), a tool, unique to human to perceive the objective reality.
If there;s a wall nearby, a person may perceive it through their visual sense, another blind person may perceive it through their touch sense, and a bat may perceive it through their audial sense, but nonetheless, the wall is there. If, for example the blind person tried to use his visual sense to perceive the wall and failed, and argued that there's no wall, despite never tried to use his other senses for example his touch sense, then it's his failure see the reality. And that's how people end up divided when it comes to perceiving reality. When they tried to find an objective reality, they may find different version of subjective realities and just end their journey there, and accepting the notion that reality is different for everyone.
I really like Harry Binswangers clarification.
I know some people will consider these fightin' words, but my favorite living philosopher is Dr. Ghate.
Dr. Binswanger is the MAN!
@@gianniguy10 I think Dr. B deals more in Psych. Dr. Ghate does not seem to be aware of the "Great Clockmaker" theory, to which Newton subscribed, in which God created the universe and let it go to function on its own. Also he seems not to be aware of Aquinas who said "It is better that a man not believe in God than to believe on faith". In the Medieval mind, the existence and goodness of God were accepted as having been proven by Reason. In that context "On faith" was simply taking God at hs word. And we all know who counselled men to "take them at their word" and was a YUGE fan of Tommy boy (did that make her the first philosophical groupie?)
Oh yea?! That's it! We fightin! lol jk. Yes, Dr. Ghate has given me MANY new perspectives to Ayn Rand. I appreciate him so much!
I have personally talked with H. Binswanger, on more than one occasion, and he has always been consistent in his intellectual expressions & philosophical positions!
If there is no objective reality independent of our thoughts and feeling, why are there so many candidates for the Darwin Award? Which, in 2384 was renamed "Ayn Rand's Revenge"
15:48 yo tengo otros datos jajajaj excelente ejemplo!
What would you guys say about a person who is in a coma. Could they reason that what they are dreaming is not reality?
The perceptions of a dreamer contradict, those of men living in reality don't.
As for the color blind people: If you ask a color blind person to separate a group of blocks by color, they will separate them into the same groups as a person with normal color-vision. So, yes there is one reality even if a person has a physical defect.
There is one reality, but that doesn't mean having physical defects (or different forms of perception) will give us access to the same aspects of reality.
Here's an experiment of a colorblind person sorting m&ms. There are several others on youtube.
ua-cam.com/video/0pqH5pX7aZ0/v-deo.html&ab_channel=CameronFTW
I find many of the tenets of objectivism to be true. One of the things that bothers me, though, is that there seems to be a misunderstanding by Onkar and others about Christianity. He stated that Christians can only define God, heaven and eternity in terms of what they are not. Actually, the Bible gives many, many descriptions of these in concrete positive terms. Yes, some of the attributes, such as the eternality of God, are hard to understand because we don't experience those attributes as mankind. Yet, to say that something doesn't exist because it doesn't fit into the way we experience life is, in my opinion, rather shallow and not broad minded.
That is to say that the Christian God is by its very nature supernatural. So this would mean it’s beyond the natural world and existence as it exists. This is quite an extraordinary claim. It rest upon Christians to provide evidence for this being and Christians cannot, for this reason objectivism rejects the idea of a supernatural being outside of existence.
Not to mention the myriad of self contractions that are inherent in being such as God. How can an infinite eternal being add or subtract from itself? How does an all loving all knowing God willingly send souls to hell by creating them in the first place? Or is it that God doesn’t have the knowledge? If he does then doesn’t that contradict free will? Theres more but you get the idea…
Christian response would be it’s a mystery beyond our understanding which is very convenient but doesn’t answer the question. Which is why many come to understanding that faith is incompatible with reason.
0:47 Oh no! The look on Dr. Ghate's face! Will anyone pronounce your name correctly?!
I'm only teasing. Ms. Gloria is an amazing interviewer!
How should it be pronounced?
@@brayanzabala3982 It's pronounced "Gaat-tei". As if you "got a" phone, or "got a" cold, or "got a'" car. He's joked about people never getting his name right. No biggie.
@@joshuagould548 Thank you! I can pronounce the "gaat" sound. But I'm not sure about "tei" is like the sound in "the" or "bed"?
@@brayanzabala3982 Sounds like "tay". Like the name "Taylor". Onkar "gottay". Hope this helps!
@@joshuagould548 Many thanks! Your help was very helpful to me. 👍
Onker Got
Reality is not two there can be no primacy. "Awareness is known by awareness alone," is the sole irreducible axiom of reality...
ua-cam.com/video/EO68Kvb9fD4/v-deo.html
Hans-Herman Hoppe in this speech, addresses what left vs right means and he shows that it is not individualism vs collectivism or capitalism vs socialism. It is equality vs hierarchy and even deeper it is a world view based on socio-biology vs a worldview based on the blank slate view of human nature.
Sadly, Rand herself held a blank slate view of human nature which we can forgive her for because she did not have access to the ton of information we have on the related subjects now. Hoppe explains how one of the most important events for humanity was that the northern peoples, ie lighter skinned people, developed greater cognitive skills because of the selection pressures from dealing with the harsh winters from the last mini-ice age (glacial minimum). This changed both the IQ and the reproductive strategies of the various races. This has consequences. Hoppe is the most hated of the Austrians because he has gone down the path of race and sex realism, ie hereditarianism, and included it in his approach to libertarianism. He has gone beyond Rothbard here. Obleftivism at large refuses to do this because it has such a commitment to Rand's blank slate view of individualism that it just won't recognize group differences for fear that it would destroy the entire movement and liberty itself.
24:36 beautiful.
As he is describing how people pay homage and ask favors of God, at the same time sounds like he's describing some central government. Different philosophies.
There seems to be the belief here that everyone has a "mind", That is not true, at least empirically. For any person, the mind does not exist automatically, you have to BUILD it. Why do you think so many false philosophies resemble "mental illness"? Here's the score on that:
The intellect is a wonderful thing. It can cleave into the heart of a star like a mighty great sword and once there, can dissect the tiniest subnuclear particle better than the finest obsidian scalpel. But it canNOT do any of that on its own: The target, star or subnuclear particle, must be SELECTED. The intellect must be CONFIGURED; great sword or finest obsidian scalpel. The intellect must be brought to the target and must be operated with intent. THIS is the function of the mind. Despite your biological heritage, if you do not develop this system then you do not have a mind -- or a soul. If you doubt me. and I hope you do, observe the current political situation. One party has lost its soul, that having been eaten away by 55 years of its Agenda. The other party gave its soul and mind, away to the lowest from of anthropoid life and became a cult of personality: And we are going to get stuck with one of them. If you want to know which is the worse, it is the one that did so freely, willingly and KNOWGLY. The one that had at least a sense of morality and deliberately sabotaged it in a massive case of Sgt. Schultz Syndrome: ua-cam.com/video/OsXrpxo4uC0/v-deo.html
Tabula Rosa?
@@591vic That speaks to content, not to structure or process, which is a function of structure
The reality is: these guys do a supurb job not staring at her legs the entire time
her legs are subpar, I don't understand why she exposes them all the time.
@@radiozelaza come on, no need to be nasty. She looks lovely to me
She is very attractive, luckily I'm tamed enough by my girlfriend to pay attention to her thoughts or I would have heard very little of the conversation.
@@georgestacey9558 she has no thoughts. She repeats what she was told.
@@radiozelaza I disagree, these interviews are great and in good part because of her own reflections and questions.
this girl is manipulating the only power left for intellect of the world.
Such a mediocre interviewer, it's kinda annoying that these 'arbitrary'(in the sense that it deviates from the essence of the discussion in a disturbing manner) questions but Harry never fails to impress! To not bend to the misguidance and stick with a solid philosophical foundation is one of the most difficult things to do and Harry freaking aces it! God bless you Harry!
She used to be an eclectic libertarian in the past.
She asks the basic questions that 99.9% of this planet would ask of an objectivist philosopher.
I don't see any issue with the questions she is asking. Especially since you can take someone who has studied Kant for 50 years, and still claim there are multiple realities without any evidence.
Even your most educated and advanced philosophers will evade at these most basic questions.
Gloria is playing devils advocate in most questions
Hey; If Ayn Rand can say "God bless America", and she did then you can say "God Bless Harry"
@@DeeperWithDiego If this were not an educational context. I would have an issue with the question. I would have an issue with the question being asked by anyone over 5 years old who ran into a wall and got a nosebleed or told has dad to eff off and found out what Lifebuoy tasted like
But, the idea that there is no ultimate reality beyond the empirical world is itself a form of dogmatism.
Amusing: a philosopher that advocates the purge of emotions from reasoning having as her masterpieces a bunch of ficction books. That tells you something. *EDIT: Maybe Im suposing a relation between art and emotion that Rand doesnt. Thanks Alex Leibovici for pointing that out*.
You are making two assumptions:
- that emotions have nothing to do with reason, and
- that A. Rand fiction books are the product of emotions.
Both assumptions are wrong.
@@alexleibovici4834 My opinion: 1) emotion is an aspect of reasoning (neuroscience shows us the role of emotions in memorization, for example) and Rand is wrong by downplaying it. 2) ficction, sience the very beginig of capitalism, is a substitute of objective analysis (see Robinson in the island, bottle of water in the desert).
@@virtusoroca7724 Again: you are wrong about Rand's position on emotions.
And I have no idea what you mean in your point (2)
@@alexleibovici4834 about 2nd point, im talking about the history of economic thougth by capitalists supporters. There is a tradition of ficctional "analysis". Everything makes sense, once you put ficcional supositions in the place of concrete history.
@@alexleibovici4834 on the 1st point, im not talking about Rands positions on emotions, but about the relation of what she thinks and how Rand and objectivists deal with emotions in their concrete activity. I see ambiguity.
What a silly discussion.