Listening to this account of Rand’s thought process leads me to think that when neuroscientists talk about ‘flow state’ what they’re perhaps observing is the smooth, unencumbered operation of a properly functioning mind, and the joy that results. To have lived and thought that way from early childhood is a glorified existence. I would wish that every human would live that way, though many/most sadly don’t.
Agreed. I have only recently become confident enough in the philosophy of Objectivism to begin debating it with others (online no less), and my first attempt was a resounding failure because, despite my preparations and study, I still couldn't fully convey the principles without getting buried in concretes. For someone to have been able to think and act that way from beginning to end is absolutely incredible. What I wouldn't give to have known her in person even half as well as Dr. Peikoff came to.
@@houseofmargot2871 You only wrote that scurrilous remark out of hate. Had you stopped for one minute to give it thought and reasoned it through you might have well even used the internet that you're own and did some proper honest digging and provided context. You would have discovered that in her time, taking these prescription medications for such things as to work longer hours, was a service doctors would provide. It was not a sordid thing, which is exactly what you were trying to suggest. All you've achieved is your own self abasement in the process of elevating her mind over your own.
Ayn Rand and ARI inspired me to get a B.A in Philosophy a few years ago; I'm in my last semester and they just made a subject on Kant mandatory. This lecture gave me some much needed motivation, thanks.
Regan Brewer I wish you every success, not just for your sake, but also for mine, as I’m seriously scared about the irrationality this world is heading into. Humanity needs reason now perhaps more than ever.
I am listening to this with headphones and reading the text from The Voice of Reason. Though Nathaniel Branden is not mention by name, there are some passages where he brings up "certain people" who stated they were loyal to Ayn Rand and then were later discovered to be disappointments to her.
@@bretnetherton9273 awareness of what? If only it's known by awareness what is anwarness? In effect you have stoled the concept of awareness and thereby made it meaninngless...
When one see's a tree that is awareness as a tree. When one see's a mountain that is awaeeness as a mountain. When one's mind is at peace that is awareness. You are that.
She definitely didn’t “die poor” or anything like that. She was modestly wealthy and had private nurses caring for her in her final hours. She seemed to live comfortably towards the end.
Interesting insight into Rand as a person. I think her associates such as Peikoff are far too hell bent on demonizing the Brandens. The affair with Nathaniel just proves that Rand was human. As Barbara said in her book, Rand was neither a devil nor a saint. it is unfortunate that this provokes such white hot outrage from Peikoff and others.
@@exnihilonihilfit6316 I am indeed aware of James Valliant's book. I'm also aware of people who have responded to it, namely an essay titled "The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism". I'd ask if you've read it, but it's apparent that you won't allow your mind to be "contaminated" by a different take on things.
@@RobertR3750 I haven't, since now is the first time I hear it. Did you allow your mind to be "contaminated" by Valliant's book? (unless it's too expensive)
@@exnihilonihilfit6316 I've read what Valliant had to say, as well as the response to him. I certainly don't think the Brandens are saints. But neither do I consider them corrupting devils. They were human beings, no more, no less. Just like Rand herself.
Not all so called "religion" forbid lies. It's not written just vague, simple and lane like that, living place for countless contradictions. Mot a mot it's: "not to make false testimony against one close to you(as in your kind)". And something similar is forbid by common law also ... called perjury.
Well, he did want us to nuke Iran at one point. I don’t know if that was a good idea. On the other hand, I met him once. Somebody told him that I was raised with Objectivists. He said to me, “you poor thing.”
Have you read the infamous article of a person complaining about being raised by Objectivists making her life hell - from over a decade ago, I think? 😅
When Drumpf started with the pink haired lady who said she had seen god and had touched his (or Jesus) hair. Ayn hated religion. She refused to vote for Reagan because he had coddled up to religionists.
@@sandranorman5469 I like “Drumph” and I also like Jesus and Ayn Rand. I’d imagine Rand would’ve despised Trump as an ignoramus, a businessman with no philosophical ideas guiding him. That’s just my hunch having listened to dozens of hours of Rand speaking. Personally I like Trump because I know he’s a bulwark against communism, which is the biggest threat to Christianity. But Rand would disagree with me bigly.
I enjoyed this and admire Ayn Rand, but the way he dances around and around the adultery question for about 5 minutes is a bit embarrassing -- the gentleman doth methinks protest too much.
Ayn Rand: spectrum: Nathaniel Branden: spectrum mediated by therapy; Leonard Piekoff: spectrum; most of the "Collective": spectrum..."little professors throwing frequent tantrums and in need of constant proctoring": all. Evidently, and with copious "receipts".! Pity my days of completing theses are behind me, as this one could be most socially useful and an anti-dote to the present Republican quandry of being led by identical types with no philosophical education at all, so their toxic, pathological underpinnings are even more evident than their 20th cetury predecessors...
Agree with a lot of Rand's philosophy, which is based primarily on Aristotle's Ethics, Politics and Poetics. Much of it appropriated and revamped. However her take on the Spiritual life is weak and greatly misguided. This is obvious because she never had a spiritual experience in her life, otherwise she would have written about it; everything was based in reality. Phenomena beyond the visible was beyond her experience and therefore beyond her understanding. For her to negate Theology and God is my disagreement with her, but understandable; heavily brainwashed and indoctrinated by her communist upbringing, was the cause and her 'sense of life' the effect.
Correct it's a perceptual adage of old. The principle is that it will appear day to day as a sure thing. You may go onto say well it could go out of existence but it's contextual in this sense. Someone asked those questions initially as it was a comstant.... science then showed us more of the facts of reality
Rodney, you delusional fоol, if science misinforms as much or more than it reveals, how did it reveal iron, electricity, computers and the internet, so we can "enjoy" your howlers here? *Another* "ENLIGHTENED" imbecilе with his _"PROFOUND"_ garbage... *_sigh_*
This is fascinating, but Dr. Peikoff is somewhat blinded by his devotion to the great Rand. Talk about rationalization. I'll take Nathaniel Branden instead.
Hard call. Brandon is great and I'd find it hard not to trust his account and though Peikoff is equally great it does sound like rationalizing a bit. Personally it hurt me deep when I frist learned of her affair with Brandon. Yet, I take solace in the fact that this great movement was born out of Rand and so her imperfection in living up through out maybe due to the "awkwardness of pregnancy", founders often have the task of working out the bugs and representing the finish project all at once. She might have challenged this concept of gap between ideal and reality with regards to her self (which maybe the worse crime) but to me considering the whole context, it is a understandable gap, as long as one is honest about the struggle with it and giving effort to close it.
He's talking about the rational. Thank you, Aristotle, Ayn Rand, and Leonard Peikoff!
Listening to this account of Rand’s thought process leads me to think that when neuroscientists talk about ‘flow state’ what they’re perhaps observing is the smooth, unencumbered operation of a properly functioning mind, and the joy that results. To have lived and thought that way from early childhood is a glorified existence. I would wish that every human would live that way, though many/most sadly don’t.
Agreed. I have only recently become confident enough in the philosophy of Objectivism to begin debating it with others (online no less), and my first attempt was a resounding failure because, despite my preparations and study, I still couldn't fully convey the principles without getting buried in concretes. For someone to have been able to think and act that way from beginning to end is absolutely incredible.
What I wouldn't give to have known her in person even half as well as Dr. Peikoff came to.
@@houseofmargot2871 You only wrote that scurrilous remark out of hate. Had you stopped for one minute to give it thought and reasoned it through you might have well even used the internet that you're own and did some proper honest digging and provided context. You would have discovered that in her time, taking these prescription medications for such things as to work longer hours, was a service doctors would provide. It was not a sordid thing, which is exactly what you were trying to suggest.
All you've achieved is your own self abasement in the process of elevating her mind over your own.
there's nothing I wouldn't trade for such a mind! sadly though, those who have a healthy one ,never use it.
Rand was solid gold. 🧡 And thank goodness we still have Peikoff.
Wonderful. I too regard her as an authentic genius. Wish I could have met her.
What an invaluable personal and inside perspective..
Rand Never had children, but you can tell that her students and debate partners were like children to her. She was a mentor to many.
I love listening to Leonard Peikoff.
Ayn Rand and ARI inspired me to get a B.A in Philosophy a few years ago; I'm in my last semester and they just made a subject on Kant mandatory. This lecture gave me some much needed motivation, thanks.
It's good to know Kant so you know your enemy.
mughat
I won't deny, I had been avoiding Kant till now. You're right though, understanding his position will only strengthen my own.
Regan Brewer I wish you every success, not just for your sake, but also for mine, as I’m seriously scared about the irrationality this world is heading into. Humanity needs reason now perhaps more than ever.
U wasted a lot of time and even more money lol
Congratulations
@@mughat i do not consider either kant or rand as enemies and i have read both.
An amazing thing to listen to all the way through. An amazing human.
What do you think of Nathaniel Branden?
Peikoff, Rand, or both?
Anyone who spent 30 years with that evil witch is a piece of shit
@@dan74275 Does it matter? In both cases, (s)he's a despicable piece of shit.
@@exnihilonihilfit6316 How so?
Excellent talk
13 minutes in! Wonderful so far! Can't wait to listen to the rest.
I'm not sure why I left this comment.
@@Shmookcakes this cracked me up 😂😂 I'm an hour in
Excellent episode! Thank you
56:00
I am listening to this with headphones and reading the text from The Voice of Reason. Though Nathaniel
Branden is not mention by name, there are some passages where he brings up "certain people" who stated
they were loyal to Ayn Rand and then were later discovered to be disappointments to her.
2023 April ...NEVER WAS TODAY A REFLECTION OF HER VISION THAN ANY DAY PRIOR
Very valuable.
34:46
Will these be (or are these already) released in podcast format? Is there an ARI feed?
I wonder if she gave him the FULL ancient Greek mentor-acolyte experience 😉
🎺🇺🇸❤️🆘🌻🐝
Reality is not two, there can be no primacy. Awareness is known by awareness alone.
Awareness (consciousness) requires a material form to be conscious of.
Existence is identity. Consciousness is identification.
@@bretnetherton9273 awareness of what? If only it's known by awareness what is anwarness? In effect you have stoled the concept of awareness and thereby made it meaninngless...
Awareness is known by awareness alone; is the sole irreducible axiom of reality. To put forth a syllable to the contrary is but to concede.
Awareness appears as an existence in the form of finite perceptions.
When one see's a tree that is awareness as a tree. When one see's a mountain that is awaeeness as a mountain. When one's mind is at peace that is awareness. You are that.
So did she die rich or did she die poor? Every other person says different.
She definitely didn’t “die poor” or anything like that. She was modestly wealthy and had private nurses caring for her in her final hours. She seemed to live comfortably towards the end.
You could easily have found the answer to the welfare smear if you wanted to.
"So".
Don't believe anything i say, verify it for yourself-Ayn Rand Now did she take the whole public arena for a ride?
Interesting insight into Rand as a person. I think her associates such as Peikoff are far too hell bent on demonizing the Brandens. The affair with Nathaniel just proves that Rand was human. As Barbara said in her book, Rand was neither a devil nor a saint. it is unfortunate that this provokes such white hot outrage from Peikoff and others.
Hopefully you read James Valliant's book _"The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics: The Case Against the Brandens",_ too - not just their corrupt side.
@@exnihilonihilfit6316 I am indeed aware of James Valliant's book. I'm also aware of people who have responded to it, namely an essay titled "The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism". I'd ask if you've read it, but it's apparent that you won't allow your mind to be "contaminated" by a different take on things.
@@RobertR3750 I haven't, since now is the first time I hear it.
Did you allow your mind to be "contaminated" by Valliant's book? (unless it's too expensive)
@@exnihilonihilfit6316 I've read what Valliant had to say, as well as the response to him. I certainly don't think the Brandens are saints. But neither do I consider them corrupting devils. They were human beings, no more, no less. Just like Rand herself.
Not all so called "religion" forbid lies. It's not written just vague, simple and lane like that, living place for countless contradictions.
Mot a mot it's: "not to make false testimony against one close to you(as in your kind)". And something similar is forbid by common law also ... called perjury.
Well, he did want us to nuke Iran at one point. I don’t know if that was a good idea. On the other hand, I met him once. Somebody told him that I was raised with Objectivists. He said to me, “you poor thing.”
I lived with Atn Rand’s cat after she died. She would be rolling in her grave if she knew what happened to Tommy, her cat.
Why did he say that?
Have you read the infamous article of a person complaining about being raised by Objectivists making her life hell - from over a decade ago, I think? 😅
Ayn Rand would have hated Trump.
@Skip White Then, I'm very disappointed in Leonard.
Ayn Rand would have loved trump
Just don't think you really get it. At all.
When Drumpf started with the pink haired lady who said she had seen god and had touched his (or Jesus) hair. Ayn hated religion. She refused to vote for Reagan because he had coddled up to religionists.
@@sandranorman5469 I like “Drumph” and I also like Jesus and Ayn Rand. I’d imagine Rand would’ve despised Trump as an ignoramus, a businessman with no philosophical ideas guiding him. That’s just my hunch having listened to dozens of hours of Rand speaking.
Personally I like Trump because I know he’s a bulwark against communism, which is the biggest threat to Christianity. But Rand would disagree with me bigly.
I enjoyed this and admire Ayn Rand, but the way he dances around and around the adultery question for about 5 minutes is a bit embarrassing -- the gentleman doth methinks protest too much.
Ayn Rand: spectrum: Nathaniel Branden: spectrum mediated by therapy; Leonard Piekoff: spectrum; most of the "Collective": spectrum..."little professors throwing frequent tantrums and in need of constant proctoring": all.
Evidently, and with copious "receipts".!
Pity my days of completing theses are behind me, as this one could be most socially useful and an anti-dote to the present Republican quandry of being led by identical types with no philosophical education at all, so their toxic, pathological underpinnings are even more evident than their 20th cetury predecessors...
Agree with a lot of Rand's philosophy, which is based primarily on Aristotle's Ethics, Politics and Poetics. Much of it appropriated and revamped. However her take on the Spiritual life is weak and greatly misguided. This is obvious because she never had a spiritual experience in her life, otherwise she would have written about it; everything was based in reality. Phenomena beyond the visible was beyond her experience and therefore beyond her understanding. For her to negate Theology and God is my disagreement with her, but understandable; heavily brainwashed and indoctrinated by her communist upbringing, was the cause and her 'sense of life' the effect.
Poor bastard
The sun does NOT rise. Dr. Peikoff assumes incorrectly .....
Correct it's a perceptual adage of old. The principle is that it will appear day to day as a sure thing. You may go onto say well it could go out of existence but it's contextual in this sense. Someone asked those questions initially as it was a comstant.... science then showed us more of the facts of reality
@@adamturner9947 science misinforms as much or more than it reveals
Rodney, you delusional fоol, if science misinforms as much or more than it reveals, how did it reveal iron, electricity, computers and the internet, so we can "enjoy" your howlers here?
*Another* "ENLIGHTENED" imbecilе with his _"PROFOUND"_ garbage... *_sigh_*
This is fascinating, but Dr. Peikoff is somewhat blinded by his devotion to the great Rand. Talk about rationalization. I'll take Nathaniel Branden instead.
?
Well thanks for sharing your unsolicited opinion, I guess. Do you have an actual argument or just bald assertions with zero evidence to support them?
Alex Thompson Pretty sure the reason Peikoff thinks she was great is because you don’t have to rationalize to accept her ideas.
Hard call. Brandon is great and I'd find it hard not to trust his account and though Peikoff is equally great it does sound like rationalizing a bit.
Personally it hurt me deep when I frist learned of her affair with Brandon. Yet, I take solace in the fact that this great movement was born out of Rand and so her imperfection in living up through out maybe due to the "awkwardness of pregnancy", founders often have the task of working out the bugs and representing the finish project all at once. She might have challenged this concept of gap between ideal and reality with regards to her self (which maybe the worse crime) but to me considering the whole context, it is a understandable gap, as long as one is honest about the struggle with it and giving effort to close it.
Did you all read "The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics: The Case Against the Brandens" by James Valliant?
56:33