A detailed and fascinating comparison between Nietzsche and Rand presented here in just an hour long presentation. Thank you Dr. Hicks for your serious philosophical investigations and expert teaching.
Although I became fairly interested in philosophy for a period of time, especially philosophy of mind, a decade ago in my early 20's, and I largely consider myself a philosophical and political Liberal in the Classical sense like Professor Hicks, I can't get past the observation that interdisciplinary fields in the sciences have afforded us fairly robust explanations in relation to many of the age-old questions, within the last few decades. Therefore, it might be more accurate to delineate myself as a political (Classical) Liberal, with differing philosophical commitments. However, I'm not sure: aren't Lockian/Millian Liberals committed to scientific empiricism? While biologists are still learning new things about phenotype, behavioral geneticists have nearly arrived at what resembles a Nietzschean picture. Although, important caveats must be included: as Hicks argues, Nietzsche could well have been considered overly cynical, in retrospect. It's increasingly difficult today to argue, from a scientific perspective, that certain genes aren't winning out over others, governed by the same natural selection processes as everything else. However, (this could almost be considered an updated, 'meta' perspective,) what if the more adaptive genes in humans, turned out to be those that involve some predisposition toward agreeableness, cooperation, healthy self-consideration, and a kind of accompanying ostensible 'weakness' as seen through a Nietzschean lens? Indeed, it's hard to argue against the adaptive utility of a group of bundled traits that includes agreeableness and conscientiousness, Nietzsche's "slaves" can now be better understood as more adaptive in certain specific ways than the "masters". Neuroscientists study the continuity of clearly perceived "selves," and clearly continual, cohesion of thought processes (cognition) amidst various stimuli, and find both to be essentially absent. It's clear enough as to why, the subcategory of naturalism in the process of being established by interdisciplinary cognitive scientist John Vervaeke, draws significantly from Heideggerian philosophy. With these facts established, nevertheless, the science of mind is far from complete. Researchers from what I gather, tend often in this subject area, to simply swap-out a more traditional definition of "agency" for the one used in control systems, which essentially denotes a goal-directed, self-monitoring entity that remains deterministic. (Like a temperature thermostat, though the obvious difference compared to humans for biophysicists generally, would be the level of complexity of the entity). But once again, in reference to the incomplete science of mind: what allows us to fully explain the mind as a kind of 'projection machine?' Meaning, why do we 'tell ourselves a story' continuously, about having agency, and about being discrete individuals? Researchers can subconsciously prompt subjects, with red-colored images for example, and then when asked to randomly choose a color will pick as expected, yet when asked why will tend to fabricate an explanation. Evolutionarily, why is it apparently adaptive for us to be evolved to tell ourselves these stories? The answer seems to have to do with mitigating the neuroticism that comes with constant uncertainty in response to environmental stimuli, which results in a physiologically unhealthy state for the human organism. The complete answer is not yet fully understood. This is where philosophies like those of Rand, and Liberalism enter the picture. Because it is clearly adaptive for humans to understand our world, and interactions in a certain way, with a degree of continuity wherein we perceive ourselves as individuals, and have a measure of environmental/volitional control, a curious philosophical contrast can be discerned: It is Rand's philosophy that tracks more closely with what we can now understand about the adaptive HEURISTIC aspects of human perception in interaction with the world and society, and Nietzsche's philosophy that tracks more closely from an updated REALISTIC scientific perspective. While this rendering might seem ultimately Nietzschean, consider these examples: When a police officer is in a shootout, or person is in a car accident, they report the phenomenon of time slowing down. They don't interact with people and their surroundings normally, they are narrowly focused, yet find themselves more aware of numerous details of the surrounding area. After such incidents, they experience exhaustion, and some residual symptoms. It is difficult to communicate with people when in such a state. So, was this experience of the world more 'real,' because people were taking in more details of the world? It would seem so, if total, accurate, moment to moment sensory info is the arbiter, for 'most real'. (We know that what's happening in those states, is that adrenaline causes hyper-attentive focus, which stresses the nervous system until adrenaline is depleted). The point is, someone totally focused on realistic details of experience moment to moment with 'tunnel vision,' is not engaging a clearly navigable perspective on events and interactions, even if the associated prospectus could be deemed more reflective of empirically established reality. To subscribe to the Randian philosophy over the Nietzschean, one must incorporate an updated understanding of what it means to say people have selves, agency, and grasp clear universal morals. What these things really entail, for the modern educated person, is the recognition that they involve an adaptive mode for humans of interacting with the world, more than they entail empirically verifiable truth claims. To claim in contrast, that one is instead a Nietzschean, is more like saying, that one's preferred perspective on the world, is that of someone who is always in a car crash, or always in a shootout. It is therefore amusing to note, that Nietzsche would no doubt appreciate this extreme characterization.
"Nietzsche's philosophy that tracks more closely from an updated REALISTIC scientific perspective" Updated to what standard? Always with the floating abstractions, with ancaps. Kant has a far more holistic self containing philosophy than Nietzsche every had, because he was an Enlightenment philosopher. Rand is also a modern Enlightenment philosopher.
@@kalidesu Hah, my @handle this week is intended largely as a joke, from another channel where I comment (notice past tense). I'm definitely no expert in interdisciplinary fields including neuroscience and philosophy, like cognitive science. However, I'm frankly dissatisfied with a contemporary, philosophical as opposed to merely practical/political Liberalism, that fails to sufficiently incorporate the latest neuroscience on the "self," and on mental fabrications that can be observed empirically, involving the perception of ostensible agency, and related phenomena. It's interesting that Hicks emphasizes how Rand's arguments pertain "especially to the political" sphere, from my own understanding, I would go so far as to say that the Randian and Liberal functional epistemology is applicable ONLY in the sociopolitical sphere. Case in point: the demonstrated utility is clear, in treating defendants in court as though they were effectively "blank slates," even though we now KNOW that they're NOT. Society runs mostly on efficacious, procedural heuristics, the same holds true for most of daily life, herein Liberalism remains indispensable. Although, I was interested to hear Hicks on a Libertarian channel recently, place Hume in a radical skeptical category (albeit somewhat tentatively) along with Kant and the usual suspects. While I have yet to thoroughly delve into Hume's work, and am not particularly qualified to argue this point, I'm inclined to maintain currently, that despite Nietzsche's resonance with many behavioral geneticists in particular, and Heidegger's resonance with researchers on "mind" in general (like Vervaeke,) and what strikes me as the fairly incontestable applicability of Liberalism in the areas of society and governance, it is perhaps ultimately Hume's skeptical EMPIRICAL philosophy, and especially epistemology, that is most suitably retained across these different contemporary 'magisteria'.
Isn’t it time you tackled a new philosophy and engaged upon a topic of relevance and interest. Something a little more modern like, “the true path to a solution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict”. If nothing else, it will wake up some of your viewers from their apathetic hibernation and start a maelstrom of political debate. Now wouldn’t that be fun? 😛
Philosophy is about making and assessing arguments, including arguments related to politics. If you're looking for solutions to a specific, long-standing political conflict, I don't think this is the place to look for it, admitting there is one. And don't assume apathy just because you're looking for something in the wrong place 🙂
@@MariaAntoniettaPerna I appreciate your response and your point is well taken. Being aquatinted with the works of both Nietzsche and Rand, I wasn’t introduced to anything new here, but was once again reminded of why my interest in philosophy began to wane. Reflecting, assessing, weighing arguments might be intellectually stimulating, but what other purpose does it serve, if it doesn’t affect change in peoples lives and society? But, as for my contumelious indictment, it wasn’t meant to be a repugnant assessment, but rather a clarion call to perspicuity.
@@DaestrumManitz Comments, on such topics as you mentioned, generate circuitous emotional debates and wouldn’t fit the mold here. As for your indictment, you come off sounding more like an agent provocateur than a harbinger of peace.
@@DaestrumManitz I've been hearing that call for at least the last 4 years, loud and clear. When Sartre was engaging himself in the politics of his days (which included the Israelo-Palestinian conflict, by the way), he was using his paper, Les Temps Modernes, or protests, talks, etc. This didn't stop him from writing philosophy in the abstract style that suits the subject.
Rand's idealism is overly simplistic. Nietzche is closer to reality of people as they actually exist. He recognized what psychologists have concluded since his time, that we rationalize what our subconscious drives have chosen for us. Even Rand did that, and suffered from her failure to recognize what she was doing. An extreme example was when she argued Nathanial Brandon into sleeping with her, claiming that it was objectively correct that he should do so, to the detriment of both party's relationships with their spouses.
"Ayn Rand is a gaint"!? I have read Ayn Rand and If Nietzsche is an elephant of philosophical tradition, Ayn Rand is the beetle that thrives and lives in an elephant's droppings. USSR took away Ayn Rand's fathers wealth and bitter ayn rand started ranting against altruism and traditional morality, while as Nietzsche was a metaphysician and psychologist in same league as Plato, Confucius and Kant. In fact, Nietzsche made Ayn Rand's ideas redundant about a century before her.
@@MariaAntoniettaPernaThese arguments and this person are the end of the road for the Left. Human animals, sacrifice your scapegoats with Rand and find your own "happiness" or do something actually substantial and elevate the lives of every organism around you - demand the impossible, like James Baldwin, something a whitie and dismissive racist, for reasons psychological and untreated, could not do for all their Right-fuelling bigotry.
Well, first of all, Nietzsche was not a philosopher. He was an anti-philosopher par excellence. Rand was a real philosopher, albeit a very flawed one in many respects. So I am not surprised they disagree on almost everything.
By what standard?! Then you have understand what is your standard. And that requires you to think. If Ayn is awful, then Aristotle is awful, thus the western world is awful. So that says more about you than Rand. BTW the root word of 'awful' is where the word 'awesome' comes from. :D
@@care4ajellybaby403 Enlightenment is not hearing what you want to hear, it's understanding the truth. If you are referring to the documentary titled: "All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace", it takes less than 4 minutes into the film to reach the first misrepresentation of Rand's philosophy, where Curtis equates rational self interest with greedy selfishness. He immediately goes on to state that it was greedy selfishness that caused the great depression of the 30's, which is another twist of the truth. Where were all of the greedy selfish people before the 1930's? Did they just suddenly decide they were going to be extra greedy and extra selfish, or did something else happen that's actually the real cause for the economic collapse?
She was a Soviet Spy. Soviet Spycraft in her time was the most advanced spycraft in the world. The Soviets sent thousands of college educated women around the world to infiltrate right wing groups for espionage and disinformation campaigns. Lol
@@care4ajellybaby403 It's through Curtis that I discovered Rand. His documentaries are quite interesting, as a collage of ideas that are well presented and thoughtful. His interpretations and conclusions are generally just in line with his Leftist bias. What he does get right, is that Rand is his enemy. Which is why he decides to attack her. He has introduced me to some foundational figures like Bernays and Qutb. I don't trust anything he says that is not evidential.
A detailed and fascinating comparison between Nietzsche and Rand presented here in just an hour long presentation. Thank you Dr. Hicks for your serious philosophical investigations and expert teaching.
Never would have guessed 90% difference of opinions! Fascinating.
I'm reading Allan Blooms book now and that reference to it caught me off guard because I was literally thinking about it just before you said it
Although I became fairly interested in philosophy for a period of time, especially philosophy of mind, a decade ago in my early 20's, and I largely consider myself a philosophical and political Liberal in the Classical sense like Professor Hicks, I can't get past the observation that interdisciplinary fields in the sciences have afforded us fairly robust explanations in relation to many of the age-old questions, within the last few decades.
Therefore, it might be more accurate to delineate myself as a political (Classical) Liberal, with differing philosophical commitments. However, I'm not sure: aren't Lockian/Millian Liberals committed to scientific empiricism?
While biologists are still learning new things about phenotype, behavioral geneticists have nearly arrived at what resembles a Nietzschean picture. Although, important caveats must be included: as Hicks argues, Nietzsche could well have been considered overly cynical, in retrospect.
It's increasingly difficult today to argue, from a scientific perspective, that certain genes aren't winning out over others, governed by the same natural selection processes as everything else. However, (this could almost be considered an updated, 'meta' perspective,) what if the more adaptive genes in humans, turned out to be those that involve some predisposition toward agreeableness, cooperation, healthy self-consideration, and a kind of accompanying ostensible 'weakness' as seen through a Nietzschean lens?
Indeed, it's hard to argue against the adaptive utility of a group of bundled traits that includes agreeableness and conscientiousness, Nietzsche's "slaves" can now be better understood as more adaptive in certain specific ways than the "masters".
Neuroscientists study the continuity of clearly perceived "selves," and clearly continual, cohesion of thought processes (cognition) amidst various stimuli, and find both to be essentially absent. It's clear enough as to why, the subcategory of naturalism in the process of being established by interdisciplinary cognitive scientist John Vervaeke, draws significantly from Heideggerian philosophy.
With these facts established, nevertheless, the science of mind is far from complete.
Researchers from what I gather, tend often in this subject area, to simply swap-out a more traditional definition of "agency" for the one used in control systems, which essentially denotes a goal-directed, self-monitoring entity that remains deterministic. (Like a temperature thermostat, though the obvious difference compared to humans for biophysicists generally, would be the level of complexity of the entity).
But once again, in reference to the incomplete science of mind: what allows us to fully explain the mind as a kind of 'projection machine?' Meaning, why do we 'tell ourselves a story' continuously, about having agency, and about being discrete individuals?
Researchers can subconsciously prompt subjects, with red-colored images for example, and then when asked to randomly choose a color will pick as expected, yet when asked why will tend to fabricate an explanation.
Evolutionarily, why is it apparently adaptive for us to be evolved to tell ourselves these stories? The answer seems to have to do with mitigating the neuroticism that comes with constant uncertainty in response to environmental stimuli, which results in a physiologically unhealthy state for the human organism. The complete answer is not yet fully understood.
This is where philosophies like those of Rand, and Liberalism enter the picture.
Because it is clearly adaptive for humans to understand our world, and interactions in a certain way, with a degree of continuity wherein we perceive ourselves as individuals, and have a measure of environmental/volitional control, a curious philosophical contrast can be discerned:
It is Rand's philosophy that tracks more closely with what we can now understand about the adaptive HEURISTIC aspects of human perception in interaction with the world and society, and Nietzsche's philosophy that tracks more closely from an updated REALISTIC scientific perspective.
While this rendering might seem ultimately Nietzschean, consider these examples:
When a police officer is in a shootout, or person is in a car accident, they report the phenomenon of time slowing down. They don't interact with people and their surroundings normally, they are narrowly focused, yet find themselves more aware of numerous details of the surrounding area. After such incidents, they experience exhaustion, and some residual symptoms. It is difficult to communicate with people when in such a state.
So, was this experience of the world more 'real,' because people were taking in more details of the world? It would seem so, if total, accurate, moment to moment sensory info is the arbiter, for 'most real'. (We know that what's happening in those states, is that adrenaline causes hyper-attentive focus, which stresses the nervous system until adrenaline is depleted).
The point is, someone totally focused on realistic details of experience moment to moment with 'tunnel vision,' is not engaging a clearly navigable perspective on events and interactions, even if the associated prospectus could be deemed more reflective of empirically established reality.
To subscribe to the Randian philosophy over the Nietzschean, one must incorporate an updated understanding of what it means to say people have selves, agency, and grasp clear universal morals.
What these things really entail, for the modern educated person, is the recognition that they involve an adaptive mode for humans of interacting with the world, more than they entail empirically verifiable truth claims.
To claim in contrast, that one is instead a Nietzschean, is more like saying, that one's preferred perspective on the world, is that of someone who is always in a car crash, or always in a shootout.
It is therefore amusing to note, that Nietzsche would no doubt appreciate this extreme characterization.
"Nietzsche's philosophy that tracks more closely from an updated REALISTIC scientific perspective"
Updated to what standard? Always with the floating abstractions, with ancaps. Kant has a far more holistic self containing philosophy than Nietzsche every had, because he was an Enlightenment philosopher. Rand is also a modern Enlightenment philosopher.
@@kalidesu Hah, my @handle this week is intended largely as a joke, from another channel where I comment (notice past tense).
I'm definitely no expert in interdisciplinary fields including neuroscience and philosophy, like cognitive science.
However, I'm frankly dissatisfied with a contemporary, philosophical as opposed to merely practical/political Liberalism, that fails to sufficiently incorporate the latest neuroscience on the "self," and on mental fabrications that can be observed empirically, involving the perception of ostensible agency, and related phenomena.
It's interesting that Hicks emphasizes how Rand's arguments pertain "especially to the political" sphere, from my own understanding, I would go so far as to say that the Randian and Liberal functional epistemology is applicable ONLY in the sociopolitical sphere.
Case in point: the demonstrated utility is clear, in treating defendants in court as though they were effectively "blank slates," even though we now KNOW that they're NOT.
Society runs mostly on efficacious, procedural heuristics, the same holds true for most of daily life, herein Liberalism remains indispensable.
Although, I was interested to hear Hicks on a Libertarian channel recently, place Hume in a radical skeptical category (albeit somewhat tentatively) along with Kant and the usual suspects.
While I have yet to thoroughly delve into Hume's work, and am not particularly qualified to argue this point, I'm inclined to maintain currently, that despite Nietzsche's resonance with many behavioral geneticists in particular, and Heidegger's resonance with researchers on "mind" in general (like Vervaeke,) and what strikes me as the fairly incontestable applicability of Liberalism in the areas of society and governance, it is perhaps ultimately Hume's skeptical EMPIRICAL philosophy, and especially epistemology, that is most suitably retained across these different contemporary 'magisteria'.
Interesting to imagine Rand as a Nietzschean democrat. The Everyman ubermensch philosopher. @StephenHicks thank you for a new perspective!
Where are you getting Nietzsche hated Kant and Plato? He was against Kants ethics; Plato he made some criticisms of socrates, but didnt refute him.
9:10 - THANK YOU! I do not identify as Us, sorry.
Isn’t it time you tackled a new philosophy and engaged upon a topic of relevance and interest. Something a little more modern like, “the true path to a solution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict”. If nothing else, it will wake up some of your viewers from their apathetic hibernation and start a maelstrom of political debate. Now wouldn’t that be fun? 😛
Philosophy is about making and assessing arguments, including arguments related to politics. If you're looking for solutions to a specific, long-standing political conflict, I don't think this is the place to look for it, admitting there is one. And don't assume apathy just because you're looking for something in the wrong place 🙂
@@MariaAntoniettaPerna
I appreciate your response and your point is well taken. Being aquatinted with the works of both Nietzsche and Rand, I wasn’t introduced to anything new here, but was once again reminded of why my interest in philosophy began to wane. Reflecting, assessing, weighing arguments might be intellectually stimulating, but what other purpose does it serve, if it doesn’t affect change in peoples lives and society? But, as for my contumelious indictment, it wasn’t meant to be a repugnant assessment, but rather a clarion call to perspicuity.
@@DaestrumManitz
Comments, on such topics as you mentioned, generate circuitous emotional debates and wouldn’t fit the mold here. As for your indictment, you come off sounding more like an agent provocateur than a harbinger of peace.
@@DaestrumManitz I've been hearing that call for at least the last 4 years, loud and clear. When Sartre was engaging himself in the politics of his days (which included the Israelo-Palestinian conflict, by the way), he was using his paper, Les Temps Modernes, or protests, talks, etc. This didn't stop him from writing philosophy in the abstract style that suits the subject.
Rand's idealism is overly simplistic. Nietzche is closer to reality of people as they actually exist. He recognized what psychologists have concluded since his time, that we rationalize what our subconscious drives have chosen for us. Even Rand did that, and suffered from her failure to recognize what she was doing. An extreme example was when she argued Nathanial Brandon into sleeping with her, claiming that it was objectively correct that he should do so, to the detriment of both party's relationships with their spouses.
Absolutely not. Emotions are a product of our prior thinking, not the other way around.
@@Saimlordy, newborn babies have emotions. Even fetuses have emotions.
"Ayn Rand is a gaint"!? I have read Ayn Rand and If Nietzsche is an elephant of philosophical tradition, Ayn Rand is the beetle that thrives and lives in an elephant's droppings. USSR took away Ayn Rand's fathers wealth and bitter ayn rand started ranting against altruism and traditional morality, while as Nietzsche was a metaphysician and psychologist in same league as Plato, Confucius and Kant. In fact, Nietzsche made Ayn Rand's ideas redundant about a century before her.
"in the same league as Plato, Confucius and Kant" well there's your problem right there
Like she's one to talk about ethics... 🙄
Focus on the arguments, not the person.
@@MariaAntoniettaPernaThese arguments and this person are the end of the road for the Left. Human animals, sacrifice your scapegoats with Rand and find your own "happiness" or do something actually substantial and elevate the lives of every organism around you - demand the impossible, like James Baldwin, something a whitie and dismissive racist, for reasons psychological and untreated, could not do for all their Right-fuelling bigotry.
Someone has to. Everyone else repeats bible in one form or the other.
Did she murder, steal or break someone's consent? No? Then she is as qualified as anyone.
Well, first of all, Nietzsche was not a philosopher. He was an anti-philosopher par excellence. Rand was a real philosopher, albeit a very flawed one in many respects. So I am not surprised they disagree on almost everything.
Awful woman with bad takes.
By what standard?! Then you have understand what is your standard. And that requires you to think.
If Ayn is awful, then Aristotle is awful, thus the western world is awful. So that says more about you than Rand.
BTW the root word of 'awful' is where the word 'awesome' comes from. :D
@@kalidesu Watch the Adam Curtis documentary about her. Empty your cup and become enlightened.
@@care4ajellybaby403 Enlightenment is not hearing what you want to hear, it's understanding the truth.
If you are referring to the documentary titled: "All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace", it takes less than 4 minutes into the film to reach the first misrepresentation of Rand's philosophy, where Curtis equates rational self interest with greedy selfishness. He immediately goes on to state that it was greedy selfishness that caused the great depression of the 30's, which is another twist of the truth.
Where were all of the greedy selfish people before the 1930's? Did they just suddenly decide they were going to be extra greedy and extra selfish, or did something else happen that's actually the real cause for the economic collapse?
She was a Soviet Spy. Soviet Spycraft in her time was the most advanced spycraft in the world. The Soviets sent thousands of college educated women around the world to infiltrate right wing groups for espionage and disinformation campaigns. Lol
@@care4ajellybaby403 It's through Curtis that I discovered Rand. His documentaries are quite interesting, as a collage of ideas that are well presented and thoughtful. His interpretations and conclusions are generally just in line with his Leftist bias.
What he does get right, is that Rand is his enemy. Which is why he decides to attack her.
He has introduced me to some foundational figures like Bernays and Qutb. I don't trust anything he says that is not evidential.