What a beautiful speech. It's something that I can relate to so much. I believe it's crucial for a man to invest in their self-interests; it's really important for a man to be in his most elevated state of mind in terms of how he views himself before even thinking about pursuing a romantic relationship. This is such an interesting interview. I just don't like how the interviewer responded to her. I wished he had let her talk instead of always cutting her off. This just shows how dismissive people were. She made great points, but they kept getting disregarded because of society's beliefs at the time.
This dialog is what we now call a podcast. Just like Joe Rogans. If only the creation of “podcast” existed since this time, the world would have SO much more wisdom content from all types of people, business magnates, philosophers & authors 👍🏼
I say this a lot. Get your mental health and life sorted out before jumping in to relationships with people, and reject the idea that relationships will fix what is wrong with you or your life. Going in to relationships in a messed up condition are the cause of many screwed up relationships these days.
Agreed. Certainly the interviewer motivation wasn't to uderstand but to shoot at her. If he was to do the former, he would have asked better follow-up questions
+zupergozer You're absolutely right. And look how they are doing it respectfully, they actually fucking care about having productive discussion. I'm so sick of this offended professional victim culture.
I love the part where she points out that if you love everyone indiscriminately, you are actually loving nobody.love implies an affinity and special concern for something. If it is doled out indiscriminately, it ceases to have meaning.
+glenzo215 I disagree, love is simply taking care of other's needs. Love can be either special or indiscriminately as you said, but that doesn't make it less of a love. You can hate only a few people, or hate everyone. If you start hitting everyone in the face with a baseball bat, and then ask them "do you think I hate you ?" do you think they'll say no ? We are still selfish by our very nature, men must definetly not live for others, that would be a waste of his life, man must only sacrifice himself for others if he/she desires so, it's not obligated, and desire would imply his own inner intention thus living for himself. But, at the same time, man achives happiness by altrusim, it makes men happy to offer, this is what Ayn Rand failed to either realise or accept (And psychological studies back me up on this, and no it's not because of religious beliefs but human nature, atheists are not excluded from "it makes men happy to offer") . The thing is, there is a thin line between altruism, stupidity and excuses. But those lines exist for those with minds to see the difference. Don't get me wrong, there is wisdom in her words, she's calling out a lot of BS people tell to themselves even this very day, it is only the tiny fact that men get happiness from doing altruism that she missed, and her definition of love that I disagree with, and I also belive that she doesn't make a difference betwen romantic love and the other kinds of love, which makes her objectivism rather subjectivism, but on everything else she is correct.
+Catalin Marius almost everything you said is a contradiction. if that same person were walking around hitting people with bats do you not think that they would selfishly skip over their loved ones? does the happiness we derive from altruistic behavior not come from a connection to those it helps? naturally we are more inclined to give to family, friends, and others we relate to, than we would be to murderers, rapists and strangers, etc. Rand does not ignore the satisfaction one gets from altruism. She simply differentiates that satisfaction as coming from discrimination towards those we selfishly care for. I believe you need to brush up on her readings to understand the nuance you missed.
Of course there is more love to the family. But that doesn't mean we can't not take care of everyone else's well-being on a lesser level than our family's. Nope, simply act of helping an unfortunate makes you happy (psychology) and not because of a connection, you don't even need to know who he/she is. But you must know you helped someone less fortunate than you, not a scammer. As for the second paragraph, she has a good point, however, Love everybody =/= love everybody at the same level. If by "if you love everybody" she automatically meant "on the same level" too then I agree with her, but without "on the same level" I disagree with her. Thus it would still make no sense 'Objectivism vs Altruism' proving that both can co-exist without contradiction. Sure, someone could attack your family, but by that very action he's no longer a part of the good society, those acting in collectively constructive not destructive ways, thus helping him wouldn't be alturistic at all for society but only for that person. Simply put, the most altruisting thing you can do is to lock that person to prevent further harm to any member/s of society.
You are using the word "altruism" to mean voluntary acts of kindness. That is not what Rand means, she used the original meaning of altruism (from Comte) of viewing others as higher value than yourself. These days the word is used in a more relaxed way for any kindness, generosity, even charity. This is almost the opposite of Rand's (Comte's) meaning. The reason you give to charity is because others are worse off than you. The reason you give under altruism is because others are higher value than you. The mentality of those two actions is almost opposite. Rand advocated giving under the giver's terms (charity), but was against giving out of duty (altruism). If you listen again to the interview her words will now make more sense.
*The fault in my college education, was my philosophy teacher taught Ayn Rand's Objectivism's philosophy as problematic. I knew I loved her view on life and believed in it, yet he taught me it was incorrect. Philosophy should not be taught with a view of right and wrong, we are students and free to choose.*
Your instructor has his own right to argue in favor of his views. The quality of teaching is not found in squelching the position of its instructor but rather in that instructor presenting as many sides to any argument as necessarily and reasonably exist. My best educational experiences resulted from professors who held particular opinions but permitted me to argue against them or debate them. I knew what to encounter in their correcting of my papers, but that only served to tighten my reasoning in hopes of successfully challenging their comments. And I simply do not understand your notion that "Philosophy should not be taught with a view of right and wrong..." Is not the entire premise of Philosophy about establishing the good, the right, the reasonable, the more likely, the highly probable, and so on? If so, then the opposite of those positions must also be investigated, but a foundation of that which true must be observed.
@@jwalkinit She isn't talking about filial love she's talking about romantic love. you can't lie and take what she says out of context. Nobody chooses to have a brother or sister. That's a decision their parents make. Romantic love is a choice, and if you don't deserve to be loved you should never expect it.
@@jwalkinit Yeah well those people are probably not experiencing real romantic love, but rather the more base sexual lust that theyre confusing with love, the kind where you think you're in love because you're having sex with someone a lot when you've never done that before. If they were actually in love then they would love each other for all their flaws, and the "loser guys" and "waste of life chicks" would actually provide something of value, perhaps validation or maybe just a shoulder to cry on. In either case they provide something invaluable to their partner and hence deserve said love.
@@jwalkinit She's not saying somebody deserves someone elses love; that would be crazy. Stalin and Mao Zedong probably never went that far. She's saying love is an earned quality, in that I earn the right for people to love me by being a loveable person. That is not to say I earned the right for you to love me, and that I can thus claim you as you put it. It's just more general. I earn the right to be loved by living a virtuous life, but I don't earn the right to your love. That's your discretion who you decide to love, but who decides to love you is not your discretion. You don't decide who loves you; it happens by how you carry yourself, i.e. you must earn somebody's love by treating them well with honesty, compassion, etc. etc. Although I will add that the whole "claim" idea actually does exist in relationships. Couples joke about it all the time, and some people actually find it erotic.
@@jwalkinit You didn't even fuckin read what I just wrote. THE RIGHT TO BE LOVED AND THE RIGHT TO BE LOVED BY SOME PERSON ARE TWO DISTINCT IDEAS. Your ignorance and lack of basic comprehension as well as your insistence to twist what she says into what you think she says is seriously annoying. Go back and rewatch the video if you need to and stop conflating your projection of what you think she said with what she actually said as a way to create some stupid debate. YOU HAVE TO BE A GOOD PERSON TO BE LOVED, BUT BEING A GOOD PERSON DOESN'T MEAN SOMEBODY WILL LOVE YOU. There, even a deaf blind chimpanzee could understand that.
I totally get it! Let's not water down emotions by giving love away freely. Let's make it mean something to us, for us! For my own sake! I love you because I see value and morals in you. I love you because you deserve it. I know what love is because I love myself fully and I can share with you the same love I feel for myself. I serve you because I serve myself. Ayn Rand is awesome
That is it. You cannot love others if you don´t love yourself. Jesus in the bible says ´love others as you love yourself´, while contradicting in going overboard with self-sacrifice, as an impossible moral standard. I think of the distinction as a expectation of self-sacrifice [with the religious threat of hell or punitive measure by man; e.g. socialism] vs voluntary human interaction between individuals.
Wow. As a man who's worked most of my life for the benefit of others I can say she's right. A man does not have the obligation to sacrifice his life for the sake of others, but should pursue his own happiness. Choosing to sacrifice for the sake of others because it makes him happy would still fit within her philosophy if I'm not mistaken. It must be his free will choice, though. She speaks against altruism and even says it's evil. This is an interesting thought exercise. Is there anything we can do that is truly altruistic? In other words, no matter what kindness we do for others, isn't there always a personal benefit or selfish motive? It may not be visible or noticeable by others but it's there.
Personal benefit from making an anonymous donation vs the selfish 'altruistic' public display of making that same donation? Read the part of 'Atlas Shrugged' about Hank Reardon's brother asking him for a donation to his progressive society group.
"Choosing to sacrifice for the sake of others because it makes him happy would still fit within her philosophy if I'm not mistaken." Yes. I believe this is the distinction Ayn Rand makes between Altruism and Benevolence.
Exactly, and this is what so many idiots don’t realize, that helping others or reaching out to others is a noble thing if YOU are personally invested in it. She uses the example of a husband who loves his wife “for your own good.” No woman would want that. You can apply that to anything like welfare too. None of it is helping because it is done out of obligation and force. Not a desire to do it.
Rand's philosophy is most useful in the psychological realm, in terms of dealing with the pressures of family, friends and peers to live for them, and sacrifice one's own goals and ambitions to the needs of others. Consider the freedom from guilt one gains when one is able to say "I will not give up my life or my future to tend to the weakness or decay of others."
I think she should have mentioned that love is selfish by nature. You love people because it benefits you to do so. if you say you love someone but you actually hate them, you don't love them... it's pretty simple. Their values benefit you. you keep them around because they're useful to you. Communal form of any type only exist to serve self interest or they wouldn't emerge.
Yes but the love expresses itself in different complex ways. Being in love is not loving your next door neighbour. Rand talks about love in a one dimensional way. That's dangerous
I love my dog but he is a far greater burden then benefit he takes time energy and money away from me. And my benefit is seeing him happy in turn giving me a nice feeling. Does this count as a benefit when my life would be better off without him? I love him despite the lack of benefits.
I don't understand what the alternative to her view of love is meant to be. If you have no standards by which to judge other people, how can you draw any distinction between one person and another? If you can't do that, then how can you claim to love anyone in any meaningful way?
The alternative she presents is that we shouldn't base love around what they for us, or what we do for them, we should base it around who they are, i.e personality etc, we shouldn't sacrifice ourselves for the sake of love, we should only accept love if its beneficial to our individual well being and happiness.
No no it's the conventional idea of live which has no standards, when you're asked to love everyone. Shes suggesting you use their virtues, their personal qualities as a basis or standard for loving them.
It is practically a duty. What good are you to anyone if you've sacrificed your own well-being and all the implements of your well-being for someone who won't sacrifice anything for their own?
@@briane173 yup. Most times our hapiness is linked to the hapiness of the people around us. So sacrifice is a good thing at times. The real role of wisdom is to determine which those moments are. Take care man.
The Declaration of Independence did not state '......life, liberty and the pursuit of self sacrifice.' now did it? The ones that scream loudest for the 'self sacrifice' of others are always the ones with little to sacrifice themselves. Funny how that works.
She is so right. People down here in the comments and that guy in the video have completely misunderstood her. She is very right about what she is saying
Her principle, the non-aggression principle, doesn't work with her other principle, altruism is evil. What I mean by that is, while Rand states that we should treat others as ends-in-themselves as Kant did, she also states that empathy is unnecessary, which is problematic, because in order to treat others as ends, you have to show respect for their well being, life and autonomy, i.e. respect who they are as people. That is where her non-aggression principle should come in, but because she said altruism is evil, it makes the former useless, as it requires empathy to work, in that you have a duty to yourself and to others, which means to show respect. What it all boils down to is that, Objectivism just doesn't work with the two principles that contradict each other.
CosmoShidan The libertarian non-aggression principle necessitates respect for others "well being, life and autonomy". I don't see any contradictions, except in your mistakes about what Rand stated. For example, Kant's ideas were almost completely opposite to Rand's. She also did not state that "empathy is unnecessary".
Mike Blain Yes she did. If one states that "Altruism is evil", that is a rejection of empathy. Not to mention rejecting Kant's maxim, of having a duty to others and a duty to yourself are also another form of empathy, which Rand was opposed to, and that makes the non-aggression principle fail hard.
CosmoShidan No, the NAP has nothing to do with empathy. It simply states you cannot initiate aggression, and does not need any understanding of the other person. It has no contradictions.
Mike Blain "It simply states you cannot initiate aggression," In which empathy is required to make it work. The idea of treating others as "ends-in-themselves" means that you treat people as human beings rather than a means to an end, which means to objectify. It means you show respect for the rights of others, which is what empathy is about. No empathy, the NAP does not work and is in contradiction with human rights.
People do everything for themselves, even altruism. Some feel good when helping others, either because they were taught to feel good or because they feel the pain of others through empathy. So I mostly agree with her objectivism. I think all the hate she gets is because most people have different standards in life. I may not agree with hers because it doesn't suite me, but she is accurate in portraying how the human mind works.
Her brand of philosophy is pretty much believed to have had a part in the '08 economic crash and other problems we are having with corporations based on greed have the underlying tone of 'do what is reational for the self' at the expense of what is good for everyone else. Besides, she doesn't address how doing things for others can ultimately benefit one self (if more people are happy, the world tends to be a better place). I agree with her somewhat, but it's too much of an unrealistic ideal , and most philosophies are hamful if they don't take into account some level orf reality or compromise. I think a mix of altruism and objectivism are good in that a person should only do what they can once they have achieved a certain level of satisfaction in their lives.
eartianwerewolf I like to view her philosophy as a "well if you have to claim something that is moral or immoral this is the most consistent way to go about it." It's just a for argument sake argument.
@@eartianwerewolf your misunderstanding what shes saying then. Your comment is based on opinions and emotions!!! Her philosophy is based on respect for others and not sacrifice your virtue for others!
Precisely. All human beings act purely out of self-interest. Even altruistic acts - are shaped by self-interest. For example, rich people give money to charity because it makes them feel good; otherwise they wouldn't do it. Ayn Rand gets a lot of hate because she understood human nature for what it is. She could see through all the politically correct bullshit and call a spade a spade.
They purposely make it out to be something it's not because they're actually fans of communism lmao, even though the police state it creates is horrendous. Just look at r/communism or r/laborwave on reddit, for example.
this philosophy is a great anchor, individualism is easily forgotten and masses of the general public are too humanistic, too reliant on others and vice versa.
There's a huge difference between me seeing my neighbor in need, feeling compassion, and therefore freely deciding to supply their need or to assist them in some way, versus me seeing my neighbor in need and using their need as a justification to compel others to assist or to forcibly take from others in order to share what I have taken with the neighbor in need. The first is benevolence whereas the second is malevolence or tyranny. Moreover, struggle is a necessary condition for human growth and fulfillment. Take away the chance for failure and you have at the same time taken away the chance for success. Take away the reason to voluntarily do good and eventually nobody will.
Isn't that exactly what the Welfare State has been doing for the past ~60 years? Displacing Churches and Community groups as the places people turned to in times of need, where now its a gimme gimme line at the Welfare office and no clue who their neighbors are?
I have read books over 10 years. The number of books is over 1000. Among these books, the most impressive book is 《the fountainhead》. Because this book makes me simple. This book explained all of my chaos in some sentences. I realized how to make my life well. I really want to introduce her philosophy to my hometown, which is korea.
@@user-js2et4ic9k I just finished reading fountainhead. I never liked this kinds of books. But this one changed life for me. Everyone is putting their own convictions and their beliefs in you trying to give identity they carry. That way making you unhappy in same way they are.
I love the fact that in our society, we will take care of those who truly cannot function independently. That said, the philosophy offered by Ayn Rand need not destroy our tolerance for one another - we have the free will to tolerate and respect one another, but the idea of having RATIONAL(ie I won't harm others even though I know what I want) self interest is absolutely sound in that it is to neither assume being greater or weaker than another by birth, but to strive for his own greatness.
She plays no games... lol I love it. We need more objectivity in society today- too much arbitrarity and decisions fueled by emotions and not reason. Emotions are important but need to be subject to reason, because it is the only reason that gives man the best likelihood of doing what ought to be done, not what he feels is right or is to be done, objectively.
For a guy that's super preachy and on a moral high horse Mike Wallace sure is being judgemental, argumentative, sarcastic, condescending, arrogant, self centered, self-righteous and rude. And by example she pretty much proves her point by remaining calm, patient, thoughtful, intelligent, profound, logical, analytical, critical thinking and honest.
Why is it that when it comes to objectivism, people become so emotionally against it. Geez! There's no reason to the people refuting it, no facts, only a deep, irrational hatred. I wouldn't be so disturbed if someone had a rational counter-argument to the topic, but the more I look, the crazier it gets. It's really disquieting.
+Dingeree Lamta I agree, people always say things like "crazy bitch" or "evil woman" but never actually give any reason or facts to back any of that up. It always puzzles me. It is also somewhat ironic since objectivism advocates using rationality and reason as a basis for decision making rather than emotion.
Well one problem I have with her is that she was a imperialist (Despite believing force should only be used defensively.) And a bit of a racist. And of course her support of a coercive of Monopoly on Force and Arbitration.
@john edwards Now don't get me wrong Ayn Rand is someone who intrigues me and is someone I plan to learn about. And I do agree with quite a few of the things she said. And even her defense of selfish is at least well argued. But My real biggest problem with her is inspired because a "rational" individualist who believed that man is in charger of his own destiny. That she believed that we still need a centralized coercive Monopoly on force and arbitration to rule over the masses. That man can not govern over her self. Which flies in the face of everything else she said. And I might have been out of line to call her a Imperialist (It was meant that she was to my knowledge in favor of American being the world's police officer.) And if that of out of line I apologize.
@@DefinitelyNotAnOsprey I think they were referring to time Ludwig Von Mises said she was "the most courageous man in America." She took it as a compliment.
I haven't fully explored Ayn Rand's philosophy (only seen this video and read a few chapters of the Fountainhead) but I think she is misunderstood. I have a feeling people might have taken her philosophy at a rather surface/face value and labelled it selfish and evil. But I think there is more to it. I think its deeper and more profound than just being plain selfish.
I enjoyed the way she explained all and the man was a real interviewer asking and hearing her, knowing about the book, sadly those days has gone, when real reporters were in TV
Rational and respectful debate and exchange of ideas. How unfortunate that this has disappeared from public discourse today, mainstream and online media. We are so much poorer for this loss. We have seemingly dumbed down some many things
@jan osovsky you don’t seem very Open minded Brother. You don’t have to agree to the outlook but it’s nice to see some thinking happening out of logic.
Humans from the ancient of times have loved or selected a mate based on certain idiosyncrasies.We don't just love anyone,none of us have fallen in love on a whim,be it beauty or certain quality,it has always been a specific characteristics of a person which separates them from others which has attracted us to them,or in other words,a virtue!
No... she was just insensitive. Vulcans care about other people and help them. Also, Ayn Rand was a very angry, arrogant woman. Vulcans are emotionless. Live Long and Prosper man \\//_ :)
***** way to over-analyze it guys... She believes in using solely logic to make decisions, and she looks like Spock's long lost sister... plus, she hides her ears. Definitely a Vulcan.
Wow. It has taken me years to realise that I fully agree with Ayn Rand. In every possible way. That's why often people don't manage to understand where I'm coming from, where I'm arriving at. Yes, indeed. Man ought to strive for his/her own happiness first. He shouldn't be forced to self sacrifice - that should AT ALL TIMES be left to his judgement.
This interviewer bias positioning is the reason why we have yet to achieve higher conclusions on regards to the human condition. But then again she holds it together and rises above it. What an example!!
I find that most who dismiss Ayn Rand’s morality don’t really understand it. Her “selfishness” is long-term, principled self-interest. People are a combination of the physical and mental, and your self-interest includes psychological values. Self-interest is not to be reduced to only the physical, such as money. Other people can be of tremendous psychological value (i.e. friends, lovers, children.) Rand recognized that benevolence toward strangers is in one’s own interest, in a free country.
No! We love other people, even strangers and the undeserving, because we are humans with empathy. It's who we are and we need to embrace it. We know that we are part of a family and community and that to be a part of that community we must care about others and expect others to care about us. This is not about a controlling government or church, it is who we are.
I love her eyes! I think she misunderstood that there are different forms of love when examined in Greek. Agape is principled love for your fellow man. And it can come from the heart and not controlled by anyone else.
What do you mean heart? ONLY a mind can think and do everything else connected. Not a heart. Learn the difference. There are NO TWO centers of thinking in any living thing.
I really appreciate Ayn Rand's philosophy. I desire to be liberal, but am constantly fighting against my nature to be fair and caring. As an American Christian, I believe Rand's vision for the state is wholy correct; it offers no impediment for me to provide means to those I am compassionate for, allows every person to be as effective as they are able, and gaurantees the voluntarily unproductive members of society are at the mercy of those who choose to produce.
Want to see the type of people who argue against Objectivism? Here are a couple of examples of the wonderful, brilliant and intellectually honest saints who make the case for the great ideologies of collectivism and altruism: "whatsgoingon07" just got steamrolled by me in an argument starting with his comment, "She just rationalized sociopathy," and now he, a typical smug Young Turks fan, has blocked me after giving himself the last word. Apparently his case against Objectivism - made so boldly - was so strong that it couldn't withstand a UA-cam comment! And he's not the only collectivist to do so; another one by the name of "TheThirdMan" (note the arrogance in one naming themselves after a brilliant philosophical argument, as if _they_ were its embodiment) reacted similarly when I revealed his numerous contradictions on the topic of regulations in engineering. Of course, he took the collectivist stance and argued vehemently for giving even more power to governments, proclaiming his own nature as the embodiment of "Science" itself, calling my arguments against his a fruitless case against "Science". After I observed his appeal to authority and presented him with apparently irrefutable evidence against his position, he, fed up with my horrible irrationality and sick of dealing with peons like myself, blocked me. He sure showed me! Remember the case these people are making: self-interest is greed and individualism breeds egomaniacs. Ironically, these people are the epitome of egomania and apparently don't even see it....
There is an objective reality but Rand jumps way past this and is applying subjective human perceptions of morality and calling it the philosophy of objectivism. Objective understanding does not apply any perceptual bias, instead it observes reality and outcome independent of moralization. It does not seek to rationalize morality. If you can't see how terribly flawed her reasoning is, you are objectively ignorant.
ILikeMe 123 There are many perceptions of morality but only one that's free of fallacy. That one Rand argues to be Objectivist ethics. It's ironic how you call me "objectively ignorant" when your argument against Objectivism betrays an ignorance of the philosophy.
+Christian Ponicki no, you are a kool-aid drinker. Objective observation does not seek to apply moralizations nor rationalize morality. In scientific terms she would be laughed off the stage when trying to argue the ability of the mind for objective understanding. The human mind is evolutionarily wired to be rather subjective and irrational most of the time. Objectivity can only be used to observe society and its outcomes. Not determine it. You are a moral authoritarian who makes an argument for your "religion" much the same way a Christian presuppositionalist does.
ILikeMe 123 I find it humorous that you call me a "kool-aid drinker" when I'm not even an Objectivist. But what should I expect from yet another rabid Rand hater? Regarding your arguments, notice how you state as objective fact that we are inherently incapable of objective understanding? It's this habit of not thinking through your own positions that lands your type in endless performative contradictions; for instance, you defend the "is-ought gap" while ignorant of the fact that every "is" is a statement derived from an "ought" held by the arguer: "I ought to state facts". Axioms, learn them.
If only I could speak with half the level of articulation and eloquence displayed here. To say so much truth in so few words. She hit it home. I wish more people still valued having conversations like this these days ..
I don't agree with Rand on most issues, but when she describes Love, she describes it in the most accurate terms. It's not so much a system of morality, but a true description of human behaviour.
Kenn Ashley I wouldn’t mind having her as president, of course, most people would have her impeached on the first day. People don’t understand that they create their own happiness, if you rely on someone to create happiness for you, is it really your happiness? They worked for your happiness even if you don’t deserve it. One of the only opposites I can for the happiness aspect is parent and child, parents are supposed to provide a happy life for their children to create hard working individuals who can then provide happiness for themselves. Ayn Rand’s philosophy is probably our world’s only hope. We create our world, we don’t make other people do it for us.
@@Vimm_ Politicians on the left have been selling the idea that it is government's responsibility to wipe everybody's ass and fluff their pillow for them for so long they've managed to make spoiled, helpless heaps of flesh out of generations of human beings. It's a compelling message for those who don't want to put forth any effort to achieve their own happiness. And you'll notice that for all the $trillions we've spent on this indulgence by government, government has failed miserably. Yet we still have these people who insist that "Well, they're just doing it wrong. Put us in there and we'll fix it." Uh huh. Tell a lie long enough and loud enough and eventually it becomes truth.
She would push to abolish the Welfare State on day 1 and eliminate all Foreign (welfare) Aid on day 2, the establishment socialist would all have strokes trying to be the first to sign the impeachment .
And, really, what can one say about Objectivism? It isnt so much a philosophy as what someone who has never actually encountered philosophy imagines a philosophy might look like: good hard axiomatic absolutes, a bluff attitude of intellectual superiority, lots of simple atomic premises supposedly immune to doubt, immense and inflexible conclusions, and plenty of assertions about what is "rational" or "objective" or "real." Oh, and of course an imposing brand name ending with an -ism. - David Bentley Hart
Haha. You can't see the irony in that quote being guilty of what he accused someone elses point of view as being? That's the most smug attempt at intellectual superiority that I've ever read.
You are making judgements on the person with no clue why he posted the quote, or what his views are. I myself have said things in full knowlage of the irony or paradoxality that they present, either coming from me or in and of themselves. David Bentley Hart (don't know who that is) as well as ObjectiveBob, May be making an ironic point. Here is an idea, you can use to judge me, if you so please. I don't know I am just a random youtube commenter.
He's playing devil's advocate, which he spent a career doing. Now, no question Mike Wallace was a liberal, so this is a philosophy that is completely foreign to him; he tried to get Rand to defend the indefensible. Except that it's defensible. But in the end Wallace and Rand both walked away with their respective views intact. That's how journalism used to work. Today we just cancel anybody who doesn't agree with our POV.
But her own novel 'Fountainhead' was full of bullshit sentimentality, especially towards the end, from the court scene onwards. Derrida pointed out very rightly that in every philosophical text, you can locate arguments against its own thesis. Rand was also displaying a subjective side when she pointed out that she 'created a morality...' She talks of morality here as if it's a work of art- a product born out of subjective underpinnings. Of course, I do think one can create works of art which are objective in nature, but then that objectivity being promoted is a product of the author's subjectivity. Rand's hypothesis that life should be lived objectively is her subjective stance. I don't intend to put anyone down here; I'm just wondering aloud.
You make some great points. I think, as humans, our own subjectivity is impossible to create. We are not “gods” who can observe situations from outside of those very circumstances. In saying she created a morality, you might argue that it was a language issue; if we reframed it as an objective morality always having existed but she was the first to articulate it in that way, then we can reconcile the apparent contradiction.
“There are very few of us, then in this world, by your standards, who are worthy of love” Rand: “Unfortunately yes” She ain’t playing 😂😂😂 In my young 20’s I subconsciously was an altruist; the life experience and seeing the outcomes of altruistic decisions make me wiser. I find myself leaning towards Ayn’s “objectivism”. Success is something you attract by the person you become. Life and societal success. Discipline oneself and build knowledge on the important topics of life. Be accountable for your mistakes and grow from them. The more I adopted these philosophies, it’s seems like a lot of things in my life just naturally improved. Health, fitness, relationships, happiness in life.
Ayn Rand didn't think much of what is called anarcho-capitalism. But objectivism and anarcho-capitalism are really the same thing. Objectivism says that laissez-fair capitalism is the best form of government and she advocated for a separation of church and state and a separation of economics and state. She thought that the government's only job is to protect the rights of the individual. Anarcho-capitalists say that government violates individual rights by its very existence. By saying that government should only do that which it cannot do, she is arguing for anarcho-capitalism without realizing it.
ianharwood Actually, we don't want to exterminate all dissenting opinions, we are just so altruistic and compassionate that we want to help you guys out with this victim complex and persecution fantasy that defines your very existence! We know that your lives and your ideology would be meaningless without us lefties paying attention to you and "persecuting" you, so this way we give you a higher purpose and meaning. xoxo
ianharwood "In psychology a person who has a martyr complex, sometimes associated with the term victim complex, desires the feeling of being a martyr for his/her own sake, seeking out suffering or persecution because it either feeds a psychological need, or a desire to avoid responsibility. In some cases, this results from the belief that the martyr has been singled out for persecution because of exceptional ability or integrity." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyr_complex
Well if you wanna get all technical about it, what you did was an attempt to assign collective guilt for. ironically, the non-crime of calling out objectivist's shitty behavior that some leftists (including me) like to do, to the politically left half of the world's population. Since hivemind and a certain dose of sociopathy is an essential part of the objectivist ideology, reverse-calling me out for assigning collective guilt to your ideology won't work.
(Part 3-B) The reason why Objectivism rejects health care as a right, is because it would entail forcing others who don't want to pay for others health care. to pay for it against their will. Which would then be inconsistent with the non-aggression principle and property rights.
She was even the bravest man. That's what Mises called her when he met her, she took it as a complement. To say she was the bravest woman, in this case, is a little bit like saying "she's the bravest, for a woman". Probably best to say she's the bravest person.
OMG I just finished reading the atlas shruged and I just realized how deeply inserted were catholic values in my moral code even though I decided to reject this religion when I was a child. Now I now were all this altruistic morality came from.
the whole discussion here is quite simplistic, as always, an issue gets overly simplified into an either A or B bifurcation, a thesis vs antithesis, and it's presented as an either/or situation when the discussion actually needs to go deeper to attain a higher synthesis of both/and.
Critics don't understand Rand has no problem with charity, just that you shouldn't sacrifice your own happiness for others. Obviously charity makes people feel good, so that's a win-win. Taxation, or stealing for the "greater good" and calling it charity is not justified because it sacrifices individual freedom. In other words, Rand never thinks slavery is justified, whereas people who disagree do think it is sometimes justified
Drew McDaniel Taxation isn’t for charity. Educating and feeding our children is an investment in the future. Military is a necessary evil. Medicaid and social security you get back.
The republican party HAS been making noises about taking social security and medicaid away, saying nothing about reimbursement... So yes, it is entirely possible you will lose all your ss/medicaid by the time you need it. @@TDotRedemption
@@billlupin8345 Doesn't really matter if it's Republican or Democrat. Government's only good for making promises they can't keep or never intend on keeping. People are living longer than their projections and with more chronic illnesses, it's draining social security/medicaid. Also there the population is aging faster. We did not have enough children to replace the baby boomers. The people exiting the workforce are multiple times greater than those entering. We are going to have a physician shortage and geriatrician shortage. Not looking good at all.
@@TDotRedemption See, this is what I don't like about so many fans of Rand's work. The government isn't holding you back; it's yourself. You're predicting a shortage of physicians and geriatricians. Very well. Now, have you done anything to capitalize on that, and solve it in some way that brings you profit? No, you're just complaining about it. I'm not referring to people talking about raising the age of retirement, I'm talking about people who want to eliminate SS entirely. SS ought to be balanced such that you get back from it what you put in, adjusted for inflation, by the end of your life.
Oh yes I quite agree now. 6 months ago I had something different to say but Im pretty sure I will be voting for Trump in the coming election. Mostly because I am curious as to what he will accomplish if he becomes president. Another part of me wants him just because in the past business men have been great leaders for our countries. I don't think anything will make me vote for Hillary at this point though.
@noldarandur "if life is the ultimate value"? what do you mean? your own life or all human life or all life period? and for whom is life the ultimate value, beyond the individual owner of that life? And, is not ultimate value an individual choice? curious to your thought process.
mob rule be damned. Does it matter if 99.9999% of human history (including today and "at the time") agrees with the interviewer? IS SHE RIGHT? Argue *that* and we'll have a discussion... Edit: first sentence had a question mark, confused my intent.
Why the perversion of the COTUS's 'General Welfare Clause' to allow the creation of the Welfare State has been such a disaster. The clause was never intended to be used to create a benefit for less than 3/4 of the population, yet they created Welfare for less than 15% of the population .
If you want to know of a historic nation which followed Objectivism, then read about the Late Roman Republic and all that Augustus had to rectify to keep Rome effective. The Late Roman Republic's roads were poorly kept as nobody paid for them, it's political system was sold to the highest bidder and even armies were privately owned! The only altruism which happened was not for the survival of Rome, but to buy the opinion of senators and the citizenry! There wasn't even an official police force or fire brigade! Licinius Crassus grew immensely rich from his support of General Sulla and blackmailing citizens to pay for his private fire brigade! One has to wonder how those fires started in the first place? And no it was not because Rome was made out of marble.. it was mostly made out of brick and wood at the time. If after this you still think if Objectivism can work, then I can safely say you were no threat to begin with. I am just asking those who understand to not be so ignorant and.. heh.. illogical to believe that you don't need a government. Like Rome, your nation will fall to dictators if it embraces Objectivism.
i understand completely the"" rational..of the way AYN Rand..answers to the question of ..love..great soul grt mind ..she deserves ""my love completely..if or if not a feeling of such virtue makes me feel empowered and whole..thank you for this wakened thought..grt lady
No one said anything about NOT serving others. In fact the opposite is what the philosophy SAYS, advocates. HOW this is to be done is ALL that REALLY matters.
According to Rand, it is impossible to profit from unethical actions. This is one of the most mind-bogglingly stupid things a person can believe, and it should be immediately dismissed by anyone who has ever lived in the real word or who possesses the slightest bit of intelligence.
I’m not sure where to place this because everything I have ever had is because somebody decided to be altruistic. If this were to be applied to society, what would it look like? No matter what SOMEBODY would have to do the work that no one else wants to do. I don’t think most people WANT to be factory workers or miners, it just so happens that that is their best option. Do those jobs benefit those workers directly? No. They have those jobs because they benefit other people. Even if had a society built on self interest, we would do so while relying on people who don’t have other options or are forced to work for other people’s’ benefit. I don’t know maybe there’s a bunch of people who are just DYING to work in factories but I’m not sure about that. So basically we’d have a society of a bunch of people working according to self interest but the only reason they’d be able to do that is because others are doing things they don’t want to do. OR we could just have anarchy. No government, grow your own food, make your own clothes.
I find it interesting from a Christian view such as Divine love but that would require you to understand what Ayn is saying, which most of you don't and understand what Divine love is, which most of you don't. It could be argued that God was totally selfless by her definition(impossible) when he gave his Son to die on the cross for sinful humanity.
"Your go" Ms. Rand, I do believe however that that there were a number of opportunities to question the interviewer's (forget his name) attempts to "dumb things down" for what he estimates is his Ratings Audience.
I love how each of the TV personalities that got the chance to speak with Ayn Rand... CHALLENGE HER!!! HAHAHA. If you have Albert Einstein as your guest speaker, IT IS TO LEARN WHAT HE KNOWS WHAT HE THINKS WHAT HE CAN SHARE WITH YOU AND WHAT HE HAS CONSIDERED DIFFERENTLY FROM YOU. Not to challenge Einstein. That is basically what I saw Wallace and Donahue do.
What a beautiful speech. It's something that I can relate to so much. I believe it's crucial for a man to invest in their self-interests; it's really important for a man to be in his most elevated state of mind in terms of how he views himself before even thinking about pursuing a romantic relationship. This is such an interesting interview. I just don't like how the interviewer responded to her. I wished he had let her talk instead of always cutting her off. This just shows how dismissive people were. She made great points, but they kept getting disregarded because of society's beliefs at the time.
Self-interest is good, altruism is evil. Indeed what beauty, satan must be proud :)
This dialog is what we now call a podcast. Just like Joe Rogans. If only the creation of “podcast” existed since this time, the world would have SO much more wisdom content from all types of people, business magnates, philosophers & authors 👍🏼
I say this a lot. Get your mental health and life sorted out before jumping in to relationships with people, and reject the idea that relationships will fix what is wrong with you or your life.
Going in to relationships in a messed up condition are the cause of many screwed up relationships these days.
Agreed. Certainly the interviewer motivation wasn't to uderstand but to shoot at her. If he was to do the former, he would have asked better follow-up questions
That interviewer was a flippant schmuck. Ayn Rand is the GOAT
Ah look at this, people actually debating and asking hard questions on television. Haven't seen that in a while
Is that sarcasm I detect? Or are you serious?
PA W I think he is pretty serious, and if not then I am serious about it.
+zupergozer You're absolutely right. And look how they are doing it respectfully, they actually fucking care about having productive discussion. I'm so sick of this offended professional victim culture.
And believe it or not, she's not interrupted every two seconds.
Because the media has completely embraced Ayn Rand's philosophy and shut out alternative and dissident voices.
I love the part where she points out that if you love everyone indiscriminately, you are actually loving nobody.love implies an affinity and special concern for something. If it is doled out indiscriminately, it ceases to have meaning.
+glenzo215 I disagree, love is simply taking care of other's needs. Love can be either special or indiscriminately as you said, but that doesn't make it less of a love. You can hate only a few people, or hate everyone. If you start hitting everyone in the face with a baseball bat, and then ask them "do you think I hate you ?" do you think they'll say no ? We are still selfish by our very nature, men must definetly not live for others, that would be a waste of his life, man must only sacrifice himself for others if he/she desires so, it's not obligated, and desire would imply his own inner intention thus living for himself. But, at the same time, man achives happiness by altrusim, it makes men happy to offer, this is what Ayn Rand failed to either realise or accept (And psychological studies back me up on this, and no it's not because of religious beliefs but human nature, atheists are not excluded from "it makes men happy to offer") . The thing is, there is a thin line between altruism, stupidity and excuses. But those lines exist for those with minds to see the difference. Don't get me wrong, there is wisdom in her words, she's calling out a lot of BS people tell to themselves even this very day, it is only the tiny fact that men get happiness from doing altruism that she missed, and her definition of love that I disagree with, and I also belive that she doesn't make a difference betwen romantic love and the other kinds of love, which makes her objectivism rather subjectivism, but on everything else she is correct.
Which part don't you understand ? I'll try my best to explain it.
+Catalin Marius almost everything you said is a contradiction. if that same person were walking around hitting people with bats do you not think that they would selfishly skip over their loved ones? does the happiness we derive from altruistic behavior not come from a connection to those it helps? naturally we are more inclined to give to family, friends, and others we relate to, than we would be to murderers, rapists and strangers, etc.
Rand does not ignore the satisfaction one gets from altruism. She simply differentiates that satisfaction as coming from discrimination towards those we selfishly care for. I believe you need to brush up on her readings to understand the nuance you missed.
Of course there is more love to the family. But that doesn't mean we can't not take care of everyone else's well-being on a lesser level than our family's. Nope, simply act of helping an unfortunate makes you happy (psychology) and not because of a connection, you don't even need to know who he/she is. But you must know you helped someone less fortunate than you, not a scammer. As for the second paragraph, she has a good point, however, Love everybody =/= love everybody at the same level. If by "if you love everybody" she automatically meant "on the same level" too then I agree with her, but without "on the same level" I disagree with her. Thus it would still make no sense 'Objectivism vs Altruism' proving that both can co-exist without contradiction. Sure, someone could attack your family, but by that very action he's no longer a part of the good society, those acting in collectively constructive not destructive ways, thus helping him wouldn't be alturistic at all for society but only for that person. Simply put, the most altruisting thing you can do is to lock that person to prevent further harm to any member/s of society.
You are using the word "altruism" to mean voluntary acts of kindness. That is not what Rand means, she used the original meaning of altruism (from Comte) of viewing others as higher value than yourself. These days the word is used in a more relaxed way for any kindness, generosity, even charity. This is almost the opposite of Rand's (Comte's) meaning.
The reason you give to charity is because others are worse off than you. The reason you give under altruism is because others are higher value than you. The mentality of those two actions is almost opposite.
Rand advocated giving under the giver's terms (charity), but was against giving out of duty (altruism).
If you listen again to the interview her words will now make more sense.
*The fault in my college education, was my philosophy teacher taught Ayn Rand's Objectivism's philosophy as problematic. I knew I loved her view on life and believed in it, yet he taught me it was incorrect. Philosophy should not be taught with a view of right and wrong, we are students and free to choose.*
Jeffrey Munoz that right is gone in current day colleges
@@christopherhand4836 *I would hope so, this happened while I was in college in 2014 - only 6 years ago.*
Philosophy is all about teaching right and wrong.
Maybe your professor was just simply wrong.
LoL
Be happy your prof even mentioned Ayn Rand... When I was in college, they wouldn't even give her the respect to consider her a philosopher.
Your instructor has his own right to argue in favor of his views. The quality of teaching is not found in squelching the position of its instructor but rather in that instructor presenting as many sides to any argument as necessarily and reasonably exist. My best educational experiences resulted from professors who held particular opinions but permitted me to argue against them or debate them. I knew what to encounter in their correcting of my papers, but that only served to tighten my reasoning in hopes of successfully challenging their comments. And I simply do not understand your notion that "Philosophy should not be taught with a view of right and wrong..." Is not the entire premise of Philosophy about establishing the good, the right, the reasonable, the more likely, the highly probable, and so on? If so, then the opposite of those positions must also be investigated, but a foundation of that which true must be observed.
"man cannot expect love if he does not deserve it"
Love this!!!!
@@jwalkinit Can't hove love without them!
@@jwalkinit She isn't talking about filial love she's talking about romantic love. you can't lie and take what she says out of context. Nobody chooses to have a brother or sister. That's a decision their parents make. Romantic love is a choice, and if you don't deserve to be loved you should never expect it.
@@jwalkinit Yeah well those people are probably not experiencing real romantic love, but rather the more base sexual lust that theyre confusing with love, the kind where you think you're in love because you're having sex with someone a lot when you've never done that before. If they were actually in love then they would love each other for all their flaws, and the "loser guys" and "waste of life chicks" would actually provide something of value, perhaps validation or maybe just a shoulder to cry on. In either case they provide something invaluable to their partner and hence deserve said love.
@@jwalkinit She's not saying somebody deserves someone elses love; that would be crazy. Stalin and Mao Zedong probably never went that far. She's saying love is an earned quality, in that I earn the right for people to love me by being a loveable person. That is not to say I earned the right for you to love me, and that I can thus claim you as you put it. It's just more general. I earn the right to be loved by living a virtuous life, but I don't earn the right to your love. That's your discretion who you decide to love, but who decides to love you is not your discretion. You don't decide who loves you; it happens by how you carry yourself, i.e. you must earn somebody's love by treating them well with honesty, compassion, etc. etc.
Although I will add that the whole "claim" idea actually does exist in relationships. Couples joke about it all the time, and some people actually find it erotic.
@@jwalkinit You didn't even fuckin read what I just wrote. THE RIGHT TO BE LOVED AND THE RIGHT TO BE LOVED BY SOME PERSON ARE TWO DISTINCT IDEAS. Your ignorance and lack of basic comprehension as well as your insistence to twist what she says into what you think she says is seriously annoying. Go back and rewatch the video if you need to and stop conflating your projection of what you think she said with what she actually said as a way to create some stupid debate. YOU HAVE TO BE A GOOD PERSON TO BE LOVED, BUT BEING A GOOD PERSON DOESN'T MEAN SOMEBODY WILL LOVE YOU. There, even a deaf blind chimpanzee could understand that.
I totally get it! Let's not water down emotions by giving love away freely. Let's make it mean something to us, for us! For my own sake! I love you because I see value and morals in you. I love you because you deserve it. I know what love is because I love myself fully and I can share with you the same love I feel for myself. I serve you because I serve myself. Ayn Rand is awesome
The voice of reason against the howling mob👍👍👍!
You said it. TRUE. The stupids can NEVER win anything. NEVER. They always will be the LOSERS.
That is it. You cannot love others if you don´t love yourself.
Jesus in the bible says ´love others as you love yourself´,
while contradicting in going overboard with self-sacrifice, as an impossible moral standard.
I think of the distinction as a expectation of self-sacrifice [with the religious threat of hell or punitive measure by man; e.g. socialism] vs voluntary human interaction between individuals.
Yes.
@@paulcherry8742 Nice quote! I'm a Rush fan too. That line is from Nobody's Hero right?
Wow. As a man who's worked most of my life for the benefit of others I can say she's right. A man does not have the obligation to sacrifice his life for the sake of others, but should pursue his own happiness. Choosing to sacrifice for the sake of others because it makes him happy would still fit within her philosophy if I'm not mistaken. It must be his free will choice, though. She speaks against altruism and even says it's evil. This is an interesting thought exercise. Is there anything we can do that is truly altruistic? In other words, no matter what kindness we do for others, isn't there always a personal benefit or selfish motive? It may not be visible or noticeable by others but it's there.
Personal benefit from making an anonymous donation vs the selfish 'altruistic' public display of making that same donation? Read the part of 'Atlas Shrugged' about Hank Reardon's brother asking him for a donation to his progressive society group.
"Choosing to sacrifice for the sake of others because it makes him happy would still fit within her philosophy if I'm not mistaken."
Yes. I believe this is the distinction Ayn Rand makes between Altruism and Benevolence.
Psychological egoism.
Exactly, and this is what so many idiots don’t realize, that helping others or reaching out to others is a noble thing if YOU are personally invested in it. She uses the example of a husband who loves his wife “for your own good.” No woman would want that. You can apply that to anything like welfare too. None of it is helping because it is done out of obligation and force. Not a desire to do it.
He accuses her of reducing love to a business transaction when it is he that is referring to monetary social programs and taxes as "love"
Thy name is irony.
Rand's philosophy is most useful in the psychological realm, in terms of dealing with the pressures of family, friends and peers to live for them, and sacrifice one's own goals and ambitions to the needs of others. Consider the freedom from guilt one gains when one is able to say "I will not give up my life or my future to tend to the weakness or decay of others."
I think she should have mentioned that love is selfish by nature. You love people because it benefits you to do so. if you say you love someone but you actually hate them, you don't love them... it's pretty simple. Their values benefit you. you keep them around because they're useful to you. Communal form of any type only exist to serve self interest or they wouldn't emerge.
Yes but the love expresses itself in different complex ways. Being in love is not loving your next door neighbour. Rand talks about love in a one dimensional way. That's dangerous
Society has always been give and take .there fact that we live for yourself can the true else we would be able to trust anyone in anyway.
Ian Renenzi This is a very good reply.
No you don t hate someone you love you share love
I love my dog but he is a far greater burden then benefit he takes time energy and money away from me. And my benefit is seeing him happy in turn giving me a nice feeling. Does this count as a benefit when my life would be better off without him? I love him despite the lack of benefits.
I don't understand what the alternative to her view of love is meant to be. If you have no standards by which to judge other people, how can you draw any distinction between one person and another? If you can't do that, then how can you claim to love anyone in any meaningful way?
+William Sebring I caught zero logic in that.
but she said everyone has they re private curency in love as to means it's relative but it doesn't mean it's not true for us.
Love is a selfish plesaure.you dont fall in love in what you can do for them, you fall in love in wha they can do for you. Objectivism
The alternative she presents is that we shouldn't base love around what they for us, or what we do for them, we should base it around who they are, i.e personality etc, we shouldn't sacrifice ourselves for the sake of love, we should only accept love if its beneficial to our individual well being and happiness.
No no it's the conventional idea of live which has no standards, when you're asked to love everyone. Shes suggesting you use their virtues, their personal qualities as a basis or standard for loving them.
HIS HIGHEST MORAL PURPOSE IS THE ACHIEVEMENT OF HIS OWN HAPPINESS.
It is practically a duty. What good are you to anyone if you've sacrificed your own well-being and all the implements of your well-being for someone who won't sacrifice anything for their own?
@@briane173 yup. Most times our hapiness is linked to the hapiness of the people around us. So sacrifice is a good thing at times. The real role of wisdom is to determine which those moments are. Take care man.
Brian E Youve never suffered lmfao
Fully disagree.
Is that objectivism or satanism ?
The Declaration of Independence did not state '......life, liberty and the pursuit of self sacrifice.' now did it? The ones that scream loudest for the 'self sacrifice' of others are always the ones with little to sacrifice themselves. Funny how that works.
She is so right. People down here in the comments and that guy in the video have completely misunderstood her. She is very right about what she is saying
Her principle, the non-aggression principle, doesn't work with her other principle, altruism is evil. What I mean by that is, while Rand states that we should treat others as ends-in-themselves as Kant did, she also states that empathy is unnecessary, which is problematic, because in order to treat others as ends, you have to show respect for their well being, life and autonomy, i.e. respect who they are as people. That is where her non-aggression principle should come in, but because she said altruism is evil, it makes the former useless, as it requires empathy to work, in that you have a duty to yourself and to others, which means to show respect. What it all boils down to is that, Objectivism just doesn't work with the two principles that contradict each other.
CosmoShidan The libertarian non-aggression principle necessitates respect for others "well being, life and autonomy". I don't see any contradictions, except in your mistakes about what Rand stated. For example, Kant's ideas were almost completely opposite to Rand's. She also did not state that "empathy is unnecessary".
Mike Blain Yes she did. If one states that "Altruism is evil", that is a rejection of empathy. Not to mention rejecting Kant's maxim, of having a duty to others and a duty to yourself are also another form of empathy, which Rand was opposed to, and that makes the non-aggression principle fail hard.
CosmoShidan
No, the NAP has nothing to do with empathy. It simply states you cannot initiate aggression, and does not need any understanding of the other person. It has no contradictions.
Mike Blain "It simply states you cannot initiate aggression,"
In which empathy is required to make it work. The idea of treating others as "ends-in-themselves" means that you treat people as human beings rather than a means to an end, which means to objectify. It means you show respect for the rights of others, which is what empathy is about. No empathy, the NAP does not work and is in contradiction with human rights.
Every time I watch her interviews, I find myself in awe of her thinking and philosophy of life!
Bioshock ring a bell? Works like a charm.
@@mikkokivisto4414
Bioshock was a poor parody of objectivism, because the devs failed to understand what objectivism actually is.
People do everything for themselves, even altruism. Some feel good when helping others, either because they were taught to feel good or because they feel the pain of others through empathy. So I mostly agree with her objectivism.
I think all the hate she gets is because most people have different standards in life. I may not agree with hers because it doesn't suite me, but she is accurate in portraying how the human mind works.
Her brand of philosophy is pretty much believed to have had a part in the '08 economic crash and other problems we are having with corporations based on greed have the underlying tone of 'do what is reational for the self' at the expense of what is good for everyone else.
Besides, she doesn't address how doing things for others can ultimately benefit one self (if more people are happy, the world tends to be a better place).
I agree with her somewhat, but it's too much of an unrealistic ideal , and most philosophies are hamful if they don't take into account some level orf reality or compromise. I think a mix of altruism and objectivism are good in that a person should only do what they can once they have achieved a certain level of satisfaction in their lives.
eartianwerewolf I like to view her philosophy as a "well if you have to claim something that is moral or immoral this is the most consistent way to go about it." It's just a for argument sake argument.
@@eartianwerewolf > Her brand of philosophy is pretty much believed
Who is the believer of this belief? Or did you receive a mystical revelation?
@@eartianwerewolf your misunderstanding what shes saying then. Your comment is based on opinions and emotions!!! Her philosophy is based on respect for others and not sacrifice your virtue for others!
Precisely. All human beings act purely out of self-interest. Even altruistic acts - are shaped by self-interest. For example, rich people give money to charity because it makes them feel good; otherwise they wouldn't do it.
Ayn Rand gets a lot of hate because she understood human nature for what it is. She could see through all the politically correct bullshit and call a spade a spade.
so many people are getting her concept wrong. that's what is making people hate her.
Exactly!!!
They purposely make it out to be something it's not because they're actually fans of communism lmao, even though the police state it creates is horrendous. Just look at r/communism or r/laborwave on reddit, for example.
It doesn't help that the leftist press has been bashing her for decades as her ideas threaten their fake altruism designed to create a socialist USA.
@@Red_Foxxy_Fox wouldn’t go on Reddit if it was life or death it’s an awful place
this philosophy is a great anchor, individualism is easily forgotten and masses of the general public are too humanistic, too reliant on others and vice versa.
There's a huge difference between me seeing my neighbor in need, feeling compassion, and therefore freely deciding to supply their need or to assist them in some way, versus me seeing my neighbor in need and using their need as a justification to compel others to assist or to forcibly take from others in order to share what I have taken with the neighbor in need. The first is benevolence whereas the second is malevolence or tyranny. Moreover, struggle is a necessary condition for human growth and fulfillment. Take away the chance for failure and you have at the same time taken away the chance for success. Take away the reason to voluntarily do good and eventually nobody will.
Isn't that exactly what the Welfare State has been doing for the past ~60 years? Displacing Churches and Community groups as the places people turned to in times of need, where now its a gimme gimme line at the Welfare office and no clue who their neighbors are?
this is the philosophy i was searching for my whole life
Me too!!!!!
The exact words I was looking for as well!
I have read books over 10 years. The number of books is over 1000. Among these books, the most impressive book is 《the fountainhead》. Because this book makes me simple. This book explained all of my chaos in some sentences. I realized how to make my life well. I really want to introduce her philosophy to my hometown, which is korea.
Read her books
@@user-js2et4ic9k I just finished reading fountainhead. I never liked this kinds of books. But this one changed life for me. Everyone is putting their own convictions and their beliefs in you trying to give identity they carry. That way making you unhappy in same way they are.
Note to all High School Debate Team members--do NOT debate Ayn Rand. You will only get a participation trophy .
we're a couple decades too late to debate her lol
I love the fact that in our society, we will take care of those who truly cannot function independently. That said, the philosophy offered by Ayn Rand need not destroy our tolerance for one another - we have the free will to tolerate and respect one another, but the idea of having RATIONAL(ie I won't harm others even though I know what I want) self interest is absolutely sound in that it is to neither assume being greater or weaker than another by birth, but to strive for his own greatness.
She plays no games... lol I love it. We need more objectivity in society today- too much arbitrarity and decisions fueled by emotions and not reason. Emotions are important but need to be subject to reason, because it is the only reason that gives man the best likelihood of doing what ought to be done, not what he feels is right or is to be done, objectively.
Spot on!
For a guy that's super preachy and on a moral high horse Mike Wallace sure is being judgemental, argumentative, sarcastic, condescending, arrogant, self centered, self-righteous and rude. And by example she pretty much proves her point by remaining calm, patient, thoughtful, intelligent, profound, logical, analytical, critical thinking and honest.
Why is it that when it comes to objectivism, people become so emotionally against it. Geez! There's no reason to the people refuting it, no facts, only a deep, irrational hatred. I wouldn't be so disturbed if someone had a rational counter-argument to the topic, but the more I look, the crazier it gets. It's really disquieting.
+Dingeree Lamta I agree, people always say things like "crazy bitch" or "evil woman" but never actually give any reason or facts to back any of that up. It always puzzles me. It is also somewhat ironic since objectivism advocates using rationality and reason as a basis for decision making rather than emotion.
Meister Incognito Do it, you might make more sales than her
Well one problem I have with her is that she was a imperialist (Despite believing force should only be used defensively.) And a bit of a racist. And of course her support of a coercive of Monopoly on Force and Arbitration.
@john edwards Not just that but the fact that she supported interventionism in general.
@john edwards Now don't get me wrong Ayn Rand is someone who intrigues me and is someone I plan to learn about. And I do agree with quite a few of the things she said. And even her defense of selfish is at least well argued. But My real biggest problem with her is inspired because a "rational" individualist who believed that man is in charger of his own destiny. That she believed that we still need a centralized coercive Monopoly on force and arbitration to rule over the masses. That man can not govern over her self. Which flies in the face of everything else she said.
And I might have been out of line to call her a Imperialist (It was meant that she was to my knowledge in favor of American being the world's police officer.) And if that of out of line I apologize.
I love this woman...and yes, I LOVE myself
I hate u. U fuckin bitch LOL
Misanthropic Atrophy uh..
Esther Mocuta you are hot
Then to love yourself above others makes you lonely
@ian one who you calling a hag? narcissistic? Lol
2:26 “are these accurate criticisms?”
“Yes” 😂😂😂
Ayn Rand is the man!
Ayn Rand was a woman, not a man. (Just clearing up a misunderstanding, please don't crucify me)
@@DefinitelyNotAnOsprey I think they were referring to time Ludwig Von Mises said she was "the most courageous man in America." She took it as a compliment.
I haven't fully explored Ayn Rand's philosophy (only seen this video and read a few chapters of the Fountainhead) but I think she is misunderstood. I have a feeling people might have taken her philosophy at a rather surface/face value and labelled it selfish and evil. But I think there is more to it. I think its deeper and more profound than just being plain selfish.
no kidding
I enjoyed the way she explained all and the man was a real interviewer asking and hearing her, knowing about the book, sadly those days has gone, when real reporters were in TV
Rational and respectful debate and exchange of ideas. How unfortunate that this has disappeared from public discourse today, mainstream and online media. We are so much poorer for this loss. We have seemingly dumbed down some many things
What an interesting way of viewing life.
@jan osovsky you don’t seem very Open minded Brother. You don’t have to agree to the outlook but it’s nice to see some thinking happening out of logic.
@jan osovsky smiles. Ok.
6:00 He dodges that question purposefully. He didn't want his wife to hear that he loved her because he had to, not because he wanted to.
Humans from the ancient of times have loved or selected a mate based on certain idiosyncrasies.We don't just love anyone,none of us have fallen in love on a whim,be it beauty or certain quality,it has always been a specific characteristics of a person which separates them from others which has attracted us to them,or in other words,a virtue!
! ??? ?
YOU have understood the concept. Well done. Congratulations, there are MANY who simply can NEVER understand OR pretend that THEY don't. Poor fellows.
@@christophernickels7846 The Socialist one brand, type or design of a product is all a good socialist needs.
Wow, she just defined my whole mindset. Something ive been unable to explain my whole life.
She was a Vulcan...
No... she was just insensitive. Vulcans care about other people and help them. Also, Ayn Rand was a very angry, arrogant woman. Vulcans are emotionless.
Live Long and Prosper man \\//_ :)
OH WAIT SHE'S A KLINGON OH GOD
***** way to over-analyze it guys... She believes in using solely logic to make decisions, and she looks like Spock's long lost sister... plus, she hides her ears. Definitely a Vulcan.
Matt Hanrahan I still think she is a Klingon-Vulcan spawn
Nathaniel Bixby Isnt technically all moral axioms are illogical?
Wow.
It has taken me years to realise that I fully agree with Ayn Rand. In every possible way.
That's why often people don't manage to understand where I'm coming from, where I'm arriving at.
Yes, indeed. Man ought to strive for his/her own happiness first. He shouldn't be forced to self sacrifice - that should AT ALL TIMES be left to his judgement.
This interviewer bias positioning is the reason why we have yet to achieve higher conclusions on regards to the human condition.
But then again she holds it together and rises above it.
What an example!!
I just watched this for the first time and love it!
Why did you love it .?
TELL THE TRUTH AYN! Love this woman!!!
Her eyes !! She was ahead of her times. What she says is relevant today too.
No it is nt. She is a one dimensional and love come in many forms.she except the theory that in her case ideas people are just business
she had rare expressions
Beautiful person; love her books.
I read it boobs.
Ayn? SHES HIDEOUS.
Lemon thank you 😌
1:16 - LOL - Wallace completely exposed for being intellectually outclassed. He also interrupts way too much.
maaaan, its the first time a hear this, I dont know yet how to process this. it kind of makes sense.
I find that most who dismiss Ayn Rand’s morality don’t really understand it. Her “selfishness” is long-term, principled self-interest. People are a combination of the physical and mental, and your self-interest includes psychological values. Self-interest is not to be reduced to only the physical, such as money. Other people can be of tremendous psychological value (i.e. friends, lovers, children.) Rand recognized that benevolence toward strangers is in one’s own interest, in a free country.
No! We love other people, even strangers and the undeserving, because we are humans with empathy. It's who we are and we need to embrace it. We know that we are part of a family and community and that to be a part of that community we must care about others and expect others to care about us. This is not about a controlling government or church, it is who we are.
The further a society drifts from Truth the more it will *hate* those *who speak it.* - George Orwell
Look how smart I am by quoting famous quotes from famous people.
One of the great thinkers of our time.
not really lol
she is just saying love yourself first, do what makes you happy, and let other people do their thing
"Make yourself worthy of love"
This woman makes sense.
The 101 Philosophy of Self-help!
Love put into action can do great things. When love ceases to act, it ceases to exist.
do you have the full video?
I love her eyes! I think she misunderstood that there are different forms of love when examined in Greek. Agape is principled love for your fellow man. And it can come from the heart and not controlled by anyone else.
What do you mean heart? ONLY a mind can think and do everything else connected. Not a heart. Learn the difference. There are NO TWO centers of thinking in any living thing.
@@benmmbk765 a heart can think
Say what you will about the content of the interview, but it was remarkably refreshing to see how politely and civilly they discussed the topic.
I really appreciate Ayn Rand's philosophy. I desire to be liberal, but am constantly fighting against my nature to be fair and caring. As an American Christian, I believe Rand's vision for the state is wholy correct; it offers no impediment for me to provide means to those I am compassionate for, allows every person to be as effective as they are able, and gaurantees the voluntarily unproductive members of society are at the mercy of those who choose to produce.
Just as it was at the time of the Founding of the Republic and the writing of the COTUS.
I love her.
What she has said has come true. Any trouble with the cornavirus
Want to see the type of people who argue against Objectivism? Here are a couple of examples of the wonderful, brilliant and intellectually honest saints who make the case for the great ideologies of collectivism and altruism:
"whatsgoingon07" just got steamrolled by me in an argument starting with his comment, "She just rationalized sociopathy," and now he, a typical smug Young Turks fan, has blocked me after giving himself the last word. Apparently his case against Objectivism - made so boldly - was so strong that it couldn't withstand a UA-cam comment!
And he's not the only collectivist to do so; another one by the name of "TheThirdMan" (note the arrogance in one naming themselves after a brilliant philosophical argument, as if _they_ were its embodiment) reacted similarly when I revealed his numerous contradictions on the topic of regulations in engineering. Of course, he took the collectivist stance and argued vehemently for giving even more power to governments, proclaiming his own nature as the embodiment of "Science" itself, calling my arguments against his a fruitless case against "Science". After I observed his appeal to authority and presented him with apparently irrefutable evidence against his position, he, fed up with my horrible irrationality and sick of dealing with peons like myself, blocked me. He sure showed me!
Remember the case these people are making: self-interest is greed and individualism breeds egomaniacs. Ironically, these people are the epitome of egomania and apparently don't even see it....
There is an objective reality but Rand jumps way past this and is applying subjective human perceptions of morality and calling it the philosophy of objectivism. Objective understanding does not apply any perceptual bias, instead it observes reality and outcome independent of moralization. It does not seek to rationalize morality. If you can't see how terribly flawed her reasoning is, you are objectively ignorant.
ILikeMe 123
There are many perceptions of morality but only one that's free of fallacy. That one Rand argues to be Objectivist ethics. It's ironic how you call me "objectively ignorant" when your argument against Objectivism betrays an ignorance of the philosophy.
+Christian Ponicki no, you are a kool-aid drinker. Objective observation does not seek to apply moralizations nor rationalize morality. In scientific terms she would be laughed off the stage when trying to argue the ability of the mind for objective understanding. The human mind is evolutionarily wired to be rather subjective and irrational most of the time. Objectivity can only be used to observe society and its outcomes. Not determine it. You are a moral authoritarian who makes an argument for your "religion" much the same way a Christian presuppositionalist does.
+Christian Ponicki your "my morality is free from fallacy" argument is similar to the "my God created reason" one. It's a fallacy in itself.
ILikeMe 123
I find it humorous that you call me a "kool-aid drinker" when I'm not even an Objectivist. But what should I expect from yet another rabid Rand hater?
Regarding your arguments, notice how you state as objective fact that we are inherently incapable of objective understanding? It's this habit of not thinking through your own positions that lands your type in endless performative contradictions; for instance, you defend the "is-ought gap" while ignorant of the fact that every "is" is a statement derived from an "ought" held by the arguer: "I ought to state facts".
Axioms, learn them.
If only I could speak with half the level of articulation and eloquence displayed here. To say so much truth in so few words. She hit it home. I wish more people still valued having conversations like this these days ..
Man has free will. Do whatever you want. Love who ever you want and the consequences follows. Wether positive or negative
andrew ryan? anyone?
Ryan goes further, in a bad way. He ends up resorting to force. He doesn't respect the Little Sisters' freedom.
Yves Gomes
STFU he build rapture he can do what he wants!
That's a joke, right? XD
Yves Gomes
yeah
i build rapture in minecraft tho
I always thought that morality was like that for a reason beyond neurotypicals in so I think this to be obvious.
Finding this available is SUCH a release
I don't agree with Rand on most issues, but when she describes Love, she describes it in the most accurate terms. It's not so much a system of morality, but a true description of human behaviour.
Ayn Rand 2020!!
Kenn Ashley I wouldn’t mind having her as president, of course, most people would have her impeached on the first day. People don’t understand that they create their own happiness, if you rely on someone to create happiness for you, is it really your happiness? They worked for your happiness even if you don’t deserve it. One of the only opposites I can for the happiness aspect is parent and child, parents are supposed to provide a happy life for their children to create hard working individuals who can then provide happiness for themselves. Ayn Rand’s philosophy is probably our world’s only hope. We create our world, we don’t make other people do it for us.
@@Vimm_ Politicians on the left have been selling the idea that it is government's responsibility to wipe everybody's ass and fluff their pillow for them for so long they've managed to make spoiled, helpless heaps of flesh out of generations of human beings. It's a compelling message for those who don't want to put forth any effort to achieve their own happiness. And you'll notice that for all the $trillions we've spent on this indulgence by government, government has failed miserably. Yet we still have these people who insist that "Well, they're just doing it wrong. Put us in there and we'll fix it." Uh huh. Tell a lie long enough and loud enough and eventually it becomes truth.
She would push to abolish the Welfare State on day 1 and eliminate all Foreign (welfare) Aid on day 2, the establishment socialist would all have strokes trying to be the first to sign the impeachment .
And, really, what can one say about Objectivism? It isnt so much a philosophy as what someone who has never actually encountered philosophy imagines a philosophy might look like: good hard axiomatic absolutes, a bluff attitude of intellectual superiority, lots of simple atomic premises supposedly immune to doubt, immense and inflexible conclusions, and plenty of assertions about what is "rational" or "objective" or "real." Oh, and of course an imposing brand name ending with an -ism.
- David Bentley Hart
Haha. You can't see the irony in that quote being guilty of what he accused someone elses point of view as being? That's the most smug attempt at intellectual superiority that I've ever read.
+Nick s
Of course he doesn't see the irony in his comment; self-knowledge is a foreign concept to people like him.
You are making judgements on the person with no clue why he posted the quote, or what his views are.
I myself have said things in full knowlage of the irony or paradoxality that they present, either coming from me or in and of themselves.
David Bentley Hart (don't know who that is) as well as ObjectiveBob, May be making an ironic point. Here is an idea, you can use to judge me, if you so please.
I don't know I am just a random youtube commenter.
ObjectiveBob That quote is an irony In of itself except for the fact he hasn't coined anything with an -ism.
Wow. She is absolutely ahead of her time.
She speaks as if she is reading of a script. What a bold and beautifull woman.
Is Wallace defending socialism?
havier massa He is defending Christian or Judeo-Christianity I think
He's playing devil's advocate, which he spent a career doing. Now, no question Mike Wallace was a liberal, so this is a philosophy that is completely foreign to him; he tried to get Rand to defend the indefensible. Except that it's defensible. But in the end Wallace and Rand both walked away with their respective views intact. That's how journalism used to work. Today we just cancel anybody who doesn't agree with our POV.
But her own novel 'Fountainhead' was full of bullshit sentimentality, especially towards the end, from the court scene onwards. Derrida pointed out very rightly that in every philosophical text, you can locate arguments against its own thesis. Rand was also displaying a subjective side when she pointed out that she 'created a morality...' She talks of morality here as if it's a work of art- a product born out of subjective underpinnings. Of course, I do think one can create works of art which are objective in nature, but then that objectivity being promoted is a product of the author's subjectivity.
Rand's hypothesis that life should be lived objectively is her subjective stance.
I don't intend to put anyone down here; I'm just wondering aloud.
You make some great points.
I think, as humans, our own subjectivity is impossible to create. We are not “gods” who can observe situations from outside of those very circumstances.
In saying she created a morality, you might argue that it was a language issue; if we reframed it as an objective morality always having existed but she was the first to articulate it in that way, then we can reconcile the apparent contradiction.
she's so smart.. his feeble mind just couldn't comprehend her ideas as it was a little unconventional back then
“There are very few of us, then in this world, by your standards, who are worthy of love”
Rand: “Unfortunately yes”
She ain’t playing 😂😂😂
In my young 20’s I subconsciously was an altruist; the life experience and seeing the outcomes of altruistic decisions make me wiser. I find myself leaning towards Ayn’s “objectivism”.
Success is something you attract by the person you become. Life and societal success. Discipline oneself and build knowledge on the important topics of life. Be accountable for your mistakes and grow from them. The more I adopted these philosophies, it’s seems like a lot of things in my life just naturally improved. Health, fitness, relationships, happiness in life.
She might be wrong..But i find myself agreeing with her.
Ayn Rand didn't think much of what is called anarcho-capitalism. But objectivism and anarcho-capitalism are really the same thing. Objectivism says that laissez-fair capitalism is the best form of government and she advocated for a separation of church and state and a separation of economics and state. She thought that the government's only job is to protect the rights of the individual. Anarcho-capitalists say that government violates individual rights by its very existence. By saying that government should only do that which it cannot do, she is arguing for anarcho-capitalism without realizing it.
ianharwood Actually, we don't want to exterminate all dissenting opinions, we are just so altruistic and compassionate that we want to help you guys out with this victim complex and persecution fantasy that defines your very existence! We know that your lives and your ideology would be meaningless without us lefties paying attention to you and "persecuting" you, so this way we give you a higher purpose and meaning. xoxo
ianharwood "In psychology a person who has a martyr complex, sometimes associated with the term victim complex, desires the feeling of being a martyr for his/her own sake, seeking out suffering or persecution because it either feeds a psychological need, or a desire to avoid responsibility.
In some cases, this results from the belief that the martyr has been singled out for persecution because of exceptional ability or integrity."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyr_complex
Why are you demonizing and slandering the left with that bullshit straw man of yours then?
Well if you wanna get all technical about it, what you did was an attempt to assign collective guilt for. ironically, the non-crime of calling out objectivist's shitty behavior that some leftists (including me) like to do, to the politically left half of the world's population.
Since hivemind and a certain dose of sociopathy is an essential part of the objectivist ideology, reverse-calling me out for assigning collective guilt to your ideology won't work.
We seriously need this woman; America is going down the drain due to it's 'altruistic' ideals. I fear for what may come.
lol. Okay. sure.
I know you didn’t put that in the name of the gop. She hated them. Too much influence from the Christians.
You've got to be kidding
beautiful
Great explanation, and I absolutely agree to this.
(Part 3-B) The reason why Objectivism rejects health care as a right, is because it would entail forcing others who don't want to pay for others health care. to pay for it against their will.
Which would then be inconsistent with the non-aggression principle and property rights.
💚 She was the bravest women of the 20th century 💚
Trakk Not a eoman, an individual.
She was even the bravest man.
That's what Mises called her when he met her, she took it as a complement.
To say she was the bravest woman, in this case, is a little bit like saying "she's the bravest, for a woman".
Probably best to say she's the bravest person.
Ruby Bridges.
Woman.
OMG I just finished reading the atlas shruged and I just realized how deeply inserted were catholic values in my moral code even though I decided to reject this religion when I was a child. Now I now were all this altruistic morality came from.
The currency of love is virtue and virtue end result is offspring.
I'm slowly beginning to understand her... and she actually makes sense.
Massive respect for this woman.
Her shifty eyes freak me out. Anyone else?
Most people are nervy in public.
Yep a little freaky. It's because there's a functional brain behind them.
Looks like she is just little nervous and is doing a lot of processing.
_____It's called giving full attention.
Love has to be earned and not given.
the whole discussion here is quite simplistic, as always, an issue gets overly simplified into an either A or B bifurcation, a thesis vs antithesis, and it's presented as an either/or situation when the discussion actually needs to go deeper to attain a higher synthesis of both/and.
Critics don't understand Rand has no problem with charity, just that you shouldn't sacrifice your own happiness for others. Obviously charity makes people feel good, so that's a win-win. Taxation, or stealing for the "greater good" and calling it charity is not justified because it sacrifices individual freedom. In other words, Rand never thinks slavery is justified, whereas people who disagree do think it is sometimes justified
Drew McDaniel Taxation isn’t for charity. Educating and feeding our children is an investment in the future. Military is a necessary evil. Medicaid and social security you get back.
@@billlupin8345 Lol Medicaid and social security is a ponzi scheme. C'mon now. You should get back what you paid in, but you won't
The republican party HAS been making noises about taking social security and medicaid away, saying nothing about reimbursement... So yes, it is entirely possible you will lose all your ss/medicaid by the time you need it. @@TDotRedemption
@@billlupin8345 Doesn't really matter if it's Republican or Democrat. Government's only good for making promises they can't keep or never intend on keeping. People are living longer than their projections and with more chronic illnesses, it's draining social security/medicaid. Also there the population is aging faster. We did not have enough children to replace the baby boomers. The people exiting the workforce are multiple times greater than those entering. We are going to have a physician shortage and geriatrician shortage. Not looking good at all.
@@TDotRedemption See, this is what I don't like about so many fans of Rand's work. The government isn't holding you back; it's yourself. You're predicting a shortage of physicians and geriatricians. Very well. Now, have you done anything to capitalize on that, and solve it in some way that brings you profit?
No, you're just complaining about it.
I'm not referring to people talking about raising the age of retirement, I'm talking about people who want to eliminate SS entirely. SS ought to be balanced such that you get back from it what you put in, adjusted for inflation, by the end of your life.
Proper discussions on televisions unlike now (Trump is running for president)
I'm voting for HIlary. Best of luck to you , though.
Oh yes I quite agree now. 6 months ago I had something different to say but Im pretty sure I will be voting for Trump in the coming election. Mostly because I am curious as to what he will accomplish if he becomes president. Another part of me wants him just because in the past business men have been great leaders for our countries. I don't think anything will make me vote for Hillary at this point though.
@noldarandur "if life is the ultimate value"? what do you mean? your own life or all human life or all life period? and for whom is life the ultimate value, beyond the individual owner of that life? And, is not ultimate value an individual choice? curious to your thought process.
Nobody has ever handed me a pamphlet, I was not recruited, I came upon these ideas by myself and then discovered her books were similar.
mob rule be damned. Does it matter if 99.9999% of human history (including today and "at the time") agrees with the interviewer? IS SHE RIGHT? Argue *that* and we'll have a discussion...
Edit: first sentence had a question mark, confused my intent.
Of course mob rule be damned. Do you favor gang rapes and lynch mobs? Hope your percentages are wrong, that is a lot of idiots walking the Earth.
The number was intended to include all of human history by estimate....maybe I overestimated? Four decimal places seemed like enough....
Why the perversion of the COTUS's 'General Welfare Clause' to allow the creation of the Welfare State has been such a disaster. The clause was never intended to be used to create a benefit for less than 3/4 of the population, yet they created Welfare for less than 15% of the population .
If you want to know of a historic nation which followed Objectivism, then read about the Late Roman Republic and all that Augustus had to rectify to keep Rome effective.
The Late Roman Republic's roads were poorly kept as nobody paid for them, it's political system was sold to the highest bidder and even armies were privately owned! The only altruism which happened was not for the survival of Rome, but to buy the opinion of senators and the citizenry! There wasn't even an official police force or fire brigade! Licinius Crassus grew immensely rich from his support of General Sulla and blackmailing citizens to pay for his private fire brigade! One has to wonder how those fires started in the first place? And no it was not because Rome was made out of marble.. it was mostly made out of brick and wood at the time.
If after this you still think if Objectivism can work, then I can safely say you were no threat to begin with. I am just asking those who understand to not be so ignorant and.. heh.. illogical to believe that you don't need a government. Like Rome, your nation will fall to dictators if it embraces Objectivism.
Objectivism wasn't even invented yet during that time. How the hell did they follow Objectivism?
i understand completely the"" rational..of the way AYN Rand..answers to the question of ..love..great soul grt mind ..she deserves ""my love completely..if or if not a feeling of such virtue makes me feel empowered and whole..thank you for this wakened thought..grt lady
One question though- if we weren't living in a society where people valued serving others, would we have been able to develop fields like medicine?
No one said anything about NOT serving others. In fact the opposite is what the philosophy SAYS, advocates. HOW this is to be done is ALL that REALLY matters.
According to Rand, it is impossible to profit from unethical actions. This is one of the most mind-bogglingly stupid things a person can believe, and it should be immediately dismissed by anyone who has ever lived in the real word or who possesses the slightest bit of intelligence.
You may not know but those are basics of Laveyan satanism.
You may not know, but Objectivism predates "Satanism"..
Jan Van Biljon
so?
Your comment implies that Rand had some sort of Satanic-influenced agenda or that she plagiarised Anton La Vey.
Jan Van Biljon I see you can't read
LaVey was equally genius
I’m not sure where to place this because everything I have ever had is because somebody decided to be altruistic. If this were to be applied to society, what would it look like? No matter what SOMEBODY would have to do the work that no one else wants to do. I don’t think most people WANT to be factory workers or miners, it just so happens that that is their best option. Do those jobs benefit those workers directly? No. They have those jobs because they benefit other people. Even if had a society built on self interest, we would do so while relying on people who don’t have other options or are forced to work for other people’s’ benefit. I don’t know maybe there’s a bunch of people who are just DYING to work in factories but I’m not sure about that. So basically we’d have a society of a bunch of people working according to self interest but the only reason they’d be able to do that is because others are doing things they don’t want to do.
OR we could just have anarchy. No government, grow your own food, make your own clothes.
The beauty of her philosophy is the simplicity............True free markets have to work.....
Everything else falls into line...
This is not a Christian view. Hence, she was an atheist and opposed Christian morality yet she's very popular among right-wing Christians.
I find it interesting from a Christian view such as Divine love but that would require you to understand what Ayn is saying, which most of you don't and understand what Divine love is, which most of you don't.
It could be argued that God was totally selfless by her definition(impossible) when he gave his Son to die on the cross for sinful humanity.
***** there are left-wing christians too. the catholic church takes a balanced view on economy based on its social teachings.
Ayn Rand ringing the heads with facts and truths.
"Your go" Ms. Rand, I do believe however that that there were a number of opportunities to question the interviewer's (forget his name) attempts to "dumb things down" for what he estimates is his Ratings Audience.
I love how each of the TV personalities that got the chance to speak with Ayn Rand... CHALLENGE HER!!! HAHAHA.
If you have Albert Einstein as your guest speaker, IT IS TO LEARN WHAT HE KNOWS WHAT HE THINKS WHAT HE CAN SHARE WITH YOU AND WHAT HE HAS CONSIDERED DIFFERENTLY FROM YOU. Not to challenge Einstein. That is basically what I saw Wallace and Donahue do.