Hitchens Destroys the Cult of Ayn Rand
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 окт 2024
- Christopher Hitchens from the lecture "The Moral Necessity of Atheism" given on February 23, 2004 at Sewanee University
THE UNLIKELIEST CULT IN HISTORY
BY MICHAEL SHERMER
www.2think.org/...
Not a huge Rand fan.
A bigger fan of Hitchens, actually.
But I don't see any destroying here.
All I see are snarky remarks.
+ZURATAMA1324 I'm not so sure on that. Hitchens does make one key point: Rand is too strident in arguing for selfishness when it already abounds. It's kind of like making a detailed and earnest condemnation of paedophilia in a way. Who, beyond committed paedophiles, does not already agree.
***** This was well-articulated. I accept some part of the objection to Rand lies in an aura of cultism that surrounded her (that she did nothing to perpetuate). Equally, I see Rand's resistance to emerging information on the harm caused by tobacco and her persistence in smoking more as an anomaly than as a fundamental flaw. My objections, such as they are, lie in what is an unerringly meritocratic world view. It is too simple to point to hard work and ability meeting just rewards and requiring defence from cheats and thieves. Rand paints the world in very simplistic terms, operating from an assumption of simplistic binaries, such as A or not A, the law of excluded middle. In reality there are gradations. For example, you need not be either employed or unemployed, but partly employed. If you have a job paying minimum wage and work 20 hours a week, and can not meet your basic needs, are you employed or unemployed. Now Rand would have us believe that you need to proceed to improve your value proposition and become more employed or become an entrepreneur. The access to such potential is uneven. Markets deliver dubious outcomes oftentimes. If this was not so, and merit begat its just reward, and only those deserving of poverty end up poor (abetted by those who would suck your life's blood from you, principal amongst which are the government), then please explain Britney Speirs to me. Or, less publicly, hedge fund managers who deliver normal or below normal returns on large portfolios are rewarded with billions of dollars in compensation. Rand loves the market and attempts to ascribe 'difficult' outcomes to corruption of the market. This position, at its core, presupposes the perfected efficiency of the market. This is a highly questionable starting point as markets are moved by waves of emotion en masse. For these reasons I think Hitchens point is legitimate.
***** Again, a well-represented position.
In terms of: Markets deliver outcomes that may not be "consistent" but they also never "fail". "
Umm, no. Markets fail. If you are saying markets do a better job of mediating economic relations than any alternative system developed then, yes, we have no illustration of a better system. It is not true to say that markets never fail. They do so regularly and catastrophically, and will do so again. As soon as money enters the equation the ability to store wealth, promote consumption/investment and, thereby speculate on the future all become real possibilities. When we add private credit this simply amplifies the possibilities. Such possibilities become realised when at a macro level we systematically temporally advance consumption or investment (in the absence of superior returns to capital, realised only when there is a paucity of capital relative to other factorial inputs of land and labour). Major market failures involve the unwinding of such imbalances.
This is actually reinforced in your explanation of Britney Speirs. It's not an explanation that is required but how that explanation fits with rational, self-interested, utility-maximisers acting in accord with all of the aforementioned objective characteristics. Bubbles can occur anywhere and it would be generous (as you were in suggesting she developed her talent) to suggest other than that BS represented a bubble-the gross overvaluation by the market of a mediocre talent based largely on a self-perpetuating momentum. Markets frequently back nonsense and often stay remote from rational explanation. In the dot.com bubble for instance a much vaunted business model was selling US dollars for 90cents, the balance and uber profits being the result of advertising. This is curious in some ways because it was lauded by people supportive of markets generally yet it presupposed some fundamental disruption to the proper, efficient functioning of a market. That is it assumed people who were driven by the arbitrage opportunity of a 10 cent gain would be indifferent to the wealth effect of spending all that money (and very much more) on advertisers' products. Alternatively, it assumed that advertisers were en masse too stupid to realise that they were getting less than a dollar worth of value for each dollar spent on advertising. The simple fact is that markets are usually wrong (albeit by less than any other system of exchange) and that they alternate between excessive enthusiasm and excessive pessimism.
+Thomas Hägg big up on the selfness n relating. one gain from misantrophy on those
+Thomas Hägg cool. im cold hearted for ya taxed for me hesling mine on st
The title is click-bait for those of you that are confused :)
No it isn't.
shettt! nooo! I fell for that again!? wtf? awwww!
> *"The title is click-bait"*
You're right. No "destruction" whatsoever. Kept waiting for it, but it never showed up.
Hitchens is absolutely brilliant but come on, he didn't "destroy" anything.
Lucas Fortes The guy is an idiot.
His own credibility.
An idiot because?....
Kevin Cobb
You very clearly do not understand what Rand’s “rational selfishness” actually is, and make the same mistake that Hitchens makes, by just treating it as common colloquial selfishness. Part of the selfishness that Rand lays out is that your only obligation to others is that you respect their liberty, as you would have them respect yours. Rand’s selfishness is thus incompatible with “the purge” as the act of initiating force against someone is a violation of their liberty.
Kevin Cobb
Your assertions and assumptions are ill founded.
First of all, the finitude of the world does not necessitate a zero sum value relationship, as value is subjective. This is highlighted by the fact that voluntary interactions between individuals are almost alway positive sum. If you purchase an item from me, it is because you value the item more than it’s cost in money. If I sell you an item it is because I value the money more than the item. Hence value is generated on both sides.
Secondly, in your hypothetical I would say the child is wrong, but not for the reasons you suppose. If a life of principled poverty is something that fulfills someone, what right do I have to stop them? As a matter of fact, ascetics and monks have taken vows of poverty across the ages. The child’s mistake is that he attempts to define happiness for everyone, and in so doing violates their right to seek their own happiness. This ties into your statement on “absolute liberty”, an idea which I never forwarded or endorsed, as mine and Rand’s liberty has clear limits, specifically the violation of the freedoms and natural rights of other men.
Finally, charity is entirely ethical in the objectivist view, provided that is voluntary. Forcibly extracting value from another however is not charity but theft. This is what objectivists condemn.
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
Most trash take ever.
A quote that CNN & MSNBC would be proud of. Completely disconnected from reality.
That old chestnut ..interesting that by posting this - you've become like the villiains of both.
Thou i rly like the objectivism ur comment is just peak its awesome man
I see Hitchens as a socially crippled adult. I do love the way he debates weak people to ensure his egotistical must win outcome. Intellectual self important claptrap accomplishes what? Is he Shakespeare? Sir Francis Bacon? Hemingway? Newton? Tesla?…. What?
I think Ayn Rand wrote those essays on "selfishness" in order to clarify a misunderstanding of the word. Most people I know believe that selfishness is a bad thing. Ms Rand makes a distinction between a greedy kind of selfishness and what she would call self-interest, which she presents as a virtue. Greedy selfishness displays unconcern for the rights of others and benefits only a few, whereas a healthy self-interest exercised by creative people can lead to the creation of the kind of wealth which can benefit everyone.
+Bill Houston Exactly! This came up as well in a recent interview in the Rubin Report with a Rand scholar.
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. " Sorry, original source unknown
Nicely put.
+KeboEdan1 it's ok, it's never been particularly clever or funny
Bill Houston she was much more extreme than that, she actively thought altruism was harmful and helping others actually hinders them. Her moral system of "enlightened self-interest" is so bold as to claim that helping yourself ultimately helps others period, I agree that true charity should be done anonymously, rather than in front of a crowd, but Rand would say that by choosing to be vain and self-serving by doing such a thing publicly you have "bought" public favour for the price of whatever you so "kindly" donated.
Okay... where's the "destroy" part? Looks more like a passing, snide dismissal without any depth or context.
What sort of 'depth or context' do you think Ayn Rand or her fanboys deserve? Her writing was worse than rubbish, and her 'philosophy' was an absolute joke.
Jacob Hoss
Ad hominem: the fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition’s personal character or reputation, using a corrupted negative argument from ethos. E.g., "He's so evil that you can't believe anything he says." See also "Guilt by Association." The opposite of this is the "Star Power" fallacy. Also applies to cases where valid opposing evidence and arguments are brushed aside without comment or consideration, as simply not worth arguing about, solely because of the lack of power, status or proper background of the person making the argument, or because the opponent is not a member of an "in-group," i.e., "You'd understand me if you were Burmese but since you're not there's no way I can explain it to you," or "Nobody but a nurse can know what a nurse has to go through."
Esteban Guitierrez
The 'debate' on Ayn Rand is settled, outside of her cultish fanboys she's universally reviled. Mocking horrible writers is a worthwhile pastime, even when there's no need to convince anyone who matters that they're really that bad.
Jacob Hoss
This is known as the Bandwagon Fallacy (also, Argument from Common Sense, Argumentum ad Populum): The fallacy of arguing that because "everyone" supposedly thinks or does something, it must be right. E.g., "Everyone knows that undocumented aliens ought to be kicked out!" Sometimes also includes Lying with Statistics, e.g. “Surveys show that over 75% of Americans believe Senator Smith is not telling the truth. For anyone with half a brain, that conclusively proves he’s a dirty liar!”
This is sometimes combined with the "Argumentum ad Baculum," e.g., "Like it or not, it's time to choose sides: Are you going to get on board the bandwagon with everyone else, or get crushed under the wheels as it goes by?"
Esteban Guitierrez
No, it isn't. Virtually anything anyone says can be shoehorned into a formal logical fallacy if you try hard enough, and young, aspergers-ridden fellows like yourself seem to confuse this with actually rebutting a point. Pointing out scientific concensus on anthropogenic global warming is not 'argumentum ad populum', citing Richard Lenski's work to refute a creationist is not 'appeal to authority', and pointing out that Ayn Rand enjoys virtually no support from philosophers or fiction writers outside a tiny and cult-like group is not 'bandwagon fallacy'. In a world where no one can be an expert on everything, the principles of concensus and peer review are indispensable if one is to make sense of the world. Ayn Rand totally lacking in support from anyone who matters, and her ideas are simply indefensible.
"Destroys." I do not think it means what you think it means.
Hitchens doesn't understand the meaning of the word selfishness and the poster of this video doesn't understand the meaning of the word destroys.
@@stevegilbert8486 Yet, You, do! Right?
"Gently mocks" seems to be a better title than "Destroys". I would love to see the two debate though. That would be awesome.
@Thomas Hägg you are up for a treat.
ruclips.net/video/u2MMFaz9Gyg/видео.html
That wouldn't be a fair fight. Hitchens wouldn't even break a sweat.
Should be titled - Hitchen Hellman's Story: a Laugh Riot.
No, he destroys Her.
@@sspbrazil he really is your god huh?
Sounds like something Ellsworth Toohey would say
nerd
@@jamesmohab Mouth breather ;)
Basically what I am saying is that societies break down when individuals don't have the freedom of self-determination. When they can't achieve their values, or even choose their own values for themselves, they withdraw from society. If they can't actually leave, they withdraw their efforts, their benevolence, their support, everything they can.
Individual rights come first. Society is what happens when individuals have freedom. There is no conflict if individual rights are respected.
Hello…here from the future. Yeah in the real world individual rights are being stripped away… not due to shortage of oil but lack of spines and sheeplike mentality
Aren’t the socially destructive trend of transgenderism and homosexuality following the “virtue” of self-determination? To what end are these good? What about people deluding themselves into ‘becoming’ transracial or trans-species? It’s not rightly ordered to exhalt people following their own path devoid of that being subordinate to some other guiding virtue, libertarianism cannot correct this mistake in practice because doing so would require force and a guiding authority that has power
Societies do not break down due to a lack of self determination. They break down because individuals choose to determine their own lives at the expense of the community.
@@RextheRebel Yeah, thats what totalitarians always do, they blame the victims. You think that if people don't want to sacrifice their lives to your great plan, they are the ones who are flawed, being too "greedy" and "selfish" for your great social plan. People who used to believe in socialism have come to say that socialism is good on paper, that it was a good, noble, and even "scientific" theory, but that people were just too imperfect, being too self-interested for it to work. But thats a problem with the theory behind socialism. It doesn't take actual, real human nature into consideration. It would be like a physicist working on nuclear fusion, but not taking into account the actual nature of hydrogen atoms. Then he blames the hydrogen atoms.
Mugabe in Zimbabwe blamed speculators and greedy businessmen for the inflation that HE caused by printing up trillion dollar bills. Democrats want to blame big corporations for the inflation we have been recently experiencing.
Society by design happened because individuality is limited. We literally evolved gossip to ostracize other members of the tribe who can't cooperate. That's why autism is a disability, because they lack social ability.
When everyone can do whatever they wsnt without any limitation, that is the literal definition of a society that has descended into anarchy.
The word, "selfishness," which Hitchens uses to characterise the philosophy of Objectivism, was actually chosen intentionally by Ayn Rand in her book."The Virtue of Selfishness" as a means of provoking and therefore exposing the perceptually minded. Hitchins unwittingly fell in to the trap.
Unwittingly? Ayn Rand disavowed her own writing. She didnt agree with libertarians and hated Reagan. She supported and used socialized medicine.
Dude, libertarianism is astrology for billionaires.
@@philesq9595 nope
@@RealMailou "libertarian from Finland"
Lol.
@@philesq9595 Astrology for billionaires. Please elaborate
@@hex8787 Sam Seder vs. Libertarians.
Look it up. watch the parade of videos and enjoy.
You will thank me.
Plato’s Allegory of the Cave has a supremely simple purpose that I think most people miss… It gives a number of insights, but ultimately it addresses the following question that I imagine Socrates’ enemies asking him:
“If you and the ‘wise’ are so smart, Socrates, then why don’t you already lead the state?”
The Allegory of the Cave specifically answers the question of why the best and the brightest - that is, the WISE - mostly DON’T run things, even though (from Plato and Socrates’ point of view) they really ought to.
This a variation on the age-old question, “If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich?” Only in this case, it’s “If you’re so smart, why aren’t you already a philosopher king?”
So Plato created this Allegory to explain why the masses don’t listen to the truly wise… but, as far as Plato is concerned, are more likely to the think that the wise are mad and to be shunned rather than followed.
Plato had extremely strong feelings on the subject. The Athenian democracy, rather than get down on its knees and reward Socrates, or make Socrates king, instead put Plato’s beloved teacher to death. Why? Why would a person with superior understanding not be able to impose his will on the democracy, or any other form of government???
Because - and this is the key idea of the Cave - the average person is so deluded as to the true nature of Reality, that when finally informed of it - by the philosopher, who has left the Cave and returned to bring the Truth - what is truly wisdom seems like madness to the ignorant.
The Allegory of the Cave has an interesting legacy. I believe that because of this allegory, the metaphor of light… from its metaphorical source, the sun… gave birth to the idea of “enlightening” and “Enlightenment.”
Interestingly enough, the idea of Nirvana, in Buddhism, is often translated as “Enlightenment” in English, even though Nirvana is more an image of a candle being blown out. The Buddha’s own terminology was something closer to “Awaken”… but in English, the term “Enlightenment” reads better than “Awaken” because the Platonic image of Truth as an almost blinding light that hits you when you step outside the Cave, is so powerful.
To answer the question why don’t the smart lead, they don’t want to.
@@Trackrace29582 Right. They know better. Like the story of the millionaire and the fisherman. The millionaire asks a contented fisherman why he doesn't work harder so he can be wealthy. The fisherman asks why he should do that. The millionaire replies "so you can then relax and be happy." The fisherman in turn says "I already am relaxing and happy."
In reality there are even smarter people who know the truth and how to survive the ignorant mob
@@AltumNovo history taught us that this is not true
Prepare for the next dark ages
The real question is how did the "wise man" leave the cave and why should the others believe he has left the cave and returned when they see him everyday in the cave??. what does it actually mean to leave the cave. in other words how has the "wise man" come to gain the knowledge of the nature of "true reality" and how can we verify he has.
"Don't trust, Verify!"
I agree, it is challenging to measure anything statistically, however it seems almost obvious that if you grow up in Norway your chances of experiencing an enjoyable life are extraordinarily better than if you grow up in Somalia. It becomes therefore, easy to see the difference between good policy and bad.
Interesting analysis of the rampant involuntary exploitation of the so called "global south" for the benefit of "developed nations". Of course the only reason quality of life differs is garden variety racism and capitalism.
I didn't say her philosophy "calls for" obstruction. I said that following her philosophy leads to it and other problems. Just because she was incapable of realizing the implications of her own claims doesn't mean there aren't necessary consequences that result from those claims.
Obstruction of what? If you are talking about coercive action against innocent people, she would agree, and thats a GOOD THING. Innocent people should be left free to act without government interference. So I could also say that government action results in obstruction. Government land use and construction permitting laws obstruct the construction of affordable housing, which is why big Democrat run cities like San Francisco have a housing crisis.
Obstruction of what?
@@SaulOhioI know you posted this 4 months ago but they posted this 10 years ago they might not even have the account anymore
I waited 2 minutes & 48 seconds for an actual argument :/
HITCHENS IS AN IDIOT
Objectivism isn't about about being self-centered, it's about being free from negative coercion, and persuing one's own definite rational values.
@KLJF Hahaha, liking your own comment, grow up and read a book
@KLJF UwU Awwww, is my little baby upset. Come here, Daddy wants a cuddle :)
Objectivism is about being a psychotic asshole.
@@leighfoulkes7297 What are the bases of Objectivism?
Objectivism doesn't seem to be "objective" at all.
Cult of Rand? The existence of this video seems to be proof of the cult of Hitchens.
All he does is posture and preen and some fanboys think he 'pwned' Rand.
He was a total ponce.
Read a bit about Rand and her early supporters, and you'll see that it truly was a cult in every sense of the word.
*****
Interesting. From my understanding, Rand and Satanists share similar values--values that are basically an inversion of the traditional Christian virtues. (For example, Satanists promote pride and the will to power instead of humility and meekness.) Perhaps that's the connection?
Heh-heh... and atheists are an even LESS-cohesive group.
You said you used to be a Satanist. What are your views now?
***** Anton Le vey cited Rand as one of his biggest inspirations, said something along the line Satanism, as he saw it, was just Objectivism, with ritual and mysticism.
Also.. Satanic.. is derived from a 15th century Vatican ruling citing all non-conformity and dissent to Catholic ideology, heresy....or Shai'tan from the Muslin term for their 'Deciever'.. but yes, Rand was very much adored and loved by Satanists.
Did Hitchens accept pay for any of his work, or did he properly let the State have all of his earnings -- to be used for the benefit of others?
Oldag75 Absolutely. This Randian argument destroys Hitchens's communist arguments.
Self-interest hardly needs justification. Every person has a right to live.
Right to life, yes.
A Right to Live would impose a duty on others to ensure your survival, which is contrary to everything Ayn believed.
Right to die was more her statement.
Difference between self interest and selfishness
cont'd
The result of Ayn Rand's philosophies can be seen in the most recent economic mess we landed in. The near-depression was a direct result of deregulation and the wealthiest not paying their fair share of taxes. Taxes are an agreement an American (in this country) makes with the nation; that that American can make unlimited billions of dollars, using public roads, schools and all other government services (Police, fire etc.) provided they reinvest a portion into the infrastructure.
Uhhh... for someone as supposedly smart at Hitchens, he missed Ayn's point by a country mile, shocking really.
And you got it pls spell it out for US simpeltons
euh..no... anyone thinking that Ayn had something worth while to say and makes sense has never got past the selfish immature mindset of a 14year old.
I bet you don't even know the history of Ayn or how much she didn't really believed in her own ramblings as demonstrated by her later years.
@@PDVism Stay poor
@@THE_WOAT Ayn Rand died on public assistance. 😂
@@PaulRudd1941 At the time of her passing, Ayn was receiving SOCIAL SECURITY which she funded. I get it, you would like the producers of society to pay the max into SS but then decline the benefits so there is more for you? Nice try.
The "cult of Ayn Rand" has not been dented by this small vignette by Christopher Hitchens. Her books have sold in the millions because people have connected with them. I found "The Fountainhead" particularly gripping. When Ayn wrote communism was on the rise and the importance of individual free will was being subsumed by "duty to the state". Her message remains are relevant today as when she wrote it.
She was pure EVIL
@@debnbhuy Explain, bud.
@@darionz Its obvious BUD
@@darionz Er no . I hate the fact the she preached selfishness and so called "free market " economics and was yet another right wing nutjob you silly fella ! Who the feck are you anyway
@@debnbhuy In other words, you got nothing.
The best part of this clip was; his repeating Lillian Hellman's response to the question "Why are you not endorsing gay rights?" her answer according to him "the forms of fucking does not require my endorsement." This especially true now.
CONTD...
Rand is against any form of self-sacrifice for the sake of others. But what if the thing that would lead a person to absolute bliss is making a significant self-detrimental sacrifice for another person? According to Rand, such action is deplorable, and yet if the person doesn't go through with it, they wouldn't be happy. This is a paradox, which itself should be enough to get any thinking human being to see the worthlessness of Rand's non-philosophy. I can't speak for the absent minded.
Christopher Hitchens is a bit like Slavoj Zizek in that they both have an infinite capacity to ramble aimlessly around the subject in question and yet somehow convince people that they've put forward some form of meaningful argument.
GODOFHELLFIRE3 ::
You captured Zizek very concisely, more concisely than any of his "arguments".
Hitchens is just having a bad night ... probably tired & had to throw something together as they probably already paid him for the lecture.
@muggsy mitty :: I think he would agree & wouldn't want people to always agree. I did see him reject someone so completely, he refused to answer the guy's question.
That was my impression of him.
I'm not sure he has read her works.
And Greenspan not a good represinitive of Ojectsvism as he showed very little adherence to her principles.
And Ayn principle is living for oneself first. It's rational selfishness; not living at the expense of others which is inherently self destructive in the long run; which is how people normally view or think of selfishness.
This is supposed to be the opposite of leftism,but it's just the other side of the same coin:if you wanted to destroy a civilisation ideologically you'd tell them they were all rootless individuals,that they were all original sinners by their very existence,or that they were all equal,including foreign invaders who want to copulate with your wives and daughters-anybody see a common denominator?
“I’m not sure he has read her work.” I’ve noticed that a lot of Rand fans say the same thing, in one form or another, whenever anyone trashes or even gently mocks her work.
@@blakemeads9225
Do you know what a straw-man argument is? It where you tell the audience what the others ideas views are then argue against that. He not arguing against her actually points but the stereotype of what people think Objectives is.
@@Joshkie2 They’re also usually really arrogant, like assuming I don’t know basic logical fallacies.
@@blakemeads9225
Now we are onto deflection. Let’s not address the point buy make another one.
Your assumption is that I’m a Objectivist I am not. I fall in line more with Rothbard than Rand. But pointing out the cultish nature of a lot those who follow Objectivism. To cover up your own or Hutchen’s mischaracterization of Rand’s definition of selfishness is not very intellectually honest.
"From the first catch-phrases flung at a child to the last, it is like a series of shocks to freeze his motor, to undercut the power of his consciousness. 'Don't ask so many questions, children should be seen and not heard!'-'Who are you to think? It's so, because I say so!'-'Don't argue, obey!'-'Don't try to understand, believe!'-'Don't rebel, adjust!-'Don't stand out, belong!'-'Don't struggle, compromise!'-'Your heart is more important than your mind!'" -Galt's speech.
Conspiracy?
Love the Hitch, but what did he destroy exactly?
In high school, I met very few motivated by self-interest, rational or otherwise. Most were motivated by interest in other people, whether as friends, or as enemies. Of course, that was a long time ago. Things may be different now.
Well, people want to do great things, in part, to seek the approval of other people. Even Ayn Rand did according to one of her biographies I read.
Nothing changes 🎶
@@dullknifefactorycould've saved yourselves the trouble by aborting me.
**WARNING** **WARNING** **WARNING**
Internet war below!
**WARNING** **WARNING** **WARNING**
(Old comment: zomg not an argument)
***** Quite interesting, I've just recently started reading Atlas Shrugged for the first time.
What I don't like about objectivism is the use of the word "Objective"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Ayn Rand claims to have found an "objective" set of morals, which I don't think is true, because I don't think morals can exist. Rather, I would say that morals don't exist, and can't exist simply because the universe is indifferent towards human action.
In the time after posting this comment, I've read _Universally Preferable Behavior_ by Stefan Molyneux, which attempts to create a logically consistent set of ethics similar to that of Rand, but it assumes that ethics themselves don't exist.
Thank you! I understand it a lot better now.
The biggest problem I've had with ethics is simply semantics. I see what you mean by ethics and morals in this sense.
In the end, don't be a dick, but more importantly, don't initiate force and you're pretty much good to go.
Kirk Landau For what reason?
Kirk Landau I would say that nuclear weapons would, even according to Objectivist ethics and ethics related to it, be a last resort, even if the case were that we are at war with them, especially since it affects many innocent people and our planet itself.
To say that Leonard Peikoff supports this position does not necessarily disprove anything about Ayn Rand's original philosophy. The arguments stand on their own. In my own view, the Objectivist ethics are a very good model of human values to uphold the protection of rights (Or, as John Locke says, it is the protection of Life, Liberty, and Property).
Whatever Leonard Peikoff may say, he is not a supreme arbiter of objective truth.
Kirk Landau True, but that conclusion relies on not only Objectivism itself, but that you agree that A) We are at war with Iran, and that they have initiated a threat which we must defend ourselves against and that B) The use of nuclear weapons is a perfectly morally acceptable use of self defense against this threat.
I don't see how those two premises can strictly arise from Objectivism and the current situation with Iran. Maybe I am mistaken in my knowledge of the facts and Peikoff is right, but that would only rely on Peikoff actually being right.
In Brazil, some people are trying to promote the cult of Ayn Rand !!! As we don´t have problems enough !!!
Ayn Rand died alone, friendless and without loved ones.
There are consequences for one's personal philosophy.
Doesn't mean she didn't die happy!
***** Yeah, she did, probably because she alienated everyone with her absurd philosophy. And probably also because she had become the biggest hypocrite in the whole movement, taking in welfare benefits for years prior to her death.
*****
From Scott McConnell's interview of Evva Pryor, a social worker at the time:
SC: "Tell me about your first meeting with Ayn Rand and how these matters developed"
EP: "I had read enough to know that she despised government interference, and that she felt that people should and could live independently. She was coming to a point in her life where she was going to receive the very thing she didn't like, which was Medicare and Social Security.
I remember telling her that this was going to be difficult. For me to do my job, she had to recognize that there were exceptions to her theory. So that started our political discussions. From there on- with gusto- we argued all the time. The initial argument was on greed. She had to see that there was such a thing as greed in this world. Doctors could cost an awful lot more money than books earn, and she could be totally wiped out by medical bills if she didn't watch it. Since she had worked her entire life and had paid into Social Security, she had a right to it. She didn't feel that an individual should take help."
SC: "And did she agree with you about Medicare and Social Security?"
EP: "After several meetings and arguments, she gave me her power of attorney to deal with all matters having to do with health and Social Security. Whether she agreed or not is not the issue, she saw the necessity for both her and Frank. She was never involved other than to sign the power of attorney; I did the rest."
So, it turns out, that Ayn Rand was a socialist, after all.
+mtheory85 That's blatantly false. She died surrounded by her friends, including Leonard Peikoff and Barbara Branden among many others. Would you prefer to see her punished to atone for her "sins"?
+Thomas Hägg True, she saw it as just retribution for government theft of her earnings.
The weakest "destruction" I've ever seen.
Ironic, Ayn Rand wrote the weakest "philosophical" books I've ever read.
@@leighfoulkes7297 elaborate..
@@qeoo6578 It doesn't need too much elaboration. She thinks that she can derive anything at all from the law of identity, which is an incredibly stupid failure of reasoning and logic. And since she derives her whole system from this, she cannot derive anything further.
@@christoferkoch786 lets say shes wrong on that, what else is she wrong about?
@@christoferkoch786
Any what? Any THING? All? All what? All THINGS? Things that are... THEMSELVES? You, like all of her cretinous critics, use the very thing you seek to undermine in the your attempt to undermine it.
He was asked specifically about Ayn Rand, and Objectivism's primary imperative is to achieve one's personal happiness regardless of others', i.e., selfishness. So, noting the already high level of selfish behavior and implying its negative consequences, he noted that we don't need an imperative to be selfish, rather we need to be less selfish, the exact opposite of what Ayn Rand's ethics entail.
Except she doesn't advocate happiness regardless of others
@@jenniferellison3480That us exactly what she advocates.
>>he noted that [...] rather we need to be less selfish,
@@neilbohrs5990 Wrong its above your head
“Achieve one’s personal happiness regardless of others’”? Is happiness a zero-sum equation? The happier one is, the less happy someone else has to be? If the object of all one’s labors isn’t to make one’s self happy, then whose happiness SHOULD one be working toward?
"The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance."--Ayn Rand, “The Question of Scholarships,”
The Objectivist, June 1966, 6
Being a parasite like she was, I find it odd how still sheepbrained morons view her gospel as a dogma that must never be questioned.
Such reasoning was used to not prohibit slavery in the constitution of the united states. And look how that went. One hundred more years.
@@waltercapa5265 WHAT THE F___???
This reasoning says that SLAVERY IS WRONG!!!!! If Ayn Rand's philosophy had been known and accepted generally enough, slavery would have been abolished right away.
The problem was that not enough people accepted the ideas of individual liberty to abolish slavery. Many people recognized that slavery was wrong, but there were still enough who didn't think it was wrong. A compromise had to be made between them to keep the union together.
@@SaulOhio I'm not talking about her philosophy in general, but about moral duty.
@@waltercapa5265 What do you mean?
He’s right Rand was not a literary genius, her novels were mere carriers of her philosophy but she didn’t have The flare of say Satre.
A Libertarian could not even find the word altruism in the dictionary.
What?? Does not make sense.
actually, if you're speaking specifically about Rand, that's very much the point...she literally writes volumes on "altruism" and her definition of it. If you don't understand, just recognize you don't understand it. It is hard for some to grasp that kindness and goodness can actually be definitionally separated from the self-sacrificial ideology of altruism. You don't have to agree, but you should start by understanding it first
The fallacy is believing there is a conflict or contradiction between selfishness and charity.
If it is selfish, then it is an investment.
@@user-oz6rl3jx9x Nope. It has worked, and works now.
I suggest looking up a libertarian phone app called DonorSee.
You can do charity work as an objectivist! You get selfish rewards by getting some feeling of accomplishment, wanting to just help someone etc. Rand didn't say be a prick, She said don't put others over your own freedom and agency to choose(Altruism)
You know, if you blow up a building because you don't like the architecture, you're going to jail. There is no way that you will win over the jury with a rousing closing statement about how "I gotta be me."
Yeah, that Howard Roark was like a pissed off player who decided to destroy the game plane because they changed it. His character is stiff and one-dimensional, but one would expect that from Ayn Rand. Have you ever seen the film version of "The Fountainhead" starring Gary Cooper, and written by Rand herself? Laughable rubbish.
In her book there is no free market, thus the consumers are not allowed to choose, her book describes a pure socialistic society...
The main problem with Rand's "philosophy" is that it is based on the false assumption that individualism is the only legitimate ethical value. Therefore any behavior which is not based on strict absolute individualism is evil, thus creating, what is known in logic as a false dilemma; you must either believe, 100% in the assumption or you are the enemy of the assumption.
i thought it was always that any non-individual behavior that doesn't benefit or negatively impacts the individual doing it is bad.
@@TheNimdude Both extremes lead to absurdity. Individual or group, Concessions need to be made.
@@SteveSpears-Kuhlah oook but then who adjudicates the concessions? Who enforces them? How do you get people to make a concession? There's many questions to be answered.
@@TheNimdude
Democracy is how we achieve concessions. For better or worse. But, free speech must be the cornerstone of civilization.
@@SteveSpears-Kuhlah again, who enforces them?
We could use a man like Hitchens again.
We could indeed. Sad thing is, most of his online fans are conservatives who have convinced themselves that he's in some way a conservative.
NeptuneNexus The postmodernists are fucking the left up the way the religious right fucked up the conservatives.
Thooossee were the daysss....
+soulinite By "postmodernist's" I'm guessing you mean Cultural relativists?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism#Postmodernism_and_structuralism
I've tried and tried to give Ayn Rand's books a chance, specifically Atlas Shrugged. Both times I've tried to read it, I stopped at around 100 pages. I don't think it's bad, I just find it to be incredibly tedious. I did rather like Anthem, to be fair. I thought it was pretty inter
Yeah should get through it, right around then things pick up. The next 1000 or so pages are a tour de force.
It's framed in a new philosophy so no wonder it is "tedious". That effort and discomfort is what creates knowledge and it's probably the intellectual effort that separate those who agree with Ayn Rand from those who haven't even read her work.
Anthem is my favourite of her fiction books though.
@@joelhc9703 Now having read Atlas Shrugged in it’s entirety, I stand by my initial reaction, and feel I should elaborate further: I find it tedious, because Rand beats the reader over the head with the same point over and over. It was basically 1000+ pages of Rand telling me over and over that Capitalism is good, and socialism/altruism is bad. I would be more inclined to sympathize with her position if any of the characters were fleshed out or well written, and they aren’t. Every character in this book is shallow and one dimensional. The whole thing felt less like an impassioned presentation of a new philosophy, and more like overwrought propaganda. And her long-winded and sterile writing style only made my experience even more tedious. In short, it’s a book that says a lot, but conveys very little.
@@blakemeads9225 Her writing is so tedious. If you read the first few pages you get the point. Who needs to read on to see the same point being made every page? She's a crappy shallow story teller.
the. you will never understand
I'm not a fan of Rand, but this isn't a destroying of her views
How quaint. Calling Ayn Rand's philosophical followers a "cult." Rand championed the individual. Common sense dictates that you can't have a cult of individualists.
you can actually , if what binds them is their philosophy of self advancement all you need is two in a room together and you hgave an instacult as they will obviously collude.
expand this and you have a great big cult of nepotistic socially irresponsible "individuals" or psychopaths as we call them all in on a scam that you dont have the brain for as a neurotypical individual or collection of them we call society.
commmon sense says yopur a psychopath
No, but you can have voluntary community with a free exchange of ideas, which is what she championed.
deadprivacy You might want to clarify your points. You say Linda Cohagan's arguments are "nonsensical," yet I can't understand yours at all. Please clarify them.
True Robert, but some some Objectivists have morphed into a cult by over idealizing Rand and Objectivism, which kind of defeats the point. I admire Ayn Rand, flawed as she was, and I find some merit in Objectivism. But I can see that some have turned it into a de facto religion, much as that would have horrified her.
Linda Cohagan I've not met any Objectivists that behave as you've described, but do concede the possibility. That said, the actual objectivists behave as individuals, not a collection, as is required to label a group as a "cult." Simple logic would dictate that a group of individualists can't qualify as a cult.
Clickbait title! Hitchens' answer is clearly humorous and nothing was being "destroyed".
Did Hitch "destroy" something there? I missed it. He certainly disagrees with Rand, but espoused a very narrow, and incorrect summary of her philosophy. No disrespect intended to his great mind. But what is it with those that disagree - that merely disagreeing isn't sufficient, one must "destroy." Get a grip. Embrace the ideas flowing from these great minds, whether you subscribe to their positions or not.
it's.
I agree that Hitchens is a great mind, wasted on a non-thinker like Rand
Wasted? He spent less than 3 minutes demonstrating he didn't understand her work.
Ayn Rand existed on a plane far above Hitchens.
isnt that the truth
I like Hitchens, but he completely misses what Rand means by selfishness. It does not mean greed or a tendency toward corruption. Rand's selfishness is driven by rationality and an individual's rights. It is not a free for all to take all that you can undeservedly from anyone else. That is the greatest sin in Rand's philosophy.
ruclips.net/video/EO68Kvb9fD4/видео.html
Hans-Herman Hoppe in this speech, addresses what left vs right means and he shows that it is not individualism vs collectivism or capitalism vs socialism. It is equality vs hierarchy and even deeper it is a world view based on socio-biology vs a worldview based on the blank slate view of human nature.
Sadly, Rand herself held a blank slate view of human nature which we can forgive her for because she did not have access to the ton of information we have on the related subjects now. Hoppe explains how one of the most important events for humanity was that the northern peoples, ie lighter skinned people, developed greater cognitive skills because of the selection pressures from dealing with the harsh winters from the last mini-ice age (glacial minimum). This changed both the IQ and the reproductive strategies of the various races. This has consequences. Hoppe is the most hated of the Austrians because he has gone down the path of race and sex realism, ie hereditarianism, and included it in his approach to libertarianism. He has gone beyond Rothbard here. Obleftivism at large refuses to do this because it has such a commitment to Rand's blank slate view of individualism that it just won't recognize group differences for fear that it would destroy the entire movement and liberty itself.
Did you guys see when he blinked . That was the "destroys" part ,surely .Right ? Right?
He outright called her works terrible and implied it was useless and unnecessary.
@@neilbohrs5990 I dont think that qualifies as "destroying something"
I never claimed that monopolies can't be broken by the free market i was claiming that the government can and should speed up the process of monopoly break up
"Only on the basis of individual rights can any good-private or public-be defined and achieved. Only when each man is free to exist for his own sake-neither sacrificing others to himself nor being sacrificed to others-only then is every man free to work for the greatest good he can achieve for himself by his own choice and by his own effort. And the sum total of such individual efforts is the only kind of general, social good possible."--Ayn Rand, “Textbook of Americanism,” The Ayn Rand Column
That sounds like socialism and communism. Almost like another work of fiction, Star Trek.
@@azndemonlord54 - Or like another work of fiction, the buy-bell with the concept of heaven.
Drivel.
@@thebaryonacousticoscillati5679 Thank you for that insightful, fact filled and logically expressed comment.
And Hitchens fans aren't cultish? I'm surprised this video's title didn't include "Hitch-Slapped". Ayn Rand didn't advocate "being more selfish". She only advocated that the rights of the individual to sustain their own existence in pursuit of happiness are not sacrificed to the needs of the many. She was from Communist Russia and really advocated for complete Individualism, which makes sense. She was never against charity as an act of benevolence. The conditions in the USSR are pretty unimaginable to a well off British philosopher who died of cancer due to certain luxuries, like tobacco. Everyone has their flaws. Hitchens seems to have a low empathetic imagination due to his privileged British lifestyle. Don't get me wrong, I agree with Hitchens on many things but I also agree with Rand on many things. I am a fanatic of neither.
Anyone who has read “Atlas Shrugged” knows that Ayn Rand believes a small group of people are inherently better than everyone else, so they should be entirely free. She also wrote that the world would collapse without the hundred richest people - which is absurd.
Ayn Rand also clearly believed in eugenics, which is pretty disturbing.
Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, believed in and practiced eugenics. Get rid of all the black babies lol. Heck libtards vote and support this. Morons!
She clearly said that EVERYONE should be free.
She never gave that 100 number. In fact, she never even implied that it was any number. Its simply the people who think for themselves. It wasn't just the rich that went on strike in Atlas Shrugged. Dagny Taggart complains throughout the book that she can't find competent employees. The first chapter has her offering a promotion and raise to a promising employee, but he turns it down and quits. We learn later that he has already joined the strike. If you still have a copy, read from near the bottom of page 24. Last paragraph that has the name Owen Kellogg
Its EVERYONE, not just the rich, who uses their minds to achieve competence, on whatever level.
And give me ONE citation where she even MENTIONS eugenics.
I want to quote Luke Skywalker. Everything you said is wrong. What liars have you been listening to? It seems clear that either you did NOT read Atlas Shrugged, or you have very bad reading comprehension.
Turns out she was right its called the Pareto principle. Turns out you are not very bright....But you already knew that
@@markcredit6086 Its been a month, and he still hasn't given any citation to prove that she believed in eugenics. The problem is, eugenics is a GOVERNMENT PROGRAM to coerce certain breeding policies, which would be the initiation of force. Which she adamantly, explicitly, and clearly opposed. Morally condemned, in fact.
Well, take away the 100 (or whatever number) richest people in the world, meaning everybody they employ directly or indirectly is now out of work, and if it doesn’t cause an actual collapse it’ll be a pretty close thing.
COMMENTS SHOULD BE DISABLED for this posting judging from the level of non-intellectual discussion I see below. Thank you for posting "other" points of view - DAVEDJ
Usually love Hitch but this was beyond weak.
VERY WEAK.
Errr Rand's books suck as literature. They are crap from the land of crap. Compare Roark's speech in the end to Ahab's in Moby Dick... Or don't. It is sad that such a boring narrative was ever printed. I do not think though that her philosophy of selfishness is that bad. It has some merit. So on that part I disagree with Mr Hitchens.
I think approached personally he would have given a carefully considered response. Bear in mind this is just a q&a, he's bound to throw off some social grace and amuse his audience.
@@danielwernegren8749 I don't think he said it was bad; he just wasn't going to leave that joke sitting on the table.
Click bait. He just say a lot about nothing, just random mumbling.
This isn't one of his best & we didn't get the full video.
TO be more selfish was NOT Rand's main takeaway, in my opinion. If that is what Hitchens got out of it, then perhaps he didn't actually read it. Or did so with his conclusions already in hand. Being focused on self is, for sure, a presupposition of Rand's philosophy, but not the ultimate injunction.
Correct. She put emphasis on the rational part of "rational self-interest". These people need to read at least the first couple pages of "The Virtue of Selfishness" where she destroys their strawman arguments.
Rand stuck to her beliefs and was able to defend them. This guy was all over the place. . Pretended to be able to define morality better than the gospels. How many people ever found more comfort, peace and deliverance in his words than they do in the bible? Hmmm... I do believe the gospels are bigger than he was. Anyway, he had some really good aspects about him, too. R.I.P
This video is a bit ugly for me to watch, because I like both Ayn Rand and Hitchens, that said his most brilliant points in other conversations, particularly when battling the religious altruists who he sees so plainly to be evil, sound like they could have come straight from atlas shrugged....honestly in my mind he's a great example of a someone who built marvelously upon a the wrong foundation...thats the brilliance of Ayn Rand is that she can make people question and alter that moral foundation or moral premise....if Hitchens had realized her main point that egoism and rationality produce more positive outcomes than altruism and self sacrifice he would've been even more of a powerhouse in debates...oh well I still respect both of them for their brilliance however I must say that to anyone who's listened to more than an hour of both of them knows the title of this video is totally false and that Ayn Rands philosophy gets to a much deeper level than Christopher Hitchens ever got a chance to.
+Maclain Hunter Wait, you had me going there till you said "egotism and arrogance". She was for egoISM, not egotism, and for a rationally based self-esteem, not arrogance.
+SaulOhio You're correct, I honestly don't know why I wrote that part, ill change the way I said that but we agree in principle I just used the wrong words. I definitely meant egoism and rational self-interest not egotism or arrogance. I need an editor haha!
+Maclain Hunter The lazy - the ones indulged in their hormonal pursuits - will always cry for food they did not earn.
i always find this man funny.
This is a genuine owning. Hitchens has Rand right. If he doesn't, there are plenty of other compelling reasons for thinking Rand's moral philosophy is a hallow mockery.
No, he does NOT have Rand right. She did vastly more than say people should act selfishly. She developed an entire moral system based on rational self-interest, and supported it with a meta-ethical philosophy based on human nature and causal laws. Hitchens dismisses all that without any real discussion, as if it doesn't even exist.
And all the "other compelling reasons" I have ever heard are similarly howwlow themselves, either strawman arguments, or personal attacks, or any of a number of other fallacies.
Every single one.
***** Why do I have to disspell these smears so often?
If you understand her actual principles, it is easy to understand that accepting SS money was NOT hypocritical of her.
She did not criticize people who use it. She criticized the system itself. The reason she considered it so bad was because it required a massive threat of force. People would not pay the taxes needed to fund it without a gun pretty much pointed at their heads. This is why she called it THEFT. But recieving the money back once you have paid into the system for years is not immoral or hypocritical. If being forced to pay into it is theft, then getting the money back is RESTITUTION!
"Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others-the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it . . . .
The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money-and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration."-- Ayn Rand, in “The Question of Scholarships,”
The Objectivist, June, 1966, 11
Also read, on Classically Liberal, "Lying about Ayn Rand and Social Security". Some of the "facts" provided by the people who originally started this particular smear story are outright lies.
***** proof please?
Viola Yesayan
Some of the facts are correct, but its not the hypocrisy it is portrayed as.
Though she did not "live on" social security. The SS taxes she was still paying on book royalties was more than the benefits she received. And there was no hypocrisy. She had long argued that the money we are forced to pay into the system is theft, so accepting the money back is like receiving restitution. Its your own money, so there is nothing wrong with taking it back.
Read "Lying about Ayn Rand and Social Security" on Classically Liberal.
I asked for a proof that Ayn Rand went on welfare toward the end of her life.
That is such a weak response to Rand taken from a supermarket magazine.
The title of this video is preempting a little bit of circle jerking among liberals. Hitchens actually held a great deal of solidarity with libertarians as he viewed the state as an apparatus capable of being God-like in operation. Even in this video he is implying a distaste for the Federal Reserve.
How this is "destroying" Ayn Rand is beyond me. And I don't even like Ayn Rand.
Ziggy ■ ... but the Federal Reserve isn't a Government entity.
@@cliffgaither Yet, its birth, the entirety of its position and influence in the political and economic system, and its sustained existence, are all direct and sole products of the Government's own legislation and implementation of a central banking system in the first place. The "private company" of the federal reserve itself is just the arbitrary crony face that the government happened to bestow and uphold said position for. So the fact that it is a (pseudo-)"private company" is really not of any relevant consequence at all to the sort of topic at hand. Or in general.
He didn't say anything substantial here. Clickbait title with disabled like/dislike ratio. Lol.
He said her novels are transcendedly awful. She is literally a novelist. Telling a novelist they can't write is a pretty hefty insult.
"Destroys"? I take it you like your headlines Yahoo frontpage style.
pivot!
Can tell you love your selfishness especially regarding food, fatass.
Ayn Rand got PAWNED by Hitchens
Apparently Hitch didn't understand the point of those novels which was anti-collectivism, maybe he would've been clearer had he also read "Capitalism the Unknown Ideal".
"Empty man's soul - and the space is yours to fill". "Every system of ethics that preached sacrifice grew into a world power and ruled millions of men". ~ Tooey from The Fountainhead
+Notsob Rrek Toohey was the villain.
The very fact that rand created a philosophy advocating "self" shows her strange perception of morality and empathy. I think everyone can agree to an extent that selfishness is a standard feature in the average human, we constructed alturisim to counteract the devistation of greed. 50s USA or the golden era, was a result of social reform, regulating the jaggerd edges from capitalism and providing a safety net for the disadvantaged so they did not turn to crime or degenerate. It lasted until the early 80s and has been a gradual decline from there (Greenspan is an original randian right? Hmmmmm).
I’m sorry, I am not asking this ironically, but are implying that the social safety net has deteriorated over the last 50 years?
@Old_Schooler, I'll give it try. Let's see how it goes:
Based solely off this clip, Hitchens does not seem to understand the "selfishness" Ayn Rand argued for (acting in accordance with our best interests using reason as our guide).
He is quite clearly, in my view, referring to the common definition of selfishness: placing concern with oneself or one's own interests above the well-being or interests of others. He asserts that her novels are "transcendentally awful". While that may or may not be case, he hasn't really presented an argument to support that statement.
His only argument to support it I suppose is "To have a book strenuously recommending that people be MORE self centered seems to me... to be a work of super arrogation". Again he is referring to the traditionally held definition of self-centeredness (selfishness). Rand's selfishness requires definition and some expansion to be even partly understood. As a man who claims to have read her collection of essays on selfishness, and holds some respect for them, I am drawn to the conclusion that he is, at least in this short clip, willfully misunderstanding and misrepresenting them.
From his answer it seems to me Hitchens didn't make it past the first page of any of Rand's books, as otherwise he would have clearly seen why her philosophy is the most unique of any philosophy out there and that's the reason all others constantly attack her.
Specifically, he didn't read the first page of the introduction to "The Virtue of Selfishness", in which she destroys his concept of what selfishness means. Hitchens is probably still attached to that "image of the brute".
He argues that Rand's book is a "work of supererogation" (the performance of more work than duty requires). In other words, her philosophy is so obviously true that it is excessive of her to explain it so clearly... lol Definitely not the destruction I was hoping for.
It's not that her "philosophy" is "so true", it's that's greed and self centeredness are merely already endemic regardless of her work. It's not that people already widely embrace these things out of any moral or philosophical considerations, or any implied validity of such, so much as simply because they can.
He called her works awful. He's saying people are already too selfish.
Hardly a "destruction of the cult of Ayn Rand." Particularly since Hitchens and Rand agree more than disagree. Hitchens was keen on people taking personal responsibility for their own happiness, but he is wrong here. He has slipped into the fallacy that people have a moral obligation to do good for others, or that self-sacrifice is a virtue in itself.
The core problem here is that Hitchens has not read "The Virtue of Selfishness" as he claims. Otherwise, he would understand that Rand's definition of "selfishness" is closer to "self-realized happiness" than "lack of empathy and kindness." To Rand, the antonym of Selfishness is Self-sacrifice, placing the happiness of others above your own. If you choose to be kind of generous to others, that is fine, but "selfishness" is used an an epithet to condemn those who will not sacrifice willingly. It is a verbal cudgel to heap guilt and approbation on someone who chooses to put their own interests ahead of others.
NAILED IT!
He hasn’t read her book
this was Flippant, but there is a very good reason for that. Rand's ideas where in no way academically rigorous, and therefore don't require serious debate or discourse, and thats why Hitch responded the way he did, and why you wont find any university in the world teaching 'objectavism' in there philosophy course.
Hear hear!
As a mathematician I find much of the scholarship on Godel's Incompleteness Theorems to be non-rigourous, e.g. In the case of Rand, much of the commentary is based on misunderstandings or outright misrepresentations. If Antony Flew had discussed his paper with an Objectivist first, he could have saved himself a lot of time & effort. The metaphysics chapter from the Blackwell companion to Rand is available as a pdf for more rigorous scholarship on her philosophy. 😐
People were "hoarding" money because the governemnt, even before FDR under Hoover, was going crazy with taxes, new regulations, price supports, wage supports, government deficit spending, the Smoot Hawley tariff, and other government interventions that made investors and businessmen SCARED to spend more money on expanding their businesses.
Yeah, those 20’s under Coolidge were just crazy with the reg’s. Lol😂
Ayn Rand was the intellectualization of greed and vanity, the rationalization of hierarchy and privilege.
YOU'RE NUTS!!!
@@billythekid5258nah I think that’s pretty accurate.
It’s incoherent, too. In her view, we should value the objective over the subjective. Unless you’re some selfish bastard, then your subjective desire is more important than everyone else’s. And this is how she thought we could defeat communism, by atomizing the population and creating massive power imbalances - a true genius. Her philosophy of capitalism has replaced Smith’s to such an extent that people assume they are similar which is totally wrong.
Ayn Rand understood it is impossible to not be selfish. She wrote about the virtue of selfishness so others would understand that same thing, so that politicians, parents, and other corrupt people won't be able to justify their power on the grounds of altruism. This was Ayn Rands biggest message. It flew over your head it seems.
Finally somebody got it.
Bullshit. This is nothing more or less than desperate reeling from you cultists trying to scrap enough dignity to her legacy... Sadly you won't find any.
Not an intellectual argument so title isn’t a great fit. Should be something like ‘Hitchens dismisses Rand, no reasons given.’
Her literature was poorly written and binary.. Can't understand the fuss.
"Destroys" is way too strong a word here, he made a clever flippant comment, but it hardly qualifies as "Destroys" the cult of anything, as suggested by the title.
This is actually one of Hitchens' weaker moments. The title of this clip is childishly wishful. I'm with Hitchens on a lot of fronts, but this was not even close to his best thinking. Even the best have to wing it once in awhile. This was one of those moments. Nothing to see here, folks. Move on.
I think Hitchens probably knew this, but the common understanding of the loaded word "selfish" was not at all what Rand was talking about. Her defense was of rational self-interest. The vast majority of people we think of as selfish are engaging in whim-based self-interest (I want it and that's all the reason I need). That's irrational and Rand flatly rejected it. Rand's meaning was more nuanced. She posited that if everyone was rationally selfish, there would be no conflicts between individuals. But it's easy to simply take the word "selfish" and demagogue it in an attempt to discount all forms of it, precisely because we've all come to attach such negative connotations. In reality, irrational self-interest is an oxymoron. You cannot do anything ostensibly for own interests that is irrational. Hitchens took the common meaning (whim-based selfishness) and pretended that's what Rand meant. I think he knew better, but he took the easy way out since he did not believe in the obvious political repercussions (being a Socialist instead of a Libertarian).
Ayn Rand liked to simplify concepts, reduce them to their concretes and unbundle package-deals. A lot of people would see this as simple-minded, but in fact, it is a powerful way to look at things, cutting through layers of BS to get at the reality at the heart of the matter. This is especially true of the concept of "selfishness". Most people's conception of selfishness is a package-deal that conflates self-interest with total disregard for other people, or active predatory behavior, when real, rational self-interest leads to a harmony of self-interest among rational beings, as you said.
But most people hear the word "selfish" and they immediately think "evil!"
They need to read just the first couple pages of the introduction to "The Virtue of Selfishness".
SaulOhio Agreed. And because the 'selfish = evil' notion readily springs to mind is exactly why Rand encourages selfishness; it is in response to, and a counter to, the misguided altruist notion that selfishness is wrong. Hitchens is either ignorant (highly unlikely), misapprehensive, or intentionally dishonest. None of which appeals to me.
David Zapasnik
I agree. I find most Hitchens videos here on RUclips to be interesting, entertaining and educational. This is a big break for him, from being all that, to being simply petty. Ayn Rand explains a lot of what you said, and more, in just the first couple pages of the introduction to "The Virtue of Selfishness".
Hutchins tries. I will give him that. Maybe in another thirty years...
"She posited that if everyone was rationally selfish, there would be no conflicts between individuals." Utopian piffle.
Hitchen understood cult figures. Rand believed she was a “ god”. So many bowed before her.
"I don't think there's any need to have essays advocating selfishness among human beings."
Though, one might conceive a person who's childhood and family life were destroyed by a totalitarian communist government could enjoy writing them.
Glenn S. Harris ::
That's an excellent observation ( imho ).
It's one of the few places where I have cut Rand some slack.
It is an error by Hitchens. Ayn Rand was not advocating for what is generally called selfishness, which Hitchens correctly say requires no advocacy, but redefined it as rational selfishness and clarifies what it means to be selfish, which is essentially to rationally work out one’s values and act by them. As the corollary it shows how both altruism and collectivism are evil and anti-moral.
Also, her point was to develop a moral system that takes that into account. If we want to live together (or just live, period) we need a moral code consistent with the self-interest inherent in human nature. To do that, we need todo more than acknowledge that yes, we are selfish.
I think the whole point of society is not to be selfish and hope/ encourage others to be same. Otherwise it’s every fucker for themselves.
@@robinstevenson1098 Well, then, WHY?
Why would I want to live in a society where everyone is selfless?
What Ayn Rand was explaining was not "every fucker for themselves". She debinked that idea in the first page of the introduction to her book "The Virtue of Selfishness".
I would fall into that libertarian philosophy but I have little to no care for Ayn Rand or objectivism.
Rand was no more than an intellectual lightweight who spun a good yarn.
It was the sex scene in the Fountainhead that gave it any traction.
Rand was a pill gobbling speedfreakj also.Hitchen`s and Rand both being stupidly Godless and only worshiping intellect makes me wonder what they exclaimed when hitting a finger with a hammer accidentally---"Oh Me Damn It!!! or something?
@@timyoung8935 Not especially impressed by her level of intellect.
@@timyoung8935
"stupidly Godless" is a sublime oxymoron. From a moron.
Thank you.
@@timyoung8935
Right. And being an intelligent god botherer is a sublime oxymoron:)
Hitchens doesn't even understand the concept of selfishness as defined by Rand. Although he is an atheist you can clearly see his political beliefs are undergirded by religion.
That man could talk bees into giving up their honey.
And yet the cancer held on longer than he...
Not destruction. Barely a scratch.
Respectfully, Hitchens doesn't "destroy" anything in this clip. He merely offers his rather general critique of Rand , which is fine. He does make the mistake , as almost everyone does , of equating whatever he thinks "selfishness" is with Rand's explicitly explained definition of the term. Enlightened self interest is not the same as tramping on the rights of others for your own sake , & Hitchens must realize this of course.
"dEsTrOyEdddd"!1!
he didn't read the novel The Fountainhead. Its not about selfishness the way he explains it. If you can't read the novel, because you are not a book guy, watch the movie.
***** nope, she worked for it, she had her whole childhood destroyed, she had out move from russia because europe didnt want jews in that area, and its 727 pages, and its not about artistic expression and indivdual liberty. its about opportunities, who is right peter keating who is sucsessfull because he works for the finest architechture firm limited freedom? or howard roark who worked for the lowest firm but the most freedom, then gets kicked out. well you should know since you read 23 extra pages. your comment reeks of stupidity, please troll better before i shutoff the internet...
*****
Actually, despite all the drama made out of this Hitchens vs Rand war, this idea of the individual vs the collective made me realize why being one with your idea, against anyone who's against your idea, its sometimes important not to give up. Think about a football coach that dismisses the fans criticism and later on he wins the league by doing his job the way he believes it was the best. Think about that rock band whose record label board of directors forces them to make a "commercial hit single" but the band don't listen to them and maintain their reputation and success anyway. Think about Le Corbusier new ideas in architecture that were punished by the critics, but what he did changed architecture forever. It happened in real life actually. Think about your friends advises on how to seduce that woman you love, but you end up doing it your way. Its like the song "My way". That's all Rand wanted to expose, maybe she failed to do so, not everyone must like the novel, but I've got the idea the novel tries to teach, or at least, I got why Tesla won against Edison in the AC vs DC energy, where Tesla's AC became the clear winner. There are a lot of examples in real life where The Fountainhead really happened.
***** ... Still, Rand is against Nietzsche in The Fountainhead. But as thinkers as we are, we might not agree on everything. I still believe Hitchens couldn't have read the novel after what he says in this video.
***** hmm i dont know whether to take your comment seriously since you are being anti-semetic...
***** ok ill simplify, why hating of the jews?
In fact, I would say the biggest POLICY difference between Norway and Somalia is that in Norway, you have protection of private property rights by the government. It consistently ranks as one of the most free nations on indexes of economics freedom. In fact, Norway gets a 90 in property rights protection.
Somalia doesn;t even get ranked because of the violence going on there. Freedom can be defined as the absence of violence.
As most critics do he grossly mischaracterizes Rand’s viewpoint.
Misleading title to this clip - and Hitchens does not address objectivism in it. Nice try, huckleberry.
sounds like an echo chamber where he decided to just pick on one aspect of her philosophy which he has misunderstood anyway
Objectivists: I don't see any 'destroying' going on here.
If Hitchens called Michael Moore's stuff "trascendently awful", and said dismissively 'you don't really need films about wealth disparity', the objectivists would cheering him on. They would approve of the term 'destroyed'. Hitchens has indeed said stuff equally as bad about Moore. As far as Hitchens is concerned, Rand and Moore are in the same category.
NO, he was quite the historian and I say this not as a Christopher Hitchens fan, but merely as a debate lover.
The trouble with you Hitchins groupies is this: thinking his was a first-rate intellect, you merely reveal your own ignorance, and lack of a sound education. He knew a lot about science; as a philosopher he was third rate!