I don’t think it’s awesome. It’s cynical, arrogant and dismissive; especially over a novel that, as Buckley observed, was/is the biggest selling novel in the world. What Buckley derides as _ideological fabulism_ others might describe as inspirational, a vision of how the world could be, and no less valid than, say, The Lord of the Rings.
Was that the debate where Chomsky defended Mao and the Communist Party of China? I cringe when think of how anyone could be that wrong. Certainly you don't defend Mr. Mao - do you?
@@cringlator You're wrong. Chomsky even referred to it in a subsequent interview when he was belittling Firing Line as a, "television show". Of course he was willing to discuss because the crimes committed by his friend Mao were not so widely known at the time. Frankly, I wish we could "chat' some more, but I simply don't have the time nor the patience. You're initial note was frankly ridiculous, and mean spirited - right out of the Chomsky playbook.
Nope, she was never on social security, something you pretend is a free gift when, in fact, the amount of money leftists claim she received was far less than the tax she paid and taxes aren't voluntary. You are yet another Marxist troll and any response you make will be a complete and utter lie.
"The highest tribute to Ayn Rand is that her critics must distort everything she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individuals rights to freedom of action, speech,& association; self responsibility, NOT self-indulgence; & a live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an END, not the MEANS of others' ends. How many critics would dare honestly state these ideas & say. "...and that's what I reject?" --Barbara Branden
There are zero intellectual debates on TV these days like Buckley had. he had people he agreed with and those he opposed but all debates were very informative. Maybe Tucker carlson comes close.
@@cliffgaither She provides an idealized ethos that gives Organized Crime a flag to rally around. Ever notice how philosophical the bad guys have gotten in movies, etc with a goal of stealing unfathomable amounts of money and then go hide in a hole and laugh at people who aren't gluttons.
i would really like to clear something up: the speaker says "her scorn of charity and altruism." this is not a correct estimation. she had no problems with charity as a premise. her problem was with charity, by force, or charity as your highest value. end of story. how this continuously becomes misunderstood, eludes me. to reiterate: its only when someone holds a gun to your head and says "because you have so much, give some to John, its only right and fair... or else ill shoot." that is wrong.
@@tooterooterville he didn't understand capitalism & hated rand who was a pro capitalist individual. Conservatives dont like change & want to conserve things like religion. That is incompatible with capitalism.
haha that's the best knock on Ayn Rand I've ever heard--that she had a COLLECTIVE of people FOLLOWING HER to discuss how you should be anti-collective. Reminds me of the Steve Martin individualist creed. Repeat after me: I promise to be different! I promise to be unique! I promise not to repeat things other people say!
@current_interest I had a teacher in college who said the moment you decide whether you will be an intellectual is the moment you stop thinking Ayn Rand is intellectual.
current_interest Hello! I have been going the same way for over a year at this point. Have you been reading the non-fiction? And I know of a couple yt channels by Objectivists going over current events if you are interested
This was filmed ages ago, at the time it was one of the best selling books of all time with 5 million copies sold. It was selling 500,000 copies a year which at the time was quite a lot.
I consider myself too cool to have a philosophy. Also...my extremely low I.Q. allows me to react to all situations "instinctively" devoid of all thought.
i agree you have an obvious low intelligence based on the contradiction of what you think is a clever statement. and that is the point aint it dumb-bell? LOL
It was a failure by Buckley, not Rand. This should have been one of the great ideological alliances of that age. At that time, we were fighting communism (and not only with words). Instead, Buckley's lack of leadership and understanding while at NRO made Rand into an mortal enemy. It shouldn't have been that way. Rand was a tough character for sure, but I can't blame her for an over-reaction given what Whittaker Chambers wrote in his review.
The Chambers review of AS was nothing but a deliberate hit piece approved by Buckley. It belied no comprehension of the novel and of course it was never intended to. The left sneers at Rand because she called out their socialist/communist collectivism for the dangerous garbage that it is, Christian conservatives sneer at her because she calls them on their embracing mysticism. When she told Buckley he was too intelligent to believe in God apparently she gave him too much credit.
"The highest tribute to Ayn Rand, is that her critics must distort everything she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individual’s rights to freedom of action, speech, and association; self-responsibility, NOT self-indulgence; and a live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an END, not the MEANS of others’ ends. How many critics would dare honestly state these ideas and say, ” . . .and that’s what I reject”?--Barbara Branden
The works of an artist does not necessarily have to match their tragic lives. I am not a Michael Jackson fan, but I do remember a song "Man in the mirror" - a song conserning personal choices and morality. Artists personal lives seldom live up to the standards that they set in their work. Nobody can be rational 100% of the time. We all occasionally give into our whims.
Rand doesn't need an apologist. She took ideas seriously and lived up to her principles. She absolutely made mistakes about people, and she was attacked and smeared in exactly the ways she showed her characters being smeared in her books. But if you research the whole picture and don't just cherry-pick the stories of her detractors, quite a different picture from their claims emerges.
@eparkison DUDE!! Do you know what the friggin word "coerced" means, it means FORCED!!. The free market system is the very opposite of force, in the free market system nobody is FORCING anybody to work as a doctor, the individual decides ON HIS OWN if he wants to pursue that as a career.
The “free market” is anything but. Capitalism is rife with coercion. You have the illusion of choice. 15 different cans of beans to choose from isn’t freedom of choice.
I read all of her non fiction too but I wouldn't call the first hand accounts of her friends "gossip." How she lived and the choices she made are a good indication about her philosophy in practice. And the fact is that she found ways to rationalise any desire she had.
People dislike Rand because they can't read her without secretly realizing how much that hate themselves, and how bitter and resentful they are for making them aware of how much they hate themselves.
I think that Mr. Buckley would have had a more engaging and enlightened interview with Pauly Shore rather than Charlie Rose. Rose makes Larry King seem positively brilliant.
Imagine if Ayn Rand was alive at the time of Karl Marx what a debate would ensue perhaps the course of world history may have changed delegating Karl Marx to the garbage pile of time
I don't care that they didn't like the book of her philosophy but they acted like a bunch of intellectual snobs and used the same old tired meme to diminish her and her works.
@@bettersteps Devlin a far more skilled writer than Rand this is true. Always enjoyed Hitchens destroying Rand, not to mention Wolff’s account of her in ‘old school.’
When I was young I read everything by Ayn Rand and was devoted to her ideas. Then I became more mature, got a college education, traveled the world and, having grown up, I set aside those simple, childish ideas, realizing that the world is a much more complex place. Her ideas grow out of her anger at what she lost resulting from the revolutions of 1917 in Russia. If you read her non-fiction her shrill anger and hate are quite evident. For someone who champions something called "Objectivism" she was not very objective. Reason is a tool that can be used to justify all sorts of atrocities. It also depends on the premises that you start out with. If you reason from false premises you will not make any sense as Ayn Rand does fail to make sense, except within the fictional world and false premises contained in her limited thinking. She paints a pretty picture in her novels for the gullible and foolish. See also how in her non-fiction she uses her fictional character's dialogue as "evidence" for her ideas. Such self referencing is not evidence of anything except narcissism.
Could it be that she did not like the murderous Communist dictatorship that took over Russia? Have you ever lived through something like that? Or maybe you're OK with it?
@@chilidogg2047 You're missing my point. Certainly it was traumatic and tragic to have lost so much because of such an experience. My point is that the understandable anger she took away feeds her intellectual rationalizations to the extent that her ideas often fail to make sense. She often contradicts herself or uses fallacious arguments with weak or non-existent evidence to make her point. She paints the world in very black and white simplistic terms that fail to address the complexity of the issues she attempts to address. For a so-called "Objectivist" she is not very objective and I believe her understandable hate and anger fatally colors her perspective. She champions reason but fails to see the dubious assumptions that underlay her thinking and her reasoning is quite often faulty as a result. I got a lot from Ayn Rand when I was young but as I matured I grew past the puerile positions that at my young age did make a difference because they got me started on an intellectual path that became richer and allowed me to see the fallacies and falsehoods driven by her anger. I advise you to read her non-fiction and you may notice much of what I am stating. Then again if your are, like so many of her adherents, slavishly "convinced" no amount of evidence will change your mind.
Buckley was - gloriously - what would now be called an old-school conservative. He was distinguished by being fiercely intelligent, well-read, and beyond all, THOUGHTFUL. This enabled him to fathom more than one side of an argument.
How much of an intellectual could he be if he doesn't understand...or purposely misstates...Rand's view on Charity. She had no problem with charity...as long as it was not given as a 'duty', but freely given according to the inner wishes of the giver.
Ayn Rand wrote more than just a few novels. She also explained her philosophy in detail in at least three non-fiction books. To characterize her as an eccentric fool who only wrote inferior fiction is both unfair and inaccurate. I'm surprised that such erudite men as Buckley and Rose chose to giggle their way through a discussion of her as a philosopher. Whether one agrees or disagrees with her philosophy, no one cannot deny that her work has had a profound effect on the world of ideas and on society at large. Buckley and Rose acted like a couple of jealous schoolboys trying to ridicule someone they disagreed with. Shame on them. I thought they were better people than that.
@eparkison The whole reason corporations are outsourcing in the first place is because they would rather work in countries where the government is more friendly towards business, these "third world" countries are so hard up for business and work that they are willing to allow the corporations to operate freely as long as they will remain to create jobs. If you continue to do things like raise the minimum wage, create bossy unions etc. then the corporations are going to continue to outsource.
LexRex :: Do you really believe corporations outsource because of minimum wage increases & "bossy" unions ? Unions come into existence because of corporate maltreatment of employees / low wages / unsafe working conditions ... Even if employees were content, CEOs would still outsource to maximize profits. Wages are lower elsewhere / they don't have to trouble themselves w / regulation standards / occupational health & safety protocols / employee benefits / health benefits / seditious employee conversations about labor-organizing & tiresome lunch-breaks, after 5hrs. of working ... Workers are responsible for those profits because of their labor. There would be no corporations w / o the labor of workers.
@@cliffgaither The issue is that these corporations are allowed to outsource in th first place. We need nationalistic and protectionist policies to make sure that these massive globalist corporations are loyal to the American people.
@@WorshipInTruth :: Sounds good ! How do we regulate nationalistic feelings from the globalists ? It's like trying to eradicate national racism ( sounds good, but impossible ). Greed will always "trump" nationalism. When it comes to economics, it's Capitalism Without Borders. "Protectionism" ? We already have that to protect the domestic industries from foreign competition. We need New, Progressive Policies that bring about Nationalism & Domestic Protection & especially, New Politicians !
@@cliffgaither "How do we regulate nationalistic feelings from the globalists ?"..."Greed will always "trump" nationalism. When it comes to economics, it's Capitalism Without Borders."..."New Politicians !".... You are answering your own question. What we need to do is replace the people in power with actual idealists and populists. This democracy with competing interests does not work, a national "strongman" is necessary to reign in the wolves and protect the flock. I think a lot of Nationalists had hoped that Trump could potentially be that "strongman" (at least to the extent that Putin is in Russia) and the leftists always hysterically feared Trump knowing what he could have been..... but alas Trump was no savior and never made any serious attempt to drain any swamp.
@@WorshipInTruth :: Well ... maybe I did answer my own question, but you put the thoughts in my head. I blame this on you 😂 ! Don't you think a "strongman" of any kind is dangerous ? We don't have any guarantees. How long would a strongman, guarding the flock, last w / o being assassinated ? Democracy "has too many competing interests" is very true, but I know you've heard about democracy being "messy". We have enough common interests to over-come the messiness. 70% of the public supports Bernie's programs ; 52% of Republicans. That's a great start for a coalition, I think. We definitely have to turn things around at the polls. I'm just afraid of strongmen. What happens when "his" policies start to mess w / you 😄 ?
And it’s All coming true ! Way ahead of her time! She’ll be remembered a lot longer than either of these guys ! We’re beyond Atlas Shrugged and now coming up to “1984” 🤮
Welfare checks "destroy incentive and motivation?" Really? How could getting to $300/m do that? It's not enough to live off of so it's not a viable alternative to having a job which pays enough to actually survive. Therefore it's not an incentive to "live off the teat." I'm going to assume that you have this fantasy in which people on welfare make thousands of dollars per month; not true. Just because you can develop an internally coherent philosophy doesn't mean that it accords w/ reality.
She wasn't just an idiot, she was one of the most influential idiots of our times. As Buckley noted in this video, Alan Greenspan, a devotee of Rand, ran the most powerful economic body in the world for nearly 20 years.
“Too intelligent to believe in God”, and yet this intelligent man did. It makes me wonder if I’m too intelligent or too stupid to believe. Currently, I find it hard to believe.
@jeffreyhurst9552 then you are a critical thinker. Keep it up. An intellectual means someone who is fundamentally unsound, who has no real blood and soil allegiance to the organic religious society, who has no loyalties except to the mind and reason, is a skeptic and so forth.
"Ideological fabulism" is how the unprincipled describe idealism. He published a dishonest assassination by the unprincipled Whittaker Chambers without having himself read the book at that time. His low point.
Full of lies, as is common with all the Rand-haters. Lol, this makes me love Leonard Peikoff's comment from the 1984 debate even more: "As far as William Buckley is concerned, please do not confuse us with that entity."
"She liked me up until I published a review of her book by Whitaker Chambers." A review that was factually incorrect on details that would have been incredibly hard to mistake and that basically accused her of being pro-genocide. Would you really expect someone to like you after you publish lies about her that vicious? Really?
Expect Rand to like Buckley? No, but I would expect YOU to stay assiduously away from parties where that rotten publisher was planning to show up. Don't forget to check with the host before showing your face.
You noticed how Buckley also mentions another hack reviewer who bascially accuses her ideology of leading to genocide? That wasn't accidental, this man's a clown, and his National Reivew has become the Laughing Stock of the Right!
She believed it wasn't in her self-interest to have Social Security taken from her in the first place because she believed she got in return less than what she exchanged to receive it.
She didn't have kids. She said it wasn't in her self interest to have any. Now, you say her life was sad. Consider this: she was happy, wealthy and wielded considerable political power due to her philosophy. In short, her ideas actually worked. She had a great life. That's the test of any philosophy. Now as yourself the following question: are you powerful? Are you wealthy? Are you happy? And if not, why is it that your philosophy is not as effective as hers for making you a success in the world?
Yea, didnt get that either. In that interview with Mike Wallace she said that charity should be from individuals not co-erced and not by govt.WFB twisted her views on charity for a good laugh with Charlie the Molester.
Buckley was such a fascinating character - great style and a great command of English. "1,000 pages of fabulism" , his use of the word '"nominate" in its older sense
Ayn Rand is the complete opposite of George Orwell. Orwell explained in his essay "Why I write": "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" Of Ayn Rand's work, it was the other way around.
As Gore Vidal famously told Buckley to his face, you sir are a crypto-fascist. In my opinion the term pseudo intellectual narcissist fits as well. Buckley had a lot in common with Rand who was also a pseudo intellectual crypto-fascist narcissist who engaged in class warfare by promoting an amoral political philosophy that was not only often simplistic and contradictory but conveniently self-serving if you're a member of the rich white privileged ruling class like Buckley.
"An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization." Ayn Rand was morally reprehensible, but not a fascist. It is also very easy to throw the word "pseudo intellectual" around.
Oscar Manzke The term pseudo-intellectual applies to Rand because she really never had any new or original idea's. Instead she just repackaged the same tired old concepts of feudalism and the divine rights of royal entitlement. Only she applied the concept of divine rights to the 20th century elite, robber barons and corporate CEO's as if they were kings. The classic text book definition of fascism as occurred under Mussolini in Italy is defined as the collusion of a gov't and the corporate elite to exploit and oppress the masses. Strong nationalism was a component of that but used primarily only to justify the collusion of gov't and corporate power for the greater good. In Rand's vision of the perfect world private corporations pursuing their self-interests would be all powerful and control gov't which is essentially the same thing as fascism. I found Rand's Mike Wallace interview most revealing. In it Rand claims that her ideology Objectivism is superior to ALL other moral beliefs because it's based solely on empirical facts, reason and logic not faith. She then goes on to make the grandiose claim as if it were an established empirical fact that simply by separating Gov't from the economy we can create a self-regulating lassie faire free market economy that will bring peace, co-oporation and justice among men. So logically the first thing I asked myself is when and where has such a self-regulating free market ever existed? The answer is Rand's self-regulating lassie faire economy has never existed anywhere in recorded history and Rand herself never provided any documented empirical evidence to prove the existence of such a "free market" either. Thats Rand's deceptive bait and switch. Contrary to what Rand promised us, to believe in Objectivism one has to blindly rely on faith instead of relying on facts, reason or logic. So my conclusion is Rand was either a complete fraud, delusional megalomaniac an idiot or some combination of all those things.
roman14032 A pesudo-intellectual is someone who falsely presents themselves and/or their specious ideas as the product of a superior intellect, but upon closer examination their ideas don't stand up to critical objective analysis. Rand routinely contradicted herself, deceitfully distorted well documented historical events and intentionally misrepresented Objectivism which she claimed was based solely on facts but instead is a cynically hypocritical "faith based" belief system. In short Rand was a complete fraud who created an ideological Trojan Horse designed to persuade the middle class and poor to participate in class warfare against themselves in the pursuit of "freedom". But how free will anyone be when they're locked into a cycle of debt to all powerful monopolistic corporations who own everything and control gov't? Thats the wet dream of the 1% who have organized and spent millions of $ promoting the "virtues" of Rand in the corporate controlled media.
so.........she ,as a "pseudo-intellectual" engaged in a misleading,distorted and self contradictory.polemic in order to advance her class warfare agenda? and you on the other hand are what?,
As much as I dislike Buckley's political ideology, and philosophy, at least the man had a likable sense of graciousness and charm. Conservatives in our current era, are like rubes from the hills.
I watched the documentary about him and Vidal thinking I was going to be "Team Vidal". I immediately liked Buckley more. He had values, reason, and logic and stood up for. Vidal literally said nothing and was pure fluff. Vidal was prettier but that was it.
there's an old saying: 'a liberal will stab you in the back, but with a conservative you will see the knife coming.' To say conservatives in the current era are rubes from the hills speaks to what a twat you are and to bemoan the elitism for which the left is known. A philosophy devoid of empirical evidence to support itself relies on other tactics, typically in our age, the art of character assassination and belittling the other as "rubes."
Bless Mr. Buckley's heart but the greatest selling novel in the history of the world is Don Quixote followed by a Tale of Two Cities followed by Le Petit Prince. Where does he get his statistics? Atlas Shrugged does not even make the top ten. What is his source to make such a statement? It placed 20th on the Great American Read in 2018, but is hardly the same.
Bobba Thefett :: The hierarchy of the "Christians" aren't about Jesus' teachings. They are about control / money / extreme right-wing ideologies. Christianity is just a means to an end ; a cover for authoritarianism. ( imo )
Touted as one of the best modern age classic Atlas Shrugged is one of the most controversial and bold books written by anyone . I completed reading Atlas Shrugged yesterday. It took me 5 years and 4 month to complete this book. You can imagine I am not much a reader but mostly, read for pleasure. The plot is laden with subterfuge on the part of Government which is wanting to nationalise everything, a lady is fighting this system along with an lathario Business man and another astute one who all, eventually seems to congregate with others in a world of "purpose". I love the idea, but I felt the book was more of an idealist, ramble than a realist roadmap for the future. Like most authors, Ayn was able to identify the problem but her solution was a mere figment of imagination of a fancy world, devoid of any subterfuge and chicanery. Thus is perhaps, why the books appeals to a teenage and mid twenties group, than it does to, more mature men. I also found the plot to be really devoid of any real meat. Dagny the protagonist seemed to be a "slut" who doesn't mind sleeping around with married men or otherwise. She dated all the leading men in the book and slept with all of them. What surprised me the most, was how they were so happy and devoid of any envy for the each other despite the fact that all three loved her, which was a little too much to begin with, and further they all go on to live "together" happily ever after. It seemed to me that Ayn Rand was visualizing herself as Dagny and living her fantasises through this character. Being somewhat of a misogynist myself, I simply find this behaviour, very typical of most young girls or even some older woman, who want several intelligent and handsome to love them, from where they can cherry pick one. What blew my lid off was the portrayal of "John Galt" the main protagonist. She goes to a great extend describing his physical features presenting him as greek God, who happens to be a great engineer, and a great orator and a leader, all in one, package. That's the most ludicrous description of a character and clearly a figment of her imagination which perhaps will savour to the taste of the impressionable whippersnapper, who wants to change the world. I would have had no trouble if the book was presented as a fictional piece of work in its entirety. However it was a portrayed almost as contemporary evolution of events around the world. She was cleverly using the word USA but what she actually meant was USSR. Perhaps she should have candid about the society which she was portraying. This was almost list perching to the choir - Americans love capitalism and free market and Laissez-faire, and this books preaches the demonisation of govt. controls and socialism. Never mind the length of the book, or the soliloquy which each character incessantly falls into so darn frequently, that it almost feels like a pattern. I had to pretty much skip several parts, though I never lost track of the plot or key words which would typically be spoken at the end of a chapter, yet the book is long and takes and age to complete. However, the book, ends so abruptly that you almost don't expect it to, was actually picking up the pace, though i honestly didn't mind as exhausted reading so far. A new world is created by perhaps a magic wand which Rand was always carrying in her arsenal. She had to end it and she decided, all right here comes the "new" world and don't ask me how. The book talks about reason all through, but I couldn't find a reason here, where she uses her magical skills more than her reasoning ability to lay foundations of a NEW world. Anyways, on a lighter note I managed to learn several new words which I realised, were her favourite perhaps - "Brusquely" was one of them, "Insolence" was another and "recalcitrant" was another. There were many others of course, but I seem to remember these, quite distinctly. All in all I think, you should read this book not for the love of it but for the fact that you can always use it to stir up intellectual debates and play along in any so called intellectual clubs. Perhaps, its is also a good book for those of you who want to connect with the younger generation, who will definitely have strong association with the concepts mentioned in this book. I am now planning to read "The fountain Head" which was more of prologue to this book. Perhaps, I can approach the second one with a lesser expectation and feel happier about. All in all its a good read if you can manage to complete it.
Good man ! AS disingenuously, paints a black and white view of the world, which might appeal to the romantic views of a recalcitrant teenager. Life is much more shades of grey :)
Yes! Preach it brother! The book not only pushed the characters to the extremes of their personas but also the 'villains'. It was like a work of fiction! We need MORE government controls and MORE socialism in the US! Who needs individualism anyhow, right? I will not sleep until we have FULL socialism/communism in the US! ALL HAIL BIG BROTHER! or else!
I finished it actually about 5 hours ago. And quite frankly I disagree. It is a pitiful attempt at literature. The characters are largely bland. Especially John Galt. And the idea of John Galt is amazing. Just some guy who became a god-like figure purely through word of mouth. But then she actually makes him godlike. That defeats the purpose. The idea that a man can achieve godlike notoriety is worth noting. the idea that a god can achieve godlike notoriety isnt. And the fact that she tries to make all her characters perfect. Its stupid. Ragnar is a superior character precisely because he isnt perfect. Hank is better because of his whole internalize opresion. But it is wasted. and finally, she misses the chance to discuss the issues with capitalism that are actually worth discussing. I am a capitalist. But ive still got some problems. Some percentage of the population will never be able to produce. What do we do about those people. And that is a problem worth talking about.
The assault on 'the individual' was perfectly encapsulated in the film, Rollerball. "In the Global Corporate-controlled world of 2018, the individual free-thinking spirit has been almost completely eradicated by the corporate bulldozer. The Caan character is a man whose individual expressive seed still stirs and under increasing psychological pressures from his corporate puppet masters, begins to recognize and resist the depth of control that is exerted on his own individual destiny and illusion of freedom." ruclips.net/video/_mMcEjBhC4k/видео.html
Many, many people felt that Buckley was too intelligent to actually believe in God. Ayn Rand was not the only one. I think it was simply because he was brought up in a Catholic family, and he hever had the guts to question his parents and grandparents. It's a shame. It diminished him.
Atlas Shrugged had an enormous impact on my life. I was living in Cairo Egypt working on my business and it provided English entertainment for me in the evening, so reading it wasn't too much of a chore. The first hundred or so pages was tedious but the story was engrossing past that. For ten years prior to that, I was struggling with the trauma Christian Fundamentalism imparted. John Galt's speech was my first introduction to a philosophical system. It changed my life and helped purge the delusional muck of religion from my mind, and inspired me to become a philosopher. In that, she remains a hero of mine. Eventually I became an "Ayn Rand Scholar" as I pursued the foundational elements of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, aesthetics and logic. I soon parted ways with objectivism once I realized that the monetary system that we have today is a system of institutionalized violence. I realized that money was not a tool of trade but a permission slip of survival corporate elitists controlled and manipulated through the government. A system that has no regard for compassion or empathy for individuals, or takes into consideration the differences in an individual's neurology that determines whether or not one can be "successful". She approached her philosophy with that same tired egalitarianism that in some mystical way all minds are equal and all humans are equally competent to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps". We are not. Some can play they piano or the stock market to virtuosity but most can't no matter how hard they try. She never had the benefit of neuroscience to help shape her philosophy. Her fantasy of laissez fair capitalism is untenable. It would require a global philosophical shift for people to deal rationally with one. That is NOT EVER going to happen.
@@michaelsvoboda1024 Okay. That immediately implies the good life and the just city, which leads us to the nature of humankind and the optimal politico-economic system for an individual - any individual - to survive and thrive.
I understand the Idea that if you make something it should not automatically belong to every one which is what I think she was trying to say but the idea that the wealth of the world should belong to a select few is also wrong. Reality is somewhere in the middle. There should be an opportunity for everyone to make their lives better if they worked at it.
@@jimflagg4009It's like she had never actually read any real philosophy at all. She's basically a naive crank. If only she had read and understood Locke.
12/16/11: Christopher Hitchens died last night, and after visiting with him in various moments of his televised life, thanks to RUclips, I realized that I was missing my other most-favored public thinker, WFB, so I came here. They both loathe "Atlas Shrugged," which, given their fealty to individual liberty (Hitch's, post 9/11/01) is inexplicable; and, as I have often observed, their vocal cadences, to say nothing of their protean erudition, are eerily similar. randy95023 I agree with your first comment: "Anthem" is a dystopian novel on a par with "1984," "Animal Farm," and "Brave New World," and should be read in tandem with them. @Bellantoni Meaning, she was for totalitarianism and against "democratic" socialism (an oxymoron if ever there was one)? You've got to read "Atlas" over again, you have misread her completely: The simple construct "the Individual against the Collective," infusing everything she wrote, refutes that silly, ill-informed assertion. althmanne I believe I admire you for your last three sentences.
0:49 that's just objectively false. So many novels have sold more than Atlas Shrugged. Makes me wonder if Buckley actually believed much of anything he said, or if he was more concerned about dramatically presenting his observations as profound.
@SuperPythagore Of course, now that I think about it, most of these kids in high school have trouble reading "A Cat in a Hat", much less "Atlas Shrugged". Shame, I loved "Atlas Shrugged" at 14, and since I read it at such a young age, it truly influenced my life positively.
The Greenspan Myth continues. He was not "bewitched". I'm still trying to figure out just what he was, but that's not it. And as an aside, where does this "Go to the Gas Chamber, Go" quote come from? "Biggest selling novel in the History of the world, BTW.."
She indeed would not have been there, because you never hesitated to try to humiliate her works at every turn, Bill. Your impulsive condescension tends to bring a loathsome stench.
john26, one blunder of Ayn Rand is her assumption she had answered Hume by supposedly demonstrating how she succeeded in deriving a moral value from a fact with a logical inference that is valid. She didn't. Her error is her assumption that an instrumental "ought," because a man is [the kind of being he is] determines what he ought to do [to achieve his survival or actualization] as the kind of being he is solves the notorious is-ought problem. It doesn't. As Hume might point out, her premise, the fact of man being the kind of living entity he is, itself cannot be logically justified as a moral value. It's nothing more than a brute fact. Rand assumes it is a moral value as a kind of axiom, that is, without proof. We may want to feel that our survival in and of itself has moral value. But feelings altogether are not a tool of cognition.
Really? There are lots of criticisms of Ayn Rand's work which are definitely not ad-hominem. Here's one example: www.academia.edu/5685251/Egoism_versus_Rights As for whether you find it intelligible or not... well that's down to you and your ability to understand academic philosophical writing, I'm afraid.
"Rand did not advocate stepping over others." OK, sure fine. But that sentence has little to do with philosophical critique in the article I linked to. The article I linked to suggests that Ayn Rand constructs a straw man argument against other philosophers. She posits "egoism" and "altruism" as a necessary binary choice. She attributes "altruism" to anyone she happens to disagree with (e.g. Marx, Kant, etc). She then defines "altruism" in very extreme terms, which makes it impossible to agree with it as a doctrine and necessary to agree with her position: "egoism". Yet the extreme way she defines "altruism" (this is her term by the way) has little to do with the ideas of the people she is using the term to criticize. It serves as a simplifying device to side-step and obscure a whole range of philosophical problems which have been debated for centuries. This is why philosophers don't take her seriously. The problem we have is not that philosophers don't understand Ayn Rand. Her ideas aren't all that complex. The problem is that "Objectivists" (even the term is ridiculous) don't understand other philosophers and uncritically take Ayn Rand's word for it when she claims to have refuted them.
@@colinmontgomery5492 ah. Sounds very irresponsible of him. Aren’t you supposed to give the okay anyway for what’s gonna get printed? He literally out here saying yeah I was dick.
Wow, you just revealed your great ignorance. Buckley, like a true conservative, did not despise humans as you evidently do. Your not conservative, your just a bigot. It's going to be hard to accept, but like Buckley I will pray for your soul.
WFB was my college graduation commencement speaker (1984). It was a conservative college back then. Now it's a liberal hellhole and I don't send them one cent.
Always amazed by the number (any over zero) of people who champion government dependence, as if standing up and being a man was something to be avoided at all cost.
octopibingo I'm puzzled by your complete omission of the other stages of life, not to mention conditions under which it's impossible to 'stand up' and make money for oneself.
Cheyenne Sage At which "stages of life" in life is it "impossible to 'stand up' and make money for oneself"? You could argue of you over simplify 0 years to 3 years or so... but after that once one can toddler around, or roll around, or what ever... past that point when can one NOT?
octopibingo The truth is to take responsibly for one's own problems and hardships is just that. If there is some around who will tell you that you do not have to ,MOST would do just that. Those in the Voluntarism camp need to accept: that a valid choice is choosing to be a dependent. While those who make that choice need to accept that it is not one they can force on others to make them self feel better about making that choice and the limitations that go with it.
No, Venezuela is an example of what happens to a 3rd World country which succeeded in making its citizens prosperous, until the global economic system cut off its legs by manipulating the price of its main export, oil.
If you haven't read "The Virtue of Selfishness", "The Romantic Manifesto" as well as "The Encyclopedia of Objectivist Epistemology", (he hasn't) you don't get to comment on Ayn Rand, lest you embarrass yourself Mr. Buckley.
I read Chambers' review of Atlas Shrugged in National Review. I couldn't believe how stupid it was. In fact, his review sounded like he was reviewing another book I had never read. I wondered if his misinterpretation of the ideas in the book was deliberate lying or just a manifestation of that moral imbecility he divulged when he allowed himself to be deceived by the communist idiocy at one time in his life. I've never trusted converts. That Buckley thinks his review was devastating goes to Buckley's own intellectual superficiality. I stopped watching Firing Line precisely because I couldn't stand his glib superficiality and the larding of his speech with two-bit, multi-syllabic words that exhibited a total lack of literary taste. A listener required a dictionary to understand what he was saying. Dryde, Milton, Pope, Marlowe, Shakespeare, Keats, Shelley, Wordsworth, Gray, etc., one thing you notice in their poetry is that they abjure multi-syllabic words. There isn't a single word they use in their poetry that a junior high student wouldn't understand. Buckley's newspaper columns were insufferably pretentious without the slightest intellectual value.
For the record, I never said Buckley wrote a review of AS. I said Chambers wrote the review. If facts are good, then why don't you start perceiving them!
If someone is larding his speech with too many words I don't understand it's obvious he's memorized definitions to sound intelligent that are totally needless to convey a significant and original idea. Anybody can memorize definitions of multi-syllabic words. What's the point? Ayn Rand was an original thinker. Buckley was a mere journalist without his whole life coming up with an original idea, superficial chatterbox he. I never had to look up a single word when reading Rand's "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" nor her "Virtue of Selfishness" nor her "Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal." All books chock full of original ideas. Tell me one original idea Buckley broadcast, just one. Didn't think so. The man was not intelligent. He was a hopelessly glib, pretentious mediocrity who died a drunk. I never had to look up a single word when reading Aristotle, even his Posterior Analytics, nor Hume, nor Nietzsche, nor even Kant. I never bothered to look up any multi-syllabic words when reading the little of Buckley I read, little because I found him insufferably boring.
Atlas Shrugged was popular with one half of politics precisely because it promoted what they wanted to believe - selfishness is a virtue and altruism evil.
What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value. Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice-which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction-which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good. Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.” “Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,” Philosophy: Who Needs It, 61 Now there is one word-a single word-which can blast the morality of altruism out of existence and which it cannot withstand-the word: “Why?” Why must man live for the sake of others? Why must he be a sacrificial animal? Why is that the good? There is no earthly reason for it-and, ladies and gentlemen, in the whole history of philosophy no earthly reason has ever been given. It is only mysticism that can permit moralists to get away with it. It was mysticism, the unearthly, the supernatural, the irrational that has always been called upon to justify it-or, to be exact, to escape the necessity of justification. One does not justify the irrational, one just takes it on faith. What most moralists-and few of their victims-realize is that reason and altruism are incompatible. “Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World” Philosophy: Who Needs It, 61
Why is it moral to serve the happiness of others, but not your own? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but immoral when experienced by you? If the sensation of eating a cake is a value, why is it an immoral indulgence in your stomach, but a moral goal for you to achieve in the stomach of others? Why is it immoral for you to desire, but moral for others to do so? Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away? And if it is not moral for you to keep a value, why is it moral for others to accept it? If you are selfless and virtuous when you give it, are they not selfish and vicious when they take it? Does virtue consist of serving vice? Is the moral purpose of those who are good, self-immolation for the sake of those who are evil? The answer you evade, the monstrous answer is: No, the takers are not evil, provided they did not earn the value you gave them. It is not immoral for them to accept it, provided they are unable to produce it, unable to deserve it, unable to give you any value in return. It is not immoral for them to enjoy it, provided they do not obtain it by right. Such is the secret core of your creed, the other half of your double standard: it is immoral to live by your own effort, but moral to live by the effort of others-it is immoral to consume your own product, but moral to consume the products of others-it is immoral to earn, but moral to mooch-it is the parasites who are the moral justification for the existence of the producers, but the existence of the parasites is an end in itself-it is evil to profit by achievement, but good to profit by sacrifice-it is evil to create your own happiness, but good to enjoy it at the price of the blood of others. Your code divides mankind into two castes and commands them to live by opposite rules: those who may desire anything and those who may desire nothing, the chosen and the damned, the riders and the carriers, the eaters and the eaten. What standard determines your caste? What passkey admits you to the moral elite? The passkey is lack of value. Whatever the value involved, it is your lack of it that gives you a claim upon those who don’t lack it. It is your need that gives you a claim to rewards. If you are able to satisfy your need, your ability annuls your right to satisfy it. But a need you are unable to satisfy gives you first right to the lives of mankind. If you succeed, any man who fails is your master; if you fail, any man who succeeds is your serf. Whether your failure is just or not, whether your wishes are rational or not, whether your misfortune is undeserved or the result of your vices, it is misfortune that gives you a right to rewards. It is pain, regardless of its nature or cause, pain as a primary absolute, that gives you a mortgage on all of existence. If you heal your pain by your own effort, you receive no moral credit: your code regards it scornfully as an act of self-interest. Whatever value you seek to acquire, be it wealth or food or love or rights, if you acquire it by means of your virtue, your code does not regard it as a moral acquisition: you occasion no loss to anyone, it is a trade, not alms; a payment, not a sacrifice. The deserved belongs in the selfish, commercial realm of mutual profit; it is only the undeserved that calls for that moral transaction which consists of profit to one at the price of disaster to the other. To demand rewards for your virtue is selfish and immoral; it is your lack of virtue that transforms your demand into a moral right. A morality that holds need as a claim, holds emptiness-non-existence-as its standard of value; it rewards an absence, a defect: weakness, inability, incompetence, suffering, disease, disaster, the lack, the fault, the flaw-the zero. Galt’s Speech For the New Intellectual, 144
Where are the Buckley's, Plimpton's, Vidal's, Mailer's even Peter Ustanov's (sp) going to come from in the next century? These guys were erudite and educated simply for that! NOT to become billionaires which seems all we idolize in 2019!
Ayn Rand always believed that her teachings would have more traction among ordinary working people, because of their essential honesty, than these so-called intellectual types. The laughable thing is that while she would have died content, knowing she succeeded in what she set out to accomplish in life, pathetic little pips like these are still trying desperately to urinate on her memory and her achievement. These people only succeed in showing their true nature to anyone with perception. "The man worshippers, in my sense of the term, are those who see man's highest potential potential and strive to actualise it. The man haters are those who regard man as a helpless, depraved, contemptible creature and struggle never to let him discover otherwise. It is important here to remember that THE ONLY DIRECT INTROSPECTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF MAN ANYONE POSSESSES IS OF HIMSELF." Ayn Rand.
"a thousand pages of ideological fabulism" That's awesome.
I don’t think it’s awesome. It’s cynical, arrogant and dismissive; especially over a novel that, as Buckley observed, was/is the biggest selling novel in the world.
What Buckley derides as _ideological fabulism_ others might describe as inspirational, a vision of how the world could be, and no less valid than, say, The Lord of the Rings.
"She claimed that she never read it because it would cause too much pain. Not that she couldn't conquer pain." lmao
Fun fact, Buckley started to look that old only days after his debate with Chomsky
Was that the debate where Chomsky defended Mao and the Communist Party of China? I cringe when think of how anyone could be that wrong. Certainly you don't defend Mr. Mao - do you?
@@joedeangelis2972 No you’ve got your facts crossed, I believe you’re thinking of that debate that doesn’t exist and never happened
@@cringlator You're wrong. Chomsky even referred to it in a subsequent interview when he was belittling Firing Line as a, "television show". Of course he was willing to discuss because the crimes committed by his friend Mao were not so widely known at the time.
Frankly, I wish we could "chat' some more, but I simply don't have the time nor the patience. You're initial note was frankly ridiculous, and mean spirited - right out of the Chomsky playbook.
@@joedeangelis2972 That’s cool, I have nothing to prove to you and you seem to have it all figured out lol
@@cringlator You proved my point.
The weird witch of so- called individualism and hater of co-operational society, took social security money on the Q.T. A true hypocrite--
Nope, she was never on social security, something you pretend is a free gift when, in fact, the amount of money leftists claim she received was far less than the tax she paid and taxes aren't voluntary.
You are yet another Marxist troll and any response you make will be a complete and utter lie.
My response is---you are a well informed fellow, very smart.
Ayn Rand was against forced co operation.
Shrewd, very shrewd.
Can you choose if you have to make a living? ;)
"The highest tribute to Ayn Rand is that her critics must distort everything she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individuals rights to freedom of action, speech,& association; self responsibility, NOT self-indulgence; & a live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an END, not the MEANS of others' ends. How many critics would dare honestly state these ideas & say. "...and that's what I reject?" --Barbara Branden
She is kryptonite to Leftists, which has made her probably the most ad hommed and straw manned woman in history.
@@drew3865 She shared their atheism, but she was completely anti-Soviet, anti-communist, anti-socialist, etc.
it's nice to see this, to see that buckley seems to have mellowed out as time passed, and became more gentle, more accomodating in discussion.
He was always polite if you granted him the same courtesy. He and Gore Vidal were the exception.
I miss William F. Buckley
There are zero intellectual debates on TV these days like Buckley had. he had people he agreed with and those he opposed but all debates were very informative. Maybe Tucker carlson comes close.
@@carefulconsumer8682true
Likewise Charlie Rose
Since when did " get out of my way ! It's all for me ! Fuck you ! " become a * philosophy* ?
That's not her philosophy.
@@_lithp ::
Then tell us ... what was this morally deranged individual's views ?
Gordon Bradley :: Brilliant !
@@cliffgaither She provides an idealized ethos that gives Organized Crime a flag to rally around. Ever notice how philosophical the bad guys have gotten in movies, etc with a goal of stealing unfathomable amounts of money and then go hide in a hole and laugh at people who aren't gluttons.
Ayn Rand never said or wrote that. She said you should live for yourself WITHOUT hurting others or infringing on their Rights.
i would really like to clear something up: the speaker says "her scorn of charity and altruism." this is not a correct estimation. she had no problems with charity as a premise. her problem was with charity, by force, or charity as your highest value. end of story. how this continuously becomes misunderstood, eludes me. to reiterate: its only when someone holds a gun to your head and says "because you have so much, give some to John, its only right and fair... or else ill shoot." that is wrong.
"You liked her, I mean, you were friends?"
"Well..... " And then he shrugs, and grabs his tie. Oh, WFB you dog you!
"I had to flog myself to read it." Nice.
Buckley was a collectivist. He has helped pave the way for socialism in America
@@qeoo6578 Really? What planet did you just arrive from?
@@tooterooterville he didn't understand capitalism & hated rand who was a pro capitalist individual.
Conservatives dont like change & want to conserve things like religion. That is incompatible with capitalism.
@@qeoo6578 Oh, I see! That’s brilliant bumpkin! NOT!
George Will described Buckley as the anti Lenin of the twentieth century. I think I agree with him.
haha that's the best knock on Ayn Rand I've ever heard--that she had a COLLECTIVE of people FOLLOWING HER to discuss how you should be anti-collective.
Reminds me of the Steve Martin individualist creed. Repeat after me:
I promise to be different!
I promise to be unique!
I promise not to repeat things other people say!
dumbass
@current_interest I had a teacher in college who said the moment you decide whether you will be an intellectual is the moment you stop thinking Ayn Rand is intellectual.
current_interest Hello! I have been going the same way for over a year at this point. Have you been reading the non-fiction? And I know of a couple yt channels by Objectivists going over current events if you are interested
I don’t think you understand what collectivism means. But it’s been nine years.
@@greg55666 oh well if your teacher in college said so... lol
This was filmed ages ago, at the time it was one of the best selling books of all time with 5 million copies sold. It was selling 500,000 copies a year which at the time was quite a lot.
I consider myself too cool to have a philosophy. Also...my extremely low I.Q. allows me to react to all situations "instinctively" devoid of all thought.
Yo Prez Bush, welcome to RUclips.
i agree you have an obvious low intelligence based on the contradiction of what you think is a clever statement.
and that is the point aint it dumb-bell?
LOL
You'd be a happy man if this were true, but I doubt it is.
Generally, the more "in your head" you are, the less happy and more neurotic you are.
It was a failure by Buckley, not Rand. This should have been one of the great ideological alliances of that age. At that time, we were fighting communism (and not only with words). Instead, Buckley's lack of leadership and understanding while at NRO made Rand into an mortal enemy. It shouldn't have been that way. Rand was a tough character for sure, but I can't blame her for an over-reaction given what Whittaker Chambers wrote in his review.
The Chambers review of AS was nothing but a deliberate hit piece approved by Buckley. It belied no comprehension of the novel and of course it was never intended to.
The left sneers at Rand because she called out their socialist/communist collectivism for the dangerous garbage that it is, Christian conservatives sneer at her because she calls them on their embracing mysticism. When she told Buckley he was too intelligent to believe in God apparently she gave him too much credit.
"The highest tribute to Ayn Rand, is that her critics must distort
everything she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason,
not force; the individual’s rights to freedom of action, speech, and
association; self-responsibility, NOT self-indulgence; and a
live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an
END, not the MEANS of others’ ends. How many critics would dare
honestly state these ideas and say, ” . . .and that’s what I reject”?--Barbara Branden
The works of an artist does not necessarily have to match their tragic lives. I am not a Michael Jackson fan, but I do remember a song "Man in the mirror" - a song conserning personal choices and morality. Artists personal lives seldom live up to the standards that they set in their work. Nobody can be rational 100% of the time. We all occasionally give into our whims.
Rand doesn't need an apologist. She took ideas seriously and lived up to her principles. She absolutely made mistakes about people, and she was attacked and smeared in exactly the ways she showed her characters being smeared in her books. But if you research the whole picture and don't just cherry-pick the stories of her detractors, quite a different picture from their claims emerges.
@eparkison DUDE!! Do you know what the friggin word "coerced" means, it means FORCED!!. The free market system is the very opposite of force, in the free market system nobody is FORCING anybody to work as a doctor, the individual decides ON HIS OWN if he wants to pursue that as a career.
The “free market” is anything but. Capitalism is rife with coercion. You have the illusion of choice. 15 different cans of beans to choose from isn’t freedom of choice.
Rand was an ideological Don Quixote for the most part. Fighting Stalin here in America.
If you cut through all the opinions, Ayn Rand was about the right and freedom of every person to determine their own destiny.
She had the mentality and understanding of a child.
I read all of her non fiction too but I wouldn't call the first hand accounts of her friends "gossip." How she lived and the choices she made are a good indication about her philosophy in practice. And the fact is that she found ways to rationalise any desire she had.
That is because her main premise is of "personal happiness" which is whatever you desire.
People dislike Rand because they can't read her without secretly realizing how much that hate themselves, and how bitter and resentful they are for making them aware of how much they hate themselves.
I think that Mr. Buckley would have had a more engaging and enlightened interview with Pauly Shore rather than Charlie Rose. Rose makes Larry King seem positively brilliant.
Write-on !!
'
Simmer down
Rose was obnoxious, with his constant interruptions.
@@paulbradford6475 --- Because he had nothing to contribute; a paper-doll poseur.
Imagine if Ayn Rand was alive at the time of Karl Marx what a debate would ensue perhaps the course of world history may have changed delegating Karl Marx to the garbage pile of time
I don't care that they didn't like the book of her philosophy but they acted like a bunch of intellectual snobs and used the same old tired meme to diminish her and her works.
Ayn Rand is one of the sanest authors I have ever had the pleasure to read.
Genuinely an appalling author
Genuinely a brilliant mind and a brilliant author.
@@bettersteps hyperboles the order of the day hey?
@@SuperDecdog How to Speak and Write Correctly by Joseph Devlin.
@@bettersteps Devlin a far more skilled writer than Rand this is true.
Always enjoyed Hitchens destroying Rand, not to mention Wolff’s account of her in ‘old school.’
When I was young I read everything by Ayn Rand and was devoted to her ideas. Then I became more mature, got a college education, traveled the world and, having grown up, I set aside those simple, childish ideas, realizing that the world is a much more complex place. Her ideas grow out of her anger at what she lost resulting from the revolutions of 1917 in Russia. If you read her non-fiction her shrill anger and hate are quite evident. For someone who champions something called "Objectivism" she was not very objective. Reason is a tool that can be used to justify all sorts of atrocities. It also depends on the premises that you start out with. If you reason from false premises you will not make any sense as Ayn Rand does fail to make sense, except within the fictional world and false premises contained in her limited thinking. She paints a pretty picture in her novels for the gullible and foolish. See also how in her non-fiction she uses her fictional character's dialogue as "evidence" for her ideas. Such self referencing is not evidence of anything except narcissism.
What political or socioeconomic system have you landed on now that you've grown up? Or are you still searching?
Could it be that she did not like the murderous Communist dictatorship that took over Russia? Have you ever lived through something like that? Or maybe you're OK with it?
@@chilidogg2047 You're missing my point. Certainly it was traumatic and tragic to have lost so much because of such an experience. My point is that the understandable anger she took away feeds her intellectual rationalizations to the extent that her ideas often fail to make sense. She often contradicts herself or uses fallacious arguments with weak or non-existent evidence to make her point. She paints the world in very black and white simplistic terms that fail to address the complexity of the issues she attempts to address. For a so-called "Objectivist" she is not very objective and I believe her understandable hate and anger fatally colors her perspective. She champions reason but fails to see the dubious assumptions that underlay her thinking and her reasoning is quite often faulty as a result. I got a lot from Ayn Rand when I was young but as I matured I grew past the puerile positions that at my young age did make a difference because they got me started on an intellectual path that became richer and allowed me to see the fallacies and falsehoods driven by her anger. I advise you to read her non-fiction and you may notice much of what I am stating. Then again if your are, like so many of her adherents, slavishly "convinced" no amount of evidence will change your mind.
Your problem is, though you read Rand, you NEVER grokked Objectivism. You became brainwashed by left-wing liberal-think.
Buckley was - gloriously - what would now be called an old-school conservative. He was distinguished by being fiercely intelligent, well-read, and beyond all, THOUGHTFUL. This enabled him to fathom more than one side of an argument.
@trysometruth - he was well read yet managed to be on the wrong side of pretty much everything.
As a left-wing socialist, I agree. For it, he has my respect
How much of an intellectual could he be if he doesn't understand...or purposely misstates...Rand's view on Charity. She had no problem with charity...as long as it was not given as a 'duty', but freely given according to the inner wishes of the giver.
Ayn Rand wrote more than just a few novels. She also explained her philosophy in detail in at least three non-fiction books. To characterize her as an eccentric fool who only wrote inferior fiction is both unfair and inaccurate. I'm surprised that such erudite men as Buckley and Rose chose to giggle their way through a discussion of her as a philosopher. Whether one agrees or disagrees with her philosophy, no one cannot deny that her work has had a profound effect on the world of ideas and on society at large. Buckley and Rose acted like a couple of jealous schoolboys trying to ridicule someone they disagreed with. Shame on them. I thought they were better people than that.
The man Rush Limbaugh looked up too to find inspiration (as well as the other conservatives out there.) He is sorely missed.
Rush Limbaugh is a buffoon on the order of Donald Trump compared to Buckley and Reagan.
Limbaugh is a joke compared to WFB.
@eparkison The whole reason corporations are outsourcing in the first place is because they would rather work in countries where the government is more friendly towards business, these "third world" countries are so hard up for business and work that they are willing to allow the corporations to operate freely as long as they will remain to create jobs. If you continue to do things like raise the minimum wage, create bossy unions etc. then the corporations are going to continue to outsource.
LexRex ::
Do you really believe corporations outsource because of minimum wage increases & "bossy" unions ?
Unions come into existence because of corporate maltreatment of employees / low wages / unsafe working conditions ... Even if employees were content, CEOs would still outsource to maximize profits. Wages are lower elsewhere / they don't have to trouble themselves w / regulation standards / occupational health & safety protocols / employee benefits / health benefits / seditious employee conversations about labor-organizing & tiresome lunch-breaks, after 5hrs. of working ...
Workers are responsible for those profits because of their labor. There would be no corporations w / o the labor of workers.
@@cliffgaither The issue is that these corporations are allowed to outsource in th first place. We need nationalistic and protectionist policies to make sure that these massive globalist corporations are loyal to the American people.
@@WorshipInTruth ::
Sounds good !
How do we regulate nationalistic feelings from the globalists ? It's like trying to eradicate national racism ( sounds good, but impossible ).
Greed will always "trump" nationalism. When it comes to economics, it's Capitalism Without Borders.
"Protectionism" ? We already have that to protect the domestic industries from foreign competition.
We need New, Progressive Policies that bring about Nationalism & Domestic Protection & especially, New Politicians !
@@cliffgaither "How do we regulate nationalistic feelings from the globalists ?"..."Greed will always "trump" nationalism. When it comes to economics, it's Capitalism Without Borders."..."New Politicians !"....
You are answering your own question. What we need to do is replace the people in power with actual idealists and populists. This democracy with competing interests does not work, a national "strongman" is necessary to reign in the wolves and protect the flock. I think a lot of Nationalists had hoped that Trump could potentially be that "strongman" (at least to the extent that Putin is in Russia) and the leftists always hysterically feared Trump knowing what he could have been..... but alas Trump was no savior and never made any serious attempt to drain any swamp.
@@WorshipInTruth :: Well ... maybe I did answer my own question, but you put the thoughts in my head. I blame this on you 😂 !
Don't you think a "strongman" of any kind is dangerous ? We don't have any guarantees. How long would a strongman, guarding the flock, last w / o being assassinated ?
Democracy "has too many competing interests" is very true, but I know you've heard about democracy being "messy". We have enough common interests to over-come the messiness. 70% of the public supports Bernie's programs ; 52% of Republicans. That's a great start for a coalition, I think. We definitely have to turn things around at the polls. I'm just afraid of strongmen. What happens when "his" policies start to mess w / you 😄 ?
And it’s All coming true ! Way ahead of her time! She’ll be remembered a lot longer than either of these guys ! We’re beyond Atlas Shrugged and now coming up to “1984” 🤮
Welfare checks "destroy incentive and motivation?" Really? How could getting to $300/m do that? It's not enough to live off of so it's not a viable alternative to having a job which pays enough to actually survive. Therefore it's not an incentive to "live off the teat." I'm going to assume that you have this fantasy in which people on welfare make thousands of dollars per month; not true. Just because you can develop an internally coherent philosophy doesn't mean that it accords w/ reality.
She wasn't just an idiot, she was one of the most influential idiots of our times. As Buckley noted in this video, Alan Greenspan, a devotee of Rand, ran the most powerful economic body in the world for nearly 20 years.
A Jew influenced a Jew
Here's a real conservative. He sees through the naivete of belligerent meritocrats to the social darwinism lurking in the background. Bravo Buckley.
a "real conservative" tha loves US insterventionist policy ? bullshit LOL
Unlike most of the commenters here, I miss WFB.
As always, a true gent, Buckley can destroy someone and make you smile about it.
“A thousand pages of ideological fabulism”
One of the only correct statements that Ayn Rand ever made was to WFB, "You are too intelligent to believe in GOHTT"
“Too intelligent to believe in God”, and yet this intelligent man did. It makes me wonder if I’m too intelligent or too stupid to believe. Currently, I find it hard to believe.
@jeffreyhurst9552 then you are a critical thinker. Keep it up.
An intellectual means someone who is fundamentally unsound, who has no real blood and soil allegiance to the organic religious society, who has no loyalties except to the mind and reason, is a skeptic and so forth.
Rose interrupts too much
"Ideological fabulism" is how the unprincipled describe idealism. He published a dishonest assassination by the unprincipled Whittaker Chambers without having himself read the book at that time. His low point.
Full of lies, as is common with all the Rand-haters.
Lol, this makes me love Leonard Peikoff's comment from the 1984 debate even more: "As far as William Buckley is concerned, please do not confuse us with that entity."
Lol, from what debate is that? Do you have a link?
John Tyson
Just search for "1984 debate capitalism socialism" here on youtube :D
hermanessences Thanks for the source, I will watch that at some point.
This guy has quite an ego. Not only that, I have a feeling he's a gossip.
Am I the only one who thinks that Buckley is a pompous git?
They spoke about her ideas with such a condescending tone it pisses me off. I don't agree with Rand, but at least discuss her ideas.
British people just happen to do that. Big words void of two decades later sensibilities and colloquialism is not arrogance.
Trosclair434 genus funny thing is Buckley is from up state New York! He commonly gets confused as British but it’s a old aristocratic New York accent
"She liked me up until I published a review of her book by Whitaker Chambers."
A review that was factually incorrect on details that would have been incredibly hard to mistake and that basically accused her of being pro-genocide. Would you really expect someone to like you after you publish lies about her that vicious? Really?
Expect Rand to like Buckley? No, but I would expect YOU to stay assiduously away from parties where that rotten publisher was planning to show up. Don't forget to check with the host before showing your face.
BruceinFalkirk, you are just making claims with no merit.
You noticed how Buckley also mentions another hack reviewer who bascially accuses her ideology of leading to genocide? That wasn't accidental, this man's a clown, and his National Reivew has become the Laughing Stock of the Right!
"Atlas Shrugged" was all about mass death.
@@nathanielhellerstein5871 Wow, you really know nothing about the book. To the extent that it deals with mass death she's against it.
Buckley was a great intellectual. He was also a freakin' jerk. The two are NOT mutually exclusive.
Nobody likes being reminded how obtuse they truly are lol
buckley was a CIA agent. he was a crony capitalist.
Sounds like Ellsworth Toohey:p
El Rushbo’s imitation of WFB was spot on…..Miss them both.
I tried to read Atlas Shrugged - got to page 90 - just about died
boring?
because you are stupid
Ayn Rand = Rosa Klebb inspiration?
Rand ended up on Social Security and Medicare!
Star Trek Theory
It was in her self interest to take back what was taken from her.
That is the whole point of Social Security! LOL
She believed it wasn't in her self-interest to have Social Security taken from her in the first place because she believed she got in return less than what she exchanged to receive it.
She didn't have kids. She said it wasn't in her self interest to have any.
Now, you say her life was sad. Consider this: she was happy, wealthy and wielded considerable political power due to her philosophy.
In short, her ideas actually worked. She had a great life. That's the test of any philosophy.
Now as yourself the following question: are you powerful? Are you wealthy? Are you happy? And if not, why is it that your philosophy is not as effective as hers for making you a success in the world?
AVATAR PARADIGMS The fact is she was wrong, just like Marx was wrong. Can you name any Objectivist states apart from Somalia! LOL
kant is blasphemy burn all the books of kant.
haha her scorn for charity -- the FIRST action of the book is Eddie Willers being charitable!
Yea, didnt get that either. In that interview with Mike Wallace she said that charity should be from individuals not co-erced and not by govt.WFB twisted her views on charity for a good laugh with Charlie the Molester.
Wtf, WB thinks that Atlas Shrugged is the biggest selling novel in the history of the world? What criteria am I missing?
He meant shit libertarian drivel
Buckley was such a fascinating character - great style and a great command of English. "1,000 pages of fabulism" , his use of the word '"nominate" in its older sense
I think he said "denominate"
I have yet to see an actual critic of Rand that has points instead of snarky remarks.
wow you are impressed waaaaaayyyy too easy. I got some shiny rocks for you to play with.
Ayn Rand is the complete opposite of George Orwell. Orwell explained in his essay "Why I write":
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism"
Of Ayn Rand's work, it was the other way around.
god damn altas shrugged is a brutal book, i wonder when i'm finish if i'll ever care to read novels anymore.
If you find it good, novels ain’t for you
@@SuperDecdog Enlighten us mortals with recommendations.
@@reginald_1458 any other novel lol
As Gore Vidal famously told Buckley to his face, you sir are a crypto-fascist. In my opinion the term pseudo intellectual narcissist fits as well. Buckley had a lot in common with Rand who was also a pseudo intellectual crypto-fascist narcissist who engaged in class warfare by promoting an amoral political philosophy that was not only often simplistic and contradictory but conveniently self-serving if you're a member of the rich white privileged ruling class like Buckley.
"An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization."
Ayn Rand was morally reprehensible, but not a fascist.
It is also very easy to throw the word "pseudo intellectual" around.
Oscar Manzke The term pseudo-intellectual applies to Rand because she really never had any new or original idea's. Instead she just repackaged the same tired old concepts of feudalism and the divine rights of royal entitlement. Only she applied the concept of divine rights to the 20th century elite, robber barons and corporate CEO's as if they were kings.
The classic text book definition of fascism as occurred under Mussolini in Italy is defined as the collusion of a gov't and the corporate elite to exploit and oppress the masses. Strong nationalism was a component of that but used primarily only to justify the collusion of gov't and corporate power for the greater good. In Rand's vision of the perfect world private corporations pursuing their self-interests would be all powerful and control gov't which is essentially the same thing as fascism.
I found Rand's Mike Wallace interview most revealing. In it Rand claims that her ideology Objectivism is superior to ALL other moral beliefs because it's based solely on empirical facts, reason and logic not faith. She then goes on to make the grandiose claim as if it were an established empirical fact that simply by separating Gov't from the economy we can create a self-regulating lassie faire free market economy that will bring peace, co-oporation and justice among men.
So logically the first thing I asked myself is when and where has such a self-regulating free market ever existed? The answer is Rand's self-regulating lassie faire economy has never existed anywhere in recorded history and Rand herself never provided any documented empirical evidence to prove the existence of such a "free market" either.
Thats Rand's deceptive bait and switch. Contrary to what Rand promised us, to believe in Objectivism one has to blindly rely on faith instead of relying on facts, reason or logic. So my conclusion is Rand was either a complete fraud, delusional megalomaniac an idiot or some combination of all those things.
what does "pseudo-intellectual" actually mean?
its just name calling
roman14032 A pesudo-intellectual is someone who falsely presents themselves and/or their specious ideas as the product of a superior intellect, but upon closer examination their ideas don't stand up to critical objective analysis.
Rand routinely contradicted herself, deceitfully distorted well documented historical events and intentionally misrepresented Objectivism which she claimed was based solely on facts but instead is a cynically hypocritical "faith based" belief system.
In short Rand was a complete fraud who created an ideological Trojan Horse designed to persuade the middle class and poor to participate in class warfare against themselves in the pursuit of "freedom". But how free will anyone be when they're locked into a cycle of debt to all powerful monopolistic corporations who own everything and control gov't?
Thats the wet dream of the 1% who have organized and spent millions of $ promoting the "virtues" of Rand in the corporate controlled media.
so.........she ,as a "pseudo-intellectual" engaged in a misleading,distorted and self contradictory.polemic in order to advance her class warfare agenda?
and you on the other hand are what?,
As much as I dislike Buckley's political ideology, and philosophy, at least the man had a likable sense of graciousness and charm. Conservatives in our current era, are like rubes from the hills.
Love him or hate him, you can't accuse Buckley of not being a realist. Even as a Liberal, I can listen to the man.
Agreed, at least he valued logic and rationality when presenting his arguments.
g4macdad says the guy who no doubt supports antifa thugs pulling political opponents out of cars and smashing store windows
I watched the documentary about him and Vidal thinking I was going to be "Team Vidal". I immediately liked Buckley more. He had values, reason, and logic and stood up for. Vidal literally said nothing and was pure fluff. Vidal was prettier but that was it.
there's an old saying: 'a liberal will stab you in the back, but with a conservative you will see the knife coming.' To say conservatives in the current era are rubes from the hills speaks to what a twat you are and to bemoan the elitism for which the left is known. A philosophy devoid of empirical evidence to support itself relies on other tactics, typically in our age, the art of character assassination and belittling the other as "rubes."
Bless Mr. Buckley's heart but the greatest selling novel in the history of the world is Don Quixote followed by a Tale of Two Cities followed by Le Petit Prince. Where does he get his statistics? Atlas Shrugged does not even make the top ten. What is his source to make such a statement? It placed 20th on the Great American Read in 2018, but is hardly the same.
It's funny how all these Christians out here think ayn rand is god like yet her main view is the antithesis to the message of jesus.
Bobba Thefett ::
The hierarchy of the "Christians" aren't about Jesus' teachings. They are about control / money / extreme right-wing ideologies. Christianity is just a means to an end ; a cover for authoritarianism.
( imo )
@@cliffgaither agreed. I wish more people would see this.
This video could also be titled "William F. Buckley, Jr. attempts, for three minutes and forty-three seconds, to not call Charlie Rose an idiot."
3:12 "You are too intelligent to believe in God."
" I'm to intelligent"
*Oh yeah, really intelligent there... LOL*
I just quoted this because it sounds funny... I like his impersonation. :)
*****
*too
*Obviously...*
Ayn Rand believes in God; she scoffed at democracy, and so God would be the only thing enforcing the Constitution.
Touted as one of the best modern age classic Atlas Shrugged is one of the most controversial and bold books written by anyone .
I completed reading Atlas Shrugged yesterday. It took me 5 years and 4 month to complete this book. You can imagine I am not much a reader but mostly, read for pleasure. The plot is laden with subterfuge on the part of Government which is wanting to nationalise everything, a lady is fighting this system along with an lathario Business man and another astute one who all, eventually seems to congregate with others in a world of "purpose". I love the idea, but I felt the book was more of an idealist, ramble than a realist roadmap for the future. Like most authors, Ayn was able to identify the problem but her solution was a mere figment of imagination of a fancy world, devoid of any subterfuge and chicanery. Thus is perhaps, why the books appeals to a teenage and mid twenties group, than it does to, more mature men. I also found the plot to be really devoid of any real meat. Dagny the protagonist seemed to be a "slut" who doesn't mind sleeping around with married men or otherwise. She dated all the leading men in the book and slept with all of them. What surprised me the most, was how they were so happy and devoid of any envy for the each other despite the fact that all three loved her, which was a little too much to begin with, and further they all go on to live "together" happily ever after. It seemed to me that Ayn Rand was visualizing herself as Dagny and living her fantasises through this character. Being somewhat of a misogynist myself, I simply find this behaviour, very typical of most young girls or even some older woman, who want several intelligent and handsome to love them, from where they can cherry pick one.
What blew my lid off was the portrayal of "John Galt" the main protagonist. She goes to a great extend describing his physical features presenting him as greek God, who happens to be a great engineer, and a great orator and a leader, all in one, package. That's the most ludicrous description of a character and clearly a figment of her imagination which perhaps will savour to the taste of the impressionable whippersnapper, who wants to change the world.
I would have had no trouble if the book was presented as a fictional piece of work in its entirety. However it was a portrayed almost as contemporary evolution of events around the world. She was cleverly using the word USA but what she actually meant was USSR. Perhaps she should have candid about the society which she was portraying. This was almost list perching to the choir - Americans love capitalism and free market and Laissez-faire, and this books preaches the demonisation of govt. controls and socialism.
Never mind the length of the book, or the soliloquy which each character incessantly falls into so darn frequently, that it almost feels like a pattern. I had to pretty much skip several parts, though I never lost track of the plot or key words which would typically be spoken at the end of a chapter, yet the book is long and takes and age to complete.
However, the book, ends so abruptly that you almost don't expect it to, was actually picking up the pace, though i honestly didn't mind as exhausted reading so far. A new world is created by perhaps a magic wand which Rand was always carrying in her arsenal. She had to end it and she decided, all right here comes the "new" world and don't ask me how. The book talks about reason all through, but I couldn't find a reason here, where she uses her magical skills more than her reasoning ability to lay foundations of a NEW world.
Anyways, on a lighter note I managed to learn several new words which I realised, were her favourite perhaps - "Brusquely" was one of them, "Insolence" was another and "recalcitrant" was another. There were many others of course, but I seem to remember these, quite distinctly.
All in all I think, you should read this book not for the love of it but for the fact that you can always use it to stir up intellectual debates and play along in any so called intellectual clubs. Perhaps, its is also a good book for those of you who want to connect with the younger generation, who will definitely have strong association with the concepts mentioned in this book.
I am now planning to read "The fountain Head" which was more of prologue to this book. Perhaps, I can approach the second one with a lesser expectation and feel happier about. All in all its a good read if you can manage to complete it.
Cheers. I read several hundred pages of AS and don't think I'll bother to pick it up again now.
Good man ! AS disingenuously, paints a black and white view of the world, which might appeal to the romantic views of a recalcitrant teenager. Life is much more shades of grey :)
Yes! Preach it brother! The book not only pushed the characters to the extremes of their personas but also the 'villains'. It was like a work of fiction! We need MORE government controls and MORE socialism in the US! Who needs individualism anyhow, right? I will not sleep until we have FULL socialism/communism in the US! ALL HAIL BIG BROTHER! or else!
hail trump -
I finished it actually about 5 hours ago. And quite frankly I disagree. It is a pitiful attempt at literature. The characters are largely bland. Especially John Galt. And the idea of John Galt is amazing. Just some guy who became a god-like figure purely through word of mouth. But then she actually makes him godlike. That defeats the purpose. The idea that a man can achieve godlike notoriety is worth noting. the idea that a god can achieve godlike notoriety isnt.
And the fact that she tries to make all her characters perfect. Its stupid. Ragnar is a superior character precisely because he isnt perfect. Hank is better because of his whole internalize opresion. But it is wasted.
and finally, she misses the chance to discuss the issues with capitalism that are actually worth discussing. I am a capitalist. But ive still got some problems.
Some percentage of the population will never be able to produce. What do we do about those people. And that is a problem worth talking about.
The assault on 'the individual' was perfectly encapsulated in the film, Rollerball.
"In the Global Corporate-controlled world of 2018, the individual free-thinking spirit has been almost completely eradicated by the corporate bulldozer. The Caan character is a man whose individual expressive seed still stirs and under increasing psychological pressures from his corporate puppet masters, begins to recognize and resist the depth of control that is exerted on his own individual destiny and illusion of freedom."
ruclips.net/video/_mMcEjBhC4k/видео.html
Many, many people felt that Buckley was too intelligent to actually believe in God. Ayn Rand was not the only one. I think it was simply because he was brought up in a Catholic family, and he hever had the guts to question his parents and grandparents. It's a shame. It diminished him.
Atlas Shrugged had an enormous impact on my life. I was living in Cairo Egypt working on my business and it provided English entertainment for me in the evening, so reading it wasn't too much of a chore. The first hundred or so pages was tedious but the story was engrossing past that. For ten years prior to that, I was struggling with the trauma Christian Fundamentalism imparted. John Galt's speech was my first introduction to a philosophical system. It changed my life and helped purge the delusional muck of religion from my mind, and inspired me to become a philosopher. In that, she remains a hero of mine.
Eventually I became an "Ayn Rand Scholar" as I pursued the foundational elements of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, aesthetics and logic. I soon parted ways with objectivism once I realized that the monetary system that we have today is a system of institutionalized violence. I realized that money was not a tool of trade but a permission slip of survival corporate elitists controlled and manipulated through the government. A system that has no regard for compassion or empathy for individuals, or takes into consideration the differences in an individual's neurology that determines whether or not one can be "successful".
She approached her philosophy with that same tired egalitarianism that in some mystical way all minds are equal and all humans are equally competent to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps". We are not. Some can play they piano or the stock market to virtuosity but most can't no matter how hard they try. She never had the benefit of neuroscience to help shape her philosophy.
Her fantasy of laissez fair capitalism is untenable. It would require a global philosophical shift for people to deal rationally with one. That is NOT EVER going to happen.
Of course we're not all born equal in all things. But your life should be the best it can.
@@michaelsvoboda1024 Okay. That immediately implies the good life and the just city, which leads us to the nature of humankind and the optimal politico-economic system for an individual - any individual - to survive and thrive.
SO BASICALLY YOU WASTED YOUR TIME READING AND THINKING ABOUT AN INCONSEQUENTIAL AUTHOR.
@James Hicks - not everyone is equally gifted. How does that entitle you to confiscate someone else's wealth?
That was a devastating review of the book... it was spot on!
I understand the Idea that if you make something it should not automatically belong to every one which is what I think she was trying to say but the idea that the wealth of the world should belong to a select few is also wrong. Reality is somewhere in the middle. There should be an opportunity for everyone to make their lives better if they worked at it.
@@jimflagg4009It's like she had never actually read any real philosophy at all. She's basically a naive crank. If only she had read and understood Locke.
12/16/11:
Christopher Hitchens died last night, and after visiting with him in various moments of his televised life, thanks to RUclips, I realized that I was missing my other most-favored public thinker, WFB, so I came here. They both loathe "Atlas Shrugged," which, given their fealty to individual liberty (Hitch's, post 9/11/01) is inexplicable; and, as I have often observed, their vocal cadences, to say nothing of their protean erudition, are eerily similar.
randy95023
I agree with your first comment:
"Anthem" is a dystopian novel on a par with "1984," "Animal Farm," and "Brave New World," and should be read in tandem with them.
@Bellantoni
Meaning, she was for totalitarianism and against "democratic" socialism (an oxymoron if ever there was one)?
You've got to read "Atlas" over again, you have misread her completely:
The simple construct "the Individual against the Collective," infusing everything she wrote, refutes that silly, ill-informed assertion.
althmanne
I believe I admire you for your last three sentences.
Hitchens on Atlas shrugged
ruclips.net/video/M7c-Ei7btbI/видео.html
Shit!...when the hell was Emperor Palpatine interviewed by Charlie Rose? How the fuck did I miss that, and why does he have it in for Ayn Rand?
0:49 that's just objectively false. So many novels have sold more than Atlas Shrugged. Makes me wonder if Buckley actually believed much of anything he said, or if he was more concerned about dramatically presenting his observations as profound.
@SuperPythagore Of course, now that I think about it, most of these kids in high school have trouble reading "A Cat in a Hat", much less "Atlas Shrugged". Shame, I loved "Atlas Shrugged" at 14, and since I read it at such a young age, it truly influenced my life positively.
A COUNTER TO POST MODERNISM, OBJECTIVE EPISTEMOLOGY
@skysiz
I love it, conservatives hating conservatives, thanks for the laugh.
She wasn't a conservative at all. She was an extremist thug, similar to democrats in todays congress.
The Greenspan Myth continues. He was not "bewitched". I'm still trying to figure out just what he was, but that's not it. And as an aside, where does this "Go to the Gas Chamber, Go" quote come from? "Biggest selling novel in the History of the world, BTW.."
She indeed would not have been there, because you never hesitated to try to humiliate her works at every turn, Bill. Your impulsive condescension tends to bring a loathsome stench.
Any Rand spoke volumes of truth and people usually cannot handle too much of that.
Buckley and other conservatives are collectivists. She was for freedom
@@qeoo6578 She was a self-absorbed entertainer. NOTHING more. There is nothing people worship more than their entertainment.
@@andrewfrankovic6821 great argument
The term 'swivel-eyed' could have been invented for Rand.
I have not read a single intelligible attack on Ayn Rand other than Ad-hominem.
john26, one blunder of Ayn Rand is her assumption she had answered Hume by supposedly demonstrating how she succeeded in deriving a moral value from a fact with a logical inference that is valid. She didn't. Her error is her assumption that an instrumental "ought," because a man is [the kind of being he is] determines what he ought to do [to achieve his survival or actualization] as the kind of being he is solves the notorious is-ought problem. It doesn't. As Hume might point out, her premise, the fact of man being the kind of living entity he is, itself cannot be logically justified as a moral value. It's nothing more than a brute fact. Rand assumes it is a moral value as a kind of axiom, that is, without proof. We may want to feel that our survival in and of itself has moral value. But feelings altogether are not a tool of cognition.
Her ideology sucks
read more
Really? There are lots of criticisms of Ayn Rand's work which are definitely not ad-hominem. Here's one example: www.academia.edu/5685251/Egoism_versus_Rights
As for whether you find it intelligible or not... well that's down to you and your ability to understand academic philosophical writing, I'm afraid.
"Rand did not advocate stepping over others."
OK, sure fine. But that sentence has little to do with philosophical critique in the article I linked to.
The article I linked to suggests that Ayn Rand constructs a straw man argument against other philosophers. She posits "egoism" and "altruism" as a necessary binary choice. She attributes "altruism" to anyone she happens to disagree with (e.g. Marx, Kant, etc). She then defines "altruism" in very extreme terms, which makes it impossible to agree with it as a doctrine and necessary to agree with her position: "egoism".
Yet the extreme way she defines "altruism" (this is her term by the way) has little to do with the ideas of the people she is using the term to criticize. It serves as a simplifying device to side-step and obscure a whole range of philosophical problems which have been debated for centuries. This is why philosophers don't take her seriously.
The problem we have is not that philosophers don't understand Ayn Rand. Her ideas aren't all that complex. The problem is that "Objectivists" (even the term is ridiculous) don't understand other philosophers and uncritically take Ayn Rand's word for it when she claims to have refuted them.
I’m lost. He never read it, but posted a review of it? Uhm ok you’re critique is dismissed
Buckley was the founder and editor of National Review. He meant that his publication published the review.
@@colinmontgomery5492 ah. Sounds very irresponsible of him. Aren’t you supposed to give the okay anyway for what’s gonna get printed? He literally out here saying yeah I was dick.
Buckley has mellowed in his old age.
Buckley was more of an intellectual than you will ever be.
Individualism. Read her book, Anthem and you will understand her philosophy.
It was, sadly, very important to Buckley to be considered respectable by the Charlie Roses of the world.
Wow, you just revealed your great ignorance. Buckley, like a true conservative, did not despise humans as you evidently do. Your not conservative, your just a bigot. It's going to be hard to accept, but like Buckley I will pray for your soul.
WFB was my college graduation commencement speaker (1984). It was a conservative college back then. Now it's a liberal hellhole and I don't send them one cent.
Tantalizing brief, but funny comments by Buckley... wait, did I say, "FUNNY"??
Always amazed by the number (any over zero) of people who champion government dependence, as if standing up and being a man was something to be avoided at all cost.
octopibingo So, basically, every rich and powerful person in history.
octopibingo I'm puzzled by your complete omission of the other stages of life, not to mention conditions under which it's impossible to 'stand up' and make money for oneself.
octopibingo I'm always amazed at the number of people who champion such simplistic reasoning of a far more complex reality.
Cheyenne Sage At which "stages of life" in life is it "impossible to 'stand up' and make money for oneself"? You could argue of you over simplify 0 years to 3 years or so... but after that once one can toddler around, or roll around, or what ever... past that point when can one NOT?
octopibingo The truth is to take responsibly for one's own problems and hardships is just that. If there is some around who will tell you that you do not have to ,MOST would do just that.
Those in the Voluntarism camp need to accept: that a valid choice is choosing to be a dependent. While those who make that choice need to accept that it is not one they can force on others to make them self feel better about making that choice and the limitations that go with it.
Venezuela is a living example of Atlas Shrugged.
No, Venezuela is an example of what happens to a 3rd World country which succeeded in making its citizens prosperous, until the global economic system cut off its legs by manipulating the price of its main export, oil.
+Libertyjack That was the funniest comment so far on RUclips :)
The US is a living example of Atlas Shrugged...
It will become that if the Kochs, et al, have their way.
Venezuela is collapsing due to Marxism.
Buckley the alcoholic and Rose the fired predator. Nice combo.
And J Cassidy the bitter nobody.
@@roughhabit9085 That's not very nice. You sound angry. Probably haven't gotten laid in a while, huh pal?
If you haven't read "The Virtue of Selfishness", "The Romantic Manifesto" as well as "The Encyclopedia of Objectivist Epistemology", (he hasn't) you don't get to comment on Ayn Rand, lest you embarrass yourself Mr. Buckley.
I read Chambers' review of Atlas Shrugged in National Review. I couldn't believe how stupid it was. In fact, his review sounded like he was reviewing another book I had never read. I wondered if his misinterpretation of the ideas in the book was deliberate lying or just a manifestation of that moral imbecility he divulged when he allowed himself to be deceived by the communist idiocy at one time in his life. I've never trusted converts. That Buckley thinks his review was devastating goes to Buckley's own intellectual superficiality. I stopped watching Firing Line precisely because I couldn't stand his glib superficiality and the larding of his speech with two-bit, multi-syllabic words that exhibited a total lack of literary taste. A listener required a dictionary to understand what he was saying. Dryde, Milton, Pope, Marlowe, Shakespeare, Keats, Shelley, Wordsworth, Gray, etc., one thing you notice in their poetry is that they abjure multi-syllabic words. There isn't a single word they use in their poetry that a junior high student wouldn't understand. Buckley's newspaper columns were insufferably pretentious without the slightest intellectual value.
permian350
Isn't there a saying that goes something like, the more words you use,which nobody understands, the more you are trying to hide something?
permian350
For the record, Buckley didn't write a review, but he published one.
Facts are good
If someone is using too many words you don't understand, you need to read more. And, no, there is no saying like that.
For the record, I never said Buckley wrote a review of AS. I said Chambers wrote the review. If facts are good, then why don't you start perceiving them!
If someone is larding his speech with too many words I don't understand it's obvious he's memorized definitions to sound intelligent that are totally needless to convey a significant and original idea. Anybody can memorize definitions of multi-syllabic words. What's the point? Ayn Rand was an original thinker. Buckley was a mere journalist without his whole life coming up with an original idea, superficial chatterbox he. I never had to look up a single word when reading Rand's "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" nor her "Virtue of Selfishness" nor her "Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal." All books chock full of original ideas. Tell me one original idea Buckley broadcast, just one. Didn't think so. The man was not intelligent. He was a hopelessly glib, pretentious mediocrity who died a drunk.
I never had to look up a single word when reading Aristotle, even his Posterior Analytics, nor Hume, nor Nietzsche, nor even Kant. I never bothered to look up any multi-syllabic words when reading the little of Buckley I read, little because I found him insufferably boring.
Atlas Shrugged was popular with one half of politics precisely because it promoted what they wanted to believe - selfishness is a virtue and altruism evil.
Mac Howard except that most of the political rights wrongly accepts altruism as a virtue.
Nope, they just pretend to...
What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.
Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice-which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction-which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.
Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”
“Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 61
Now there is one word-a single word-which can blast the morality of altruism out of existence and which it cannot withstand-the word: “Why?” Why must man live for the sake of others? Why must he be a sacrificial animal? Why is that the good? There is no earthly reason for it-and, ladies and gentlemen, in the whole history of philosophy no earthly reason has ever been given.
It is only mysticism that can permit moralists to get away with it. It was mysticism, the unearthly, the supernatural, the irrational that has always been called upon to justify it-or, to be exact, to escape the necessity of justification. One does not justify the irrational, one just takes it on faith. What most moralists-and few of their victims-realize is that reason and altruism are incompatible.
“Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 61
Why is it moral to serve the happiness of others, but not your own? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but immoral when experienced by you? If the sensation of eating a cake is a value, why is it an immoral indulgence in your stomach, but a moral goal for you to achieve in the stomach of others? Why is it immoral for you to desire, but moral for others to do so? Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away? And if it is not moral for you to keep a value, why is it moral for others to accept it? If you are selfless and virtuous when you give it, are they not selfish and vicious when they take it? Does virtue consist of serving vice? Is the moral purpose of those who are good, self-immolation for the sake of those who are evil?
The answer you evade, the monstrous answer is: No, the takers are not evil, provided they did not earn the value you gave them. It is not immoral for them to accept it, provided they are unable to produce it, unable to deserve it, unable to give you any value in return. It is not immoral for them to enjoy it, provided they do not obtain it by right.
Such is the secret core of your creed, the other half of your double standard: it is immoral to live by your own effort, but moral to live by the effort of others-it is immoral to consume your own product, but moral to consume the products of others-it is immoral to earn, but moral to mooch-it is the parasites who are the moral justification for the existence of the producers, but the existence of the parasites is an end in itself-it is evil to profit by achievement, but good to profit by sacrifice-it is evil to create your own happiness, but good to enjoy it at the price of the blood of others.
Your code divides mankind into two castes and commands them to live by opposite rules: those who may desire anything and those who may desire nothing, the chosen and the damned, the riders and the carriers, the eaters and the eaten. What standard determines your caste? What passkey admits you to the moral elite? The passkey is lack of value.
Whatever the value involved, it is your lack of it that gives you a claim upon those who don’t lack it. It is your need that gives you a claim to rewards. If you are able to satisfy your need, your ability annuls your right to satisfy it. But a need you are unable to satisfy gives you first right to the lives of mankind.
If you succeed, any man who fails is your master; if you fail, any man who succeeds is your serf. Whether your failure is just or not, whether your wishes are rational or not, whether your misfortune is undeserved or the result of your vices, it is misfortune that gives you a right to rewards. It is pain, regardless of its nature or cause, pain as a primary absolute, that gives you a mortgage on all of existence.
If you heal your pain by your own effort, you receive no moral credit: your code regards it scornfully as an act of self-interest. Whatever value you seek to acquire, be it wealth or food or love or rights, if you acquire it by means of your virtue, your code does not regard it as a moral acquisition: you occasion no loss to anyone, it is a trade, not alms; a payment, not a sacrifice. The deserved belongs in the selfish, commercial realm of mutual profit; it is only the undeserved that calls for that moral transaction which consists of profit to one at the price of disaster to the other. To demand rewards for your virtue is selfish and immoral; it is your lack of virtue that transforms your demand into a moral right.
A morality that holds need as a claim, holds emptiness-non-existence-as its standard of value; it rewards an absence, a defect: weakness, inability, incompetence, suffering, disease, disaster, the lack, the fault, the flaw-the zero.
Galt’s Speech
For the New Intellectual, 144
Everything we do serves our interest lol
"a thousand pages of intellectual fabulism" :exploding eyes:
He died after living a full and accomplished life. Far more than anyone will ever be able to say about you.
Where are the Buckley's, Plimpton's, Vidal's, Mailer's even Peter Ustanov's (sp) going to come from in the next century? These guys were erudite and educated simply for that! NOT to become billionaires which seems all we idolize in 2019!
Ayn Rand always believed that her teachings would have more traction among ordinary working people, because of their essential honesty, than these so-called intellectual types. The laughable thing is that while she would have died content, knowing she succeeded in what she set out to accomplish in life, pathetic little pips like these are still trying desperately to urinate on her memory and her achievement. These people only succeed in showing their true nature to anyone with perception. "The man worshippers, in my sense of the term, are those who see man's highest potential potential and strive to actualise it. The man haters are those who regard man as a helpless, depraved, contemptible creature and struggle never to let him discover otherwise. It is important here to remember that THE ONLY DIRECT INTROSPECTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF MAN ANYONE POSSESSES IS OF HIMSELF." Ayn Rand.