Seth Campos nothing is really done outside of ones self interest even in instances of sacrifice. It’s not an either or question or answer. People can and do act in a manner that benefits the collective and at the same time as an act of partial self interest.
@@SETHPCAMPOS I mean it can be both. Maybe you want to help someone out of empathy or maybe you want help someone because you can gain something from them.
"i want to think people are rational" "we don't live in a world where people are rational" "also, people should value their pride, over real world opportunity." This guy's ideology is incoherent.
that's because his guru was an intellectually-average (if that) and universally unpleasant little russian lady. Her "philosophy" can be summed up in its entirety as "fuck everyone else, i got mine". Ayn Rand was never considered a talented writer at all. and only morons could even make the leap into assuming the selfish and asinine ideas espoused by her protagonists qualify as "philosophy".
People have the capacity to be rational, but of course they aren't always. That's what he meant, surely. And of course you should value your pride rather than merely being an opportunist.
@@gjerstad85 no, his ideas lack internal consistency. He argues for logic and rationale over emotion repeatedly, then makes a blatant argument from emotion to justify why someone should turn down a job.
I thought Rand was brilliant when I was 12, then I spent the next few years with my eyes open learning how the world really works and realized her worship of wealth caused her to conflate money with talent with no evidence to support that conclusion. If you are over 14 and not over Ayn Rand, remember after spending her life worshiping wealth and believing she was better than everybody else, she lived on the welfare she claimed to despise before she died. A perfect example of a miserable human being.
This, and so much more. She is one of those so-called thinkers that were elvated by the people who needed a pretend intellectual justification to be a dick. Much like the trickle=down economists and such, they are literally trying to tell you suffering at the hands off rich assholes is normal and rational and you should try to be one of those assholes... ugh
@@wildturkey3776 Do you genuinely not understand the difference between wealth and worship of those that have it? One is just a calf statue made of gold, the other is all the people prostrating themselves before the golden calf. I did not criticize the metal art, I pointed out Rand (and Trumpettes) worship the golden calf. If you had read her books you would understand that is her underlying message, worship wealth. You can get off your knees any time now if you want.
SaltRiver Pirate how does the fountainhead worship wealth? Howard Roark lived in squabble for much of his career. And peter, who has all the wealth, is unhappy because he has essentially no integrity. The whole point is that if you don’t live with integrity, you’ll eventually lose sight of who you are and become a mirror or what society at large WANTS you to be, rather than simply who you are. Peter wants to destroy Roark because he’s just doing his own thing instead of pursuing the easy career path. I’m doubting you’ve actually read the book because this is so clearly not the point of the Fountainhead.
I am thinking about your query. While I couldn't agree more, the idea there are people who really believe just being born wealthy makes you better than everyone else goes a long way to explain the Trumpettes that still worship the Tangerine Tyrant. POTUS Bloatus certainly believes it.
@@saltriverpirate3172 its also a reference to the John Oliver segments "how is this still a thing?" :) they made one on Ayn Rand. It was a playful jab at certain contradictions.
Ayn Rand Lexicon entry "Identity": "I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity..." Brook says about 8:22 that "...Ayn Rand never actually says existence is identity..." !? What?!
Why would someone follow a miserable person like Rand to find the secret to happiness??? Also there are psychologists that would argue that all altruistic actions are essentially selfish because they always illicit something positive in return, such as good feelings. If there is no such thing as altruism then there can only be degrees of selfishness. Since selfish actions often result in negative outcomes for the society the person has to live in, it isn’t always in their best interests to be selfish. The exception is the extremely rich that don’t live by the normals rules and laws of society. Hence libertarianism is popular with some very rich people who pay lowlifes like Brooks, lots of money, to propagate their complete nonsense garbage.
@@kurt.wilkinsongardendesign Jed seems to be criticising Rand, while stating something from psychological research that agrees with part of Rand's philosophy! Ironic.
@@kurt.wilkinsongardendesign Jed seems to be criticising Rand, while stating something from psychological research that agrees with part of Rand's philosophy! Ironic.
When did Rand say she has the secret to happiness? huh? She is a bit harsh on altruism but sometimes people have helped others out of the goodness of their hearts only to find that when they needed help in return, such help was not forthcoming
@@kurt.wilkinsongardendesign her fatal flaw was to deny the subjective Factor in her own psyche. She was selfish and petty. She disrespected the working class and idolized abusive oligarchs. She was evil.
Philosophy degree holder here: He keeps labeling Rand as an "Aristotelian". As far as political philosophy goes, this could not be further from the truth. In Aristotle's 'Politics', he explains that humans are a political animal. We naturally make communities of all sorts because we are better off as a community than we would be as isolated individuals. Rand's rugged individualism is exactly the opposite view. If you want to attach Rand's ideology to a famous philosopher to make her sound like a serious intellectual, Aristotle is one of the worst choices.
Spot on Aristotle was a communitarian. Dude didn't care much for the individual especially when it's the individual Vs the community. Rand was the opposite. This guy is a clown David should not putting guys like this on the channel
@Michael Defibaugh the original comment talks of "isolated individuals v community" which is a false or ignorant statement. We are all individuals who choose to interact, or not with others to form communities or partnerships of our own choosing. This allows us to survive better as an individual. It would be extremely irrational to try and survive as an isolated individual, and has zero commonality to Rand's thinking
Will Schaefer I agree with you 💯! It is really easy to only watch content that echoes your own beliefs. For me personally, I have found that it is beneficial to hear out people I disagree with, if for no other reason than to challenge my own set of beliefs. We can never grow as individuals if we are only willing to listen to people who think and sound like us. I also think it is important to understand the perspective of other’s. Understanding what makes people have such extreme differences of opinion concerning the same topic(s) is crucial to finding the middle ground. No one person or group should get to decide for everyone else. It is dangerous. It is how Trump has successfully sold the fear of the other. It is how he has not only divided, but fractured, this amazing country. I believe that most people are good. Some are misinformed, some are angry, and some are just fundamentally not good people. Yet I have not lost all faith that once Trump is out of office that we, as a country, can begin to heal. 🇺🇸❤️
ILikeMe 123 I didn’t say that I agreed with him whatsoever. Not even an iota. As crazy as some people sound to us, we have to remember that they think WE sound crazy. I’m am positive that most Trump supporters would call me ignorant, snowflake, or libtard without hearing anything I have to say because they don’t want to. They have blinders on, and they only want to engage with people who share their passion for Trump, and their very misled beliefs. I feel that I am no better than a Trump supporter if I behave like a Trump supporter. This man did not change my mind about anything. However, if I come across someone with a similar set of beliefs, I can possibly engage with them. Maybe even challenge some of their belief systems. One thing I know for sure is that nothing is going to ever get accomplished when we are so deeply divided as a country. It is pure madness. Fear of the other. The POTUS using his office to enrich himself while screwing everyday Americans, and absolutely destroying our standing in the world. I also think he is responsible for a lot of the violence we’ve seen over the last few years. He is emboldening the worst members of our society. Every single time Trump does something dumb and dangerous, I just hope that they rest of the world knows that the average American does not agree with him. I agree with the person above you who says there won’t be any healing until the Republicans are gone. However, I think that certain Republicans need to go, and a small handful of them are decent people overall. Even if I do not agree with their political views. All Americans should feel represented. I just think about how I would feel if the Republicans took every single position in the three branches of government, and they were the only ones with any say so or power. That thought is absolutely horrifying to me. I really wish that people could articulate their thoughts and feelings in a cohesive and coherent way, without feeling the need to say hurtful things or calling people names. It’s so juvenile. Dialogue is so important. Listening. Truly listening...not to respond, but to understand what another human being is telling you is of the utmost importance. I promise you that if we all treated each other with respect, we would see the results of those actions quite quickly. But as long as grown adults hurl words at the opposition, like “you people,” or “libtards,” etc...the fear and hate of the “other” will be all that remains. The only time I don’t take the time to listen is when people are spouting hate speech of any kind. That is absolutely unacceptable. It’s damn near impossible to convince a bigot that they’re a bigot, and they won’t listen to you even after you have extended the same courtesy. Have a great night.
Monica Lynn Yokel so I agree with listening to opposing views but sometimes only to know their tactics. Reasonable disagreement is fine and I’m always open to new ideas and to change my perspective but some things are not worthy of such regard. Ideologies that are based around certain irredeemable qualities like sociopathy, racism, xenophobia or any other form of discriminatory bigotry do not warrant any serious consideration. Objectivism, much like most discriminatory and sociopathic ideologies takes surface level and seemingly reasonable statements but then draws them to harmful ends. This is a common bating strategy. I’m not concerned if a person prone to personalizing a sociopathic ideology thinks my views are crazy. If there’s hope of reforming them I’m glad to help but I’m not going pretend like a harmful ideology is worthy of serious consideration or that our differences are merely a matter of perspective.
ILikeMe 123 As I mentioned above...I know very little about Ayn Rand. A lot of what this guy said, I did not know about her or her school of thought. I know just enough to know that it isn’t my cup of tea. So you clearly started watching with knowledge about Ayn Rand that I didn’t have. Maybe you even know who the speaker is...I do not. I know a little more after watching this yesterday-but it just pushed me further away. I think it’s a combination of him speaking like he is Ayn Rand, and the actual message itself. I can’t imagine subscribing to anyone’s ideology like this man. I’m so curious how that happens. Have a great day.
Randians, Libertarians, "Classical Liberals", call 'em what you want, come in two varieties. The first is the wealthy, and the second is the poor and middle class that have convinced themselves they will be wealthy, _any day now._
@Marcos R. you might wanna study what "libertarians" propose. it's basically the feudal era all over again. those are the consequences of unregulated markets and letting the rich do whatever the fck they want. and abandoning the poor at the mercy of the rich. back in my college years i considered myself a "libertarian"....for a few months...until i dug a bit deeper and saw how disgusting and morally bankrupt libertarianism(in all of its forms) is.
@Marcos R. i'm not talking about any individuals. i'm talking about the ideas "libertarians" spread. those ideas are morally bankrupt. it's basically the feudal era all over again. those are the consequences of unregulated markets and letting the rich do whatever the fck they want. and abandoning the poor at the mercy of the rich.
@Marcos R. the different labels are cute. but when you look at the core of libertarianism it's always the same. morally bankrupt ideas. it's basically the feudal era all over again. those are the consequences of unregulated markets and letting the rich do whatever the fck they want. and abandoning the poor at the mercy of the rich.
@Marcos R. that's very cute. but the fact remains. the core of libertarianism(in ALL of its forms) is a bunch of morally bankrupt ideas. it's basically the feudal era all over again. those are the consequences of unregulated markets and letting the rich do whatever the fck they want. and abandoning the poor at the mercy of the rich.
Funny that you should make the creationism/science connection, because Ayn Rand's philosophy is purely Darwinian: Survival of the "fittest." In other words, survival of the most selfish, self-centered, self-interested, could-not-care-less about anyone else, because I am an animal that wants it all for myself, and if I share any with you, that's less for me. Sure, many "creationists" have ignorantly extreme views (the world is 6000 years old, the Bible's creation story is literal, etc). But the other extreme is just as insane. Want the Truth (with a capital "T")? Give me a "click".......
Dostoyevsky is the answer here. He says that things are as their nature. The Nature of humans is NOT TO BE RATIONAL AT ALL TIMES!!!! Humans will be emotional and irrational many times in many circumstances. This "philosophy" is simplistic and stupid.
It’s amazing how you all speak so confidently on a complex philosophy that you must admit to never having studied. How do you justify this? You literally don’t know what you’re criticizing. None of you.
@@sybo59 I haven't studied too much about her work but what I do know, I find pretty much Irrational. but I think what might be going on with you is that you are uniting all of her beliefs as reasonable when maybe just a certain portion of them might be?
Listening to your guest elaborate on the Ayn rand perspectives; concerns me. If it is a philosophy growing in popularity, no wonder Fascism is growing. The philosophy sounds good if your in the traditional Privileged group or class, but so to are many atrocities. The way he described it, it is dangerous and even reckless.
Objectivists do not believe that syllogisms give us knowledge. They believe syllogisms express logical relationships. If A = B and B = C, then A = C. The concepts in syllogisms must be given content however, as you are correct to point out. Objectivists believe concepts are given content not by syllogisms, but by experience. Your concept of a chair comes from your experience of having sat in chairs before. Desecrates believed syllogisms alone give knowledge. Objectivists are not Cartesians, but empiricists.
Rational is simply the ability to think and act in what you believe is your own self-interest. It does not mean that one is a scientific seeker of truther or say, somebody like Spock.
Chris - The question is how far forward one looks in considering self interest. For instance, in the short term, dumping waste in the river near you is rational self interest. In the long term it isn’t rational to do that. Because most decisions are like that, the best tactic is to think long term when considering rational self interest. Both Left and Right struggle on this sometimes. Think about the minimum wage. It helps some people with their standard of living in the short term. In the long term though, it creates an incentive for automation to displace jobs and that is far more damaging to the poor.
@Nelson Giles - Agreed. This observation is basically the driver of Yang's platform. I like the man - and I'm on the Right - but I have four BIG concerns: (1) the culture of capitalistic individualism - an individualism that is increasingly insensitive to social fabric (Robert Putnam's "Bowling Alone") - is so pervasive that I believe the super wealthy class needs time to adopt the perspective that UBI requires...and the rest of society needs to adopt a stronger "with rights comes responsibilities" ethic, too, (2) if UBI is applied to early, it is very easy for companies to re-domesticate to off-shore venues and avoid the taxes that support UBI. Furthermore, the amount of tax revenue needed is so high that there will be massive lobbying efforts for loopholes to avoid the tax (that financial guys like me take advantage of).... unless the culture changes....thus making that effort less appealing, (3) I am a big believer in the rule of law and the Constitution. Per the 10th amendment, it is clear that the federal government has no constitutionally "expressed" authority to institute UBI. Therefore, unless one institutes UBI at the state level, a constitutional amendment needs to be passed, and (4) Human life requires meaning. Work gives our lives meaning. UBI may put bread on the table, but I worry about the rest.
@@StrategicWealthLLC Now why would you be a big believer in the rule of law and the constitution? And which type of law in the constitution do you believe in? The constitution expressly states things the government is required to do, and it simply ignores them. ( so much for having to amend it. ) And if your claim about UBI is correct, then how was Social Security possible?
How dare you criticize an immigrant from a protected minority! Also, I don’t think you’re aware of the many non-whites who either work at ARI or support it ... not that it actually matters.
My question to the critics of Ayn Rand who keep talking about the need for co-operation (as allegedly opposed to selfishness) in society: "Do you believe that following your self-interest means going around stealing and raping and murdering?" If your answer is 'yes', I think that says something very worrying about you!
You don't have to use extreme examples. Donald Trump for example acts out of self-interest, including getting many family members into White House office positions, with Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner making $135 million in a single year as aides to DJT. You said Ayn Rand wants people to think rationally. A rational person would not have hired a White House aid to make deals with China for profits.
@@PD-xk6uq "Donald Trump for example acts out of self-interest, including getting many family members into White House office positions, with Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner making $135 million in a single year as aides to DJT." In doing that, Trump is promoting to himself and to others the false and dangerous idea that merit doesn't matter. If one of Trump's subordinates engages in nepotism and hires someone incompetent who damages the administration, Trump has given up any moral basis on which to complain. In fact, the subordinate may have been inspired by Trump's own nepotism! If Trump's building contractors engage in nepotism and thereby construct an unsafe building, Trump again has no moral basis on which to complain. If Trump goes to a hospital that engages in nepotism, he could die. Trump may even convince himself that merit truly doesn't matter, and he may end up hiring someone incompetent for an extremely important position who ends up destroying his administration altogether. That isn't selfish. It's selfless. Trump indeed is irrational. He is indeed selfless.
Ben Rice I could make the argument using his logic that in a rational society the people who are “rich” are not worthy of being “rich” and therefore it is our rational imperative to protest.
@@Bobgo27 1000% True , There Should be Worker Owned and managed Cooperatives, Government Owned Corporations and for the greedy the independent self employed operator. Capitalism as it exists today should be outlawed.
gradostax no, I prefer a Georgist reforms to abolish rent seeking. I support markets as a distribution mechanism for goods and services, not a fan of statism in any sense, I’m open to certain social democratic beliefs, but do not care much for worker owned coops etc. robust unions suffice.
gradostax no, I prefer a Georgist reforms to abolish rent seeking. I support markets as a distribution mechanism for goods and services, not a fan of statism in any sense, I’m open to certain social democratic beliefs, but do not care much for worker owned coops etc. robust unions suffice.
Also, if her goal is human happiness, science shows us clearly that being compassionate and helping others increases one's own happiness--it's one of the major factors that contributes to human happiness.
Irene Haralabatos Well that’s your emotional reaction - no more valid than those who felt deeply repelled and uncomfortable by the heliocentric theory of the cosmos. I think her ideas are not only true, but beautiful. I’d be happy to discuss this further if you’re at all curious.
Emile Constance Wait, how does “science” quantify and the price the source of happiness? I’m actually well-read on the so-called happiness studies, and if you are as well then you’re certainly aware that “science” (in the false monolithic sense in which you use the term) has also pointed out the damning problems with such studies. You’re being lazy and dishonest.
Do you have any specific criticism of something she believed? Perhaps you do, but so far everyone I’ve engaged with here just makes vague insults but when pressed admits they don’t know anything about Rand’s philosophy.
If you watch David Pakman long enough, you get the impression he can hang in virtually any conversation! I fancy myself a pretty smart guy. I'm no David Pakman, though. Bear in mind, English is his second language!
English is his native language. Despite the fact that he was born in South America, he was raised in an English speaking environment. He may have NATIVE fluency in both English and Spanish. He has no foreign accent when he speaks English, indicating that English was his go-to language from his earliest years.
@john edwards Damn, I didn't think I'd have to explain a simple analogy to a genius Ayn Rand fan. Believing in objectivism is simply pulling the wool over your eyes and pretending like everything is fine. Just like taking drugs. Now that I think of it, this is really fucking funny. Someone said you live in a different world and your response is "we're the one who're happy", which I guess is supposed to prove you're right? But that's pretty ironic because the whole point of objectivism is to only use reason, not emotions. So whether or not you're happy should be completely irrelevant. Carry on...
@@TheMrMacintosh Rand doesn't deny emotions, indeed a lot of her ideas are presented as a way to achieve happiness. But the only way to achieve this is to use reason. You have to observe the real world and act according to it's natural laws in order to survive and thrive. You can't build a car or an airplane or a skyscraper by following your emotions. You must use methods that are proven to work for that purpose, in other words reason. If you do this consistently, however, there's a good chance you'll succeed in your endeavors and therefore achieve self-esteem and happiness. Reason is therefore how you interact with the world and positive emotions is the reward for doing so successfully.
And there it is....Rand doesn't believe we should treat people equally, but rather how they "deserve" to be treated. So it's completely subjective and gives room for people to justify discrimination and domination through places of power. It's possibly the most problematic part of Rand's ethical theory.
Are you saying you treat everyone in your life, equally the same,😂. Do you really treat or think of your mother, the same as your boyfriend or girlfriend etc. Seems like you are not thinking rationally?
how about this, you know that your neighbor is a chronic drunk that refuses to get help, beats his wife and dog, and is a hard core racist. Do you treat this person the same way you would treat your parents or your friends? If he needed money for a liver transplant and money for a lawyer because of his own actions, do you still think you should treat him the same? Would you give him the money, would you be ok if others voted and said you should help pay for his own stupid decisions? Of course you should treat people different, just be rational about it to you best ability. If you know that homeless person is an abuser of drugs and wont get help dont give him any money, you are only helping him feed his destructive life style.
@@illyavogel1660 So I agree with you, but the issue here is how we treat people, as a whole or as groups vs how we treat the individual. If there is proof of misdeeds or criminal activity with the individual, then who could blame someone for treating them differently than say, one's own mother. But this particular topic comes up a lot and has been framed to attack the "welfare queen", a hypothetical person that is meant to represent the worst of our society, when it comes to abusing help or resources. THIS is where my critique is aimed, not towards known differences between individuals, but rather when it's used in the abstract to label groups as "the other" in an effort to deny people help. In doing so, we run the very serious and costly risk of denying help to those who need it, out of fear that we may accidentally help some hypothetical low-life that Rand would deem unworthy of help.
Me reading Ayn Rand as a teen: What the Hell is this? Me reading Ayn Rand as an adult: WHAT THE HELL IS THIS HOW DOES ANY ONE TAKE THIS WITCH SERIOUSLY. Also I love all the Randies in the comments saying 'gee, how is selfishness immature?' Some of us grow our of it, okay? As you become an adult you start to understand other people have feelings and needs. Grow up.
Maybe your concept of selfishness is not the same as the one understood by objectivists. For them, it means to place high value on your life and happiness and to not sacrifice yourself for the benefit of others. Sacrifice meaning to trade something of higher value for something of lower value (value in the sense that is valuable to you). If you loved someone or something and decided to spend time, money or even your life on it, that would still be considered an act of selfishness for an objectivist. For example, if you wanted to donate 5 dollars to a shelter for animals because you think it's something important then you're not really sacrificing those five dollars but trading it for something that you consider valuable. On the other hand, if you were starving to death and decided to sacrifice yourself so that a stranger or a person you hate (say, a criminal or a bully) can survive by giving them your food then that would be the opposite of selfishness for an objectivist and the very definition of altruism.
@@kazuoua 'For them, it means to place high value on your life and happiness and to not sacrifice yourself for the benefit of others. ' That's what it means to everyone, dude. 'If you loved someone or something and decided to spend time, money or even your life on it, that would still be considered an act of selfishness for an objectivist.' That's a rather normal understanding of selfishness. 'For example, if you wanted to donate 5 dollars to a shelter for animals because you think it's something important then you're not really sacrificing those five dollars but trading it for something that you consider valuable.' Yeah, I understand. To think that such an idea in the foundations of will work is not only stupid, but ignorant, because it requires ignoring pretty much every day the results of that sort of thinking. Only some one who is cognitively limited, and I don't mean this as an insult, I mean they have a developmental condition that has retarded their growth, could believe such a thing. Empathy and compassion are the rule among men, not the exception.
@@InternetMameluq So you think it's immature to have good self-esteem and to not sacrifice your well-being for the benefit of strangers or people you dislike?
@@InternetMameluq Ah ok, then my bad. Pretty crazy that someone would think that growing up meant having lower self-esteem, hating yourself more and deciding that others are worthier than yourself but alright, I guess the world is a diverse place :)
@@kurt.wilkinsongardendesign can do. 1. Society by its nature is not "every man out for himself" and "bootstrapping" your whole life; it's ridiculous. That's a largely over simplified version of Objectivism, but it's basically accurate. It's cobbled together from various philosophies but boils down to "each according to his own needs and abilities" and "no quarter asked, none given". Even Rand didn't live that way. Also, why the hostility?
@@vicdmise when did she say every "man for himself and bootstrapping"? Or what did she say that implied what you say. Instead of saying what is "basically accurate" why not say something accurate?
@@kurt.wilkinsongardendesign I'm not really interested in a debate. Clearly you're a follower of her philosophy and you're going to get bogged down in the minutiae. I'm not really interested. Good luck.
@@vicdmise so you know nothing, but make a courageous statement that here philosophy is for a 16 year old😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂. Nice one, you are an intellectual giant😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂. You have done exactly what I expected👍
Rand: “we should live in the real world and not an imagined one” Also rand: imagines a world where everyone makes decisions out of rationality over emotion. Absolutely absurd philosophy.
Baby Arrow That’s not really a fair criticism of her since you have to imagine a world where your philosophy is in place to determine if it should be used in real life. There’s a lot of other, better criticisms of her.
Side note, sometimes people get a job not because they are the most skilled or best connected..... But because of simple dumb luck. By chance, you had a good interview or happened to guess correctly on a few questions on a test and got a very high score. Objectivists cannot wrap their brains on the idea that luck is important to success, and it shows.
What I'm unclear on is that in the beginning it sounded like decisions were to be made based totally on some form of emotionless objective rationality, but at the end, presents the idea that one can live a good life only by deciding on a set of important values and holding true to them with an example of an artist refusing to compromise his work. Doesn't that seem like an emotional decision?
Wow, a genuine question! Pretty rare in this comment section, sadly. I agree that the connection between reason and emotion is not totally obvious here, but to be fair, it's impossible to convey a complete system of philosophy in a short, informal chat such as this. To be very brief, Rand didn't believe that the mind and heart were intrinsically at odds -- though when they are, the mind has to take precedence. For HOW she came to such a conclusion, you'll have to do the deeply personal work of reading her, but I promise, you won't regret it. If you're somewhat new to philosophy generally, I'd highly recommend reading/listening to her succinct speech, Philosophy: Who Needs It. I think it's brilliant, and I'd really value your opinion. Happy hunting. Cheers!
@@sybo59 It definitely sounds more thoughtful and nuanced than it's often portrayed which is basically just as a justification for cold selfishness. I am pretty new to philosophy since the extent of my exposure is a couple electives in uni and lots of entertainment grade philosophy like contrapoints and philosophy tube so that actually sounds interesting.
I don't think that is an emotional decision, if you compromise on your artistic work it is no longer purely a product of your efforts. Should Steve Jobs have compromised on the quality of the work he insisted on in his products (even the insides)? How many great works of art/literature, etc. have been produced by communities?
If the intellectual honesty to your own values, or "Integrity", is an emotion somehow, then maybe. If you understand the virtue of integrity, you understand that your self-esteem is what is protected by integrity. Your self-esteem is absolutely necessary for your own well being and happiness.
A 35 minute to say no? Sorry but the idea of listening to some guy prattle on about Rand and her "selfishness is the only objective good" nonsense is simply beyond me. I do express my deepest condolences to any family members out there who have a relative that didn't outgrow Rand after freshman year in college.
I also express my deepest condolences to any family members out there who have a relative who didn't outgrow Marx after freshman year in college. The crucial difference between Randians and Marxists is that naive Marxists shroud their dangerous ideology in the garb of virtue and well meaning people swallow it uncritically, almost always ignorant of course of the great tragedies that have occurred historically whenever and wherever Marxist philosophy has been put into practice in the real world.
WAY too many assumptions have to be made for AR to make sense. If this guy represents AR’s philosophy then I’m quite confident putting her ideas on the lowest shelf.
A free market society whose existence depends on 1. A perpetual motion engine 2. A vibranium/adamantium style metal which is cheaper than steel, to be invented and mass produced by a certain industrialist. This individual must also have the super power to modify existing designs, like discovering better methods of building bridges on the fly. 3. Entrepreneurs who throw down government officials down a flight of stairs for offering them a government loan to start business. . . . There are a few more requirements but it is entirely possible.
@@thefilthydjinn5224 you forgot the most important: beautiful, brilliant, brave, naturally elegant, tireless, immune to disease and jealousy men to lead that society.
She was also anti socialist but had to use socialism to survive! Loved capitalism and was a very “successful” author but had to use public assistance at the end of her life because she developed cancer from smoking ( she claimed the science behind the link between smoking and cancer was “fake science “ ) so how does a successful author start needing help from society (socialism )during hardships but still fighting for unregulated capitalism and against socialism? How can you claim her to be successful when you need public assistance because you get sick from something you dismiss as fake ? How is that an example of logical thinking?
My thinking is pretty much the OPPOSITE of Ayn Rand's....And as one result, give me a "click" and you'll see that I've been given the simple cure for cancer and the very Meaning of Life.....
She died wealthy, and taking SS was consistent with her beliefs. Why do you all need to lie to attack Rand? So strange how not one person has addressed anything she actually believed, especially since her ideas are apparently so easy to refute.
taking social security was anathema to what she preached. it's as if someone had been preaching their whole life against drinking alcohol....and at the end of their life becomes an alcoholic.... she was a hypocrite, plain and simple. her calling science "fake science" reminds me of drumpf calling everything "fake news". or the antivaxers claiming they are better informed than medical researchers and medics....
sabin97 Jesus, where to start. 1) Where, exactly, did she every, ONCE preach about not legally taking (recouping, really) money from a government that had taxed you? 2) Where did she every use the term “fake science?” She no doubt disagreed with some scientists, but I call out your made-up phrase to further illustrate your dishonesty. You just make things up as if someone who actually understands her philosophy won’t notice.
Soooo. What is Ann's opinion on the mentally ill or physically disabled.... Because I get the feeling she would approve of abusing them for personal gain and cheap labor.
@R S The idea that Kant's metaphysics are lazy is completely laughable. Read a book some time you butthurt randroid so you don't confuse epistemology with metaphysics next time. There are no new ideas in Rand's metaphysical philosophy - it essentially amounts to direct realism, justified (somehow) by the Law of Identity.
@R S Wow, what a serious person you are. I wonder why nobody in the field takes Rand at all seriously, whereas Kant is often termed the most significant figure in modern philosophy.
knight44441 You might want to read Rand’s essay On Racism. You seem well-intentioned, but I can tell you have no knowledge of what she actually stood for, and it’s unjust for you to criticize from a place of ignorance. But it’s forgivable - I started out as a fervent critic set on disproving what I thought were simplistic beliefs. At every turn engaging with her works I had to concede I was wrong. Maybe you’ll have a different experience, but what do you have to lose?
knight44441 Here’s Rand on racism: “Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage-the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.”
David, Ayn Rand fled a totalitarian society and came to America thinking that America was the Land of The Free & The Home of The Brave. She discovered that if that had ever been true by the time she got off the boat it was a myth. Her choice was either sail back to Russia and accept what it was or stay in America and create her own myth. Her novels helped her populate her myth and the mythical valley to which her characters fled for solace. Trouble is she never showed us on the map where the valley was located so we too could flee there. All this said I find myself wondering if you find a striking resemblance between Rand's guiding principals and The Donalds... a person who is singularly devoted to maximizing his own happiness. Quite frankly after reading all her books many years ago I came away very unimpressed. Her belief in the "rationality" potential of the human mind, for instance, leaves me feeling that she must also believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy. Couched as it is in a meandering sequence of True Belief and pseudo intellectualism Rand's belief in human behavior being rational would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous. Her Free Market belief can easily be refuted by examining how well it worked out in America. Much as Ayn pretends to discard the entire concept of morals she winds up resting her entire society upon the concept that man's rational mind will create and sustain a livable world through moral action. Short and not so sweet there is no Santa, there is no Tooth Fairy, and there is no utopian valley to which we might flee in search of a life based solely upon merit.
@@TheBelovedRose. There is literally nothing to rebuttal this person has not represented Ayn Rand or Objectivism in any way whatsoever. He creates his own fantasy of what Ayn Rand thinks, Ive never seen anything like it. Her belief in rationality is like that of the belief of Santa Claus... what? That makes no sense.
It is interesting today to see the US gov't trying really hard to find ways to break up Google, Amazon, RUclips etc. because someone else has been lobbying for it to happen. So far their arguments have not been taken too seriously, but this type of thing is what Atlas Shrugged is all about. To what extent should a man be forced to give up the fruits of his labour because someone else 'needs it'? In Australia we pay so much tax in so many ways now that it is truly burdensome, the Gov't will never have enough money to pay for all the programs arising out of welfare thinking.
@@aikidoshi007 are you fucking serious? 1 I have never heard any form of evidence that "the government is trying to break up corperations". This is a complete fabrication that is contradictory to the reality of state corperate interests. 2 are you seriously defending these exploitative mega corperations that have such insane power that they are arguably more powerful than entire nations of people. 3, "give up the fruits of his labour".... Hahahahabahaah you are such a bootlicker. Bezos, Wojcicki, and many more ultra rich and their shareholders did not create the value of the multinational corperations. The idea that some guy in wallstreet created the value of Amazon and not the hundreds of thousands of workers who have to piss in bottles to keep up with the work, and the workers put into 80+ hour shifts for the corperation with 0 benefits, while they get survival wages is a sick deluded view of the world. But this is what I expect from someone who takes Ayn Rand seriously. Any intellectually honest being would laugh at her books and ideas, but again someone like you who doesn't know the USA has invaded dozens of foreign democracies to protect the interests of their corperations and capital against the interests of the peoplr would think Ayn Rand is an "intellectual"
No. To fight Socialism, set a good example. The Ayn Rand Institute should send back all the Government Aid, and Objectivists should send back Social Security
Objectivists, like everybody else, were victims of the Federal Government's FORCED theft of funds through social security taxes. They did NOT pay voluntarily and if given the opportunity, every one of them would have opted out of FORCED participation. What YOU are suggesting is that now that the funds have been STOLEN from us by FORCE, we should voluntarily give up the opportunity to collect what is due to us. How silly of you. You aren't actually serious.
thechangingtimes objectivism is not the belief everything is objective, it’s objectively analyzing the reality around you, including subjective systems
@@GodHandKilla - No one gives pure objective analyses of reality. A persons innate mental traits (personality, etc.) and their values shape how they perceive everything. One's experiences significantly shape their values. I would agree with the term "personal subjectivism". I have read Atlas Shrugged by the way, and the 1967 book on Capitalism by Ayn Rand.
Peace Seeker a person holds objective values because they decide what is valuable to them and what isn’t, contextually. Subjective isn’t real, it’s a package deal that means “incomplete perception.” Objective reality exists, because we exist and we say we exist. Stop waiting around for a god to confirm that you are real.
@@objectivelybased5477 „objective reality exists because we exist“ totally non-sequitur. What is meant by „objective reality“ in philosophy, especially moral philosophy, by far exceeds the simple fact that existing entities exist (which is also tautological)
If she was such a successful author, why did she live on welfare at the end of her life? She believed in rugged individualism and unfettered Capitalism, disdained those who lived off Government handouts and admired the rich and wealthy because they were economically successful. Her basic philosophy is "might makes right" and "survival of the fittest". Those who cannot survive within a society is completely have only themselves to blame. We are NOT responsible for any one else. There is no communal responsibility. Existence is survival and only selfishness serves that well. Libertarianism, anyone? We can see why the economic/power elites use her ideas to justify using people to attain their ends.
Hello David, I'm a bit dissapointed you didn't raise the fundamental onthological issue: 1) If you reduce "reality" to palpable cases and their interactions, you're focusing on a tiny sliver of the human experience! You're leaving out irrationality and emotions, which account for the most important part of our actions and decisions. This "Randian" canard can't account for love, for exemple. Nothing is more human, and more irrational, than love! (and that's just one example). 2) *Even if* I grant the premise that existence is a rational, cold, logical equation stemming from Aristotle, this gets us nowhere: the Logical Atomists and the Vienna Cercle in the beginnings of the 20th century tried *exactly* that: taking all "metaphysics" out of philosophy and concentrating only on things we can say ("the sky is blue"). This project FAILED miserably, blown to smithereens by Wittgenstein (The Tractatus). Even worse, tying to point (1), what did Wittgenstein do afterwards? He *retired*, saying Philosophy only handled redundancies or contradictions and that the important aspect of life was *outside* this domain of inquiry: mysticism. 3) You should've made the point that what you get with this silly "homo economicus" logical approach is a being devoid of humor, empathy and many other characteristics central to the human experience: you know, *exactly like* Roark, the most unlikeable main character of the 20th century. I mean, her "utopia" of living in cold transactions with John Galt and bowing to a golden dollar with your billionaire buddies sounds GODAWFUL, but it's the logical conclusion to such an onthological mess. Cheers
Arbitrary of you to link emotions to irrationality, as if emotions were a means of cognition. While emotions are not means of cognition and don't tell you by themselves what is true or not, to live without emotions is irrational as emotions are the means of experiencing life as an end in itself (life being the standard of value). If you read Ayn Rand's works, you'll see that her heroes are passionate almost beyond belief. Their emotions are more intense than those of any human that I've ever seen in real life. What's more, their emotions are integrated to their rational view of life. They have integrity, i.e. their thoughts, emotions and actions are parts of a harmonious, logical whole.
I like this style of program and would enjoy seeing more like it. One particularly pleasing aspect is that for the most part each speaker is respectful of the other in not talking over them. That is a blight of most political discourse, this piece shows that it is possible to avoid it. A separate thought occurs to me - in the past Pat the producer has occasionally been asked for his view on an issue and has added something relevant and interesting, perhaps he could join such discussions.
I'm conflicted on Pat. David's already pretty young and it kind of makes it look like a kids show when you've got the two of them on screen at the same time
Is it just me or did this guy get pissed off every time David interrupted his 5-10 minutes of contunied talking for 10 seconds (to seek to clarify a point) as if he was here to deliver a lecture rather than be involved in a debate/discussion on the topic.
Yeah... I read atlas shrugged in high school and thought it was satire. I was shocked when I learned she's considered a philosopher. Then I read Nietzsche.
Rands objectivism is a blatant ripoff of Nietzsche among other contemporaries of Nietzsche. She didn’t reject him, she ripped him off. Can’t very well admit it though could she
Sarah Trickey Cheap, vague insults aside, what specific objection do you have to her philosophy? Who is better, and why? Bet you won’t (can’t?) answer.
Nathan Tompkins Interesting approach. So if, say, Descartes had written a novel you find crummy alongside his philosophical and mathematical contributions, you might take that as enough to falsify his beliefs? Very interesting approach.
You might as well ask why is apocalyptic fundamentalism still a thing? And while we're at it, why is it that so many "objectivists" and apocalyptic fundamentalists get under the same Big Tent at election time?
No, you took that completely out of context. In the abstract thought experiment he was laying out was assuming that the actors in that scenario were acting rational. But he has said many times that most people choose not to be rational in reality but most have the ability to be, they just choose not to. And then the question really becomes: what’s the alternative philosophy to replace one that advocates one use reason to guide their life?
Stefan Burns you’re an idiot. Marketing and advertising focuses primarily on creating asymmetric information by psychological framing. That’s why the people that run big marketing departments for corporations are typically economic psychologists or social psychologists.
@@stefanburns3797 so is a gambler rational, taking a risk? There's choice, and there's risk. Does rational imply we make the best decision with our present knowledge? Or simply an informed decision? There's a line there which I guess people disagree on?
@Nathan Tompkins I mean we'd probably need to make a monopoly on the sea slug department, and Rapture had an advantage for literally being underwater. Plus in America it would just give the Coast states more financial advantage
If we live in a "free economy" there are always options? A fundamental misunderstanding of the ethic of competition in the context of scarcity and differntial advantage. These ideologies are grossly underthought to the point of being functionally less than worthless.
Ayn Rand obviously never met anyone that's been beaten down by the system and exhausted by it. I believe America should be a place where people can live without career goals. Stop forcing ideologies on me and just leave me alone.
Ben Rice Her novels were explicitly about being beaten down by the system. She herself fled Soviet Russia, making her way to America with no family or money. Tell me more about your deep knowledge of Rand...
Ayn Rand says, "A is equal to A"; and from that deduces an extensive metaphysical and ethical theory. That by itself is sufficient to refute her idea, for "A is equal to A" is a tautology. Therefore, logically, nothing can be validly deduced from that statement about the physical world. All that Rand purports to deduce from that identity is, therefore, merely her own prejudices invalidly smuggled into the discussion by sophistry.
You’re completely wrong. First, it’s not “A is equal to A,” it’s “A is A.” (Not a trivial difference) It’s just the law of identity from Aristotle. All of math and science is based on this axiom. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
@@sybo59, re the law of identity, "In its formal representation, the law of identity is written "a = a" or "For all x: x = x", where a or x refer to a term rather than a proposition, and thus the law of identity is not used in propositional logic. It is that which is expressed by the equals sign "=", the notion of identity or equality. It can also be written less formally as A is A." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity It follows that the difference between my statement and Ayn Rand's "informal" statement is indeed trivial. Further, from the law of identity, only the law of identity follows. To get anything further in maths you need to add further axioms, such as "non-contradiction" and "and the excluded middle". To get science you also need to add observations, and inductive reasoning. Ayn Rand provides none of that. Instead, whenever she cannot show something she claims, she merely asserts "A is A" and pretends that proves her point. "A is A", however, remains a tautology, and from tautologies no matters of fact about the world follow.
Tom Curtis You’re close, but wrong. Non-contradiction and excluded middle complement the law of identity, and are incoherent without it. What meaning is there in the statement “A thing can not be both A and non-A at the same time in the same respect” of A didn’t possess a definite identity? You actually can’t form any coherent proposition (much less an attack on the law of identity) without making use of it.
@@sybo59, it seems more likely that you have not understood what I have said. To put it more directly, an axiomatic system whose sole axiom is the law of identity will not have any other theorems than the law of identity. If you add further axioms such as non-contradiction and excluded middle, you may be able to derive further theorems - but with those alone none of the derivable theorems will have empirical content.
Zac Spolar, there’s half a million homeless people and about 40% of them are employed in some form (odd jobs usually). Why are so many of them still in poverty if they have access to work? They take the option to work but they are still stuck in the mud. Can you explain that?
@@MrSpolaR an immigrant family with two kids arrives in the US. The father has a job. He's robbed and murdered 3 months later. The mom has no job, doesn't speak the language, and has two small kids to take care of. A man works in construction. Hurts his back but is compensated with medical help and financially for the 2 months he can't work. The doctor prescribes opiates that are constantly praises at the doctor's office by pharmaceutical company reps. The man develops a opioid addiction loses his job, house, and is now homeless. Worse of all he hasn't been able to kick his addiction. Yeah I guess you're right everyone has excellent options.
Keyser Söze because they don’t make the choices necessary. It’s not rocket science. How many unfilled jobs are there right now? Over 7.6 million, with millions of those being blue collar trade jobs that pay $50k+ a year and require no college, no experience, only an apprenticeship. A well paid apprenticeship. And unfilled means employers need employees willing to work hard. Also where are the vast majority of those homeless? In major cities where the cost of living is high. Nobody is making anyone stay in areas with high cost of living with a competitive job market. Nobody. Stop making excuses. Doesn’t matter if you’re a homeless drug addict. Look at Khalil Rafati and tell me it’s impossible. If someone is able bodied and of sound mind there is always a way out if they make smart choices and work hard. Stop with that nonsense way of thinking. Look at the majority Nigerian immigrants who come here with basically nothing. They are absolutely thriving.
For somebody who says we shouldake decisions based on facts and not emotions, he sure does talk about the emotional benefits a lot, like pride in work and integrity.
If we don’t help people out they cannot realize their full potential. You can have someone with paralysis who need aid. But in the long run they might be the next Stephen Hawking. These people in the end might contribute more that they receive. But if we judge them as not worthy and a burden on society we will never know. Every person is valuable and that’s what society should be based on. That’s what reason AND empathy tell me. Reason alone without the human caring or empathy is dangerous, imho.
Yeah but like, he nowhere said "don't help people" nor is he against emotions, or thinks there's some kind of dichotomy between the two. Might want to actually give it a listen before straw manning.
Irene Haralabatos Except Ayn Rand never opposed empathy, compassion, or charity. She never said “don’t help others.” This is a ludicrous strawman that her detractors won’t let go of, and there’s no evidence whatsoever of its validity. On the contrary, Ayn Rand in her personal life could be very compassionate, as this article shows. medium.com/the-radical-center/the-charitable-ayn-rand-b8459c79c899
People who can't help themselves or who need help are best helped in a free society. Free societies are much wealthier and more technologically advanced and they also have been the most benevolent societies. There is much more hope for cures for diseases such as Stephen Hawking had and for aid to him. But, it's also important to realize that the vast majority of people are not helpless. Very few are when they are free. Freedom unleashes man's potential unlike anything else.
I have been hired for two jobs of which I was not qualified. I learned how to do them and did them well. In the end I gained experience that opened doors to higher positions thus improving my career and my life. Do I feel good about it? Yes! Am I proud of myself? Yes! Is my integrity in tact? Yes! What a hoser!
So the answer is..... NO. No she didn't make sense. Contradictions galore and dismissive of the objective flaws in reality that such an ideology brings forth.
1:15 " She came with nothing " You just gave Soviet sympathisers the best pass. Ayn Rand was in fact one of the first women to get state funded university education from USSR right after the end of the Russian civil war despite her anti Soviet sentiment. Hadn't it been for her state FUNDED education and anti leftism she would be one of the many impoverished Americans.
Did he just justify Ayn Rand’a philosophy with an example from a fictional story...written by Ayn Rand?? And this my friends, is why Ayn Rand’s philosophy is silly. That’s literally the core of every argument for it.
I guess you weren’t aware of her many, many nonfiction works of philosophy... Why can none of you actually attack her ideas? This is what moronic conservatives do with Marx.
sybo59 it isn’t my job to read every single book by Ayn Rand and then counter every point. It’s the job of the debater from the Ayn Rand institute, presumably an expert on Ayn Rand and objectivism, to convince us that her philosophy is correct. And this debater, in this very debate, tried to argue that one of her points was true by using an example from a fictional book written by Ayn Rand herself. If he really had some kind of killer argument, he should have said it.
Yaron Brook is an interesting guy. When he converses with other conservatives, he comes across as a moderate, which is wonderful. But how can ANYONE defend Ayn Rand? Her philosophy is far too naïve and idealistic.
@@intensepete430 When you see someone doing something they are good at and living happily because of it, and think that's an example of Ayn Rand's ideology working, that's you ignoring the complex interdependent society they live in that allows them their lifestyle.
This ideology is appealing to individuals who hold supreme power, either in a corporation or company. It definitely doesn't appeal to individuals who are lacking wealth or power in their own society.
Ayn Rand-ian philosophy: "I understand that society has existed due to working together for multiple millennium because of cooperation and collaboration, but I just don't want to contribute to society and live off what others made! Me, me, me!" Yeah... so rational... 🤪
@@MaynardCrow Her book? Of fiction? That she made up entirely? Still doesn't change the fact that her entire ability to distribute said book, hell, pretty much her entire existence is based on cooperation. I'd like to see a single person once they're of age, discard all the trappings of society and start out on their own. Surely those driven, hard working, creative individuals don't need clothing that someone else made, or food someone else grew, or a house someone else built, they don't need others to educate them or the previous work of others to educate themselves.
Rand was in favor of cooperation. Her heroes worked in cooperation in every case. What a fucking strawman! Be honest: What have you actually read of her? I suppose you’re taking your opinion on faith from some defunkt youtuber...
Steven Tatlock Why are you claiming Rand was against cooperation? Try defeating her actual ideas (which were controversial enough!) before inventing fake ones she was fully against.
YorickReturns These types remind me of those Christians who outright say that without the Ten Commandments they’d have no reason not to go out raping and pillaging. Such a damning admission on their part.
We’re not talking about two middle class guys competing for an upper middle class job. We are talking about millions of people, because of race or class, being systemically unemployed or underemployed, uneducated or under educated, and kept from having the time and the ease to consider the essential points of being human, or to worry the conflict between consciousness and reality, or to lose sleep considering the tension between perception and the thing perceived. We are talking about a decent place to live and food on the table, and freedom from fear. We are talking about the avoidable contradiction when the social reality is put in opposition to individual responsibility, and we are talking about not seeing the essential, and existential, identity of the two.
Love your show! Very informative! Thank you! The reason that humans are still on earth after millennia, in my understanding, is because we act as a collective, embrace diversity and use everyone's talents to survive! We evolved, we became a higher conscience animal, more ethical, more decent, with higher morals!
"embrace diversity" lol - the top religions of the day preach that only the "right" believers will get heaven The rest of us will find ourselves as Jews in Nazi Germany - set apart based on belief and dumped into gas chambers in hell Morals, values, who we are as people does not matter - only belief matters and that too the "right" belief! So much for embracing diversity
In order for this guy's philosophy to even have a chance, you would have to have a pure meritocracy where everyone starts life at the same starting line and gets roughly the same level of opportunities throughout life. Welcome to a "Brave New World" - read that book if you want to see that in action.
So glad you’re having this discussion David. I have a few objectivist friends and while I think there’s wisdom there, speaking to them about the greatest problems facing society reveals what seems like an awful lot of naivety. For example “I have to assume people are rational.” I do want to know if I’m wrong, but speaking to some of these folks is frustrating ; It’s like they adhere to an ultra orthodox ideology.
You don’t have to assume it. It’s a fact. What you may not be aware of is the nature of rationality. That is has to be willed. One must actively sustain his reason/judgment. And that you can stop it. You can evade thinking. You can go by emotions or wing it at every moment. So when Objectivism says human beings are rational beings, what is meant is they posses the potential to reason. Which may or may not be made an actuality.
@@lamalamalex wpuld have been nice to see a response to this perfectly written statement, but as usual, right before a leftist can actually learn something, he leaves.
@@lamalamalex The real question about rationality is "are people to be rational when I need them to be?" The answer quite often is NO. That they may be capable of rationality does not help at all. In fact, feelings come first and rationality second. The reason is physiological, emotions need a shorter pathway, so they are faster. Think of a doctor testing your reflexes. By the time your mind is aware that he has hit the knee with his hammer, your foot has already reacted as is on its way back.
This is David Pakman at his best. Honestly most of his "news" portions are just click bait insults of the right. This is the type of substance that America needs to grow and understand better..
I'm an atheist like Rand. I read "Atlas Shrugged." To me it's a series of straw man arguments which is ok for fiction but doesn't work in real life. Rand ended her life broke. enrolled in Medicare and Social Sercurty. BTW, pride is an emotion.
Yes. The amazing thing is that Howard Rourke, the hero of his hero's (Ayn Rand's) novel, takes a quarry job that he's overqualified for - the EXACT thing that Yaron Brook earlier said that people should not and would not do in his ideal society.
Whenever I read something by Ayn Rand, or her adherents I also felt that obviously , and for clear justified reasons, she was angry. I mean of course, her family and her were incredibly mistreated by the both extremes of what we view as duality of the right and the left. But it’s like she , despite all her talk about rationality, thought very emotionally and vengefully. And just as if by accident her material situation in life fit her philosophy. Another thing is in her personal life she didn’t exactly adhere to her own preaching. She was angry when her boyfriend/lover picked another woman. According to her own prescriptions for rationality instead of emotion, she still acted vengefully and tried to make his and the other woman’s life very difficult just in spite. I do not remember their names but it is well documented in various online websites and documentaries. Basically her view , in my opinion, would be doable in also, ironically, in an utopia, a concept she was criticizing. Utopia that requires all people don’t simply intend to, but are able to think in absolutely rational logical sense without any emotion. A computer, an AI would be able to follow her “objectivist philosophy”.
An acquaintance of mine, a retired mathematician, is a Libertarian Party member, and a devout follower of Ayn Rand. He believes the government has no business helping anyone. He has never had a meaningful relationship and he lives alone in a studio apartment. He has no telephone. He spends every night sitting on the same barstool, drinking ‘til closing, then staggering home.
Feanor Good observations! I do feel sympathy for him. He is a bright guy, quite engaging and a good conversationalist, so I enjoy his company. But his sense of self sufficiency has taken him to a place of isolation. I don’t know him well enough to know the origins of all of this. I try to keep myself open to communication with him, though.
The way David slows down the interview, to dive into each Randian scenario....it really exposes how ignorant Rand was towards the struggles and challenges of life for most people. You don't think you're qualified for a job? Sure, just give it to someone else, there will be plenty of fall-back opportunities of which to support yourself and your family on, while your money and resources dwindle.....let's not think about how idealistic and naive that theory is, allowing others to take advantage of that "kindness" as a grift. Not to mention, it's inherit in our nature as humans to poses self-doubt about our abilities and attribute false reasoning when things don't go out way/ norms are broken. Yeah, let's just assume people have a perfect sense of self-capability and qualifications to determine whether or not they should get a job over another person, no chance that could go wrong.... This Randian theory is EXACTLY the way conservatives think, in a nutshell. They think that if everyone just takes care of themselves and accurately asses their situations, then everything will fall into place. Then they turn around and complain that leftist theories are "Utopian"....while they're literally assuming that every single person is physically, mentally and financially capable of supporting themselves and their families without a job, for example?? WHAT?! It's a naive and immature way of looking at the world and figuring out how to deal with problems. Yet you point this out to most of them and they get really triggered and resort to name-calling, straw man arguments and false equivocation. This is why communication between conservatives and liberals is so gridlocked. The left (for the most part) is trying to be reasonable and nuanced, while the right (for the most part) is unwilling to see the world from an enlightened perspective (from another's point of view, unlike their own).
The Randian way may be how conservatives think in the US, but not necessarily in other places. I'm a conservative, but I disagree with Rand. 1. It seems to me that it encourages social isolation and a way too aggressive "every man for himself" line of thinking. It ignores the fact that humans have achieved their success as a species as social beings. 2. Reality is what it is... I fully agree, but she ignores and even seems disgusted by the fact that humans are emotional AND rational beings. Acting on emotion is not intrinsically bad. 3. Regarding the job scenario: how would I know who else wants that job? HR doesn't give me info on the other applicants. Also, how can I judge who deserves the job considering I have no idea who the other applicants are?
@@octavianpopescu4776 I should have said conventional/mainstream conservatism. That's my fault for painting with too broad a brush, I apologize. You sound like you have a more nuanced approach to this ideology and that's something I respect. Just as progressives are trying to uproot corporate/establishment Democratics/neo-liberals, there needs more people like yourself in conservative circles, challenging the mainstream narratives and breaking from so-called conventional wisdom of the Republican party.
@@octavianpopescu4776 3 straw man arguments😂. 1. Be true to yourself and honest with others, rather than pretending to be someone you think they will like and respect. 2. Act rationally to the best you can at all times. Wow such a radical and controversial idea. 3. You missed the point. In this example it is precisely because the person who gets the job, knows they did not deserve or qualify for it.
@@kurt.wilkinsongardendesignThey're not straw man... because 1. When she says that I shouldn't sacrifice for others... implicitly she's saying every man for himself. That... be true to yourself part...ok, but at what cost? Because there has to be a cost-benefit analysis based on the specific details of the particular situation. An uncompromising me, me, me attitude (my values, my vision) seems more like being rigid and inflexible than being true to oneself. What about other people's vision and values? 2. The "as best you can" part wasn't clear from his statements. Also, it seems to me that there was a point missing. The rationality of an action is dependent on the objectives. Rationality is not a single path that would lead us all to the same conclusion, because we value different things differently and as such we have differwnt objectives. What is rational for me, might be irrational for you and there is no ultimate supremely rational conclusion. If I want to be rich, it is rational for me to cut travel expenses, but if you want to travel the world, the same solution would be irrational from your standpoint. Also, again: are all non-rational/emotional actions automatically bad? 3. How can the person KNOW that? To KNOW and not just suspect, that person would need access to the information of all other applicants, which the person won't really have. HR which does have that information has determined that actually that said person IS indeed the most qualified. Is it not fair then to assume HR has made the best decision considering that it has access to all the information and the decision is made by professionals? Is there anyone who can be a better judge? Let's assume that Rand's message was misunderstood by me and others... It is the task of the person communicating to make himself/herself understood. So it would be her failure, not that of the public.
@@octavianpopescu4776 1 rubbish. One needs to associate with others all the time to communicate, and fairly exchange goods and services of value, in order to survive to the best of ones ability. That is the most rational and best choice, for one's self. If you go around being a prick, karma will catch up eventually and survival will get very hard. Hence not a rational option.
Rand was a hypocrite regarding not accepting her relationship was over, wouldn't accept her boyfriend didn't want to resume a relationship with her as the age gap was too large. She was bitter and vindictive towards him and his new girlfriend.
I am kind of bummed you did not first point out that the individual’s capacity to reason is not quantifiable or consistent (at this point). Also, reality (the physical manifestation of universal physical principles) is not accessible to human beings sans external instruments. Our perspective is limited by the limitations of our bodies. Objectivism is malarkey unless one recognizes that they know next to nothing.
I've enjoyed watching you take Republicans to task for the last couple of years, it's great to see you discussing things other than 'he who must not be named' :-)
When can we separate morality from religion? A person who makes moral judgments on their own is innately moral. A person who makes them out of fear of being judged is only rational.
His arguement against people who are less "qualified" getting a job, and being upset later(?); what if the more technically qualified got it through privileges and opportunities, instead of the quality of work? Whereas the person with less qualifications on paper is much more qualified with quality experience? That's just one off the top of my head. Once he got into the racism shit, he absolutely exemplifies the flaws of this philosophy.
Jenna Killpop Rand’s actual point was that there are no conflicts of interest between RATIONAL people. What you describe is an injustice, and as such anger is totally appropriate. This philosophy is much more robust and powerful that you realize. I’d encourage you to do your own reading as going off an informal interview like this is tough. Philosophy: Who Needs It is an outstanding, and quick introduction to get way of thinking. Even if you come to reject her, I think you’ll benefit from it.
My head is like a fountain of ideas. None of which are worth shrugging about. I wish I was as successful as a person who lived to destroy govt and died using govt social services.
Jay Millzz She died rich. She created novels that still sell like crazy. She created an integrated philosophy of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and esthetics. Taking SS was completely consistent with her worldview. Do you have any actual point or criticism?
Jay Millzz No, she explicitly said that recouping some of the money that was forced from you was morally proper. You can disagree with her assessment and beliefs, but it was simply not hypocritical. I know, it seems like such a perfect GOTCHA! but it just isn’t real.
@@sybo59 Well if you understand how social security works, you'll realize how its hypocritical. The money she paid in taxes into social security wasn't saved for her for her to recoup. That money was spent. What Ayn was receiving was other tax payers money. She wasn't recouping other people's tax dollars on their behalf. But, go on. I know how nuance and details are the enemy of individualism, but this is fun nonetheless. Again, this is coming from a former believer.
@@dirtyharry1881 I have watched the video. What did he or she say that indicated they were hacks? I presume you will easilly be able to prove your statement with some form of evidence, otherwise you would not have said what you said.
"wouldn't it be great if everyone was a perfectly rational actor with non-conflicting values?" David: yeah... But that seems unlikely... "But wouldn't it be great?"
I love that you brought up Matt Dillahunty. I'm glad he's no longer doing Atheist Experience because he was really losing his effectiveness there, but he's one of my favorite thinkers and debaters, and he's the biggest influence on me finally escaping religious thinking.
Vicculuz I have, all over this comment section. I gave this comment approximately the same effort that was put into it. My comment, I must humbly say, has the advantage of being correct though.
This guy is oblivious to real people. Almost everybody I know HAS to have a job or they would be destitute. They don't give fuck all about qualifications.
![Oasis - Oasis Live '25 [Official Trailer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gol_JnuEtKM/mqdefault.jpg)
One of the reasons that human beings have been so successful as a species is that we are COOPERATIVE. It’s what we call civilization. I kinda like it.
Individual human versus wild animal = human dies.
Co-operating humans vs wild animal = humans live.
Yes, but WHY?? Is it for their own benefit?? Or do they cooperate out of selflessness? 😂
Seth Campos nothing is really done outside of ones self interest even in instances of sacrifice. It’s not an either or question or answer. People can and do act in a manner that benefits the collective and at the same time as an act of partial self interest.
@@SETHPCAMPOS I mean it can be both. Maybe you want to help someone out of empathy or maybe you want help someone because you can gain something from them.
Seth Campos It’s a matter of philosophy and semantics. The point is, cooperation is something Ayn Rand seems to ignore.
"Atlas Shrugged has sold millions of copies". So has "Dianetics", your point?
and the bible.
and some ufo books
and stuff by deepak chopra...
Great analogy Shannon.
@@sabin97 you left out mein kampf and mao's red book
i kept thinking about the similierities between the authors backround.
@@alveolate
i only mentioned 3 things....so obviously i left out everything else.
"i want to think people are rational"
"we don't live in a world where people are rational"
"also, people should value their pride, over real world opportunity."
This guy's ideology is incoherent.
that's because his guru was an intellectually-average (if that) and universally unpleasant little russian lady. Her "philosophy" can be summed up in its entirety as "fuck everyone else, i got mine". Ayn Rand was never considered a talented writer at all. and only morons could even make the leap into assuming the selfish and asinine ideas espoused by her protagonists qualify as "philosophy".
It’s because objectivism is a cheep knock off of turn of the century German individualism. Rand is a hack plagiarist
People have the capacity to be rational, but of course they aren't always. That's what he meant, surely.
And of course you should value your pride rather than merely being an opportunist.
@@gjerstad85 😂😂😂😂
@@gjerstad85 no, his ideas lack internal consistency. He argues for logic and rationale over emotion repeatedly, then makes a blatant argument from emotion to justify why someone should turn down a job.
I thought Rand was brilliant when I was 12, then I spent the next few years with my eyes open learning how the world really works and realized her worship of wealth caused her to conflate money with talent with no evidence to support that conclusion. If you are over 14 and not over Ayn Rand, remember after spending her life worshiping wealth and believing she was better than everybody else, she lived on the welfare she claimed to despise before she died. A perfect example of a miserable human being.
This, and so much more. She is one of those so-called thinkers that were elvated by the people who needed a pretend intellectual justification to be a dick. Much like the trickle=down economists and such, they are literally trying to tell you suffering at the hands off rich assholes is normal and rational and you should try to be one of those assholes... ugh
Her accepting of social security checks is not contradictory to her philosophy. courses.aynrand.org/works/the-question-of-scholarships/
If you don't like wealth dont asked the wealthy to pay for your lack of motivation to achieve
@@wildturkey3776 Do you genuinely not understand the difference between wealth and worship of those that have it?
One is just a calf statue made of gold, the other is all the people prostrating themselves before the golden calf. I did not criticize the metal art, I pointed out Rand (and Trumpettes) worship the golden calf.
If you had read her books you would understand that is her underlying message, worship wealth. You can get off your knees any time now if you want.
SaltRiver Pirate how does the fountainhead worship wealth? Howard Roark lived in squabble for much of his career. And peter, who has all the wealth, is unhappy because he has essentially no integrity. The whole point is that if you don’t live with integrity, you’ll eventually lose sight of who you are and become a mirror or what society at large WANTS you to be, rather than simply who you are. Peter wants to destroy Roark because he’s just doing his own thing instead of pursuing the easy career path.
I’m doubting you’ve actually read the book because this is so clearly not the point of the Fountainhead.
Ayn Rand: how is this still a thing?
I am thinking about your query. While I couldn't agree more, the idea there are people who really believe just being born wealthy makes you better than everyone else goes a long way to explain the Trumpettes that still worship the Tangerine Tyrant. POTUS Bloatus certainly believes it.
@@saltriverpirate3172 its also a reference to the John Oliver segments "how is this still a thing?" :) they made one on Ayn Rand. It was a playful jab at certain contradictions.
@@tom_curtis ;)
Lol. People who never have studied ayn rand seem to always have the strongest opinions about her😂.
@@SETHPCAMPOS
People who have studied ayn rand seems to have all wasted their time. The woman was a complete hack.
Ayn Rand Lexicon entry "Identity":
"I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity..."
Brook says about 8:22 that "...Ayn Rand never actually says existence is identity..." !? What?!
He misspoke. "Existence is identity" is another way of saying A is A. That to be, is to be something specific.
Why would someone follow a miserable person like Rand to find the secret to happiness??? Also there are psychologists that would argue that all altruistic actions are essentially selfish because they always illicit something positive in return, such as good feelings. If there is no such thing as altruism then there can only be degrees of selfishness. Since selfish actions often result in negative outcomes for the society the person has to live in, it isn’t always in their best interests to be selfish. The exception is the extremely rich that don’t live by the normals rules and laws of society. Hence libertarianism is popular with some very rich people who pay lowlifes like Brooks, lots of money, to propagate their complete nonsense garbage.
Why. What's wrong with Rand's philosophy?
@@kurt.wilkinsongardendesign Jed seems to be criticising Rand, while stating something from psychological research that agrees with part of Rand's philosophy!
Ironic.
@@kurt.wilkinsongardendesign Jed seems to be criticising Rand, while stating something from psychological research that agrees with part of Rand's philosophy!
Ironic.
When did Rand say she has the secret to happiness? huh?
She is a bit harsh on altruism but sometimes people have helped others out of the goodness of their hearts only to find that when they needed help in return, such help was not forthcoming
@@kurt.wilkinsongardendesign her fatal flaw was to deny the subjective Factor in her own psyche. She was selfish and petty. She disrespected the working class and idolized abusive oligarchs. She was evil.
Philosophy degree holder here: He keeps labeling Rand as an "Aristotelian". As far as political philosophy goes, this could not be further from the truth. In Aristotle's 'Politics', he explains that humans are a political animal. We naturally make communities of all sorts because we are better off as a community than we would be as isolated individuals.
Rand's rugged individualism is exactly the opposite view. If you want to attach Rand's ideology to a famous philosopher to make her sound like a serious intellectual, Aristotle is one of the worst choices.
Spot on Aristotle was a communitarian. Dude didn't care much for the individual especially when it's the individual Vs the community. Rand was the opposite. This guy is a clown David should not putting guys like this on the channel
Are you and individual, as in do you have your own thoughts and experiences, or do you only live through other people, and copy what they do and say?
@Michael Defibaugh it is a simple question, so if you are unable to comprehend, it says everything?
@Michael Defibaugh are you an individual?
@Michael Defibaugh the original comment talks of "isolated individuals v community" which is a false or ignorant statement. We are all individuals who choose to interact, or not with others to form communities or partnerships of our own choosing. This allows us to survive better as an individual. It would be extremely irrational to try and survive as an isolated individual, and has zero commonality to Rand's thinking
Glad you did this. We need more debate like this from everyone
Will Schaefer I agree with you 💯! It is really easy to only watch content that echoes your own beliefs. For me personally, I have found that it is beneficial to hear out people I disagree with, if for no other reason than to challenge my own set of beliefs. We can never grow as individuals if we are only willing to listen to people who think and sound like us. I also think it is important to understand the perspective of other’s. Understanding what makes people have such extreme differences of opinion concerning the same topic(s) is crucial to finding the middle ground. No one person or group should get to decide for everyone else. It is dangerous. It is how Trump has successfully sold the fear of the other. It is how he has not only divided, but fractured, this amazing country. I believe that most people are good. Some are misinformed, some are angry, and some are just fundamentally not good people. Yet I have not lost all faith that once Trump is out of office that we, as a country, can begin to heal. 🇺🇸❤️
Monica Lynn Yokel this Brooks guy is advocating pure sociopathy with zero redeeming qualities.
ILikeMe 123 I didn’t say that I agreed with him whatsoever. Not even an iota. As crazy as some people sound to us, we have to remember that they think WE sound crazy. I’m am positive that most Trump supporters would call me ignorant, snowflake, or libtard without hearing anything I have to say because they don’t want to. They have blinders on, and they only want to engage with people who share their passion for Trump, and their very misled beliefs. I feel that I am no better than a Trump supporter if I behave like a Trump supporter. This man did not change my mind about anything. However, if I come across someone with a similar set of beliefs, I can possibly engage with them. Maybe even challenge some of their belief systems.
One thing I know for sure is that nothing is going to ever get accomplished when we are so deeply divided as a country. It is pure madness. Fear of the other. The POTUS using his office to enrich himself while screwing everyday Americans, and absolutely destroying our standing in the world. I also think he is responsible for a lot of the violence we’ve seen over the last few years. He is emboldening the worst members of our society. Every single time Trump does something dumb and dangerous, I just hope that they rest of the world knows that the average American does not agree with him.
I agree with the person above you who says there won’t be any healing until the Republicans are gone. However, I think that certain Republicans need to go, and a small handful of them are decent people overall. Even if I do not agree with their political views. All Americans should feel represented. I just think about how I would feel if the Republicans took every single position in the three branches of government, and they were the only ones with any say so or power. That thought is absolutely horrifying to me.
I really wish that people could articulate their thoughts and feelings in a cohesive and coherent way, without feeling the need to say hurtful things or calling people names. It’s so juvenile. Dialogue is so important. Listening. Truly listening...not to respond, but to understand what another human being is telling you is of the utmost importance. I promise you that if we all treated each other with respect, we would see the results of those actions quite quickly. But as long as grown adults hurl words at the opposition, like “you people,” or “libtards,” etc...the fear and hate of the “other” will be all that remains.
The only time I don’t take the time to listen is when people are spouting hate speech of any kind. That is absolutely unacceptable. It’s damn near impossible to convince a bigot that they’re a bigot, and they won’t listen to you even after you have extended the same courtesy. Have a great night.
Monica Lynn Yokel so I agree with listening to opposing views but sometimes only to know their tactics. Reasonable disagreement is fine and I’m always open to new ideas and to change my perspective but some things are not worthy of such regard. Ideologies that are based around certain irredeemable qualities like sociopathy, racism, xenophobia or any other form of discriminatory bigotry do not warrant any serious consideration. Objectivism, much like most discriminatory and sociopathic ideologies takes surface level and seemingly reasonable statements but then draws them to harmful ends. This is a common bating strategy. I’m not concerned if a person prone to personalizing a sociopathic ideology thinks my views are crazy. If there’s hope of reforming them I’m glad to help but I’m not going pretend like a harmful ideology is worthy of serious consideration or that our differences are merely a matter of perspective.
ILikeMe 123 As I mentioned above...I know very little about Ayn Rand. A lot of what this guy said, I did not know about her or her school of thought. I know just enough to know that it isn’t my cup of tea. So you clearly started watching with knowledge about Ayn Rand that I didn’t have. Maybe you even know who the speaker is...I do not. I know a little more after watching this yesterday-but it just pushed me further away. I think it’s a combination of him speaking like he is Ayn Rand, and the actual message itself. I can’t imagine subscribing to anyone’s ideology like this man. I’m so curious how that happens. Have a great day.
Randians, Libertarians, "Classical Liberals", call 'em what you want, come in two varieties. The first is the wealthy, and the second is the poor and middle class that have convinced themselves they will be wealthy, _any day now._
@Marcos R.
you might wanna study what "libertarians" propose.
it's basically the feudal era all over again.
those are the consequences of unregulated markets and letting the rich do whatever the fck they want. and abandoning the poor at the mercy of the rich.
back in my college years i considered myself a "libertarian"....for a few months...until i dug a bit deeper and saw how disgusting and morally bankrupt libertarianism(in all of its forms) is.
2 types: 1) Rich and evil 2) Poor and stupid
@Marcos R.
i'm not talking about any individuals. i'm talking about the ideas "libertarians" spread.
those ideas are morally bankrupt.
it's basically the feudal era all over again.
those are the consequences of unregulated markets and letting the rich do whatever the fck they want. and abandoning the poor at the mercy of the rich.
@Marcos R.
the different labels are cute. but when you look at the core of libertarianism it's always the same. morally bankrupt ideas.
it's basically the feudal era all over again.
those are the consequences of unregulated markets and letting the rich do whatever the fck they want. and abandoning the poor at the mercy of the rich.
@Marcos R.
that's very cute.
but the fact remains.
the core of libertarianism(in ALL of its forms) is a bunch of morally bankrupt ideas.
it's basically the feudal era all over again.
those are the consequences of unregulated markets and letting the rich do whatever the fck they want. and abandoning the poor at the mercy of the rich.
As I have said before, Ayn Rand's philosophy ("Objectivism") is to ethics as creationism is to science.
Funny that you should make the creationism/science connection, because Ayn Rand's philosophy is purely Darwinian: Survival of the "fittest." In other words, survival of the most selfish, self-centered, self-interested, could-not-care-less about anyone else, because I am an animal that wants it all for myself, and if I share any with you, that's less for me. Sure, many "creationists" have ignorantly extreme views (the world is 6000 years old, the Bible's creation story is literal, etc). But the other extreme is just as insane. Want the Truth (with a capital "T")? Give me a "click".......
Dostoyevsky is the answer here. He says that things are as their nature. The Nature of humans is NOT TO BE RATIONAL AT ALL TIMES!!!! Humans will be emotional and irrational many times in many circumstances. This "philosophy" is simplistic and stupid.
It’s amazing how you all speak so confidently on a complex philosophy that you must admit to never having studied. How do you justify this? You literally don’t know what you’re criticizing. None of you.
@@sybo59
I haven't studied too much about her work but what I do know, I find pretty much Irrational. but I think what might be going on with you is that you are uniting all of her beliefs as reasonable when maybe just a certain portion of them might be?
Yeah that's what Darwin said, fittest is always the most selfish. 😑
Listening to your guest elaborate on the Ayn rand perspectives; concerns me. If it is a philosophy growing in popularity, no wonder Fascism is growing. The philosophy sounds good if your in the traditional Privileged group or class, but so to are many atrocities. The way he described it, it is dangerous and even reckless.
Ayn Rand was a misanthropic troll who cashed in on her hatred for humanity
Simply asking, "how do Syllogisms give us direct knowledge of objects" wins every debate against Randian Epistemology
Objectivism is inductive.. I dare you to win this debate 🤣
@@bradbecker8982
everything is ultimately inductive.
Objectivists do not believe that syllogisms give us knowledge. They believe syllogisms express logical relationships. If A = B and B = C, then A = C. The concepts in syllogisms must be given content however, as you are correct to point out. Objectivists believe concepts are given content not by syllogisms, but by experience. Your concept of a chair comes from your experience of having sat in chairs before. Desecrates believed syllogisms alone give knowledge. Objectivists are not Cartesians, but empiricists.
Assuming most people are generally rational, self aware, and reflective is a big mistake from my experience
Everyone (apart from young children and the severely mentally disabled) can be, and that's the point.
Rational is simply the ability to think and act in what you believe is your own self-interest. It does not mean that one is a scientific seeker of truther or say, somebody like Spock.
Chris - The question is how far forward one looks in considering self interest. For instance, in the short term, dumping waste in the river near you is rational self interest. In the long term it isn’t rational to do that. Because most decisions are like that, the best tactic is to think long term when considering rational self interest. Both Left and Right struggle on this sometimes. Think about the minimum wage. It helps some people with their standard of living in the short term. In the long term though, it creates an incentive for automation to displace jobs and that is far more damaging to the poor.
@Nelson Giles - Agreed. This observation is basically the driver of Yang's platform. I like the man - and I'm on the Right - but I have four BIG concerns: (1) the culture of capitalistic individualism - an individualism that is increasingly insensitive to social fabric (Robert Putnam's "Bowling Alone") - is so pervasive that I believe the super wealthy class needs time to adopt the perspective that UBI requires...and the rest of society needs to adopt a stronger "with rights comes responsibilities" ethic, too, (2) if UBI is applied to early, it is very easy for companies to re-domesticate to off-shore venues and avoid the taxes that support UBI. Furthermore, the amount of tax revenue needed is so high that there will be massive lobbying efforts for loopholes to avoid the tax (that financial guys like me take advantage of).... unless the culture changes....thus making that effort less appealing, (3) I am a big believer in the rule of law and the Constitution. Per the 10th amendment, it is clear that the federal government has no constitutionally "expressed" authority to institute UBI. Therefore, unless one institutes UBI at the state level, a constitutional amendment needs to be passed, and (4) Human life requires meaning. Work gives our lives meaning. UBI may put bread on the table, but I worry about the rest.
@@StrategicWealthLLC Now why would you be a big believer in the rule of law and the constitution? And which type of law in the constitution do you
believe in? The constitution expressly states things the government is required to do, and it simply ignores them. ( so much for having to
amend it. ) And if your claim about UBI is correct, then how was Social Security possible?
I am *shocked* that the representative of Ayn Rand institute is a grey haired white dude.
It seems the Ayn Rand Institute is an organization that hires people who would not be qualified to do any other job.
How dare you criticize an immigrant from a protected minority! Also, I don’t think you’re aware of the many non-whites who either work at ARI or support it ... not that it actually matters.
Nairbo He’s actually an immigrant from Israel. Not that it matters.
😅
@@emileconstance5851 Yaron Brook has a phd in finance I think he's quite qualified..
My question to the critics of Ayn Rand who keep talking about the need for co-operation (as allegedly opposed to selfishness) in society: "Do you believe that following your self-interest means going around stealing and raping and murdering?" If your answer is 'yes', I think that says something very worrying about you!
You don't have to use extreme examples. Donald Trump for example acts out of self-interest, including getting many family members into White House office positions, with Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner making $135 million in a single year as aides to DJT. You said Ayn Rand wants people to think rationally. A rational person would not have hired a White House aid to make deals with China for profits.
@@PD-xk6uq "Donald Trump for example acts out of self-interest, including getting many family members into White House office positions, with Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner making $135 million in a single year as aides to DJT." In doing that, Trump is promoting to himself and to others the false and dangerous idea that merit doesn't matter. If one of Trump's subordinates engages in nepotism and hires someone incompetent who damages the administration, Trump has given up any moral basis on which to complain. In fact, the subordinate may have been inspired by Trump's own nepotism! If Trump's building contractors engage in nepotism and thereby construct an unsafe building, Trump again has no moral basis on which to complain. If Trump goes to a hospital that engages in nepotism, he could die. Trump may even convince himself that merit truly doesn't matter, and he may end up hiring someone incompetent for an extremely important position who ends up destroying his administration altogether. That isn't selfish. It's selfless.
Trump indeed is irrational. He is indeed selfless.
It sounded like he said that the poor shouldn't be exploiting the rich by protesting exploitation...
🤔
Ben Rice I could make the argument using his logic that in a rational society the people who are “rich” are not worthy of being “rich” and therefore it is our rational imperative to protest.
@@Bobgo27 1000% True , There Should be Worker Owned and managed Cooperatives, Government Owned Corporations and for the greedy the independent self employed operator. Capitalism as it exists today should be outlawed.
gradostax no, I prefer a Georgist reforms to abolish rent seeking. I support markets as a distribution mechanism for goods and services, not a fan of statism in any sense, I’m open to certain social democratic beliefs, but do not care much for worker owned coops etc. robust unions suffice.
gradostax no, I prefer a Georgist reforms to abolish rent seeking. I support markets as a distribution mechanism for goods and services, not a fan of statism in any sense, I’m open to certain social democratic beliefs, but do not care much for worker owned coops etc. robust unions suffice.
He said no such thing, nor would that be consistent with Objectivism. What quote do you have in mind?
Some of the quotes she had may be taken out of context. But I cannot see any context in which they are not awful.
Also, if her goal is human happiness, science shows us clearly that being compassionate and helping others increases one's own happiness--it's one of the major factors that contributes to human happiness.
Irene Haralabatos Well that’s your emotional reaction - no more valid than those who felt deeply repelled and uncomfortable by the heliocentric theory of the cosmos. I think her ideas are not only true, but beautiful. I’d be happy to discuss this further if you’re at all curious.
Emile Constance Wait, how does “science” quantify and the price the source of happiness? I’m actually well-read on the so-called happiness studies, and if you are as well then you’re certainly aware that “science” (in the false monolithic sense in which you use the term) has also pointed out the damning problems with such studies. You’re being lazy and dishonest.
@@xunqianbaidu6917 SHE IS NOT A PHILOSOPHER, NOWHERE outside right-wing circles is Ayn Rand taught as a philosopher!
@@xunqianbaidu6917 your name sounds like something someone has to take to calm down. But no answer to the actual thing I wrote, have you?
Poor guy, he never got out of his teenage Ayn Rand phase
I'd love to hear him say "Rascally Rabbit". lmfao
Jesus christ you ppl are insufferable.
A ubiquitous echolalic. Free will requires a volitional act to think.
I had no idea that the teenage Ayn Rand phase was a thing! But it happened to me too.
Do you have any specific criticism of something she believed? Perhaps you do, but so far everyone I’ve engaged with here just makes vague insults but when pressed admits they don’t know anything about Rand’s philosophy.
If you watch David Pakman long enough, you get the impression he can hang in virtually any conversation! I fancy myself a pretty smart guy. I'm no David Pakman, though. Bear in mind, English is his second language!
English is his native language. Despite the fact that he was born in South America, he was raised in an English speaking environment. He may have NATIVE fluency in both English and Spanish. He has no foreign accent when he speaks English, indicating that English was his go-to language from his earliest years.
This guest does absolutly not live in the real world.
You could say that of pretty much anyone who is a fan of Ayn Rands works.
Is there another world we should be aware of?😕
@john edwards So are drug addicts while on drugs, my dude.
@john edwards Damn, I didn't think I'd have to explain a simple analogy to a genius Ayn Rand fan.
Believing in objectivism is simply pulling the wool over your eyes and pretending like everything is fine. Just like taking drugs.
Now that I think of it, this is really fucking funny. Someone said you live in a different world and your response is "we're the one who're happy", which I guess is supposed to prove you're right? But that's pretty ironic because the whole point of objectivism is to only use reason, not emotions. So whether or not you're happy should be completely irrelevant.
Carry on...
@@TheMrMacintosh Rand doesn't deny emotions, indeed a lot of her ideas are presented as a way to achieve happiness.
But the only way to achieve this is to use reason. You have to observe the real world and act according to it's natural laws in order to survive and thrive.
You can't build a car or an airplane or a skyscraper by following your emotions. You must use methods that are proven to work for that purpose, in other words reason.
If you do this consistently, however, there's a good chance you'll succeed in your endeavors and therefore achieve self-esteem and happiness.
Reason is therefore how you interact with the world and positive emotions is the reward for doing so successfully.
And there it is....Rand doesn't believe we should treat people equally, but rather how they "deserve" to be treated. So it's completely subjective and gives room for people to justify discrimination and domination through places of power. It's possibly the most problematic part of Rand's ethical theory.
Are you saying you treat everyone in your life, equally the same,😂. Do you really treat or think of your mother, the same as your boyfriend or girlfriend etc. Seems like you are not thinking rationally?
No one is treated the same by anybody! We all have preferences. It's part of human nature.
how about this, you know that your neighbor is a chronic drunk that refuses to get help, beats his wife and dog, and is a hard core racist. Do you treat this person the same way you would treat your parents or your friends? If he needed money for a liver transplant and money for a lawyer because of his own actions, do you still think you should treat him the same? Would you give him the money, would you be ok if others voted and said you should help pay for his own stupid decisions? Of course you should treat people different, just be rational about it to you best ability. If you know that homeless person is an abuser of drugs and wont get help dont give him any money, you are only helping him feed his destructive life style.
@@illyavogel1660 So I agree with you, but the issue here is how we treat people, as a whole or as groups vs how we treat the individual. If there is proof of misdeeds or criminal activity with the individual, then who could blame someone for treating them differently than say, one's own mother. But this particular topic comes up a lot and has been framed to attack the "welfare queen", a hypothetical person that is meant to represent the worst of our society, when it comes to abusing help or resources. THIS is where my critique is aimed, not towards known differences between individuals, but rather when it's used in the abstract to label groups as "the other" in an effort to deny people help. In doing so, we run the very serious and costly risk of denying help to those who need it, out of fear that we may accidentally help some hypothetical low-life that Rand would deem unworthy of help.
Me reading Ayn Rand as a teen: What the Hell is this?
Me reading Ayn Rand as an adult: WHAT THE HELL IS THIS HOW DOES ANY ONE TAKE THIS WITCH SERIOUSLY.
Also I love all the Randies in the comments saying 'gee, how is selfishness immature?'
Some of us grow our of it, okay? As you become an adult you start to understand other people have feelings and needs.
Grow up.
Maybe your concept of selfishness is not the same as the one understood by objectivists. For them, it means to place high value on your life and happiness and to not sacrifice yourself for the benefit of others. Sacrifice meaning to trade something of higher value for something of lower value (value in the sense that is valuable to you). If you loved someone or something and decided to spend time, money or even your life on it, that would still be considered an act of selfishness for an objectivist.
For example, if you wanted to donate 5 dollars to a shelter for animals because you think it's something important then you're not really sacrificing those five dollars but trading it for something that you consider valuable.
On the other hand, if you were starving to death and decided to sacrifice yourself so that a stranger or a person you hate (say, a criminal or a bully) can survive by giving them your food then that would be the opposite of selfishness for an objectivist and the very definition of altruism.
@@kazuoua 'For them, it means to place high value on your life and happiness and to not sacrifice yourself for the benefit of others. '
That's what it means to everyone, dude.
'If you loved someone or something and decided to spend time, money or even your life on it, that would still be considered an act of selfishness for an objectivist.'
That's a rather normal understanding of selfishness.
'For example, if you wanted to donate 5 dollars to a shelter for animals because you think it's something important then you're not really sacrificing those five dollars but trading it for something that you consider valuable.'
Yeah, I understand. To think that such an idea in the foundations of will work is not only stupid, but ignorant, because it requires ignoring pretty much every day the results of that sort of thinking. Only some one who is cognitively limited, and I don't mean this as an insult, I mean they have a developmental condition that has retarded their growth, could believe such a thing.
Empathy and compassion are the rule among men, not the exception.
@@InternetMameluq So you think it's immature to have good self-esteem and to not sacrifice your well-being for the benefit of strangers or people you dislike?
@@kazuoua Uh. Yeah.
@@InternetMameluq Ah ok, then my bad. Pretty crazy that someone would think that growing up meant having lower self-esteem, hating yourself more and deciding that others are worthier than yourself but alright, I guess the world is a diverse place :)
Ayn Rand makes perfect sense...when you're an angry 16yr old. A mature person sees all the flaws.
What are the flaws? Just name one and say why? It will be easy for you, surely.
@@kurt.wilkinsongardendesign can do.
1. Society by its nature is not "every man out for himself" and "bootstrapping" your whole life; it's ridiculous. That's a largely over simplified version of Objectivism, but it's basically accurate. It's cobbled together from various philosophies but boils down to "each according to his own needs and abilities" and "no quarter asked, none given". Even Rand didn't live that way.
Also, why the hostility?
@@vicdmise when did she say every "man for himself and bootstrapping"? Or what did she say that implied what you say. Instead of saying what is "basically accurate" why not say something accurate?
@@kurt.wilkinsongardendesign I'm not really interested in a debate. Clearly you're a follower of her philosophy and you're going to get bogged down in the minutiae. I'm not really interested. Good luck.
@@vicdmise so you know nothing, but make a courageous statement that here philosophy is for a 16 year old😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂. Nice one, you are an intellectual giant😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂. You have done exactly what I expected👍
Rand: “we should live in the real world and not an imagined one”
Also rand: imagines a world where everyone makes decisions out of rationality over emotion.
Absolutely absurd philosophy.
Baby Arrow That’s not really a fair criticism of her since you have to imagine a world where your philosophy is in place to determine if it should be used in real life. There’s a lot of other, better criticisms of her.
@@xbird532
Philosophy should be possible to practice. Fair?
She also assumes rationality is a capitalist self-interest, and that greed isn't an emotional response.
@@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676 if you ask Marx, yes. Otherwise philosophy is not necessarily that
@@magolao
I disagree entirely. Marx himself drew inspiration from many other philosophers.
Side note, sometimes people get a job not because they are the most skilled or best connected..... But because of simple dumb luck. By chance, you had a good interview or happened to guess correctly on a few questions on a test and got a very high score.
Objectivists cannot wrap their brains on the idea that luck is important to success, and it shows.
What I'm unclear on is that in the beginning it sounded like decisions were to be made based totally on some form of emotionless objective rationality, but at the end, presents the idea that one can live a good life only by deciding on a set of important values and holding true to them with an example of an artist refusing to compromise his work. Doesn't that seem like an emotional decision?
Wow, a genuine question! Pretty rare in this comment section, sadly. I agree that the connection between reason and emotion is not totally obvious here, but to be fair, it's impossible to convey a complete system of philosophy in a short, informal chat such as this. To be very brief, Rand didn't believe that the mind and heart were intrinsically at odds -- though when they are, the mind has to take precedence. For HOW she came to such a conclusion, you'll have to do the deeply personal work of reading her, but I promise, you won't regret it. If you're somewhat new to philosophy generally, I'd highly recommend reading/listening to her succinct speech, Philosophy: Who Needs It. I think it's brilliant, and I'd really value your opinion. Happy hunting. Cheers!
@@sybo59 It definitely sounds more thoughtful and nuanced than it's often portrayed which is basically just as a justification for cold selfishness. I am pretty new to philosophy since the extent of my exposure is a couple electives in uni and lots of entertainment grade philosophy like contrapoints and philosophy tube so that actually sounds interesting.
I don't think that is an emotional decision, if you compromise on your artistic work it is no longer purely a product of your efforts. Should Steve Jobs have compromised on the quality of the work he insisted on in his products (even the insides)? How many great works of art/literature, etc. have been produced by communities?
If the intellectual honesty to your own values, or "Integrity", is an emotion somehow, then maybe. If you understand the virtue of integrity, you understand that your self-esteem is what is protected by integrity. Your self-esteem is absolutely necessary for your own well being and happiness.
A 35 minute to say no? Sorry but the idea of listening to some guy prattle on about Rand and her "selfishness is the only objective good" nonsense is simply beyond me. I do express my deepest condolences to any family members out there who have a relative that didn't outgrow Rand after freshman year in college.
I also express my deepest condolences to any family members out there who have a relative who didn't outgrow Marx after freshman year in college. The crucial difference between Randians and Marxists is that naive Marxists shroud their dangerous ideology in the garb of virtue and well meaning people swallow it uncritically, almost always ignorant of course of the great tragedies that have occurred historically whenever and wherever Marxist philosophy has been put into practice in the real world.
@@annfrench4743 Since that seems to be a ham handed attempt to call socialists Marxists I think you should go play in traffic you ignorant buffoon.
WAY too many assumptions have to be made for AR to make sense. If this guy represents AR’s philosophy then I’m quite confident putting her ideas on the lowest shelf.
Disrespect
I feel like her "moral system" as he explains it doesn't stand its ground even against the most basic of questioning.
A free market society whose existence depends on
1. A perpetual motion engine
2. A vibranium/adamantium style metal which is cheaper than steel, to be invented and mass produced by a certain industrialist. This individual must also have the super power to modify existing designs, like discovering better methods of building bridges on the fly.
3. Entrepreneurs who throw down government officials down a flight of stairs for offering them a government loan to start business.
.
.
.
There are a few more requirements but it is entirely possible.
23:07 "In a free economy. you're NEVER on the verge of starvation." I guess Yaron never heard of the Great Depression.
@@thefilthydjinn5224 you forgot the most important: beautiful, brilliant, brave, naturally elegant, tireless, immune to disease and jealousy men to lead that society.
She was also anti socialist but had to use socialism to survive! Loved capitalism and was a very “successful” author but had to use public assistance at the end of her life because she developed cancer from smoking ( she claimed the science behind the link between smoking and cancer was “fake science “ ) so how does a successful author start needing help from society (socialism )during hardships but still fighting for unregulated capitalism and against socialism? How can you claim her to be successful when you need public assistance because you get sick from something you dismiss as fake ? How is that an example of logical thinking?
My thinking is pretty much the OPPOSITE of Ayn Rand's....And as one result, give me a "click" and you'll see that I've been given the simple cure for cancer and the very Meaning of Life.....
She paid taxes to fund social security. Getting social security is just the government giving you back the money they stole from you.
She died wealthy, and taking SS was consistent with her beliefs. Why do you all need to lie to attack Rand? So strange how not one person has addressed anything she actually believed, especially since her ideas are apparently so easy to refute.
taking social security was anathema to what she preached.
it's as if someone had been preaching their whole life against drinking alcohol....and at the end of their life becomes an alcoholic....
she was a hypocrite, plain and simple.
her calling science "fake science" reminds me of drumpf calling everything "fake news".
or the antivaxers claiming they are better informed than medical researchers and medics....
sabin97 Jesus, where to start. 1) Where, exactly, did she every, ONCE preach about not legally taking (recouping, really) money from a government that had taxed you? 2) Where did she every use the term “fake science?” She no doubt disagreed with some scientists, but I call out your made-up phrase to further illustrate your dishonesty. You just make things up as if someone who actually understands her philosophy won’t notice.
Soooo. What is Ann's opinion on the mentally ill or physically disabled.... Because I get the feeling she would approve of abusing them for personal gain and cheap labor.
Ayn Rand's metaphysics are so unbelievably lazy.
@R S The idea that Kant's metaphysics are lazy is completely laughable. Read a book some time you butthurt randroid so you don't confuse epistemology with metaphysics next time. There are no new ideas in Rand's metaphysical philosophy - it essentially amounts to direct realism, justified (somehow) by the Law of Identity.
@R S Wow, what a serious person you are. I wonder why nobody in the field takes Rand at all seriously, whereas Kant is often termed the most significant figure in modern philosophy.
@R S Learn how to use the verb 'pertain', big brain boi.
@R S You read like the Rick and Morty copypasta
She makes sense to outright sociopaths, maybe, but that's really it.
Amine. I bet you can't explain that remark, can you?
knight44441 You might want to read Rand’s essay On Racism. You seem well-intentioned, but I can tell you have no knowledge of what she actually stood for, and it’s unjust for you to criticize from a place of ignorance. But it’s forgivable - I started out as a fervent critic set on disproving what I thought were simplistic beliefs. At every turn engaging with her works I had to concede I was wrong. Maybe you’ll have a different experience, but what do you have to lose?
knight44441 Here’s Rand on racism:
“Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage-the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.”
@Amine According to you, if you oppose slavery, you're mentally ill. You would have been right at home in the antebellum Deep South!
knight44441 This are not arguments.
David, Ayn Rand fled a totalitarian society and came to America thinking that America was the Land of The Free & The Home of The Brave. She discovered that if that had ever been true by the time she got off the boat it was a myth. Her choice was either sail back to Russia and accept what it was or stay in America and create her own myth. Her novels helped her populate her myth and the mythical valley to which her characters fled for solace. Trouble is she never showed us on the map where the valley was located so we too could flee there. All this said I find myself wondering if you find a striking resemblance between Rand's guiding principals and The Donalds... a person who is singularly devoted to maximizing his own happiness.
Quite frankly after reading all her books many years ago I came away very unimpressed. Her belief in the "rationality" potential of the human mind, for instance, leaves me feeling that she must also believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy. Couched as it is in a meandering sequence of True Belief and pseudo intellectualism Rand's belief in human behavior being rational would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous. Her Free Market belief can easily be refuted by examining how well it worked out in America.
Much as Ayn pretends to discard the entire concept of morals she winds up resting her entire society upon the concept that man's rational mind will create and sustain a livable world through moral action.
Short and not so sweet there is no Santa, there is no Tooth Fairy, and there is no utopian valley to which we might flee in search of a life based solely upon merit.
Really? You read all of Ayn Rand's work? No... you have not.
@@TheBelovedRose. There is literally nothing to rebuttal this person has not represented Ayn Rand or Objectivism in any way whatsoever. He creates his own fantasy of what Ayn Rand thinks, Ive never seen anything like it. Her belief in rationality is like that of the belief of Santa Claus... what? That makes no sense.
Atlas Shrugged is a weirdly unpleasant book. Like badly written and bad in spirit. Not sure how anyone enjoys that.
The radical book reviewer did a good video going over her book
It is interesting today to see the US gov't trying really hard to find ways to break up Google, Amazon, RUclips etc. because someone else has been lobbying for it to happen. So far their arguments have not been taken too seriously, but this type of thing is what Atlas Shrugged is all about. To what extent should a man be forced to give up the fruits of his labour because someone else 'needs it'? In Australia we pay so much tax in so many ways now that it is truly burdensome, the Gov't will never have enough money to pay for all the programs arising out of welfare thinking.
@@aikidoshi007 are you fucking serious? 1 I have never heard any form of evidence that "the government is trying to break up corperations". This is a complete fabrication that is contradictory to the reality of state corperate interests. 2 are you seriously defending these exploitative mega corperations that have such insane power that they are arguably more powerful than entire nations of people. 3, "give up the fruits of his labour".... Hahahahabahaah you are such a bootlicker. Bezos, Wojcicki, and many more ultra rich and their shareholders did not create the value of the multinational corperations. The idea that some guy in wallstreet created the value of Amazon and not the hundreds of thousands of workers who have to piss in bottles to keep up with the work, and the workers put into 80+ hour shifts for the corperation with 0 benefits, while they get survival wages is a sick deluded view of the world. But this is what I expect from someone who takes Ayn Rand seriously. Any intellectually honest being would laugh at her books and ideas, but again someone like you who doesn't know the USA has invaded dozens of foreign democracies to protect the interests of their corperations and capital against the interests of the peoplr would think Ayn Rand is an "intellectual"
No. To fight Socialism, set a good example. The Ayn Rand Institute should send back all the Government Aid, and Objectivists should send back Social Security
Objectivists, like everybody else, were victims of the Federal Government's FORCED theft of funds through social security taxes. They did NOT pay voluntarily and if given the opportunity, every one of them would have opted out of FORCED participation. What YOU are suggesting is that now that the funds have been STOLEN from us by FORCE, we should voluntarily give up the opportunity to collect what is due to us. How silly of you. You aren't actually serious.
Dave you earned my respect in this discussion.
35:55.... The “heir-achy of values”... is a SUBJECTIVE- not objective concept. So perhaps Randianism really is just personal subjectivism eh?
thechangingtimes objectivism is not the belief everything is objective, it’s objectively analyzing the reality around you, including subjective systems
@@GodHandKilla - No one gives pure objective analyses of reality. A persons innate mental traits (personality, etc.) and their values shape how they perceive everything. One's experiences significantly shape their values. I would agree with the term "personal subjectivism". I have read Atlas Shrugged by the way, and the 1967 book on Capitalism by Ayn Rand.
Peace Seeker a person holds objective values because they decide what is valuable to them and what isn’t, contextually. Subjective isn’t real, it’s a package deal that means “incomplete perception.”
Objective reality exists, because we exist and we say we exist. Stop waiting around for a god to confirm that you are real.
@@objectivelybased5477 „objective reality exists because we exist“
totally non-sequitur. What is meant by „objective reality“ in philosophy, especially moral philosophy, by far exceeds the simple fact that existing entities exist (which is also tautological)
@@peaceseeker9927 ayn Rand answer this point. You're describing Kantianism.
If she was such a successful author, why did she live on welfare at the end of her life? She believed in rugged individualism and unfettered Capitalism, disdained those who lived off Government handouts and admired the rich and wealthy because they were economically successful. Her basic philosophy is "might makes right" and "survival of the fittest". Those who cannot survive within a society is completely have only themselves to blame. We are NOT responsible for any one else. There is no communal responsibility. Existence is survival and only selfishness serves that well. Libertarianism, anyone? We can see why the economic/power elites use her ideas to justify using people to attain their ends.
Objectivism... Sociopathy and Hypocrisy as a philosophy.
This dude is actually painfully superficial. Not that he has a particularly deep well to draw from.
Hello David,
I'm a bit dissapointed you didn't raise the fundamental onthological issue:
1) If you reduce "reality" to palpable cases and their interactions, you're focusing on a tiny sliver of the human experience! You're leaving out irrationality and emotions, which account for the most important part of our actions and decisions. This "Randian" canard can't account for love, for exemple. Nothing is more human, and more irrational, than love! (and that's just one example).
2) *Even if* I grant the premise that existence is a rational, cold, logical equation stemming from Aristotle, this gets us nowhere: the Logical Atomists and the Vienna Cercle in the beginnings of the 20th century tried *exactly* that: taking all "metaphysics" out of philosophy and concentrating only on things we can say ("the sky is blue"). This project FAILED miserably, blown to smithereens by Wittgenstein (The Tractatus). Even worse, tying to point (1), what did Wittgenstein do afterwards? He *retired*, saying Philosophy only handled redundancies or contradictions and that the important aspect of life was *outside* this domain of inquiry: mysticism.
3) You should've made the point that what you get with this silly "homo economicus" logical approach is a being devoid of humor, empathy and many other characteristics central to the human experience: you know, *exactly like* Roark, the most unlikeable main character of the 20th century. I mean, her "utopia" of living in cold transactions with John Galt and bowing to a golden dollar with your billionaire buddies sounds GODAWFUL, but it's the logical conclusion to such an onthological mess.
Cheers
Rand said the weak are beyond love.
Hopefully love will put food on your plate
Arbitrary of you to link emotions to irrationality, as if emotions were a means of cognition. While emotions are not means of cognition and don't tell you by themselves what is true or not, to live without emotions is irrational as emotions are the means of experiencing life as an end in itself (life being the standard of value).
If you read Ayn Rand's works, you'll see that her heroes are passionate almost beyond belief. Their emotions are more intense than those of any human that I've ever seen in real life. What's more, their emotions are integrated to their rational view of life. They have integrity, i.e. their thoughts, emotions and actions are parts of a harmonious, logical whole.
I like this style of program and would enjoy seeing more like it. One particularly pleasing aspect is that for the most part each speaker is respectful of the other in not talking over them. That is a blight of most political discourse, this piece shows that it is possible to avoid it.
A separate thought occurs to me - in the past Pat the producer has occasionally been asked for his view on an issue and has added something relevant and interesting, perhaps he could join such discussions.
There used to be more shows like this but shouting matches get more ratings
I'm conflicted on Pat. David's already pretty young and it kind of makes it look like a kids show when you've got the two of them on screen at the same time
Is it just me or did this guy get pissed off every time David interrupted his 5-10 minutes of contunied talking for 10 seconds (to seek to clarify a point) as if he was here to deliver a lecture rather than be involved in a debate/discussion on the topic.
Just you, Matt.
I'm having Walter Block/Sam Seder flashbacks.
Matt Roberts just you. Dude was fine.
Kinda sounds like a preaching. It is a cult that's why lol
Yeah... I read atlas shrugged in high school and thought it was satire. I was shocked when I learned she's considered a philosopher. Then I read Nietzsche.
Rands objectivism is a blatant ripoff of Nietzsche among other contemporaries of Nietzsche. She didn’t reject him, she ripped him off. Can’t very well admit it though could she
cale lively What did she rip off? Be specific. This will be a tough one, since you’re lying.
Sarah Trickey Cheap, vague insults aside, what specific objection do you have to her philosophy? Who is better, and why? Bet you won’t (can’t?) answer.
Nathan Tompkins Which works of hers have you read? Everyone is so vague with their insults.
Nathan Tompkins Interesting approach. So if, say, Descartes had written a novel you find crummy alongside his philosophical and mathematical contributions, you might take that as enough to falsify his beliefs? Very interesting approach.
How is Ayn Rand still even a thing?
SirLangsalot - Awkward, selfish white men.
As they’re the most prevalent demographic that make up libertarian ideology.
Narcissists who want to justify their selfish behavior
You might as well ask why is apocalyptic fundamentalism still a thing? And while we're at it, why is it that so many "objectivists" and apocalyptic fundamentalists get under the same Big Tent at election time?
_Most superhero movies are either an exhalation or a refutation of Ayn Rand😕_
@@louiscyfear878 Is this an insight from literary theory?
"I'm going to assume people are rational"? Behavioral Economics has a lot to say about that not being the case.
No, you took that completely out of context. In the abstract thought experiment he was laying out was assuming that the actors in that scenario were acting rational. But he has said many times that most people choose not to be rational in reality but most have the ability to be, they just choose not to. And then the question really becomes: what’s the alternative philosophy to replace one that advocates one use reason to guide their life?
Stefan Burns you’re an idiot. Marketing and advertising focuses primarily on creating asymmetric information by psychological framing. That’s why the people that run big marketing departments for corporations are typically economic psychologists or social psychologists.
@@stefanburns3797 Aren't there many philosophies that advocate the use of reason to guide a person in one's life?
@@stefanburns3797 so is a gambler rational, taking a risk? There's choice, and there's risk. Does rational imply we make the best decision with our present knowledge? Or simply an informed decision? There's a line there which I guess people disagree on?
The short answer is no. The long answer is also no.
I mean, why don’t we just play Bioshock again to see how those ideas play out in a community. Minus the plasmids....
But the plasmids made it fun!
The ability to shoot fire and rabid insect swarms out of one's hands is a God-given right that only Marxists would be upset about.
@Nathan Tompkins I mean we'd probably need to make a monopoly on the sea slug department, and Rapture had an advantage for literally being underwater. Plus in America it would just give the Coast states more financial advantage
That was such a great work of history. I still remember when they taught me about it.
@Ben Wasserman As far as objections to Objectivism go, "Muh video-game!" ranks among the cringe-worthiest.
I have no idea what world this guy lives in. It seems like he has never had to deal with a difficult situation.
He’s happy. Shocking.
If we live in a "free economy" there are always options? A fundamental misunderstanding of the ethic of competition in the context of scarcity and differntial advantage. These ideologies are grossly underthought to the point of being functionally less than worthless.
Ayn Rand said things that sound profound but much is just not true. College students should take a very skeptical view of Rands views.
Ayn Rand obviously never met anyone that's been beaten down by the system and exhausted by it.
I believe America should be a place where people can live without career goals.
Stop forcing ideologies on me and just leave me alone.
Ben Rice Her novels were explicitly about being beaten down by the system. She herself fled Soviet Russia, making her way to America with no family or money. Tell me more about your deep knowledge of Rand...
@Khaled Rapp thinks that defending good people is for cultists.
@@sybo59
That she owed her education to the USSR state-funded University System.
Ironic given her later life.
She also died "looting" on welfare.
Ayn Rand says, "A is equal to A"; and from that deduces an extensive metaphysical and ethical theory. That by itself is sufficient to refute her idea, for "A is equal to A" is a tautology. Therefore, logically, nothing can be validly deduced from that statement about the physical world. All that Rand purports to deduce from that identity is, therefore, merely her own prejudices invalidly smuggled into the discussion by sophistry.
You’re completely wrong. First, it’s not “A is equal to A,” it’s “A is A.” (Not a trivial difference) It’s just the law of identity from Aristotle. All of math and science is based on this axiom. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
@@sybo59, re the law of identity, "In its formal representation, the law of identity is written "a = a" or "For all x: x = x", where a or x refer to a term rather than a proposition, and thus the law of identity is not used in propositional logic. It is that which is expressed by the equals sign "=", the notion of identity or equality. It can also be written less formally as A is A."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity
It follows that the difference between my statement and Ayn Rand's "informal" statement is indeed trivial.
Further, from the law of identity, only the law of identity follows. To get anything further in maths you need to add further axioms, such as "non-contradiction" and "and the excluded middle". To get science you also need to add observations, and inductive reasoning. Ayn Rand provides none of that. Instead, whenever she cannot show something she claims, she merely asserts "A is A" and pretends that proves her point. "A is A", however, remains a tautology, and from tautologies no matters of fact about the world follow.
Tom Curtis You’re close, but wrong. Non-contradiction and excluded middle complement the law of identity, and are incoherent without it. What meaning is there in the statement “A thing can not be both A and non-A at the same time in the same respect” of A didn’t possess a definite identity? You actually can’t form any coherent proposition (much less an attack on the law of identity) without making use of it.
@@sybo59, it seems more likely that you have not understood what I have said. To put it more directly, an axiomatic system whose sole axiom is the law of identity will not have any other theorems than the law of identity. If you add further axioms such as non-contradiction and excluded middle, you may be able to derive further theorems - but with those alone none of the derivable theorems will have empirical content.
She specifically does not deduce anything from "A is A," though. You're making things up.
“There are always options.” Sounds like a guy who has never run out of options. 🙄
Sounds like you disagree. Why is that?
Is America there is 100% ALWAYS an option unless you screw up and land in prison. Please give me a situation otherwise
Zac Spolar, there’s half a million homeless people and about 40% of them are employed in some form (odd jobs usually). Why are so many of them still in poverty if they have access to work? They take the option to work but they are still stuck in the mud. Can you explain that?
@@MrSpolaR an immigrant family with two kids arrives in the US. The father has a job. He's robbed and murdered 3 months later. The mom has no job, doesn't speak the language, and has two small kids to take care of.
A man works in construction. Hurts his back but is compensated with medical help and financially for the 2 months he can't work. The doctor prescribes opiates that are constantly praises at the doctor's office by pharmaceutical company reps. The man develops a opioid addiction loses his job, house, and is now homeless. Worse of all he hasn't been able to kick his addiction.
Yeah I guess you're right everyone has excellent options.
Keyser Söze because they don’t make the choices necessary. It’s not rocket science. How many unfilled jobs are there right now? Over 7.6 million, with millions of those being blue collar trade jobs that pay $50k+ a year and require no college, no experience, only an apprenticeship. A well paid apprenticeship. And unfilled means employers need employees willing to work hard. Also where are the vast majority of those homeless? In major cities where the cost of living is high. Nobody is making anyone stay in areas with high cost of living with a competitive job market. Nobody. Stop making excuses. Doesn’t matter if you’re a homeless drug addict. Look at Khalil Rafati and tell me it’s impossible. If someone is able bodied and of sound mind there is always a way out if they make smart choices and work hard. Stop with that nonsense way of thinking. Look at the majority Nigerian immigrants who come here with basically nothing. They are absolutely thriving.
Ayn Rand was a horrible writer, not a philosopher, a disgusting human.
For somebody who says we shouldake decisions based on facts and not emotions, he sure does talk about the emotional benefits a lot, like pride in work and integrity.
Lots of people buy books to show them off on a shelf, not to read them. Having thick books is more showy than having thin ones.
@@sabin97
No thanks, I have loads of those already. (And I read them too)
If we don’t help people out they cannot realize their full potential. You can have someone with paralysis who need aid. But in the long run they might be the next Stephen Hawking. These people in the end might contribute more that they receive. But if we judge them as not worthy and a burden on society we will never know. Every person is valuable and that’s what society should be based on. That’s what reason AND empathy tell me. Reason alone without the human caring or empathy is dangerous, imho.
Yeah but like, he nowhere said "don't help people" nor is he against emotions, or thinks there's some kind of dichotomy between the two. Might want to actually give it a listen before straw manning.
Irene Haralabatos Except Ayn Rand never opposed empathy, compassion, or charity. She never said “don’t help others.” This is a ludicrous strawman that her detractors won’t let go of, and there’s no evidence whatsoever of its validity. On the contrary, Ayn Rand in her personal life could be very compassionate, as this article shows. medium.com/the-radical-center/the-charitable-ayn-rand-b8459c79c899
People who can't help themselves or who need help are best helped in a free society. Free societies are much wealthier and more technologically advanced and they also have been the most benevolent societies. There is much more hope for cures for diseases such as Stephen Hawking had and for aid to him.
But, it's also important to realize that the vast majority of people are not helpless. Very few are when they are free.
Freedom unleashes man's potential unlike anything else.
If people actually ran countries like rand wanted, billions would suffer. Oh wait, that's kind of where we are right now.
I have been hired for two jobs of which I was not qualified. I learned how to do them and did them well. In the end I gained experience that opened doors to higher positions thus improving my career and my life. Do I feel good about it? Yes! Am I proud of myself? Yes! Is my integrity in tact? Yes!
What a hoser!
7:00 "It rejects the idea of exploiting other people, of using other people to achieve our happiness" hmm, very interesting, comrade Brook
Communism is the ultimate system of exploitation. Capitalism is only judged to be exploitative by people who don’t understand the mechanisms of value.
@@robinsonfarber4014 LOOOOOOOL *laughs in capitalism*
@@robinsonfarber4014 i communism you exploit the people, in capitalism you exploit people .
This sounds like a self help seminar
So the answer is.....
NO. No she didn't make sense.
Contradictions galore and dismissive of the objective flaws in reality that such an ideology brings forth.
1:15 " She came with nothing " You just gave Soviet sympathisers the best pass. Ayn Rand was in fact one of the first women to get state funded university education from USSR right after the end of the Russian civil war despite her anti Soviet sentiment. Hadn't it been for her state FUNDED education and anti leftism she would be one of the many impoverished Americans.
No better argument against Objectevism then Randyans
Did he just justify Ayn Rand’a philosophy with an example from a fictional story...written by Ayn Rand??
And this my friends, is why Ayn Rand’s philosophy is silly. That’s literally the core of every argument for it.
Give him a break. Her fantasy worlds are the only place her ideology works.
I guess you weren’t aware of her many, many nonfiction works of philosophy... Why can none of you actually attack her ideas? This is what moronic conservatives do with Marx.
@@sybo59 those are also fiction.
@@sybo59 would probably help if every talking head spouting off her ideology, didn't come across as total morons.
sybo59 it isn’t my job to read every single book by Ayn Rand and then counter every point. It’s the job of the debater from the Ayn Rand institute, presumably an expert on Ayn Rand and objectivism, to convince us that her philosophy is correct.
And this debater, in this very debate, tried to argue that one of her points was true by using an example from a fictional book written by Ayn Rand herself.
If he really had some kind of killer argument, he should have said it.
If Elmer Fud tried to intellectualize selfishness:
@bali song Then what?
@@giganticbrittle Then become a selfish prick like Rand and her followers.
Yaron Brook is an interesting guy. When he converses with other conservatives, he comes across as a moderate, which is wonderful. But how can ANYONE defend Ayn Rand? Her philosophy is far too naïve and idealistic.
Exactly, is idealistic, that's why he defend it.
"I'm trying to imagine a way that this would work, but i can't."
Cameron Gallegos. When you see someone doing something they are good at and living happily because of it, that is it.
Intense Pete so... libertarian socialism?
@@intensepete430 can't remember the last time i saw happy people. Soooo...
Proud violent Libtard it’s for disillusioned working class, angsty teens, and elites trying to justify their lives.
@@intensepete430 When you see someone doing something they are good at and living happily because of it, and think that's an example of Ayn Rand's ideology working, that's you ignoring the complex interdependent society they live in that allows them their lifestyle.
This ideology is appealing to individuals who hold supreme power, either in a corporation or company. It definitely doesn't appeal to individuals who are lacking wealth or power in their own society.
Ayn Rand-ian philosophy: "I understand that society has existed due to working together for multiple millennium because of cooperation and collaboration, but I just don't want to contribute to society and live off what others made! Me, me, me!"
Yeah... so rational... 🤪
Tozias Silverfang Lol 👍
@@MaynardCrow Her book? Of fiction? That she made up entirely?
Still doesn't change the fact that her entire ability to distribute said book, hell, pretty much her entire existence is based on cooperation. I'd like to see a single person once they're of age, discard all the trappings of society and start out on their own. Surely those driven, hard working, creative individuals don't need clothing that someone else made, or food someone else grew, or a house someone else built, they don't need others to educate them or the previous work of others to educate themselves.
Rand was in favor of cooperation. Her heroes worked in cooperation in every case. What a fucking strawman! Be honest: What have you actually read of her? I suppose you’re taking your opinion on faith from some defunkt youtuber...
Steven Tatlock Why are you claiming Rand was against cooperation? Try defeating her actual ideas (which were controversial enough!) before inventing fake ones she was fully against.
YorickReturns These types remind me of those Christians who outright say that without the Ten Commandments they’d have no reason not to go out raping and pillaging. Such a damning admission on their part.
We’re not talking about two middle class guys competing for an upper middle class job. We are talking about millions of people, because of race or class, being systemically unemployed or underemployed, uneducated or under educated, and kept from having the time and the ease to consider the essential points of being human, or to worry the conflict between consciousness and reality, or to lose sleep considering the tension between perception and the thing perceived.
We are talking about a decent place to live and food on the table, and freedom from fear. We are talking about the avoidable contradiction when the social reality is put in opposition to individual responsibility, and we are talking about not seeing the essential, and existential, identity of the two.
Love your show! Very informative! Thank you! The reason that humans are still on earth after millennia, in my understanding, is because we act as a collective, embrace diversity and use everyone's talents to survive! We evolved, we became a higher conscience animal, more ethical, more decent, with higher morals!
"embrace diversity" lol - the top religions of the day preach that only the "right" believers will get heaven
The rest of us will find ourselves as Jews in Nazi Germany - set apart based on belief and dumped into gas chambers in hell
Morals, values, who we are as people does not matter - only belief matters and that too the "right" belief!
So much for embracing diversity
In order for this guy's philosophy to even have a chance, you would have to have a pure meritocracy where everyone starts life at the same starting line and gets roughly the same level of opportunities throughout life. Welcome to a "Brave New World" - read that book if you want to see that in action.
So glad you’re having this discussion David. I have a few objectivist friends and while I think there’s wisdom there, speaking to them about the greatest problems facing society reveals what seems like an awful lot of naivety. For example “I have to assume people are rational.” I do want to know if I’m wrong, but speaking to some of these folks is frustrating ; It’s like they adhere to an ultra orthodox ideology.
You don’t have to assume it. It’s a fact. What you may not be aware of is the nature of rationality. That is has to be willed. One must actively sustain his reason/judgment. And that you can stop it. You can evade thinking. You can go by emotions or wing it at every moment.
So when Objectivism says human beings are rational beings, what is meant is they posses the potential to reason. Which may or may not be made an actuality.
@@lamalamalex wpuld have been nice to see a response to this perfectly written statement, but as usual, right before a leftist can actually learn something, he leaves.
@@jasonk8775 oh I see what you mean.
@@lamalamalex The real question about rationality is "are people to be rational when I need them to be?" The answer quite often is NO. That they may be capable of rationality does not help at all.
In fact, feelings come first and rationality second. The reason is physiological, emotions need a shorter pathway, so they are faster. Think of a doctor testing your reflexes. By the time your mind is aware that he has hit the knee with his hammer, your foot has already reacted as is on its way back.
This is David Pakman at his best. Honestly most of his "news" portions are just click bait insults of the right. This is the type of substance that America needs to grow and understand better..
The fact that Rand is somewhat "relevant" today, show us how low has the bar being set in culture today
I'm an atheist like Rand. I read "Atlas Shrugged." To me it's a series of straw man arguments which is ok for fiction but doesn't work in real life. Rand ended her life broke. enrolled in Medicare and Social Sercurty. BTW, pride is an emotion.
I love how triggered Brook got when David said it’s a fictional novel 😂
Yes. The amazing thing is that Howard Rourke, the hero of his hero's (Ayn Rand's) novel, takes a quarry job that he's overqualified for - the EXACT thing that Yaron Brook earlier said that people should not and would not do in his ideal society.
Whenever I read something by Ayn Rand, or her adherents I also felt that obviously , and for clear justified reasons, she was angry. I mean of course, her family and her were incredibly mistreated by the both extremes of what we view as duality of the right and the left. But it’s like she , despite all her talk about rationality, thought very emotionally and vengefully. And just as if by accident her material situation in life fit her philosophy. Another thing is in her personal life she didn’t exactly adhere to her own preaching. She was angry when her boyfriend/lover picked another woman. According to her own prescriptions for rationality instead of emotion, she still acted vengefully and tried to make his and the other woman’s life very difficult just in spite. I do not remember their names but it is well documented in various online websites and documentaries. Basically her view , in my opinion, would be doable in also, ironically, in an utopia, a concept she was criticizing. Utopia that requires all people don’t simply intend to, but are able to think in absolutely rational logical sense without any emotion. A computer, an AI would be able to follow her “objectivist philosophy”.
An acquaintance of mine, a retired mathematician, is a Libertarian Party member, and a devout follower of Ayn Rand. He believes the government has no business helping anyone. He has never had a meaningful relationship and he lives alone in a studio apartment. He has no telephone. He spends every night sitting on the same barstool, drinking ‘til closing, then staggering home.
Feanor Good observations! I do feel sympathy for him. He is a bright guy, quite engaging and a good conversationalist, so I enjoy his company. But his sense of self sufficiency has taken him to a place of isolation. I don’t know him well enough to know the origins of all of this. I try to keep myself open to communication with him, though.
The way David slows down the interview, to dive into each Randian scenario....it really exposes how ignorant Rand was towards the struggles and challenges of life for most people. You don't think you're qualified for a job? Sure, just give it to someone else, there will be plenty of fall-back opportunities of which to support yourself and your family on, while your money and resources dwindle.....let's not think about how idealistic and naive that theory is, allowing others to take advantage of that "kindness" as a grift. Not to mention, it's inherit in our nature as humans to poses self-doubt about our abilities and attribute false reasoning when things don't go out way/ norms are broken. Yeah, let's just assume people have a perfect sense of self-capability and qualifications to determine whether or not they should get a job over another person, no chance that could go wrong....
This Randian theory is EXACTLY the way conservatives think, in a nutshell. They think that if everyone just takes care of themselves and accurately asses their situations, then everything will fall into place. Then they turn around and complain that leftist theories are "Utopian"....while they're literally assuming that every single person is physically, mentally and financially capable of supporting themselves and their families without a job, for example?? WHAT?!
It's a naive and immature way of looking at the world and figuring out how to deal with problems. Yet you point this out to most of them and they get really triggered and resort to name-calling, straw man arguments and false equivocation. This is why communication between conservatives and liberals is so gridlocked. The left (for the most part) is trying to be reasonable and nuanced, while the right (for the most part) is unwilling to see the world from an enlightened perspective (from another's point of view, unlike their own).
The Randian way may be how conservatives think in the US, but not necessarily in other places. I'm a conservative, but I disagree with Rand.
1. It seems to me that it encourages social isolation and a way too aggressive "every man for himself" line of thinking. It ignores the fact that humans have achieved their success as a species as social beings.
2. Reality is what it is... I fully agree, but she ignores and even seems disgusted by the fact that humans are emotional AND rational beings. Acting on emotion is not intrinsically bad.
3. Regarding the job scenario: how would I know who else wants that job? HR doesn't give me info on the other applicants. Also, how can I judge who deserves the job considering I have no idea who the other applicants are?
@@octavianpopescu4776 I should have said conventional/mainstream conservatism. That's my fault for painting with too broad a brush, I apologize. You sound like you have a more nuanced approach to this ideology and that's something I respect. Just as progressives are trying to uproot corporate/establishment Democratics/neo-liberals, there needs more people like yourself in conservative circles, challenging the mainstream narratives and breaking from so-called conventional wisdom of the Republican party.
@@octavianpopescu4776 3 straw man arguments😂.
1. Be true to yourself and honest with others, rather than pretending to be someone you think they will like and respect.
2. Act rationally to the best you can at all times. Wow such a radical and controversial idea.
3. You missed the point. In this example it is precisely because the person who gets the job, knows they did not deserve or qualify for it.
@@kurt.wilkinsongardendesignThey're not straw man... because
1. When she says that I shouldn't sacrifice for others... implicitly she's saying every man for himself. That... be true to yourself part...ok, but at what cost? Because there has to be a cost-benefit analysis based on the specific details of the particular situation. An uncompromising me, me, me attitude (my values, my vision) seems more like being rigid and inflexible than being true to oneself. What about other people's vision and values?
2. The "as best you can" part wasn't clear from his statements. Also, it seems to me that there was a point missing. The rationality of an action is dependent on the objectives. Rationality is not a single path that would lead us all to the same conclusion, because we value different things differently and as such we have differwnt objectives. What is rational for me, might be irrational for you and there is no ultimate supremely rational conclusion. If I want to be rich, it is rational for me to cut travel expenses, but if you want to travel the world, the same solution would be irrational from your standpoint. Also, again: are all non-rational/emotional actions automatically bad?
3. How can the person KNOW that? To KNOW and not just suspect, that person would need access to the information of all other applicants, which the person won't really have. HR which does have that information has determined that actually that said person IS indeed the most qualified. Is it not fair then to assume HR has made the best decision considering that it has access to all the information and the decision is made by professionals? Is there anyone who can be a better judge?
Let's assume that Rand's message was misunderstood by me and others... It is the task of the person communicating to make himself/herself understood. So it would be her failure, not that of the public.
@@octavianpopescu4776 1 rubbish. One needs to associate with others all the time to communicate, and fairly exchange goods and services of value, in order to survive to the best of ones ability. That is the most rational and best choice, for one's self. If you go around being a prick, karma will catch up eventually and survival will get very hard. Hence not a rational option.
It’s astounding to me that Ayan Rand is
Revered as a philosopher.
Says who??
Aristotle, Russel, Chomsky...
They aren’t revered??
Not really, nearly half the country voted for Mr Trump
I thought he was a body builder.
@Feanor Maybe you don't hold the greatest minds the human race has ever produced in reverence, but most people who have a whit of sense do.
@Feanor that was a typo, Guttenberg.
Rand was a hypocrite regarding not accepting her relationship was over, wouldn't accept her boyfriend didn't want to resume a relationship with her as the age gap was too large. She was bitter and vindictive towards him and his new girlfriend.
I am kind of bummed you did not first point out that the individual’s capacity to reason is not quantifiable or consistent (at this point). Also, reality (the physical manifestation of universal physical principles) is not accessible to human beings sans external instruments. Our perspective is limited by the limitations of our bodies. Objectivism is malarkey unless one recognizes that they know next to nothing.
I've enjoyed watching you take Republicans to task for the last couple of years, it's great to see you discussing things other than 'he who must not be named' :-)
Im pretty sure nobody in philosophy takes Ayn Rand seriously.
Exactly! There are just pricks using this ideology to justify their class interests
@@nicolasm400 Yeah that's surely it.
@@nicolasm400 ok comrade😂. Have you ever had an idea of your own, of your very own😂?
@@kurt.wilkinsongardendesign Sure, what do you mean by asking this question? :o
When can we separate morality from religion? A person who makes moral judgments on their own is innately moral. A person who makes them out of fear of being judged is only rational.
This guy has got the libertarian accent
His arguement against people who are less "qualified" getting a job, and being upset later(?); what if the more technically qualified got it through privileges and opportunities, instead of the quality of work? Whereas the person with less qualifications on paper is much more qualified with quality experience? That's just one off the top of my head.
Once he got into the racism shit, he absolutely exemplifies the flaws of this philosophy.
Jenna Killpop Rand’s actual point was that there are no conflicts of interest between RATIONAL people. What you describe is an injustice, and as such anger is totally appropriate. This philosophy is much more robust and powerful that you realize. I’d encourage you to do your own reading as going off an informal interview like this is tough. Philosophy: Who Needs It is an outstanding, and quick introduction to get way of thinking. Even if you come to reject her, I think you’ll benefit from it.
My head is like a fountain of ideas. None of which are worth shrugging about. I wish I was as successful as a person who lived to destroy govt and died using govt social services.
Jay Millzz She died rich. She created novels that still sell like crazy. She created an integrated philosophy of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and esthetics. Taking SS was completely consistent with her worldview. Do you have any actual point or criticism?
@@sybo59 Taking SS is not consistent, but you know... whatever. I remember when I was a libertarian selling those books. Then I grew up.
Jay Millzz No, she explicitly said that recouping some of the money that was forced from you was morally proper. You can disagree with her assessment and beliefs, but it was simply not hypocritical. I know, it seems like such a perfect GOTCHA! but it just isn’t real.
@@sybo59 Well if you understand how social security works, you'll realize how its hypocritical. The money she paid in taxes into social security wasn't saved for her for her to recoup. That money was spent. What Ayn was receiving was other tax payers money. She wasn't recouping other people's tax dollars on their behalf. But, go on. I know how nuance and details are the enemy of individualism, but this is fun nonetheless. Again, this is coming from a former believer.
He has appeared on your show, Vaush and Majority Report, on each he made no sense or was able to justify his point of view on any.
Conflating this hack with Aristotle is a very bad service to everyone ever interested in Aristotle and philosophy as such...
What did he say that indicated he was a hack?
@@kurt.wilkinsongardendesign No, no, he is not a hack. Ayn Rand was. And he is conflating her with Ar.
@@dirtyharry1881 what did she say that made her a hack?
@@kurt.wilkinsongardendesign This is the point of the video...Watch and find out.
@@dirtyharry1881 I have watched the video. What did he or she say that indicated they were hacks? I presume you will easilly be able to prove your statement with some form of evidence, otherwise you would not have said what you said.
"wouldn't it be great if everyone was a perfectly rational actor with non-conflicting values?"
David: yeah... But that seems unlikely...
"But wouldn't it be great?"
Hero Shadow LuL
Wouldn't be great if we could all be either Captain America, Hulk, or the Human Torch?
Yaron's words are poisoned.
I love that you brought up Matt Dillahunty. I'm glad he's no longer doing Atheist Experience because he was really losing his effectiveness there, but he's one of my favorite thinkers and debaters, and he's the biggest influence on me finally escaping religious thinking.
Does Ayn Rand warrant serious intellectual consideration?
A philosophy of what? Reality? Ethics? Politics?
That depends if you are or aren't a stuffed shirt, self appointed intellectual gatekeeper.
@@louiscyfear878 Or are literate in philosophy and other intellectual subjects.
i disagree with both of them, but this was a lovely debate. i love when ideas clash.
#SoInsightful
I’ll just go ahead and say, no.
aaron gibson Moron.
sybo59 No, no, no. Make your argument. Defend Rand.
sybo59 good argument.
Vicculuz I have, all over this comment section. I gave this comment approximately the same effort that was put into it. My comment, I must humbly say, has the advantage of being correct though.
sybo59 fight me
I’ve often been interviewed by someone who sees me as a threat. The world is far too imperfect to assume that everyone will act in good faith.
This guy is oblivious to real people. Almost everybody I know HAS to have a job or they would be destitute. They don't give fuck all about qualifications.