"If ever the time should come, when vain & aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin" - Samuel Adams to James Warren (October 24, 1780)
Yet it also seems to be suffering enormously from a sense of entitlement without creativity. Those who receive never seem to give even though it's well within their capacity. There are things that were not said in her book because they didn't yet exist.
@@artytomparis Creators are not required to give no matter what their capacities are. Nor are they entitled to demand others sacrifice to themselves. "Government is instituted to protect private property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is just government which impartially secures too every man, whatever is his own." JAMES MADISON 1792
@@Publius-24 When creators create they are usually doing it because of the urge to give so the purpose of government as you have described, is a good one. "Government is instituted to protect private property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses.
Look around over the last 100 year plus of the USA. The forced evolution from individualism to collectivism is not just the basic theme of this novel,---but reality. I don't consider "self interest" a phenomena, as "self interest" is human nature, (and a lesser nature of every living thing), because of our ability to "reason", which nothing else on this planet can compare to. We are the only living thing on this planet who can build concepts on top of concepts, and figure out the universe. But we have to be free to think and achieve it to do that. That is our nature as human. Everything else on this planet does live according to it's nature, (or it would either evolve or die), so why can't man? I think the first 120 years of the USA proved those philosophies of individualism and a free market is what brought the greatness out of a man. Then, the kings and queens of the world, (and our government) saw that us peasants were making money,------and it had to be stopped, (if it could not be taken over)!!!! Pretty much man.
Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. Jeff Bezos is considered evil for employing millions of people. Meanwhile people like AOC and Bernie Sanders do nothing but spout populist messages while taking their exorbitant government benefits, but they're viewed as the "good" people, while they've never created anything of use. Bernie was even kicked out of his commune for not pulling his own weight.
Collectivism is much more of a fundamental phenomena, and it is older. It is hardwired in our brains, from back in the times when it conferred an evolutionary advantage. Those who stuck with the group and conformed to it had a greater chance to live long enough to pass on their genes - while the one who struck out ended up eaten by some predator. It is in our lizard brain, the one that is ruled by the four Fs : Fleeing, Fighting, Feeding and..(ahem) reproduction. And our lizard brain is faster than our rational brain as the network takes less neurons than the rational processes. In order for the lizard brain to be activated we need only to instill fear, because once that resort is touched the lizard brain says "get thee to the nearest group and welcome its protection" This is why cult leaders keep insisting that those in the outside wants to destroy them because they are different, or better, or purer. Depressingly, Rand for all her advocacy of individualism, used the same tactic, talking about the threat of collectivists, letting her disciples cluster around her for protection, and abusing them emotionally. If you want to advocate for individualism, do not argue about it, the lizard brain does not understand arguments. Instead decrease the amount of fear around people, letting them stride out with the confidence that they will not be eaten by tigers if they do.
I don't understand how you can subscribe to the theory of evolution and NOT to capitalism. The Left has long supported secularism and evolution, but economically supports socialism
Evolution is synonymous with determinism and Marxism is determinist so evolution = Marxism. The form of the logical inference is - of course - correct but the error lies in the assumption that evolution is synonymous with determinism. It isn't.
They support evolution and science as a means to an end. See how quickly they through away those two when the Left started to embrace the "rainbow" of genders and fought against the differences between men and women.
Everybody criticizing objectivism.. I am just appreciating a factor of The Fountainhead, Individualism.. I can't see why we can just take one thing from a book rather then the whole package.
@@artofthepossible7329 In other words, you take out something and the building collapses? Hmmm REminds me of this "If builders made buildings the way programmers make programs the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization." We want more robust constructions.
@adrianainespena5654 Suppose you were hired to draw up a 50-floor building, which you do, and some person said that the only way the building would be approved is if floors 1-10 are not to be built, the building is to start at floor 11 in the same place as it was drawn up in the blueprints but floors 1-10 cannot exist. I ask you, is that a 'robust construction'?
You are making a comparison between something that has failsafes and redundant construction because those who built it KNOW that things happen, portions may fail, repairs need to be made and maintenance is to be constant, with something that if you get a whole detail wrong the whole thing collapses. We are not talking about not putting the first 10 floors (though any competent draftsman would say - the first ten floors are in a parallel dimension and the eleventh floor is the ground floor now) When you talk about building a logical system you admit no failsafes, no maintenance costs, no acknowlegement that some material might not be as resilient as you hoped. And when you develop a logical system you are very vulnerable to new knowledge that would invalidate some of your elements. If you are not willing to make it modular, it will collapse.
@adrianainespena5654 Well, as far as Objectivist fundamentals are concerned, I shall await the day a football stadium is simultaneously a helium balloon with unedited photographic evidence. Everything else is the usual game of validity-checking and premise-checking.
When I was a child, and all through my youth, all the adults I knew were as you described, and it was my understanding as a young baby-boomer that it also described their generation (WW2 generation) and their parents and prior, that the people had been and were still in my youth, by and large, adherents of individualism, and no one I knew had any appreciation whatsoever for collectivist thinking, which they called "pinko" (communistic). This was why they were isolationist in their thinking and refusing the idea of going to war in 1917, and this was why they were angry for being dragged into it. They were longtime adherents to the principles that Rand later shared. To them, it was only sensible: self-responsibility was important to them. They felt that the nations of Europe should take care of their own problems, and that it wasn't theirs.
If ayn rand is alive today... I want to ask her opinion and views on the relation between parents and their children. Either of them cannot follow individualism because they are each others responsibility at certain ages. So let me know if anyone cracked ayn rand's view on this
If you decide to have children, you have decided to accept responsibilities for them. If you value your parents, you will take care of them. If not, you won't. simple.
Great question. I’ve raised 4 kids but before I was truly an individual. I helped them create this terrible thing of “identity”. I even raised them to believe in a mystical sky god. I regret so much. If I could do it again I would keep in mind that the child begins pure, much more pure than me. I would learn from the child, grow together, experiment with life together. I would not intentionally contribute to creating the illusion of an identity. I would praise them for the questions they ask, encouraging them to question everything and not assume that there are any answers or that answers are even the goal. I would admit that there is not one single person alive who knows what the hell is going on. I would be honest 100% which to me means “I don’t know”. I’d have their back and support them becoming whoever they are with no judgement or expectation. I’d encourage non attachment. I’d encourage exploring feelings rather than trying to “feel good”. I regret having children because for me it was like the film idiocracy. I brought 4 more humans into this world with the major handicaps of identity and trauma. I would not do it again. This is the best AR question I’ve ever heard. Got me thinking, thank you.
There's no such thing as a "collective thought". The highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give...yet one cannot give that which has not been created...SBN RESONATE
I want to know what I could do if I had every great economic and philosophical book of our time, and go back to the time of early man. If I brought this philosophy to the Romans and Greeks, the industrial revolution would have occured before the year 1000 👍
Psh. When the student is ready the teacher will appear. The inverse is also true. You assume people are logical and change based on good information. Of course, the masses are illogical and change only when they are physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually ready to do so. Hose great economic and philosophical books were born out of the struggle. Without the struggle, you won’t understand the information. That’s human nature
If you had gone back farther enough, you would have convinced quite a few to strike out on their own, so that they could be eaten by saber tooth tigers. As for the industrial revolution, there was one after the Greeks and Romans. Check Jean Gimpel's book "The Medieval Machine" It is good to know something of history when talking about the past.
@@johnathanvale8634 Just because you do not want to dwell on the Prehistory does not mean that it did not cover a great span of time and that things did not happen then. The ineluctable fact was that for a loooong time men and women knew that being outside the group meant death. The ones who learned that lessons lived long enough to reproduce. The ones who didn't died before they could reproduce. Telling those people to be individualistic was to condemn them to death.
I didn't realize the movie had Gary Cooper in it! Wow! I never got to watch it but I know that Yaron Brook, the intellectual and head of the Ayn Rand Institute, said it sucked.
It’s Pretty good actually. Especially for it’s time. Ayn Rand was involved in the production fairly close from what I understand. The head of the Ayn Rand institute saying it sucked is like when someone who has read every game of thrones book tells you what’s wrong with each episode.
Natural Law under Objective morality. Ayn poisoned the well somewhat. Not sure if that was lack of a full understanding of Natural Law, intentional misdirection or refusal to fully recognize Natural Law.
Natural Law asserts that man is a being with certain requirements and capabilities. He is a conceptual being with a rational mind who must think and act in accordance with reality in order to survive. What part of that did Rand poison?
To suggest that all the world’s ills are due to an insufficiency of selfishness is absurd, as is Ayn Rand’s materialistic atheistic philosophy of selfishness
I found Ayn Rand through the lyrics of Neil Pert. I dont believe in... I do have a question you can help me with: Watch one or two of the great slight of hand illusionists...Troy or the Pop Illusionist. Then tell me how objectivism is possible after your sense perception was so glorious demonstrated to be unreliable. Please... I really want to understand Objectivism.
Not sure why he had to paint the creator as self centered... but funny how character assasination is how the bible starts... just saying.. it was the cornerstone of the first lie.. and its strange how it starts here..
+Bard of Bualsvilla America was a great place, when it obeyed it's constitution as laid out by their forefathers. I don't think Ayn Rand's view would have changed because America lost it's way. The world today can hardly be described as a capitalist society. We have reached complete collectivism and it shows.
As Bill Belichick , head coach of the New England Patriots says, "It's about the Team. That's T-E-A-M". The success of the New England Patriots in his opinion (other than the obvious fact that the Pats had Tom Brady) was due to the emphasis on the team. In fact, the NFL and American team sports points to the best economic approach in the future. You have to balance the individual and team aspects of the game. The rise of the Asian economies is due to their emphasis on the Bill Belichick approach. They have learned how to best balance the contributions of individuals, but yet still put the needs of the team first. That's why the Asians will rule the world, and the Americans will not.
Kind of ironic Belichek will go out and get some of the best individuals at their position for the "team". He was never afraid to let a guy go either or go into the gray areas of rules, how does your narrative square with that? He has riled both the grand pupa Goodell and the players union by doing so.
Ayn Rand was ignorant. Yes, life is for the individual. But who determines the freedom of the individual? Is it not a democracy? Is it not a collective agreement on what is seen as right and wrong? How can you give examples of economic self-reliance and then make the elementary conclusion for political self-reliance? There is no such thing as absolute freedom in society. Because if such a freedom did exist, that nation would be called pagans without rule-of-law. Economically, you should determine your own outcomes. And politically, we determine the rules of our society. There is a reason why the combination of democracy and capitalism has always produced the most successful nations.
This logic results in free border movement, marriage equality, equal treatment from police and absolute economic freedom. However this channel is dedicated to any conservative ideal, trumpian protectionism, ignoring state induced inequality and belittling of minorities.
Wow. As a long-time subscriber I know of NO advocacy for protectionism on this channel (not to mention advocacy for pro-life or other many conservative ideals). Can you give me an example?
@@fzqlcs Im horribly sorry, you are correct. There is no advocacy of economic protectionism on this chanell. However the relatively recent video uploaded: "Why They Keep Coming - The Migrant Caravans", the "genuine" "Trump vs Milton - Trade Policy Debate" and more scoially protectionist videos are worrisome (as milton would argue that immigration hindrance is also a intervention in market freedom and obviously social liberty). This channel introduced me to a lot of (consequentialist) libertarian thoughts, but the moderately biased information (as indicated by its increased use of fox news) is quite of putting.
@@Vfdking The channel fashions itself as Objectivst, beginning with libertarianism unless compelling evidence indicates otherwise, as with immigration. Milton understood that open borders to a welfare state would lead to economic ruin. I totally agree that the seeming reliance on Fox News is troubling, though I am not sure where else one can go to obtain video that is not the leftwing or establishment line. It was better when Napolitano and Stossel were featured, but Tucker often has a valid point of view. Hannity is like the CNN crew, just a hack.
@@fzqlcs Yes, I remember that Friedman went on to conclude therefore illegal immigration is economically more profitable/preferable then legal, because of them attaining a considerable amount less welfare than "ordinary" citizens. Also the criminality argument that is often seen on the more conservative agenda is very much against the libertarian individualist thinking, also in mine and the Friedman's opinions inverse of truth. He very much defended the 19th century complete open border policies. I know this isn't quite the topic at hand but may I ask what your opinion on Climate Regulation is?
@@Vfdking I think a cost/penalty must be imposed on any party who degrades our environment in a tangible way. That said, I do not favor any scheme that increases the cost of energy. Particularly in the Third World but to everyone of us, energy is crucial to our standard of living. While being prudent stewards, we should not simply pursue every clean air/water program no matter the cost. Climate regulation can be good, however the tendency for these agencies to go batshit crazy (EPA) makes me a bit gun shy about what I am signing on to.
everyone fails to forget that this ideology is fundamentally wrong because society isn’t a competition when we can all live in a sense of harmony, but nonetheless one cannot stifle self interest and the strong will always dominate the weak. so, it’s just the natural order that their will be the ones who wish for collective peace and those who only wish for peace that pertains to them. this ideology is in no way healthy for us all to follow, but is still necessary to progress
If we have a deeper SHTF scenario health, economic and/or financial with this Covid thing, you'll see how competitive it gets in this country. The makers/leaders/winners in the crowd will rise to the top like cream in a bulk tank. Folks in this country have lived too soft for too long and those feeling left behind are becoming majority and causing stupid shiite as priorities. jmo.
SM Smoof I do agree that’s the problem, but my ideology is to only live for what I care about and I care very little for the whims of others as long as it doesn’t cross my path. This mindset only works when society functions, but I just wish to make advances in psychology and to actually enjoy life. There’s no point in living with no identity, so I choose to be selfish as long as I can achieve my dream while still protecting myself and the things I love, I don’t care at all
Really the only idea I disagree with Ayn Rand is with respect to theism. The notion that man can create while simultaneously be nothing more than the sum of his parts (a collection of molecules that could have just as easily formed to create dirt) is illogical. Otherwise, may have been the last philosopher to truly understand what the creation of America meant. She was better than most.
Of course you can create. If not, who created the sentence above? Who created your belief in a god? And if there is a god, who created him/her/it? Certainly, it is difficult to wrap one's head around creation of the world. But saying there is a god does not answer the riddle, only changes the question to "who/what created God."
fzqlcs I didn't mean that man can't create. I mean to ask how can anything natural create anything else unless it was also created? Nothing can explain its own existence without the existence of something else. God is not natural, at least not according to the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). God is believed to be supra-natural (above and beyond nature). Most scientists agree that the universe is finite, therefore there had to be a starting point, and that starting point had to have as its first cause an originator that was not natural. Ravi Zacharias can explain it much better than I can. Check his video "Is there a God?" He talks about this very subject.
Again, who created the creator? I would also contest the premise that most scientists think the universe is finite. If it is, they should be able to point to the start and end. I have heard of no one doing that. I would also suggest that reality is not a product of majority vote, meaning there is a difference between a provable fact and what most might believe. God is about faith, not reality.
fzqlcs God can't be either proven nor disproven. I fully admit that. I only suggest that you use your God given gift of common sense. Let's say that the universe is infinite and eternal, and that all of the matter that exists has always existed for infinity (which is impossible, by the way). Pick your matter from wherever you like. All of the elements in the periodic table are at your disposal. Combine them in a gigantic swimming pool and mix them around with a gigantic egg beater for as long as you like. Do you think you'll ever produce a living organism? Let alone a multicellular, intelligent, artistic, creative, and spiritual organism like man? That's what atheism holds: that we are nothing more than the result of time + matter + chance. Does that equation produce a symphony? Or a Sonnet? I'll admit that I can't prove God. I'd like you to acknowledge that the atheistic formula for everything (time + matter + chance = everything), is so counter-intuitive that it takes a much greater leap of faith to believe in it than the comparatively tiny jump it takes to believe in a Designer of some kind. If you're not prepared to acknowledge that, then I would have to conclude that you aren't being objective.
You are making this overly complicated by assuming atheist formulas and such. As an atheist, I simply hold reason -- not faith -- as an absolute. The question of whether or not there is a god is unknowable, much less the supreme being's will or all of what religion pretends. I get that the beauty and order of the world seems to argue toward design and atheists who rule such out are certainly not objective in my opinion. I am an atheist not because I assume any formula, but rather because there is no compelling reason to act simply because the notion of god is feasible. The notion of no god is equally feasible. Whether or not the universe is finite, our ability to know that which created us is. Reason > faith
In other words a fathers that abandons his baby says see you sucker I'm out for myself let your mama take care of you. And if the mother acted like the father she will say see you baby I am also for myself. Then a hungry wolves comes to the baby and says hmm finally progress, sorry but I am here for myself, so it ain't my fault your parents are worse than animals like myself. . Everything to moderation and extremist views don't fly since everyone would have nothing since even Tesla did things for others just like many others, unlike Eigstine which was for himself and know to plagiarize and Tesla and many other at his time and now say his theories are all BS to exploit the masses which he has the same traditions as Rand know to not have any intellects just selfishness and practical jokes that produce nothing but contradictory words that gets proven false sooner or later.
+xwsx001 Most parents voluntarily select to care for their children. Individualism means selecting what is best for yourself, and this can include wanting a family. For those mothers or fathers who want to abandon their child there are a few possibilities: 1) the child dies if neither parent wants it (only can occur if 2 is not possible), 2) someone voluntarily adopts it for their own pursuit of happiness, 3) you try to impose your morality on the parents at gunpoint that they must care for the child. Both 1 and 2 are indeed compatible with individualism, and only 3 is the collectivist (meaning necessarily violent imposition) "solution". A sophisticated solution could include a region that is owned by the members and where there is an explicit contract containing a clause that you agree to be responsible for care of your children as part of gaining membership and entry to the region: this can also be voluntary and therefore individualist.
+Kon Berner Most not all which is why there is an increase of single mothers since the father decided to take a Rand approach which ends up that they ask for government help which everyone has to pay for it. Rand is for freedom without responsibility which defeats the purpose of freedoms and helps encourage slavery as a backlash. 2 extremes are not the solution. To do good to expect something in return will and has failed. One has to want to do good but not forced or at their detriment but that they want to. The entire foundation for people is all messed up. Rand puts people into slavery from too much freedom without responsibility. How can one have freedom when they become slaves to addiction? In the end people will destroy themselves like the wild west. As silly as this sound the superhero model is with great power comes great responsibility, and Rand was very irresponsible and hated among her close friends since she screwed them literally and metaphorically. Rand was sick in the head and encourages others to be sick. Think about it.
xwsx001 Increase in single mothers is more about the fact that the welfare state makes this a viable (even profitable) option. Rand is not for freedom without responsibility, she is for everyone taking full responsibility for their own actions, including mothers taking responsibility for the father they select. Talking about slavery is incoherent in a context of self-responsibility. The term means using force to enslave another, it doesn't mean that you can make this claim without evidence based on your ideology. Who is enslaved, and by whom, and exactly how? It is not possible to enslave others without guns, armies, and such.
I think you may have assumed too much. The fact is we don't really live in an individualist culture, rather we live in a familial culture. Most people have ties to their kin that transcend mere biology. Hence the abandonment of one's children is symptomatic of a decaying culture, not a healthy culture. If you read the few mentions of parenting that Rand delineates in Atlas Shrugged, you would see that she considers meaningful parenting to be essential. But I do wish she had talked about it more.
Rand is not a person you would want to be friends with. She was sleeping with her best friends boyfriend. She has low morals and low trust factor. If she betrays her best friends how do you think she will treat others to get ahead to say lies to be famous. Some things she says are right but some things are wrong. No one is perfect and she is far from it and not the total package. If everyone lived like Rand did then the world would be even more of a shit hole.
"If ever the time should come, when vain & aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin" - Samuel Adams to James Warren (October 24, 1780)
+OneGenericName In other words, always.
I find that you can't please everyone.
It's hard enough to please ourselves today, why even bother trying to please others?
i believe ego is not a factor for individualism. There's self interest which is a necessity, and there's vanity/ego which is a supplement.
There is a difference between Egoism & Egotism.
“The world is perishing from an orgy of self sacrifice”
Yet it also seems to be suffering enormously from a sense of entitlement without creativity. Those who receive never seem to give even though it's well within their capacity. There are things that were not said in her book because they didn't yet exist.
@@artytomparis Creators are not required to give no matter what their capacities are. Nor are they entitled to demand others sacrifice to themselves.
"Government is instituted to protect private property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is just government which impartially secures too every man, whatever is his own."
JAMES MADISON 1792
@@Publius-24 Creators create, that's a giving thing. You may not agree but that's fundamentally what it is. Like it or not.
@@Publius-24 When creators create they are usually doing it because of the urge to give so the purpose of government as you have described, is a good one.
"Government is instituted to protect private property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses.
POWERFUL!!!
This gets me so pumped!
.. setting man free from men. Thank you Ayn.
Self interest is a fundamental phenomena of human life .Individualism towards collectivism is the basic theme of this novel.
Look around over the last 100 year plus of the USA. The forced evolution from individualism to collectivism is not just the basic theme of this novel,---but reality.
I don't consider "self interest" a phenomena, as "self interest" is human nature, (and a lesser nature of every living thing), because of our ability to "reason", which nothing else on this planet can compare to. We are the only living thing on this planet who can build concepts on top of concepts, and figure out the universe. But we have to be free to think and achieve it to do that. That is our nature as human. Everything else on this planet does live according to it's nature, (or it would either evolve or die), so why can't man? I think the first 120 years of the USA proved those philosophies of individualism and a free market is what brought the greatness out of a man. Then, the kings and queens of the world, (and our government) saw that us peasants were making money,------and it had to be stopped, (if it could not be taken over)!!!! Pretty much man.
Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
Jeff Bezos is considered evil for employing millions of people.
Meanwhile people like AOC and Bernie Sanders do nothing but spout populist messages while taking their exorbitant government benefits, but they're viewed as the "good" people, while they've never created anything of use. Bernie was even kicked out of his commune for not pulling his own weight.
Collectivism is much more of a fundamental phenomena, and it is older. It is hardwired in our brains, from back in the times when it conferred an evolutionary advantage. Those who stuck with the group and conformed to it had a greater chance to live long enough to pass on their genes - while the one who struck out ended up eaten by some predator. It is in our lizard brain, the one that is ruled by the four Fs : Fleeing, Fighting, Feeding and..(ahem) reproduction.
And our lizard brain is faster than our rational brain as the network takes less neurons than the rational processes.
In order for the lizard brain to be activated we need only to instill fear, because once that resort is touched the lizard brain says "get thee to the nearest group and welcome its protection" This is why cult leaders keep insisting that those in the outside wants to destroy them because they are different, or better, or purer.
Depressingly, Rand for all her advocacy of individualism, used the same tactic, talking about the threat of collectivists, letting her disciples cluster around her for protection, and abusing them emotionally.
If you want to advocate for individualism, do not argue about it, the lizard brain does not understand arguments. Instead decrease the amount of fear around people, letting them stride out with the confidence that they will not be eaten by tigers if they do.
Thank you for the spoiler warning!
Thanks for uploading this.
As a game dev I resonate with this speech
I don't understand how you can subscribe to the theory of evolution and NOT to capitalism. The Left has long supported secularism and evolution, but economically supports socialism
Nicholas Joost left wing=bastards of populism.
Evolution is synonymous with determinism and Marxism is determinist so evolution = Marxism.
The form of the logical inference is - of course - correct but the error lies in the assumption that evolution is synonymous with determinism.
It isn't.
Scott Sharon Why is that ?
They support evolution and science as a means to an end. See how quickly they through away those two when the Left started to embrace the "rainbow" of genders and fought against the differences between men and women.
left and right is not where freedom thrives.
Everybody criticizing objectivism..
I am just appreciating a factor of The Fountainhead, Individualism..
I can't see why we can just take one thing from a book rather then the whole package.
Remember what Roark says about buildings, it applies to the book itself.
@@artofthepossible7329 In other words, you take out something and the building collapses? Hmmm REminds me of this "If builders made buildings the way programmers make programs the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization." We want more robust constructions.
@adrianainespena5654 Suppose you were hired to draw up a 50-floor building, which you do, and some person said that the only way the building would be approved is if floors 1-10 are not to be built, the building is to start at floor 11 in the same place as it was drawn up in the blueprints but floors 1-10 cannot exist.
I ask you, is that a 'robust construction'?
You are making a comparison between something that has failsafes and redundant construction because those who built it KNOW that things happen, portions may fail, repairs need to be made and maintenance is to be constant, with something that if you get a whole detail wrong the whole thing collapses. We are not talking about not putting the first 10 floors (though any competent draftsman would say - the first ten floors are in a parallel dimension and the eleventh floor is the ground floor now) When you talk about building a logical system you admit no failsafes, no maintenance costs, no acknowlegement that some material might not be as resilient as you hoped. And when you develop a logical system you are very vulnerable to new knowledge that would invalidate some of your elements. If you are not willing to make it modular, it will collapse.
@adrianainespena5654 Well, as far as Objectivist fundamentals are concerned, I shall await the day a football stadium is simultaneously a helium balloon with unedited photographic evidence. Everything else is the usual game of validity-checking and premise-checking.
Its for men and women (above 50)
Al-Ikram Chowdory I’m 23 and I loved this book
Beautiful!
This, is why I now consider myself an individualist (with objectivist influences).
When I was a child, and all through my youth, all the adults I knew were as you described, and it was my understanding as a young baby-boomer that it also described their generation (WW2 generation) and their parents and prior, that the people had been and were still in my youth, by and large, adherents of individualism, and no one I knew had any appreciation whatsoever for collectivist thinking, which they called "pinko" (communistic). This was why they were isolationist in their thinking and refusing the idea of going to war in 1917, and this was why they were angry for being dragged into it. They were longtime adherents to the principles that Rand later shared. To them, it was only sensible: self-responsibility was important to them. They felt that the nations of Europe should take care of their own problems, and that it wasn't theirs.
Genius
As a NSFW game developer that speech hit me where I lived.
'Ayn, you didn't think/write that.'
-Election campaign speech delivered by US President, Barack Obama; 13/July/2012.
The fountainhead is an amazing piece of literature
wow! Awesome!
If ayn rand is alive today... I want to ask her opinion and views on the relation between parents and their children. Either of them cannot follow individualism because they are each others responsibility at certain ages.
So let me know if anyone cracked ayn rand's view on this
If you decide to have children, you have decided to accept responsibilities for them. If you value your parents, you will take care of them. If not, you won't. simple.
Great question. I’ve raised 4 kids but before I was truly an individual. I helped them create this terrible thing of “identity”. I even raised them to believe in a mystical sky god. I regret so much. If I could do it again I would keep in mind that the child begins pure, much more pure than me. I would learn from the child, grow together, experiment with life together. I would not intentionally contribute to creating the illusion of an identity. I would praise them for the questions they ask, encouraging them to question everything and not assume that there are any answers or that answers are even the goal. I would admit that there is not one single person alive who knows what the hell is going on. I would be honest 100% which to me means “I don’t know”. I’d have their back and support them becoming whoever they are with no judgement or expectation. I’d encourage non attachment. I’d encourage exploring feelings rather than trying to “feel good”. I regret having children because for me it was like the film idiocracy. I brought 4 more humans into this world with the major handicaps of identity and trauma. I would not do it again. This is the best AR question I’ve ever heard. Got me thinking, thank you.
@@notsure5876 thank you for sharing.
Edward Herrmann is a great reader
This speech is incredibly thick with fredrick Nietzsche influence. Almost like “thus spake Zarathustra” set in the 30’s.
There's no such thing as a "collective thought". The highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give...yet one cannot give that which has not been created...SBN RESONATE
He is amazing👍 my role model too. A completely a genuine mam
Man
What are your thoughts on individualism and collectivism?
I want to know what I could do if I had every great economic and philosophical book of our time, and go back to the time of early man. If I brought this philosophy to the Romans and Greeks, the industrial revolution would have occured before the year 1000 👍
@Krishnan Unni Madathil but then i would have came before the time of christ. That would have been the perfect time
Psh. When the student is ready the teacher will appear. The inverse is also true. You assume people are logical and change based on good information. Of course, the masses are illogical and change only when they are physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually ready to do so. Hose great economic and philosophical books were born out of the struggle. Without the struggle, you won’t understand the information. That’s human nature
If you had gone back farther enough, you would have convinced quite a few to strike out on their own, so that they could be eaten by saber tooth tigers. As for the industrial revolution, there was one after the Greeks and Romans. Check Jean Gimpel's book "The Medieval Machine"
It is good to know something of history when talking about the past.
@@adrianainespena5654 lol. You're silly
@@johnathanvale8634 Just because you do not want to dwell on the Prehistory does not mean that it did not cover a great span of time and that things did not happen then.
The ineluctable fact was that for a loooong time men and women knew that being outside the group meant death. The ones who learned that lessons lived long enough to reproduce. The ones who didn't died before they could reproduce. Telling those people to be individualistic was to condemn them to death.
Beautiful!!!
Yes
I didn't realize the movie had Gary Cooper in it! Wow! I never got to watch it but I know that Yaron Brook, the intellectual and head of the Ayn Rand Institute, said it sucked.
It’s Pretty good actually. Especially for it’s time. Ayn Rand was involved in the production fairly close from what I understand. The head of the Ayn Rand institute saying it sucked is like when someone who has read every game of thrones book tells you what’s wrong with each episode.
Natural Law under Objective morality. Ayn poisoned the well somewhat. Not sure if that was lack of a full understanding of Natural Law, intentional misdirection or refusal to fully recognize Natural Law.
Natural Law asserts that man is a being with certain requirements and capabilities. He is a conceptual being with a rational mind who must think and act in accordance with reality in order to survive. What part of that did Rand poison?
SO many passive verbs it's crazy.
To suggest that all the world’s ills are due to an insufficiency of selfishness is absurd, as is Ayn Rand’s materialistic atheistic philosophy of selfishness
I found Ayn Rand through the lyrics of Neil Pert. I dont believe in... I do have a question you can help me with: Watch one or two of the great slight of hand illusionists...Troy or the Pop Illusionist. Then tell me how objectivism is possible after your sense perception was so glorious demonstrated to be unreliable. Please... I really want to understand Objectivism.
What does your perception have to do with objective reality?
But some of these men didn't win. They had their work and suffering taken from then and either exploited or stolen..
oo this is G A R B A G E
Is there a full audio or book or is this a speech?
Whqt chapter
The common good of a collective, a race a
left and right is not where freedom strives.
Hey! I'm related to this narrator!
6:55
Not sure why he had to paint the creator as self centered... but funny how character assasination is how the bible starts... just saying.. it was the cornerstone of the first lie.. and its strange how it starts here..
Mashallah 👍👉👉👉👉👍👉🥰🥰🥰🥰😋😋👌👌
6:25
Ayn Rand would've really changed her tune if she was still around.
+Bard of Bualsvilla America was a great place, when it obeyed it's constitution as laid out by their forefathers. I don't think Ayn Rand's view would have changed because America lost it's way. The world today can hardly be described as a capitalist society. We have reached complete collectivism and it shows.
+Bard of Bualsvilla No. Today's America would confirm her beliefs. 2008 was a perfect example of government driving the economy into the ground.
I think she would be appalled at her american “followers” 🤢
As Bill Belichick , head coach of the New England Patriots says, "It's about the Team. That's T-E-A-M". The success of the New England Patriots in his opinion (other than the obvious fact that the Pats had Tom Brady) was due to the emphasis on the team. In fact, the NFL and American team sports points to the best economic approach in the future. You have to balance the individual and team aspects of the game.
The rise of the Asian economies is due to their emphasis on the Bill Belichick approach. They have learned how to best balance the contributions of individuals, but yet still put the needs of the team first. That's why the Asians will rule the world, and the Americans will not.
It only takes one collectivist dictator to change history.
Kind of ironic Belichek will go out and get some of the best individuals at their position for the "team". He was never afraid to let a guy go either or go into the gray areas of rules, how does your narrative square with that? He has riled both the grand pupa Goodell and the players union by doing so.
One more example is an orchestra. If players in an orchestra stroke out as individuals instead of a unit, they would slaughter the symphonies.
This didn't age well. Once he no longer had the greatest quarterback of all time he stopped winning.
Ayn Rand was ignorant. Yes, life is for the individual. But who determines the freedom of the individual? Is it not a democracy? Is it not a collective agreement on what is seen as right and wrong?
How can you give examples of economic self-reliance and then make the elementary conclusion for political self-reliance? There is no such thing as absolute freedom in society. Because if such a freedom did exist, that nation would be called pagans without rule-of-law.
Economically, you should determine your own outcomes. And politically, we determine the rules of our society.
There is a reason why the combination of democracy and capitalism has always produced the most successful nations.
so its ignorant to think for yourself ? ignorant to work for yourself? ignorant to be independant?
O hai thar. :)
God is a creator, his son Jesus is a carpenter....production, work ethic
This logic results in free border movement, marriage equality, equal treatment from police and absolute economic freedom. However this channel is dedicated to any conservative ideal, trumpian protectionism, ignoring state induced inequality and belittling of minorities.
Wow. As a long-time subscriber I know of NO advocacy for protectionism on this channel (not to mention advocacy for pro-life or other many conservative ideals). Can you give me an example?
@@fzqlcs Im horribly sorry, you are correct. There is no advocacy of economic protectionism on this chanell. However the relatively recent video uploaded: "Why They Keep Coming - The Migrant Caravans", the "genuine" "Trump vs Milton - Trade Policy Debate" and more scoially protectionist videos are worrisome (as milton would argue that immigration hindrance is also a intervention in market freedom and obviously social liberty). This channel introduced me to a lot of (consequentialist) libertarian thoughts, but the moderately biased information (as indicated by its increased use of fox news) is quite of putting.
@@Vfdking The channel fashions itself as Objectivst, beginning with libertarianism unless compelling evidence indicates otherwise, as with immigration. Milton understood that open borders to a welfare state would lead to economic ruin. I totally agree that the seeming reliance on Fox News is troubling, though I am not sure where else one can go to obtain video that is not the leftwing or establishment line. It was better when Napolitano and Stossel were featured, but Tucker often has a valid point of view. Hannity is like the CNN crew, just a hack.
@@fzqlcs Yes, I remember that Friedman went on to conclude therefore illegal immigration is economically more profitable/preferable then legal, because of them attaining a considerable amount less welfare than "ordinary" citizens. Also the criminality argument that is often seen on the more conservative agenda is very much against the libertarian individualist thinking, also in mine and the Friedman's opinions inverse of truth. He very much defended the 19th century complete open border policies.
I know this isn't quite the topic at hand but may I ask what your opinion on Climate Regulation is?
@@Vfdking I think a cost/penalty must be imposed on any party who degrades our environment in a tangible way. That said, I do not favor any scheme that increases the cost of energy. Particularly in the Third World but to everyone of us, energy is crucial to our standard of living. While being prudent stewards, we should not simply pursue every clean air/water program no matter the cost. Climate regulation can be good, however the tendency for these agencies to go batshit crazy (EPA) makes me a bit gun shy about what I am signing on to.
everyone fails to forget that this ideology is fundamentally wrong because society isn’t a competition when we can all live in a sense of harmony, but nonetheless one cannot stifle self interest and the strong will always dominate the weak. so, it’s just the natural order that their will be the ones who wish for collective peace and those who only wish for peace that pertains to them. this ideology is in no way healthy for us all to follow, but is still necessary to progress
ruclips.net/video/xqmBesHL_Es/видео.html
If we have a deeper SHTF scenario health, economic and/or financial with this Covid thing, you'll see how competitive it gets in this country. The makers/leaders/winners in the crowd will rise to the top like cream in a bulk tank. Folks in this country have lived too soft for too long and those feeling left behind are becoming majority and causing stupid shiite as priorities. jmo.
SM Smoof I do agree that’s the problem, but my ideology is to only live for what I care about and I care very little for the whims of others as long as it doesn’t cross my path. This mindset only works when society functions, but I just wish to make advances in psychology and to actually enjoy life. There’s no point in living with no identity, so I choose to be selfish as long as I can achieve my dream while still protecting myself and the things I love, I don’t care at all
I have no need to control anything as long as the current takes me to the shore
Really the only idea I disagree with Ayn Rand is with respect to theism. The notion that man can create while simultaneously be nothing more than the sum of his parts (a collection of molecules that could have just as easily formed to create dirt) is illogical. Otherwise, may have been the last philosopher to truly understand what the creation of America meant. She was better than most.
Of course you can create. If not, who created the sentence above? Who created your belief in a god? And if there is a god, who created him/her/it? Certainly, it is difficult to wrap one's head around creation of the world. But saying there is a god does not answer the riddle, only changes the question to "who/what created God."
fzqlcs I didn't mean that man can't create. I mean to ask how can anything natural create anything else unless it was also created? Nothing can explain its own existence without the existence of something else. God is not natural, at least not according to the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). God is believed to be supra-natural (above and beyond nature). Most scientists agree that the universe is finite, therefore there had to be a starting point, and that starting point had to have as its first cause an originator that was not natural. Ravi Zacharias can explain it much better than I can. Check his video "Is there a God?" He talks about this very subject.
Again, who created the creator? I would also contest the premise that most scientists think the universe is finite. If it is, they should be able to point to the start and end. I have heard of no one doing that. I would also suggest that reality is not a product of majority vote, meaning there is a difference between a provable fact and what most might believe. God is about faith, not reality.
fzqlcs God can't be either proven nor disproven. I fully admit that. I only suggest that you use your God given gift of common sense. Let's say that the universe is infinite and eternal, and that all of the matter that exists has always existed for infinity (which is impossible, by the way). Pick your matter from wherever you like. All of the elements in the periodic table are at your disposal. Combine them in a gigantic swimming pool and mix them around with a gigantic egg beater for as long as you like. Do you think you'll ever produce a living organism? Let alone a multicellular, intelligent, artistic, creative, and spiritual organism like man? That's what atheism holds: that we are nothing more than the result of time + matter + chance. Does that equation produce a symphony? Or a Sonnet? I'll admit that I can't prove God. I'd like you to acknowledge that the atheistic formula for everything (time + matter + chance = everything), is so counter-intuitive that it takes a much greater leap of faith to believe in it than the comparatively tiny jump it takes to believe in a Designer of some kind. If you're not prepared to acknowledge that, then I would have to conclude that you aren't being objective.
You are making this overly complicated by assuming atheist formulas and such.
As an atheist, I simply hold reason -- not faith -- as an absolute. The question of whether or not there is a god is unknowable, much less the supreme being's will or all of what religion pretends. I get that the beauty and order of the world seems to argue toward design and atheists who rule such out are certainly not objective in my opinion.
I am an atheist not because I assume any formula, but rather because there is no compelling reason to act simply because the notion of god is feasible. The notion of no god is equally feasible. Whether or not the universe is finite, our ability to know that which created us is.
Reason > faith
The movie sucked!!!!!
In other words a fathers that abandons his baby says see you sucker I'm out for myself let your mama take care of you.
And if the mother acted like the father she will say see you baby I am also for myself.
Then a hungry wolves comes to the baby and says hmm finally progress, sorry but I am here for myself, so it ain't my fault your parents are worse than animals like myself.
.
Everything to moderation and extremist views don't fly since everyone would have nothing since even Tesla did things for others just like many others, unlike Eigstine which was for himself and know to plagiarize and Tesla and many other at his time and now say his theories are all BS to exploit the masses which he has the same traditions as Rand know to not have any intellects just selfishness and practical jokes that produce nothing but contradictory words that gets proven false sooner or later.
+xwsx001 Most parents voluntarily select to care for their children. Individualism means selecting what is best for yourself, and this can include wanting a family. For those mothers or fathers who want to abandon their child there are a few possibilities: 1) the child dies if neither parent wants it (only can occur if 2 is not possible), 2) someone voluntarily adopts it for their own pursuit of happiness, 3) you try to impose your morality on the parents at gunpoint that they must care for the child. Both 1 and 2 are indeed compatible with individualism, and only 3 is the collectivist (meaning necessarily violent imposition) "solution". A sophisticated solution could include a region that is owned by the members and where there is an explicit contract containing a clause that you agree to be responsible for care of your children as part of gaining membership and entry to the region: this can also be voluntary and therefore individualist.
+Kon Berner Most not all which is why there is an increase of single mothers since the father decided to take a Rand approach which ends up that they ask for government help which everyone has to pay for it.
Rand is for freedom without responsibility which defeats the purpose of freedoms and helps encourage slavery as a backlash. 2 extremes are not the solution.
To do good to expect something in return will and has failed. One has to want to do good but not forced or at their detriment but that they want to. The entire foundation for people is all messed up.
Rand puts people into slavery from too much freedom without responsibility. How can one have freedom when they become slaves to addiction?
In the end people will destroy themselves like the wild west. As silly as this sound the superhero model is with great power comes great responsibility, and Rand was very irresponsible and hated among her close friends since she screwed them literally and metaphorically.
Rand was sick in the head and encourages others to be sick.
Think about it.
xwsx001 Increase in single mothers is more about the fact that the welfare state makes this a viable (even profitable) option. Rand is not for freedom without responsibility, she is for everyone taking full responsibility for their own actions, including mothers taking responsibility for the father they select.
Talking about slavery is incoherent in a context of self-responsibility. The term means using force to enslave another, it doesn't mean that you can make this claim without evidence based on your ideology. Who is enslaved, and by whom, and exactly how? It is not possible to enslave others without guns, armies, and such.
I think you may have assumed too much. The fact is we don't really live in an individualist culture, rather we live in a familial culture. Most people have ties to their kin that transcend mere biology. Hence the abandonment of one's children is symptomatic of a decaying culture, not a healthy culture. If you read the few mentions of parenting that Rand delineates in Atlas Shrugged, you would see that she considers meaningful parenting to be essential. But I do wish she had talked about it more.
Rand is not a person you would want to be friends with. She was sleeping with her best friends boyfriend. She has low morals and low trust factor. If she betrays her best friends how do you think she will treat others to get ahead to say lies to be famous.
Some things she says are right but some things are wrong. No one is perfect and she is far from it and not the total package. If everyone lived like Rand did then the world would be even more of a shit hole.