Ayn Rand - Her Philosophy in Two Minutes
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 окт 2024
- Learn more about Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism-a philosophy for living on earth.
SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S RUclips CHANNEL
www.youtube.co...
ABOUT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE
ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism. We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world - and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today.
EXPLORE ARI
www.AynRand.org
FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER
/ aynrandinst
LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK
/ aynrandinstitute
EXPLORE ARI CAMPUS
campus.aynrand...
INFORMATION ABOUT OBJECTIVIST SUMMER CONFERENCES
objectivistconf...
LEARN ABOUT AYN RAND STUDENT CONFERENCES
aynrandcon.org/
BUY “FAILING TO CONFRONT ISLAMIC TOTALITARIANISM: FROM GEORGE W. BUSH TO BARACK OBAMA AND BEYOND”
www.amazon.com...
BUY “EQUAL IS UNFAIR: AMERICA’S MISGUIDED FIGHT AGAINST INCOME INEQUALITY”
tinyurl.com/haf...
BUY “IN DEFENSE OF SELFISHNESS: WHY THE CODE OF SELF-SACRIFICE IS UNJUST AND DESTRUCTIVE”
www.amazon.com...
BUY “DEFENDING FREE SPEECH” ON AMAZON
www.amazon.com...
FREE EBOOK: “ROOSEVELTCARE: HOW SOCIAL SECURITY IS SABOTAGING THE LAND OF SELF-RELIANCE”
ari.aynrand.or...
0:06 - So you didn't know how to pronounce her name either?
lol.....The only conclusion I could come up with as well
Aye n
EyeN is how u pronounce her first name
I think it's open for debate, hence why they avoided it entirely.
😂😂😂
so, the happiness of the individual is the most important thing. But this works as a society because we each respect everyone elses right to pursue their own self interest. but exactly what happens when your interests and someone elses are in direct conflict
+Jack McLean In "The Virtue of Selfishness" chapter 4 is all about the "conflict of interest" situation. I would suggest you read it yourself. a TL;DR version goes something like this: There are no conflicts of interest among rational men, If two men are interested in the same thing, one wins one looses. Anyone who is interested in being successful when pursuing their interests should take into consideration four things: Reality, Context, Responsibility, and Effort. Taking these into consideration a rational man never imagines for something that is unearned, if he encounters competition he either wins or takes up an other interest. I'll post a separate comment with a short example from the reading.
+Joseph Benavidez about the two men applying for the same job-and observe in what manner it ignores or opposes these four considerations. (a) Reality. The mere fact that two men desire the same job does not constitute proof that either of them is entitled to it or deserves it, and that his interests are damaged if he does not obtain it. (b) Context. Both men should know that if they desire a job, their goal is made possible only by the existence of a business concern able to provide employment-that that business concern requires the availability of more than one applicant for any job-that if only one applicant existed, he would not obtain the job, because the business concern would have to close its doors-and that their competition for the job is to their interest, even though one of them will lose in that particular encounter. (c) Responsibility. Neither man has the moral right to declare that he doesn’t want to consider all those things, he just wants a job. He is not entitled to any desire or to any “interest” without knowledge of what is required to make its fulfillment possible. (d) Effort. Whoever gets the job, has earned it (assuming that the employer’s choice is rational). This benefit is due to his own merit-not to the “sacrifice” of the other man who never had any vested right to that job. The failure to give to a man what had never belonged to him can hardly be described as “sacrificing his interests.”
@@_GoldenGoat_ Lots of people are selfish but no one, literally no one is this perverse definition of "rational". You already exploit people by taking part in western society. Ayn Rand is a fool and her philosophy is a non-solution.
@@JD-jl4yy Being that these comments were made 5 years ago. I am not the same person who made them. However, this is a decent breakdown of the Philosophical point that Ayn Rand makes. I have personally taken more to stoicism in regsrds to dealing with issues like two men applying for the same job, as I know understand that most people dont act rationally most of the time. It is hopeless to try to break down a "why" from irrational thinking. Radical acceptance is a decent way to move on from it, rather then breaking ones brain over "why".
If your life directly effects others around you negatively then it's a self problem not society
"Is a man entitled to the sweat of his brow? 'No,' says the man in Washington, 'it belongs to the poor.' 'No,' says the man in the Vatican, 'it belongs to God.' 'No,' says the man in Moscow, 'it belongs to everyone.' I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible; I chose Rapture."
Come on., GDF. The very nature of capitalism is one man enriching himself by the sweat of thousands people working for him, for he pays them for the sweat of their collective brow the smallest possible portion of what they make.
@BeGood 2Me Not everybody can be a businessmen, both for personal and general economic reasons. 99% work for someone else. They are our fellow human beings. Should we condemn them to poverty and misery, to powerlessness and unbridled exploitation?
@BeGood 2Me I was never self employed. I wouldn't know where to begin, What you described about upward mobility in America was true in the past. But globalization which relocated industries and jobs from West to East makes this upward mobility no longer realistic. Globalization also destroyed industrial unions, for the above mentioned reasons, so workers can no longer bargain for better wages and working conditions. So, where are we going from here - resort to self sufficiency? Move to rural arias, grow own food, make own clothes, own shoes, etc., etc., etc? Your idea is to move from 21 century to 12 century. I don't think it's very realistic to expect billions of people to do that. All over the world people still running from the farms and flocking to big cities. That's where the world is today. And we have to deal with it now.
@BeGood 2Me I achieved my upward mobility long time ago by writing and publishing 15 books. I am concerned with the future of the next generations.
@BeGood 2Me If I knew your real name I would wish you and anyone thinking like you good luck. Anyone who is happy makes me happy. The more happy people this world has the better it is. P.S. Next time you have a conversation with a stranger try to be polite. Don''t be so aggressive. it doesn't befit intellectual. I take this liberty because I'm sure I'm much older than you are. All the best
Hmm... It's pretty suspicious that this video neglected to include an explanation of the fourth pillar of objectivism, which is capitalism. More specifically, laissez-faire capitalism, in which regulation of corporations is kept at an absolute minimum to trust that corporations will self-regulate. This is the point where objectivism exits from the philosophical realm into the political realm, in which it occupies the space of far-right politics that would probably drive many, if not most people away from objectivism were the section of laissez-faire capitalism to be included in this video.
The other three pillars of objectivism are a politically neutral ideology that could draw many people in, but capitalism sticks out. So why did this video only include the sections that would be appealing to the uninformed? I strongly suspect that this was intentional, motivated by the cause of selling books and memorabilia to those who would otherwise be driven away by this ideology.
Limited government so that the market (the people) will decide the fate of the corporation, not so the corporation can decide it for themselves even when they fail.
It is sad that capitalism is associated with the far rights but their social views are identitarian (much like the far left). Seeing how anything remotely right of the far left is considered far right nowadays, this doesn't really surprise me.
If you want to get into it, the far left believe in giving more control to the government (big government), which is essentially the opposite of objectivism, since youre letting the government to control your own objective view points.
It is the big government that bails out corporations and create monopolies that will continue to oppress the people and you wish to give them more power.... But youre right on one point, the sad reality that Capitalism is considered to be a nagative marketing point for books nowadays is prevalent and the world will continue to bend backward to support socialism at the tunes of the people who actually support Socialism, the corporations.
Note, in terms of capitalism, that objectivism would never allow for things like bank bailouts and "too big to fail".
I think that the morality of self-interest is more controversial, and more important, which is probably why the most emphasis was placed there. Objectivism as a philosophical system tends to be overly politicized in the eyes of many of its leading intellectuals. Politics is important, but it's derivative, and many people, including objectivists, spend far too much time talking about it and too little time thinking or speaking about the more fundamental branches. Most people don't even question altruism. They simply think of it as a synonym for morality. Capitalism, on the other hand, is already being advanced as an idea, albeit less effectively and in a philosophically compromised way, by very many public intellectuals including mainstream conservatives. Until you get into the nitty-gritty of it, capitalism as a feature of objectivism isn't even very distinguishing. And outside of this 2 minute introduction video there's PLENTY of content on objectivism's take on politics. Therefore I think Hunter Long's comment is way off.
Indeed...this omission was deliberate, as capitalism and corporations are based on elements that contradict the basic tenets of objectivism.
Capitalism requires others than the capitalist to perform the objectives of the capitalist in an inherently uneven bargain.
Corporations are authoritarian collectives with top-down hierarchies, regulations and cultures that shield participants from personal autonomy and responsibility.
Objectivism assumes that everyone will always function rationally and in good faith, be well-informed decision-makers and abide by its idealized tenets, which has not and will not ever happen.
This where the libertarian gurus are needed to rationalize these contradictions and allay its cognitive dissonance.
@@ivandafoe5451 You're blinded by envy, resentment of the rich, and a dogmatic commitment to the poisonous, false, religious based morality of altruism. You won't accept the obvious fact of life that it is often in the individual's rational self interest to trade unequally: to trade with someone richer than himself, someone in a superior bargaining position to himself, which may be a well earned position. Both parties do not need to benefit from a trade equally in order for both parties to benefit. For that matter, both parties don't need to benefit equally for it to be the best deal available anywhere in the world for both parties. Capitalism is based on these sorts of transactions. It is based on mutually beneficial trade relationships, and indeed mutual benevolence, between unequal parties. And don't conflate capitalism with the horrible mixed economy that conservatives created by compromising excessively with socialists. That is your system, not objectivists'.
Objectivism does not "assume" that everyone will be rational. It understands that individuals are better off being given the opportunity to benefit from their own rationality, which does leave a lot up to their choice, rather than forcing them into some god awful system of mutual enslavement that seeks to "free" the individual from his obligations to himself, and from the reality of life.
"My happiness is not the means to any end. It is the end. It is its own goal. It is its own purpose."
Anthem by Ayn Rand
Absolutely love that book!
Sounds allot like remarks satanists have said. That "it's all about self, self enjoyment. And if you can, then do." or something like
that?
@@sudilos1172 no, not even close. The main point is that you DESERVE happiness and attaining it should be a main purpose of your life. Others will tell you that is selfish, that you should sacrifice for the collective. Someone will say “can I have just a minute of your time?”, but the sum total of your wealth is the minutes and hours that you have on this Earth. And no one knows how much time they have. So why let them steal your most precious possession?
@@johnscott2746 Not to bright are we?
Happiness is a release of chemicals in your brain, these chemical triggers are signalled when you feel satisfied, so if you feel satisfied with nothing you are happy. That means you can be happy with nothing if you so choose, and it has nothing to do with attaining goals, in fact the biggest reason for suicide is too much pressure to attain goals, or believing that you are worth nothing, and worth is SUBJECTIVE, it is FAR from an objective reality.
Happiness does not require goals, you can be happy now, even in the worst circumstances.
I also think if your mother died of cancer and could not get treatment cause you live in a selfish country you may indeed be unhappy, it is true even in dark times we can find a place to smile and be happy but that's very difficult if all your family die and you are put in a children's home at 6.
Why let them steal your most precious possession? Simple, cause most decent people like to help people, but it's true most American's are brought up to be psychopaths nowadays, it may even explain the shootings of unarmed black people, as well as others including the much hated AYN RAND native Americans who she said had no right to live there - survival of the fittest! And back to the example of the mother, if others actually helped her in a society, you know like about every other country in the world even Russia, India, most of Europe and a good portion of Africa, the whole of America would be a lot happier, especially the 6 year old who's family died because America is a far right selfish society, from outside it is clear it is in moral and economic decline.
Evidence, you can see it all around you. War, death = USA got to kill to stay number 1.
If you only care about yourself - check out the DSM on psychopathy - congratulations you might even get high marks on this test. SCIENCE - even that is in decline with museums with dinosaurs. But that wont change cause everybody is promoted to be selfish and f the rest.
And Trillions on war, but don't bother doing anything about it cause others don't matter.
@@ghostlyphantasm2352 wow! You went bouncing around and didn’t actually say much. Let’s see, first I never talked about goals. I just said that you deserve happiness and attaining it should be your focus in life. That doesn’t mean accumulating stuff. You are right that one can be happy with nothing.
There has always been misfortune in this world and it’s a shame. But Americans have been the most generous people in the world . Private charities do a great deal of good. But government has no place in this. Government has no money of its own, only what it gets from taxpayers. No person should be made to work to support another against their will. We used to call this slavery. The liberal ideas that have been expanding the scope of government for a century are the main reason I structured my finances the way I have so as to keep from having to help finance all of it. I agree with you about the military. It is excessive to say the least. Please note that I took a few minutes out of my day to respond. I spent some of my real wealth on you. Your welcome!
Intresting. I think I will go now to my public library and read one of her books.
Ayn Rand is a fantastic writer!
Funny, she would call a public library a parasitic entity
Read The Fountainhead. One of my Favorite Novels to this day.
It will not worth it, it's just wasted time. Read my comment over yours and you will know why I think her Philosophy is full of lacks and mistakes in thinking. Its about what drives her to write such a philosophy, this is why it would not make you happy living this way, not even make you successful or any of that.
akeem hase is in the summary of that book: “some people matter and some just don’t”?
Have to say, this is a pretty good video.
+eggory this video fucking sucks....why dont u libertarian shitheads embrace nationalism?
+SlimeGGKing socialism would be better
SlimeGGKing What do you mean by nationalism? You seem to express nothing but frustration with the difficulty in expressing yourself. Nothing in this video contradicts the ideal of having a nation, the sense of belonging to a nation, or the valuing of your nation above foreign nations. So in some sense of the word nationalism, we do embrace it.
*The dumb bitch Ayn Rand was a chain smoker who ended up being dependent on government health services as well as food stamps and government housing when she got lung cancer. She was such an evil person no one loved her and wanted to bail her out. What does that say?*
You must relate a lot with Ayn Rand, Terry, considering you're a dumb bitch yourself.
Actually it's only 1 sentence: I shall live for no man nor allow any man to live for me.It's only the definition of life that is in the question.
Except we're not little special created snowflakes; Homo Sapiens Sapien evolved as a social species, pod-based like all the Great Apes and Monkeys
No Man Is An Island~John Donne
No man is an island,
Entire of itself;
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less,
As well as if a promontory were:
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were.
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
@Humanity Galatica Man is by definition an animal; we are Homo Sapiens Sapien and we descend from the same common ancestor as that of chimpanzees, bonobos and the Great Apes. A chimp is 98% the same animal as Homo Sapiens Sapien.
We are a social creature, however. The "Rugged Individual" is a delusion.
@@troyevitt2437 The "rugged individual" is the guy that creates value for himself and have the CHOICE to share this value with others in exchange for whatever someone has in abundance and he lacks, promoting a mutually beneficial exchange. Whenever such exchange is not beneficial for both parties, then there should be no exchange. To be social, should be in someones best interest most of the time, but to assume it is an inherent property of our species to extrapolate based on a single point of view. Correlation might be present, but to assume causality is a step too far.
@@ziguirayou I have not heard of many civilization / cultures in the world without "society".
Is there ever been a culture with a single person, who lives, laughed, conquered, invented and lived for many decade by him/her self?
@@ziguirayou I guess there are plenty of example where exchange is not "beneficial " to both parties today. If someone is working (many actually, with degree too) with multiple jobs to just stay afloat and ruining there body, it's not actually beneficial in long run to one party. Unless you think shelter, food are not important for a human.
Real last name: “Rosenbaum” smh didn’t Christ warn your people of the dangers of being so self centered?
asapGooby - tell me you're antisemitic without telling me you're antisemitic.
By the way - the Christ you worship so much was also Jewish.
sound and fury, signifying not very much - a tempest in a cracked teapot
You can't spell "selfish" without "fish", think about that.
Severely underrated comment
That's deep. Like da ocean
You can give a man a fish and he will smell fishy for a day, or . . .
It took almost my entire life to understand what she was onto, but ultimately my interpretation is that there are things you can do at 15 you can’t do at 25. Things at 25 you can’t do at 35. Things you’ll never be able to do again by the time you’re 45 and so on. So, while you have opportunity in front of you, don’t lose sight of them over the impositions of others wishes who are peripheral to what will make your life more meaningful. Otherwise, you may forfeit the most productive years of your life for a cause that was ultimately self destructive by nature. Making those misspent years a tragedy twice over.
gees so depressing. I'm over 55 and can still do most of the things I could do at 15 as well as do a hole lot of things I could NOT do at 15. I strive to move forward, be better. I expect to be prefect when I'm dead.
@@lostvisitor You can't spell Whole!
@@rollotomassi6232 I could never spell in english.
This
The crazy part about her philosophy to me was; I was reading her book the Virtue of selfishness at the same time as reading Marcus Aurelius' Meditations. And they actually went hand in hand quite well. I think I know where she got some of her ideology from...
If you asked her, she would say "Aristotle and only Aristotle".
I've done the same. They are certainly areas where they connect. They are both virtue driven, they both value reason and self-improvement.
One difference would be who you do it for. Do you live for yourself or for others ?
As I see it, if you can marry the self-interest of Objectivism with the self-discipline of Stoicism, you have a pretty good foundation for a succesful life.
Pretty much the same with me. I got exposed to Stoic Philosophy before Ayn Rand; it's really a good mix for me.
Aristotle
I think anyone with a logical mind based in reason develops this philosophy just through living life, and going through struggle.
Nice short video of the basics, especially the part about selfishness not including the right to exploit other people or prevent them from pursuing their own self-interest. Many critics overlook that, or pretend that the philosophy doesn't say that.
Then that isn't true selfishness. Thus the entire philosophy is made on a foundation of sand.
@@calathan Invoking the "No True Scotsman" fallacy? Thus, your critique fails.
Also, since "selfishness" isn't the axiomatic basis or premise of the Objectivist philosophy, but simply a side aspect of it, you're Straw-manning it. Thus, you're critique fails on 2 counts.
Somehow the Rand followers seem to forget that part.
@@kathypeterson7967 Can you give an example? I can't think of a Rand follower who knowingly violates the rights of others or justifies the violation of rights. And if you're not violating someone's rights, it's difficult to see how you're 'exploiting' them.
@@macsnafu corporate greed that exploits workers to acquire their profits to the point the workers have no means by which to better their own situation?? Does that make sense?
She is just saying make the most of your life. Nothing wrong with that. I wish I could have. I see her point now that I am 62 years old. Ive wasted a good part of my life worrying about others being happy instead of me. Honestly got me no where. I like her. I never read any of her books. Shes empowering somewhat.
I agree with "making the most of your life", but I see different ways to do that. A poet sitting under a tree is having as good a time making constructive statements about life, the world, and the heavens as a middle linebacker running onto the football field for a big game. The two guys might be incomprehensible to each other, but they have both found the niche that most suits them. I have reservations about Ayn Rand's definition of altruism. About the only profession I see as altruistic is that of a soldier, and that's debatable. I've been in the U.S. Army, and they said that soldiers were supposed to be altruistic, but the way we looked at it there were some good benefits from military service. I suppose the poem "The Charge of the Light Brigade" is the quintessential example of Ayn Rand's belief about toxic altruism, but that is only one example of the term. Usually, in jobs that require altruism they account for the risks a soldier or a fireman takes, and give benefits with them that are probably the real reason a person chose this course. A guy is likely to sign up for the military in order to pay for college, and he hopes no wars get started on his watch. On the football field a player supposed to be fearless. He is expected to risk injury to win football games, but it is not altruism that makes him do this. Pro players do it for money. College players do it for acclaim. That is the benefit of most altruistic behavior - acclaim.
Try "Atlas Shrugged", it's a great place to start.
I have nothing against Ayn Rand or you, but I think Ms. Rand and I are working with somewhat different definitions of altruism. There is a lot of "altruism" as she defines it, but it is my position that if a person does something that ultimately causes harm it is not altruistic.
@@georgepalmer5497 Interesting point. Rand's take here was meant for the "good of oneself". Take for example, the statement" I love my country, but I fear my government". It centers on one's own ambitions to be free from any outside intrusive intervention. Any "elected source" by an accepted majority STILL has no right to ANY directive in any man's ambitions within his OWN life. (Sorry, I'm hurried right now, I hope that makes sense to you.) ~Best
What if a man is a war profiteer, and he wants to get rich selling the army shoddy boots? Or what if a man wants to get rich renting apartments that are fire traps? We're too interconnected to say very many people exist apart from the effect they have on others.@@tymesho
Bioshock Switch brought me here.
Hope you enjoy the game
@@fishels3895 Loved it. Brought me to tears
@Venandi Netero The entire game is about it, what?
@Quæsitor修行 it describes the aftermath of Atlas Shrugged, what more objectivism thing could you wish for?
@@Uxi_ee doesn't really, it missunderstood what objectivism is about, but I'm still glad they tried make such game, it got a lot of people interested in philosophy and also the game itself is pretty good
A very good introduction to her Philosophies. Even with a bias in favor of it you still kept it fairly neutral and didn't misrepresent it good job.
CrazedAutisticAnarchist Well it is the Ayn Rand Institute RUclips channel so there’s that.
Haha objectivism is bullshit and ayn rand was a terrible person.
@@GyroZeppel God told you this?
Newbrict does god speak to you?
@@GyroZeppel do you have any reasons behind your beliefs?
Nature is what it is; society is what we make of it. Ayn Rand is just flat out wrong here.
The pursuit of your own selfish happiness is the highest moral purpose, but be rational and not exploit others, but at the same time, you cannot be altruistic because it is evil?
What?
Perhaps the pursuit of greater purpose other than the individual self is the rational approach to life.
Imagine if people like Jonas Salk chose to patent the polio vaccine. He wouldn't have been exploiting anyone, since the polio vaccine didn't exist yet. Rather, he chose to sacrifice the potential fortune he could've made, for the greater good of all mankind. And look where the world stands today because of him.
Sorry, Ayn Rand is probably one of the most overrated "philosophers" of all time. I get the idea of being the master of your own destiny, but she takes things to a whole different level. It's completely unsurprsing to me that her biggest fans are also the biggest douchebags
The kindergarten had the day off.
To those who worry for others, you cannot help them until you yourself are good.
If helping those which need it what brings you happiness, do it. That is the rational approach to your own self interest.
Robinhood rob from one and give to another makes him feel good too, what gov does. Robbery is wrong no mattery how or who does it.
Real robbers have more moral than politicians. They jnow what they are doing is wrong, while politicians escalate themselves to godhood.
Ayn rhymes with whine.
Wow. I feel like a 5 year old could think up this philosophy. No sophistication at all. Weird people looked up to her or found her intellectually compelling
People who look up to Rand are ignorant of logic and history when they come across her, and they let her be their teacher. It's sad and obviously wrong to people who learn logic, history, and science outside of Rand's bullshit.
@@someonenotnoone Wow, your arse is really stinging? Are you setting out specifically to make yourself look as retarded as possible? 😂
@@someonenotnoone funny you say this, i had a buddy back in college, he and i were both interested in philosophy and history. The thing is, i actually geeked out on Rene Descartes and his meditations of the mind, and learned logic a bit informally from him for the first time. My friend, he fell into Ayn Rand cult, and would try and debate about things regarding truth and logic, i just remember feeling objectively confused with any argument he presented, quoting Ayn Rand in everything. Even though is philosophy wasn't perfect, I thank Descartes for at least equipping me with inferential skill to detect bullshit philosophy's like Rands haha
@@91dgross Well obviously you never learnt how to do philosophy correctly, hence the insults and such like. Anyone can turn anything into a religion, and that includes politics, science, philosophy, economics and so on. There is no great insight there. And Descartes, to use your terminology, had a lot of "bullshit" in his philosophy as well.
@@willnitschke Hey wise guy, if you slow down and read and respond objectively you’ll see that I acknowledged his philosophy wasn’t perfect. But in terms of teaching one the skills logic, he knew what he was doing. Clearly smarter than Ayn rand, as Descartes invented coordinate geometry.
So breathe, slow down, and use your big boy thinking skills. I never said Descartes philosophy was perfect I only brought him up in response to @someonetonoone when I told him that Descartes helped equip me deductive abilities to see through bullshit philosophy’s like Ayan Rand’s.
Two logical problems stand out to me. 1) Reality is not just what it is, but also can become what we can imagine, which is important. Humans can change things. 2) Selfishness definitely CAN mean exploiting others for their own gain. Ignorance of that means you are not equipped to deal with psychopathy / sociopathy, and that is why many communities founded on utopian ideals do not succeed. An extension of this relevent to world problems today is - for direct democracy / organising power to transcend monkey brain limits, any system must have engineered into it awareness of these limits. Democracy 2.0 will need to understand the flaws within ourselves and build parity into collaborative decision making to have a better immune system against corruption.
1 - Reality is measurable and objective. Your interpretation of reality is your own, but thinking the you can project your interpretation and make it something concrete by just force of argument is something that should warrant you with either a place as an X-Men or a diagnostic of mental illness, depending on the results you achieve. Secondly, of course humans can change things through work, that was never in question, but the change you make, is exactly the result of the work you put in, so having clarity about your impact on reality is key to understanding it.
2 - Exploiting others is wrong, that is a very strong point of the whole concept of objectivism. All interactions between self governing humans must be mutually beneficial, otherwise they shouldn't take place. Exploitation happens when someone uses force or coercion to make an interaction be beneficial only to one of the parties. Selfishness in the sense of objectivism is related to prioritizing interactions that are good for you, and understanding that if all other people with the same capabilities do the same, everyone benefits in the end. Whenever people use democratic means, backed up by force (law, police, arms, etc) or coersion (threats, psychological offense, taxation, unfair business practices, etc) to force part of society to interact at loss, to benefit a chosen group, this is exploitation plain and simple.
Disgusting 🤢
who made this movie? the best instant introduction to Objectivism. cool story bro
Shallow, to the point of stupid.
Not shallow, so much as it is brutally realist.
I argue against it on two points.
Firstly, that reason is absolute.
Reason is not absolute. If one is taught that counting is 1, 2, X, and then 3, that person will have a completely different outlook on our own concepts of math. Their concept of reason is different from ours. In order to engage with their path of reason, we must first learn about this number X, and how it changes their view. Reason is a feeling, rather than truth.
Secondly that selfishness is an ideal.
Selfishness is a reality. We all do what we think is best for us, be it personally or in the eyes of our peers. A bodyguard takes a bullet because it is his job, because he believes in the man he is guarding, because he cannot face society, hus family, or himself should he allow his charge to fall. His action is selfish. From this all actions can be determined to have a selfish motive, even if they are self destructive.
Rand is apparently a lover of butterflies and puppies.
She’s not saying to be discourteous or completely ignorant of other people. Altruism is a dangerous obsession with the well being of others. Don’t neglect your own health just to make other people marginally happy.
Here's a better idea...don't be evil...and treat others how you want to be treated. You don't have to be religious to follow the 10 commandments. PS: Using TV or video as a means to sway people to do things they wouldn't otherwise do with marketing and persuasion is evil.
Well, you actually have to be religious to follow the 10 commandments, just read the first four. Those would be pretty stupid for atheists.
@sgdsgsdf fhfhdfh You are a brainwashed moron who believed Obama when he said you can keep your healthcare! Pfff. Comprehension problem much? I think so! Treat others how you want to be treated! JHC!
Philosophy? She’s a footnote in any philosophy class.
Yet you have to come here and complain about her influence. 😅🤣😂
Of course most modern philosophy professors try to avoid Ayn Rand's work. She totally dismantles everything they pretend they know, and she proves they are merely mystical whim-worshippers. Why would they introduce students to information that would likely lead to those professors being unemployed?
@@willnitschke I can post about Scientology here as well. Yes, your dear leader Rand is so great, just like L Ron Hubbard.
@@johnnynick3621 Hahaahaha "totally dismantles" this is beyond hilarious. Rands assumptions don't dismantle anything.
@@someonenotnoone Rand is not my "dear leader". I think she's directionally correct but I also have certain disagreements. I think the problem with people like you, is because you're a member of a cult, you see everyone who is critical of your pwn cult, as automatically belonging to competing cults.
*NO INTERPRETATIONS NEEDED!* "Racism didn't exist in this country until the liberals brought it up,"
~Ayn Rand
Native Americans did not "have any right to live in a country merely because they were born here and acted and lived like savages."
~Ayn Rand
During an interview, Mike Wallace said, “You say that you do not like the altruism by which we live.” Rand responded by correcting him ever so slightly: “I will say that, ‘I don’t like’ is too weak a word. I consider it evil.”
~Ayn Rand
When a woman in the audience of the Phil Donahue show asked how Rand would feel about a female president, she said, “I wouldn’t vote for her. I don’t believe that any good woman would want that position.” Lest you think this was a spontaneous one-off, Rand put a lot of thought into this issue, writing the essay, “About a Woman President,” which read, “For a woman to seek or desire the presidency is, in fact, so terrible a prospect of spiritual self-immolation that the woman who would seek it is psychologically unworthy of the job.”
~Ayn Rand
On subnormal children and on the handicapped… "It’s the attempt to bring everybody to the level of the handicapped. It includes the mentally retarded, subnormal children who are not able to learn. So at the end of spending thousands of millions of the tax payers’ dollars, you’re left with a half-idiot who may learn to read and write. May!"
~Ayn Rand
"Any white person who brings the elements of civilization had the right to take over this continent,"
~Ayn Rand
“Ayn Rand's 'philosophy' is nearly perfect in its immorality, which makes the size of her audience all the more ominous and symptomatic as we enter a curious new phase in our society.... To justify and extol human greed and egotism is to my mind not only immoral, but evil.”
― Gore Vidal
thanks.
@@nescius2 🥂✨
They're right selfishness doesn't explicitly mean to exploit others for personal gain.
It just means you won't consider others in your decision making throughout life, which inevitably will lead to you exploiting others for personal gain....
Why?
@Humanity Galatica zero sum game
@Humanity Galatica not true all the time
I think you missed some of the key points of objectivism in your - let's say "a little biased" - summary
Like what? It´s just 2 minutes so obviously they cannot go over everything
@@danielkraus5560 It's a bit like saying: "Fascism is a great idea because it eliminates social unequality and allows to achieve big projects without annoying social debate due to strong centralized leadership". It's not completly wrong but just misses the point of it.
@@TheFeanor74 Burh this video was made by the Ayn Rand Institute. Obviously, they will be promoting her philosophy. If you want a critique of it, go somewhere else. That like watching a video by the Soviet Union and expecting a critique of Marx.
Bad woman
What? Altruism is evil ??
Because 99,99% of the time is predicated altruism, false altruism or clumsy altruism.
Like whe priests say being rich is bad, and they live in palaces with charity money.
Like when your broker calls you to sell stocks options to make you rich, then gets his commissions and you lose your capital-
Like when you help Jesus on the cross removing the nails from hands first, letting him swaying upside down, cause his feet are still pinned. Selfishness is at least true and honest.
@@ilmaio Thank you
Past three years I’ve been in study
Eschatology
And
All things Christ
I now have a entirely different view
And
I am aware of the complete take over of these times where
History is erased
Laws are changed
And we wrestle against the evil powers and principalities
I know more now
Thank God in Jesus name
You can say I’m crazy. But. I’m not. I just believe I amhapppy
I hope you see too
I see the evil
I see the inversion
I see the symbols
I know their language
@@ilmaio I have learned
This earth is not a ball
In my option
No one gets past the firmament
NASA is Satan
And I do believe in nephilim returning
In fact ghry are here
More will come
@@ilmaio Isn’t Ann rand a commie
This life is all you have. Make the most of it
No one knows that. So, it should remain a question. Ayn said "if," you thought you had only this life . . .
How about " Live this life well, and the after life will take care of itself"?@@q7winq7
@@q7winq7 I think it is
@@bayewkkebede1846 - - - - - There's nothing wrong with thinking. I think what is true is probably beyond human reasoning. I doubt the Universe will condemn us for being wrong about it one way or the other.
@@q7winq7If what's true is beyond human reasoning then the most rational strategy is: This life is all you have. Make the most of it.
So you just contradicted yourself, well done.
Let's cut to the chase.
Unlike people with a healthy respect for history, science and intellectual inquiry, Ayn Rand brooked no dissent from her followers. She was not interested, in the least, with acknowledging any fault whatsoever with the supposed "capitalist ideal." She dismissed, out of hand, any consideration of institutionalized racism, sexism or classism. And she was quick to isolate and expel anyone who didn't agree with her.
Serious scholars and thinkers understand, intuitively, that their theories and conclusions are not above reproach and that human intelligence is only advanced by critical thinking. Chomsky said it best when he was asked which of his theories would stand the test of time. "None of them," he responded. "New information comes along, new theories are proposed, new experiments are conducted. That's how science works."
Rand wasn't a critical thinker, she was the head of a personality cult. In fact, if you compare her to the other great personality cult leader of the same period, L. Ron Hubbard, the similarities between the two are striking. Rand's only redeeming quality was her support for a woman's right to control her own body - a lesson contemporary right wing libertarians have completely abandoned.
Yes re her cult (still around - and posting here!). And she couldn't be bothered to walk the dozen blocks to UN development HQ (or travel to east Asia) to find out how development really works: high performance work teams, creating better systems, and NOT one-man-shows. She was right (if trivial) in perpetuating that most value is created in the early days of system-adoption S curves - but the REAL villain is not "the government" which in the US has a vast layer of politically appointed and very costly meddlers at the top she ignored, its the US oligarchs and big corporations that appoint those meddlers and create the scorched earth. In part because of her addled nonsense the US has about the worst Gini coefficient in the West.
Imagine how difficult it must be to use an irrationalist like Chomsky to try to vilify a rationalist like Rand. You have to twist logic into pretzels in order to do so.
The ONLY thing you have right is that most "scholars and thinkers" today use "intuition" to support their theories and conclusions.... just as their predecessors did in ancient times.
Rand relied on reason.
@@johnnynick6179 - Keep telling yourself that.
Rand relied not on reason, but on her follower's willingness to accept whatever she demanded of them, particularly with regard to her historical revisionism and her selective outrage.
@@librarianeric You're just babbling brainless insults based on opinions pulled out of your arse. Basically it's just another sad attempt at a character assassination because you're too unintelligent to counter a single one of her arguments. 😅
She was way out of touch with the reality she lived in….the one where she enjoyed capitalism and all , to begin with. 😆
She was sadly proven to be a flash in the pan….a one shot wonder. They come and go all the time.
Yet nitwits like you are still trying to refute her, and still can't. 🤣
@@willnitschke She refuted herself. Not only was she a massive hypocrite but he ideology was self refuting and full of errors.
@@Schnoz42069 No she wasn't. Your hurt feelings are irrelevant, sorry.
@@Schnoz42069 Rand was extremely consistent throughout her life and lived according to her beliefs. She is far from irrelevant today, as evidenced by how many people STILL purchase her books, despite her philosophy not being taught on most campuses. The fact that you are here, commenting on this video more than 40 years after her death, is proof that even YOU find her relevant today.
@@johnnynick3621 She railed against people who accepted social security, then proceeded to accept social security. She was an evil ignorant hypocrite scumbag and she's currently rotting in hell.
Summary of Objectivism
Objective reality - Metaphysics
Reason - Epistemology
Self interest - Ethics
Capitalism - Politics
Watch this - The metaphysics of stupidity -
ruclips.net/video/Ez1bMC9ZvLg/видео.html
@T S prove it
Aristotle, Aristotle, lol
Life update, I came across this video when I was reviewing for my Master in Public Admin Compre Exam. Guess what!!! I'm now and MPA, Major in Fiscal Admin. Whooho
That sounds incredibly vague
Dont be lazy. At least read and research the philosophy before you take an opinion on it.
And I dont mean read a critic's article and think your god.
Jacob Slapinski I was talking about the video
@@aloisschicklgruber320
That world sounds like the perfect dystopia.
What did you WANT in 2 minutes ? If you want an in depth symposium, it's right here on U-tube.
I don't think this philosophy of "every man for himself" creates the kind of society where all can prosper and be happy. People always need support from others. I just can't envision how one goes through life using Rand's idea that one should only consider their own happiness. It sounds like anyone who does that will be very lonely and friendless.
Also notice that they showed "Capitalism" as the 4th ring but somehow didn't get around to discussing it at all in this little screed... interesting omission
I've read all her books and don't recall ever seeing 'every man for himself' anywhere in them. You've never read any of the books and are repeating what some commie professor said, aren't you?
Uhmm... The first "assumption" or layer I understand Reality is what it is we can sort of measure it. I mean basically stick to facts ok. The second i can partially accept we do need empirical data to form conclusions about the world we experience purely on reason we won't get far I mean people have reasoned that the Heliocentric Model is true. But i don't get what this has to do with selfishness or capitalism
@ It is just a giant nonsequitor 😂
What I do not understand is how she approaches conflict. In the pursuit of my personal happiness I'm bound to interact and maybe even oppose others in their personal pursuit of happiness. In such cases what does Rand say. Should I be assertive and try to overcome this opposition or should I be flexible and sacrifice my own directive to being true to my own pursuits. In a world with limited resources how do we balance some people's pursuit to amass a great deal of resources, sometimes at the cost of other people's happiness. If we are all just trying to live free how do we cope with the inherent conflict that arises. Are we to devolve into anarchy and have the weak ruled by the strong, or are we to sacrifice our selfish pursuit of individual happiness for a stable social order?
Mostly, your pursuit of happiness shouldn't conflict with others. If you want to buy a good house and live a good life, others can also do the same. If you are trying to achieve a goal or win a title, something only one person can get, then it's a competition. It would be your goal to overcome the competition, as well as the other person's goal. You can choose to be flexible, however it should be decided individually and not forced. Your goal should not be to tear down others or destroy their happiness, but to raise yours without lowering theirs. Your goal should not violate the natural rights of others, hence why Rand advocated for a government whose purpose was to protect those rights. If your goal violates the rights of others, you cannot pursue that goal, even if the violation is secondary, and not the main focus.
I hope I was able to answer that question. Rand's philosophy as I've interpreted it is mostly a method or algorithm, and just like computers, Garbage input = Garbage output. If you know the facts, and apply the right method to those facts, you get the right conclusion. Rand's philosophy tries to make a consistent method and apply it to correct facts. Her conclusions may not be perfect, or maybe they are, but I think we do need to be consistent.
If your pursuit of happiness is based on reason the chances of true conflict with someone also rationally pursuing their happiness should be minimal. But in those instances where it does happen, if you’re not able to negotiate compromise between you, then this what having a court system is for. Note the operative word here is “rationally” - simply pursuing happiness is essentially hedonism which is not what Ayn Rand was advocating.
@@theotherotherjenny How is rationality determined. Reality might be subjective but perception is not. Humans are flawed and so is our perception. What might be rational to some, is lunacy to others. In the Reality / Reason / Self-interest / Capitalism model proposed by this video the conflict is built into each of those circles. Reality is perceived differently by each one of us, reason is limited by our inability to perceive reality in a subjective matter, self-interest will create friction with others whose interest oppose our own, and capitalism is competitive in its design. How, then, is conflict handled by Rand. What happens when a company who employs hundreds has to dam a river in order to produce electricity at a competitive rate to stay in business, but doing so will hurt the fishermen who live down-stream. How does Rand solve the trolley problem? There are finite resources available and infinite wants. Do we leave it to competition (Capitalism) to decide how those resources are distributed? How do we deal with externalities? How do we deal with the angst suffered by the losers?
EarlyGray Conflict is inevitable. Ayn Rand didn't say that there's a utopia, it's not possible for a human civilization to achieve that.
What Ayn Rand opposes is the destruction of evil by use of an obviously greater evil.
@@ETBrooDDoes she though? All I've taken away from her approach is that we have to be true to our wants and pursue our happiness in order to achieve the greater good. But that is such a simple model that it's impossible to tackle many of the problems facing our society by following her advise. It's almost hedonistic in concept, but even hedonism hedges it's message by saying pursue pleasure as long as it's not causing problems for yourself down the line. If we follow hedonism we can achieve a balance because the pursuit of pleasure will be measured against the potential for displeasure caused by our actions. Rand does not even account for this in her message. If we follow Rand we are to pursue our greatest possible happiness, because to do anything else is to be untrue to yourself and that is seen as a great evil. But we don't exist in a vacuum. Our actions impact our surroundings. How is the greater good served by such a myopic approach to self serving actions. How do we regulate the impact caused on others by our personal pursuit of happiness. Are we to allow the invisible hand of the market regulate itself? How do we fight corruption, weakness of character, frailty of determination in ourselves and others, errors made by people who cost others their efforts. How does empathy, compassion, solidarity, even kindness fit in her model. Selfish pursuit of happiness and loving others only for what they can bring to our own lives reduces our society to a series of economic transactions. Following that path allows the individual to turn a blind eye to the suffering of the downtrodden. Because why should I worry about their suffering? If I'm busy pursuing my happiness. More than anything her approach to happiness seems so lonely to me. She seems so bent on carving out the individual and focusing on achieving the goals of the individual that acknowledging the other is almost an afterthought.
This video reminds me of Scientology ads, with Ayn Rand in place of L. Ron Hubbard.
Atlus Shrugged is a book about being a goblin by a woman who looks like a goblin.
Anyone know the music?
Ahegao pfp
1:43 *“If you know that this life is all that you have, wouldn’t you make the most of it?”* ... enlightened self-interest
So assume you are a nurse or a doctor in these covid times - does it make better sense to quit? After all, you are entering a high risk area
Or how about soldiers? I wish that question was asked when she was alive - why would anyone put his life at risk for others?
What if life continues after death? I guess it makes her philosophy kinda silly doesn't it? She is basically another form of godless humanism. It always leads to dictatorship
But soldiers get discounts on home purchases and at restaurants, don't they? And medical staff get good benefits so really if you look at it at this angle, it can be for self interest that they keep doing what they do despite the risk/consequence
@@rachelschendel2476 Those benefits don't outweigh the risks. I highly doubt any soldier would go to war thinking, "I get a discount at certain restaurants; yep, that's definitely worth endangering my life."
You're clutching at straws here.
Ayn Rand on Native Americans: „I do not think they have any right to live in a country merely because they were born here and acted and lived like savages.“
You might say this is de-contextualized. But I cannot for the life of me think of a scenario in which saying something like this would ever be justifiable. I think the appreciation of oneself and selfishness to the degree to which Ayn Rand subscribes, can lead one to say such things that clearly show signs of fascism.
The basic idea is rational self interest pursued without doing harm to others. The issue becomes what constitutes "rational" .
Thinking for yourself using logic. Existence exist. Reality Exist. Live your existence by Rational Benevolence as base for your values which direct your action in the real world for creativity, joy, success. Irrational believe in a Malevolent-Evil world as base for your values direct all your days for sacrifice and altruism - obedience to some floating destiny in suffering and ugliness. Objectivism denied subjectivism, the duality mind-body. Existence is one objective truth.
Selfishness is preserve our existence in the real world: Anyone volunteer for sharing alive the coffin with someone?
if i can legally claim your belongings leaving you on the street that is justice because i did not harm you by taking your ability to produce money and food.
if you than try to create a shelter or a farm on my land i will claim everything you produced on my land.
because that is the Rational system Ayn Rand supports.
You have to find your own Plot of land to produce stuff.
@@sownheard
That's not right at all.
@@MT-2020 Your perception defines what you see as a reality and two people can look at the same thing only to make different deductions.
She came from a communist country, had some trauma with it, so wanted to prove that capitalism is best, not seeing the havoc capitalism wreaks, how the mindless consumerism is literally destroying the world and her ''objective liberterian'' world depends upon suffering of others.
And she basically says ''I don't care, I'll be just fine''
Her philosophy fails to recognise the interdependent nature of human relationships.
Her philosophy recognizes that those interdependent relationships MUST be voluntary.... NOT forced.
Your misunderstanding and ignorance of her philosophy doesn't make her wrong - it makes you wrong.
How could it be wrong if its objective 🤷🏼@@brandensilverstar
Most humans have a desire for collaboration, community and peaceful coexistence. These needs seem "altruistic" in common terms, but by Rand‘s definition, they just reflect the egoistic natural desires of individuals. E.g. you donate and help people because it makes YOU feel good. Rand‘s “altruism” simply means to neglect your own needs in the pointless hope of feeling “morally superior“ or compensating for personal issues.
@@johnnynick3621 So she denies objective reality in which we share a planet we didn't voluntarily choose to share.
Starting with the idea that the universe is what it is.... her view seems to be that the universe is as she believes it to be which is in question. in my view Rand, as an atheist, has a distorted view of the universe and reality and so many of her ideas are impotent.
Her philosophy may be controversial, but it really makes sense.
American here who's family came from Poland around 1904. "We are alike, you and I." (a John Galt quote in the 1st part of "Atlas Shrugged" movie). Even though you are brown, and I am white, we are alike,---because we choose to think. :)
I wouldn't say it's controversial, but rather easily misinterpreted by the simple minded.
Shame on you Danish Ali did the prophet Muhammad p.b.u.h advocate selfishness as a way of life? Is this the only life that we have if you believe this then you are not a believer. Change your name or change your mind but you cannot have your cake and eat it. This so called piece of drivel philistine philosophy is absolutely opposite to faith. So wake up before it is too late.
So having no conscience is a good thing?
Maudie Icrochet sure it is. But having reason is even better
Well done-succinct and accurate. A good introduction and invitation to learn more.
they gave a definition of selfishness nobody believes in and tried to tell us we're wrong lol.
it's just a shame that ayn rand is for fools who have 2iq
HER IDEAS ARE FIR INTELLIGENT PEOPLE. NOT DEM PARASITES
So....make a shallow video about a complicated subject, shoe-horn it into two minutes and play loud , driving music over the top of it....pure genius.
Amazing woman . Haters get in line.
My favorite part about her is when her niece asked her for $25 (this was when she was rich) she sent back a wall of text saying that she’ll lend the money, but that she has to prioritize paying it back, no excuse unless there’s a serious illness, must be paid back in installments, and that not paying it back will be considered embezzlement and she would never speak to her again lmao
A sound lesson in fiscal responsibility, good. The problem today is all the kids want to freeload off their parents, which partly explains the mess we're all in.
Bioshock brought me here
fereydun harifi 😂😂😂
Bioshock is what Rands Utopia will turn into
Andrew Ryan = Ayn Rand
@@Alex-cw3rz
Hey Andrew died with the courage of his own convictions, remaining true to himself.
Rand died a hypocrite, taking out state medical care when she called others who did that "looters"
@@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676 I suppose, he still wasn't a good guy. But
don't worry I completely agree Rand is a hypocrite with damaging ideas all she cared about was herself.
And it's obvious that they were invoking her in Ryan
Objectivist chat room:
Thieves enter the chat.
Pedophiles enter the chat.
Serial Murderers enter the chat.
Did you miss the bit where it says "respect others and their own right to life and happiness"?
@@skazwolfman8622 Thats no longer objectivism my friend. To be objectivist is to be free from any moral dogma.
Lol she has no idea what she is talking about
You DO know she collected Social Security, right? Also she was deeply mentally ill.
Also, The Ayn Rand Institute took money from the US Government by means of the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP).
Basically, I don't tell you what to do, you don't tell me what to do?
Basically. And dont hurt anyone or coerce or explot them. If everyone followed these simple things life would be much better. Call it utopian but what ideal isnt? At least this doesent have a commanding heirarchy and it cant really, especially when u get into the economic side, laisse faire capitalism is all about living and let live, that comes with responsibility not to be a lazy fuck or youll starve. Charity can still exist independant of welfare states
Yeah, but most people are unfortunately too retarded to get that. Bunch of pathetic low-life commies.
Actually it's more of people interacting with each other in the manner of: I agree to do this for you, if you agree to do this for me.
Its WAY more than that.
If what you’re both doing makes no sense, you’re both fucked. First you need two things. 1. You need to see and accept reality, an you do this through 2. reason. When these two ideas are realized and or put into practice, then you can each live for yourselves.
Juan McCoy the Sears Ceo that just cost 250,000 employees there jobs and is not giving them severance paid, that was promised to them and was paid in one hour more then his employees got in a year believes in this philosophy? Is this the utopia Ayn Rand was talking about? Capitalistic slavery where employees are paid dismal wages? It is almost slavery. How has pure capitalism benefited most? It works great for commodities the consumer can choose and pick from like shoes, but how does it work in healthcare, for example, where the product is not really available for shopping by the consumer the ways shoes are? Her philosophy is the embodiment of all that is wrong with our current government. Greed and fend for yourselves and let the rest die if they have to.
I come from a science and medical background. The deeper you study biology and the human body the more you realize that Nothing in nature functions autonomously and alone. From conception an embryo depends on the health of its mother. The chemical reactions in the body all depend on each other. The organelles inside a cell all work together. Inside your body, your organs do not selfishly work alone. The heart doesn’t work without oxygen obtained by blood that passes the lungs and the lungs don’t work without the heart pumping blood to them. We can’t breath oxygen if plants don’t produce it and plants cannot use carbon dioxide if we don’t produce it.
Nothing in this planet survives by being completely selfish and autonomous. That’s why this philosophy is such a failure and results in pure greed and disregard for even the lives of the most vulnerable in the population. In Ayn Rand’s world, a baby born with serious health problems, to a drug addict mother or from parents with low income, should be left to die if it cannot be taken care of. Ayn Rand’s philosophy is evil in its purest form. It explains a lot about the current administration in the White House. Thank God Ayn Rand never reproduced.
Mike mentzer! Loved her!
Ayn Rand: Pursue happiness to the best of your abilities without exploiting others for your personal gain
Also Ayn Rand: Capitalism is God
Pick one. I'm no expert on Objectivism, but from a cursory look it seems to me a broken philosophy. I agree that you should pursue your happiness and greatest potential in life because you only get one, but Ayn Rand is HARDLY the first philosopher to say this. That's a pretty uncontroversial statement. Where her philosophy appears to differ is on whether or not it's ok to exploit others. According to this video, she appears to say that it isn't. However, from what I've read, it seems more like it's OK to exploit others for your happiness as long as you can get away with it and not call it exploitation. So much for not ignoring reality eh? Billionaires can necessarily ONLY exist by exploitation of the working class. Their greed, in turn, directly creates the suffering of millions. This is the world that objectivism builds and it is in our own SELF INTEREST to avoid it for it is far more likely that we will one day be in the working class than it is that we will ever be a billionaire.
Hey a recent comment. I'd like to address a few things you said.
"Also Ayn Rand: Capitalism is God
"
I know you say you are no expert on Objectivism, but it doesn't take an expert to know this is not her position. If you want to refute her, you should actually argue against her positions.
"I agree that you should pursue your happiness and greatest potential in life because you only get one, but Ayn Rand is HARDLY the first philosopher to say this. That's a pretty uncontroversial statement. Where her philosophy appears to differ is on whether or not it's ok to exploit others."
The reason you should pursue your happiness and greatest potential is not because you only get one. That is a non-sequitur. And that is true, most greek philosophers held eudaimonia the reward for a good life. As for that not being controversial, you realize that only a few philosophers in history have ever had that as a position? Certainly none of the Christian mystics or skeptics held that as the purpose. Most people today don't even think that. As for exploitation, that is sort of true. She is the only philosopher in history who explicitly claims that exploitation of any form is evil. All other philosophers have compromised on exploitation. I have a feeling your definition of exploitation is irrational, however.
"Billionaires can necessarily ONLY exist by exploitation of the working class. Their greed, in turn, directly creates the suffering of millions. This is the world that objectivism builds and it is in our own SELF INTEREST to avoid it for it is far more likely that we will one day be in the working class than it is that we will ever be a billionaire."
The only thing to say about this is you need to read economics from somebody other than Marx or the neo-Marxists. Marx was wrong. That isn't the way reality works. I can give you all the economic arguments you want to support my position, but the truth is economics won't dissuade you because you aren't coming to that conclusion based on economics. You come to that conclusion because of what you think in ethics, which is shaped by metaphysics and epistemology.
All you've done is attack her ethics and politics. Attack her metaphysics or epistemology. That is where the real philosophical fights are. The only reason you disagree with her ethics is because you don't think ethics has to be based on reality. Since you have a mystical ethics, that leads you to bad economic ideas like "exploitation" by the free market.
@@damonhage7451 Hey! I'm glad to have received such a well thought out response to this. Firstly I'd like to apologize for my hyperbole, I do have a tendency to get carried away when I speak. I know that Ayn Rand did not literally think capitalism is god, she was clearly not a very religious person. I merely meant to say that capitalism is central to her philosophy and that appears to create a contradiction that I have a hard time excusing.
As for the obtaining happiness thing, most philosophers have taken the stance that you should try to obtain as much happiness as possible. Although through admittedly different ways. Christian mystics, for example, may have claimed that the best path for obtaining that happiness is through worship and contemplation of God. A Greek philosopher might say that living a "good life" is the best way to achieve happiness as you'll receive the reward of eudaimonia as a result. Which was my point. Most philosophy follows the pattern of "do x in your life because it is the best way to achieve happiness". Where things become controversial are in the x, the means of obtaining that happiness.
Now where I think the meat of this argument lies is in whether or not her love and reliance on capitalism does in fact constitute an inherent contradiction. If capitalism does rely on exploitation, as myself and my fellow "neo-marxists" would argue, then Objectivism would prove to be inherently flawed. So I'll outline that claim here:
1. All products have value (I.E. the power of that product in trade)
2. All value is created through labor (Ex: turning a wood block into a chair over 10 labor hours)
3. Capitalists, those who own the means of production, do not contribute labor to the product (or at least not significantly more than the laborer)
4. Therefore the capitalist does not own the value of that product and any value that he obtains from that product must necessarily be stolen from the laborer.
Now in small amounts, this can be contributed to administrative labor etc. but when you have leaders of corporations sporting hundreds of thousands of times more wealth than their laborers, there can be no other explanation for that wealth than theft, or exploitation, of their employee's labor. Now of course you disagree with this idea and that's great! I'd love to hear what you think about this. But if you're just going to move the goalposts and say "this isn't where the REAL arguments lie" then I'd suggest that you reevaluate what your own argument really is because this is very much in the heart of Objectivism.
Thanks for the reply either way and sorry for late responses!
@@dannehrbass2977 Heyo Dan! I'd also like to apologize, as I may have come out a little aggressive on my response. I'm quite encouraged by my first glance of what you typed here as it shows a willingness to have a dialog about big ideas, which I enjoy regardless of whether you end up agreeing with me or not. :) I am now going to start a response.
"I merely meant to say that capitalism is central to her philosophy and that appears to create a contradiction that I have a hard time excusing."
The first thing I would say to this is that capitalism is not central to her philosophy. It is a part of it, for sure, but it is an outcome. The main questions of philosophy are "what exists", "how do I know", and "what should I do, given my answer to the first two questions". (Notice, they correspond to the main branches of philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, respectively.) Ayn Rand's answers to these questions necessitates capitalism. She doesn't start with capitalism and then try to work out answers to these philosophic questions. The questions come first.
"As for the obtaining happiness thing, most philosophers have taken the stance that you should try to obtain as much happiness as possible. Although through admittedly different ways. Christian mystics, for example, may have claimed that the best path for obtaining that happiness is through worship and contemplation of God."
See I don't actually think this is true. If you are a Christian, you are supposed to do what God says because he commanded it. Period. Now sure they come along after and say "well yes you will be happy as a result", but you are supposed to do God's will because he commanded it. If God commands you to kill your eldest son, you are supposed to do it, regardless of whether that will make you happy or not. Kantian ethics are the same way. All duty-based ethics (which is basically every ethical thinker ever, if you look by popularity) cannot be compatible with a eudaimonia-based ethics. What if there is a conflict between what will make you happy and your duty? All duty-based ethics will say "do you duty".
"All products have value (I.E. the power of that product in trade)"
This is too vague. Products do not have an intrinsic value. They only have value to individuals. A glass of water is not worth that much to me. A glass of water to someone dying of thirst is worth a tremendous amount. Therefore, I reject the idea that a product has "power in trade". It is worth different amounts to different people. If literally no one will pay you for something, then your product does not have value (except maybe to you).
"All value is created through labor (Ex: turning a wood block into a chair over 10 labor hours)"
I disagree with this as well. Labor on its own doesn't do anything. A horse hooked to a plow is capable of all kinds of labor. But unless it is given direction, it won't be productive. Likewise, 100 people can all walk into a factory, but unless they have knowledge of what they are doing, they won't produce anything.
"Capitalists, those who own the means of production, do not contribute labor to the product (or at least not significantly more than the laborer)"
It is obvious that you would arrive at this conclusion if the only thing you think is productive is labor, which I've already addressed. This is counter to everything about man's nature. Every animal does "labor". How many of them build things useful to man? Man is different from the other animals. Man survives through reason. You don't have labor, until you have rational thought about what to labor on. Without that, labor is worthless.
"Therefore the capitalist does not own the value of that product and any value that he obtains from that product must necessarily be stolen from the laborer"
If I own a factory, and we sign a voluntary agreement for you to work, where have I stolen from you? I disagree with all of your premises, but even on your premises, I don't see how you could put the word "stolen" in there. By definition, stealing is when somebody takes your property against your will. It isn't stealing if you agree to the terms. This also has many other problems I haven't mentioned yet. This assumes the economy is zero-sum, it reifys the idea of value (no one "owns" the value of a product. Like I said before, products have no intrinsic value), etc. I could keep going.
"Now of course you disagree with this idea and that's great! I'd love to hear what you think about this. But if you're just going to move the goalposts and say "this isn't where the REAL arguments lie" then I'd suggest that you reevaluate what your own argument really is because this is very much in the heart of Objectivism."
I have gladly commented some objections to some of things you said, but I am going to somewhat shift the goalpost. Just from your economic points, I can see we have disagreements about whether intrinsic value is a valid concept, where does ownership come from, man's nature, etc. All of those questions are questions of epistemology. Most political/economic disagreements are not actually arguments about politics/economics. They are arguments about ethics and epistemology/metaphysics. Our disagreement is similar. Not sure if this is useful to you in this context, because he doesn't talk about reification or a proper definition of value, but this video by Charles Tew describes some of the problems with socialism. ruclips.net/video/Mmfxia4dVKs/видео.html
I look forward to seeing your response.
@@damonhage7451 Thanks for the quick reply! I'm very much enjoying this. It's hard to find a good Objectivist thinker at my uni.
First, especially after watching the video you sent, I think I'd like to define what I mean by Socialism as it can be an incredibly nebulous term. I define socialism as "Democratization of the economy". The perfect example of this is a workers union. The people group together to gain control over a portion of the economy, thus putting wealth under the control of the people as opposed to the individual corporation.
Now I actually agreed with much of what you said in your response, or at least find no objection with many points, so for the sake of time I'll just skip over those parts. To start off, on the idea that products do not have intrinsic value, I would say this is true on a technical level. However, on a practical level, a jug of milk will cost virtually the same wherever you buy it thus it effectively does hold an intrinsic value in the economy.
On my next statement: "All value is created through labor" I think I should reword that to "Value is added through labor". While it is true that "100 people can all walk into a factory, but unless they have knowledge of what they are doing, they won't produce anything.", I'm assuming in this discussion, as is the case in reality, that we are dealing with workers who have been trained in the fine art of chair making and have been tasked with doing so by their bosses. In this case, it is true that their labor has added effectively intrinsic value to the wood by forming it into a chair.
On the next statement: "Capitalists, those who own the means of production, do not contribute labor to the product (or at least not significantly more than the laborer)", I want to stress that administrative labor is VERY important and absolutely necessary in organizing and enabling the production of chairs. I also acknowledge that such labor may require more experience or education than would be necessary to simply create a chair and, as such, may be worth more. However, would any rational human say that it is worth 300x (the average wage difference between the highest and lowest paid employee in an American company) more than the labor to create the chair? I would assume not. Then the question is: why is this our reality? Why are employees agreeing to contracts which I can only assume most would find irrational or at least objectionable?
A major difference between left and right leaning economic philosophies is that right leaning philosophies tend to assume that all people start from equal position of power. This is not an accurate representation of reality. If you were and the brink of death from starvation and I offered you a four course meal in exchange for your hands, you would most likely take me up on that offer. I imagine you might sign in your own blood if you will. Does this make it a valid agreement? It would appear so. You signed the agreement, it's your signature on the contract, therefore I haven't stolen your hands. It was entirely your choice. Except of course it wasn't. You didn't really have a choice, you either gave me your hands or you died. Now this is of course a very extreme example but it serves to illustrate a point. In our society, it is very difficult to survive without getting a job. You used to be able to grow your own food to survive, until corporations bought all the land. You could beg for money, until the police kick you off the streets. And even if you manage to somehow get a free plot of land to grow your food to survive, you'd still find it pretty difficult to go anywhere in society. No, you don't have a choice. One way or another, you have to sign a contract and work for someone.
And understand, I'm not even saying this is a bad thing. Feudalism was a bit of a shit system itself and society never advanced very far on subsistence farming. What I am saying is that workers don't really have a choice when it comes to signing that contract. Which is why they'll sign such irrational contracts in the first place. That along with low education causing them to be ignorant to their own plight. You might say that they have another option, to create their own company. But a society in which everyone owns a company would fall apart for obvious reasons. You need workers. And without any real bargaining power in the agreement (remember, ultimately it is between a job of some kind, somewhere and death/social outcast), the workers are fundamentally being exploited.
So fine, lets assume that everything I've said is true. Why should you care? After all, Isn't your happiness what ultimately matters? Altruism should never be a goal in its own right, it doesn't make sense. And that's true. Except that economies rely on trade. You, as the business owner, require people to buy your products. If you continue to exploit wealth from your employees, and your competitors do the same as they must to maximize profit, then eventually you'll run out of consumers for your products. They'll run out of money and the economy will stagnate. This is why wealth inequality tends to not be so great for economies. And this is why collective control of the economy must be given to the workers, that way it can be ensured that they are not being exploited and wealth is being distributed in a way as to be most beneficial to the most people.
Anyway, sorry for the essay. I hope I didn't bore you too much. One last thing though, and I really should read up more on Objectivism before I make this statement, but it seems to me that, especially based on the video you linked, your argument isn't with socialism but rather with Autocracy. In which case I would agree with you. I left a comment on the video if you'd like to take a gander but I'll just leave it at that for now. Thanks and I look forward to your reply!
@@dannehrbass2977 My god. I spent like 45 mins typing a response...... then when I went to submit it, it spun for awhile and when I reloaded, it didn't save my comment....... yahhhh I'll respond to this again but I can't do it now haha. Hopefully sometime this week. :)
Eddie Lampert exploited Sears and Kmart for his own selfishness.
This life is NOT all you have. Death is just the beginning of eternity. Thus the meaning of life must reflect the end result of your choices while you live on earth. God is real and so is His words and His son Jesus (Yeshua) . Choose life and believe in Yeshua (Jesus) to live forever. This life is your only chance find Messiah. Look hard.
ayn rand may be an atheist but objectivism's very name comes from the fact that reality is objective, a sentiment that the bible teaches
so i dont know why youve come here to preach
Terry Goodkind sent me here. I don't understand why people have such troubles with an objectivist philosophy. Reason should be your only ruler. Reality is what it is. It's up to us to use reason to determine the value of reality.
because some of us believe a loving God is real However, her philosophy works within that frame.
Yes but we entered the twilight zone of feelings over facts! Shame!
I have a problem with objectivism philosophy because it is against of altruism and loving everyone
good one.. very true.. practical..
All philosophies work in a vacuum. The right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose. What do we do when your self-interests interferes with my self-interests?
Could you come up with a situation in which that would be that case? (Considering that rational self-interest is a more precise term, given our context, of what Ayn Rand meant)
She was brilliantly correct.
@Pessy's ASMR yea I assume way to much from fellow citizens. Pandemic showed me that. Mass Retardation lol
Does anyone know the name of the music track?
If you ever find out, let me know, I've been searching for it for a while now :)
I think they made it for the sake of the video
not for its own sake? oh man :(
mgrlb what music?
I think that it's called The Objectivism Blues
I find her disturbing.
Lacking empathy is the first sign of a psychopath
What was the point of you writing that?
@@DR--- It was to highlight flaws in her ideology.
Empathy is not part of the natural world. We are.
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
this made me laugh. very good indeed
@@trollpolice The world would be a much better place if everyone read and truly synthesized Tolkien, Lewis, Rand, and people like Aristotle and Augustine. Indeed a much better place.
🤠😬
That's sounds like a description for Marxists and socialists rather than objectivists.
@@gabbar51ngh sharp!!
*She was misunderstood then but today🤔definitely more so*
1:36 just a note, this is the aim of life under objectivist ethics. The virtues, the actions taken to meet these results, are rationality, productiveness, and pride.
Very stupid philosophy indeed.
@@georgecurly5965 Is virtue irrationality, laziness and shame then?
Amongst the virtues enumerated by Rand you are missing a few; beyond rationality, productivity and pride, there are also honesty, integrity, independence, and justice. These virtues are a shield to one's values: reason, self-esteem, and purposeful action, and ultimately, life itself.
Thanks for this video! Through it, I see Objectivism’s overlay of Atlas Shrugged, and of my personal dilemma. I was born and raised in the Midwest where honesty has long been one of the most important values, one which has always been foremost to me. But along the way I became a salesman in order to sell my thoughts and business to others. As such, I learned the most important truth in sales - “Everybody Lies!” To me, the Lyer is the most corrupt of all!
Because, one lie labels everything as a lie, and without truth, there can be no value. Despite this knowledge, I have maintained truth as my personal value and rejected those who have lied to me. It would seem that it must be a lonely life, but it hasn’t been. The friends I hold dear, and trust, are truly remarkable people, and have made life a treasured experience. I am now in my mid-eighties, and still smile.
and the one who lies to himself is the biggest of all fool and most corrupt.
@T S I lost most of my response to you, but won’t retype it. Thirty-five years ago I was introduced to Ayn Rand’s works, and treasure the opportunity she has given me to see through the thick haze of lies and find the real truth. I’m 85, and for the first 50 years I struggled to understand what was really true, but that logic told me couldn’t be true. I was a student of history, which is always been written by the victor. And since almost all history is about wars, the truth is clearly slanted and often ignored. But I tried my best. I told a friend about a book I had written for my kids, which had received rave reviews. Yet I was frustrated - I hadn’t found the real truth to pass along to them. She told me to read Atlas Shrugged. She was sure I would find direction in it. I took a lengthy trip to Norway for the Olympics and took it with me. It knocked my socks off, after the first 100 pages. Suddenly all my research made sense and I could see through the haze and see the truth. I don’t know if you will see what I see, but it’s worth a look.
There’s another book you may want to read, Ten Days on Jekyll Island by G Edward Griffin. The goals of that meeting are finding fruition as we speak. We are awash in lies that everyone accepts as true because they are too lazy to look for the truth and too afraid it might all be true. Our world we have known and loved is being trampled by those who will enslave us unless we open our eyes to the truth. Good luck!
@T S the one who speaks it always know if it was truth or lie.
Beware of people who eschew spirituality
"The universe is what it is, and wishing otherwise is foolish."
And this kids is why she died on government assistance. The irony is as thick as potato soup. Her philosophy is dumb 😔
Ayn Rand was NEVER on government assistance. She had a net worth of almost $1,000,000 when she died, most of it left to an institute that bear her name and teaches her philosophy to this day. The people that told you she was on assistance are fearful of her philosophy but are unable to refute it so they make things up. Be smart. Learn the truth for yourself.
Oh look, another parrot with a fake talking point. Maybe try to address her ideas next time.
@@willnitschkeYou and I both know they can't refute her ideas but they are desperate to escape the truth so all they can do is try to assassinate her character. These pitiful people are pathetic.
@@johnnynick9115The hate comes from fear. Most of these kids are absolutely terrified that once their parents die, they will fail. They see the government as someone who will care for, and love them, once they pass. A rude awakening lies ahead for them.
@@johnnynick6179 Her Estate was worth a million, not that she OWNED a million before death. That's just you misunderstanding what an estate is.
She literally died collecting social security Johnny, I'm sorry you have to figure this out.
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”
Adam Smith
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith
in other words, all heil the wage-slavery society!
@@cosmozappa3573 Nope, just facing the reality of existence. If you are a wage salve you might want to find out how you can be worth more as the world is telling you what you are doing isn't worth that much.
The reason why it's so controversial is because Rand's philosophy is utterly banal and childish.
That's why most of her work is fiction. because it is a fantasy
I am happy to help you understand more of Objectivism. It may be worth sharing that I do not worship Ayn Rand, and that I will accept and correct any contradictions I have in my knowledge. My goal is the pursue of truth, as honestly as I possibly can.
If I may ask you, what is it about Objectivism that you find banal and childish?
Thank you.
@@jabibgalt5551 It's refreshing to see a reply in good faith, even if my initial comment was meant to be provocative. My personal contention with Ayn Rand's philosophy is with the atomization of the individual. While it is true that we are all individual actors with our own thoughts and prerogatives, those thoughts and prerogatives are necessarily shaped through the interaction with our environment and other individuals. The process of socialization is what allowed the human species to dominate the globe via the transferral of information. The way that we perceive ourselves is within the context of others. What we want out of our lives, our perception of what success and fulfillment are is directly derived from exterior social factors.
It's also worth mentioning that Rand's philosophy completely falls apart outside of the context of industrial Capitalism. The mantra of selfishness would not work in hunter-gatherer or agrarian societies, when life or death is strigent upon the relative success of the collective and your own individual capacity to act atruistically.
I hope I answered your question to your satisfaction, if you have any questions or contestations I would be happy to answer them.
@@TheTopHatCatShow I've never read anything related to the "atomization of the individual" on any of Rand's works. Where did you get that idea?
On selfishness, isn't a hunter-gatherer acting selfishly when he collects food for himself, *his* family and *his* tribe? Isn't just natural for any living organism to care for his own self-interest? (which does not necessarily imply not caring about anything else)
@@jabibgalt5551 One of the main themes in the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged is the primacy of the individual. The protagonists are ultimately rewarded for adhering to their selfishness and overcoming altruism. I use the word 'atomization' because the tacit view in these novels is that individuals can prevail on their own through sheer will, while disregarding the material, social, and psychological conditions that allow these characters to attain their goals.
As for the second point, if it is in one's own self interest to act altruistically, then what is the purpose of creating a moral dichotomy between selfishness and altruism? The only instance where these two concepts appear to be in opposition is in the context of industrial capitalism.
She died on welfare lmaooo
Excellent summary of a Rand's philosophy/doctrine. Intentionally or otherwise exposing her handicapped understanding and experience of the various states of consciousness and variety of human values.
She suffers from the common flaw of presuming her experience of "reality" is like everyone else's and starting from that error presumes to design a rational moral template for humanity.
Same error Marxs made in his rational Communist philosophy. It worked perfectly in theory and only failed in practice due to human nature.
The trouble with all these models of a better world system is "people" it intends to benefit.
Daily mass murder under various names such as war, terrorism, famine, disease, organ harvesting, slavery and a billion plus under the steel heel of dictators is the reality and a constant reality throughout human history. Such philosophies ignore other philosophies which argue that greed, anger and delusion are majority of the world's population state of mind.
Oh, that we would all be rationally minded and moral, at the same time and of one harmonious accord.
What a wonderful world it would be but as there is no time in human history such has occurred the hope for it can be filed under "Enduring Dreams"
Scouter, I firmly believe that some day soon we will live in harmony where there are no more tears and darkness. It won't be in the flesh but it awaits those that longed for it. I'll see you soon brother.
We cannot be rational and logical. Every decision we take is filtered through our emotions and we all have different goals on what makes us happy that will always conflict with someone else's goals. This gives way to anger sadness , delirium, fear, desperation and those are just the negative emotions. These impair our decision making processes and we are generally unable to see the logical answers to questions in our own life because whenever we go into a situation, we already have a goal of how we want it to turn out. The concept of "rational man" is ludicrous. We employ as much rationality into a situation as possible, sure, but most of the people who preach this are generally pretty privileged to whom life comes fairly easily and they cannot understand that their experience of reality, like you say, is not like everyone else's.
It's more impressive to be anti initiating violence, for example, if you are starving and the only thing standing between you and your family receiving a meal is someone else. An extreme example but true.
Society does not work in a vacuum. Humans do not behave rationally. We all have differing morals.Theories that assume both these things are false are ridiculous. People who think they are completely rational and logical are just better at lying to themselves.
@@Danathema You are speaking from experience, I'm sure. Speak for yourself. You do NOT speak for me:
> YOU cannot be rational or logical.
> Every decision YOU make is filtered through your emotions.
> YOU are generally unable to see the logical answers to questions.
> If you are starving and the only thing standing between feeding your family and starvation is someone else...then ask him for a JOB!
> YOU think you are somewhat rational and logical, but YOU are just lying to yourself.
Yes, we are all living in the same reality. If you didn't know that already, you're very lost.
Christianity and objectivism are at odds with each other. I am sure some of you will argue this is not true, but it is. So why do so many Christian’s subscribe to objectivism? Answer: most people rationalize their desires and actions with anything you hand them whether paradoxical, hypocritical or plainly delusional. Just because a woman says that altruism is evil does not make it a fact. It is easy to construct observations around any argument.
Rand’s philosophy is in keeping what the Bible tells man to do in Proverbs. It tells a man to do one thing to the best of your ability and you will do it before Kings. Proverbs 22:29.
Rand's thought is totally incompatible with Christianity. The only thing that is really valuable in Christianity is its emphasis on compassion, which is totally rejected by Rand. Her thought are more akin the value system of the Nazis. Besides, she was a shameless hypocrite. While in theory she rejects all forms of welfare, in her life, after she got cancer of the lungs (due to her being a chain-smoker), she was secretly reciving medicare under the name of her husband.
just to tell you but rand’s philosophy is the scientific antithesis to christianity
“Christ, in terms of the Christian philosophy, is the human ideal. He personifies that which men should strive to emulate. Yet, according to the Christian mythology, he died on the cross not for his own sins but for the sins of the nonideal people. In other words, a man of perfect virtue was sacrificed for men who are vicious and who are expected or supposed to accept that sacrifice. If I were a Christian, nothing could make me more indignant than that: the notion of sacrificing the ideal to the nonideal, or virtue to vice. And it is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used.”
-Playboy Interview: Ayn Rand
Playboy, March 1964
she just plagiarized Nietzche
I think you're confusing her with the post-modernists. 🤣
Nietzsche was not really concerned with economics and hated democracy anyway.
To be able to help others you must first help yourself.
True!
So she was an egomaniacal materialist. No thanks!
Well yes and no.
She was primarily concerned with the self, because she believed that the only way to achieve happiness was by the individual pursuing it.
On the matter of materialism, she was in that she believed we only have one life. But what she advocated for was an individual's search for happiness, which is not really materialism
@@frederickthegreat5456 well, she did not have children.
....which is probably for the best.
I can explain it in three words: greed is good.
Perhaps the worst philosophy of all time.
Could be coming from a guy with Red in his name. lol My name is Ron the Red but I’m not a Commie lol
@@RonDianinobody asked
@@bornkinggamer3347The worst is Nihilism
@@bornkinggamer3347 *Perhaps the worst philosophy of all time.*
Yet the most successful of all time, creating wealth and prosperity and happiness that the world has never seen. This must really hurt you feelings, eh?
So, a life rooted in reason and rationale ultimately determines the individual’s ethical guidance through life?
Yes.
MMMM, no, I don't think so. Making decision based on reason instead of emotions will give you a much better shot at guiding your life well, with direction, but I don't see a correlation with ethics. I guess, if one's "reason" was used to commit crimes with out being caught, than that person would have a problem with ethics. But thinking rationally to help advance your life---is human.
well, she justified colonizing the 'savages', so maybe her ethics are not something to follow
@@vgcamara So educating primitive humans is a bad thing?
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
Currently re-reading Lord of the Rings. Believe it has the orcs😅
Direct opposite of what Jesus Christ teaches. Think of others first. Or, do unto others how you wish they do unto you.... so again- treat others with love, because you wish to be loved... Not, NOT I want to do what I want, because i am here for myself.
Yes but Jesus also thought that the world would end in the life time of the people he was preaching to, hence material goods were of no consequence. But that never happened, so Jesus was wrong about that, as he was wrong about many other things. It is not moral to consider yourself the property of your equals.
@@willnitschke ..absurd and ridiculous comment.
@@blairsterling6141Did I hurt your feelings? Maybe you should actually read the biblical texts and try to understand them before sprouting nonsense around the intertubes. 😅
Hear of her from the UnsafeSpace podcast, and now I see why they keep bringing her up.
this summary is perfect! nice!
This philosophy is very interesting when you are a teenager, but then you eventually realize how childish it is. Pure capitalism doesn't work. Intellectual property is often stolen. Wealth and power often leads to corruption.
According to her the only moral social system was laissez-faire capitalism, which is BS. No lack of prominent economists and capitalists over the decades acknowledge that the philosophy of laissez-faire capitalism never was a moral social system not to mention would never be sustainable. It would only cannibalize its own markets and has to therefore always be expanding to a growing population, new markets, and emerging markets. But once globalization is achieved, it has no where to grow.
As a capitalist, i recognize that every economic system has a cost to society even a so called "free market" one, as those that succeed in them control most of the resources. No economic system is escapable from some type of authority be it government or those that control the resources, which is why no free market economy exists; not even in Singapore, US, Switzerland, and New Zealand to name a few..
@@rps1689 What prominent economists, Marxists who believed in the tendency of the rate of profits to fall fallacy?
In reality, it is collectivism that young, inexperience, immature people are attracted to. Most college-age students identify as socialists or communists until they are old enough to know better. I don't know of ANYONE who identified as an OBIECTIVIST as a teenager. That is a silly myth.
Irony died when Ayn Rand ended up needing social Healthcare, and her devotees didn't even notice the,,,, Obvious hypocrisy LOL.
false. She didn’t need any governmental assistance. She was quite wealthy, having sold so many books. She received social security but after paying into the system for so long, she did rationalize that she was owed at-least a portion of that money back.
I agree. Total hypocrisy. If she lived by what she preached then she shouldn’t have accepted social security. That would be setting an example and living by her own words. If she wanted to end socialist programs she’d have to stop the cycle and show others that it’s possible to live without social security benefits and hopefully others would follow her lead. Instead, she did the opposite. So, her self interest was to collect and accept social security for her well being and survival in he golden years. But, in writing about how socialism is evil because it forces people to give up their hard earned money for the greater good, she planted the seed for future capitalists (conservatives) to use her own words to justify their selfishness and trample over other people’s pursuit of happiness to gain theirs ($$$$$). So in Rand pursuing her interests/goals/happiness in writing books on her philosophy and making money off of them, she naively gave capitalists permission to justify greed and selfishness. Her owns beliefs are now used to trample over people’s pursuits for their happiness. She was human after all, she was flawed. I also believe that socialism in its purest form can never work in the real world because humans are just greedy and insecure. Great video, though and I’ve enjoyed reading everyone’s comments on this thread.
@@ArtCastaneda Social Security is not charity or welfare, it is basically an annuity that you've paid into throughout your entire working career.
@@leonardbreau8928 Social Security is not "basically an annuity." Current expenses are paid primarily by current payroll deductions. www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43648-SocialSecurity.pdf Children, spouses, and the disabled can collect social security without contributions comparable to their withdrawals. (Medicare works the same way.)
@@jacko.6625 Yes, SS has been expanded to include the disabled & minor children of deceased adults. The system will become insolvent unless new funding is introduced due to the fact that there are less & less people paying in as compared to people receiving benefits.
This is a great video!
am i about to become an objectivist....
That's good to hear, good luck 🙂
A fluffy and oversimplified version of bad philosophy.
What do you think is a good philosophy?
@@danielkraus5560 morality for starters.. of there is any morality period . It proves the existence of God
@@reconscout436 well your thinking is shallow because it shows that lack of evidence of a god and is based with values/morality
I don't think you can reduce all human activity and pursuits to reason. It's actually quite the contrary... it is emotional in nature, passionate, sometimes even a calling.
When you hold rational values there are no contractions between emotions and your reason.
This is based on both a misunderstanding of just what emotions are, and incorrect philosophies which separate morality from reality.
Ayn Rand's philosophy is an excuse for unbridled selfishness and greed. She loved Israel.
What philosophical books of Rand have you read?
@@jabibgalt5551 Atlas Shrugged
what have you read ?
@@ChristineQ-wr6iv Philosophy, Who Needs It?, The Virtue of Selfishness, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, The Romantic Manifesto, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and Atlas Shrugged.
I recommend reading her non-fiction books. She did not impress me as a writer, but she is incredible as a philosopher. One of the brightest minds of the last century.
Kindness is weakness. Greed is good. There, I've just saved you a minute and 50 seconds of your life.
Not exactly. If you have read a single one of Ayn Rands books, and used more than a quarter of your brain, you would know that Ayn Rand was opposed to greed. It’s a simple moral. The way she saw life is she was gonna live hers, and you are gonna live yours. It’s about as simple as that. Use reason to control your life, and not others. Or don’t, because at the end of the day, we are all going to die. It’s the way we live that makes us die differently, be it happy or unfulfilled.
Greed also implies “exploiting others for personal gain” which like he says in the video, is not what she meant with selfishness. More like thinking for yourself before others, because if you don’t put the oxygen mask on your face first, how will you put the oxygen mask on the person next to you who is already blacked out.
Selfish mediocrity. Do for yourself, profit, avoid taxation and other forms of social responsibility, fail to recognise that without the community you wouldn’t survive. You could go on and on. Religiosity for the conservative right. Ignorance encapsulated.
Thanks Hugo. Maybe you can explain to the world how rational thinking has ever failed?