How to Accelerate Your Understanding of Objectivism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 сен 2024
- with Don Watkins and Aaron Fried
Accelerate your understanding of Objectivism today by joining one of our many online educational courses. Our new "Flex" option allows you to take these courses at your own pace, whenever you have the time, while also still retaining the benefit of having your questions answered and your assignments graded by a real instructor. Sign up now: aru.aynrand.org/
What’s the best way to learn Objectivism? And what are common mistakes people make when trying to understand and implement Ayn Rand’s philosophy? In this special session, ARI’s Don Watkins and Aaron Fried share strategies for getting the most out of the time you spend studying Ayn Rand’s ideas. They also discuss new ways Ayn Rand University is making it easier than ever for people to learn, live, and advocate Objectivism.
Recorded live on June 17th in Anaheim, CA as part of OCON 2024
Want to join us next year?: events.aynrand...
Subscribe to ARI’s RUclips channel to make sure you never miss a video:
www.youtube.co...
Download or stream free courses on Ayn Rand’s works and ideas with the Ayn Rand University app:
- App Store itunes.apple.c...
- Google Play play.google.co...
ARI is funded by donor contributions. You can support our work by becoming an ARI Member or making a one-time contribution: ari.aynrand.or...
******
Keep in Touch! Sign up to receive email updates from ARI: aynrand.org/si...
Follow ARI on Twitter: / aynrandinst
Follow ARI on Facebook: / aynrandinstitute
Follow ARI on Instagram: / aynrandorg
Subscribe to the ARI Live! podcast: podcasts.apple...
******
Explore these ideas further! ARI's online publication, New Ideal, explores pressing cultural issues from the perspective of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism: newideal.aynra...
Join an upcoming virtual or in-person event: ari.aynrand.or...
Visit ARI’s website for more about our content and programs: ari.aynrand.org/
![Eminem - Fuel (Shady Edition) feat. Westside Boogie & GRIP [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/k1OquBida9s/mqdefault.jpg)
I am never taking my foot off the gas pedal of knowledge.
Me too!
But is it a Ferrari gas pedal?
@@TeaParty1776 Most likely a classical one
@@SpacePatrollerLaser ?
I have a collection of cassettes from the 60's where Ayn Rand is dictating and speaking in a seminar. These are so incredible...
I wonder if these recordings are available on the ARI website?
I'm re-reading The Fountainhead twenty five years after the first time. Wow. Highly recommend!
I'm going to do the same with Atlas Shrugged leading up to the 2024 Election Season.
They keep your mind focused and give a good feeling about life.
Same here -I turned 65 and look forward to those 2 books I read in my 20's -because we've continued to grow all these years, they'll reveal so much more than the last time being exposed to them. Same with movies, art, concepts in general.
Learning something everyday is easy.
Killing the ego that wants to hold on to what you know is hard.
I have observed a noticeable pattern from reviewers who post negative comments about Ayn Rand: They are rarely responding to what Rand actually said or meant or did. They instead fabricate a straw man which is different than Rand's actual perspective, and then they proceed to attack their own straw man idea. They cannot find relevant fault with Rand's real words or real views, so they fabricate their own meaning about the topic and then they try to make it appear as though Rand is associated with their fabrication.
Auguste Comte and his followers invented and used the term altruism starting in 1830. The French version of the word (altruisme) first made its printed appearance in Comte’s Système (1851) and later his Catéchisme (1852).
Comte is considered to be the originator and definer of the term “altruism.” Comte’s brief definition for altruism is “living for others” (vivre pour autrui).
Comte wrote that society must discourage any form of self-regard or positive self-evaluation. Comte’s politics consisted largely of his uncompromising faith in collectivism. He thoroughly rejected any notion of individual rights as opposed to social duties, and therefore he dismissed any form of individualism. In terms of moral education, Comte envisioned a state-enforced adherence to non-individuality.
Comte advocated for a scientific social system rooted in the total subjugation of the individual to the collective. His book Religion of Humanity substituted society for the god(s) who govern the subservient peoples. This book was intended by Comte to instruct citizens in the ways of altruism as well as to discourage undesirable “outbreaks” of individual personality. He said that altruism was dependent on the complete abandonment of self-interest.
Comte described the ideal as "self-sacrifice". He said that if one reaches this ideal, their self dies and disappears, thus resulting in self-pursued suicide of one’s identity, which is a good thing. His stated ideal requires a person to pursue getting rid of himself. He never explains how this can be an attainable thing from the perspective of the individual who cannot exist as both dead and alive. Comte states that his beliefs are incompatible for people who want to keep living for themselves and who want to enjoy being a human person. This insanity and this lack of intelligibility is at the heart of altruism.
Comte said that altruism gauges a person’s virtue by the degree to which he surrenders, renounces, or betrays his own values.
Comte said that helping others is the central and primary issue of ethics, and he said that altruism is intended to destroy the concept of any authentic benevolence or good will among men. It must remain an un-enjoyed duty, and helping others must never be allowed to become an enjoyed value.
Comte argued that every person is morally the property of others. As such, each person has no moral right to invest the major part of his time and energy in his own private concerns. If he attempts it, if he refuses to voluntarily make the requisite sacrifices, he is by that fact harming others, i.e., depriving them of what is morally theirs. He is violating the right of others to his service. He is a moral delinquent, and it is an assertion of morality for others to forcibly intervene to extract from him the fulfillment of his altruist obligations, on which he is attempting to default.
“Social justice” demands the initiation of force against the non-sacrificial individual. Thus, moral fervor is joined to the rule of physical force. Altruism is intended to transform force from a criminal tactic into a favored governing principle of human relationships.
Ayn Rand observed that the above facts clearly explain the documented purpose of the concept "altruism". Its definition, its meaning, its context, and its application are clearly described. These documented source materials provided the foundation and the framework for Rand's understanding and her consequent condemnation of altruism. She reasoned her way to that condemnation by grasping the objective definition and meaning.
There are other concepts that are different from altruism, and we use these terms for them: goodwill, benevolence, generosity, assistance, thoughtfulness, graciousness. These each have a meaning that is quite different from the meaning of "altruism".
Rand was NOT criticizing nor condemning people who choose to have principles and habits of goodwill, benevolence, generosity, assistance, thoughtfulness, or graciousness. She was condemning the concept, the practice, and the imposition of altruism - because it clearly means various degrees of self-harm, self-abuse, or suicide - by clear intention of the term, and by clear definition.
We can observe that some people want to say that Rand was an evil or bad person because they think that Rand was against goodwill, benevolence, generosity, assistance, thoughtfulness, or graciousness. But Rand was not against these things.
When a person actually invests the time and effort to study the actual Rand materials and Rand statements in order to better understand the full context of her actual purposes, that type of student often arrives at their own unforced conclusion that Rand (in her own way, and with her own style) was actually a supporter of authentic chosen goodwill, benevolence, generosity, assistance, thoughtfulness, and graciousness. Such good feelings and such decency are compatible with Rand, compatible with her philosophy, and compatible with her preferences.
One of Rand's more valuable observations is as follows: When a person is FORCED (by compulsory rules, or by government dictate, or by peer pressure, or from fear of being punished / shamed / exiled) to express under pressure a PRETENDED goodwill, generosity, or graciousness - this actually guarantees that real & decent goodwill, generosity, or graciousness cannot occur and will not be experienced. The so-called decency is neither being chosen nor given by the person - it is being coerced, and this makes it a fraud. Rand observed that when compulsion and force are used, this transforms a potential decency into a lie. The actor will unavoidably know that they are lying, and the recipient is receiving a fraudulent inauthentic product.
Trying to understand objectivism. Coming from the tikhistory / misesmedia. Though i'm quite lazy.
Thanks - I just found out objectictivism existed - Love
This was great!
Objectivism The idea that there is only one objective reality and that laissez-faire capitalism is the only system that recognizes an individual's rights. The four pillars: Reality, Reason, Self-interest, and Capitalism.
Objectivism is a good antidote to the postmodern slime we're immersed in today.
Are you kidding?! It's the ONLY antidote! I started with it in '68 at age 23 and never looked back. At that time I was in a bind. In late '67 I became atheist. Then in early '68 I took a good hard look at the Establishment's offering like the Great Society and they looked too much like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia for my liking and, well, I could not be a Convervative. So where was I to go? Good thing I found THE FOUNTAINHEAD, the theme of which resonated with me all over the place, and Roark was atheist. Then I took the offer in the book for 2 free issues of THE OBJECTIVIST, this in June, and by October, Mostly from reading THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS and CAPITALISM; THE UNKNOWN IDEAL, made it mine: No regrets, only satisfaction, like it was custom made forme
Please define "postmodern slime" thank you.
@jeep23862 pragmatic altruism
@@johngleue
"altruism | ˈaltrʊɪz(ə)m |
noun [mass noun]
selfless concern for the well-being of others, without care for one's own interests; unselfishness: some may choose to work with vulnerable elderly people out of altruism.
• Zoology behaviour of an animal that benefits another at its own expense: reciprocal altruism."
Example of an act of altruism:- giving $50 to charity helping people caught in a natural disaster nowing you will not profit or benifit from it in anway from it
How any civilised person can call such actions evil is beyond me.
What Altruism does not mean goverment force you to pay.
Please supply me with an example of "pragmatic altruism"
I can do that: Rewind; 1958; I'm 12 years old. There is something playing on either the radio or TV and I'm not looking at the screen. It is about "the post-existentialism Intelligentsia". By this time, I am already a fledgling futurist. Since the "intelligentsia" supposedly represents the brains of our society and since philosophy is what brainy people do and since I know that Existentialism is a philosophy, this makes me sit up and take notice. The content of it was this: the "intellignentisa" was "trading Existentialism for Nihilism" because "Existentialism was not providing 'answers'". New Word; "Nihilism" So I go off to our big dictionary to look it up. When I read it, something about things not being real, this is what i experience to the point that it was overriding what I was seeing around me. First it picture from a book on airplanes that I had had for about 5 yrstd, s 2 page spread of an airport at night with the green beam of the beacon going off to the left and the white one off to the right. From the edge of the two pagnes a black cloud slowly swallows up the beams. Second. By way of setting the stage; it was the custom in the mid-50's that when a supermarket or other large store was having its "grand openng" they would get one of those big WWII aircraft searchlights, aim it up and then have it revolve in a circle. This would cause a disk to appear in the night sky going around above the parking lot. This could be seen for miles. This is what I experienced; I was standing in the backyard watching one of these and it gradually gre dimmer until totally extinguished. I was terrified. I will leave these for you to interpret
Unfortunately there's no "toolkit" that I can use to let myself off of the hook that I'm on.
Evidence?
@@TeaParty1776
Evidence that there's no toolkit that can let me off the hook that I'm on? Could be only one of us knows what I mean by the expression "let me off the hook".
You need to decide, professional carrier or philosophy. Live is too short for both for most people.
That’s a really backward way of thinking
More trying to sell the most corrupted philosophy on earth.
A better question would be how to de-toxify yourself and leave the cult...
Objectivism is a far better alternative to the current left/right narratives
@@Justin_Beaver564 Depends what you mean. But regardless, it is NOT better than Liberalism. The Founding Fathers were not Objectivists, that I know of...
@@KRGruner In your view whats the main difference between classical liberalism and objectivism?
Liberalism (no need for the "classical") recognizes that humans are fundamentally irrational at the individual level, but that through trial and error (and if lucky, with some input from Reason here and there), institutions grow to make society as a whole a workable endeavor. As Hayek put it, society is the result of human action but NOT human design. Human society is a highly complex. adaptive system which is not susceptible to top-down social engineering without risking its total break-down. Rand's view that humans thrive through the use of Reason is so wrong, it's laughable. If I drop a person with PhDs in chemistry, biology, physics, and engineering in the middle of the Amazonian jungle, they will die. In the same environment, primitive tribes with weird religious belief are able to survive for generations on end. It's not because they are more rational. Objectivism is ONLY correct about the fact that Right Action is judged by whether it promotes life or death. After that, it's all downhill into nonsense. Liberalism does not make that mistake.
@@KRGruner Are you saying that reason is not needed in order to survive in a jungle? What do you think that reason and logic is? What does the concept "reason" mean and refer to? If not by reason, then how do people come to know the world? How can irrational individuals create rational institutions? How can we create a rational science if scientists, like all others, are irrational animals driven by obscured desires? Are you as irrational as everyone else? What you just wrote to me, was it the result of deliberate thinking and formulation or did you just bang the keyboard like a monkey and randomly managed to type your response?
Trying to invalidate reason, and then use this irrationalism and as the foundation for individual rights and free markets. Are you kidding me? Declaring the individual to be irrational and impotent is how one goes about defending a totalitarian state - have you studied history at all? I cannot take you seriously since doing so would be to implicitly accept that you are a rational animal - something you have explicitly stated that you are not. By your own word I should not take you seriously.
This is getting ridiculous. It should be easy enough to understand so that you do not need a 300 IQ and a college degree in philosophy to understand it. The more complicated you make it the fewer persons will want it and the further off in the Twilight Zone. This is starting to sound like a religion. I don't think about it every day nor do I ask "What does/Objectivism say about...." I use Objectivism like any philosophy: As my operating system. For me, Objectivism is orthopractic; what to do, rather than orthodoctic; what to believe. telling me how to decide what to do or, if I do not know, how to figure it out. The best approach that I can think of is the old NBI "Objectivist Manifesto": 10 statements, the latter needing tweaked becuase it is a negative. With those, a baisic understanidng of Philosophy and what for and a proper use of reason. you get what you need and you do so naturally just because of natural curiousity. The measures of the Manifesto point to what I should do once I find they are true (which is not hard to do since it's all over the place)
"Starting to sound like a religion"? LOL, it's been a religion from the start!
@@KRGruner Two questions
1. How old are you?
2. What do you mean?
"old NBI "Objectivist Manifesto": 10 statements"
where can i find this online?
Or can you copy paste them here?
@@periteu This is old material. I have not seen it online but if you can find anyone with a good collection of ERGO, you whould be in luck. It began each school year with an editorial of its principles. This includied that Manifest. I'd like to get one for myself. I no longer have an printed copies of just about anything because, in 2008 my eyesight fell below that required to read printed material in black on white. The glare makes me go snowblind in about 20 seconds. So, everything I do, I do from memory
They are trying to sell you a pup, don't sign up.
No matter how deep you go into objectivism it's still a load of tripe.
Your unfocused mind is noted.