"The Enemies of 'Extremism'" by Ayn Rand
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 окт 2018
- Ayn Rand at Columbia University -- part 8: The Enemies of “Extremism”
Course playlist: • Ayn Rand at Columbia U...
In this 1964 radio interview, Ayn Rand responds to questions about the use of the term “extremism” in political discourse. Rand rejects “extremism” as an undefined term used to smear and discredit one’s opponent without evidence, analyzing several instances of the term’s use in presidential politics. Rand discusses why the term “extremism” is really an attack on consistency of principles, how presidential candidate Barry Goldwater could have defended himself against smears leveled at him, and why it is important to evaluate individuals and movements based on their ideas.
SUBSCRIBE TO NEW IDEAL, ARI'S ONLINE PUBLICATION
aynrand.us12.list-manage.com/...
SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S RUclips CHANNEL
ruclips.net/user/subscription_...
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.
SUPPORT ARI WITH A DONATION
ari.aynrand.org/donate/credit...
EXPLORE ARI
www.AynRand.org
FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER
/ aynrandinst
LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK
/ aynrandinstitute
EXPLORE ARI CAMPUS
campus.aynrand.org/
INFORMATION ABOUT OBJECTIVIST SUMMER CONFERENCES
objectivistconferences.com/
LEARN ABOUT AYN RAND STUDENT CONFERENCES
aynrandcon.org/
As far back as the early 1960s, Ayn Rand talked about the public’s fear of voicing precise opinions. Now 60 years later, America is essentially a nation full of wishy-washy citizens.
Total clarity, as usual. Guaranteed to make everyone squirm in cognitive dissonance, who has tied themselves in knots by accepting these critiqued terms unthinkingly.
Listening this reminded me that nothing ever changes.
Amen!
Even then there were RINOs and cuckservatives trying to appeal to an imaginary golden mean between liberty and tyranny, and an elite media making use of them while secretly hating their guts.
@@CountArtha very well said
Ayn Rand giving every time clarity ! THANK YOU !
One of my favorite interviews. Amazing thinker Ayn Rand!
1964 looking like 2019.
Looking forward to November 2020 elections with the hell of coronavirus 19 in the mix!
"Measurement as such has no value-significance. It can squire it only from the nature of that which you measure - and it is an absurdity to claim that an 'extreme' degree of *anything* regardless of its nature - is evil."
She cuts *right* through the obscurantist bullshit gimmicks - as usual.
Said, "Nothing Changes." I'll add, because we still live in a statist countries in North America. Also, the smears are continued by professionals who understand they are smearing. The concretizing of the method of using personal names as a substitute for ideological 'movement' is an excellent expose' of why the method is used. Trotskyism, for example brought home to me the smear method. This method includes use of new names as potential smears such as, "the Doug Ford government is a bull in a China shop." Smears seemingly simplify, but Ayn Rand is right! Extremism is smearing through vague language and loose terms in an attempt to avoid clear language and clear ideological positions - such as objectivism.
Beautiful thumbnail. It caught my attention instantly.
Well this is still relevant in 2021.
Miss Rand was honest, and she speaks for herself.That says a to myself.
Said at a time when people were not being taxed out of existence, they had time to think,
time to reason, time to contemplate life. And it goes without saying putting pen to paper
and writing down one's ideas does absolute wonders for one's clarity of thought.
I can say with confidence that writing down your ideas and your understanding of them
will grow as stupidity falls by the wayside. Clarity in writing leads to clarity in thought. A
writer is always a clear thinker. Ayn Rand wrote eloquently and spoke eloquently. Part of
the secret of her success. She started out with an idea: an ideal man. As consequences
go, you never got to smuggle smears and package deals past Ayn Rand; and a mind as
sharp as a razor.
**Write more and sharpen your mind ... before you get taxed out of existence!!**
"Moderate about what?" 😂😂😂😂 I love that term but now I am having a second thought!
Thank you.
A beautiful commentary on language and it’s use. It was relevant then and more so today. I enjoy it when people rebuttal back informing others of the denotative meaning versus connotative meaning. It puts into perspective the use of language to smear others based on wanting to seem righteous or morally correct
"The so-called Right has no intellectual direction, has no consistency ideology, and puts up with it."13:45-13.54.
Very interesting...and very true! I think this statement was a clear kick in the ass to William Buckley who I believe considered himself the patron poet of the conservative movement in America back then. He had already made it clear that he disliked her greatly.
The real conservatives have left the building- to date.
Terms that a society obsessed with "balance" and moderation latch onto. Morality is gray because altruism is impossible to follow to its end without killing yourself.
The idea of balance is a moral cop out. Morality is black and white, good or bad, pro-life or anti-life.
i think a balanced view that sees different points of view is intelligent. Really important to see the bigger picture not just 1 point of view.
Brilliant! Thanks for this post. Interviewers are better than the usual scumbags (how immoderate of me) who appear to have been her interviewers.
Barry Goldwater would have been a better president than Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, OR Reagan.
Change my mind.
Build a time machine and change history.
@@jgalt308 A short story by Stephen King on that subject (about going back in time to see who killed JFK) inspired me to research the assassination. I dug for a couple of years and from there down a couple of smaller rabbit holes that led me to question "why do they want our guns?"
That woulda began my walkaway story but it was years earlier. All my impressions of the left began to crumble rapidly and I realized the only thing I had been right about previously was how corrupt the establishment is as a whole. Amazing what an honest dig for the truth will do if your humble and not unafraid of what you discover.
@@amyjoyce2301 That truth is easy...this has been an illegitimate, unconstitutional,
criminal government since 1939...unfortunately the number
who understand this is small and those grasping the remedy and willing to act
even smaller.
@@jgalt308 It escapes me why people like Ayn Rand or Thomas Sowell didn't see it or why they or others don't talk about it. A couple of the rabbit holes I went into revealed some tricky, literal CT's which I admit really scared and black pilled me. Experiencing a serious illness allowed me to feel how horrible depleted hope feels like and each time it occurred I'd research like crazy to find some again. I think the lack of understanding you spoke of is in some cases an unwillingness to entertain it because of fear. I confided quite a bit with my husband so he'd grasp the importance of some preps he'd have to know about and he was speechless. When pressed he told me straight up - it scares him. And he's alpha! I am willing and know some others who are but as you said, 9/10 are either woke or blind. Why 1939 exactly?
@@amyjoyce2301 The supreme court caved to FDR's court packing threat in 38
ruling against most of the "new deal" programs and would have continued...
as a result, the federal judicial system ceased operating in the subject
matter jurisdiction of "law and equity" and began operating in the "fraudulently
deceptive" statutory jurisdiction under the recodification of the USC and its CFR implementing regulations. No such "subject matter" jurisdiction exists in Article
3...and the only other jurisdictions that do, neither protect rights nor limit the powers
of government as intended.
The next step in the federal deception occurred in 1952 with the UCC and it's
required "reservation of rights"...but this only applied to areas of "federal jurisdiction"
and had to be adopted by the "several states"...a process which required until 1970
to complete. From the point all of government at every level became criminal.
At the moment my main computer system is undergoing its annual cleaning and tune up which will not be completed until thursday...however if you do a search for
UCC 1-308 or 1.207 you can read the applicable statutes that apply to federal and state jurisdictions. ( and possibly understand the nature of the fraudulent deception for your self. ) If not rest assured I shall post them and the analysis for you on Thursday and we
c an continue from there if you wish....until then....
¿ A qué se refiere en juzgar ideas y no personas ?. Lo escaso que entendí como “ no se deben juzgar a las personas, sino ideas” es a la cantidad de personas que pertenecen a un grupo. Lo otro que entendí es juzgar a la persona en base a sus ideas y no se puede englobar toda una idea o un movimiento en una persona en específico. Eso está bien ?
Interesting. Is it proper to say that using the term ''extremism'' is the same as using a term like ''moderatism''?
Rofl this woman had more brain power than GOP and evangelicals entierty.
Evangelicals like Georgeeee Bush? A rat has more brain or moral values.
@@whousa642 did I state GB is or was Evangelical?
@@AndreiStoen // No, I did.
17:50 This seems to apply to "Trumpists" today
It actually applies to your grossly uninformed comment.
A great mind. 50 years later and nothing has changed. Today, Peterson incarnates rand, not her equal, but an important continuation of healthy thinking.
I would hesitate to call Peterson's thinking healthy... He's a disintegrated mystical pragmatist. He's not in any way similar to Rand and about as far from an Objectivist as you can reach.
@Retired But Retro. and anyone?
I do love listening to Peterson, but I'd have to agree with the above comment. He's almost the opposite of an objectivist.
Seems kinda stupid to say extremism should not be used because its a relative term.
Well I'm about to quickly go to bed after dropping an extreme load in the toilet and eat a tiny amount of food.
Avoiding the enormous amount of cats likely on the stairs.
Except it's a term of Measurement and every example you have employed can be rendered
precisely, by either weight or quantity. So get to it and stop being "intellectually" lazy.
yes... it is a measurement...
this is a very common problem people of "extreme" stances generally have.
those on the far side of the left and right tend to have a problem with "inductive reasoning" (understanding probability) and seeing things in black and white with no shades of grey. which is why they seem to hold such clearly nonsensical absolutist ideas.
you seem to have it to such a degree you don't even understand the concept of relativity.
That the idea of extremism is a measurement, a relative concept of measurement. should not be used because it is such is like saying people should not use the word fast.
normally in most cases, the route cause of these sorts of beliefs comes from the general lack of ability to tell there is a spectrum of subjectivity. That things are either undebatable subjective ideas that only matter to the individual or that there are objective facts of the universe with nothing in between.
obviously, this child-like understanding is fundamentally held by only those that struggle with basic concepts. But it is interesting how this can be easily analysed and "reduced to the absurd".
I do agree with this video in the sense that people only use the word extremist to refer to someone because they are too afraid of calling them stupid.
@@riskingeuphoria So you don't understand the concept of "definition"??? You have a problem with "precision"? Understanding
what is "empirical" and what is not?
You think I have a problem with "relativity" based on my criticism...why? It's 100 per cent accurate,
and you could have provided precise "measurements" of each of those items. Not to mention the
fact that unless set in a "novel" it was "useless information" to begin with, and would be rendered
more absurd had you actually provided the measurements. ( although the cat part produced a flashback
of the fate of Gayle Hunnicut, in a movie so old I can't remember, while inspiring the wish, that if
it were a fictional plot, your fate would be similar! )
Here you are commenting about " a range of subjectivity" regarding the philosophy of "objectivism"
whose point is dismissing "subjectivity" altogether...because it serves no purpose of any kind, and
is in your own words... a stupid comment.
A range of subjectivity regarding the meaning of words makes the conversation pointless...
and either ends up becoming an impasse regarding semantics...or totally meaningless,
because none the words being used have a commonly understood meaning...and if social media
has demonstrated anything it is that most humans are "willfully ignorant, functionally illiterate, unevolved
talking hominids." who insist on sharing this with others of their kind.
The result of this is the exchange of a whole lot of "nothing" and worse the technique of
saying "nothing" is being employed by the "leaders" elected or not...to tap into this
"range of subjectivity" ...to trigger an "emotional response"...that is "fact free".
In terms of "reasoned intelligent thought"...this offers nothing productive regarding the potential
outcome.
@@jgalt308 im saying that in post grad education in the study of psychology, philosophy and neuroscientce it was found that people of extremist mindsets tend to be mentally damaged.
in a literal sense.
their damage to the cyngula gyrus is correlated with their inability to use inductive reasoning.
as I repeat, it is to see things in black and white with no shades of grey.
that is, they literally cannot understand that everything is not mutually exclusive.
That subjectivity and objectivity are not entirely separate.
The most basic forms of logic are lost on them which is why they believe absolutist ideas that make very very little sense with small amounts of thought or a childlike socratic reductio ad absurdem.
@@riskingeuphoria You seem to be suggesting that applied to me, based on my first post.
And seemed to have avoided anything relevant including the questions in my second.
When speaking logically, reasonably and empirically, the range of subjectivity, whether inductive or reductive
is more accurately presented as a range of probabilities...where as the "subjective" by definition has no relevance to
that which is "objective reality" or the attempt to discover it.
And how does any of this apply to Rand...and her insistence of precise meaning...or how easy it
is to dismantle it?
My favorite example of this is that it is impossible to use the word decimate and have it understood
for exactly what it means.
Other words that have been rendered meaningless...democracy, unconstitutional and unalienable rights,
none of which are true or self evident in the objective sense. ( and capitalism )
How about this ..."Capitalism begins at conception." ( objective or subjective. )
All life is capitalist.
All life is profit seeking and if possible seeks to store capital. ( the laws of nature )
Therefor one now has not only the objective meaning of capitalism, but also that of profit and
capital...