Do you agree with Jordan Peterson's critiques of Ayn Rand? Why or why not? To buy my books, including Thomas Paine: A Lifetime of Radicalism, check out my online bookstore: davidbenner.square.site
Not from some short clip. That's absurd clip bait. I mean, without seeing the entire discussion? Then there are her non-fiction books. Like Odyssey. Basing it all on Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead is why they had this discussion in my opinion.
I have read all of Ayn Rands works and think JP, who I am a fan of, is completely off the mark. She was a girl from St. Petersburg, Russia, witnessing the collapse of a society and the driving ideology causing it. She was trying to convey that in a learned 2nd language (hence the her knack of repetitive dialogue with the characters reinforcing the topic). His focus on the literary works and not the person, who succeeded valiantly, attempting to convey that objective reality and the works of men who understand that and bring progress to civilizations is hampered by those who do not. We live in a world today ran by people believing in "their truth" and not objective truth. Even JP is a victim of that, so perhaps he could cut Ayn some slack.
@@seanryan2112 Objective truth may exist out there, like a Platonic idea, but we are imperfect beings and, as such, objective truth could be unattainable to us. There's a problem with the intrinsic qualities of human interpretation of reality and it's that which really hinders the human species in its truth-seeking quest.
I’m not sure if I agree with Petersons analysis. I do agree with him that Rands beliefs system that a society of people completely free to pursue their own self interests would evolve into a utopian system of well regulated government is seriously flawed. There is all sorts of empirical evidence that the opposite occurs and such systems become extremely coercive and exploitative. The second issue I have is that Ayne Rands philosophy of objectivism, and I’m coming from a point of view as a man of science, is that it’s an oxymoron as it is anything but objective. What I remember most about her most famous book “Atlas Shrugged” was it was a horrible novel. The dialogue was stilted and lacking in imagination, character and personality. The plot was thin as tissue paper and she belabors her points over and over and over, beats them to death, stomps them into the ground then repeats them all over again, ad nauseam. Which makes Atlas Shrugged an incredibly boring read. Ayne Rand simply was clueless about the nature of the human experience. Her philosophy sounds good at a surface level but scratch the surface and it falls apart. An example of this was her unqualified support of Laissez Faire Capitalism which by any objective measure is as failed an economic system as communism with its champagne glass economic distribution of wealth and its boom and bust cycles. Now it wasn’t all bad. Rands critiques on collectivism is spot on but her philosophy of Objectivism is a flawed and empty champagne glass.
In this snip Peterson’s problem(s) with Rand are not elucidated. But he does seem to be disturbed by the word “selfish”. I’m guessing his problem with her ideas has something to do with misunderstanding what Rand means by “selfish”.
Where I disagree with Rand is in how she used the word selfish, which has very specific overtones from Western Christian culture. Her choice of that word the differences between what she means versus its common usage is a source of a lot of misunderstanding about what she was trying to say. That said, her idea is essentially a small government idea and tracks quite well with how many of the US founders (especially Jefferson) thought about the world. The left still despises her since she was anti-collectivist to the core. She was never going to get a fair hearing from them. But the reason she still continues to be popular is that folks who read enough of her output understand what she means and believe in the liberty/individualist ideal.
Well, "selfish" is a complicated word. It has so many possible meanings and situational definitions that you can never intrinsically know its meaning without clear guidance. For example, If I called you selfish, you would have no idea what I was going on about. You could take it to mean that I thought you only looked to benefit yourself. Or you could take it to mean that you wanted just to benefit yourself and no one else. Human language is tricky. Understand?
@@mactek6033 Yes. Rand understands that “selfish” has many meanings and she does spend considerable ink describing what her meaning for the word is, which is mostly not what the popular meanings are.
“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 self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages” “Individual Ambition Serves the Common Good.” Adam Smith
And Smith was wrong, at least incomplete. It’s both self interest AND the interest of the group, a mix, that best serves us all. Dont need game theory to see that. Been around for ages. So yes, pursue your livelihood w self interest, because nobody else will, but also be the Good Samaritan that sees the beaten robbed man in the ditch and helps him, within limits. I think Rand had that beaten out of her in the USSR, no recovery.
@@Nill757 You are wrong. Even when we appear to serve the interests of others, it is because of our self-interest. She never denied helping others. She denied being forced to help others. Everything we do is for self-interest. It is basic human nature. When religion or government try to force us to believe and act as if that part of our basic human make-up is wrong, we become mentally and emotionally ill. That is our society today.
@@charlesbishop4000 I know what Rand meant, and what Adam Smith meant, which was different. Smith did not mean help the group to help your self. He was wrong, as I said.
The Short Answer : Adam Smith was not advocating for Laisse Faire economics , but rather he was advocating that all citizens be able to participate in a capitalist system . The Long Answer : Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations should be understood within The Theory of Moral Sentiments and the Context of his time . " It is the great multiplication of the productions of all the different arts , in consequence of the division of labour , which occasions , in a well-governed society , that universal opulence which extends itself to the lowest ranks of the people . " (WN I.i.10 ) - note how Smith says " self interest " not selfishness - He comments on a " well-governed society " so this is a reference to the " social contract" * - " which extends itself to the lowest ranks of the people " during the Enlightenment , the idea of equal opportunity starts to become accepted . Adam Smith was writing during the Enlightenment and an era of Mercantilism . Smith detested massive wealth inequality , where the rich tobacco , cotton and lumber merchants of Glasgow had considerable wealth , while there was massive urban poverty . So in this context , Smith was advocating for a social contract where all citizens had an opportunity to participate in a capitalist ( mercantile ) system . So in a well governed society , the government creates the opportunity for all citizens to participate in this mercantile system , not just just the wealthy merchants exploiting the unskilled labour class . As Micheal Hudson points out , classical economists supported using capital to create actual wealth ( goods , agriculture and services ) , as opposed to using capital to exploit others . . . * The Social Contract is the expected set of laws , rights and common values , set up between the Government and Citizens , in order to have a civilized society . Hobbes , John Locke and Rousseau wrote their versions of the social contract .
Wow these guys are just so next level . One guys listening and actually critiquing information, and only commenting when it progresses the discussion , and JP taking correction to his thought process without feeling the need to defend his position . So impressive
Close, but not quite. JP is trying to find new ways to defend his position when his position is shown to be not technically correct. His position doesn't change, he just changes the way that he tries to defend it. I agree about Michael's part though and it's really interesting to see someone call JP out when he says things that aren't correct, instead of sitting there in wide-eyed deference like most other interviewers. Maximum kudos to him.
She grew up in socialist society. Peterson believed in leftist policies until they bit him in the butt. He's a late-comer to the common sense view of the world
I think the gist of it was when Peterson said that he couldn't distinguish between individualism and hedonism, and between hedonism and possession by a primal process. When compared to what Ayn Rand said, that a society where one is free to pursue rational self-interest, there wouldn't be any "Hitlers" et. al., I think that is where Peterson, as a psychologist, had the problem. It may be true that humans are inherently subject to a number of psychological maladies just as they are subject to physical disease. Those Hitler and Stalin and Marx personalities may always be among us, that a perfect utopia might never be attainable, there will always be people with problems great and small. If that is an accurate summation of the problem, one defense of Rand is that if those malevolent individuals existed, their influence would be limited and even countered by a truly free society that largely understands the nature of that freedom and can rationally defend it.
@htomc42 It doesn't seem to be working. People tend to believe too much in nonsense just cause they like the sound of it, without ever thinking deeply about the meaning behind the nonsensical beliefs. Malicious individuals like Stalin, Hitler, and Mao came to power due to ideological diseases in the society they lived in. But I doubt that society will ever rid itself of such diseases.
I've always considered Rand's use of the word "selfish" to be a poke in the eye of those who use it as an insult, a descriptor of those less than themselves. While they call someone in pursuit of their own interests "Selfish" as a form of disparagement, she turns it around to show the virtue of it.
Rand came from the Soviet Union, and during a period of time, they let no Soviet educated person leave. I suggest reading Whitaker Chambers' review of The Fountainhead. It is titled "Big Sister Is Watching You." Chambers was the US equivalent of Orwell.
@@buybuydandavis I am a bit off center for that altruism thingy. I believe each person is responsible for there own well being. But with one limit. The pursuit of well being did not come at the expense of and damage to others. BUT I have also known people that would destroy anything that they can't control or own. Those people are the most dangerous persons.
The very first thing that any two people should do when entering into a discussion/debate/etc is to define terms so that they both can proceed with the discussion fully understanding that each term means. Most discussions break down because the two people have different concepts in their heads when using a single term. Both sides sometimes avoid this part of the process (i think, I certainly could be wrong) due to the egotistical view that they KNOW that terms mean. But even a nuanced difference can have a very large impact.....such as a 0.5 degree deviation when shooting a long range firearm....the further the projectile travels, the larger the impact of the unintended deviation. Solution: Make no assumptions. Define the terms that will be used or stop the discussion and agree upon the full meaning of a term before proceeding.
Acts of self-sacrifice for the good of others can be a noble, transcendent, and even self-interested thing to strive for, but not at the expense of one's own stability, and not at the expense of the other's growth. Sometimes, a helping hand allows a person to overcome truly unfair and insurmountable obstacles; other times it robs them of growth. Navigating this space is difficult. Nevertheless, if one wishes to consistently care for others across time, they must first act in their own self interest. If you can't stand on your own, how can you support others?
I had a wonderful mate, a mechanical engineer with his trade certificates to back up the knowledge. Every time I asked him for help he would come and guide me through the problem, not show me how to fix it but guide me through it. I love the memory of the man like he was my brother and will forever be grateful for his teaching me to solve problems. It was the best help I have ever received.
@@martinroncetti4134 Indeed, however I do think the economy is heavily distorted and could use a new paradigm. I'm quite fond of Georgist Libertarianism, wherein the value of ground rents is shared, but the free market takes care of basically everything else.
Self-sacrifice is contrary to the nature of life and of values (including moral values, if you care to have them relate to reality). Life is a self-sustaining process and it is conditional on proper action. A morality that splits the beneficiary from life-oriented actions is a terrible inversion. This is why a morality of self-sacrifice is so destructive. It is not reality-based so it has no boundaries or limits, it is a cancer of the mind that is stopped by nothing because it was formed in violation of reality and logic. So long as it is popular to give it lip-service as a moral ideal, life-serving action will not be safe.
I'd much rather deal with someone that is selfish as defined by Rand than someone claiming to be altruistic or put others before themselves. When you are dealing with someone that is pursuing their own rational, long term self interest then you understand their goals and motivation. And if you are operating from the same point of view, you can quickly determine how you can work with one another to the benefit of both. But when you are dealing with someone that is professed selfless and altruistic you can not truly understand their motivation. For those that jump to the love of a parent for their children and other similar selfless acts that doesn't diminish her argument. Rand said she was intentionally provacative in her use of the word selfish just to get people to pay attention to the idea of rational self interest.
Your reasoning breaks down, because you're contrasting someone who *is* selfish as defined by Rand vs. someone who is *claiming to* be concerned with other's needs. If you know someone's motivation with certainty, then you understand how they will process things, and if you don't know their motivation with certainty, the choices they will make are uncertain to the same extent. The thing is, you can't know for certain if someone is rationally self-interested or merely claiming to be, any more than you can be sure about the alternative. That barrier to understanding how a person will act exists either way. (Also, even if they do have an overall commitment in that direction, they'll still waver at times.) The actual question is whether interest in the wellbeing of others is necessarily a more malleable motivation than self-interest. Well, it can be qualified in the same ways that self-interest can - rational, long-term. There is, however, greater complexity in determining how the ideal can best be embodied (there is lesser complexity in figuring out what's in one's self-interest, but not none) because there are multiple parties. It's more likely that they'll take different ideas for granted. That's not an insurmountable problem, as you can ask them, 'and what do you think is the best way to make that a reality?' If someone actually does care about other's wellbeing, that might give them more cause for disagreements with you, but it also means that their interests are aligned with yours, on the most basic level. Someone who is self-interested won't go out of their way to help you if it doesn't fit in with the details of their pursuits. A committed hedonist would be even easier to understand and motivate - you could motivate an alcoholic very easily, if you were willing to stoop so low - but an alcoholic is not therefore always the most desirable person to deal with. There are people who have no intrinsic care for others' wellbeing, by the way. We call them psychopaths. A virtuous, perfectly functioning psychopath is the only person in the world whose morality is solely Randian.
@@mostdefinitelynotaguineapi7566 I don't buy your claim that a virtuous perfectly functioning psychopath is the embodiment of Randian morality. There is nothing in her argument that implies or demands that someone acting in their own rational self interest doesn't take the rights, feelings and desires of another human being into consideration. It's just to not put their needs etc. above your own. Nor should a society or collective expect you to do so either. Rand believed in what she would call 'man survival qua man'. That man acting in his own rational self interest is what is needed for actual survival. That altruism was evil and irrational because as a moral code it demands that you put others before yourself. That your only reason to live is to serve others and subordinate your needs to someone else. I fundamentally reject altruism as the embodiment of moral good. I think it is evil to ask anyone to sacrifice their life for mine. Nor should they expect me to sacrifice my life for theirs. That doesn't mean that I don't consider the rights and feelings of others nor does it mean that I don't do what I can to eliminate or reduce the suffering of another human being. But I choose to do those things precisely because I am acting in my own rational self interest. And I do not feel or believe my good comes from sacrificing myself in the process. The bottom line is that in a relationship of trade between the two of us, don't ask me to sacrifice something just for your sake and I won't ask you to do the same. Then we are two equal human beings, acting in our own rational long term self interest. That provides each of us the best chance of survival. And that is the ideal Rand was advocating for.
@@markwrichards In case there was any ambiguity, I fully acknowledge rational self-interest as virtuous. I dispute that it's the only fundamental source of value. Perhaps psychopathy is more complicated than I realised, so I won't press that idea. My intention was to show that this purely transactional model of relationships, in which the other person is from one's own perspective merely another part of the external world from which you can benefit if you behave in a particular way, is lacking. The issue isn't considering the rights, feelings and desires of others or not doing so, it's what you consider them *to be*. I think you misunderstand altruism. I wouldn't ask someone to sacrifice something for me if it leaves them worse off than the good it does me, and I wouldn't do that for someone else. That's why we say to someone 'oh, never mind, it's not important' if a minor request turns out to involve more than we thought. To be fair, some people do conflate altruism with a constant subordination of one's own interests to others, without any other consideration. But that's neither implied nor demanded by the mere acknowledgement of others' wellbeing as an intrinsic end. 'Love your neighbour as yourself' notably excludes 'love your neighbour more than yourself.' The formulation excludes any attempt to diminish the importance of either. You conceded the point when you used the word 'rights.' Altruism is *an* embodiment of moral good. It's an extension of the same source of individual morality: the objective value of human beings. The somewhat clumsy word 'selfless' is really getting at a condition in which one is free from the bias of perspective given by being one person and not another. I've sacrificed something - time - to give you an opportunity to consider issues that will have more of a long term effect than cutting into my sleep will. You, a complete stranger who will benefit me in no way. I consider this good in the scheme of things. And I don't say that I don't accept others' sacrifice for me, because turning down gestures of charity (again, discounting disproportionate sacrifice) is inconsiderate. One more thing. As it turns out, there's a sort of hard-to-define quality of life that you get from seeking others' wellbeing. But you don't get it by looking for it.
@@mostdefinitelynotaguineapi7566 this has been an interesting debate but your response sheds light on something important. I'm coming at this from a purely philosophical perspective and you from a mix of philosophy and psychology. I don't know enough about psychology to wade deeply on the subject but throwing any psychopathic issues into the debate becomes an axiomatic problem. Because we lack a standard definition of normal and we can always find some behavior that challenges the argument. I stand by my definition of altruism that at its core is a principle by which you put someone else's needs above your own. Excluding your children or someone you deeply love, to be altruistic (putting someone else's needs above your own) is irrational and I would argue leads to evil. Either by opening the door for another human being to exploit that person or even worse by a fundamentally flawed social system to do the same. Taken to the extreme, what is the motivation of someone that is truly self sacrificing? It's fundamentally a hatred of life itself. And that, to my thinking, is the ultimate evil.
@@markwrichards Nothing in my argument is psychological that I can see, and I explicitly said that I wasn't going to stand by the psychopath argument. This is an axiomatic issue for me too. I've found that 'altruism' isn't a consistently defined word - some share your definition, some refer to charitable action generally - and I think the formulation of 'putting someone else's needs (or wellbeing generally) above your own' suggests where the ambiguity comes from. That phrase could be used to refer to regarding others' needs as inherently and always greater than your own. More often, it's used to refer to doing so in situations in which it is right to do so. It's not a helpful concept for getting into the axioms of morality. It's a common phrase, it wasn't made for that purpose. People started with the situation they were describing and found the easiest way to describe it. I think the words 'selfless' and 'selfish' address the root distinction. The former describes a perspective that isn't limited by self-bias. That doesn't open the door for people to exploit me because it's not biased for me to identify exploitation for what it is.
"I swear by life and my love of it that I will not live for the sake of another man, nor will I ask him to live for the sake of mine." Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged.
How sad that she thinks like this, and how much sadder is it that people follow her. The things that echo in eternity are the things we do for others. If I end up in Hell I'll have a long talk with her about this.
@@JesseThompson-ef2oc When a barber helps a man by cutting his hair, the barber is doing it for his own sake. When a grocer helps a man by providing him with food, he is doing it for his own sake. When a teacher helps a man by teaching his children, he is doing it for his own sake. When a banker helps a man by giving him a loan, he is doing it for his own sake. A society is a place where an individual can thrive. It should not be a place where he is expected to become a serf of the community. A nation of indentured servants is not going to be very cheerful.
@@JesseThompson-ef2oc People in a relatively free market work together all the time. They just don’t do it for free. You’d be amazed at how well people can get along if they don’t view each other as sacrificial lambs. Trade is the name of the game-trading value for value. If we lived in a completely free market (as I would like to see it), then the cooperative activity you see in your community will only increase. The human mind will not be forced. Any attempt to do so only leads to decay and destruction.
“Pardon me while I overthink this…” Love Dr Peterson and I’m always impressed to hear him think. In this case however, we may be going through some recreational gymnastics and contortions to demystify what basically amounts to “rational self interest”, the most reliable and pure force in human interactions, as championed by Ayn Rand. That said, his off the cuff deconstruction of human psyche was wonderful to observe, as always.
I think he was about to arrive at how can individuals judge what is rational when distinct focus is on the self and what constitutes self interest in that regard, and across what time span? He's mused about this, and perception more broadly, before.
I don't think this is an issue of overcomplicating and a simplier solution is more suffice? Don't you think he would first have looked at that and then dug deeper when noticing a simplier answer wasn't adequit?
It must be a blessing and a curse for Peterson: to have the brain he has; to constantly be searching for answers; questioning everything - and having the mental capacity to keep that up, rather than just resting on his laurels. As they say: ignorance is bliss!
Enlightened self-interest must always include reference to others because we all depend on others to help advance our own intesrests. As John Donne wrote:pointed out ... "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."
@@englishincontext4025 how do you maintain rational boundaries where externalities are concerned given the experiential gap on the path to this enlightenment?
This is how opened minded people discuss deeply complex issues. They both understand that part of defining the conversation is defining the terms/words because thats the foundation of the debate. There must be a baseline from which all convo starts from. I wish everyone could engage like these two and really open their minds to being both challenged and enlightened.
Once you separate warfare from being productive. What unproductive has the place to allow? She must mean to condemn wars, because of the economic losses. But economy which includes productivity is not the whole of the human condition.
I would love to get Dr Peterson a copy of Ayn Rand's first book We The Living. I think he would enjoy her story about the Soviet Union. (especially given his interest in Solzhenitsyn)
True. Dr. Peterson is incapable of pith. I have read--or tried to read--three Ayn Rand books: The Fountainhead is thrilling; Atlas Shrugged never takes off (for me); and We The Living is a haunting cautionary tale.
@@milletrad8871Rand's style is difficult for many, deliberate and unadorned. I was reading Wodehouse and Maugham at that age so it was a marked contrast. My Dad said She writes like an Historian more than a novelist...
Maybe I'm sentimental, but the bit that I recall about Dagny Taggart made her seem disappointingly unfeminine. Maybe Atlas Shrugged suffers from being, "a novel of ideas"?
I read Rand having seen 'The Fountainhead' as a teen. It is a beautiful movie. My Dad was a Libertarian, the real kind- borderline Anarchist. It did inform my life. When my equipment leasing business hit a hard plateau back in the '80s I was forced to not take a salary for nearly four years, in my own self interest. We used savings and personal resources to make payroll many months. It all paid well in the end when I was forced to retire, my heart, 10 years ago. I was able to sell the business at a premium. We still had contracts with a lot of those same clients that we struggled to keep. And never layed off or fired a single employee.
There is merit in Ayn Rand's ideas BUT please note that, in her books, there are no children (how to educate the next generation?) and no elderly people (so how to take care of them in their dotage?) I am a conservative and an engineer.
Oh dear, once again it's lies and context-dropping in order to misrepresent and dismiss Rand. There are children in Atlas Shrugged, and the way children fit a life has been discussed in detail in secondary sources on Objectivism. As to the elderly, the same principles elucidated by Rand apply clearly to the elderly: moral principles must address a man's entire life span, i.e. provide for your own retirement, and it's fine to help those who are in trouble through no fault of their own, so long as it is not a sacrifice. Conservatism, which once claimed to defend our freedom, is utterly bankrupt and at best only ever said to the left's eager desire to eat our lives: "whoa now, you're right of course but not all at once, let's not be too innovative".
You are correct sir. She wasn't perfect. She offered a great study of why the Free market is better than a centralized one. She didn't have all the answers.
There are children in Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead. I don't know where this myth came from, but I read the books and know they are there. In Atlas Shrugged there are wayward children and there are psychologically healthy children in Galt's Gulch. The mother of the children even discusses how she raises them. They even had the main characters starting out as children with Dagny's mother as a character. I'm not sure about "elderly"... There are older characters. Not that this objection is essential. The philosophy stands on its own and has to be dealt with on a fundamental level. 4/19/24, 11:15 a.m.
I have come to appreciate listening to people who are actually thinking things through and hashing things out with the objective of reaching common ground or finding truth, regardless of whether not I agree with anything or everything they say. We have so little of this type of discourse in our society today.
You have to read “We the Living” written by Ayn Rand. Trust me, the “We the Living” actually explains how the society of the USSR who really loved themselves and how they turned on each other under the concept of continuing deciding the good from the bad.
The premise of Ayn's books is that 'selfishness is a virtue'. This is contrast to the more widely held belief that 'selfishness is a vice'. It is not that complicated.
It seems like Jordan has some primary confusions when he talks about Rand: 1) In his own materials Jordan encourages people to have personal individual purpose and goals while taking responsibility for their own life ... this means that he already agrees with Rand. At the same time (in contradiction) he wants to endorse and practice altruism (self-sacrifice & unchosen duty). The former type of character development is incompatible with the latter type of character development in many important ways. Jordan tries to maintain this fundamental incompatibility within himself ... many in his audience see this problem while Jordan himself does not seem to see it. 2) Jordan shares with us just after the 6:00 mark that he has difficulty distinguishing hedonism from Rand's concept of individualism. INDIVIDUALISM: Rand understood that the individual pursuit of survival with each bite of food, each breath of air, each self-defense action, and each night of restful sleep is a "selfish" action, it is a "self-interested" action, and it is a normal healthy virtue. Jordan in fact agrees with Rand about this and he already demonstrates that Rand is correct ... because he himself is already doing these things every day of his life for self-interest, and he will continue doing them. He is also demonstrating Rand's point for her during this interview when he tries to explain his own selfish perspectives and his own selfish frustrations and his own selfish curiosities ... he is demonstrating the natural normal selfishness and self-interest that Rand wrote about. He will not stop doing it ... nor should he try to stop. HEDONISM: Rand repeatedly and clearly rejected hedonism, which describes when a person is taking their previously formed feelings as irreducible primaries ... the satisfaction of these feelings is the purpose of their morality ... regardless of whether the value-judgments that caused these feelings are rational or irrational, consistent or contradictory, consistent with reality or in conflict with it. Rand and Objectivism say that a hedonistic approach to living is somewhat suicidal (anti-life). Rand thought that a person's survival ought to instead be guided by an objective rational code of values based on and derived from man’s nature as a specific type of living organism, and the nature of the environment in which he lives. This obviously means long-range planning, tool-building, coordination with others, earning ones achievements through resourceful work effort, struggle and problem-solving outside of one's comfort-zone, and taking responsibility for one's experiences and failures and accomplishments. Sustained uncomfortable effort and responsibility are obviously incompatible with hedonism ... but fully compatible with self-interest and selfishness. 3) Jordan does not understand that Rand starts her philosophical construction with the reality that human consciousness exists and it has an objective nature ... her entire philosophy is built on this reference point and this foundation. Her framework starts with the question "what is the nature of human consciousness ... what needs & what functioning does that nature logically imply? She does not start by being an opinionated academic, and this is difficult for Jordan to process because he starts many of his own perspectives by being an opinionated academic rather than by being an objective researcher. 4) Jordan gets paid by keeping things complicated. He can tend to get quarrelsome about Rand because Rand keeps things simple and her ability to do that probably disturbs him. Rand's thinking: Should we encourage a dog to unnaturally stop sniffing, stop barking, and stop wagging his tail ... no we should not because that would conflict with his own nature & needs. Should we encourage a bird to unnaturally stop flying, stop worm-hunting, and stop nest-building ... no we should not because that would conflict with his own nature & needs. Should we encourage a human to unnaturally stop perceiving, stop reasoning, and stop choosing in a natural pursuit of his own survival, his own security, and his own self-protection ... no we should not do that because that would conflict with his nature & needs. 5) A creature that practices altruism is either suddenly or gradually making itself extinct ... because the principle of altruism is by definition self-sacrifice, which by definition goes toward deprivation and death. The pursuit of deprivation and death is logically impossible for any creature to have within its nature and within its adapted programming ... because it's the opposite of life and being alive. Jordan does not seem to understand this aspect. 6) Also, Jordan does not seem to grasp that someone who is NOT practicing altruism can also at the same time be genuinely healthy, happy, benevolent, gracious, ethical, enjoyable to be around, and safe to be around.
I think he understands her much better than most people do. Rand doesn't allow for self-sacrifice: that would be treason to one's self-interest. No sane person would die so that another might live. That is the ultimate price and would require ultimate reward, so if you live in Rand's world, police officers and people in the military would be getting paid hundreds of millions of $ to compensate them (or their families) in the event of their deaths. Otherwise, no one following Rand's advice would fill those gaps. Too dangerous and asking too much for what people are willing to give in exchange. Duty is not a Randian word, unless said duty can be properly compensated, and as we see, it can't be. Rand also presumes too much morality among humanity, and she also presumes self-interests never directly conflict. History tells a different story. Ask Genghis Khan.... that man pursued his self-interest all over Europe and Asia.
@@sidwhiting665 Exactly, spot on. Rand supposes that free will and free exercise of the human condition will bring about some sort of Star Trek utopia. The selfishness of the human conditon has brought about war, famine, death, and servitude. The reformers of the late 19th Century in the USA were in response to the Victorian Gilded Age of Laissez Faire Govt. views on private enterprise, that brought about the Robber Barons and snake oil salesmen. I'm a Libertine at heart, but agree with much of what Theodore Roosevelt enacted for the good of the order.
"Missing the point" can be a synonym for "ignorance." Here, Peterson and his colleague hold Ayn Rand in high regard just by discussing her works and beliefs in such detailed manner - something which was not only not done in her lifetime but also not done for quite a while afterwards: she was dismissed out of hand by most intellectuals and philosophers of the day. The conversation clearly pays respect to Rand's world view.
What video is this pulled from? Please include this in the description. If you are going to steal content at the very least provide a link to the source…
From Ayn Rand herself "Only a rationally selfish man, a man of self-esteem, is capable of love". She absolutely uses the word selfish in her wildly flawed, myopic propositions.
I read Ayn Rand's books as a senior in high school and again as an adult in my 40s, and both times I dismissed the philosophy in her books and extreme and unworkable. As far as I have observed socialism doesn't work, but capitalism only works with "Perfect" people. Since no one is perfect, and all of us are greedy, sometimes vindictive, often stupid I believe a happy medium needs to be found somewhere in the middle. Pure capitalism doesn't work any better than socialism without some very basic rules and enforcement, and that sort of balance is something I think humanity will struggle with and never really solve. When do the rules get top heavy? When does enforcement become too tyrannical? At this point I believe our capitalist system is completely out of control, but so is the bureaucracy that tries to enforce it. I don't have the answer, but frankly, neither did she---at least not an answer that is truly workable.
Anyone who creates anything around an expectation of 'perfection' in some aspect of a human being perhaps is creating another religion/god/perfect man. I don't have answers either. Neither am I trying to find the answers. but I tend to think that an form of subscribing to an extreme kind of thinking/expectation might not corelate well with human nature. Nature, Human nature has all possibilities; And respecting its existence and living within its reality, perhaps is an grounded approach, as opposed to 'expecting' others to be perfect or 'enforcing, influencing, instructing, guiding' others to be perfect.
you are a midwit. it just says do your job the best you can and drop the act of BS. it's an anti ESG/DEI bullshitometer, you read far too much into it because you think in words not meaning. and "pure capitalism" is an evil evil commie word, do you even know what you are talking about? "well, i'm for private property, but like, people should be able to use other people's stuff" - i believe you don't even know the meaning of the words you are saying. grow up.
I think you should rename this clip from Jordan Peterson - My Problems with Ayn Rand to Jordan Peterson - Let me talk out loud as I struggle to remember some Ayn Rand compared to other things I know
@@sruththine3689 I profoundly agree. At least he seemed to remember the name of 4 characters, but seemed to confuse which book they belonged to. I am sure his assistant had prepared him to the best of his ability. Malice who clearly knows Ayn Rand was not impressed.
@@sruththine3689 Why do you think the didn´t read them? Because he can´t remember all names on the spot? I have read them and struggle to remember all names as well. Can happen, particularly when you have a lot of other things in your mind.
Too smart for me. I read both books when I was young, 18 years old. They're had a profound influence in my life. Simply put, what I found undeniably motivating was the individuals' right against the collective good. I am an advocate of Ayn Rand, but only at the level I understand her philosophy. These guys are on another stratosphere. Thank you.
I read almost every collection of Rand essays in addition to the novels. She very rarely touches the needs of children, almost never. I’d love to hear Rand and Peterson have a discussion on the topic. Rand also goes into much greater detail (in her essays) for why a person pursuing rational self-interest is not interested in stepping on another person’s self-interest, or stealing from them, taking advantage, etc.
@chrisw6164 If you're interested in the topic of child rearing, Stefan Molyneux's podcasts on Peaceful Parenting are perfect. (Don't let all the lies about him being a white supremacist turn you away)
This is one of my criticism of her as well. Although this had been explored by her proponents and I forgot who were they and have not had time to look and read them.
@@IanEPearson Rand set forth a moral code of ethics and "no force, no fraud" was a cornerstone of her ethical message. Without those morals, the mystics of muscle and mystics of faith will reduce society into a cesspool of tribalism and thuggery making existence in a civilized society impossible.
@@IanEPearson Hello Ian. Rand explained this in two key ways: RECIPROCITY. If you earn a reputation for being dishonest or for assaulting people or stealing from people ... this is irrational on your part because then you will have much less percentage of the population who want to trade with you or be around you. This defeats your own purpose of having security, self-protection, and accomplishment ... which means that it defeats your self-interest. PRINCIPLES. If you observe yourself doing fraud and force ... a) By practicing fraud you are promoting fakery ... which, by definition, is incompatible with reality. Disconnecting oneself from reality goes against self-interest. b) You are cultivating the principle of fraud and wiring yourself to repeat it and value it. By definition, making yourself a fraud is incompatible with having a self. c) If you endorse the use of force, you are by definition violating the rights and self-interests of your victim. You cannot thereafter claim to value the principle of self-interest because you just watched yourself make it meaningless.
The most important part of my life is the relationships I have with family and friends. I discovered the more self-sufficient, successful and creative (Ayn’s core values) I am, the more I can contribute to my relationships and the more my relationships thrive.
I think Peterson’s concern is that at what point does pursuing one’s self-interest become hedonistic to the point of being detrimental. I love Rand. She makes some awesome points about collectivism, but in some ways, I think it’s fair to say that her ideas might be just as utopian as the collectivists. Peterson is talking about the mind and how human beings actually exist, which is not in a vacuum.
Using drugs are not in your rational self interest. Drugs as an example of hedonism. It's the' rational' part that is the key identifier. It may be a bit utopian expecting enough people to act rational and even more utopian to believe people will go against the grain by lauding self interest. In that light, I can see why people acting for their own rational self interest as a system seems a bit 'pie in the sky'.
he cannot, at first, understand the difference between "don't do that, do this" - so, perhaps for the midwits, "don't put interest in what others are doing over what you are doing", is better than "put interest in what you are doing over what others are doing" - "don't live for others" and "live for yourself" - maybe the reddit INTELLECKSHUAL crowd can understand the former better. that inability to be binary logical is a flaw of his. she is saying "don't be collectivist", but she says "be individualist" - and midwits then say "well how can I buy a piece of gum if that means sacrificing the dollar that I worked for? why shouldn't I just steal the mans gun, shoot him with it and steal the gum too?" - this is the reddit brain - and jbp has fallen into it. don't sacrifice yourself for others as a life goal -> what's stopping me from genociding my entire town - if we could remove all brains from the world that think like this, or at least from youtube comments, the world would be a better place.
Anyone who wants to understand the distinction between Ayn Rand's philosophy and hedonism could find that out on their first day/week of looking into it. What is JP's deal? I, a random guy on the internet, could clear this up for him (and a lot more) in one 30min conversation.
"babies, hey, you know, crazy bastards, they just want boobs you know, and that, well, think about it, that never goes away, like, boobs, man, so like, self interest, how can i be self interested if i'm also interested in boobs? like i think ayn wrote that" - jbp how can people be so misguided? I think jbp is saying this because he wants to own the "reject pseudomoralism" space.
This video stopped just as at was taking off and getting interesting. From an indiviual's perspective needs and interests are almost synonymous. I can almost hear JP shouting "What the hell do we know about out own self-interest?" However, beyond that, Rand's view of individualism or, specifically, the idea of ethical egoism, is criticised for leading (or at least promoting) a wholly selfish world-view that neglests empathy and, in turn, (it is argued) one that neglests the common good. it also leaves no space for something like altruism which to many remains incredible as a proposition.
well, needs would be "vital" and interests would be "useful" - in a perspective that would define them as not synonymous. one's world-view is selfish you like it or not. on one's view everyone one else and their needs or interests, are data points. it cannot be otherwise... and if the common good is "useful", then there is no fear of neglect towards it. and what does altruism entail anyway?! everything has to be categorized, so to speak, before action was taken towards achieving it. give me an instance of a man doing something against his needs?
@@markvoelker6620 While it may not be possible to know the common good in its totality, it can be understood in terms that somethings serves the overall benefit of all members of society. It is why I suggested that JP would be asking, what the hell do any of us know about out own self-interest? It may be something that we recognise or walk towards, rather than arrive at by diktat.
@@arturzathas499 “…needs would be "vital" and interests would be ‘useful’” -‘Possibly but not necessarily. Some needs are desirable but not essential. For example, in order to avoid loneliness, it might be said that while we “need” company by necessity, we do not “need” company in order to service or merely exist. “if the common good is "useful", then there is no fear of neglect towards it.” -I would suggest that people do not always act in their own best interests, let alone the best interests of their wider society, even when it benefits them. History is replete with examples of instances when society has neglected to serve the common good to its own demise. “what does altruism entail anyway?” -It is one of the ways that serves to show how we differ qualitatively from many other animals and underpins much of our ethical and moral thinking. For example, the fireman that runs into the burning building to save the child who is unable to get out is viewed as nothing short of heroic. However, if it were known that the same fireman runs into the burning building to save the child merely because he wanted a promotion, accolade or other personal advancement, he would be viewed in an entirely different light. “…give me an instance of a man doing something against his needs?” -See above. A difficulty is either proving or questioning the existence of altruism is that both rely on a knowledge of motivation which is almost always impossible to establish. The fireman who says openly that “it’s all about saving children” may not be speaking truthfully and want self-aggrandizement. Altruism appeals to a belief that a key aspect of the human condition allows people to act without self-interest. If we, as part of “the group” act in purely Darwinian terms, then “we the group” benefit. Instances typically relate to that which occasions heroism.
It is not selfish to believe, and support, the idea that everyone has the right to achieve and gain what their efforts bring to them. The fact that the supporter of Ayn Rand is also one member of "everyone" does not make individualism selfish.
6:06 - Peterson doesn't separate individualism from hedonism and he thinks self interest or selfishness (According to Rand, that which is self ish, meaning that which is good for the self) can be geared towards evil (including dictatorship) as much as it can for good. This is untrue. Consistency or a lack thereof, moves individuals and their cultures toward either.
After being recommended by my brother-in-law, I have listened to a few interviews and commentaries by Jordan. I found him interesting and thoughtful - not to mention knowledgable. After listening to his "problem(s)" with Ayn Rand, I am disappointed. I got the impression his focus was his struggle NOT to say more than he said! He seemed to be dancing around his actual "problem" with Rand, eager not to "go there."
Read all of Rand’s novels and listened to Atlas Shrugged twice on audio. Suggest most people should do the audio, I got more out of it that way. Would suggest Jordan should read We the Living if he hasn’t. Enjoy the conversation, and enjoy that no matter how much time passes Ayn Rand’s work will always impact generations of people because the central theme of individualism vs. collectivism will be ever present in our species🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️
I think Dr Peterson is missing the main point. He doesn’t clearly explain what his differences are with Ayn Rand, so I’m going to explain mine instead. I’ve read all of her books, and enjoyed them immensely. She made a great case for individual selfishness and ego - gave her nuanced definition of those terms that I agree with. A human being trades their value objectively in the marketplace in return for being compensated for it in a free market, and this is a good thing- this is how human progress happens and the most efficient economic model that human beings have come up with to date. But she had a very cynical view of the political arena I think largely because of her background - escaping from the Soviet system. But political governance of a capitalistic economy is not inexpensive - this is something that I realised as I got older and people who engaged in political activities are not universally to be despised. All her novels painted political people as moochers, and only those who produced physical goods and services were to be admired. I used to read the Objectivist Newsletter By Nathaniel Branden as well, and was disappointed that Branden didn’t confront her on this stance in any of his writings. If you look at political governance as a service, then it needs to be compensated monetarily as well. The monetary compensation of political governance is, to this day, not adequately addresses by any capitalist commentator that I have read and this disappoints me. The correct answer is that a well-run apolitical system to govern capital markets in a given country does not come cheap. You can expect governance costs to escalate out of control in a banana republic, and Ayn Rand’s themes in all her books had capitalism being governed by banana politicians. She couldn’t conceive of an ideal state of capitalism co-existing with a politically well-governed framework of individuals even though she had great admiration for the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. This still disappoints me. I would have confronted her on this topic in an open debate if I had the chance to do so. I run my own company, so I am aligned with her on Capitalism.
@@TeaParty1776 He does not understand that Ayn Rand looks at Looter Governments alone because there has never been a Government of Producers . A government of producers is comprised of individuals that live there life by the code of Galts Gulch : I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine
You do not understand that Ayn Rand looks at Looter Governments alone because there has never been a Government of Producers . A government of producers is comprised of individuals that live there life by the code of Galts Gulch : I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine . Do you know of a government in human history that governed or was created by the absolute glory of that quote created by Ayn Rand . The USA came the closest but ultimately the christian elements that are anti-individual won out .
The issue is that politics, at the end of the day, is always backed by force, making exchanges involving it an involuntary transaction. Now, I'm a minarchist, so I do agree there needs to be some form of state (largely as protection against violent external action), but it is difficult to minimize this aspect of force and remove incentives to abuse it. It is from this difficulty that the practical reality arises that government officials are usually non-productive and people see it as essentially inseparable in any meaningful sense. In all reality though, what I've seen from Rand is gentle compared to the Founding Fathers' comments on how the citizenry should act towards the government (they often get quite spicy).
Gee, he's read these books 3 times since 13 and doesn't seem to understand the basics, and stumbles on terminology, getting immediately roasted ... once he gets to the content that is. The only ground he was comfortable with was the long-winded detour through tangential content that amounted to his roasting moment, yet all of which exposed his out-of-depth ignorance. The fact that he couldn't work out how to differentiate individualism from hedonism, and more importantly applying it to objectivism, which essentially helps us with that, is telling. He should have just shut up from the start and asked the other guy to explain everything to him. The other guy's intensity shattered JP here. That should be enough for JP to wonder and take pause.
Reading Ayn Rand right now. Don't have a problem with her worldview. It's interesting - not mine, but very interesting. And, she was a fine writer. Really knew how to tell a gripping story.
I have read The Fountainhead and enjoyed it but am struggling with Atlas Shrugged, far too wordy and in sections I've just skimmed through the sociopolitical narrative which goes on and on. Her heroes are individuals with no sense of community other than their own, no sense of joy other than their own and no interests other than their own. Our society is on a "looters" track but there are normal human needs for community and a sense of belonging as well as a need for personal goals and achievement. Perhaps her heroes are too one dimensional? Irrational I know, I am just wary of her characters because they don't add up in my mind and I wish I had the education to be able to sort through my thoughts and articulate them. At the same time I want the governments and their bureaucrats to get the hell out of our lives and let us live in peace. Here in Australia they have been writing laws for over 200 years and yet we still need new laws! We need fewer laws, fewer politicians and a damned heap less bureaucrats.
Same here. Fountainhead fan all the way here. I didn't care for Atlas Shrugged. And I really tried to like it. Even the films. I just think Fountainhead is better
If you'd like to get some assistance in reading Atlas, the Ayn Rand Institute RUclips channel has a series of videos called "The Atlas Project" which is a series of discussions about each chapter in sequence, and will ensure you get the most out of the experience. It's easy to miss a lot of what is going on in that book, but once it is opened up it is a very rich reading experience.
@@EricBryantI've got just under 200 pages to go and by gees it's been a labour where as it should have been a labour of love. It's so easy to lose yourself in a good book, to see in your own mind all that is happening and the characters but Atlas Shrugged just doesn't do that for me. I'm going to watch the videos on the Institute that explain the book chapter by chapter but I understand what is written, I simply can't live it in my mind which to me makes it a dull lecture.
This was the most important Jordan Peterson moment in his history as a public figure. Michael made him realize he was an anarchist, as we all eventually do.
0:30 She was but she was in fact not at all. Her entire _modus operandi_ was 100% Soviet. Americans cannot understand this very well because they never experienced this kind of thing (although the current woke hysteria is a mini-approximation of it) and they get swayed by the superficial, outermost, layer of her work. I grew up in a communist country (the pre-1989 Poland) and I know her type like the back of my hand: if she was not allowed to leave the USSR, she'd become a Soviet Party apparatchik, no doubt about that in my mind. After 1989 many of the former communist apparatchiks published tell-all memoirs (partially to make money, partially to clear their conscience), most of them not available in English, unfortunately, and it's a fascinating read. Their description of their first teen experiences with communism and Marxism before WWII read almost word for word like the Amazon reviews and testimonials of Ayn Rand's books posted by teenagers. The seeming contradiction between communism and living happily in the West and praising it is also repeated by many of those former communists exactly: many of them did just that, including even an infamous Stalin-era political prison torturer who emigrated to the UK and... she became a great supporter of "Solidarity" there. There are many stories like that, Ayn Rand is just one of them and I have no clue why she is so popular in the US, it's like a mental contagion of some sort. Weird disgusting stuff.
She is so popular because she is NOTHING LIKE the Soviet apparatchiks you describe. NOTHING LIKE. Clearly, you have not read her work and have decided to lecture us on her values. You are the despicable Soviet who hates her for her success.
Interesting. I’ve been a big fan of Rand’s for more than 30 years now, but what you’ve written jibes with something that has been troubling me lately. The appeal I think you’re describing is one of an all embracing system of thought, that begins from first principles and seems coherent. This is, essentially, the approach of liberalism. The caveat, however, is the warning that comes from the approach of conservatism. Conservatism argues that social and political arrangements are worked out over time, and it is hubris to think that it can all be ripped up to create a new arrangement if we just reason hard enough. In other words, there are things intrinsic to human nature that are only articulated, albeit imperfectly, through traditions; and that these persistent and pervasive aspects of human nature are glossed over by utopian-like systems.
My primary problems with Ayn Rand are that she’s a very determined Atheist and so many of her arguments and philosophies struggle to justify themselves because they aren’t built on a foundation of moral principles. But her insights and ideas are brilliant and especially recognizing the dangers and follies of leftist ideas. Pushing for minimal government and maximum free market and capitalism is spot on.
> My primary problems ... she’s a very determined Atheist What is the problem with this? > they aren’t built on a foundation of moral principles Yes, they aren’t built on a foundation of *_supernatural_* moral principles. What is the problem with this?
The individualism in Ayn Rand's books is fake; the stories set in a fake world. If you want a good story of individualism, I recommend "The Time It Never Rained" by Elmer Kelton. A west Texas ranger. That is as individualistic as you get. But the man and his story are real. The feelings are real. His friends and employees and neighbors are real people with all the strengths and shortcomings.
@@waichui2988 > the man and his story are real. The feelings are real. His friends and employees and neighbors are real people with all the strengths and shortcomings. Naturalism vs romantic realism
I would say to Peterson, were we discussing this, that "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" are not the best Rand books to begin with. They ARE the most popular of her books... Atlas Shrugged still selling 250K copies a year to this day. AND both were made into movies which actors fought over for the roles. But her essay books are vital to avoid the constant and enduring misunderstandings of her work. "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" for example. Or "Philosophy: Who Needs It?" My personal favorite is "The Romantic Manifesto", her treatment on the philosophy behind art. In these books she is speaking in principles and premises, rather than telling a story in a novel. Without those reads, I have found many people completely misinterpreting her novels.
Do you mean her books? The fountainhead. Atlas Shrugged. Anthem was tolerable but it was only because it was short, and even then it was just a knockoff of much better books like Brave New World
In complicated sci-fi jargon, Jordan is basically telling us he makes no difference between whim-worship (pursuing desires fo which you don't know/don't care to know the causes) of a 1yo toddler and an adult person's free decisions based on facts and rational reasoning. It's a very honest answer, and it surely raises a huge problem. A problem not about Rand, but about him
A good start, but it was only the first half of the conversation it seems. I liked the point he was able to make...to not be able to distinguish between self-interest and hedonism. I really wish I could have heard the rest of what he was trying to say though. It's rare to hear Jordan Peterson speaking about something he not completely certain of. It felt like he was formulating his conclusions right then and there.
I think a business has to run on selfish doctrine but employees treated well. But a business has to be sustainable and therefore profitable. She had no regard for lower level employees.
Disregarding effective lower level employees or employees in general is not in the best of your "rational" self-interest. If you are really good at your job, even if you are a lower level employee, you are rewarded. Ayn Rand calls this the Trader Principle. I'm always distraught that most criticism of her are purely of ignorance or of straw hat constructions. People seem to judge her based on her novels like Jordan Peterson is doing here while disregarding her non-fiction books. I've seen and read some really good criticism of her from people who really read her "books", but this is not one of them.
Peterson's problem with Rand is he doesn't know diddley about her philosophy but still feels the need to announce he has a problem with it. Malice should have told him - Before you tell me your problem with Rand's philosophy, tell me what you think Rand's philosophy is.
I came to this conclusion during his interview with Elon Musk. Elon is just as well read and philosophical but he also doesn’t care to dwell on things that can’t be changed. And you could tell he was getting annoyed by JP with that.
Having not the education in this field after these two brilliant men, and having read both books and basically in agreement with all,the main thing I have questions about concerning Thier writer is simply the company she kept. One gentleman in particular,as this is rarely brought up. Rumor?, Truth to his actual influence upon her? There certainly seems to have been interaction in thought processes,at least from her perspective! Fascinating story,if you are unfamiliar with this issue,look it up.❤
yep. and he's confused. "babies, hey, you know, crazy bastards, they just want boobs you know, and that, well, think about it, that never goes away, like, boobs, man, so like, self interest, how can i be self interested if i'm also interested in boobs? like i think ayn wrote that" "no she didn't, she didn't use those words" "are you sure? i think, she didn't say if you like boobs you must be satan?" "no" "oh sht because that would really dig me me out of this hole i'm getting myself into. how do you dig yourself out of a hole eh? that's like, you have to make another hole, bucko."
I read the fountainhead and atlas shrugged last year and thought they were great books but it was hard to parce out what I agree with and reconcile it with other things I've read and agreed with. After finishing Atlas shrugged I finished reading the second half of Maps of meaning and it was exactly the counter voice to what Rand advocated for while not dismissing the individual. Was a great and exciting experience reconciling both and figuring out what you belief
@@removechan10298 Rands pure individualism. Peterson made an argument based in Jungian psychology and evolutionary biology on the existence of the collective unconsciousness. I'm not got at explaining it and I'd have to think about it for a while but it's basically the idea that the individual isn't an atomized being but it stands in an constant relationship to the environment and society/community. The idea of sacrifice and his explanation on how sacrifice transformed over millenias also made sense to me. And he relies a lot on mysticm which she would consinder irrational. I think in the end i largely agree with rand, though through Peterson i gained an appreciation of the mechanism that brings things from the realm of the unknown potential into existence. Things what we do not know can still be embodied and true, and to act them out - things that rand would consider irrational whims or emotions - can still be true or right. And that the pursuit of meaning might be more important that maximizing ones happiness. Though I think this last point is mostly explained away by how they both define the term happiness and is mostly semantics. Peterson gave me a sense of the necessarily role of the community, and intuitions about the beauty of nature, that I felt lacked in rands worldview.
Rand recognized the fallacy of the "frozen abstraction" in which a single instance of a class is treated as the meaning of the concept. A child can be forgiven for imagining that all dogs are Dalmatians, but an adult thinking that the only morality is altruism is making a cognitive error. Altruism is just one moral theory, and it's not hard to understand how vicious it is. Life is a self-sustaining process and it ends without proper action. A morality that requires that the benefit of life-sustaining action be directed away from the actor and his interests is against life.
@@AndSendMe On what basis is altruism (arguably the ultimate example of sacrifice for the greater good) vicious? on what moral grounds is that so? and who decides that?
No, the "other" is not the "correct" moral centre. The correct centre is God (call it the transcendent if you're not ready to say God). Charity (which mean means love, by the way, not organised giving) for the other is a consequence of charity for God. Another consequence of charity for God is good stewardship of your own responsibilities. Thomas Aquinas wrote about the moral principle of Proximity. One has more moral obligation to the proximate than to the distal. Feeding the neighbour's kids to the detriment of one's own kids' nutrition is not moral. Studies show that people who vote "left" self-report more concern for inanimate objects like rocks and distant stars than for plants, or animals, or even their own families. This is a good illustraton of how "left" is English for "sinister", because they're either lying to appear more altruistic or they have no care for the moral principle of Proximity. The "heat map" of their concern is literally inverted from what it should be, like the artist clicked through Image/ Adjustment/ Invert Colours in Photoshop. We can note here that the word "correct" has "right" built into it. Self-sacrifice can be good, when it's oriented towards the transcendent. But when it's ostensibly oriented towards "the other", then it's really oriented towards the self, it's self-centred to paint an image of the self so "holier than thou" that it borders on idolatry.
My problem with Ayn Rand is that her most famous books aren’t the most applicable today. We are the living is the one everyone needs to and CAN read (sorry, I’ve read Atlas Shrugged, an 800 page brick isn’t changing very many minds by default).
@@TeaParty1776 the last 300 pages of AS is a fantasy, you realize that? A place where all the good capitalists can go to be capitalists without the government? It’s as bad as the communist fantasy of history ending. We are the living covers the actual mechanics of how a group of people can be ostracized, silenced, have their property seized, and ultimately their lives taken by a socialist regime at the individual and family/neighborhood level. It may not dive to far into political philosophy but it demonstrates it just as well if not better than the other books and in a 1/3 of the length. And it hits pretty close to home, in these times.
Ayn Rand can serve as a guilty pleasure to impressionable sixteen year olds, but by the age of eighteen or nineteen, you really need to grow out of that stage of rabid self-absorption and self-aggrandizing nonsense.
Rand was passionate about her philosophies and beliefs. She lived to communicate them. Two odd things she glamorized were smoking cigarettes, and violent sex. She even communicated deeper aspects of her soul - very transparent.
The only self-interest is enlightened self-interest. Which paradoxically means what is good for me is therefore good for society as it enables me to do my part in it best.
@@colinstewart1432 I buy gasoline from a multi-billion doillar corp only because it helps me. We both benefit. Thoughts? Rands, "Objectivist Ethics", is online.
What was Jordan's problem? Sounds like he just wanted his interpretation of Ayn Rand confirmed. My problem is that self interest is never beneficial for all. Self interest leads to "dog eat dog" culture where the strong prey upon the weak in gruesome ways. Slavery is the primary example.
Recent email from Jerusalem boasted that JP was supporting Israel. JP will attain credibility by making a report from the beach city governed like a concentration camp, according to Finklestein.
Our legal system and laws are the result of the self interest of the collectivity. We have a self interest in fairness, it's just that we need to create system to enforce it for the whole. What is missing in Ayn Rand is the spiritual. Just like communism, capitalism will only create more "stuff" hoping it will fix all our problems. We have more stuff than ever yet are not happier.
One could argue that mutual self-interest is of greater interest than exploitation. When others are cooperating and doing well, it lowers the chances of socioeconomic collapse and harm to oneself.
Rand actually literally discusses "dog eat dog" in her book on Selfishness. Rational pursuit of self interest has close resemblance to the libertarian non aggression principle i.e. you cannot pursue self interest at the cost of others, by being a parasite. Rand considers it irrational, unreasonable to be this way.
@@alexforgetI agree that her paradigm does not leave room for the spiritual. She is against anything that can place an obligation on you, and religion places obligations on their members. However, I don't believe there is any room in her paradigm for slavery or any other obligation of one man to another. So suggesting Capitolism allows slavery is misplaced. However, relationships between employers and employees have gray areas where obligations get a bit out of proportion.
6:10 His entire argument collapses in one sentence. She doesn't say selfish need but selfish interest. Which again is what every government is doing and every bank has interest to increase or reduce interests. Selfish interest is your own wealth. The money you have control over. The needs is emergency and the interest is to provide the needs. Not to be the one who is in need of your help.
I think Rand addresses this issue at length in her books on Objectivism. Maybe how to distinguish self interest from hedonism isn't obvious in the fiction, but she writes tonnes about that in her philosophy. Rand was heavily influenced by Aristotle's virtue ethics. She accept Aristotle entirely. Which is the answer to Petersons question - the answer is virtue. Self interest is only rationally extended to matters of virtue. Rand would argue that hedonism is not a virtous, therefore not a rational, pursuit.
Rational selfishness - poor of words to say that individuals should rationally pursue their self interests, which is to the benefit of everyone, particularly in economics and morality. No claims on others lives or property. No initiation or force.
Ayn Rand was all about rational self-interest, and in this context is the word selfish what she refers. From the chaos of a free society, order emerges. It is a counter-intuitive concept, but it works in practice, hence the failures of socialism and the success of capitalism.
Rand’s idea of pursuing your own goals, rather than your own needs, only works for entrepreneurial types. That’s because the only difference between a “goal” and a “need” is the level in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Ultimately, a goal you pursue for self-actualisation IS still a need - just one of a higher order than survival, shelter, and belonging. Most people however focus on, and are even perfectly happy with, spending the majority of their day on pursuing the lower-level needs. Conversely, quite a few high achievers must sacrifice needs on the lower hierarchies for the sake of self-actualisation. I can empathise with Rand’s thought process here, because I fall more into the camp of those that give up some of the lower-level needs for those long-term goals that matter more to me personally. But I understand that most people are not like that, so it doesn’t work as a model for society. For Peterson himself, whenever pursuing self-actualisation goals comes at the expense of having a family, I’m pretty sure *that* would be his biggest issue with taking this principle of “selfishness” to its logical conclusion. He’d probably even call this goal pursuit hedonism at this point, because you’re doing it for yourself first and foremost, rather than with your community in mind.
@@AndSendMe I’m talking about the distinction Peterson and his interview partner are making here, since the other guy is very adamant about “goals, not needs”, until Peterson concedes the point. I for one don’t really see a difference between goals and needs, aside from their respective level within the hierarchy of needs. But if goals are within the hierarchy of needs, that makes them a need by definition.
Rand talked about goals but mainly in the context of values. Her mature conception of values was brilliant both in its breadth (all living things act to gain and/or keep that which they require to survive) and in how that informed her identification of how values work in human beings. Her view of values in human life is that they can and should be objective, and that we select our personal specific values in the context of a long lifespan with its complex life requirements by means of fundamental general values and truths (moral values and principles). Rand's idea of pursuing the values that will make up your particular life and happiness works for anyone willing to guide their actions by reason.
@@AndSendMe Here’s the kicker: There’s nothing reasonable about wanting to survive. It’s a sunk-cost fallacy and a primal urge, a need. We cannot reason ourselves out of it; that doesn’t mean it’s reasonable in and of itself.
>Rand’s idea of pursuing your own goals, rather than your own needs Rand thinks that ones needs should be ones goals. She rejects your religious mind/body split. Morality is for ones life, not against it.
I also support her contempt for the Soviet Union. My problem with Ayn Rand is a common one. The founder of a movement can not live by the very principles they espouse to their sycophants. Specifically I am referring to her relationship with Nathaniel Branden. Rand, ever espousing the right to pursue happiness, nonetheless acted like stereotypical scorned person when Branden ended the relationship for another woman. Rand, instead of accepting this as a logical and living expression of her philosophy, publicly impugned Branden’s character on numerous occasions. If a founder can’t abide their own philosophy in their own life, I certainly will not.
@@TeaParty1776 Hypocrisy by a founder is a universal solvent of their philosophy. But to respond to you she is wrong. The meaning of life is to serve others, which is not the same as to be enslaved. Nor the does that mean a person cannot also pursue self interest. A win-win is the best outcome. A modified chaos theory if you will. As I said I agree with Rand regarding socialism but I reject her repudiation of altruism.
Couldn’t make all the way through.. I hate when people say “Do you know what’s interesting?”, when they should say, “Do you know what’s interesting to me?”.
In order to understand Rand's definition of selfishness, you have to read "The Virtue of Selfishness", which basically equates and defines selfishness as "rational self interest." "Rational" in Rand's definition flows out of her philosophy of objectivism, which certainly elevates reason and objective physical reality to the status of an absolute, which of course makes rational sense as far as objective reality is understood, but we all know that in psychology, in real living human beings, that doesn't usually happen. We're often much less rational/objective in making decisions than we think we are. Dr Peterson only mentioned reading her novels which may not explain it as well, although the characters often repeat her own ideological position almost verbatim from her more philosophical works.
Believe it or not, I do have a memory of when I was an infant. I remember the thought process I had which was basically 'I woke up, I have to call mom'. So I cried. Anybody else had the same?
Now, if Ayn Rand is saying that we have the right to pursue our own self-interest, it is not inherent to say that an individuals self-interest cannot coincide with the self-interest of another. In all of her writings, the "hero" must work with others that see the value of that their vision and find that it is in their "self-interest" to follow that vision. Howard Roark could never build his vision if he didn't have clients, contractors and workers to help him with this endeavors. Self-interest does not eliminate groups working together, but it does suggest a voluntary hierarchy that flows from ideas that a group of Individuals find benefits themselves and their own self-interest. That is where Freedom comes from, the Protection of the Individual to make their own choices built on their own self-interest
"Well that depends what you mean by Rand and it also depends what you mean by Ayn. This is also a very complex question. One must acknowledge the underlying verisimilitude that is irrevocably nested within a multi-layered metaphysical substrate, which many people fundamentally conflate with their ideological presuppositions with no uncertain irregularity, causing the inadvertent dismissal of Jung's archetypal extrapolation of the quintessential axiomatic juxtaposition required to achieve Raskolnikov's magnitude of neo-Marxist existential nihilism..."
I think the best way to distinguish self interest from selfishness. Is hurting someone else the reason why you do it, or selfish at someone else's expense. For example. Rearden built his different companies because he could ger better materials. He didn't build them withe the intent to eliminate competition.
JP is unable to overcome the negative bias associated with the word selfish. Rand is clear that by being selfish she is referring to the right to pursue one's rational self interests. Of course this is without prejudice to the rights of others but does not mean that I need to be altruistic (help others to my own detriment). It's really not that complicated.
It is not how Ayn Rand and other Neoliberalist reason. It is that we are allowed to discuss them with him or other Neoliberals. They are free to state whatever without having to answer for them.
It's often true that in order to have debate (properly defined as discovery of truth) some pretext and common understanding must first be laid. It's within this proposition that I've always found the best debates begin. Note the understanding in the difference between 'selfishness and Self Interest' which is often misunderstood.
The problem with Peterson's and many others' analysis of Rand's philosophy, is that he bases it solely on her fictional writing. In order to get a more accurate and thorough understanding of Ayn Rand's ideas, it is imperative to read her non-fiction essays, which are based on real people, real events, real conditions, and real outcomes.
Do you agree with Jordan Peterson's critiques of Ayn Rand? Why or why not?
To buy my books, including Thomas Paine: A Lifetime of Radicalism, check out my online bookstore: davidbenner.square.site
What critique? He never got that far in this video.
Not from some short clip. That's absurd clip bait. I mean, without seeing the entire discussion? Then there are her non-fiction books. Like Odyssey. Basing it all on Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead is why they had this discussion in my opinion.
I have read all of Ayn Rands works and think JP, who I am a fan of, is completely off the mark. She was a girl from St. Petersburg, Russia, witnessing the collapse of a society and the driving ideology causing it. She was trying to convey that in a learned 2nd language (hence the her knack of repetitive dialogue with the characters reinforcing the topic). His focus on the literary works and not the person, who succeeded valiantly, attempting to convey that objective reality and the works of men who understand that and bring progress to civilizations is hampered by those who do not. We live in a world today ran by people believing in "their truth" and not objective truth. Even JP is a victim of that, so perhaps he could cut Ayn some slack.
@@seanryan2112 Objective truth may exist out there, like a Platonic idea, but we are imperfect beings and, as such, objective truth could be unattainable to us.
There's a problem with the intrinsic qualities of human interpretation of reality and it's that which really hinders the human species in its truth-seeking quest.
I’m not sure if I agree with Petersons analysis. I do agree with him that Rands beliefs system that a society of people completely free to pursue their own self interests would evolve into a utopian system of well regulated government is seriously flawed. There is all sorts of empirical evidence that the opposite occurs and such systems become extremely coercive and exploitative.
The second issue I have is that Ayne Rands philosophy of objectivism, and I’m coming from a point of view as a man of science, is that it’s an oxymoron as it is anything but objective.
What I remember most about her most famous book “Atlas Shrugged” was it was a horrible novel. The dialogue was stilted and lacking in imagination, character and personality. The plot was thin as tissue paper and she belabors her points over and over and over, beats them to death, stomps them into the ground then repeats them all over again, ad nauseam. Which makes Atlas Shrugged an incredibly boring read.
Ayne Rand simply was clueless about the nature of the human experience. Her philosophy sounds good at a surface level but scratch the surface and it falls apart.
An example of this was her unqualified support of Laissez Faire Capitalism which by any objective measure is as failed an economic system as communism with its champagne glass economic distribution of wealth and its boom and bust cycles.
Now it wasn’t all bad. Rands critiques on collectivism is spot on but her philosophy of Objectivism is a flawed and empty champagne glass.
You cut the video just as it was getting good!
I watched the full interview; it's worth your time.
@@martinroncetti4134 Where is it?
@@donovanmedieval ruclips.net/video/3cVr2Qp_ic8/видео.html&pp=ygUjSm9yZGFuIFBldGVyc29uIGFuZCBNaWNoYWVsIE1hbGljZSA%3D
@@donovanmedieval Should be on the Daily Wire+. Probably also on RUclips, in a somewhat shortened version, on Peterson's channel.
@@martinroncetti4134where did you find the full video?
In this snip Peterson’s problem(s) with Rand are not elucidated. But he does seem to be disturbed by the word “selfish”. I’m guessing his problem with her ideas has something to do with misunderstanding what Rand means by “selfish”.
You are right. Jordan is too influenced by the false morality of religion to see self-interest clearly.
Where I disagree with Rand is in how she used the word selfish, which has very specific overtones from Western Christian culture. Her choice of that word the differences between what she means versus its common usage is a source of a lot of misunderstanding about what she was trying to say.
That said, her idea is essentially a small government idea and tracks quite well with how many of the US founders (especially Jefferson) thought about the world. The left still despises her since she was anti-collectivist to the core. She was never going to get a fair hearing from them. But the reason she still continues to be popular is that folks who read enough of her output understand what she means and believe in the liberty/individualist ideal.
Well, "selfish" is a complicated word. It has so many possible meanings and situational definitions that you can never intrinsically know its meaning without clear guidance. For example, If I called you selfish, you would have no idea what I was going on about. You could take it to mean that I thought you only looked to benefit yourself. Or you could take it to mean that you wanted just to benefit yourself and no one else. Human language is tricky. Understand?
@@mactek6033 Yes. Rand understands that “selfish” has many meanings and she does spend considerable ink describing what her meaning for the word is, which is mostly not what the popular meanings are.
@@rbarnes4076 Yes. Her meaning for the word does not at all carry the connotation of “screwing over the other guy” which is the popular meaning.
“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 self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages”
“Individual Ambition Serves the Common Good.”
Adam Smith
And Smith was wrong, at least incomplete. It’s both self interest AND the interest of the group, a mix, that best serves us all. Dont need game theory to see that. Been around for ages. So yes, pursue your livelihood w self interest, because nobody else will, but also be the Good Samaritan that sees the beaten robbed man in the ditch and helps him, within limits.
I think Rand had that beaten out of her in the USSR, no recovery.
@@Nill757 You are wrong. Even when we appear to serve the interests of others, it is because of our self-interest. She never denied helping others. She denied being forced to help others. Everything we do is for self-interest. It is basic human nature. When religion or government try to force us to believe and act as if that part of our basic human make-up is wrong, we become mentally and emotionally ill. That is our society today.
@@charlesbishop4000 exactly!
@@charlesbishop4000 I know what Rand meant, and what Adam Smith meant, which was different. Smith did not mean help the group to help your self. He was wrong, as I said.
The Short Answer : Adam Smith was not advocating for Laisse Faire economics , but rather he was advocating that all citizens be able to participate in a capitalist system .
The Long Answer : Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations should be understood within The Theory of Moral Sentiments and the Context of his time .
" It is the great multiplication of the productions of all the different arts , in consequence of the division of labour , which occasions , in a well-governed society , that universal opulence which extends itself to the lowest ranks of the people . " (WN I.i.10 )
- note how Smith says " self interest " not selfishness
- He comments on a " well-governed society " so this is a reference to the " social contract" *
- " which extends itself to the lowest ranks of the people " during the Enlightenment , the idea of equal opportunity starts to become accepted .
Adam Smith was writing during the Enlightenment and an era of Mercantilism . Smith detested massive wealth inequality , where the rich tobacco , cotton and lumber merchants of Glasgow had considerable wealth , while there was massive urban poverty . So in this context , Smith was advocating for a social contract where all citizens had an opportunity to participate in a capitalist ( mercantile ) system .
So in a well governed society , the government creates the opportunity for all citizens to participate in this mercantile system , not just just the wealthy merchants exploiting the unskilled labour class .
As Micheal Hudson points out , classical economists supported using capital to create actual wealth ( goods , agriculture and services ) , as opposed to using capital to exploit others .
.
.
* The Social Contract is the expected set of laws , rights and common values , set up between the Government and Citizens , in order to have a civilized society . Hobbes , John Locke and Rousseau wrote their versions of the social contract .
Wow these guys are just so next level . One guys listening and actually critiquing information, and only commenting when it progresses the discussion , and JP taking correction to his thought process without feeling the need to defend his position . So impressive
Very well said. I also observed and appreciated his intellectual interaction.
Close, but not quite. JP is trying to find new ways to defend his position when his position is shown to be not technically correct. His position doesn't change, he just changes the way that he tries to defend it. I agree about Michael's part though and it's really interesting to see someone call JP out when he says things that aren't correct, instead of sitting there in wide-eyed deference like most other interviewers. Maximum kudos to him.
Wake up, you're dreaming.
She grew up in socialist society. Peterson believed in leftist policies until they bit him in the butt. He's a late-comer to the common sense view of the world
Intellectual trust is necessary for communication.
This clip cuts off right as it gets going. I never found out what Jordan's problem was with Ayn Rand.
She did it and he didn't. But Diddy did.
He doesn't like that her characters are selfish actors because he believes that's an over simplification of human interaction.
@@MightyElementalthanks!
I think the gist of it was when Peterson said that he couldn't distinguish between individualism and hedonism, and between hedonism and possession by a primal process.
When compared to what Ayn Rand said, that a society where one is free to pursue rational self-interest, there wouldn't be any "Hitlers" et. al., I think that is where Peterson, as a psychologist, had the problem. It may be true that humans are inherently subject to a number of psychological maladies just as they are subject to physical disease. Those Hitler and Stalin and Marx personalities may always be among us, that a perfect utopia might never be attainable, there will always be people with problems great and small. If that is an accurate summation of the problem, one defense of Rand is that if those malevolent individuals existed, their influence would be limited and even countered by a truly free society that largely understands the nature of that freedom and can rationally defend it.
@htomc42 It doesn't seem to be working.
People tend to believe too much in nonsense just cause they like the sound of it, without ever thinking deeply about the meaning behind the nonsensical beliefs.
Malicious individuals like Stalin, Hitler, and Mao came to power due to ideological diseases in the society they lived in. But I doubt that society will ever rid itself of such diseases.
I've always considered Rand's use of the word "selfish" to be a poke in the eye of those who use it as an insult, a descriptor of those less than themselves. While they call someone in pursuit of their own interests "Selfish" as a form of disparagement, she turns it around to show the virtue of it.
And it was intended to be a poke in the eye of Altruists.
Rand came from the Soviet Union, and during a period of time, they let no Soviet educated person leave.
I suggest reading Whitaker Chambers' review of The Fountainhead. It is titled "Big Sister Is Watching You." Chambers was the US equivalent of Orwell.
@@buybuydandavis I am a bit off center for that altruism thingy.
I believe each person is responsible for there own well being. But with one limit. The pursuit of well being did not come at the expense of and damage to others.
BUT I have also known people that would destroy anything that they can't control or own. Those people are the most dangerous persons.
The very first thing that any two people should do when entering into a discussion/debate/etc is to define terms so that they both can proceed with the discussion fully understanding that each term means.
Most discussions break down because the two people have different concepts in their heads when using a single term.
Both sides sometimes avoid this part of the process (i think, I certainly could be wrong) due to the egotistical view that they KNOW that terms mean.
But even a nuanced difference can have a very large impact.....such as a 0.5 degree deviation when shooting a long range firearm....the further the projectile travels, the larger the impact of the unintended deviation.
Solution: Make no assumptions. Define the terms that will be used or stop the discussion and agree upon the full meaning of a term before proceeding.
Am. You are.
Acts of self-sacrifice for the good of others can be a noble, transcendent, and even self-interested thing to strive for, but not at the expense of one's own stability, and not at the expense of the other's growth. Sometimes, a helping hand allows a person to overcome truly unfair and insurmountable obstacles; other times it robs them of growth. Navigating this space is difficult.
Nevertheless, if one wishes to consistently care for others across time, they must first act in their own self interest. If you can't stand on your own, how can you support others?
Well put sir
I had a wonderful mate, a mechanical engineer with his trade certificates to back up the knowledge. Every time I asked him for help he would come and guide me through the problem, not show me how to fix it but guide me through it. I love the memory of the man like he was my brother and will forever be grateful for his teaching me to solve problems. It was the best help I have ever received.
I agree. A "hand-up" instead of a "hand-out".
@@martinroncetti4134 Indeed, however I do think the economy is heavily distorted and could use a new paradigm. I'm quite fond of Georgist Libertarianism, wherein the value of ground rents is shared, but the free market takes care of basically everything else.
Self-sacrifice is contrary to the nature of life and of values (including moral values, if you care to have them relate to reality). Life is a self-sustaining process and it is conditional on proper action. A morality that splits the beneficiary from life-oriented actions is a terrible inversion. This is why a morality of self-sacrifice is so destructive. It is not reality-based so it has no boundaries or limits, it is a cancer of the mind that is stopped by nothing because it was formed in violation of reality and logic. So long as it is popular to give it lip-service as a moral ideal, life-serving action will not be safe.
I'd much rather deal with someone that is selfish as defined by Rand than someone claiming to be altruistic or put others before themselves. When you are dealing with someone that is pursuing their own rational, long term self interest then you understand their goals and motivation. And if you are operating from the same point of view, you can quickly determine how you can work with one another to the benefit of both.
But when you are dealing with someone that is professed selfless and altruistic you can not truly understand their motivation.
For those that jump to the love of a parent for their children and other similar selfless acts that doesn't diminish her argument. Rand said she was intentionally provacative in her use of the word selfish just to get people to pay attention to the idea of rational self interest.
Your reasoning breaks down, because you're contrasting someone who *is* selfish as defined by Rand vs. someone who is *claiming to* be concerned with other's needs. If you know someone's motivation with certainty, then you understand how they will process things, and if you don't know their motivation with certainty, the choices they will make are uncertain to the same extent. The thing is, you can't know for certain if someone is rationally self-interested or merely claiming to be, any more than you can be sure about the alternative. That barrier to understanding how a person will act exists either way. (Also, even if they do have an overall commitment in that direction, they'll still waver at times.)
The actual question is whether interest in the wellbeing of others is necessarily a more malleable motivation than self-interest. Well, it can be qualified in the same ways that self-interest can - rational, long-term. There is, however, greater complexity in determining how the ideal can best be embodied (there is lesser complexity in figuring out what's in one's self-interest, but not none) because there are multiple parties. It's more likely that they'll take different ideas for granted. That's not an insurmountable problem, as you can ask them, 'and what do you think is the best way to make that a reality?'
If someone actually does care about other's wellbeing, that might give them more cause for disagreements with you, but it also means that their interests are aligned with yours, on the most basic level. Someone who is self-interested won't go out of their way to help you if it doesn't fit in with the details of their pursuits. A committed hedonist would be even easier to understand and motivate - you could motivate an alcoholic very easily, if you were willing to stoop so low - but an alcoholic is not therefore always the most desirable person to deal with.
There are people who have no intrinsic care for others' wellbeing, by the way. We call them psychopaths. A virtuous, perfectly functioning psychopath is the only person in the world whose morality is solely Randian.
@@mostdefinitelynotaguineapi7566 I don't buy your claim that a virtuous perfectly functioning psychopath is the embodiment of Randian morality. There is nothing in her argument that implies or demands that someone acting in their own rational self interest doesn't take the rights, feelings and desires of another human being into consideration. It's just to not put their needs etc. above your own. Nor should a society or collective expect you to do so either.
Rand believed in what she would call 'man survival qua man'. That man acting in his own rational self interest is what is needed for actual survival. That altruism was evil and irrational because as a moral code it demands that you put others before yourself. That your only reason to live is to serve others and subordinate your needs to someone else.
I fundamentally reject altruism as the embodiment of moral good. I think it is evil to ask anyone to sacrifice their life for mine. Nor should they expect me to sacrifice my life for theirs.
That doesn't mean that I don't consider the rights and feelings of others nor does it mean that I don't do what I can to eliminate or reduce the suffering of another human being. But I choose to do those things precisely because I am acting in my own rational self interest. And I do not feel or believe my good comes from sacrificing myself in the process.
The bottom line is that in a relationship of trade between the two of us, don't ask me to sacrifice something just for your sake and I won't ask you to do the same. Then we are two equal human beings, acting in our own rational long term self interest. That provides each of us the best chance of survival. And that is the ideal Rand was advocating for.
@@markwrichards In case there was any ambiguity, I fully acknowledge rational self-interest as virtuous. I dispute that it's the only fundamental source of value. Perhaps psychopathy is more complicated than I realised, so I won't press that idea. My intention was to show that this purely transactional model of relationships, in which the other person is from one's own perspective merely another part of the external world from which you can benefit if you behave in a particular way, is lacking. The issue isn't considering the rights, feelings and desires of others or not doing so, it's what you consider them *to be*.
I think you misunderstand altruism. I wouldn't ask someone to sacrifice something for me if it leaves them worse off than the good it does me, and I wouldn't do that for someone else. That's why we say to someone 'oh, never mind, it's not important' if a minor request turns out to involve more than we thought. To be fair, some people do conflate altruism with a constant subordination of one's own interests to others, without any other consideration. But that's neither implied nor demanded by the mere acknowledgement of others' wellbeing as an intrinsic end. 'Love your neighbour as yourself' notably excludes 'love your neighbour more than yourself.' The formulation excludes any attempt to diminish the importance of either.
You conceded the point when you used the word 'rights.' Altruism is *an* embodiment of moral good. It's an extension of the same source of individual morality: the objective value of human beings. The somewhat clumsy word 'selfless' is really getting at a condition in which one is free from the bias of perspective given by being one person and not another. I've sacrificed something - time - to give you an opportunity to consider issues that will have more of a long term effect than cutting into my sleep will. You, a complete stranger who will benefit me in no way. I consider this good in the scheme of things.
And I don't say that I don't accept others' sacrifice for me, because turning down gestures of charity (again, discounting disproportionate sacrifice) is inconsiderate.
One more thing. As it turns out, there's a sort of hard-to-define quality of life that you get from seeking others' wellbeing. But you don't get it by looking for it.
@@mostdefinitelynotaguineapi7566 this has been an interesting debate but your response sheds light on something important. I'm coming at this from a purely philosophical perspective and you from a mix of philosophy and psychology. I don't know enough about psychology to wade deeply on the subject but throwing any psychopathic issues into the debate becomes an axiomatic problem. Because we lack a standard definition of normal and we can always find some behavior that challenges the argument.
I stand by my definition of altruism that at its core is a principle by which you put someone else's needs above your own. Excluding your children or someone you deeply love, to be altruistic (putting someone else's needs above your own) is irrational and I would argue leads to evil. Either by opening the door for another human being to exploit that person or even worse by a fundamentally flawed social system to do the same. Taken to the extreme, what is the motivation of someone that is truly self sacrificing? It's fundamentally a hatred of life itself. And that, to my thinking, is the ultimate evil.
@@markwrichards Nothing in my argument is psychological that I can see, and I explicitly said that I wasn't going to stand by the psychopath argument. This is an axiomatic issue for me too.
I've found that 'altruism' isn't a consistently defined word - some share your definition, some refer to charitable action generally - and I think the formulation of 'putting someone else's needs (or wellbeing generally) above your own' suggests where the ambiguity comes from. That phrase could be used to refer to regarding others' needs as inherently and always greater than your own. More often, it's used to refer to doing so in situations in which it is right to do so. It's not a helpful concept for getting into the axioms of morality. It's a common phrase, it wasn't made for that purpose. People started with the situation they were describing and found the easiest way to describe it.
I think the words 'selfless' and 'selfish' address the root distinction. The former describes a perspective that isn't limited by self-bias. That doesn't open the door for people to exploit me because it's not biased for me to identify exploitation for what it is.
"I swear by life and my love of it that I will not live for the sake of another man, nor will I ask him to live for the sake of mine." Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged.
How sad that she thinks like this, and how much sadder is it that people follow her. The things that echo in eternity are the things we do for others. If I end up in Hell I'll have a long talk with her about this.
@@stephencampbell2018 with her views society couldnt even function
@@JesseThompson-ef2oc
When a barber helps a man by cutting his hair, the barber is doing it for his own sake. When a grocer helps a man by providing him with food, he is doing it for his own sake. When a teacher helps a man by teaching his children, he is doing it for his own sake. When a banker helps a man by giving him a loan, he is doing it for his own sake.
A society is a place where an individual can thrive. It should not be a place where he is expected to become a serf of the community. A nation of indentured servants is not going to be very cheerful.
@@Shozb0t brother we are a tribal speices meant to work together not be isolated selfish money hungry demons.
@@JesseThompson-ef2oc
People in a relatively free market work together all the time. They just don’t do it for free. You’d be amazed at how well people can get along if they don’t view each other as sacrificial lambs. Trade is the name of the game-trading value for value.
If we lived in a completely free market (as I would like to see it), then the cooperative activity you see in your community will only increase. The human mind will not be forced. Any attempt to do so only leads to decay and destruction.
“Pardon me while I overthink this…”
Love Dr Peterson and I’m always impressed to hear him think. In this case however, we may be going through some recreational gymnastics and contortions to demystify what basically amounts to “rational self interest”, the most reliable and pure force in human interactions, as championed by Ayn Rand. That said, his off the cuff deconstruction of human psyche was wonderful to observe, as always.
I think he was about to arrive at how can individuals judge what is rational when distinct focus is on the self and what constitutes self interest in that regard, and across what time span? He's mused about this, and perception more broadly, before.
I don't think this is an issue of overcomplicating and a simplier solution is more suffice? Don't you think he would first have looked at that and then dug deeper when noticing a simplier answer wasn't adequit?
It must be a blessing and a curse for Peterson: to have the brain he has; to constantly be searching for answers; questioning everything - and having the mental capacity to keep that up, rather than just resting on his laurels. As they say: ignorance is bliss!
Enlightened self-interest must always include reference to others because we all depend on others to help advance our own intesrests. As John Donne wrote:pointed out ...
"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."
@@englishincontext4025 how do you maintain rational boundaries where externalities are concerned given the experiential gap on the path to this enlightenment?
This is how opened minded people discuss deeply complex issues. They both understand that part of defining the conversation is defining the terms/words because thats the foundation of the debate. There must be a baseline from which all convo starts from. I wish everyone could engage like these two and really open their minds to being both challenged and enlightened.
Sue said when the productive need the permission of the unproductive in order to produce you have a problem. I remember her for this.
It can be an issue if producing coffins.
Once you separate warfare from being productive.
What unproductive has the place to allow?
She must mean to condemn wars, because of the economic losses. But economy which includes productivity is not the whole of the human condition.
I would love to get Dr Peterson a copy of Ayn Rand's first book We The Living. I think he would enjoy her story about the Soviet Union. (especially given his interest in Solzhenitsyn)
No one mentions that novel. I read it as a very young girl and have never forgotten it.
He doesn’t really answer it. Cut to short.
He never does, does he?
True. Dr. Peterson is incapable of pith.
I have read--or tried to read--three Ayn Rand books: The Fountainhead is thrilling; Atlas Shrugged never takes off (for me); and We The Living is a haunting cautionary tale.
@@milletrad8871Rand's style is difficult for many, deliberate and unadorned. I was reading Wodehouse and Maugham at that age so it was a marked contrast. My Dad said She writes like an Historian more than a novelist...
My thoughts exactly.
Maybe I'm sentimental, but the bit that I recall about Dagny Taggart made her seem disappointingly unfeminine. Maybe Atlas Shrugged suffers from being, "a novel of ideas"?
I read Rand having seen 'The Fountainhead' as a teen. It is a beautiful movie. My Dad was a Libertarian, the real kind- borderline Anarchist.
It did inform my life. When my equipment leasing business hit a hard plateau back in the '80s I was forced to not take a salary for nearly four years, in my own self interest. We used savings and personal resources to make payroll many months.
It all paid well in the end when I was forced to retire, my heart, 10 years ago. I was able to sell the business at a premium. We still had contracts with a lot of those same clients that we struggled to keep. And never layed off or fired a single employee.
Well done.
Wish we had YOUR kind here in South Africa.
She wrote a book called The Virtue Of Selfishness that lays this out.
I'm not sure he ever read any of her phislophical books.
There is merit in Ayn Rand's ideas BUT please note that, in her books, there are no children (how to educate the next generation?) and no elderly people (so how to take care of them in their dotage?) I am a conservative and an engineer.
Oh dear, once again it's lies and context-dropping in order to misrepresent and dismiss Rand. There are children in Atlas Shrugged, and the way children fit a life has been discussed in detail in secondary sources on Objectivism. As to the elderly, the same principles elucidated by Rand apply clearly to the elderly: moral principles must address a man's entire life span, i.e. provide for your own retirement, and it's fine to help those who are in trouble through no fault of their own, so long as it is not a sacrifice. Conservatism, which once claimed to defend our freedom, is utterly bankrupt and at best only ever said to the left's eager desire to eat our lives: "whoa now, you're right of course but not all at once, let's not be too innovative".
You are correct sir. She wasn't perfect. She offered a great study of why the Free market is better than a centralized one. She didn't have all the answers.
There are children in Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead. I don't know where this myth came from, but I read the books and know they are there. In Atlas Shrugged there are wayward children and there are psychologically healthy children in Galt's Gulch. The mother of the children even discusses how she raises them. They even had the main characters starting out as children with Dagny's mother as a character.
I'm not sure about "elderly"... There are older characters.
Not that this objection is essential. The philosophy stands on its own and has to be dealt with on a fundamental level.
4/19/24, 11:15 a.m.
@@ORagnarthere are also children in We The Living.
@@OriginalJokerFMJ Yes. I thought of that after posting. There is an entire family dynamic in that book. 4
I have come to appreciate listening to people who are actually thinking things through and hashing things out with the objective of reaching common ground or finding truth, regardless of whether not I agree with anything or everything they say. We have so little of this type of discourse in our society today.
I don’t care what Jordan says, my two favorite books are The Atlashead and Fountain Shrugged!
I loved Atlas Shrugged and there were some good moments in the Fountainhead.
Very punny
exactly he doesn't understand her work
You have to read “We the Living” written by Ayn Rand. Trust me, the “We the Living” actually explains how the society of the USSR who really loved themselves and how they turned on each other under the concept of continuing deciding the good from the bad.
The premise of Ayn's books is that 'selfishness is a virtue'. This is contrast to the more widely held belief that 'selfishness is a vice'. It is not that complicated.
I agree but these guys analyze on a high resolution view. But your comment is probably more useful
Anthem by Rush..."Now I know they've always told you selfishness was wrong. Yet it was for me, not you I came to write this song".
It seems like Jordan has some primary confusions when he talks about Rand:
1) In his own materials Jordan encourages people to have personal individual purpose and goals while taking responsibility for their own life ... this means that he already agrees with Rand. At the same time (in contradiction) he wants to endorse and practice altruism (self-sacrifice & unchosen duty). The former type of character development is incompatible with the latter type of character development in many important ways. Jordan tries to maintain this fundamental incompatibility within himself ... many in his audience see this problem while Jordan himself does not seem to see it.
2) Jordan shares with us just after the 6:00 mark that he has difficulty distinguishing hedonism from Rand's concept of individualism.
INDIVIDUALISM: Rand understood that the individual pursuit of survival with each bite of food, each breath of air, each self-defense action, and each night of restful sleep is a "selfish" action, it is a "self-interested" action, and it is a normal healthy virtue. Jordan in fact agrees with Rand about this and he already demonstrates that Rand is correct ... because he himself is already doing these things every day of his life for self-interest, and he will continue doing them. He is also demonstrating Rand's point for her during this interview when he tries to explain his own selfish perspectives and his own selfish frustrations and his own selfish curiosities ... he is demonstrating the natural normal selfishness and self-interest that Rand wrote about. He will not stop doing it ... nor should he try to stop.
HEDONISM: Rand repeatedly and clearly rejected hedonism, which describes when a person is taking their previously formed feelings as irreducible primaries ... the satisfaction of these feelings is the purpose of their morality ... regardless of whether the value-judgments that caused these feelings are rational or irrational, consistent or contradictory, consistent with reality or in conflict with it. Rand and Objectivism say that a hedonistic approach to living is somewhat suicidal (anti-life). Rand thought that a person's survival ought to instead be guided by an objective rational code of values based on and derived from man’s nature as a specific type of living organism, and the nature of the environment in which he lives. This obviously means long-range planning, tool-building, coordination with others, earning ones achievements through resourceful work effort, struggle and problem-solving outside of one's comfort-zone, and taking responsibility for one's experiences and failures and accomplishments. Sustained uncomfortable effort and responsibility are obviously incompatible with hedonism ... but fully compatible with self-interest and selfishness.
3) Jordan does not understand that Rand starts her philosophical construction with the reality that human consciousness exists and it has an objective nature ... her entire philosophy is built on this reference point and this foundation. Her framework starts with the question "what is the nature of human consciousness ... what needs & what functioning does that nature logically imply? She does not start by being an opinionated academic, and this is difficult for Jordan to process because he starts many of his own perspectives by being an opinionated academic rather than by being an objective researcher.
4) Jordan gets paid by keeping things complicated. He can tend to get quarrelsome about Rand because Rand keeps things simple and her ability to do that probably disturbs him.
Rand's thinking: Should we encourage a dog to unnaturally stop sniffing, stop barking, and stop wagging his tail ... no we should not because that would conflict with his own nature & needs. Should we encourage a bird to unnaturally stop flying, stop worm-hunting, and stop nest-building ... no we should not because that would conflict with his own nature & needs. Should we encourage a human to unnaturally stop perceiving, stop reasoning, and stop choosing in a natural pursuit of his own survival, his own security, and his own self-protection ... no we should not do that because that would conflict with his nature & needs.
5) A creature that practices altruism is either suddenly or gradually making itself extinct ... because the principle of altruism is by definition self-sacrifice, which by definition goes toward deprivation and death. The pursuit of deprivation and death is logically impossible for any creature to have within its nature and within its adapted programming ... because it's the opposite of life and being alive. Jordan does not seem to understand this aspect.
6) Also, Jordan does not seem to grasp that someone who is NOT practicing altruism can also at the same time be genuinely healthy, happy, benevolent, gracious, ethical, enjoyable to be around, and safe to be around.
Jordan's problem with Ayn Rand is that he's never understood her.
No...he thinks too deeply about it. It's really quite simple.
I think he understands her much better than most people do. Rand doesn't allow for self-sacrifice: that would be treason to one's self-interest. No sane person would die so that another might live. That is the ultimate price and would require ultimate reward, so if you live in Rand's world, police officers and people in the military would be getting paid hundreds of millions of $ to compensate them (or their families) in the event of their deaths.
Otherwise, no one following Rand's advice would fill those gaps. Too dangerous and asking too much for what people are willing to give in exchange. Duty is not a Randian word, unless said duty can be properly compensated, and as we see, it can't be.
Rand also presumes too much morality among humanity, and she also presumes self-interests never directly conflict. History tells a different story. Ask Genghis Khan.... that man pursued his self-interest all over Europe and Asia.
@@sidwhiting665 Exactly, spot on. Rand supposes that free will and free exercise of the human condition will bring about some sort of Star Trek utopia. The selfishness of the human conditon has brought about war, famine, death, and servitude. The reformers of the late 19th Century in the USA were in response to the Victorian Gilded Age of Laissez Faire Govt. views on private enterprise, that brought about the Robber Barons and snake oil salesmen. I'm a Libertine at heart, but agree with much of what Theodore Roosevelt enacted for the good of the order.
What a worthless statement. You have made a positive claim you don't seem to have the balls to argue.
"Missing the point" can be a synonym for "ignorance."
Here, Peterson and his colleague hold Ayn Rand in high regard just by discussing her works and beliefs in such detailed manner - something which was not only not done in her lifetime but also not done for quite a while afterwards: she was dismissed out of hand by most intellectuals and philosophers of the day.
The conversation clearly pays respect to Rand's world view.
What video is this pulled from? Please include this in the description.
If you are going to steal content at the very least provide a link to the source…
The full video is on Jordan Petesons RUclips page. Guest is Michael Malice.
ruclips.net/video/3cVr2Qp_ic8/видео.html&ab_channel=JordanBPeterson
About halfway through.
From Ayn Rand herself "Only a rationally selfish man, a man of self-esteem, is capable of love". She absolutely uses the word selfish in her wildly flawed, myopic propositions.
People misunderstand Rand’s statement there.
The key word is “rational’ self interest.😊
I read Ayn Rand's books as a senior in high school and again as an adult in my 40s, and both times I dismissed the philosophy in her books and extreme and unworkable. As far as I have observed socialism doesn't work, but capitalism only works with "Perfect" people. Since no one is perfect, and all of us are greedy, sometimes vindictive, often stupid I believe a happy medium needs to be found somewhere in the middle. Pure capitalism doesn't work any better than socialism without some very basic rules and enforcement, and that sort of balance is something I think humanity will struggle with and never really solve. When do the rules get top heavy? When does enforcement become too tyrannical? At this point I believe our capitalist system is completely out of control, but so is the bureaucracy that tries to enforce it. I don't have the answer, but frankly, neither did she---at least not an answer that is truly workable.
Anyone who creates anything around an expectation of 'perfection' in some aspect of a human being perhaps is creating another religion/god/perfect man. I don't have answers either. Neither am I trying to find the answers. but I tend to think that an form of subscribing to an extreme kind of thinking/expectation might not corelate well with human nature. Nature, Human nature has all possibilities; And respecting its existence and living within its reality, perhaps is an grounded approach, as opposed to 'expecting' others to be perfect or 'enforcing, influencing, instructing, guiding' others to be perfect.
you are a midwit. it just says do your job the best you can and drop the act of BS. it's an anti ESG/DEI bullshitometer, you read far too much into it because you think in words not meaning.
and "pure capitalism" is an evil evil commie word, do you even know what you are talking about?
"well, i'm for private property, but like, people should be able to use other people's stuff" - i believe you don't even know the meaning of the words you are saying. grow up.
One of a thousand reasons to respect Jordan Peterson is how quickly he admits an error openly and then gets right back to the principal point.
I think you should rename this clip from Jordan Peterson - My Problems with Ayn Rand to Jordan Peterson - Let me talk out loud as I struggle to remember some Ayn Rand compared to other things I know
Obviously knowing Ayn Rand is far from being obligatory but pretending to know these books when you don't is even worse
@@sruththine3689 I profoundly agree. At least he seemed to remember the name of 4 characters, but seemed to confuse which book they belonged to. I am sure his assistant had prepared him to the best of his ability.
Malice who clearly knows Ayn Rand was not impressed.
@@sruththine3689 Why do you think the didn´t read them? Because he can´t remember all names on the spot? I have read them and struggle to remember all names as well. Can happen, particularly when you have a lot of other things in your mind.
:D :D 2:22: What is his name, of the architect..? A heroic capitalist... Lol... Roark was struggling all the way!!!!! - and he carries on...
@@hermann5347 I also read at least one of them and I can't remember shit but we are both not trying to pretend
Too smart for me. I read both books when I was young, 18 years old. They're had a profound influence in my life. Simply put, what I found undeniably motivating was the individuals' right against the collective good. I am an advocate of Ayn Rand, but only at the level I understand her philosophy. These guys are on another stratosphere. Thank you.
Why don't you put the link in so we can view the entire thing?
ruclips.net/video/3cVr2Qp_ic8/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/3cVr2Qp_ic8/видео.html&ab_channel=JordanBPeterson
This particular clip comes from about the halfway mark.
I read almost every collection of Rand essays in addition to the novels. She very rarely touches the needs of children, almost never. I’d love to hear Rand and Peterson have a discussion on the topic.
Rand also goes into much greater detail (in her essays) for why a person pursuing rational self-interest is not interested in stepping on another person’s self-interest, or stealing from them, taking advantage, etc.
@chrisw6164 If you're interested in the topic of child rearing, Stefan Molyneux's podcasts on Peaceful Parenting are perfect. (Don't let all the lies about him being a white supremacist turn you away)
@@artieduncanson9899 I’m familiar with him, excellent stuff
This is one of my criticism of her as well. Although this had been explored by her proponents and I forgot who were they and have not had time to look and read them.
Moral self-interest...no force, no fraud
Except you fraud and force everyone else to pay interest to your own selfish gains.
Why no force no fraud though. If a person is purely self interested how are force and fraud against their own self interest?
@@IanEPearson Rand set forth a moral code of ethics and "no force, no fraud" was a cornerstone of her ethical message. Without those morals, the mystics of muscle and mystics of faith will reduce society into a cesspool of tribalism and thuggery making existence in a civilized society impossible.
@@IanEPearson Hello Ian.
Rand explained this in two key ways:
RECIPROCITY. If you earn a reputation for being dishonest or for assaulting people or stealing from people ... this is irrational on your part because then you will have much less percentage of the population who want to trade with you or be around you. This defeats your own purpose of having security, self-protection, and accomplishment ... which means that it defeats your self-interest.
PRINCIPLES. If you observe yourself doing fraud and force ...
a) By practicing fraud you are promoting fakery ... which, by definition, is incompatible with reality. Disconnecting oneself from reality goes against self-interest.
b) You are cultivating the principle of fraud and wiring yourself to repeat it and value it. By definition, making yourself a fraud is incompatible with having a self.
c) If you endorse the use of force, you are by definition violating the rights and self-interests of your victim. You cannot thereafter claim to value the principle of self-interest because you just watched yourself make it meaningless.
@@IanEPearson it's a sick mind that asks that. you can avoid reality but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality
The most important part of my life is the relationships I have with family and friends. I discovered the more self-sufficient, successful and creative (Ayn’s core values) I am, the more I can contribute to my relationships and the more my relationships thrive.
I think Peterson’s concern is that at what point does pursuing one’s self-interest become hedonistic to the point of being detrimental.
I love Rand. She makes some awesome points about collectivism, but in some ways, I think it’s fair to say that her ideas might be just as utopian as the collectivists.
Peterson is talking about the mind and how human beings actually exist, which is not in a vacuum.
Using drugs are not in your rational self interest. Drugs as an example of hedonism. It's the' rational' part that is the key identifier. It may be a bit utopian expecting enough people to act rational and even more utopian to believe people will go against the grain by lauding self interest. In that light, I can see why people acting for their own rational self interest as a system seems a bit 'pie in the sky'.
Hedonism isn't in one's _long-range_ self interest.
That is his point, but it's not a gradual in that way.
he cannot, at first, understand the difference between "don't do that, do this" - so, perhaps for the midwits, "don't put interest in what others are doing over what you are doing", is better than "put interest in what you are doing over what others are doing" - "don't live for others" and "live for yourself" - maybe the reddit INTELLECKSHUAL crowd can understand the former better. that inability to be binary logical is a flaw of his.
she is saying "don't be collectivist", but she says "be individualist" - and midwits then say "well how can I buy a piece of gum if that means sacrificing the dollar that I worked for? why shouldn't I just steal the mans gun, shoot him with it and steal the gum too?" - this is the reddit brain - and jbp has fallen into it.
don't sacrifice yourself for others as a life goal -> what's stopping me from genociding my entire town - if we could remove all brains from the world that think like this, or at least from youtube comments, the world would be a better place.
Anyone who wants to understand the distinction between Ayn Rand's philosophy and hedonism could find that out on their first day/week of looking into it. What is JP's deal? I, a random guy on the internet, could clear this up for him (and a lot more) in one 30min conversation.
"babies, hey, you know, crazy bastards, they just want boobs you know, and that, well, think about it, that never goes away, like, boobs, man, so like, self interest, how can i be self interested if i'm also interested in boobs? like i think ayn wrote that" - jbp
how can people be so misguided? I think jbp is saying this because he wants to own the "reject pseudomoralism" space.
This video stopped just as at was taking off and getting interesting. From an indiviual's perspective needs and interests are almost synonymous. I can almost hear JP shouting "What the hell do we know about out own self-interest?" However, beyond that, Rand's view of individualism or, specifically, the idea of ethical egoism, is criticised for leading (or at least promoting) a wholly selfish world-view that neglests empathy and, in turn, (it is argued) one that neglests the common good. it also leaves no space for something like altruism which to many remains incredible as a proposition.
How can anyone even know “the common good”?
well, needs would be "vital" and interests would be "useful" - in a perspective that would define them as not synonymous. one's world-view is selfish you like it or not. on one's view everyone one else and their needs or interests, are data points. it cannot be otherwise... and if the common good is "useful", then there is no fear of neglect towards it.
and what does altruism entail anyway?! everything has to be categorized, so to speak, before action was taken towards achieving it. give me an instance of a man doing something against his needs?
@@markvoelker6620 While it may not be possible to know the common good in its totality, it can be understood in terms that somethings serves the overall benefit of all members of society. It is why I suggested that JP would be asking, what the hell do any of us know about out own self-interest? It may be something that we recognise or walk towards, rather than arrive at by diktat.
@@arturzathas499 “…needs would be "vital" and interests would be ‘useful’”
-‘Possibly but not necessarily. Some needs are desirable but not essential. For example, in order to avoid loneliness, it might be said that while we “need” company by necessity, we do not “need” company in order to service or merely exist.
“if the common good is "useful", then there is no fear of neglect towards it.”
-I would suggest that people do not always act in their own best interests, let alone the best interests of their wider society, even when it benefits them. History is replete with examples of instances when society has neglected to serve the common good to its own demise.
“what does altruism entail anyway?”
-It is one of the ways that serves to show how we differ qualitatively from many other animals and underpins much of our ethical and moral thinking. For example, the fireman that runs into the burning building to save the child who is unable to get out is viewed as nothing short of heroic. However, if it were known that the same fireman runs into the burning building to save the child merely because he wanted a promotion, accolade or other personal advancement, he would be viewed in an entirely different light.
“…give me an instance of a man doing something against his needs?”
-See above. A difficulty is either proving or questioning the existence of altruism is that both rely on a knowledge of motivation which is almost always impossible to establish. The fireman who says openly that “it’s all about saving children” may not be speaking truthfully and want self-aggrandizement. Altruism appeals to a belief that a key aspect of the human condition allows people to act without self-interest. If we, as part of “the group” act in purely Darwinian terms, then “we the group” benefit. Instances typically relate to that which occasions heroism.
There is only individual good. Common good is mystical.
It is not selfish to believe, and support, the idea that everyone has the right to achieve and gain what their efforts bring to them. The fact that the supporter of Ayn Rand is also one member of "everyone" does not make individualism selfish.
So what's the actual response? JP once again over complicating a basic question.
6:06 - Peterson doesn't separate individualism from hedonism and he thinks self interest or selfishness (According to Rand, that which is self ish, meaning that which is good for the self) can be geared towards evil (including dictatorship) as much as it can for good. This is untrue. Consistency or a lack thereof, moves individuals and their cultures toward either.
After being recommended by my brother-in-law, I have listened to a few interviews and commentaries by Jordan. I found him interesting and thoughtful - not to mention knowledgable. After listening to his "problem(s)" with Ayn Rand, I am disappointed. I got the impression his focus was his struggle NOT to say more than he said! He seemed to be dancing around his actual "problem" with Rand, eager not to "go there."
I love her book: The Romantic Manifesto
Read all of Rand’s novels and listened to Atlas Shrugged twice on audio. Suggest most people should do the audio, I got more out of it that way. Would suggest Jordan should read We the Living if he hasn’t. Enjoy the conversation, and enjoy that no matter how much time passes Ayn Rand’s work will always impact generations of people because the central theme of individualism vs. collectivism will be ever present in our species🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️
Better yet, read her non-fiction essays. They cut directly to the point, with no heavy-handed dramatizations, and bigger than life characters.
Rands central theme is reason.
I think Dr Peterson is missing the main point. He doesn’t clearly explain what his differences are with Ayn Rand, so I’m going to explain mine instead. I’ve read all of her books, and enjoyed them immensely. She made a great case for individual selfishness and ego - gave her nuanced definition of those terms that I agree with. A human being trades their value objectively in the marketplace in return for being compensated for it in a free market, and this is a good thing- this is how human progress happens and the most efficient economic model that human beings have come up with to date. But she had a very cynical view of the political arena I think largely because of her background - escaping from the Soviet system. But political governance of a capitalistic economy is not inexpensive - this is something that I realised as I got older and people who engaged in political activities are not universally to be despised. All her novels painted political people as moochers, and only those who produced physical goods and services were to be admired. I used to read the Objectivist Newsletter By Nathaniel Branden as well, and was disappointed that Branden didn’t confront her on this stance in any of his writings. If you look at political governance as a service, then it needs to be compensated monetarily as well. The monetary compensation of political governance is, to this day, not adequately addresses by any capitalist commentator that I have read and this disappoints me. The correct answer is that a well-run apolitical system to govern capital markets in a given country does not come cheap. You can expect governance costs to escalate out of control in a banana republic, and Ayn Rand’s themes in all her books had capitalism being governed by banana politicians. She couldn’t conceive of an ideal state of capitalism co-existing with a politically well-governed framework of individuals even though she had great admiration for the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. This still disappoints me. I would have confronted her on this topic in an open debate if I had the chance to do so. I run my own company, so I am aligned with her on Capitalism.
Great prespective, thank you for sharing!
Capitalism would greatly decrease govt,thus less cost.
@@TeaParty1776
He does not understand that Ayn Rand looks at Looter Governments alone because there has never been a Government of Producers .
A government of producers is comprised of individuals that live there life by the code of Galts Gulch :
I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine
You do not understand that Ayn Rand looks at Looter Governments alone because there has never been a Government of Producers .
A government of producers is comprised of individuals that live there life by the code of Galts Gulch :
I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine .
Do you know of a government in human history that governed or was created by the absolute glory of that quote created by Ayn Rand .
The USA came the closest but ultimately the christian elements that are anti-individual won out .
The issue is that politics, at the end of the day, is always backed by force, making exchanges involving it an involuntary transaction. Now, I'm a minarchist, so I do agree there needs to be some form of state (largely as protection against violent external action), but it is difficult to minimize this aspect of force and remove incentives to abuse it. It is from this difficulty that the practical reality arises that government officials are usually non-productive and people see it as essentially inseparable in any meaningful sense. In all reality though, what I've seen from Rand is gentle compared to the Founding Fathers' comments on how the citizenry should act towards the government (they often get quite spicy).
I really enjoy the form of Jordan's thought process. It has a spiralling, self-similar, fractallized design.
Gee, he's read these books 3 times since 13 and doesn't seem to understand the basics, and stumbles on terminology, getting immediately roasted ... once he gets to the content that is. The only ground he was comfortable with was the long-winded detour through tangential content that amounted to his roasting moment, yet all of which exposed his out-of-depth ignorance. The fact that he couldn't work out how to differentiate individualism from hedonism, and more importantly applying it to objectivism, which essentially helps us with that, is telling. He should have just shut up from the start and asked the other guy to explain everything to him. The other guy's intensity shattered JP here. That should be enough for JP to wonder and take pause.
Awesome exchange. Two intellectual giants discussing a very relevant idea.
Peterson is the absolute king of overcomplicating any subject with buckets of verbal nonsense...
Reading Ayn Rand right now. Don't have a problem with her worldview. It's interesting - not mine, but very interesting. And, she was a fine writer. Really knew how to tell a gripping story.
I have read The Fountainhead and enjoyed it but am struggling with Atlas Shrugged, far too wordy and in sections I've just skimmed through the sociopolitical narrative which goes on and on. Her heroes are individuals with no sense of community other than their own, no sense of joy other than their own and no interests other than their own. Our society is on a "looters" track but there are normal human needs for community and a sense of belonging as well as a need for personal goals and achievement. Perhaps her heroes are too one dimensional?
Irrational I know, I am just wary of her characters because they don't add up in my mind and I wish I had the education to be able to sort through my thoughts and articulate them.
At the same time I want the governments and their bureaucrats to get the hell out of our lives and let us live in peace. Here in Australia they have been writing laws for over 200 years and yet we still need new laws! We need fewer laws, fewer politicians and a damned heap less bureaucrats.
Australia is rapidly becoming a country where the individual is regulated in every way possible.
Same here. Fountainhead fan all the way here. I didn't care for Atlas Shrugged. And I really tried to like it. Even the films. I just think Fountainhead is better
If you'd like to get some assistance in reading Atlas, the Ayn Rand Institute RUclips channel has a series of videos called "The Atlas Project" which is a series of discussions about each chapter in sequence, and will ensure you get the most out of the experience. It's easy to miss a lot of what is going on in that book, but once it is opened up it is a very rich reading experience.
@@AndSendMethank you, I'll watch them out of curiosity, almost finished the book so it will make an interesting sequel.
@@EricBryantI've got just under 200 pages to go and by gees it's been a labour where as it should have been a labour of love. It's so easy to lose yourself in a good book, to see in your own mind all that is happening and the characters but Atlas Shrugged just doesn't do that for me. I'm going to watch the videos on the Institute that explain the book chapter by chapter but I understand what is written, I simply can't live it in my mind which to me makes it a dull lecture.
This was the most important Jordan Peterson moment in his history as a public figure. Michael made him realize he was an anarchist, as we all eventually do.
0:30 She was but she was in fact not at all. Her entire _modus operandi_ was 100% Soviet. Americans cannot understand this very well because they never experienced this kind of thing (although the current woke hysteria is a mini-approximation of it) and they get swayed by the superficial, outermost, layer of her work. I grew up in a communist country (the pre-1989 Poland) and I know her type like the back of my hand: if she was not allowed to leave the USSR, she'd become a Soviet Party apparatchik, no doubt about that in my mind. After 1989 many of the former communist apparatchiks published tell-all memoirs (partially to make money, partially to clear their conscience), most of them not available in English, unfortunately, and it's a fascinating read. Their description of their first teen experiences with communism and Marxism before WWII read almost word for word like the Amazon reviews and testimonials of Ayn Rand's books posted by teenagers. The seeming contradiction between communism and living happily in the West and praising it is also repeated by many of those former communists exactly: many of them did just that, including even an infamous Stalin-era political prison torturer who emigrated to the UK and... she became a great supporter of "Solidarity" there. There are many stories like that, Ayn Rand is just one of them and I have no clue why she is so popular in the US, it's like a mental contagion of some sort. Weird disgusting stuff.
Oh, yes, and she is also a Jewess! Imagine that!
--
Cohen the Barbarian
She is so popular because she is NOTHING LIKE the Soviet apparatchiks you describe. NOTHING LIKE. Clearly, you have not read her work and have decided to lecture us on her values. You are the despicable Soviet who hates her for her success.
Interesting. I’ve been a big fan of Rand’s for more than 30 years now, but what you’ve written jibes with something that has been troubling me lately. The appeal I think you’re describing is one of an all embracing system of thought, that begins from first principles and seems coherent. This is, essentially, the approach of liberalism.
The caveat, however, is the warning that comes from the approach of conservatism. Conservatism argues that social and political arrangements are worked out over time, and it is hubris to think that it can all be ripped up to create a new arrangement if we just reason hard enough. In other words, there are things intrinsic to human nature that are only articulated, albeit imperfectly, through traditions; and that these persistent and pervasive aspects of human nature are glossed over by utopian-like systems.
Exactly.
Rand is way,.way beyond anti-communism. She values reason.
>just to make it complicated...
Love it.
My primary problems with Ayn Rand are that she’s a very determined Atheist and so many of her arguments and philosophies struggle to justify themselves because they aren’t built on a foundation of moral principles. But her insights and ideas are brilliant and especially recognizing the dangers and follies of leftist ideas. Pushing for minimal government and maximum free market and capitalism is spot on.
> My primary problems ... she’s a very determined Atheist
What is the problem with this?
> they aren’t built on a foundation of moral principles
Yes, they aren’t built on a foundation of *_supernatural_* moral principles. What is the problem with this?
Morality is for life, not the sacrifice of life.
The individualism in Ayn Rand's books is fake; the stories set in a fake world. If you want a good story of individualism, I recommend "The Time It Never Rained" by Elmer Kelton. A west Texas ranger. That is as individualistic as you get. But the man and his story are real. The feelings are real. His friends and employees and neighbors are real people with all the strengths and shortcomings.
@@waichui2988
> the man and his story are real. The feelings are real. His friends and employees and neighbors are real people with all the strengths and shortcomings.
Naturalism vs romantic realism
@@waichui2988 via con dios muchachas
I would say to Peterson, were we discussing this, that "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" are not the best Rand books to begin with. They ARE the most popular of her books... Atlas Shrugged still selling 250K copies a year to this day. AND both were made into movies which actors fought over for the roles. But her essay books are vital to avoid the constant and enduring misunderstandings of her work. "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" for example. Or "Philosophy: Who Needs It?" My personal favorite is "The Romantic Manifesto", her treatment on the philosophy behind art. In these books she is speaking in principles and premises, rather than telling a story in a novel. Without those reads, I have found many people completely misinterpreting her novels.
Reading her books is like being beaten with a sack of oranges
You say that like its a bad thing.
You feel bad, therefore reality.
@@TeaParty1776 no dimwit. I've spent 50 years studying literature and I know what's good and I know what's horrible.
@@TJ-kk5zf And, yet, curiously, very curiously, you dont say what they are.
Do you mean her books? The fountainhead. Atlas Shrugged. Anthem was tolerable but it was only because it was short, and even then it was just a knockoff of much better books like Brave New World
In complicated sci-fi jargon, Jordan is basically telling us he makes no difference between whim-worship (pursuing desires fo which you don't know/don't care to know the causes) of a 1yo toddler and an adult person's free decisions based on facts and rational reasoning. It's a very honest answer, and it surely raises a huge problem.
A problem not about Rand, but about him
What was the point of this video? There was no response. An idea was floated and the response was cut midstream. Frustrating..
A good start, but it was only the first half of the conversation it seems. I liked the point he was able to make...to not be able to distinguish between self-interest and hedonism. I really wish I could have heard the rest of what he was trying to say though. It's rare to hear Jordan Peterson speaking about something he not completely certain of. It felt like he was formulating his conclusions right then and there.
I think a business has to run on selfish doctrine but employees treated well. But a business has to be sustainable and therefore profitable. She had no regard for lower level employees.
> She had no regard for lower level employees.
evidence?
@@TeaParty1776 Atlas Shrugged - read it,
Disregarding effective lower level employees or employees in general is not in the best of your "rational" self-interest. If you are really good at your job, even if you are a lower level employee, you are rewarded. Ayn Rand calls this the Trader Principle. I'm always distraught that most criticism of her are purely of ignorance or of straw hat constructions. People seem to judge her based on her novels like Jordan Peterson is doing here while disregarding her non-fiction books.
I've seen and read some really good criticism of her from people who really read her "books", but this is not one of them.
@@johnmichaelcanares2633 I only read her novels. She hates Kant so I can't really take her seriously. I read her novels 20+ years ago.
Peterson's problem with Rand is he doesn't know diddley about her philosophy but still feels the need to announce he has a problem with it.
Malice should have told him - Before you tell me your problem with Rand's philosophy, tell me what you think Rand's philosophy is.
I feel sorry for Jordan. Just seems like a stressful life always thinking about crap you can't control anyways.
I came to this conclusion during his interview with Elon Musk. Elon is just as well read and philosophical but he also doesn’t care to dwell on things that can’t be changed. And you could tell he was getting annoyed by JP with that.
Having not the education in this field after these two brilliant men, and having read both books and basically in agreement with all,the main thing I have questions about concerning Thier writer is simply the company she kept. One gentleman in particular,as this is rarely brought up. Rumor?, Truth to his actual influence upon her? There certainly seems to have been interaction in thought processes,at least from her perspective! Fascinating story,if you are unfamiliar with this issue,look it up.❤
He goes around in circles, never fully answering any of the points.
Which is smart because almost No complex question has a single answers but a spectrum of Views rather
He has become ridiculous idiot savant now
yep. and he's confused. "babies, hey, you know, crazy bastards, they just want boobs you know, and that, well, think about it, that never goes away, like, boobs, man, so like, self interest, how can i be self interested if i'm also interested in boobs? like i think ayn wrote that"
"no she didn't, she didn't use those words"
"are you sure? i think, she didn't say if you like boobs you must be satan?"
"no"
"oh sht because that would really dig me me out of this hole i'm getting myself into. how do you dig yourself out of a hole eh? that's like, you have to make another hole, bucko."
This thing youre doing by pumping out many channels until one sticks and going with that one is pretty smart
I read the fountainhead and atlas shrugged last year and thought they were great books but it was hard to parce out what I agree with and reconcile it with other things I've read and agreed with. After finishing Atlas shrugged I finished reading the second half of Maps of meaning and it was exactly the counter voice to what Rand advocated for while not dismissing the individual. Was a great and exciting experience reconciling both and figuring out what you belief
why? what was the maps of meaning saying, and what was it countering?
@@removechan10298 Rands pure individualism. Peterson made an argument based in Jungian psychology and evolutionary biology on the existence of the collective unconsciousness.
I'm not got at explaining it and I'd have to think about it for a while but it's basically the idea that the individual isn't an atomized being but it stands in an constant relationship to the environment and society/community. The idea of sacrifice and his explanation on how sacrifice transformed over millenias also made sense to me. And he relies a lot on mysticm which she would consinder irrational. I think in the end i largely agree with rand, though through Peterson i gained an appreciation of the mechanism that brings things from the realm of the unknown potential into existence. Things what we do not know can still be embodied and true, and to act them out - things that rand would consider irrational whims or emotions - can still be true or right. And that the pursuit of meaning might be more important that maximizing ones happiness. Though I think this last point is mostly explained away by how they both define the term happiness and is mostly semantics. Peterson gave me a sense of the necessarily role of the community, and intuitions about the beauty of nature, that I felt lacked in rands worldview.
Jordan likes to say a lot of nothing. He goes on and on and never gets anywhere.
100%
Rarely can someone stop Dr Peterson in his tracks, But he know's he is fallable and will acquiesce when corrected. Class.
Correct moral development goes something like this: Selfish -> Self-Centered->Group-Centered->Other-centered.
Rand recognized the fallacy of the "frozen abstraction" in which a single instance of a class is treated as the meaning of the concept. A child can be forgiven for imagining that all dogs are Dalmatians, but an adult thinking that the only morality is altruism is making a cognitive error. Altruism is just one moral theory, and it's not hard to understand how vicious it is. Life is a self-sustaining process and it ends without proper action. A morality that requires that the benefit of life-sustaining action be directed away from the actor and his interests is against life.
@@AndSendMe On what basis is altruism (arguably the ultimate example of sacrifice for the greater good) vicious? on what moral grounds is that so? and who decides that?
No, the "other" is not the "correct" moral centre. The correct centre is God (call it the transcendent if you're not ready to say God).
Charity (which mean means love, by the way, not organised giving) for the other is a consequence of charity for God. Another consequence of charity for God is good stewardship of your own responsibilities.
Thomas Aquinas wrote about the moral principle of Proximity. One has more moral obligation to the proximate than to the distal. Feeding the neighbour's kids to the detriment of one's own kids' nutrition is not moral.
Studies show that people who vote "left" self-report more concern for inanimate objects like rocks and distant stars than for plants, or animals, or even their own families. This is a good illustraton of how "left" is English for "sinister", because they're either lying to appear more altruistic or they have no care for the moral principle of Proximity. The "heat map" of their concern is literally inverted from what it should be, like the artist clicked through Image/ Adjustment/ Invert Colours in Photoshop. We can note here that the word "correct" has "right" built into it.
Self-sacrifice can be good, when it's oriented towards the transcendent. But when it's ostensibly oriented towards "the other", then it's really oriented towards the self, it's self-centred to paint an image of the self so "holier than thou" that it borders on idolatry.
@@BalthasarCarduelis and what is God but other-centered?
@@paulsacramento5995 Our Father.
My problem with Ayn Rand is that her most famous books aren’t the most applicable today. We are the living is the one everyone needs to and CAN read (sorry, I’ve read Atlas Shrugged, an 800 page brick isn’t changing very many minds by default).
Since AS is 1100 pages, perhaps you should continue reading. Those last 300 pages may help.
@@TeaParty1776 the last 300 pages of AS is a fantasy, you realize that? A place where all the good capitalists can go to be capitalists without the government? It’s as bad as the communist fantasy of history ending.
We are the living covers the actual mechanics of how a group of people can be ostracized, silenced, have their property seized, and ultimately their lives taken by a socialist regime at the individual and family/neighborhood level. It may not dive to far into political philosophy but it demonstrates it just as well if not better than the other books and in a 1/3 of the length. And it hits pretty close to home, in these times.
Ayn Rand can serve as a guilty pleasure to impressionable sixteen year olds, but by the age of eighteen or nineteen, you really need to grow out of that stage of rabid self-absorption and self-aggrandizing nonsense.
He doesn’t really have a problem with Rand. His own self interest is to be pretentious. That’s his primary problem.
Ayn Rand is to political philosophy what twerking is to dancing.
Rand was passionate about her philosophies and beliefs. She lived to communicate them.
Two odd things she glamorized were smoking cigarettes, and violent sex.
She even communicated deeper aspects of her soul - very transparent.
Jordan was right about pronouns but little else
Jordan often mistakes investment for sacrifice. Rand despised the latter and understood the difference.
Let me guess… you don’t like her because she doesn’t take orders from Ben Shapiro?
I don't think peterson takes orders from anyone
He explains in the video
???
Love it! Lmao
@@drkrbrownas long as he never criticizes Israel. And he never does.
The only self-interest is enlightened self-interest. Which paradoxically means what is good for me is therefore good for society as it enables me to do my part in it best.
Good for society is merely a means to good for me. Its not an end.
@@TeaParty1776 Really? I run a lunch club for elderly people. I'm helping society and myself. Everyone benefits. Thoughts?
@@colinstewart1432 I buy gasoline from a multi-billion doillar corp only because it helps me. We both benefit. Thoughts? Rands, "Objectivist Ethics", is online.
What was Jordan's problem? Sounds like he just wanted his interpretation of Ayn Rand confirmed. My problem is that self interest is never beneficial for all. Self interest leads to "dog eat dog" culture where the strong prey upon the weak in gruesome ways. Slavery is the primary example.
Recent email from Jerusalem boasted that JP was supporting Israel. JP will attain credibility by making a report from the beach city governed like a concentration camp, according to Finklestein.
Our legal system and laws are the result of the self interest of the collectivity.
We have a self interest in fairness, it's just that we need to create system to enforce it for the whole.
What is missing in Ayn Rand is the spiritual. Just like communism, capitalism will only create more "stuff" hoping it will fix all our problems. We have more stuff than ever yet are not happier.
One could argue that mutual self-interest is of greater interest than exploitation. When others are cooperating and doing well, it lowers the chances of socioeconomic collapse and harm to oneself.
Rand actually literally discusses "dog eat dog" in her book on Selfishness. Rational pursuit of self interest has close resemblance to the libertarian non aggression principle i.e. you cannot pursue self interest at the cost of others, by being a parasite. Rand considers it irrational, unreasonable to be this way.
@@alexforgetI agree that her paradigm does not leave room for the spiritual. She is against anything that can place an obligation on you, and religion places obligations on their members.
However, I don't believe there is any room in her paradigm for slavery or any other obligation of one man to another. So suggesting Capitolism allows slavery is misplaced. However, relationships between employers and employees have gray areas where obligations get a bit out of proportion.
I like this discussion. The interviewer is good.
6:10
His entire argument collapses in one sentence. She doesn't say selfish need but selfish interest.
Which again is what every government is doing and every bank has interest to increase or reduce interests.
Selfish interest is your own wealth. The money you have control over. The needs is emergency and the interest is to provide the needs. Not to be the one who is in need of your help.
I think Rand addresses this issue at length in her books on Objectivism. Maybe how to distinguish self interest from hedonism isn't obvious in the fiction, but she writes tonnes about that in her philosophy. Rand was heavily influenced by Aristotle's virtue ethics. She accept Aristotle entirely. Which is the answer to Petersons question - the answer is virtue. Self interest is only rationally extended to matters of virtue. Rand would argue that hedonism is not a virtous, therefore not a rational, pursuit.
I didn't mind JP when he was a university professor. I enjoyed his lectures. Now he's just a RUclipsr,
Rational selfishness - poor of words to say that individuals should rationally pursue their self interests, which is to the benefit of everyone, particularly in economics and morality. No claims on others lives or property. No initiation or force.
Much obliged.
Ayn Rand was all about rational self-interest, and in this context is the word selfish what she refers. From the chaos of a free society, order emerges. It is a counter-intuitive concept, but it works in practice, hence the failures of socialism and the success of capitalism.
Rand’s idea of pursuing your own goals, rather than your own needs, only works for entrepreneurial types. That’s because the only difference between a “goal” and a “need” is the level in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Ultimately, a goal you pursue for self-actualisation IS still a need - just one of a higher order than survival, shelter, and belonging.
Most people however focus on, and are even perfectly happy with, spending the majority of their day on pursuing the lower-level needs. Conversely, quite a few high achievers must sacrifice needs on the lower hierarchies for the sake of self-actualisation. I can empathise with Rand’s thought process here, because I fall more into the camp of those that give up some of the lower-level needs for those long-term goals that matter more to me personally. But I understand that most people are not like that, so it doesn’t work as a model for society.
For Peterson himself, whenever pursuing self-actualisation goals comes at the expense of having a family, I’m pretty sure *that* would be his biggest issue with taking this principle of “selfishness” to its logical conclusion. He’d probably even call this goal pursuit hedonism at this point, because you’re doing it for yourself first and foremost, rather than with your community in mind.
You have misunderstood Rand's ideas. I don't know where to point you as I don't know what you've already read.
@@AndSendMe I’m talking about the distinction Peterson and his interview partner are making here, since the other guy is very adamant about “goals, not needs”, until Peterson concedes the point. I for one don’t really see a difference between goals and needs, aside from their respective level within the hierarchy of needs. But if goals are within the hierarchy of needs, that makes them a need by definition.
Rand talked about goals but mainly in the context of values. Her mature conception of values was brilliant both in its breadth (all living things act to gain and/or keep that which they require to survive) and in how that informed her identification of how values work in human beings. Her view of values in human life is that they can and should be objective, and that we select our personal specific values in the context of a long lifespan with its complex life requirements by means of fundamental general values and truths (moral values and principles). Rand's idea of pursuing the values that will make up your particular life and happiness works for anyone willing to guide their actions by reason.
@@AndSendMe Here’s the kicker: There’s nothing reasonable about wanting to survive. It’s a sunk-cost fallacy and a primal urge, a need. We cannot reason ourselves out of it; that doesn’t mean it’s reasonable in and of itself.
>Rand’s idea of pursuing your own goals, rather than your own needs
Rand thinks that ones needs should be ones goals. She rejects your religious mind/body split. Morality is for ones life, not against it.
Now WHY does he only mention Ayn Rand's novels as his source of her philosophy instead of her books on philosophy?
I also support her contempt for the Soviet Union. My problem with Ayn Rand is a common one. The founder of a movement can not live by the very principles they espouse to their sycophants. Specifically I am referring to her relationship with Nathaniel Branden. Rand, ever espousing the right to pursue happiness, nonetheless acted like stereotypical scorned person when Branden ended the relationship for another woman. Rand, instead of accepting this as a logical and living expression of her philosophy, publicly impugned Branden’s character on numerous occasions. If a founder can’t abide their own philosophy in their own life, I certainly will not.
Then you evade reason for a personal attack. Either Rand is right or wrong. Her personal life does not affect that.
@@TeaParty1776 Hypocrisy by a founder is a universal solvent of their philosophy. But to respond to you she is wrong. The meaning of life is to serve others, which is not the same as to be enslaved. Nor the does that mean a person cannot also pursue self interest. A win-win is the best outcome. A modified chaos theory if you will. As I said I agree with Rand regarding socialism but I reject her repudiation of altruism.
Couldn’t make all the way through.. I hate when people say “Do you know what’s interesting?”, when they should say, “Do you know what’s interesting to me?”.
In order to understand Rand's definition of selfishness, you have to read "The Virtue of Selfishness", which basically equates and defines selfishness as "rational self interest." "Rational" in Rand's definition flows out of her philosophy of objectivism, which certainly elevates reason and objective physical reality to the status of an absolute, which of course makes rational sense as far as objective reality is understood, but we all know that in psychology, in real living human beings, that doesn't usually happen. We're often much less rational/objective in making decisions than we think we are. Dr Peterson only mentioned reading her novels which may not explain it as well, although the characters often repeat her own ideological position almost verbatim from her more philosophical works.
Rand says people should choose to reason.
Suggestion: Read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. I think it will answer a lot of questions for you Dr. Peterson.
Also the masterful essay within it by Peikoff: The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy.
Believe it or not, I do have a memory of when I was an infant. I remember the thought process I had which was basically 'I woke up, I have to call mom'. So I cried. Anybody else had the same?
Now, if Ayn Rand is saying that we have the right to pursue our own self-interest, it is not inherent to say that an individuals self-interest cannot coincide with the self-interest of another. In all of her writings, the "hero" must work with others that see the value of that their vision and find that it is in their "self-interest" to follow that vision. Howard Roark could never build his vision if he didn't have clients, contractors and workers to help him with this endeavors. Self-interest does not eliminate groups working together, but it does suggest a voluntary hierarchy that flows from ideas that a group of Individuals find benefits themselves and their own self-interest. That is where Freedom comes from, the Protection of the Individual to make their own choices built on their own self-interest
Mutual self-interest is a common human experience evaded by altruists. Rand identified it. She did not invent it.
"Well that depends what you mean by Rand and it also depends what you mean by Ayn. This is also a very complex question. One must acknowledge the underlying verisimilitude that is irrevocably nested within a multi-layered metaphysical substrate, which many people fundamentally conflate with their ideological presuppositions with no uncertain irregularity, causing the inadvertent dismissal of Jung's archetypal extrapolation of the quintessential axiomatic juxtaposition required to achieve Raskolnikov's magnitude of neo-Marxist existential nihilism..."
I think the best way to distinguish self interest from selfishness. Is hurting someone else the reason why you do it, or selfish at someone else's expense. For example. Rearden built his different companies because he could ger better materials. He didn't build them withe the intent to eliminate competition.
JP is unable to overcome the negative bias associated with the word selfish. Rand is clear that by being selfish she is referring to the right to pursue one's rational self interests. Of course this is without prejudice to the rights of others but does not mean that I need to be altruistic (help others to my own detriment). It's really not that complicated.
It is not how Ayn Rand and other Neoliberalist reason. It is that we are allowed to discuss them with him or other Neoliberals. They are free to state whatever without having to answer for them.
It's often true that in order to have debate (properly defined as discovery of truth) some pretext and common understanding must first be laid. It's within this proposition that I've always found the best debates begin. Note the understanding in the difference between 'selfishness and Self Interest' which is often misunderstood.
The problem with Peterson's and many others' analysis of Rand's philosophy, is that he bases it solely on her fictional writing. In order to get a more accurate and thorough understanding of Ayn Rand's ideas, it is imperative to read her non-fiction essays, which are based on real people, real events, real conditions, and real outcomes.