Rand thought altruism to be a moral failing in that it reduced amounts available to capitalists. This seemed to be her opinion even if an individual found value in their experience of indulging their altruistic impulse.
My disagreement with Rand: Man qua Man is simply bad philosophy. If I am a man I don't have to strive to live as one. There is no alternative. If I'm not a man I have no need to strive to become one. Stirner dealt with this kind of compulsion by word identity in Stirner's Critics. I can and will live as Me qua Me. Man qua Man smuggles the categorical imperative into Rand's philosophy. I agree with Rand, or am aligned with Rand, largely on her sense of life and support of Egoism, but I think in her efforts to *justify* Egoism, she rationalized it, and somewhat lost it. A justified Egoism is no Egoism at all, but a slavish devotion to ideas. The fundamental philosophical error of our age is valuing according to your concepts, instead of crafting your concepts to serve your values.
Love how Malice grounds Rand’s critique of one-dimensional characters, oh wait …he throws words out like “internal” (but on atheism there are no such things as souls), and “integrity” (again on atheism there are no ways in which a being “ought” to exist, given that we are here not as a function of a designer but as a function of millions of random events). “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” Dawkins😅
If you see it as a game to get the win, then ya. Malice can get, let's say irritated, very quickly when challenged or even questioned and most people who like each other want to keep these things cordial. I think Peterson is being inquisitive to someone who knows more about the topic than he does.
@@ubergenie6041 Internal (within consciousness), and there's "ought to" in atheism, since man action is volitional they must think about what they ought to do to achieve their values.
Sorry but I don’t see why. It’s pedantic and JP keeps trying to get him to actually talk. Malice is focusing in the wrong stuff. Reminds me of the Dawkins podcast. Very frustrating
It was a clever thing calling it the virtue of selfishness. It’s almost like she set a trap in the language to reveal who understands her comprehensively and who doesn’t. Like when John Stewart called it the virtue of being a huge asshole. He didn’t realise her point had nothing to do with selfishness thereby self reporting the fact he’d never read a word she wrote. It seperates the ignorant critic from the informed. Very clever
Ya, we need to be self centered first. Then we can play into group cohesions and spirit. Thing is though is that it is useful to have a mediator at some point for social contracts and commitments. Especially since it's so hard to show and proove when people have knowledge of who themselves are... That's the problem... And it can be continued to be worked on too! A mediator could be a set of rules. But would have to accomodate the beholden....else we get the games played by our current systems laws and politics
Keating was pulled through life, allowing himself to be influenced by the chaos and circumstances of reality. Roark pushes his life forward, building reality. He commands circumstances to focus on his goals.
high minded discourse! Beyond my ability to opine. I appreciate those that are willing to agree/disagree, and continue to question all ideas. JP collects so many brilliant minds, and humanity needs to have many conversations.
“I swear by my life and my love of it, I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” Pairing this idea with the idea of a rational self interest being the purpose of man, if I took advantage of someone for my own interests, I’m asking/forcing them to live for my sake. If I’m living by my own rational self interest, I will not take advantage of others, as I wouldn’t have them take advantage of me.
Ayn Rand, like many Enlightenment thinkers and modern anarchists, certainly believed that human nature encompasses a godless mechanistic indifference to morality in an amoral "good and evil" and rejected the authority of any higher moral standard. Rand’s life demonstrated her disdain for social norms, whether capitalist or socialist, as she held no respect for anyone who opposed her philosophies. Few academics could rationally engage with her ideas without first submitting to her views. A world dominated by Randian anarchists would be no different from our current rush towards totalitarian oblivion. Thank God for Christ’s redemption, which continues to guide many hearts away from self-worship and towards His saving grace.
This kind of "conversation" always feels like a good ol' bun fight that my family used to have over dinner. Someone would try to dominate by speaking very quickly and being very loud. I'm sorry to say that, in this case, it's Dr Peterson.. Michael Malice handles it very well. Ultimately, I was able to grasp Ayn Rand's concepts because Mr Malice explained it well. I remember reading her books when I was in high school. It's good to glean more from them all these years later. Thank you for that.
Personally, I think the sci-fi author Robert A. Heinlein presents a more refined version of Rand's views. In fact, in his novel _The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress_ , the character that acts as Heinlein's mouthpiece, Bernardo "Prof" de la Paz is asked by another character if he is a "Randite" and replies that he and Randites can "get along".
@sensereference2227 Well, first, I think I need to clarify that I haven't actually read Ayn Rand's books. I only saw the film adaptations of Atlas Shrugged and watched a few interviews in which she explained her views, so feel free to correct me if my assessments are inaccurate What little I have gleaned from the above media gave me the impression that Ayn Rand had stumbled upon a basic truth about humanity that is often ignored or is denied entirely, which is that everyone is motivated by self interest and that altruism in its literal sense does not exist. That said, from the little I do know of Rand's work, her philosophy seems to be incomplete as it doesn't account for other aspects of a society that are needed to keep it functioning. Heinlein believed that in addition to allowing people to act on their self-interest, he also stressed the importance of personal responsibility and morality, the latter of which he defined as "behavior that tends towards survival" as opposed to "behavior that tends toward extinction".
@NexAngelus405 : Not everyone is self-interested, and altruism does exist. Perhaps someone wouldn't be altruistic if not for teaching (i.e., dogmatic indoctrination), but people absolutely do act self-sacrificially. Indeed, *most* people do -- and possibly every day of their lives.
@doogboh "...of all the nonsense that twists the world, the concept of 'altruism' is the worst. People do what they want to do, every time. If it sometimes pains them to make a choice - if the choice turns out to look like a 'noble sacrifice' - you can be sure that it is in no wise nobler than the discomfort caused by greediness...the unpleasant necessity of having to decide between two things both of which you would like to do when you can't do both. The ordinary bloke suffers that discomfort every day, every time he makes a choice between spending a buck on beer or tucking it away for his kids, between getting up when he's tired or spending the day in his warm bed and losing his job. No matter which he does he always chooses what seems to hurt least or pleasures most. The average chump spends his life harried by these small decisions." -Robert A. Heinlein, _Stranger In A Strange Land_
@@NexAngelus405 : You've never seen anybody give somebody else time and/or money out of a sense guilt?? What world do you live in? (I'd like to live there!!!)
When Toohey asks Roark what he thinks of him and Roark answers "but I don't think of you" this is the essence of what we should be thinking about those who berate and criticize us. We shouldn't give a damn!
Good lord talk about switching subjects in a hurry. I was all happy to hear more about how a short term self interest decision might impact a long term mutually beneficial agreement between two individuals and i ended up getting a discussion on the multi faceted motivational function of the self. slow down fellas let me catch up!
Malice’s analysis of Rand’s moral landscape regarding a Roarke based “selfishness” whereby a man pursues his own goals, contrasted with a man whose goals are contingent on those around him like the cloth coat vs fur coat example is a solid one; however, Rene Girard’s work on memetic theory throws cold water on Rand’s Roarke character. Girard sees all humans as variations of the former where all human desire and goal seeking is based on the desires of others but is unconscious and concealed from us. We subjectively believe that a particular object we desire is inherent in the object of our desire. Girard shows us and our culture clearly illustrates that what we desire is the result of that object being desirable to others. This foundational discovery is at the root of human violence, scapegoating, and religion itself. Roarke is a utopian vision that only exists in a platonic world. I wish this weren’t true.
Interesting commentary. I would agree with Rene that there is most certainly great influence on our desires based on that of others. However, I believe it goes deeper than that. We are selfish beings in such a way as to want to maximally ensure our own eternal survival. In other words: all that we do is done from a motivation to avoid the complete elimination of our existence and effects on the world - even after our "death." From that motivation, we are competitive; by absolute necessity. That competition drives us to generally evaluate the importance of things, possible actions (and people) in our world, and act accordingly. We compare, in order to learn. This avoidance of complete death is also the basis for religion, as it provides the perfect "answer." Which is a primary reason why religion seems fairly foolish to me; even if I have great respect for the logic behind much of the morality taught by religions. I also have respect for the power of belief in general - as it allows people to continue past what would be strictly logical from their own self motivated perspective.
This is interesting. I dunno if your argument defeats itself, but Rand's seems to, in some sense, as the objective and actual consequences of her work are not unsympathetic to Girard's ethos. Why do I say so? Because Rand has provided us, ultimately, with a role model in Roarke; and there's no doubt that this was a deliberate effort, not merely to externalize and monetize her own ideals, but to inspire (what some would call) "second hand individualists". Though, I'm pretty sure, she'd balk at that description, even what we do deliberately, we may only be semi-conscious of doing. Of course, nobody is radically consistent; everyone can be subjected to these critiques: A life without compromise is an imaginary life. For me, at least, as far as egoism is concerned, Stirner sort of eclipses all the rest, in his pared-down, punk-rock authenticity; and, after reading him, even Nietzsche seems like a pedestrian "try hard". The former went to the heart of the problem and solved it; the latter was more identified with containing titanic oppositions, and, even in declaring "ecce homo!", he embraced flux; though he aimed to alchemize them, he clearly aligned with Dionysian thrall, rather than Apollonian sovereignty. Then again, he was a shaman. I love him for being more than just an "Unfixed I", much as I prefer the holistic approach of Tantra to the "not this, not that" (or "AUM") of Advaita; Friedrich was like Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva, embracing the whole, while Max was like Brahma, alone; "the unworshipped", creative spark, sufficiently rooted in his own nature to be more or less indifferent to the fate of his creations, or the future of the world. Stirner had essentially one idea - which he seems to have thoroughly embodied in his way of being, more than he elaborated on in exposition. Stirner was like one man, Nietzsche was like a battleground of fragmented personalities, and had many great ideas; which he took a voluptuous thrill in allowing to devour him; as he thoroughly enjoyed seeing "himself", from above himself, rising in new forms, from the ashes of his most recent internal conflict. Girard had only two ideas, as we know, and his works are intensely boring, once you grasp the basic outlines of mimesis and the scapegoat mechanism.
I don't see any conflict. Rand clearly portrayed 99% of humanity as pursuing one kind of (2nd hand) "selfishness" and 1% pursuing an integrity based selfishness (Roark). The difference between the two is psychological and therefore Rand offers a glimpse at salvation, however difficult, for both the individual and mankind in a larger sense. This is the entire purpose of her work.
"Malice's analysis" was your best pitch, and in-the-park homer, too. As in: the Most Interesting Man, saying -- "I don't often have a pudding, but when I do, I make sure it's a haggis." 🤣⭐
I feel that PART of the end sum of these arguments (discussions) is something like: We must have theoretical examples of uncompromising heroes in order to create something exact against which to measure ourselves. And we must have these uncompromising 'heros', also, because if humans are allowed to make excuses, we will. Any attempt to ONLY aim as high as imperfection, will result in complacency and less success than AIMING at 'perfection.' Yet we must break down this perfection into doable chunks and accept that we will nonetheless often fail... To circle back, I do think it very important to use examples of perfection as a bar for which to strive. Further, only extreme examples [of individuals] would serve to create belief in others; through the inspiration (and awe) they inspire. And as I mentioned in my previous comment, I think it is only belief (or perhaps fear [also a belief]) which can motivate us to extremes of achievement; since belief is the only thing which could motivate us past a purely logical level of effort/discomfort. In summation perhaps, is that consciousness in flawed beings will always have to 'indulge' in some level of insanity in order to embrace our own imperfections while continuing to strive.
"But on what grounds do you think that's inappropriate?" i.e., "Please explain all of Objectivist ethics to me because I want to discuss Rand's philosophy without spending ten minutes reading Rand's non-fiction."
@@buybuydandavis You can immediately identify people who haven't given her the time of day because 99% of objections to her philosophy are addressed in the first paragraph.
Well it is very simple, Rand didn't just say "seek your own interests in any way you can doesn't thinking about them or about how ruthless you are", there is much more to her ethical philosophy, she herself defends, always that many virtues must be obeyed when seeking your self interests, such as honesty, integrity, and justice. Here a quote of Rand herself: "Individual rights is the only proper principle of human coexistence, because it rests on man’s nature, i.e., the nature and requirements of a conceptual consciousness. Man gains enormous values from dealing with other men; living in a human society is his proper way of life-but only on certain conditions. Man is not a lone wolf and he is not a social animal. He is a contractual animal. He has to plan his life long-range, make his own choices, and deal with other men by voluntary agreement (and he has to be able to rely on their observance of the agreements they entered)."
Rand, in the midst of the reality, is straddling the Roarke vs. Keating dualism. It is a form of good vs. evil I suppose. Roarke has always been a hero for me simply because I'm an idea person and I don't really care much for other people. Rand the author speaks through Roarke in the courtroom speech. "I am creative, I bring meaning and beauty to this world whilst others are absorbed in things, illusions and lies. I am truth." That is Rand in all of her consistency born of a life of struggle. Malice studies these things I suppose, Jordan is a doctor. A man who has spent his life helping people by listening. He possesses a level of empathy and wisdom unequaled, he is however to me, a doctor and his work with patients more important than talking about philosophy.
There are basic dual self interest examples even in nature. I am unsure why it is a hard concept to grasp that self interest on the part of one party doesn’t mean to the exclusion of the self interest to the other party. If they are attempting to pursue that self interest to their own needs it doesn’t necessarily mean it is harmful to the other person achieving their self interest and needs. If it is, no one is MAKING them enter into the agreement. Either or both parties can choose not to enter the agreement and seek someone else whose self interests align more with their own. If not, then there maybe needs to be an adjustment to expectations or realistic goals in pursuit of said self interest.
Just my initial thoughts on these things is: Selfish desire and self interest are not the same thing and are often in opposition to one another. My selfish desire is to eat an entire box of cookies right now. My self interest is to not be fat. Therefore, I must not eat the cookies. Self interest is a long term ideal and moral code. Selfish desire is taking exactly what you want in any given moment with no thought of consequences.
Social climbing is absolutely the result of a personal value, regardless of whether a given person is aware of that value. It comes from a desire for relational safety- a core need for all humans. Social climbing tends to be a dysfunctional way of pursuing relational safety but it's still a real human striving for a real human need. It proves that a real living breathing human is there, just perhaps not living at a high level of self awareness. Saying that it is possible for a given human to value social climbing only because they picked it up from others without any other human motivation behind it is bizarre and incorrect. Even the effort it takes to copy someone else's values wouldn't be expended without a personal motivation behind it.
It's a great discussion, but it was taken to a level too far above the simplistic argument that Ayn Rand was saying. Mike Malice at times had Peterson sounding like a rambling fool who didn't expect such a level of pushback with simple points. I like them both, but Malice is direct in his response to the rambling of Peterson, who appears to be more confused than those trying to understand the topic to begin with.
I think Alan Watts put it best - a truly selfish person wants to please himself. Therefore, to be efficient, he or she would want to find out who they are, who the SELF is.
The approach to morality seems to be to me to require continual mental evaluation where as in the real world moral decisions are made in the spur of the moment when for example we witness an accident have have to decide whether to drive on or stop, or as happened recently in Australia, a madman goes on a stabbing spree, do you run or do to take him down. Not time to reason, what happens is that the values and virtues that you have practiced all your life come to the fore at just such times.
The moral scenario that you mention, run or stop it (try) has be vanquished when the Law now charges you for interceding with a crime in progress. Though this is not a new Law, as it began decades ago when Doctors would stop and render aid to victims of a car accident and then be sued by those they helped medically via their Hippocratic Oath and self applied moral. This is one reason why most people just walk by crimes being conducted. It's now offensive to have and use a moral.
Ayn Rand understood money and capitalism but not anything else like values. Prostitution and fentanyl distribution is good capitalism, but contains negative values.
Malice argued that the "bad selfishness" didn't exist because the motivations did not come from the self of the individual pursuing goals, rather it came from society.
@@paulsacramento5995 That wasn't part of the discussion, Peterson was asking the difference of two characters. One he deemed noble in his pursuit of his self interest, the other not. The other character was in pursuit of social status and thus it wasn't self Interest he persued, but societies interests.
Rourke's selflessness is him doing for him and not worrying whether society can use or like it. The other selflessness is the deception of getting society to hate the former, as to allow rise in status as society's protected. A comedic example would be Dom DeLuise role in The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas.
Best film interpretation of " The Fountain Head" is "The Natural" with Robert Redford. Self- loathers striving for relevance by diminishing something true and virtuous.
@@cameltanker1286 How so? Hobbs ended up with exactly what he left behind in pursuit of what he wanted. Success in the game he loved and wanted to use to secure his life with the woman he loved, the son he didn't know he fathered.
This is the oldest debate.....what are ethics and where do they come from? Those of us who are God centered would claim they come from God. Secular humanists would say men decide what is ethical. It is a debate that will continue long after those of us having it now have died.
@@brizziefritz4794 And now we find the path to madness and Nielism. Virtues have the clue in the name. If you take the princeple they work for you and others in the real world. That leads to success and up you go. If you say they are made up and dont exsist down you go. Now Rand and others say some Virtues are more important and also ignore others but they do exsits. As for "what" its the end result of following them that is the information you need. You can also say what happens if i go against the virtue to see what happens. Why did i say this the path to madness and Nielism? only 15% of pepeol can do the mental work to exasmin them and not not find it annoying or unpleasnet. The 85% who lose there virtues suffer and can even go mad.
Seems like there is an attempt to defend Keating and Toohey on the basis that they are not being petty where both of them are guilty of even theft of other people's ideas or work in the book. I think once you have been indoctrinated to hate Rand, it is a long climb out. Fortunately, I never received nor allowed myself to be persuaded that Rand's selfishness was reprehensible or appalling because I watched and read enough of her to not dismiss it the way so many liberals try to today.
let's say our good guy is Howard Hues airplane manufacturer, he is totally engrossed in airplane manufacturing, then when he is industry level and successful he wants to move in to other ideas that are helpful to humanity BUT some of these ideas displace established business monopolies, so they get the government and regulators to go after Hayward, because that have no I ternal guide,they are order followers, now that Howard has found out first hand about the new world order, he retreats from the world before total destruction by those forces. and the news papers propaganda tells everyone he is crazy. 😊
Halfway through the interview Peterson asks how does Rand ground her critique of the one-dimensional characters in her novels? He never gets an answer! The person that self-ish (let’s call them internally self-directed), and has integrity (defined as operating the way something is designed to operate) are incoherent statements! I’m an atheist and Therefore have no ultimate meaning or purpose (pick Camus, Sartre, your favorite atheist philosopher du jure) I will invent a purpose out of thin air😮 And I will live with integrity to the idea of fulfilling that invented meaningfulness …😅 House of cards built on subjective meaning (created by the subject)! So the grounding question is an important one! We can get objective moral values and duties without some sort of objective standard. Rand pulls this standard out of the air and just asserts it. “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” Richard Dawkins The difference between Dawkins and Rand is that Dawkins recognizes the consequences of an atheistic worldview and Rand does not. Rand actually gives us moral SUBJECTIVISM as the atheistic universe is just a random collection of molecules that is mindless and purposeless!😮 She sees inside herself some sort of moral standard that has been explained for 1000s of years as an attribute of having a human soul, as the imago dei. On atheism it seems we cannot possibly give an account of any such thing as a soul!😮 Rand’s borrowing our soulish knowledge accounted for historically by soulishness and destroying the foundation of the origin of the soul at the same time. Incoherent! Next topic please …moral objectivism is like talking about the origin, intellectual and emotional development of married bachelors 😮
I think she may have been reffering to objective morals in terms of a concensus of subjective moral opinion rather than actual existing moral principles built into existence. For example if everyone agrees that murder is wrong, that unanimous agreement becomes indistinguishable from moral fact. This (I think) is what she means by having objective morals without an objective moral standard. There is no standard because the universe is indifferent to morality, however mass subjectivity can produce something functionally the exact same.
I can't even listen to Peterson, anymore, he's so in love with the sound of his own voice. As someone who is perfectly capable of thinking, and articulating my ideas, in abstruse forms, - I can tell when the exposition is needlessly complicated and wordy. It's such a drag, when the substance under discussion is meat enough! The real conversation is deep; but he indulges in these digressions, chopping up a word-salad, as if he means to be specific (or high resolution), when all it does is appear to insult his listener, who has grasped the idea, or can easily do so, in the simplest terms, and wants to pursue the main discussion. Was he infected by the bite of that arch-pedant, Michael Eric Dyson?
*_Does the Truth derive from Authority or_* *_Does Authority derive from the Truth?_* To Libertarian NT Rationalists, integrity is among the highest of all values.... and once lost is not easily recovered. Integrity here means _internal consistency._ *Does a Conscientious person care more for the Truth over protecting people's feelings... or does a Conscientious person car more about protecting people's feelings?* The survival of all Civilization depends upon how you answer this question. Only NT Rationalists seem to value the Truth over Social Acceptance... and we are frequently ostracized for it!! Given that only one person in twenty... maybe one in ten... are NT Rationalists and that the other nineteen out of twenty people absolutely value social acceptance above _integrity,_ this goes a long way to explain the social condition. Why are there so few NT Rationalists? Because we would rather _burn at the stake_ than forfeit our *integrity!* Everyone else simply prefers to live.
To understand Rand, read her short story Anthem. This story is in the same genre as 1984, and she does a good job throughout, until the end. The ending displays her fundamental flaw. A flaw that permeates all of her writing and philosophy.
No single Philosophy contains no flaws, which is right Kantian or Unitarianism? We can learn from all and the more of them we know the better we can understand an issue. Each gives us a different lens to gain a different perspective of a situation.
The main issue with Ayn Rand's moral code is that it's based in her trademark objectivism, but largely ignores one key component of objective reality: not everyone can "succeed" by her standards of success because it's impossible for everyone to be at the top by definition. In order for Dagny and Hank's businesses to succeed over time...people need to go out in the world and do practical things like have children and raise families. Rand's characters tend to exist in these idealized states where they have nearly unlimited resources, can go all in on career, don't have kids, aren't married etc. etc. If Dagny needs to get somewhere quickly...she can basically just charter a private train to get her across the country overnight. That's not a realistic option for someone who's at a level where they can barely afford food and shelter. Sure, all of us could aim higher and be more...that would likely result in a much better world in short order...fair enough. I ADMIRE Dagny and Hank in Atlas Shrugged. They're objectively good people in most of the ways that matter. But what happens when you have a country filled with super geniuses who are all willing to work 100 hours a week and live for their vocations? Someone is still going to have to sweep floors and clean windows. We still need people to stock grocery shelves. You should do your job in good faith to the absolute best of your ability because you made a contract with someone else to do it in exchange for payment. You should try to improve yourself over time to be able to do a wider range of things well. Not only is it good for you psychologically, but it will open avenues to be compensated for your finite time at a high rate. But there also needs to be a societal game plan for the legions of people we need to do the nuts and bolts operations of keeping things running. A game plan that allows those individuals not to be fabulously wealth, but to have enough resources to have the basics of a nice existence covered and maybe keep the boot off their necks financially for the most part. They dynamic shouldn't be "owns a Fortune 500 company" or "enjoy your suffering...work starts at 9AM sharp". There needs to be healthy room in the middle for competent qualified people who want their job to be an important part of their life...but not their WHOLE life. I shouldn't be compensated like a CEO for being an entry level file clerk...people should be allowed to enjoy the rewards of their extreme hard work if they decide to live that way. But I also shouldn't have to spend my life half starved because I don't have 6 Master's degrees and don't want to spend 110 hours a week in the office for $30k a year. I agree with Rand for the most part, but she doesn't do a fantastic job of outlining what the other 99% of humanity is supposed to do. I would also give her credit for having the guts to just directly make a case for exactly what she means...so at least you can discuss it and have a conversation. Most philosophy is so many metaphors buried in metaphors buried in other metaphors that it's kind of difficult to ever truly say what the author actually meant. At least Rand just spells her world view out in black and white.
> not everyone can "succeed" by her standards of success because it's impossible for everyone to be at the top by definition. Is her standard of success really "to be at the top"? Can you quote her on saying this?
I appreciate the comment and it reminds me of the scene where Gail marvels at Roark's ability to be at rest when lounging on the yacht. Adaptability. Wherever you go there you are.
I refer you to what Christopher Hitchens said of Ayn Rand's philosophy, which has her promoting the idea that Americans are not selfish enough. Somewhere in my fat blackhole head a Hawking radiation escapes and quotes Hitchens saying, "Some things do not need reinforcement."
Correct, Americans are not selfish enough. By selfish rand meant self ownership, more precisely inalienable self ownership. Which means absolute control and autonomy of one's mind, body and life, without illegitimate interference. Americans is desperately in need of more such selfishness.
@DanMccollum-om5mz She meant so for a selected group as far as I can remember. Which as to say, only few are capable of it, and the rest of us are just the (non- heard and inconsequential ) herd. Guys like Greenspan were achelites, which is unique since fiat creation is a simple trick....some would say con, that is, if not at least in large part spent to benefit the General Welfare.
@user-lr2ib1cv4d inalienable self ownership by logic and definition cannot be only for a select group. If it exists it must be applicable to all human beings, otherwise it does not exist. Rand was obviously fully aware of this fact. Greenspan is completely irrelevant to my argument.
Whole lot of nothing... However, anyone reaching the conclusion after reading Ayn Rand (thrice in Peterson's case) that she wrote romantic books with some intellect demonstrates a limited capacity to think _deep_ and hence, comprehend. She explicitly states that these were philosophical texts linked to real world scenarios, hence the construction of the plots of those novels. There are so many instances where she clearly explains the terms she uses and what they mean and yet, Peterson misses them. This is a generally a problem with people who believe they are important and can rearrange the world as they see fit. Faithers mostly, i.e. those of the religious persuasion, and mediocres (those of the servant/slave mentality) have this problem and they continuously try to discredit Rand through devious means and limited arguments. Free market means individualism; NO ONE is thinking and acting for someone else or more accurately, each individual is working for his own self interest but never explicitly, knowingly, at someone else's expense. It's good to see someone who explains Rand so clearly but Peterson still can't get it...
Ugh. It's painful to watch Peterson blab on and on about a philosophy he knows *nothing* about while Malice has to correct him time and again. It's like watching a college sophomore decide he's going to champion his Ideals at 3 in the morning against one of his professors. He seems entirely philosophically ignorant of not just Rand's Objectivism but of all Egoist literature. Malice should introduce Peterson to Stirner. That'll blow a few gaskets.
*Ayn Rand was all about the freedom to be a natural human following the 'core desires' of the individual's Soul. She went further to suggest that the collective powers would eventually 'attack' individuals focusing on freedom of thought and the free Life.* the point Jordan is skirting around is 'exposing' the limitation/contradiction, in that, even though it can seem like it is 'self-serving' and an individual choice to join the 'collective', you are still positioned as 'part of the collective', and further, freedom and individualism can exist within a strict collective so long as the personal 'desires' are fulfilled. So logically the whole premise in a philosophical sense is tenuous, because you can achieve 'individual fulfillment' within a 'non individual context'. (who needs slavery if you can get people to only 'think' and not FEEL!?)
Jordan is contradicting himself. Toohey & Keating are not the big lobsters. They agree with others against their own instinct in order to gain social status. Howard is a lobster who stands out by virtue of his ideas and sticking to them aka Zarathustra.
The underlying principle of both Objectivism and libertarianism is inalienable self ownership. The rest of the discussion is mostly irrelevant psycho analysis mumbo jumbo.
Peterson's mannerisms and tone are those of an authority figure on the subject who is confidently instructing Malice on the proper way to think about Rand's work, but the actual content of Peterson's statements are closer to those of a student presenting his half-baked ideas to a more knowledgeable professor to see what he thinks about them. It's kind of irritating.
Is that not a good thing though? I mean students and proffessors can have productive nuanced conversations *because* they have different interpretations of the work. It might be irritating but I think its a sign that Peterson is willing to be corrected and Malice is willing to hear his ideas out.
@@gavinferguson2938 A student using that tone of voice and mannerisms while talking to a professor is not a good thing. He's acting like the authority figure while asking questions like a student. The conversation here is actually not very nuanced or productive partly because Peterson can't stop performing the role of a professor lecturing his class when in reality he's talking to someone that knows more about the topic than he does. Just because Peterson is very verbose and full of digressions in his speech, that does not mean that the conversation is actually nuanced or productive. What really matters is the depth of the clash of ideas between the two people in a conversation, and what's happening here in that regard is very superficial and basic. Malice is able to give short rebuttals to Peterson's lengthy criticisms because the criticisms aren't that deep or well-founded.
Jordan enjoys having conversations with himself. His verbosity is tiresome and apparent difficulty or refusal to get to the damn point is borderline silly.
Jordan Peterson has no conception of what reason is. One cannot discuss ethics without knowing what is a value, why someone needs a code of values and how one rationally discover values that are good for him. Someone needs to bring Petterson to metaphysics and epistemology level.
Yo, wait up. These are characters, in books, made up by an author, merely to promote the author's personal ethic or promotional relation to, basically, her publisher. Maybe she wishes she was "god" -- she ain't. Fiction authors are really only trying their hand at death dealing -- when is this character disposable? Yo. We're all disposable, when death is the arbiter. Death doesn't have a moral code, or any real integrity, or, ultimately, any meaning. Meaning means: dependable. Death's not dependable. Death's only a suffix. An affix at the end of a Camus, or some brave old world. What's next is dependable. The continuum. The seed dying to bear much fruit. Attn faux farmers! The Seed is Living amongst you! 🕊
Malice is humoring Jordan. Tolerating him like the 2 year old Peterson keeps bringing up for no reason other than to keep reminding Malice that he’s a licensed psychologist.
why does JP engage authoritatively on subjects or things he doesn't understand or are clearly beyond his knowledge ? funny thing is his fans think this is a virtue or something
Too many words - that about sums up Jordan. He seems to go out of his way to appear complex but he only achieves incoherence. Most people want to say they know what the hell he's talking about so they can appear intelligent. And I do know what he's trying to say but he is NOT clear and therefore fails the very basic goal of communication - and that is the transmission of an idea. (His hand gestures notwithstanding) I realize Rand was rather verbose, too. Duh.
Yes, it does. It is a self-evident fact available through the act of introspection. It is one of those pesky things that in order to deny it you must first use it. So I am happy there are two people who believe in Free Will.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with Any Rand's moral code?
For more liberty clips, subscribe to my channel and click the bell!
Since I write under the pseudonym thomaspainerevisited for the last 12 years, I'll have to take you up on that this year.
Rand thought altruism to be a moral failing in that it reduced amounts available to capitalists. This seemed to be her opinion even if an individual found value in their experience of indulging their altruistic impulse.
@@angelaj8958 Rand was just selling a product for which she would benefit. And, that product wasn't all that clever.
My disagreement with Rand:
Man qua Man is simply bad philosophy.
If I am a man I don't have to strive to live as one. There is no alternative.
If I'm not a man I have no need to strive to become one.
Stirner dealt with this kind of compulsion by word identity in Stirner's Critics.
I can and will live as Me qua Me.
Man qua Man smuggles the categorical imperative into Rand's philosophy.
I agree with Rand, or am aligned with Rand, largely on her sense of life and support of Egoism, but I think in her efforts to *justify* Egoism, she rationalized it, and somewhat lost it. A justified Egoism is no Egoism at all, but a slavish devotion to ideas.
The fundamental philosophical error of our age is valuing according to your concepts, instead of crafting your concepts to serve your values.
@@buybuydandavis Interesting last sentence. Made me think. Maybe return and reply, if I believe that reply is worthy enough to read.
Malice is one of the few who can really set Jordan back on his heels, but in such a loving way.
Ayn Rand*
Love how Malice grounds Rand’s critique of one-dimensional characters, oh wait …he throws words out like “internal” (but on atheism there are no such things as souls), and “integrity” (again on atheism there are no ways in which a being “ought” to exist, given that we are here not as a function of a designer but as a function of millions of random events).
“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” Dawkins😅
If you see it as a game to get the win, then ya. Malice can get, let's say irritated, very quickly when challenged or even questioned and most people who like each other want to keep these things cordial. I think Peterson is being inquisitive to someone who knows more about the topic than he does.
@@ubergenie6041 Internal (within consciousness), and there's "ought to" in atheism, since man action is volitional they must think about what they ought to do to achieve their values.
Sorry but I don’t see why. It’s pedantic and JP keeps trying to get him to actually talk.
Malice is focusing in the wrong stuff. Reminds me of the Dawkins podcast. Very frustrating
Jordan looks like he's immensely enjoying himself in this clip. This is a good conversation.
He does love the
sound of his own voice;
that much is for sure.
@@TheRealValus Cope
It was a clever thing calling it the virtue of selfishness. It’s almost like she set a trap in the language to reveal who understands her comprehensively and who doesn’t. Like when John Stewart called it the virtue of being a huge asshole. He didn’t realise her point had nothing to do with selfishness thereby self reporting the fact he’d never read a word she wrote. It seperates the ignorant critic from the informed. Very clever
It had everything with selfishness & how selfishness benefits society over altruism
@@mikrobspen it was about her idiosyncratic definition of selfishness which is rational self interest.
p.s she got you.
thanks for playing
Yeeeahhh i agree with you broadly but dont think JS is a champion of this ideal.
Ya, we need to be self centered first. Then we can play into group cohesions and spirit.
Thing is though is that it is useful to have a mediator at some point for social contracts and commitments. Especially since it's so hard to show and proove when people have knowledge of who themselves are... That's the problem... And it can be continued to be worked on too!
A mediator could be a set of rules. But would have to accomodate the beholden....else we get the games played by our current systems laws and politics
Absolutely she played the establishment spectacularly
Keating was pulled through life, allowing himself to be influenced by the chaos and circumstances of reality.
Roark pushes his life forward, building reality. He commands circumstances to focus on his goals.
So good to see and hear JP and MM discussing AR.
This is fascinating. I’m so glad to see Jordan Petersen breaking down Ayn Rand’s philosophy.
Yaron Brook did a good job breaking down this conversation
high minded discourse! Beyond my ability to opine. I appreciate those that are willing to agree/disagree, and continue to question all ideas. JP collects so many brilliant minds, and humanity needs to have many conversations.
I enjoy these discussions. Two smart men with different perspectives.
“I swear by my life and my love of it, I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” Pairing this idea with the idea of a rational self interest being the purpose of man, if I took advantage of someone for my own interests, I’m asking/forcing them to live for my sake. If I’m living by my own rational self interest, I will not take advantage of others, as I wouldn’t have them take advantage of me.
Ayn Rand, like many Enlightenment thinkers and modern anarchists, certainly believed that human nature encompasses a godless mechanistic indifference to morality in an amoral "good and evil" and rejected the authority of any higher moral standard. Rand’s life demonstrated her disdain for social norms, whether capitalist or socialist, as she held no respect for anyone who opposed her philosophies. Few academics could rationally engage with her ideas without first submitting to her views. A world dominated by Randian anarchists would be no different from our current rush towards totalitarian oblivion. Thank God for Christ’s redemption, which continues to guide many hearts away from self-worship and towards His saving grace.
This kind of "conversation" always feels like a good ol' bun fight that my family used to have over dinner. Someone would try to dominate by speaking very quickly and being very loud. I'm sorry to say that, in this case, it's Dr Peterson.. Michael Malice handles it very well. Ultimately, I was able to grasp Ayn Rand's concepts because Mr Malice explained it well. I remember reading her books when I was in high school. It's good to glean more from them all these years later. Thank you for that.
Personally, I think the sci-fi author Robert A. Heinlein presents a more refined version of Rand's views. In fact, in his novel _The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress_ , the character that acts as Heinlein's mouthpiece, Bernardo "Prof" de la Paz is asked by another character if he is a "Randite" and replies that he and Randites can "get along".
In what ways is Heinlein's version more refined?
@sensereference2227 Well, first, I think I need to clarify that I haven't actually read Ayn Rand's books. I only saw the film adaptations of Atlas Shrugged and watched a few interviews in which she explained her views, so feel free to correct me if my assessments are inaccurate
What little I have gleaned from the above media gave me the impression that Ayn Rand had stumbled upon a basic truth about humanity that is often ignored or is denied entirely, which is that everyone is motivated by self interest and that altruism in its literal sense does not exist.
That said, from the little I do know of Rand's work, her philosophy seems to be incomplete as it doesn't account for other aspects of a society that are needed to keep it functioning.
Heinlein believed that in addition to allowing people to act on their self-interest, he also stressed the importance of personal responsibility and morality, the latter of which he defined as "behavior that tends towards survival" as opposed to "behavior that tends toward extinction".
@NexAngelus405 : Not everyone is self-interested, and altruism does exist. Perhaps someone wouldn't be altruistic if not for teaching (i.e., dogmatic indoctrination), but people absolutely do act self-sacrificially. Indeed, *most* people do -- and possibly every day of their lives.
@doogboh "...of all the nonsense that twists the world, the concept of 'altruism' is the worst. People do what they want to do, every time. If it sometimes pains them to make a choice - if the choice turns out to look like a 'noble sacrifice' - you can be sure that it is in no wise nobler than the discomfort caused by greediness...the unpleasant necessity of having to decide between two things both of which you would like to do when you can't do both. The ordinary bloke suffers that discomfort every day, every time he makes a choice between spending a buck on beer or tucking it away for his kids, between getting up when he's tired or spending the day in his warm bed and losing his job. No matter which he does he always chooses what seems to hurt least or pleasures most. The average chump spends his life harried by these small decisions."
-Robert A. Heinlein, _Stranger In A Strange Land_
@@NexAngelus405 : You've never seen anybody give somebody else time and/or money out of a sense guilt?? What world do you live in? (I'd like to live there!!!)
When Toohey asks Roark what he thinks of him and Roark answers "but I don't think of you" this is the essence of what we should be thinking about those who berate and criticize us. We shouldn't give a damn!
I NEVER suspected Malice was that deep!! Impressed all to hell!
Good lord talk about switching subjects in a hurry. I was all happy to hear more about how a short term self interest decision might impact a long term mutually beneficial agreement between two individuals and i ended up getting a discussion on the multi faceted motivational function of the self. slow down fellas let me catch up!
Where is the full interview?
Malice’s analysis of Rand’s moral landscape regarding a Roarke based “selfishness” whereby a man pursues his own goals, contrasted with a man whose goals are contingent on those around him like the cloth coat vs fur coat example is a solid one; however, Rene Girard’s work on memetic theory throws cold water on Rand’s Roarke character. Girard sees all humans as variations of the former where all human desire and goal seeking is based on the desires of others but is unconscious and concealed from us. We subjectively believe that a particular object we desire is inherent in the object of our desire. Girard shows us and our culture clearly illustrates that what we desire is the result of that object being desirable to others. This foundational discovery is at the root of human violence, scapegoating, and religion itself. Roarke is a utopian vision that only exists in a platonic world. I wish this weren’t true.
Interesting commentary. I would agree with Rene that there is most certainly great influence on our desires based on that of others. However, I believe it goes deeper than that. We are selfish beings in such a way as to want to maximally ensure our own eternal survival. In other words: all that we do is done from a motivation to avoid the complete elimination of our existence and effects on the world - even after our "death." From that motivation, we are competitive; by absolute necessity. That competition drives us to generally evaluate the importance of things, possible actions (and people) in our world, and act accordingly. We compare, in order to learn. This avoidance of complete death is also the basis for religion, as it provides the perfect "answer." Which is a primary reason why religion seems fairly foolish to me; even if I have great respect for the logic behind much of the morality taught by religions. I also have respect for the power of belief in general - as it allows people to continue past what would be strictly logical from their own self motivated perspective.
This is interesting. I dunno if your argument defeats itself, but Rand's seems to, in some sense, as the objective and actual consequences of her work are not unsympathetic to Girard's ethos. Why do I say so? Because Rand has provided us, ultimately, with a role model in Roarke; and there's no doubt that this was a deliberate effort, not merely to externalize and monetize her own ideals, but to inspire (what some would call) "second hand individualists". Though, I'm pretty sure, she'd balk at that description, even what we do deliberately, we may only be semi-conscious of doing.
Of course, nobody is radically consistent; everyone can be subjected to these critiques: A life without compromise is an imaginary life. For me, at least, as far as egoism is concerned, Stirner sort of eclipses all the rest, in his pared-down, punk-rock authenticity; and, after reading him, even Nietzsche seems like a pedestrian "try hard". The former went to the heart of the problem and solved it; the latter was more identified with containing titanic oppositions, and, even in declaring "ecce homo!", he embraced flux; though he aimed to alchemize them, he clearly aligned with Dionysian thrall, rather than Apollonian sovereignty.
Then again, he was a shaman. I love him for being more than just an "Unfixed I", much as I prefer the holistic approach of Tantra to the "not this, not that" (or "AUM") of Advaita; Friedrich was like Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva, embracing the whole, while Max was like Brahma, alone; "the unworshipped", creative spark, sufficiently rooted in his own nature to be more or less indifferent to the fate of his creations, or the future of the world. Stirner had essentially one idea - which he seems to have thoroughly embodied in his way of being, more than he elaborated on in exposition. Stirner was like one man, Nietzsche was like a battleground of fragmented personalities, and had many great ideas; which he took a voluptuous thrill in allowing to devour him; as he thoroughly enjoyed seeing "himself", from above himself, rising in new forms, from the ashes of his most recent internal conflict.
Girard had only two ideas, as we know, and his works are intensely boring, once you grasp the basic outlines of mimesis and the scapegoat mechanism.
I don't see any conflict. Rand clearly portrayed 99% of humanity as pursuing one kind of (2nd hand) "selfishness" and 1% pursuing an integrity based selfishness (Roark). The difference between the two is psychological and therefore Rand offers a glimpse at salvation, however difficult, for both the individual and mankind in a larger sense. This is the entire purpose of her work.
"Malice's analysis" was your best pitch, and in-the-park homer, too. As in: the Most Interesting Man, saying -- "I don't often have a pudding, but when I do, I make sure it's a haggis." 🤣⭐
I feel that PART of the end sum of these arguments (discussions) is something like: We must have theoretical examples of uncompromising heroes in order to create something exact against which to measure ourselves. And we must have these uncompromising 'heros', also, because if humans are allowed to make excuses, we will. Any attempt to ONLY aim as high as imperfection, will result in complacency and less success than AIMING at 'perfection.' Yet we must break down this perfection into doable chunks and accept that we will nonetheless often fail... To circle back, I do think it very important to use examples of perfection as a bar for which to strive. Further, only extreme examples [of individuals] would serve to create belief in others; through the inspiration (and awe) they inspire. And as I mentioned in my previous comment, I think it is only belief (or perhaps fear [also a belief]) which can motivate us to extremes of achievement; since belief is the only thing which could motivate us past a purely logical level of effort/discomfort. In summation perhaps, is that consciousness in flawed beings will always have to 'indulge' in some level of insanity in order to embrace our own imperfections while continuing to strive.
"But on what grounds do you think that's inappropriate?"
i.e.,
"Please explain all of Objectivist ethics to me because I want to discuss Rand's philosophy without spending ten minutes reading Rand's non-fiction."
"The Conflicts of Men's Interests" is a must read for JP
@@jeffreyscott4997
All of The Virtue of Selfishness would have been an appropriate start to talk about Objectivist Ethics.
@@buybuydandavis You can immediately identify people who haven't given her the time of day because 99% of objections to her philosophy are addressed in the first paragraph.
Well it is very simple, Rand didn't just say "seek your own interests in any way you can doesn't thinking about them or about how ruthless you are", there is much more to her ethical philosophy, she herself defends, always that many virtues must be obeyed when seeking your self interests, such as honesty, integrity, and justice.
Here a quote of Rand herself:
"Individual rights is the only proper principle of human coexistence, because it rests on man’s nature, i.e., the nature and requirements of a conceptual consciousness. Man gains enormous values from dealing with other men; living in a human society is his proper way of life-but only on certain conditions. Man is not a lone wolf and he is not a social animal. He is a contractual animal. He has to plan his life long-range, make his own choices, and deal with other men by voluntary agreement (and he has to be able to rely on their observance of the agreements they entered)."
Rand, in the midst of the reality, is straddling the Roarke vs. Keating dualism. It is a form of good vs. evil I suppose. Roarke has always been a hero for me simply because I'm an idea person and I don't really care much for other people. Rand the author speaks through Roarke in the courtroom speech. "I am creative, I bring meaning and beauty to this world whilst others are absorbed in things, illusions and lies. I am truth."
That is Rand in all of her consistency born of a life of struggle. Malice studies these things I suppose, Jordan is a doctor. A man who has spent his life helping people by listening. He possesses a level of empathy and wisdom unequaled, he is however to me, a doctor and his work with patients more important than talking about philosophy.
Where can I get the full thing? Also, love how Peterson is open to learn about Rand ideas.
On JP's channel.
On what grounds ????? My coffee tastes like mud. It was only GROUND this morning. HA !!!!!!! Please continue Gentlemen.
There are basic dual self interest examples even in nature. I am unsure why it is a hard concept to grasp that self interest on the part of one party doesn’t mean to the exclusion of the self interest to the other party. If they are attempting to pursue that self interest to their own needs it doesn’t necessarily mean it is harmful to the other person achieving their self interest and needs. If it is, no one is MAKING them enter into the agreement. Either or both parties can choose not to enter the agreement and seek someone else whose self interests align more with their own. If not, then there maybe needs to be an adjustment to expectations or realistic goals in pursuit of said self interest.
Just my initial thoughts on these things is: Selfish desire and self interest are not the same thing and are often in opposition to one another. My selfish desire is to eat an entire box of cookies right now. My self interest is to not be fat. Therefore, I must not eat the cookies. Self interest is a long term ideal and moral code. Selfish desire is taking exactly what you want in any given moment with no thought of consequences.
I'd go further and say "Selfish desire" is redundant. "Desire" is enough.
Social climbing is absolutely the result of a personal value, regardless of whether a given person is aware of that value. It comes from a desire for relational safety- a core need for all humans. Social climbing tends to be a dysfunctional way of pursuing relational safety but it's still a real human striving for a real human need. It proves that a real living breathing human is there, just perhaps not living at a high level of self awareness. Saying that it is possible for a given human to value social climbing only because they picked it up from others without any other human motivation behind it is bizarre and incorrect. Even the effort it takes to copy someone else's values wouldn't be expended without a personal motivation behind it.
It's a great discussion, but it was taken to a level too far above the simplistic argument that Ayn Rand was saying. Mike Malice at times had Peterson sounding like a rambling fool who didn't expect such a level of pushback with simple points. I like them both, but Malice is direct in his response to the rambling of Peterson, who appears to be more confused than those trying to understand the topic to begin with.
To jordan’s question at 4:09: fear
Love that anslysis of the two rypes of selfishness as written in fountainhesd..
I think Alan Watts put it best - a truly selfish person wants to please himself. Therefore, to be efficient, he or she would want to find out who they are, who the SELF is.
I do so Love a good _"IRON MANNING"_ of a complex position 🥰
Rand and peterson are the two intellectuals I have actually felt a connection to on a fundamental and ethical level. Not in a parasocial sense.
The approach to morality seems to be to me to require continual mental evaluation where as in the real world moral decisions are made in the spur of the moment when for example we witness an accident have have to decide whether to drive on or stop, or as happened recently in Australia, a madman goes on a stabbing spree, do you run or do to take him down. Not time to reason, what happens is that the values and virtues that you have practiced all your life come to the fore at just such times.
The moral scenario that you mention, run or stop it (try) has be vanquished when the Law now charges you for interceding with a crime in progress. Though this is not a new Law, as it began decades ago when Doctors would stop and render aid to victims of a car accident and then be sued by those they helped medically via their Hippocratic Oath and self applied moral. This is one reason why most people just walk by crimes being conducted. It's now offensive to have and use a moral.
Ayn Rand understood money and capitalism but not anything else like values. Prostitution and fentanyl distribution is good capitalism, but contains negative values.
So what is the foundation of one type of selfishness being "good" and the other being "bad"?
Malice argued that the "bad selfishness" didn't exist because the motivations did not come from the self of the individual pursuing goals, rather it came from society.
@@charlesjohnson1123and how did society come to the conclusion of what was good and what was bad selfishness?
@@paulsacramento5995 That wasn't part of the discussion, Peterson was asking the difference of two characters. One he deemed noble in his pursuit of his self interest, the other not. The other character was in pursuit of social status and thus it wasn't self Interest he persued, but societies interests.
There are two measures:
1. What does each type of selfishness produce.
2. What means/methods are employed in the two selfish pursuits.
Rourke's selflessness is him doing for him and not worrying whether society can use or like it. The other selflessness is the deception of getting society to hate the former, as to allow rise in status as society's protected. A comedic example would be Dom DeLuise role in The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas.
Best film interpretation of " The Fountain Head" is "The Natural" with Robert Redford. Self- loathers striving for relevance by diminishing something true and virtuous.
Except in the end of the book, Roy Hobbs lost everything.
@@cameltanker1286 Don't know the book. Just comparing the movie to the Fountainhead. Roy does just fine
@@cameltanker1286 How so? Hobbs ended up with exactly what he left behind in pursuit of what he wanted. Success in the game he loved and wanted to use to secure his life with the woman he loved, the son he didn't know he fathered.
This is the oldest debate.....what are ethics and where do they come from? Those of us who are God centered would claim they come from God. Secular humanists would say men decide what is ethical. It is a debate that will continue long after those of us having it now have died.
The virtues of Ayn Rand's moral code could be summarized as rationality, honesty, integrity, productivity, independence, pride and justice.
Don't forget adultery. That was an important part of her moral code.
Ah, but she didn't end up independent, and was maybe unfulfilled as well.
What is the basis of these virtues? What makes them virtues?
@@brizziefritz4794 And now we find the path to madness and Nielism. Virtues have the clue in the name. If you take the princeple they work for you and others in the real world. That leads to success and up you go. If you say they are made up and dont exsist down you go. Now Rand and others say some Virtues are more important and also ignore others but they do exsits. As for "what" its the end result of following them that is the information you need. You can also say what happens if i go against the virtue to see what happens. Why did i say this the path to madness and Nielism? only 15% of pepeol can do the mental work to exasmin them and not not find it annoying or unpleasnet. The 85% who lose there virtues suffer and can even go mad.
@brizziefritz4794 your question means you have not educated yourself about the subject of virtues.
How many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
Seems like there is an attempt to defend Keating and Toohey on the basis that they are not being petty where both of them are guilty of even theft of other people's ideas or work in the book. I think once you have been indoctrinated to hate Rand, it is a long climb out. Fortunately, I never received nor allowed myself to be persuaded that Rand's selfishness was reprehensible or appalling because I watched and read enough of her to not dismiss it the way so many liberals try to today.
let's say our good guy is Howard Hues airplane manufacturer,
he is totally engrossed in airplane manufacturing, then when he is industry level and successful he wants to move in to other ideas that are helpful to humanity BUT some of these ideas displace established business monopolies, so they get the government and regulators to go after Hayward, because that have no I ternal guide,they are order followers, now that Howard has found out first hand about the new world order, he retreats from the world before total destruction by those forces. and the news papers propaganda tells everyone he is crazy. 😊
Or our current hero of the same stripe Elon Musk.
No, thanks for offering.
Will enjoy the short time i have.
Halfway through the interview Peterson asks how does Rand ground her critique of the one-dimensional characters in her novels? He never gets an answer!
The person that self-ish (let’s call them internally self-directed), and has integrity (defined as operating the way something is designed to operate) are incoherent statements!
I’m an atheist and
Therefore have no ultimate meaning or purpose (pick Camus, Sartre, your favorite atheist philosopher du jure)
I will invent a purpose out of thin air😮
And I will live with integrity to the idea of fulfilling that invented meaningfulness …😅
House of cards built on subjective meaning (created by the subject)! So the grounding question is an important one!
We can get objective moral values and duties without some sort of objective standard. Rand pulls this standard out of the air and just asserts it.
“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” Richard Dawkins
The difference between Dawkins and Rand is that Dawkins recognizes the consequences of an atheistic worldview and Rand does not.
Rand actually gives us moral SUBJECTIVISM as the atheistic universe is just a random collection of molecules that is mindless and purposeless!😮
She sees inside herself some sort of moral standard that has been explained for 1000s of years as an attribute of having a human soul, as the imago dei.
On atheism it seems we cannot possibly give an account of any such thing as a soul!😮
Rand’s borrowing our soulish knowledge accounted for historically by soulishness and destroying the foundation of the origin of the soul at the same time.
Incoherent!
Next topic please …moral objectivism is like talking about the origin, intellectual and emotional development of married bachelors 😮
I think she may have been reffering to objective morals in terms of a concensus of subjective moral opinion rather than actual existing moral principles built into existence.
For example if everyone agrees that murder is wrong, that unanimous agreement becomes indistinguishable from moral fact. This (I think) is what she means by having objective morals without an objective moral standard. There is no standard because the universe is indifferent to morality, however mass subjectivity can produce something functionally the exact same.
I can't even listen to Peterson, anymore, he's so in love with the sound of his own voice. As someone who is perfectly capable of thinking, and articulating my ideas, in abstruse forms, - I can tell when the exposition is needlessly complicated and wordy. It's such a drag, when the substance under discussion is meat enough! The real conversation is deep; but he indulges in these digressions, chopping up a word-salad, as if he means to be specific (or high resolution), when all it does is appear to insult his listener, who has grasped the idea, or can easily do so, in the simplest terms, and wants to pursue the main discussion. Was he infected by the bite of that arch-pedant, Michael Eric Dyson?
Then don't listen to him. LOL!😂
*_Does the Truth derive from Authority or_*
*_Does Authority derive from the Truth?_*
To Libertarian NT Rationalists, integrity is among the highest of all values.... and once lost is not easily recovered. Integrity here means _internal consistency._
*Does a Conscientious person care more for the Truth over protecting people's feelings... or does a Conscientious person car more about protecting people's feelings?*
The survival of all Civilization depends upon how you answer this question. Only NT Rationalists seem to value the Truth over Social Acceptance... and we are frequently ostracized for it!! Given that only one person in twenty... maybe one in ten... are NT Rationalists and that the other nineteen out of twenty people absolutely value social acceptance above _integrity,_ this goes a long way to explain the social condition. Why are there so few NT Rationalists? Because we would rather _burn at the stake_ than forfeit our *integrity!* Everyone else simply prefers to live.
You give her importance to still be discussing her position -better mr paine’s views thus mr jefferson’s
To understand Rand, read her short story Anthem. This story is in the same genre as 1984, and she does a good job throughout, until the end. The ending displays her fundamental flaw. A flaw that permeates all of her writing and philosophy.
What's the flaw? Save me the time reading Anthem. Her writing is too dry for me. I've only been able to get through Fountainhead
No single Philosophy contains no flaws, which is right Kantian or Unitarianism? We can learn from all and the more of them we know the better we can understand an issue. Each gives us a different lens to gain a different perspective of a situation.
And the flaw is......
The main issue with Ayn Rand's moral code is that it's based in her trademark objectivism, but largely ignores one key component of objective reality: not everyone can "succeed" by her standards of success because it's impossible for everyone to be at the top by definition. In order for Dagny and Hank's businesses to succeed over time...people need to go out in the world and do practical things like have children and raise families. Rand's characters tend to exist in these idealized states where they have nearly unlimited resources, can go all in on career, don't have kids, aren't married etc. etc. If Dagny needs to get somewhere quickly...she can basically just charter a private train to get her across the country overnight. That's not a realistic option for someone who's at a level where they can barely afford food and shelter.
Sure, all of us could aim higher and be more...that would likely result in a much better world in short order...fair enough. I ADMIRE Dagny and Hank in Atlas Shrugged. They're objectively good people in most of the ways that matter.
But what happens when you have a country filled with super geniuses who are all willing to work 100 hours a week and live for their vocations? Someone is still going to have to sweep floors and clean windows. We still need people to stock grocery shelves.
You should do your job in good faith to the absolute best of your ability because you made a contract with someone else to do it in exchange for payment. You should try to improve yourself over time to be able to do a wider range of things well. Not only is it good for you psychologically, but it will open avenues to be compensated for your finite time at a high rate. But there also needs to be a societal game plan for the legions of people we need to do the nuts and bolts operations of keeping things running. A game plan that allows those individuals not to be fabulously wealth, but to have enough resources to have the basics of a nice existence covered and maybe keep the boot off their necks financially for the most part. They dynamic shouldn't be "owns a Fortune 500 company" or "enjoy your suffering...work starts at 9AM sharp". There needs to be healthy room in the middle for competent qualified people who want their job to be an important part of their life...but not their WHOLE life.
I shouldn't be compensated like a CEO for being an entry level file clerk...people should be allowed to enjoy the rewards of their extreme hard work if they decide to live that way. But I also shouldn't have to spend my life half starved because I don't have 6 Master's degrees and don't want to spend 110 hours a week in the office for $30k a year.
I agree with Rand for the most part, but she doesn't do a fantastic job of outlining what the other 99% of humanity is supposed to do. I would also give her credit for having the guts to just directly make a case for exactly what she means...so at least you can discuss it and have a conversation. Most philosophy is so many metaphors buried in metaphors buried in other metaphors that it's kind of difficult to ever truly say what the author actually meant. At least Rand just spells her world view out in black and white.
> not everyone can "succeed" by her standards of success because it's impossible for everyone to be at the top by definition.
Is her standard of success really "to be at the top"?
Can you quote her on saying this?
Quite selfishly, I say: Sign me up for a society so laden with super-geniuses that I'm a glass cleaner (if even that)!
I appreciate the comment and it reminds me of the scene where Gail marvels at Roark's ability to be at rest when lounging on the yacht. Adaptability. Wherever you go there you are.
I refer you to what Christopher Hitchens said of Ayn Rand's philosophy, which has her promoting the idea that Americans are not selfish enough. Somewhere in my fat blackhole head a Hawking radiation escapes and quotes Hitchens saying, "Some things do not need reinforcement."
Correct, Americans are not selfish enough. By selfish rand meant self ownership, more precisely inalienable self ownership. Which means absolute control and autonomy of one's mind, body and life, without illegitimate interference. Americans is desperately in need of more such selfishness.
@DanMccollum-om5mz She meant so for a selected group as far as I can remember. Which as to say, only few are capable of it, and the rest of us are just the (non- heard and inconsequential ) herd. Guys like Greenspan were achelites, which is unique since fiat creation is a simple trick....some would say con, that is, if not at least in large part spent to benefit the General Welfare.
@user-lr2ib1cv4d inalienable self ownership by logic and definition cannot be only for a select group. If it exists it must be applicable to all human beings, otherwise it does not exist. Rand was obviously fully aware of this fact. Greenspan is completely irrelevant to my argument.
@DanMccollum-om5mz No he's not. And, you should know that
@@DanMccollum-om5mz Americans are the most selfish people on earth. Maybe they should be aware that there are other people and countries.
strange way to end a video.
Whole lot of nothing...
However, anyone reaching the conclusion after reading Ayn Rand (thrice in Peterson's case) that she wrote romantic books with some intellect demonstrates a limited capacity to think _deep_ and hence, comprehend.
She explicitly states that these were philosophical texts linked to real world scenarios, hence the construction of the plots of those novels.
There are so many instances where she clearly explains the terms she uses and what they mean and yet, Peterson misses them.
This is a generally a problem with people who believe they are important and can rearrange the world as they see fit. Faithers mostly, i.e. those of the religious persuasion, and mediocres (those of the servant/slave mentality) have this problem and they continuously try to discredit Rand through devious means and limited arguments.
Free market means individualism; NO ONE is thinking and acting for someone else or more accurately, each individual is working for his own self interest but never explicitly, knowingly, at someone else's expense.
It's good to see someone who explains Rand so clearly but Peterson still can't get it...
LOL, pot calling the kettle black.
Ugh.
It's painful to watch Peterson blab on and on about a philosophy he knows *nothing* about while Malice has to correct him time and again. It's like watching a college sophomore decide he's going to champion his Ideals at 3 in the morning against one of his professors.
He seems entirely philosophically ignorant of not just Rand's Objectivism but of all Egoist literature.
Malice should introduce Peterson to Stirner. That'll blow a few gaskets.
Jordan, if he was truly knowledgeable about Rand, should have focused of her application of her ethos to her own life. An effing disaster.
Hahaha ...so true!
That's an oversimplification at best.
JP can't talk without fluttering his fingertips together. It's a physical reveal of his mental flailing.
Mental master bastion in its purest format. Lol
*Ayn Rand was all about the freedom to be a natural human following the 'core desires' of the individual's Soul. She went further to suggest that the collective powers would eventually 'attack' individuals focusing on freedom of thought and the free Life.* the point Jordan is skirting around is 'exposing' the limitation/contradiction, in that, even though it can seem like it is 'self-serving' and an individual choice to join the 'collective', you are still positioned as 'part of the collective', and further, freedom and individualism can exist within a strict collective so long as the personal 'desires' are fulfilled. So logically the whole premise in a philosophical sense is tenuous, because you can achieve 'individual fulfillment' within a 'non individual context'. (who needs slavery if you can get people to only 'think' and not FEEL!?)
Michael Malice has way too high expectations of normal human beings.
Oh whoops......you mean Ayn Rand's.... lack of a moral code.
Jordan is contradicting himself. Toohey & Keating are not the big lobsters. They agree with others against their own instinct in order to gain social status. Howard is a lobster who stands out by virtue of his ideas and sticking to them aka Zarathustra.
Malice is too snitty and defensive of his ideological views he can’t answer Peterson’s intellectual queries in an intellectual fashion.
The underlying principle of both Objectivism and libertarianism is inalienable self ownership. The rest of the discussion is mostly irrelevant psycho analysis mumbo jumbo.
It hurts too much , there is something wrong
Peterson's mannerisms and tone are those of an authority figure on the subject who is confidently instructing Malice on the proper way to think about Rand's work, but the actual content of Peterson's statements are closer to those of a student presenting his half-baked ideas to a more knowledgeable professor to see what he thinks about them. It's kind of irritating.
Is that not a good thing though? I mean students and proffessors can have productive nuanced conversations *because* they have different interpretations of the work. It might be irritating but I think its a sign that Peterson is willing to be corrected and Malice is willing to hear his ideas out.
@@gavinferguson2938 A student using that tone of voice and mannerisms while talking to a professor is not a good thing. He's acting like the authority figure while asking questions like a student. The conversation here is actually not very nuanced or productive partly because Peterson can't stop performing the role of a professor lecturing his class when in reality he's talking to someone that knows more about the topic than he does. Just because Peterson is very verbose and full of digressions in his speech, that does not mean that the conversation is actually nuanced or productive. What really matters is the depth of the clash of ideas between the two people in a conversation, and what's happening here in that regard is very superficial and basic. Malice is able to give short rebuttals to Peterson's lengthy criticisms because the criticisms aren't that deep or well-founded.
@@sensereference2227 Aight good point your right.
Jordan enjoys having conversations with himself. His verbosity is tiresome and apparent difficulty or refusal to get to the damn point is borderline silly.
Jordan Peterson has no conception of what reason is. One cannot discuss ethics without knowing what is a value, why someone needs a code of values and how one rationally discover values that are good for him. Someone needs to bring Petterson to metaphysics and epistemology level.
Yo, wait up. These are characters, in books, made up by an author, merely to promote the author's personal ethic or promotional relation to, basically, her publisher. Maybe she wishes she was "god" -- she ain't. Fiction authors are really only trying their hand at death dealing -- when is this character disposable? Yo. We're all disposable, when death is the arbiter. Death doesn't have a moral code, or any real integrity, or, ultimately, any meaning. Meaning means: dependable. Death's not dependable. Death's only a suffix. An affix at the end of a Camus, or some brave old world. What's next is dependable. The continuum. The seed dying to bear much fruit. Attn faux farmers! The Seed is Living amongst you! 🕊
Jordan is now talking in an almost manic manner. It is turning me off even though I generally greatly agree with him
Jordan is losing his edge. He needs to slow down and listen.
Malice is humoring Jordan. Tolerating him like the 2 year old Peterson keeps bringing up for no reason other than to keep reminding Malice that he’s a licensed psychologist.
why does JP engage authoritatively on subjects or things he doesn't understand or are clearly beyond his knowledge ? funny thing is his fans think this is a virtue or something
Jordan is a mess
Jordan is so boring, gosh...
Peterson is kind of a twitcy dude
Too many words - that about sums up Jordan. He seems to go out of his way to appear complex but he only achieves incoherence. Most people want to say they know what the hell he's talking about so they can appear intelligent. And I do know what he's trying to say but he is NOT clear and therefore fails the very basic goal of communication - and that is the transmission of an idea. (His hand gestures notwithstanding) I realize Rand was rather verbose, too. Duh.
Yup
Yep.
Free will doesn't exist, so peterson, rand all such people's ideas are a moot point.
Yes, it does. It is a self-evident fact available through the act of introspection. It is one of those pesky things that in order to deny it you must first use it. So I am happy there are two people who believe in Free Will.
STOP INTERRUPTING!