Egoism in Nietzsche and Rand: Part One
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 มิ.ย. 2024
- **** See time stamps below for easier browsing ****
Stephen Hicks reads his article "Egoism in Nietzsche and Rand" from The Journal of Ayn Rand Studes vol. 10, no. 2 (Spring 2009), pp. 249-91. See Part 2 here: • Egoism in Nietzsche an...
Table of Contents
00:00 Egoism in Nietzsche and Rand: Part One
00:19 Part One: On Critiquing Altruism
00:25 Three Nietzsches and Ayn Rand
06:59 Some Intellectuals on Nietzsche and Rand
14:15 Egoism, altruism, and “selfishness”
19:57 A Nietzschean sketch/God is dead
22:30 Nihilism’s symptoms
26:13 Two bio-psychological types
28:40 Psychology and morality
31:17 Genealogy
42:22 Comparing Nietzsche’s and Rand’s critiques of altruism
57:22 Rand’s break with Nietzsche’s critique
Other links:
Website: www.stephenhicks.org/
Facebook: / srchicks
Twitter: / srchicks
Instagram: / stephenhicksphilosophy
![ตัวอย่างภาพยนตร์ Venom: The Last Dance [Official - Sub Thai]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DHPjvAwmnRE/mqdefault.jpg)
I love this lecture and I'm thankful it was on my suggestions feed.
Getting that feed right is a task
Yes, i feel the same.
Lol
And me as well basically dude and I for one appreciate a simple expression of gratitude from a decent and appreciative listener such as yourself . Far too many people here actually think they're a better authority on Nietzsche when they're simply nothing and nobody compared to professor Hicks and his vast and eminent career in philosophy . I'm not trying to say that anybody that's not a professor of philosophy can have a go at criticizing Hicks, but boy oh boy talk about some of the false egos and nonsense involved in some of these so called criticisms when some of them at best have merely split hairs with Hicks over small points to the general flow of Hicks overall discourse of this post.
if you want to hear the word quote unquote every minute three times a minute. You'll love this...
Since it's audio instead of visual the quote/unquote is necessary. Plus most of it is in the first few mins...
🤣🤣🤣
Has to be done to prevent plagiarism.
Stephen Hicks... thank you for making this video! The altruistic world is a lonely and hostile place for an egoist. It is beyond refreshing to hear a scholar actually speak fairly about egoism/objectivism. I cannot imagine how you clawed yourself through a higher education. I am the only one I know personally that hold to objectivist values and it is difficult not to erode in the face of the ocean of opposition and name calling I face on pretty much a daily basis defense of my values. Thank you. Videos like this are the only form of validation I get. Please keep them coming!
Pfft, objectivism is a spook.
RaunienTheFirst - Not an argument. If you want to make a sustainable case, you need to state your premises and show their relation to your conclusion. But if you go so far as to do that, then you concede the Objectivist position in toto. Thanks for playing.
@@RaunienTheFirst The spook that is haunting modern culture. Paul Krugman occasionally babbles about Rand.
Objectivists are engaged in an age old ruse. ..justifying being an animal in a world of humans. Validation? You are intellectual children wrapping the most base primitive parts of mankind in the ultimate, empty, short sighted, stupid world view of all time. You get disrespect because you are all an enormous flaccid freaking joke. The woman talked in circles & tautologies. The animal made horrifying comments about First Nation Peoples. ..and on and on. You guys are filth. Face it. Own it. She did. ..while weak from endless lack of discipline, on the only thing that cared enough to save her... Charity. ..daft bloody dolts mistaking evil for a weltanschaung is what you are.
Can some one tell if this is a book or it's compiled from extracts. I'd be obliged so I can purchase a copy. Thanks
It's an audio version of a text article published in the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies in 2009.
I enjoyed this approach to considering philosophical ideas.
Here’s a simple and useful critique of altruism: psychologists have found that altruism is one of the defining traits of people with high level psychological health, people who are happiest and most effective at what they do. It’s easy to understand why: being altruistic brings out the healthiest behaviour from others, and thus the altruistic person creates an environment around then which is conducive to their own happiness. #psychology #science
How could you prove how happy someone is?
Often psychologists use "altruism" to mean something closer to "benevolence," unlike the philosophical use of "altruism" as self-less other-ism.
1. Introduction to Human Behavioral Biology
9,253,314 viewsFeb 1, 2011
(March 29, 2010) Stanford professor Robert Sapolsky gave the opening lecture of the course entitled Human Behavioral Biology and explains the basic premise of the course and how he aims to avoid categorical thinking.
The first two lectures should be enough...( direct links are being blocked by YT )
Conversely, egoism is a trauma response
Am digging these audiobooks you produce. Makes me look forward to my commutes.
So you're the jerk tailgating me in the black pick-up...dangerous thoughts while behind the wheel methinks.
Deserve a pat on the back for keeping thoughts to myself.
Very interesting thank you mate.
Excellent lecture! Thank you for posting. Anyone with an open heart could understand this presentation. Wonderful!
His guy who’s the narrator is brainwashed weakling
Look how weak the world is today why? Because of the sheep
It wasn’t a lecture.
@@liligloo And so why is a man quoting Nietzsche a sheep?
@@godworden2768 nietzche was en edgy little shit and rand is beyond cringey as well
This video gave me a quote overload...
You could say it put me in a quoma... 🤓
Lol ha ha
The expression, "this is /sounds Greek to me... ", is thus applicable to you . This is a scholarly essay. I can assure you that reading Hegel in Hochdeutch is challenging for a German speaking person, so one has to invest the time. The same goes for golf.
@@dirkvanschalkwyk1919 Me..? How is reading quotation marks out loud relate to what you said..? 🤔🙄
@@movement2contact Let's just leave it there.
@@dirkvanschalkwyk1919 Did you injure your head falling from some high horse or smth..? 🤔🙄
It is time for more people who have a creative mind, to learn about the writings of "AYN RAND", What you will learn is how to make up your mind and start working on the direction you plan to head into.
Amazing lecture Stephen!
Fantastic. And everything to do with what's going on right now . Today!
Such as?
Patterns are perceived by the higher men of any age.
Mass Psychosis is a theme here?
"They who live on high mountains laugh at all tragedies, whether real or imagined". Introduction to part four of Zarathustra. It's true. I live on top of a mountain and have almost split my windpipe with laughing. Captain H healing, Noel
No Christed being laughs at such
@@mmccrownus2406 There has only ever been one Christian, and his name was jesus christ
@@mmccrownus2406 what incredible synchronicity, I've just made a video putting forward count Saint Germain of the violet flame to be the possible author of "Shakespeare's" plays. Amazing. Noel
I know what you mean and I believe, without doing the quote thing Nietzsche said that very thing.
As a matter of fact, one must be able to absorbs life's tragedies with equal measure of pain and joy. I find myself laughing when reading the abundance of irony presented in Nietzsche.
I believe it is what separated him from Schopenhauer.
@@e1ay3dme12 Gurdjieff and Ouspensky help me cope with life's tragedies. Superlatively . Cheers, Noel
Good job well done.
What book is this? What is the title abs name of the book
🙄👆
@@hegemonycricket2182 what do you mean
He is reading from an article he wrote, and all that information is on the screen right up there 👆...he also says the title and details at the beginning of the video.
@@belovedstrummer6140 I simply meant
look up...
spooky 'egoism'
Absolutely brilliant disquisition!! Crisp, thorough, honest.
With so many online fools, it is refreshing to see coherent thought.
They both have brilliant moments…
And so do you…
Rand is another who when she strikes a sacred cow it.is with such a resounding bull's-eye that it resounds with a deafening bell.
Her appeal is largely based on this and draws on these outstanding moments but her elevation of the "business man" with a blind assumption of near apotheosis with some endless monopoly on all that is rational brings out Miss Rand's termination with reality.
@@Sausahgagutz wait what you said a lot but didn’t say nothing 🧐😂😂
21:00 As far as Religion as giving comfort to the faithful, it also condems the conscience of the unbeliever, thus the neverdending conflict
A social institutional view. Nietzsche inspires an esoteric individual quest for Truth.
They tell each other they are comforted, Butt, they bawl at funerals, pass seatbelt laws, fear everything, rely daily on fentanyl, heroin, Xanax, Valium, Vicodin, alcohol, cigarettes…. And there’s no atheists in foxholes: it’s always the religious going to war afraid of sex , afraid of colds, afraid of flu, afraid of music, afraid of dancing…. Banning of books, banning tweets, banning Instagram and Facebook posts…. They don’t look comforted, is all I’m saying. They are still hoarding and tryin got bring to go the next world like King Tut
@@peterwelsh1932 pssst...a little research....atheism has killed millions....the Age of Enlightenment which science replaced religion launched the brutality of Colonialism....
Deep bro
@@timnray99 Colonialism. When the Puritans came over? Or when the Jesuits came over? Killed and enslaved the natives. The Enlightenment: that's when the Holy Wars (The Crusades) and Spanish Inquisition ended 😹 right? You couldn't have picked a worse example. Butt please explain yourself, it's hilarious already
I am a simple man, I see Stephen Hicks - I click like.
I like your style so I click like to your comment.
Great info. Thanks
Thank you for the teaching
Rand, stated publicly that she was nothing like Nietzsche.
I know, but she was wrong, her explanations are hugely unconvincing.
She said he was until-reason!! That woman was nuts. Nietzsche was and is a giant compared to her, in fact they shouldn't be compared at all... but she kept denying she got her ideas or sense from him. but the Fountainhead and other novels of hers have all characters as Nietzschean-lite. She was a lightweight intellectually and her writing are thus discarded after one understands them. She didn't LIKE Nietzsche, but that is no reason for denying him. He is and will be relevant for centuries or millennia if humanity is still here.
Booth of you are woefully wrong. Rand would not exist without Nietzsche's genealogy of morals. Rand's morality is much more developed than Nietzsche's---although in a different direction. Roark is his own thing. If you read the Fountainhead then you should know that Gail Wynand was the Niezschean hero. It is painfully explicit.
Personally, I think Rand went wrong only where she saw the family and children as irrelevant. If morality ends in the individual---then it ends. Today we have birth control. Global declining birth rates are a consequence of Rand not taking Nietzsche's emphasis on children seriously. Rand's philosophy is under the surface of the world's belief that the individual is end of values---which has been manifested all over the world as a form of suicidal hedonism.
The Greeks/Romans could ignore the issue of "be fruitful and multiply" because childbirth was mostly forced on them (with the exception of Silphium and pessuaries). Individualism doesn't stand up in modernity because it doesn't put enough emphasis on the family.
@@karlnord1429
Nope.... I think you are wrong, just not "woefully" wrong...LOL
But I do agree with a lot of the "smaller" points you mentioned, Rand did owe most of there ideas and thinking to Nietzsche, though I disagree that she "developed" anything better or took it further than him, AT ALL.
She used it mostly in practice as support to capitalism, which puts more emphasis than the rest on individualism, that was ONE of her main points. The Fountainhead is logic eating its own tail.
@@ggrthemostgodless8713 You clearly didn't read Rand or listen to this audio recording. Or else you're pathologically dishonest with yourself about the significant differences between someone advocating for (essentially) no predatory relationships, many predatory relationships.
@@karlnord1429
Ok... so I triggered you. Peace friend. I'm not here to do this sort of "pathological" defensive arguing.
I gave my views, and I have read both these writers. You clearly think you're the final word on these topics so all power to you... all "will to power" to you. LOL
I still think Nietzsche is the original thinker here, and much better. But to each his own.
I doet een know WHY we we are comparing these two "thinkers", they're really not even in the same league.
Good luck,
This is incredibly relevant even more so today in 2021. People need to understand these differences.
Hmmm….are you some kind of Trump libertarian?
@@StopFear 🤣
For the betterment of human kind
Isn’t this part of another book?
Fantastic work. I will always believe Ayn Rand and objectivism in its self are the most misrepresented, topics within the political and intellectual sphere
Objectivists are engaged in an age old ruse. ..justifying being an animal in a world of humans. Validation? You are intellectual children wrapping the most base primitive parts of mankind in the ultimate, empty, short sighted, stupid world view of all time. You get disrespect because you are all an enormous flaccid freaking joke. The woman talked in circles & tautologies. The animal made horrifying comments about First Nation Peoples. ..and on and on. You guys are filth. Face it. Own it. She did. ..while weak from endless lack of discipline, on the only thing that cared enough to save her... Charity. ..daft bloody dolts mistaking evil for a weltanschaung is what you are.
she is the most delusional writer i have read with Nietzsche as a close second
@@colorpg152 thank you for adding weight to my point
@@lalayon08 how does that add any weight to your point there is nothing misrepresented about them?
@@colorpg152you just don't get it.
Thank you professor Hicks , a penetrating , perceptive , honest , and brilliant analysis of two of my supreme favorite philosophers .
He doesn't understand Nietzsche.
Excuse me mate, but who the hell are you as there's no name of any sort attached to your reply here and when I click on the little colored initial tag accompanying your reply the ridiculous thing just says each time that an error has occurred and retry which it won't let me do either, hhhmmmfff seems like bullshit to me, but hey who am I to say when I don't know for sure. So therefore I'm going to call you Mr Error which ties in nicely with the simple fact about Nietzsche that there is simply no right or wrong way to " understand him " in any overarching and comprehensive general way. Nietzsche is not a philosopher that anyone else can extrapolate a complete understanding that is either right or wrong. If you think that professor Hicks has gotten something wrong about Old Fritz then you need to be more specific about what that is and why you think that is the case. One point I have to make is I can barely remember the videos content in this post as it's so long ago I posted this previous comment here, at least a year ago now , but I'll tell you what Error , I'm going to watch it again now and see what I pick up on and notice veiwing it for the second time . Because to be honest as much as I love Nietzsche's life works , the bottom line for me is I don't really give much of a fuck if I can see someone has mangled something about him yet again . Compared to someone trying to tell me Hicks has something wrong about Ayn Rand and I myself agree Hicks has something wrong about her . But exactly how I would view his error would depend on whether his error with her casts a bad light on her or Hicks himself.
“and” Rand? Do you mean Ayn Rand?
Seriously? Parallelism is appropriately used. " in Nietzsche and Rand", neither first name is used.
🤦♂️ffs
@@albertfinney1328 what is going on with these comments? Holy crap there's alot of idiots here.
Did you miss a “Quote”
Thank you Utube.
"without energy man is a piece of dead meat". G. I. Gurdjieff. Life is only real, then, when I am
This guy is brainwashed who’s narrating
@@liligloo it's sooooo bad it's good. As freddy himself would say, beyond good and evil...... Full quote.... "here I sit, waiting and waiting, but for nothing, beyond good and evil, a friend of the day, and a lover of eternity". Nietzsche, Dionysian Dithyrambs. Not bad, is it?! Noel
@@liligloo How so?
@@liligloo I mean narrating doesn’t say much about the narrator as they are not his words.
@@godworden2768 "selected words" ... next?
A very clear exposition of the two primary points of view that have shaped everything in the social world i.e. the BATTLE to maintain one's SELF
Scott: So you are saying this is a well conceived "Sociology Essay"? Not a mash of anti communist fiction VS. an Expo of Will to Power? Then there is that nasty separate SELF, not just Greater Good? Is it still cool to have a WHITE SELF? Is Poetic Person a "primary point of view"? What is a Visionary?
@@jandeenphoto What are you talking about and what is a White self?
@@jandeenphoto This wasn’t an essay and A poetic person isn’t a point of view it’s a state of being.
@@jandeenphoto Are you crazy? It’s your comment that I’m replying to
@@jandeenphoto Why don’t you look back a comment or two and read what you wrote.
Chad Nietzsche vs Virgin Rand
Nietzsche: You are dead. Dead. All is dead. So dead.
Rand: It's all about me, me, me.
Nietzsche - be your own superman or you'll simply get used by someone who is and the existential void cares not about your fear and trembling in the face of death.
Rand - you are an individual go forth and be free to prosper amongst a cruel and bitter mob gang that will hate you if they cannot simply help themselves to your life.
Bird Brain Banks - I'm another bird brained idiot in this posts comment section that wastes my own time watching videos I'm not interested in.
“I have studied many philosophers and many cats. The wisdom of cats is infinitely superior.”
― Hippolyte Taine
"What sort of philosophers are we, who know absolutely nothing of the origin and destiny of cats?”
― Henry David Thoreau
@@juliuscaesar8163 - I love turtles.
Aww
Fun fact: Rand refused to clean her male cats piss stains so they could mark their territory unimpeded!
@@quidnick - lol. Actually, that's pretty thoughtful.
Jesus H. Christ, I'll be out for a week after this one. Quote, unquote.
"blessed are the sleepy, for soon they will nod off". Zarathustra, Book three. Zzzzzzzz😴
I made it about 3:00 minutes in, I could not handle it. Came to the comments to see how many others were experiencing the same.
@@Beckaj5446 Nietzsche's just phoned me and he told me he's turning in his grave
I slept through it all !!
@@Wally-pu2hh brilliant. Good man
Thank you
I just love that philosophers keep trying to bring reasoning into chaos. It feels like they are forcing a number of infinity to equal 1 anther infinity to equal another 1 and then forcing them into an equation that says 1 + 1 = 5. Maybe it's just luck that one state does well and another suffers. Maybe it isn't the strong who make it to the top but the weak who use the strong to control the stronger.
Both had some valid points. Often misused and misrepresented by immoral and evil persons.
lol
???
Jack, your comment is the best so far.
@@jandeenphoto Thanks!😃 I was referring to 'people' like Hitler who did the same thing with Darwins ideas. He took the idea and twisted it around. In the case of Darwin he took the idea of natural selection (which Darwin said merely occurred in nature) and applied it to the State (which was to 'decide' who lives and who dies) this is perversion and abomination. Hitler did the same thing with Nietzsche, who meant it Individually, where Hitler applied it collectively. Nietzsche was speaking to the reader, the individual. NOT to the state or the group or collective. At least that is how I think that he intended it.
@@jandeenphoto Ayn Rand was a brilliant woman. Her antagonism with Theism deprived her movement of millions of supporters. Objectivism was a great bulwark against Communism. It was the UN communism. Or anti Communism but it was incomplete. Objectivism has a God shaped hole at its center. If she could have discovered the rational argument for God. It would have been complete. She did cryptically suggest once that she might have found one.
Communism has slaughtered millions and millions of people. I have yet to hear of anyone slaughtered by the implementation of Objectivism.
I respect the right of Objectivists to not believe in God. All I ask is they keep an open mind that there could be a valid argument for theism somewhere that they just haven't seen or considered.
Great intellectual contribution, much more the many circular objectivist lectures. I wish Stephen adds epistemology and metaphysic's too.
I don't know when they keep recommending this to me
The Night Templar
I always thought of Rand as a romanticist more than a philosopher
I always think of Nietzsche as an author more than a philopher... He should have been French. There philosophers are all more like authors and less like philosophers because they couldn't care less about there contradictions
@@user-vl3tm4co4b But that's what the french do. Contradiction on a indutrialised way.
I've always seen Rand as a comic book writer and I've only seen Nietzsche as complete loner who's never seen how the world actually works.
How very lovey dovey of you, the single most important thing she ever was, was a libertarian philosopher as far as I'm concerned.
@@leighfoulkes7297 🤣 are you sure you don't have some form of learning disability or form of mental retardation?
Drinking game: take a shot every time he says ”qoute”
Drinking game take a shot for every soul I save from eternal hell
@@jamesperez5940 So zero shots?
It was read from a text. different animals.
Number 9 Elite who do you serve the Secret
The text of the original article can be found here: www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/hicks-egoism-in-nietzsche-and-rand-final.pdf
great lecture....😍
Transforming human weakness and failings to heroic proportions with a pen.
Far from "tried and true". Yet if you ran out of toilet paper ... gotcha covered
@@joecitizen6755 hey Joe Cretinzin is that because your full of left wing shit I'm wondering? 🤔
I don’t need you I serve you to be strong for Ours
that way lies madness
Some of this Days
It appears that the wounded, disillusioned altruist inevitably becomes the savage egotist. The human condition truly is hard wired in our collective consciousness.
interesting focus.
From my experience altruists are already wounded. Most likely in childhood by abusive mother who overmoralised her child.
Common feature of altruists is atheism which I believe is caused by hate of father (who allowed it to happen).
I think that resentment is also caused the same way.
Those thoughts are my daydreaming, so take it with grain of salt 😄😉
If you know altruist of egoist who have good relationship with father, i will be grateful for counterexample.
Nonsense, although I'm a huge admirer of Jung , there is absolutely no established scientific evidence whatsoever to support your unfounded claim that the collective unconscious is hardwired in any way at all in the human brain or body for that matter.
@@dominiknewfolder2196 hey Dominik do us all a favor and back to sleep, this isn't a post to be day dreaming about.
@@terrymcanalen3031 i like the way you ignored almost entirely what I wrote with this slight 😄
This joke was intended to warn that I'm not absolutely sure. I can share what made me think this way and let you judge for yourself.
False altruism is easy to recognize when you look through idea of false generosity by Paulo Freire.
If you don't believe in people being hardwired look for experience expected-dependant.
Frans de Waal proved that social behaviours existing in humans are also present in animals.
I believe that it works in reverse.
There is also study about lack of adult males in elephant community. If you compare it to black fatherless communities its become obvious what causes violent antisocial behaviours.
Especially in case of rejection by female 😄
Peggy Sanday suggest that one of five features of patriarchal societies is lack of father involvement in raising toddlers.
This one is funniest because feminist advocating in father involvement and supporting it is rarity.
I almost forgot to mention my personal experience of working in strangers homes for years and observing young children and their relationship with mothers and fathers.
Mothers are world champions in showoffs in altruism while using child to satisfy their needs.
Have fun 😊
Nietzsche built a philosophy on the will to power, but not to the extent of thinking one masterful mind must exert his will over all to the detriment of all and to the benefit of one. He was appalled by such an idea. Rand, however, would be in complete favour of this, her world view nothing but a fancy wording of something called "hedonism".
@@rontimus indeed
No. On both accounts.
@@eccesignumrex4482 Then please explain how I am wrong and what the correct conclusion to draw is. It's always important to keep an open mind.
@@DraculaCronqvist Based on "it's important to keep an open mind" ... I'm going to have to pass on bothering to explain anything to you ... I will give you an up-vote, since they're the new down-vote ...
@@eccesignumrex4482 Then you have absolutely nothing to say of substance. Not bothering to explain is an admission of having nothing to say. You're simply disagreeing without having any basis to do so. You just didn't like what you read. Polemic vs debate.
Objectivism(?) Is the mental equivalent of horse sh_t. It may appear to be appealing as it lays on the ground
. But like any other type of manure it only derives some value after a time of composting and the nasty stink is gone. Then it is good for the 🌹.
It’s in the blood
I sleep good at night
I wake good at day
I don’t know what that was all about 🤷♂️ I found myself nodding with Ayn Rand more.
I suspect most would, they just won't admit it.
@@dafyddcoleman4413 interesting, I gravitated towards Rand too, so according to those critics this make us juvenile and infantile 🤷♂️
Quote,
Unquote
HOOKED 😆 SUBSCRIBED
Great text
Nietzsche oneof the greatest philosophers and men of the 19th century The Rabbis in galus helped the Jewish people get through lookat the jews in Israel now very different
Nietzsche....one of the most dangerous men that ever lived...
Stirner be like : Bro I told you about Morality and Objectivity
A bizarrely stupid Existentialist philosophy professor told me that Stirner was basically similar to Rand.
Does anyone else just listen to this stuff to sleep?
Yes, I never get to the end I always fall asleep!
28:40
You can see clearly in the fall of USA where The Virtue of Selfishness has led us.
The best has still to come, just as when gusano Rand went on Medicare and Foodstamps at the end of her existence. Where have her millionaire friends she wanted to impress all her live so much, been then? Satan, have your fun!
@@lorsheckmolseh3345 What hole did you crawl out of-- I thought Lorsheck was a crater on the moon.
I couldn't get past comment about the woman blogger who equated Nihilism to Buddhism and you referring to her as intelligent. Buddhism is not realistic it's not Nihilism.
Think she meant Buddhism makes you do nothing. To sit and do nothing. To let everyone kick you and you don't react. To fight back is to be a non nihilist. For fighting back is the Warrior Spirit in action. It says " I have strength and are worth life. I'll show you how in combat"
Buddhism is Nihilism in this way .
It has no defense mechanism for itself. It always sacrifices it's people. It never becomes powerful to rule . It is the ruled who are Buddhist. Perfect for China or N. Korea IF you want to survive it. To the Buddhist, the world is doomed. So why do anything within it? Why make a move at all if it's all for nothing?
The Buddhist proceeds to sit quietly and accept this doom. To accept whatever fate may be hold him.
He is a man of inaction. For if you do nothing others will do things to you.
@@robertpatter5509Nihilism doesn't have anything to do with passivism. Buddhism is neither nihilism or are they all pacifist. Buddha himself was a warrior of the sakya clan warrior class.
@@alankuntz6494 Well tell that to the Buddhists who don't follow Buddha's Warrior Path.
Today, Buddhism is like Yoga. A commercialized way to escape the world. It's not warrior like at all..
It was in the past ,but not today.
Nihilism is just pure negation. A kind of deconstruction of all things.
Buddhism today seeks to escape the world in it's modern form . To negate it. By being passive. And doing nothing. They deconstruct. Yet don't act. All they do is criticize never build. That's passive.
If Buddhism wishes to harness a martial spirit it once had then they would act in that way. But they don't. .
It's degenerated into a spiritual yoga style instead. ( Which Liberalism does to it . Turns it into a joke or a lifestyle choice) .
It can be reformatted into a Warriors Path but I haven't seen that.
34:29
Does anyone remember Anton LaVey? He stole his schtick mostly from these two with a bunch of hedonism and fake devil worship thrown in. He was pretty decent to discover as a kid that, led me to some great literature.
He inspired alot of make up styles on young Goth girls.
Really Great video. Two of my favorites in philosophy. Humans are selfish no need to hide it anymore we all want to be the best and the people who disliked this video are the same ones Nietzsche and Ayn Rand talked about the men and women who disliked human excellence.
There is no such thing as human excellence. We are severely flawed at the highest level.
@Christian Cole Why
How is it independence to enslave someone else and make them do the work for you? I really don't understand how anyone can think this is greatness. Nietzsche makes no sense to me.
Nietzsche is defending the hegemony of Culture so for him is a deal bring back the 'greek' model. Nietzsche lived the so called 'grecomania' wicht wants to bring back ancient greek values like slavery. you have to see on that way.. his philosophy were made in a time where germany were trying to affirm his self in some way in new world.
Exactly. Like a lot of this kind of stuff it sounds good on a superficial level but things like "Live Dangerously!" are especially unwise during our pressurized drug/junk food/indulgent culture of heightened hatred and violence. Live so you can enjoy your grand children makes more sense for long term happiness and survival which requires humility. The ego is the root of all mental illness said Jung. Puffing it up doesn't help a person these days at all if ever.
@@SuperTigerTV live dangerously, not recklessly!....being free, embarking on a life journey, to venture outside one's comfort zone, to find meaning, opportunity, and truly learn about one's self and the universe around it, demands courage and entails that you risk exposing urself to a certain degree of danger and lack of security!....You can seek security if you wish, but it comes at the price of the former!
On his many long walks, Nietzsche learned from the elves in the Black Forest.
Nietzsche also quite often attempts to live vicariously, trying to overcome his own weak, sickly and miserable reality by imaginging himself as this blonde, beastl-like, amoral Übermensch.
The one thig that u are good about is the easiest one bro... The make the thing show of for what they are not. Lide. The lie is the esiest thing that learn the kids to be not punished.
Nowadays if you are a wolf you must master grey rocking.
The 102 people who disliked this are herd mentality cowards.
Probably a fair estimation of them in general as far as I can tell myself.
It's interesting that Satanists and Luciferians adopt these philosophies whole-cloth as if they were one of their own.
You just made that up!
@@peterwelsh1932 I’ve personally known Satanists who gush about Ayn Rand and Nietzsche, but compare for yourself their philosophy against the life and doctrine of Christ. Night/Day; Chalk/Cheese. The self-sacrifice of Christ for the world was purely altruistic. Nietzsche and Rand hate that (by their own words), they clearly hate God. What could be more “satanic” (:being in opposition to God).
@@alekjwrgnwekfgn alright. I was really just curious if there was some distinction between Satanists and Luciferians... a lifetime of Jesuit education and they never hinted at any of this stuff... And then the whole point of this video is that , besides the word "altruism", Neitzsche and Ayn's philosophies are drastically different.
Nietzsche predicted that the death of God would ruin civilization. Most Christians would agree with that. Atn Rand said: why is Nietzsche obsessed with finding the superman? But he never says why, or what the superman is gonna do that makes it so important.
And then, you gotta understand: only people who believe in God and religion can be Satanists ( not sure about luciferians) . People who don't believe in god- they don't believe in Satan at all. That's why there's no atheist wars, and no atheists in Foxholes.
And Jesus is the coolest, the ultimate role model. The Sermon on the Mound, all the parables... but "Altruism" ? God made a bunch of evil disgusting monkeys. God is outside of time so he made how they ended at the same time as how they began. GOD made Apes. So how is it altruistic to die (but not die at all, ever) for something he did himself? God wanted some apes to love him, he made 💩-y apes, so now he has to forgive them. And they're mostly going to hell anyway;
WE ARE DEAD AND THIS IS HELL
I fail to see the Altruism part. Are the people saved who were born before Jesus? Yes? Them, what's the difference? Do abortions go to hell because they didn't accept our lord and savior? Cute little babies? No, so, obviously, Jesus didn't need to die.for us.
Plus, people sukk. They don't deserve to be saved. And if they do, God breaks the rules and takes care of the good people anyway, rigjt?
@@peterwelsh1932 do you realise none of what you said made any sense. Might be best not to comment.
@A2Z that's because there is infinite number of lies and only one truth. Any lie will deceive you and lure you off the trail of truth, and by that they know that any misleading path is coming their way, in terms of one not being on the only true path. So if they want you to fail, as long as you're failing it doesn't matter in which way you're failing, what matters is that you're not succeeding.
3:01
I. Lots of people indulge in some really awful human characteristics like warring with each other. Right up into the point the boot is on their neck and that weapon is now aimed at their own family. Then things get real clear real quick.
🎯
NO SURRENDER NWO 👁💉"doink👊
You don't 'indulge' in a _characteristic_ - a characteristic is a _feature_ belonging to a person - you can't *indulge* in a feature. An example of _indulgence_ is "eating an extra topping of whip-cream".
ITT: People who haven't actually read Nietzsche or Rand but just let their slave-morality do the talking
How do you know he hasn't
@@goyonman9655 ITT = In This Thread, or in this case the comment section. But by the comments I can also guess the narrator hasn't read any Nietzsche (or Rand)
@@mouwersor
How do you know the narrator/writer hasn't read Nietzche or Rand
@@goyonman9655 Again that's my guess based on the comments, I didn't bother watching the video. But since the comments are just a hate circlejerk with no actual philosophical arguments I assumed the narrator didn't go into any actual philosophy/only a strawman version
@@mouwersor
And Do you consider your bulverist comment a "philosophical arguement"
Virgin Rand vs Chad Nietzsche
Nietzsche was the og sigma male. And Ayn is really not like the other girls!
Rand was a slut, she who cannot keep her legs together
Around the 24th minute point I realized I forgot that philosophers know nothing of material reality and can only think in terms of abstract idealisms. Suffice to say, not worth continuing as the core analysis being done is flawed from the start...
Filled the quota of quotes!
Unquote.
Amazing book!
you don't say?
Individualism requires collective principles.
If we make the weak stronger, does not the whole become stronger?
You are only as strong as the weakest part.
This is where christ excelled.
He knew this.
Instead of making the strong stronger. He focused on the weak.
If a machine breaks, it is always at the weakest point.
They all got Dupe
Take it all greed
There is ''quote'' ''unquote''. ''quote''... ''quote'' this ''quote'' that, ''unquote''...
Seriously, you are reading a book on TH-cam. You are not writing an essay. Chillax on the ''quote/unquote''. It will be easier to listen too.
Don't like kick rocks it's not a boulder
That's stupid. He has to indicate the quotations so that you know if it's the words of the author or the words of the person being referenced. If you don't like books being read to you then go buy it and read it yourself. It's only confusing if you aren't listening with full attention.
Bad reading style .
Not having been to Ayn Rand Institute, it is unfair to comment. It is fair to say that Nietzsche and Kierkegaard influence
"created " existentialism and phenomenology from their work.
How’s that subjective objectivism treating you?
@@camphor_dance that’s not objective value though, thats subjective value.
So I’ll ask again, which is objectively better, or which would objectively bring a man closer to self fulfillment, a bike or a 747? Ayn Rand would have a clear answer for this, she’s literally *the* objectivist.
There is no subjective sum of 2 + 2, but that’s not the same as my bicycle question at all.
@@justgotbitched Gurdjieff knew what Objective Art was, do you? Is it archetypal or personal projection?
@@jandeenphoto “The difference between objective art and subjective art is that in objective art the artist really does 'create,' that is he makes what he intended, he puts into his work whatever ideas and feelings he wants to put into it. And the action of this work upon men is absolutely definite; they will, of course each according to his own level, receive the same ideas and the same feelings that the artist wanted to transmit to them. There can be nothing accidental either in the creation or in the impressions of objective art.”
Still sounds pretty subjective to me lol
@@justgotbitched although I have no idea who or what the fuck the tentacled vesicle is because I cannot find any of it's comments on my end of this reply thread . My own answer to your question of which is objectively better and I'm speaking as a plain and straight talking libertarian, is this, if you have to compete in a BMX bike race or the tour de France or simply pedal about the place then a bicycle is objectively of immeasurably greater value to you than an aeroplane. If you have to cross the Atlantic ocean in a matter of hours or transport large numbers of people and luggage across the Pacific ocean in a matter of hours then an aeroplane is objectively of immeasurably greater value to you than a bicycle. And further more the 747 aeroplane itself is a technical and scientific engineering achievement that is objectively of immeasurably superior value than the value of any particular type of bicycle .
Quote"
Nietzsche is the more clear sighted of the two, because he recognized the nature of class conflict and sided with the masters. Rand is a thinker that could only have existed in America, where denial that class conflict exists is practically a national religion.
As it should be. I was raised in a poor family of migrants here in South America and I can't say one thing of how accepting class conflict helped me in any way. It basically does the opposite, makes you angry and bitter of how people got things so easily handled in life while you didn't, it sometimes vanishes your goodwill to get out of povertiness and misery 'cause of the "unfairness of life" thoughts.
By the time the rosters rise you already denied 3 time
Umm hmmn
Exaggerations are wonderfilled things. Striving to "hang them all" ... or, to have "them all hang you".
Neitzche🔥
Regarding Ayn Rand and Libertarians. “I have always found it quaint and rather touching that there is a movement [Libertarians] in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough.” ― Christopher Hitchens
But that's the whole idea. We've never really tried selfishness as a pure ideology, without several servings of guilt on the side.
You have to have self-esteem before you can engage positive selfishness. Americans skipped a step.
@@TheDionysianFields : Rubbish. "Selfishness" is defined as lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure. Every crook and sociopath in America has tried selfishness as an ideology.
@z borg : That's what representative democracy guards against. The alternative is that the guy with the most money and power always oppresses the rest. (The goal of modern libertarians is oligarchy. It's the inevitable result despite the lofty rhetoric) One could be producing heroin and that should not be permitted. The whole service industry is paid favors rather than products. If your laws don't protect you, elect better people to office. No question that corruption is bad but only representative democracy has the moral authority to address those grievances. Without it you have no recourse but personal violence. and the rich guy has more security and more guns.
@@lrvogt1257 "elect better people to office"
No. Me taking revenge against you for you taking advantage of me is not even a system.
Is your criticism of America really that it is too selfish? In the age of woke corporations cooperating instead of competing, stakeholders, social justice guilt, we are committing suicide in the name of protecting others.
@@JohnSmith-ds7oi : I agree and wrote that personal revenge is not a system. Regulations and laws that protect the public is a system.
I was criticizing modern libertarians, not "America" as a whole. Selfishness is completely understandable because there are so many examples but society demands some responsibility to each other or it becomes predatory.
Woke is word generally used by people who've been called-out for being malicious and want to deflect the blame. I only wish corporations were more concerned about the public but they tend to do what is profitable regardless of the consequences. We are committing suicide by despoiling our environment for profit and it is the lack of sensible regulation and oversight that gives the public little recourse against it.
I spotted the name Ayn Rand. The only reason I react is because of her brilliant book 'The Fountainhead'. The movie with Gary Cooper was allright. I love the concept of Rourke's way of life and thinking.
When I was a teenager and into design and architecture, I mistakenly had some sympathy for Rourke's (and Rand's) thinking. The more I learned in life, the more I realized how fundamentally wrong Rand was about life and an architect's rights and responsibilities.
Rourke was far from being heroic, he was a childish egotist...working in the wrong business.
When he destroyed the building that was altered by his customer's wishes, he went too far and lost all legality, credibility and sympathy. The building was not his to destroy, so he had no right to destroy it based on his wounded, egotistical sense of design purity. He foolishly made himself into a dangerous criminal, unfit for any position of public trust. Architects provide a service for which they are paid and have no claims of ownership for buildings they design. His only option was to dis-associate himself from the project and move on or get out of any creative line of work based on a fee for service model.
As a career graphic designer I well understand the frustrations of dealing with clients who hire you for your expertise and then destroy your efforts because they somehow think they know better. But that's the way it goes, if unacceptable changes are made to your work, you drop the client from any further projects. Once you have sufficient credibility in your field, you can get some influence over the process. But that's it.
Individualism has an important place in our lives, but we are all part of and have responsibility to our family, friends and the greater society that we came from, that gave us the very foundation upon which we can build successful lives. Rand's dubious "heroes" (in both her work and in her personal life) are all twisted parodies of egoism gone rogue...take a critical look at them as being the stunted, ill-formed beings that they really represent and resolve never to emulate them nor their actions.
@@ivandafoe5451 Mate, I wonder if you actually understood the underlying ideas. You use "egotist" and "responsibility" as if those words should have a meaning Rand never ascribed to it. What exactly is wrong with acting in your rational self-interest and why do we have responsibility? Learn to ask the bigger questions.
To quote a friend, quote we must be free unquote
Quote wearet her esi stance 84 unquote.
Quote
Unquote
😅✌❤
I couldnt listen more than 10 minutes. It’s okay to not read the quotation marks out loud. He said/she said is fine.
Nietzsche appears to me to be someone who wanted to know Truth in all its forms. Rand on the other hand seems interested purely in asserting her power and bending material reality to her will. The two are poles apart. The one is about Truth. The other is about power over nature and others.
***** I admit I only read Atlas Shrugged a long time ago so don't know much of her philosophy except that the little I listened to by way of one or two documentaries turned me off intensely since she seemed such an unpleasant messed up kind of a person who had little interest in others. When talking about power I wasn't referring to direct violence against others. I was thinking more in terms of big projects (massive railroads for example) which Rand was so fond of, which might affect the lives of millions of humans and other species for whom the initiators of such projects couldn't give a damn. Meaning for Rand seems very linked to these kinds of projects. Is my view of Rand somewhat warped? Probably. But there are so many philosophers out there that I would prefer to focus on those who clearly cared about others. Of course Nietsche is also similarly accused, of not caring about his fellows, but I see this more as a kind of artistic expression, a kind of "I am a human wanting to be as authentic as possible and what else can be more important" kind of an attitude.
Ayn Rand is not interested in power over others, quite the contrary. In "The Fountainhead" she makes this clear through the newspaper mogul Gail Wynand who uses his power to destroy other people's careers. Ayn Rand calls powerlusters such as Wynand "parasites," as they are dependent on other people more or less in the same way as altruists are. To Ayn Rand, powerlusters are the most immoral in her philosophy.
Nietzsche was weak and ill physically and later mentally who worshiped superman. It is rather a sad state that people internalize so much they would find his writing wanting to be a superman so valid. How do you write philosophy based on the premise of evil and being under the boot. Nietzsche and Rand both need enemies like Marx to have any relevance at all. Compare that to Confusious, Plato, Socrates and they are mental gymnastics.
Nameless cowards gnash their teeth and circle in the darkness. Waiting to attack any who seek to better themselves. Truth speakers are opposed by liars. All systems lie. Only the individual tells the truth.