Ayn Rand on Love and Happiness | Blank on Blank
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- " I have no faith at all. I only hold convictions."
- Ayn Rand on February 25, 1959, as told to Mike Wallace
Recording from Mike Wallace Collection @ Harry Ransom Center
The University of Texas at Austin
Get more from the full interview and learn more about Ayn Rand blankonblank.or...
Ayn Rand, author of the still resonating Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, sat down with Mike Wallace in a dark studio in 1959. The two had the kind of lively, smart, give and take, back and forth, philosophical conversation that certainly feels like it's from another era. Wallace smoked at times during the interview. The mood was still. The camera work direct.
What struck us about this golden interview was hearing Rand passionately and forcefully about her view on the essence of what drives much of life: love. To her it was like a business deal. Love was not about the other person, but the selfish pleasure it brings you.
Was Ayn Rand right about the true meaning of love and happiness?
More classic Ayn Rand:
"Aristotle... is the only philosopher that ever influenced me. I devised the rest of my philosophy myself."
"Man is entitled to his own happiness. And that he must achieve it himself.
"Man cannot demand that others give up their lives to make him happy."
"Nobody has ever given a reason why men should be their brother’s keepers."
"You don‘t love causes. You don’t love everybody indiscriminately. You love only those who deserve it."
Subscribe for new episodes every other Tuesday (it's free):
www.youtube.com...
Executive Producer: David Gerlach
Animator: Patrick Smith
Audio Producer: Amy Drozdowska
Colorist: Diana Tantillo
Music You Heard
APM MUSIC
@ 0:29 "Frozen Wonder" by Marc Frederick Teitler
@ 4:12 "Adagietto" by John Horler And Chris Laurence
Watch our previous episodes:
Joni Mitchell on Illusions
• Joni Mitchell on Illus...
John Coltrane on Giant Steps
• John Coltrane on Giant...
Ray Bradbury on Madmen
• Ray Bradbury on Madmen
Dolly Parton on Getting Dirty
• Dolly Parton on Gettin...
Lou Reed on Guns & Ammo
• Lou Reed on Guns & Amm...
BB King on The Blues
• B.B. King on The Blues...
Elliott Smith on Freaks
• Elliott Smith on Freak...
Robin Williams on Masks
• Robin Williams on Masks
Wayne Coyne on Living with Death
• Wayne Coyne on Living ...
Maya Angelou on Con Men
• Maya Angelou on Con Me...
Bette Davis on The Sexes
• Bette Davis on The Sexes
Michael Jackson on Godliness
• Michael Jackson on God...
Jimi Hendrix on The Experience
• Jimi Hendrix on The Ex...
Meryl Streep on Beauty
• Meryl Streep on Beauty...
Philip Seymour Hoffman on Happiness
• Philip Seymour Hoffman...
David Bowie on Stardust
• David Bowie on Stardus...
Gene Wilder on The Truth
• Gene Wilder on The Tru...
John Lennon on Love
• John Lennon and Yoko O...
Johnny Cash on The Gospel
• Johnny Cash on The Gospel
Heath Ledger on Role Playing
• Heath Ledger on Role P...
Tupac on Life and Death
• Tupac Shakur on Life a...
Kurt Cobain on Identity
• Kurt Cobain on Identit...
Janis Joplin on Rejection
• Janis Joplin on Reject...
Barry White on Making Love
• Barry White on Making ...
Maurice Sendak on Being a Kid
• Maurice Sendak on Bein...
Carol Burnett on Finding Home
• Carol Burnett on Findi...
Grace Kelly on JFK
• Grace Kelly on JFK | B...
Farrah Fawcett on Stiletto Power
• Farrah Fawcett on Stil...
Beastie Boys on Being Stupid
www.youtube.com....
David Foster Wallace on Ambition
www.youtube.com....
Wilt Chamberlain on Tall Tales
www.youtube.com....
Larry King on Getting Seduced
www.youtube.com....
Jim Morrison on Why Fat is Beautiful
www.youtube.com....
This interviewer is a pro, who brings out the best in Rands argument while still trying to ask tough questions
No. He is pointing out how she doesn't make much sense. This is not one of her better interviews.
@@louf7178 You believe you exist only for others. It is your conviction.
@@shangri-la-la-la I do?
@@louf7178 Or perhaps you exist for nothing other than what meaning you give yourself.
Lou Fazio ayn Rand’s entire philosophy tends to struggle under intense scrutiny.
To be independent from one another and yet to choose to live by each other is the greatest form of love there is.
I love your message but why the fly tho🤣🤣🤣🤣
unless you live completely alone and away from everyone you are not independent. if your life in any way, shape, or form relies on the work of others past or present you are not independent. unless you are willing to make your own clothes, farm/hunt your own food, build your own house, be isolated from all human contact, and die with no offspring, you are dependent on others. real love is recognizing that the spark of life that is in you is in all other humans, and interaction with that spark is what makes life even worth living and ultimately dying for. selflessness is the ultimate form of love, because ultimate selfishness is living life alone which not many can do and stay sane. Ayn Rand sucks the love out of life.
Reason nice
Unfortunately if you make money you're not "independent" at all.
To be independent means you build your own house now matter how crappy it is, you till your own soil, you hunt for yourself etc etc. THAT'S being "independent."
But it's still not "independent" bc all that you are eating and surviving in comes from the earth, and if you don't have the earth you can't be "independent"
Even the ego relies on the BRAIN to manifest itself.
So therefore that person of who you think you are isn't "independent"
There is no such thing as independent.
Only interdependence.
Wake up people.
@@brienmaybe.4415 Well everything comes from something...
"Selfishness". She is misinterpreted by the use of that word until today. What she meant with "selfishness" was that people have an obligation only to their own happiness. You can't demand other people to sacrifice for you. And you also can't hurt other people to get what you want. You should pursue your own happiness while respecting the individual rights of everyone. And you can help people if you want, but you shouldn't feel obligated. There is no merit on following your mere obligations. But there is merit in helping other people. That's because caring for other people is not an obligation, it's something more: it's a virtue.
bologna, not what she meant.
Bryan King Than why don't you tell me what she meant ?
+Rick Apocalypse She meant self over everything. She was raised in a middle class family that lost their belongings to Communists. This experience made her paranoid.
Bryan King I still don't understand what you are saying. What do you mean with "self over everything" ?
You're avatar is from Bioshock and you're defending Ayn Rand? I think you missed something there, pal.
Interviewer: "Is he supported in his efforts by the _state_ ?"
Ayn Rand: "MOST CERTAINLY *NOT* "
and in the end both her and her husband took social security
@@feleepe92 which they were forced to pay into.
If a mugger mugged you and you later found your wallet in an alley with 20 bucks still left in it, you wouldn't go retrieve it because you are "anti-mugger in principle"?
Yeah, okay.
@@Radeo honestly i dont care
@@feleepe92 You cared enough to comment in the first place.
Now you conveniently don't care that your stab at her carries no weight at all.
@@Radeo my comment was just sort of a "ain't it ironic" kinda comment, not an attack on her personality or ideology. i mean i disagree with her whole world view but that is not what my comment was all about
The great irony is that the people who are in opposition to her idea that love by definition cannot be distributed equally to all (and therefore who believe that all people are deserving of love) are the same people who are leaving comments calling her (and I quote): 'witch', 'cunt', 'evil bitch', etc.
You people have betrayed your own argument and are actually supporting hers - should she have to love someone who, rather than engage in mature debate and refute an opposing argument, chooses the cheap shot of calling her a bitch? (ah, she's a woman, too, meaning there's a whole added dimension of insults to hand!)
She makes many interesting points that are relevant to today (Yale kids could really learn from Rand when she says that you cannot demand that others accommodate all your preferences or give you undeserved respect when your own behaviour is questionable) - but most important is that love has lost its meaning. It has become cheapened; devalued; handed out too freely. Younger generations especially say 'Love you!' to people who are barely acquaintances. But love is a commitment and should be respected. It is impossible to love your neighbour as yourself. It is impossible to love everyone. It's unnatural and unachievable, and it's dishonest to claim otherwise. That's her message, and I think it's a valuable one.
Great comment, love you.
+ohwellwhateverr thank you for the thoughtful comment.
We dont have to love assholes.
There are a lot of ways in which I actually agree with her philosophy, but she is so detached that one can make a good case for textbook sociopathy.
How do you feel she is detached? Try to attack her philosophy if you can but when you name call and pretend that you are a clinical psychologist you make yourself look silly. What did she say here that you disagree with?
As a theist this is one of the best ways I’ve heard the fact of love reconciled in the atheistic worldview, I disagree mostly but appreciate how well constructed and consistent her notion is.
It is not the atheistic worldview but the objectivists.
Love is this and much more, to theists and atheists alike. Rand is using love in a particular way to make some point and that's fine, but love also means lots of *other* stuff to other people.
@@nikita3569 There is not one atheistic view on love, there are many.
@@Weirdomanification I know you do not have to tell me
@@nikita3569 You seemed confused
Regardless of what you think about her philosophy, this was fascinating. I do think she was just a tad extremist, but she did have conviction. I'll always respect that.
Zappandy enough conviction to except government welfare for years, living off of the teat
Myle Zuckerburg She didnt demand she be given it, and she paid her taxes.
That's a pretty selfless sounding statement. ;)
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."- Bertrand Russell
Hitler "had conviction", too. That's no reason to like anyone. She was pathetic.
I remember being in highschool starting philopshy with the Greeks. Ive never read a philospher as inspiring as Rand. I will never understand why other libertarians disslike her so much.
Foundational to my views personally, the greatest and only true philospher of her time. Truly. A strong woman
I breathed a sigh of relief at the fact that this interview was not biased or sexist in any way. He challenged the views not to make her sound stupid but to get new ideas from her. And he challenged them not because maybe he didn’t believe them, but because they are challengeable.
When you take a moment to step back from that thought and realize that this was how Journalism use to be and why it is a Constitutionally protected right. Then you compare that with the reality of why you are so shocked .......
We live in sad sad times.
I challenge the challengingly challengeable because they are challengeable.
CHALLLLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANGE
self esteem.. a lot of people lack of it.. and they don't know they lack it.
That's probably why a lot of people have a deep hate for Ayn Rand, her words are like an air strike straight directly to their ego's :D
irwin leonardo Right on
This
+irwin leonardo Couldn't agree more with you :)
She's a crazy egotistical bitch.
***** like i said.. they dont know they lack it.. lol
Unconditional love is for children. Literally.
Unfortunately we as children seldom get it (you have to be good, not cry, have good grades, be nice first). That's maybe why we look for it as adults. And fail miserably.
Then our frustration rubs on our kids and the cycle continues.
lazyla27
Sadly Rand herself talks about children rarely and objectivists draw wrong conclusions on the issue of raising children.
But remedy is here.
I recommend Roslyn Ross Atlas Society lecture (search for it on YT).
Kibeer Bueskytter any developmental problems found in kids are not solved by showering them with unintelligible love. Unconditional love does not create healthy self-esteem or psychology in kids it creates an either arrogant hubris or passive outlook. Both being forms of second-handers. They look to others to give them recognition without knowing that a soul is self-made.
This is not to say that being a harsh domineering parent/guardian is the way to go either. To put is simply would be that it requires justice within a child's context.
normativeRandroid
I strongly disagree. Arrogance or passive behavior is product of low self esteem. One is overcompensating second is depressed by it. Both result of the child growing up thinking he or she must be a piece of shit if parents seem to withdraw their affection every time they do or don't do some insignificant shit which adults are excused of - being loud, spilling liquids etc.
Unconditional love does not mean there is no guidance.
It means love is not used as emotional blackmail - overt or covert.
@@TheKibeer i love your wise words. thank you.
@@TheKibeer i thank you also. That is exactly the point. Unconditional love does not mean being a passive parent, but just not setting any standard for love. Not making love tied to any ex or intrinsical behaviour. This does not mean you can not tell your child when it has overstepped a societal line. These two things are completely unbound from each other.
Ayn is a true genius. Her thinking is several rungs above conventional wisdom which is why it’s so hard for people to understand. She has to use loaded language to describe her thoughts but much of that language is sullied with preconceived notions. If people challenge themselves they can see the depth of her statements, and how meaningful they are. Usually the opposite of how academics try to pigeon hole her.
The "academics" are just salty collectivists.
Indeed... most of the world believes that "sacrifice" is a virtue, "selfishness" a vice...
@@ampman76 Most of the world is full of irrationalists and mystics.
The Fountainhead was one of those books that changed my perspective on the way I treated people and most importantly, treated myself. Everything in this world, every emotion, is only and only supposed to enhance your life, not be parasitic. At the end, only you are responsible for yourself.
There is no question that has ever stumped Ayn Rand. Whether you agree with her or not, the scope of Rand's mind and her split second clarity of expression answers all challenges with immediacy and razor sharp precision. This is a hallmark of a genius and no doubt she was just that.
I’m very conflicted, while I do somewhat agree with Ayn Rand on this, I have also held the belief that the truest expression of love is self sacrifice. I have held that belief ever since reading Dickens’ A Tale Of Two Cities. What could better demonstrate unbridled affection more than placing their own well being over your own? A father taking a bullet for his child or wife, allowing them to evacuate before himself in a catastrophe such as the Titanic, or even the ending of ATOTC, these are the purest expressions of love in my view, as they show that your love for this person is so incalculable as to surpass your own instincts of survival.
I love the way you put this, and ATOTC is the perfect example!
From my understanding of Rand, particularly some of her other works, I don't think she would disagree much with you on the actions, rather the notion that they are sacrifice. It seems to me she would argue that these acts, including ATOTC's ending would constitute doing something in your own interest, selfishly as Rand would say. Note that for Rand, selfishness means something closer to "what you desire". With the father taking a bullet for his child example, essentially the father decided that to him, his kid's life was more valuable than his: Selfishly he decided that he and his goals would be better suited by this action than the loss of the kid. Essentially her philosophy dictates that there is #1 an objective truth (a bullet is headed to the kid), #2 one has the capability to rationalize a situation (the father could take the bullet to save the kid), #3 one should act in their own self interest (the father would derive the most value from his kid surviving, regardless of his survival), and finally #4 actions are accomplished through capitalism [meaning a free transaction] (the father trades his currency, in this case his health/life, for his desired product, in this case his child's life). I don't think that Rand would have condemned these act's that we are calling sacrifice, as to her they are not altruistic, rather they are rooted in our own desires and will. Her objection to altruism isnt so much rooted in a hatred for being willing to "sacrifice" but rather a willingness to give (or in the case of collectivism in her context take) without transaction. She hated the idea of giving something without getting something else: it is up to you and your utilization of the capitalist system to determine if the cost is worth the product. If you determine for yourself that you and your goals would best be served by dying for your kid (or as in ATOTC dying to grant your life meaning) it's not altruism, it is selfishness which is good.
@@robertnewman4854
u've read Richard Dawkins' THE SELFISH GENE.
Ayn Rand addresses this in the video when talking about her husband. "I am in love with him selfishly. It is in my own interest..." If it is done voluntarily, of your own free will then you are not sacrificing, you are not being altruistic. It is in your rational self-interest to save, protect your highest values. If that includes your child and/or your wife then you are not sacrificing by taking a bullet for them, you are loving yourself.
@@geraldhunt8263 But then why can't you selfishly help a homeless person? Why can you not consider him to have enough worth to deserve help? Why would that be altruism?
I don’t know why, but every time Ayn Rand pronounces the word “mind,” I get a small shiver down my spine. Because while I am a devout Catholic, I am also a proud Objectivist for one simple reason:
While other secular ideologies will simply toss out the divine value of individual human life as “another lie propagated by the outdated institute of religion,” Rand does not. Her Objectivism, while secular, believes in the sanctity of the individual by merit of them having a mind; intelligence, consciousness, the ability to express freedom of will.
Christianity and Objectivism are incompatible. How did you manage to form one worldview with both of those, without forming major contradictions, if I may ask?
Rand was not just an atheist, but an ANTI-theist (and I like that in her). Read her writing about "the mystics of muscle and spirit" where she rails hard against socialists and the religious. How do you cope with that?
@@luukzwart115 It's a long and complicated explanation that I can't really properly explain in a TH-cam reply section, but the tl;dr of it is that, without meaning to, Ayn Rand wrote the figure of John Galt as a Christ-like, messianic figure. Not one who asks for worship, no, but who proclaims great truths that save the truly good and virtuous while also repelling and rebuking those in power warped by corruption and ignorance. Feel free to reply if you have any more questions, because I've put a lot of thought into this particular analysis of Atlas Shrugged.
@@thegrimcritic5494 I don't think it's a strange comparison to make, since I've sensed some similarities between Galt and Jesus as well.
You can be inspired by virtuous heroes or characteristics portrayed in other philosophies/religions/lifestyles but in order to be an adherent to a certain philosophy you have to agree to it's core principles.
I've often been inspired by adherents or aspects of the stoic philosophy and Christianity, but that doesn't make me a Stoic or a Christian.
Since theism is incompatible with the principle that arbitrary assumptions shouldn't be assumed at all, which is an important principle within the Objectivist philosophy, I don't think it's proper to call yourself Christian as well as Objectivist.
@@luukzwart115 I suppose that’s fair. I suppose if I were to choose to identify as a practitioner of either belief, I would be a Christian first and an Objectivist second. But I suppose what I’m trying to say is that many of the concerns I have in most Atheist philosophies I am pleased to say I don’t find in Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. The sanctity of the will of the individual - their divine spark, so to speak - and of the sacrosanct nature of man’s free will isn’t just protected in this belief, it is axiomatic to it. I will remain a Christian for now. But if there is any powerful argument out there about how to live a virtuous life without the presence of God, Objectivism is the one I have the highest respect for.
She makes a valid point. You don't deserve anything, you earn it. Still, not a follower but a good point. It's smart to be a bit of an egotistical person.
531chaz deserve=earn
Ardek Depends on your definition of both words.
531chaz You deserve not to be helplessly violated.
531chaz Technically, there's a difference between an egoist and an egotist. Rand was the former.
lazyla27 You didn't comprehend. What people do is a reflection of who they are: their character, their moral virtue. She said you love people not for what they do for you, or for what you do for them, but for their virtues, which means you love them for who they are. People have a choice: you can be a good person, or a bad person. You can have integrity, honor and conviction, or you can have none of those things, and it is up to you to decide. The former is deserving of love, the latter is not.
She's not telling you how you should live your life, she's telling you how it already is. There is no such thing as unconditional love or true altruism, unless you believe in God. People only seek to help or love others out of their own self interest, whether those are intrinsic rewards or extrinsic rewards.
***** I think from the standpoint of Objectivism, people who believe in God are also doing so out of their own self-interest, especially if the rewards are immortal life in heaven. This would place a believer who would "seek to help or love others" ("unconditional love or true altruism") as not an exception.
***** Except it's NOT how it already is, because it all falls apart under scrunity. Many of those intrinsic rewards aren't part of a zero sum game, and Rand has to pretend they are in order to keep her philosophy together. If I feel good because I've made your life easier, that's still altruism even if we both get a benefit out of it -- characteristically, Rand didn't seem to grasp this idea of "we ALL benefit, and the fact I benefit too doesn't mitigate the fact I'm choosing to serve everybody instead of just myself." Just more sophistry from a very screwed-up, traumatized refugee whose intellect outpaced the quality of her ideas.
***** Intrinsic rewards do not exist. Rewards are values and all values are values for someone for something. Nothing is inherently valuable (nothing is valuable independent a valuer and a purpose).
That is not altruism. That is self-interest. Your "feeling good" is the spiritual reward for helping your friend. Your actions are not disinterested nor a sacrifice (the surrender of a value for a lesser or non-value). You want and wish to help your friend precisely because he is *your* friend - he is a value, to you. Rand continually and repeatedly made perfectly clear what she meant by altruism - abject self-sacrifice, which benevolence is not. The benevolent man is driven out of the selfish desire to see others better off (should they be deserving), not some mystic fealty to a simultaneously bizzare apathy and compassion towards all men ("I care not about those who I help but I wish to help for its own sake."). Of course you care about the people. Help is not an end in itself. The happiness obtained by and through the helping of those who are deserving is.
Funnily enough, your assertion that Rand didn't understand the notion of "how we all benefit", is actually something she cited as foundational to her conception of egoism, holding that there can not and does not exist conflicts of interest among rational people, meaning, we all benefit when acting in our own rational self-interest.
Your opinion on the approach of Objectivism does not subvert the reality it describes. By your logic all people have inherent weaknesses, which you and I both know is true regardless of it being a pessimistic view or an optimistic one.
The problem with your argument is you not only have the burden of proof proving that love IS NOT materialistic, largely it is as her life's work of writings asserts. You also have to prove that "Love is Limitless"
Hippy slogans are not enough.
Potential and reality more often then not don't coincide.
Rand is not imposing a "limit on love" She is saying weather you like it or not the laws of nature have already imposed one.
She also gave an example in the video, please pay attention.
I love the interviewer. He is very nice and not overbearing at all. He’s willing to listen to her views. If Fox News was like this I’d eagerly watch it and gain perspective on conservative views.
To be open to just listening to another person regardless of if you agree is such a wonderful thing
I've seen this video recommended to me for over 3 years. I constantly disregarded watching it until now. My perception was that PBS would do a hack job of Ayn Rands views. I thought they would misrepresent her words and bash her philosophy. I regret not watching this video sooner. I apologize to PBS for prejudging their content without actually watching it. This video was very well done. Added to favorites. Thank you for the content.
This makes total sense I've been living by this philosophy my entire life, cause isn't it obvious why we love someone
Take for example your parents, they provide shelter comfort and food, and you form an emotional bondage just to keep the relationship intact, would you jump in a magma if your parents life depended on it
Most will but its only because we're morally obligated to do so
But deep down we're all alone and responsible for our ownself
People will hardly ever understand her. But she spoke her heart and she did it always.
The art is giving me a feeling of tension that I don't get from the dialogue. Great video.
Huh, after going on a binge through these videos of famous historical figures, I didn't expect Ayn Rand to be the one I vibed with the most. She's got my love.
I get it. I get selfish pleasure from helping others. I do. In love the currency is virtue!💓
The IRS wants 12 grand from me for mistakes they made in 2012. How good would that make you "feel" to help me out? I would surly thank you. :)
And that's why helping others should always be voluntary. Government shouldn't mess with this.
You dont get it. You weren't listening, clearly. She said nothing about getting selfish pleasure from helping others. She specifically said the only reason she helps her HUSBAND was because or selfishness...because of her love for him. She said nothing about getting anything from helping anyone at all.
Ayn Rand is an incredible motivation for me.
"At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love. It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality."
~Ernesto "Che" Guevara
@@sabotabby3372ironic part is both Ayn Rand and Che Guevera , two symbols of opposing philipshoies both died being hypocrites of their own ideologies lol
Ayn Rand died of old age accepting living off of SSI (which I guess technically is her money but it's still living off the state regardless encouraging it)
And Che guevera a liberator of fascist and imperialistic ideology engages in forced labor camps, was homophobic, and eliminated free press.
@@greenkidd529 che Guevara was a Communist and he died fighting for freedom in the jungle, and Cuba is one of the freest nations in Latin America with world class medicine, Ayn Rand spent her life bitching about "commies" and intellectuals and died destitute on welfare not having worked an honest day in her life
@@greenkidd529 I think taxes are immoral. Am I a hypocrite if I pay taxes?
Ayn Rand paid taxes. Should she have refused to pay taxes?
@@sabotabby3372 Yeah, Cuba, the Paradise of liberty when the power it's retained in one only party, there is no opposition press, and the people tries to escape...yeah
1:54 in the Torah (the Jewish bible) it talks about loving yourself. Rabbis deduced many years ago that you must love yourself more than others if you want to be able to love and care for your fellow people. (Just an interesting connection)
i've been reflecting on this for a few days. it's not what's typically taught, but it makes sense. it reminds me of the distinction between respect and toleration. respect, unlike mere tolerance, must be earned and deserved. "In love, the currency is virtue... you don't love everybody indiscriminately."
This woman was pure, unadulterated philosophy. "I have no faith at all. I only hold conviction." Should be the mantra of every person who holds logic and philosophical thought in any high regard in their life. And I very much agree with what she said in this video. You can't love people just because they are your fellow human beings because that utterly devalues love. It not only devalues love but it devalues people. Somebody who loves indiscriminately (and I have a strong feeling those people are far rarer than this comment section suggests) must therefor believe that nobody is worthy of being regarded more affectionately than anyone else. Hitler and Stalin and the Dalai Lama are all worthy of being held to the same esteem and being loved the same simply because they breathed the same air as you and are part of the same species. That's totally absurd, unscientific thinking and it's simply impractical to daily life because it's an impossible moral code to uphold because it goes against everything inherent within us.
Loving all people ≠ loving all people equally. Don't even try to conflate the two.
Jack Hooper If by loving all people you mean not mistreating them and respecting their rights and recognizing that they are in fact people then of course that is good and Rand doesn't dispute that but if that's what you mean then you're using very loose and ill conceived language that simply sets you up for miscommunication and I don't believe that's the context Rand was thinking of either. When I say "love all people" I'm talking about loving them all as brothers and sisters which is perfectly lovely in a vague poetic context but in real life it's absolutely absurd. How can you love someone if you don't know them? That's just irresponsible for one thing because there are plenty of thoroughly awful human beings and the wishy washy philosophy of the majority bleeding heart liberals calls for us to sacrifice for those people which is, in Rand's meaning of the word, immoral.
BEAUTIFULLY animated and edited. This is fantastic work
Remember when I read and understood Ayn Rand in my 15teens, was inspired and outspoken, I recieved incredible backlash for it. Now, many many years later, I read her and find her naive. But a big portion of our zeitgeist now agrees with my 15teen year old self.
Weird how it cycles - our perceptions on life.
Can you tell how your perception of her changed ? (Sincere question)
Rosenbaum is not naive as you claim. She's an idealist. You obviously disagree with her ideas instead of attacking her ideas--you throw "ad hominems" claiming that she is naive.
Rebellious, Thought Provoking and One the best Free Thinking philosophers!
The young gentleman (at the time) who booked the shows for Mike Wallace was a leftist educated man, who met Ayn Rand through a lady he worked with. He met with Rand, set up the interview---then joined the objectivism movement, befriending Ayn Rand.
I have a DVD with him on it. I remember him saying, "When I got out of a get together with Rand and others, walking home, I felt like I did not have\ to take crap from anybody."
What did he learn---that you have not yet.
The education is there---if you care to learn how to form a civil and prosperous society.
Thank you, thats a beautiful story.
I must be doing philosophy wrong because all I got from this piece is that I really miss Mike Wallace.
@rockfish Couldn't agree more. ramblings of a self righteous sociopath with a philosophical underpinning totally dependant on her subjective view of the other i.e. what she calls "parasites."
Union Prounion Whoa there..hold on. If you’ve read Atlas Shrugged you’d know that the people that she considers “parasites” really are “parasites”. They are the James Taggarts, the Floyd Ferris’ and the Wesley Mouches of the world. Dagny Taggart on numerous occasions refers to these people as talking down to others in ways that she never would dream of. Look at Cheryl Taggart if you need proof of that. I don’t remember the exact quote but it was something along the lines of “because we value the same things it is not charity”. She spoke to her as a peer and friend regardless of their differences. As a Christian, I have my own issues to resolve with her Philosophy, but her treatment of people of lower classes is not one of them.
so real, so lucid, so honest
So wrong.
@ so right
@@doyoubelieveinmagic4244
I know I am, thank you.
one of the philosophers who truly represented the philosophy of conservatism
Absolutely!
Objectivism
Objectivism is definitely not conservatism. It's political equivalent would be libertarianism. So many conservatives wish for others to live according to their moral guidelines. Ex: No gay marriage, no abortions, etc Placing restrictions on others lives and free will. Objectivism is not conservatism.
@@amandai.1334 Thank you. You said that better than I could.
Remember, she was an atheist who was against religions.
She makes a great point which isnt immediately apparent. There should be respect for humans because to respect a human is to respect yourself. But if you go beyond that and give love an compassion to all humans then you debase its value. If anyone disagrees with that then I dare you to give $20 to every homeless person you run into and you'll quickly learn that youd prefer to give your money to someone who earned it.
You don't have to give away your money to show love to your fellow man. Sometimes just a smile and a friendly, "hello" is all it takes to make someone's day. Giving a homeless person $20 is not going to solve all their problems, nothing you can do will solve all their problems. But small gestures can go a long way. Plus, guarantee if you selflessly help someone, you will have increased self esteem.
veronica lusk how much is that hello worth. It’s worth nothing everyone says hello. In a world where no one says hello but one man does then it has worth. In this world everyone says hello to everybody it’s the same as no one saying hello at all.
I believe in common courtesy, I do not have favorites but I do have the opposite of favorites. We tell every kid they are special, most kids don’t feel loved or cared for. Why, simple everyone tells them their special all the time the word is meaningless. Why do we smack kids on the head for curse words, simple the word loses value when you say it.
We now live in a manufactured world of words. I think and hope all of us wish to live in a world of actions.
@@IsraelLuisGeerRivera-ff4cg Where do you live that "everyone" says hello and smiles at "everyone", every man, woman, and child? Every businessman, beggar and pedler? But, kids are all getting snacked in the head for cursing? Smacking a kid is child abuse, btw. I call shenanigans.
Daniel Braaten; Spot on. Erich Fromm wrote the book "The Art of Loving" which advocated giving love to all humans. It was flawed of course, and Fromm was probably the worst psychoanalyst of the 20th Century.
“It is immoral if it is a love placed above one self” that is very important
Kudos to the artist. The artwork is great.
dear lord she really nailed it god i love her
I love how blank on blank tries to portray her so obviously negatively by making that one bit "I have no faith at all" as the thumbnail .
Complete that quote . She says "I have no faith at all, I only have conviction"
That essentially is her way of intensifying everyone's meaning of "faith" . That is her meaning of faith as is yours hope
Yash Wadhwani what's negative about our presentation? these are her words.
+Blank on Blank Look, I know this is a very long comment but just hear me out. Im not trying to be a troll here
Those are her words. And I don't mean to criticize your presentation. I mean, I like the video for your graphical style.
Its just, if you take just those words and put them separately for interpretation, she comes of as a spiritless atheist. Yes, she was an atheist but she definitely was not spiritless. If you read her, youll definitely find that through achievement, her characters try to capture that same sense, feeling or emotions of religious spirituality that makes her identifiable with someone who "has faith".
Taking just that sentence separately "I have no faith at all" as your thumbnail has, puts things out of context. The way she meant to be understood was not the way your presentation implies her.
Im not silly, I understand that youtube is a business and ofcourse a thumbnail needs to be eye catching, attractive or adhere to the public opinion. And the public opinion over her was/continues to be quite negative. I think the top comment gives evidence to what Im saying.
But as someone who doesnt believe in her philosophy yet read both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged can tell you that her criticisms are mostly undeserved.
People called her a bad writer because they didnt agree with her view point. And thats pretty much like saying Stephen King is a terrible writer cause he glorifies macabre.
The only difference between her and any fiction writer is that, any other fiction writer doesnt seem to believe their fiction or atleast publicly doesnt say so.
She is a really really good writer (Atleast I think so in my opinion). Atlast Shrugged, although it was a 1000+ page novel, i read it like it was a page turning thriller. I dont think a bad writer is capable or maintaining that level of pace, suspense and drama for so many pages.
This is really a personal gripe. But I feel as though its quite unfortunate that someone who worked so hard at their craft is now lost to history as some preacher/terrible writer.
She infact even state in her foreword to The Fountainhead that she wanted to create her ideal hero/man and that for that, she had to create his set of values. The story was the end, her philosophy was just the cause.
And even with those intentions, shes so misunderstood as someone who was all about preaching her philosophy.
Im sorry, I know ive Rambled. Ill Shut up. Lol, I wonder if youll ever read this.
Its just, I wanted to provide some kind of explanation for people to approach her. Because they are really missing out on a good writer based off of public opinion. And well, I just thought a thumbnail like that perpetuates that.
Show less
An Amazing animation to decipher an deep amazing philosophical mind. 👍
Brilliant, honest, timeless, enlightening! And now this happens to be my single most fav TH-cam video hands down.
"but, there are a very few of us worthy of love, by your definition?"
"yes, unfortunately that is true"
Finally somebody speaking the truth!! Enough BS!!
@@ubbdaubermensch1528 Ha ha ha, she is blind on that, people dont get to mature well, lots of obstacles.
@@marcleblanc3602 What bigger obstacle can a person have to not mature, like a school system and government that treats their won citizenry like a child? In the early American days, before the bad influences, free minds in the USA did incredible things before the age of 17. You have to be free,---to mature, and mankind benefits greatly, much better than a welfare system for adult children.
Love isn't something so calculated, you either have it for people or you don't. My bar for loving people is way lower, for me it isn't something as rare as she makes it out to be. According to her I am factually incorrect, which is nonsense. Love is subjective.
@Thomas Hagg I fell in love with my wife because she is a warm, generous, loving person. Ayn Rand’s attempt to box in love rings false to me. It isn’t anyone’s place to define it for other people, to make it “objective”. She has a miserly spirit and she wants to normalize it and tell others it’s the “correct”way to be.
@Thomas Hagg My only point by saying that was to contrast her with ayn rand. Rand tried to pass off her own attitude about something as amorphos as the concept of love as a universal ethos that we’re all morally obligated to follow. She’s trying to present her feelings as fact.
I never thought i'd hear someone who sees love as I do.
She is basically saying that EVERYONE should use their mind, rationally, with reason, because faith is subjective and not everyone is “morally” equipped to apply it ...hence Objectivism..
Remarkable how misunderstood Rand's philosophy is by so many. She was brilliant, she speaks the truth, and she threatens those who prefer that faith and altruism trump reason and self-interest. Once they convince you that they are morally superior by demanding your sacrifice, they can take from you indiscriminately.
And that makes her right?
@@SamFreedom no of course she is not, but she said so many things that are actually right ♡ her ideas are mostly great & realistic
I feel like I’d much rather live a life of love no matter what than one where but a few are deserving. 🤷🏼♂️
That begs the question: how do you achieve a "life of love"? Or do you just pretend it's love? Or perhaps you mean a life where *you* unilaterally love other people regardless of whether or not they love you in return?
What you'd "rather" do doesn't matter unless it's a) possible, and b) you take the necessary steps to achieve or obtain it. I'd rather be happy and healthy and wealthy and wise, but am I capable of being these things? Am I willing to do what is necessary to be these things? Or am I just fantasizing about something that's never going to happen?
@@macsnafu Well, seeing that both a and b are very much achievable, I don't see why opening oneself to having love for others would not be the choice to choose
When it comes to love, we can only attract, we cannot compel.
I love her attitude! She is totally against any form of slavery, including the one, when a man chooses a (young) woman regardless of what she thinks and wants.
@ Which is why logically her ideology is sound. It's not pragmatic and lines up with universally preferable ethics.
The way I see the world finally makes sense. This was like watching a eureka moment for me
"Would you kindly" make more videos like this?
I don't agree with everything, but I do dig what she's saying and she's basically correct.
And that's the point! Awesome. She wasn't the only great thinker. Humanity need to take what's gpod and build on it.
Everything you need to know about her can be told in one true story.she gave a talk once at a private school and after she was taking questions. One of the teachers said" We have all made mistakes in our lives. What was your biggest mistake? " She answered " I reject the premise of your question, one doesn't make mistakes if one acts rationally and I have always acted rationally" The woman believed that she never made a mistake. She literally thought she was the greatest philosopher who ever lived. There were arguments among her followers whether her boyfriend Branden or Aristotle was second. I am totally serious.
This woman was mad.
@Shouryya Goswami thats from a semi autobiographal novel by Thomas Wolfe . The part about her boyfriend and aristotle is available online.
@Shouryya Goswami As I say, The q and a part is from book by Thomas Wolfe who attended teh school where she gave her talk. I dont remember what it was called but I remeber the passage because it was so striking. as far as her cultlike worship here is one link
www.skeptic.com/reading_room/the-unlikeliest-cult-in-history/
there are others if you google ayn rand cult
@Aus Tronaut As far as I know the woman never told a joke in her life. among her cult followers in new york humor was frowned upon as being unserious, so yeah I'm pretty sure. Nietzsche wrote a book called why i am so great which I think must have been a joke
@@jlrinc1420 fuck you, Yaron Brook is the president of the Ayn Rand Institute and he is a very funny guy, everybody makes jokes all the time.
Your ad hominem doesn't make her wrong. (I don't believe she was the greatest philosopher who ever lived at all tho).
Like many other people, I discovered Ayn Rand via the Bioshock series, and aside from some interesting ideas, i disagree with 90-95% of her ideology/philosophy, but i have to admit that in all it's style, atmosphere and theme, this video has been my favorite video on TH-cam for 5 years now I think
Great back and forth, very interesting!
freakin genius
Freakin?
Certainly.
Genius?
Certainly not.
@ tirggered
Like with all philosophy, the environment one is raised in will shape the perception of their own personal reality, and how that perception fits/conflicts with the overall reality. Ayn Rand came from a totalitarian environment, where the absence of personal freedom and altruistic concepts were prevalent. To me, she reminds me of the Founding Fathers of The united States of America, since the background of both parties were almost identical.
Thank you for the upload of this video.
@ Altruism is done by force. There is no more freedom of the individual will. Charity is done from a sovereign and free will choice. Huge difference.
She only came from one. Communism is the secular humanist religion... Man is "God", and that is not so.
@ Oh, and here is an interesting quote you might want to hear...
"Be careful of those who call people 'the masses'. It is a sign that they are 'One of them'" - William Cooper.
@ Read what you said, and you will have your answer. I am not special at all. Just blessed to know I am a sovereign human, just like you if you choose to recognize it. Until then, I wish you the best.
@ Here is your definition, since there are 2. ": behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species".
That right there goes against the nature of people, since we all have self-preservation. There is charity. Charity is given when you and your family is taken care of, and you have extra. YOU CHOOSE to share for the benefit of others. It does not go against self-preservation, since the self is preserved.
Example: Taxes that pay for people to not work is altruism, aka legalized theft since it is done by force.
@ Rebuttal** to Post 1&2) Starting with the definition. The Cambridge version you offered has 2 definitions, just like the Merriam Webster version I gave. So first, we must define the term and the way we are using it. The term has changed, hence 2 definitions. The term you seek to use in your stance is a modern rendition of the word, while I am using the word in the original way, hence our conflict in understanding. An article from the Los Angeles Times makes this distinction "The main problem with understanding Ayn Rand’s position on this today is that modern usage of the term has eroded his meaning of altruism to little more than a synonym for generosity, so Rand’s rejection of the original meaning - the requirement of total selflessness - is erroneously taken as rejecting generosity." Source: www.dailynews.com/2020/02/02/ayn-rands-misunderstood-position-on-altruism/.
As you can see, We both can agree that generosity is a moral virtue. But to cut off your arm to feed a person for a day, stops you from producing more in the future, thus making you reliant on another... who might not be as virtuous as You.
**Misspelled Rebuttal, made spelling correction.
Everything she says is true. One can't argue with someone who had lived in a country (USSR) founded on completely BS principles. Like a lot of us, who come from that country, she possesses a very sensitive BS meter. I would listen to what she says as that meter picks up even small degrees of BS that are still present in the US, something we believe in without applying too much thinking, but just by assumption or dogma. It has to MAKE SENSE to be believable - that's the crux of what she says.
The first half reminds me of Alan Watts on selfish love, and after hearing him speak about it, I can understand this fully.
Whomever produced this style juxtaposed with the interview NAILED IT! LOve this
i've learned soo much from
'the virtue of selfishness"...thanks, lady.
jeep23862 This is a “Luke Skywalker’s cave” scenario. You found the “bastard” part because you carried it in with you.
That woman had an incredibly sexy mind!
Ayn Rand is one of the most underrated philosophers of the 20th century.
I enjoy the ideas that the video brings just makes me think.
Can selfishness be replaced with self responsibility? is that perhaps what she was getting at?
got it, thanks man
It sort of goes with that saying, How can you take care of others, if you can't take care of yourself?
It was through taking care of others that taking care of myself became possible. A close relative became very poorly, and - through the role of carer that this illness created for me - I found purpose and structure in my life. Before I had none, and was in a bad state.
I have listened to the audiobook of "The Virtue of Selfishness", which
is probably the work - which shows her philosophy in the most
fundamental way ― and I tell you - I could write that book and better;
and it always was my nature; I didn't need to learn anything for that -
from others. My point is ― that the true conclusion of her(our)
philosophy ― ISN'T capitalism!
if you want the true conclusion - it's
here -
docs.google.com/document/d/1GCJlCn844x62IaP4ce2ADSu1M7cfMjLyrcZ0QqwdHAo/edit?usp=sharing
> Love was not about the other person, but the selfish pleasure it brings you.
This is said in the description, but i didnt at all get that from what she was saying, that was wallance's perception. To me she said love was based in apparecation for values. She said people act to benifit for their loved ones out of selfish pleasure. Not that selfish pleasure is why people love
I just love her.
This was some great animation. Really helps understanding the text. Wish they did it more :(
brilliant, just brilliant
I have no faith at all, only convictions! Wow
Love, currency is virtue.
…
Next week on Blank on Blank we’ll have the recovered tapes of Andrew Ryan
Would you kindly tell us what you hoped to achieve in building Rapture Mr. Ryan?
Ayn Rand is the smartest woman that has ever lived... Her brilliance has no equal...
She was a total loony
@Catch545 dusty Here's my top three favorite:
1. Philosophy: Who Needs It?
2. The Virtue of Selfishness
3. Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology
In that order ;)
@ What is it about her that you consider would make her a loony?
@@jabibgalt5551
Why was she a loony?
Because her Objectivist ideas were NEVER the product of reason or logical mind.
They were the work of someone whose mistakenly blamed the fall of her very comfortable life style and the loss of her Russian families wealth and status on the "collective" that brought about the Imperial State.
She was a loony because her ideas are at the same time unworkable and barbaric.
However, the true loonies are not to be found in Rand who made a nice earner out of producing her unworkable barbaric nonsense but unthinking twits lier you who given your YT moniker willingly swallow the shit she produced hook line and sinker.
And before you ask, NO I have not read a lot of her work but I've read enough to know its a load of bollocks.
@ Thank you for the answer. If I may ask, what is it about her work that you consider unworkable (by which, I assume, you mean unpractical) and barbaric, specifically?
These are very good.
Ayn Rand is fucking great. i'm also a millenial and a bit of a hippy. ayn rand puts more agency in the individual than pretty much any philosopher ever
So brilliant.
wtf why am i tearing..
Her "morality" is basically a lack of any of the things in any other moral system.
So?
weepingguitars That makes it a bad system for describing the way that we behave.
Gage Baumgard Morality doesn't describe how people behave, it prescribes how they ought to. Did you have a point?
Well her moral code was derived from a philosophy she built around Aristotle's metaphysics, so it's not as though she created it in a complete vacuum
weepingguitars We test different moral theories with thought experiments in order to test how good they are. If a moral theory says that it's fine to do something that most people agree is bad and that it is wrong to do something that most people agree is good, we throw out the theory.
*_Ayn Rand seems kinda radical._*
Ie. Consistent
Why u stop making videos? Pls keep making their awesomes
I like your style.
Touché
She knows how to win an argument :)
The thing I always find interesting with Ayn Rand's views is that they jive with Jesus statement to "love your neighbor as yourself." She expresses it in such a unconventional way as to turn off many people from it, but the same core idea is there. If you don't love yourself and watch out for your own self-interests, then how can you love others who are looking out for their own self-interests, and how can you watch out for the interests of another if you can't even do it for your own?
I do also admit she's probably rolling over in her grave from my comment, but still.
Oooooooh shit, we gon' get some dislikes on this one.
***** ; your best effort to date.
I can tell by her words that she had little love as a kid. And that her parents conditioned love or things to her only when she earned them.
Just Like church teaches God only loves good people.
I am impressed.
Made more sence in 3 minutes than most people ever do. And part if that 3 minutes she wasnt talking. Reminds me of a philosopher Thomas Hobbs.
"Man has free will . . ." *EHHHHHHHHH* Sorry, Ayn. Also sexual romantic Love is intertwined with attraction, and attraction isn't a choice.
Ofcourse it is.
@@dalliboyrt9927 Of course it isn't.*
@@dalliboyrt9927 it's not
Its chemical and instinctual
Yes, and what do you love about that person which you don't find attractive in someone else of the same gender? Isn't it what you might call, the inner beauty? If you are actually attracted by anyone and everyone, I don't have much to say.
You hide yourself behind "science" you don't actually care to understand. Attraction has merely to do with how you got used to react to certain outside stimuli, which can change if you change how you react to them.
Don't care about her philosophy but loved the animation ❤️
swaag queeen
Fellow Capricorn moon. Spot on for me. Other than I have a shit ton of faith. I just have met few people that offer the conviction.
Zack Snyder said he was inspired by Ayn Rand’s philosophy on objectivism and that what was in Batman vs Superman. The movie was also inspired by The Dark Knight returns and The Death of Superman which in both books portray Superman a collectivist and an altruist. For the movie it should’ve been about the altruist vs the objectivist Superman being the altruist putting the lives of people over his own and Batman as the objectivist fighting crime selfishly through his own means.
One person Ayn Rand loved (or appeared to in her fawning, worshipful adoration): William Edward Hickman, whose kidnapping and murder of a little girl strongly informed her philosophy (and so the philosophy of the modern Republican Party) early on.
(But don't take my word for it; look it up.)
That's the one. I was trying to remember without looking it up. Stole some of my humanity, reading about that. And her reaction.
***** You're a very rare individual. Someone who actually did *research* instead of buying what someone sold him third hand. That puts you head and shoulders above 90% of the people in this comment section.
*****
I'd be interested to know what context makes calling a man who raped and murdered a 12 year-old girl "the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. ... Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should." more palatable. Because in the context of her plainly sociopathic philosophy, it just makes explicit her admiration of sociopathy and one sociopath in particular. She admired him for being antisocial -- not asocial, antisocial, like a murderer or terrorist. For smashing things that society holds sacred -- little girls, for example -- because he didn't like them.
***** Aw, that really hurts my feelings.
Yes, obviously, she admired him for why he did it. Now, take the next step: why did he do it? Stay with me here: *Because he was a sociopath*. I don't understand why you're not making the connection, unless you don't know what a sociopath is and aren't willing to look it up (or are just deliberately trying to avoid looking at this too critically, but I give you more credit than that). He embodied her philosophy -- other human beings are of no value, and were to be used or discarded according to his whims (a little like you did with me here, actually). Her condemnation of WHAT HE DID is entirely an afterthought; she's more fixated on blaming society for its reaction to him than on blaming him for committing murder.
But don't get distracted. The pertinent point here is that she admired William Hickman *because he had a sociopathic disregard for other people*. You can bend over backwards to technically distinguish that disease from its distasteful symptom -- the butchering of a little girl -- but they are of a piece. It's akin to saying you admire Hitler for his disregard for human life and the ruthless efficiency that afforded him, but you don't approve of the Holocaust.
***** I actually didn't recognize the significance of what you're saying here until I wasn't looking it right in the face.
"Rand didn't admire Hickman for [kidnapping, raping, murdering, and dismembering a little girl] - only for why he [kidnapped, raped, murdered, and dismembered a little girl]."
The fact that you not only think this is a meaningful distinction, but think it's a winning defense of Rand, illustrates better than I ever could the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of Rand, her philosophy, and its adherents. Stunning.
Now is the time to open the book of Objectivity again. Our nation needs a meritocracy, a legion of individuals, we need openly direct philosophy that creates freedom and individual purpose. Dispense with race and sex, no more tools of division. A true meritocracy.
According to Websters first definition: Meritocracy; "A system in which the talented are "chosen" and moved ahead on the basis of their achievement."
Chosen by whom? In a true free market society, it is the achievement itself that moves people ahead, (and shows others they can do it also), and not chosen by anyone or anything else than achievement. I have read, watched and listened to quite of bit or Ayn Rand's work, and I have never seen the word "Meritocracy" to define her philosophy, or the very similar philosophies that created our constitution, declaration of independence and the bill of rights where that word does not exist either. A king or ruler who does allow achievement, but taxes it, is a meritocracy. I prefer the term, "meritliberty". :)
and that's how women's mind works ..
EVERYTHING IS BUSINESS and you must work for yourself and nobody else.
and if you can go higher then death to all who is lower.
No no no, you're not getting it! IF it's in your best interest you can choose to work with and for others. But it should always be solely your decision!
I love this woman.
Dont love indiscriminately. Dont love without standards. Some people dont deserve your love. You will hate yourself for wasting the energy later on. Not worth it
I love how in this interview he did not only listen but challenged her views and thoughts
It was really interesting to hear them go back and forth
He was a socialist, and maybe the only one who would actually interview/debate a person of individual liberty like Ayn Rand. Today, the ideas of human liberty are omitted and trashed by the opposite philosophies of collectivism dominating our society. It was actually Mike Wallace's young and high level educated producer who met Ayn Rand, became an objectivist, and got Ayn Rand her first TV appearance here, (he did it behind the scenes, because he upset her and thought she would refuse if he asked her to do the show). I have a 3 piece DVD collection about Rand and the objectivist movement, where the now older producer, (Ramus, I think is the name, it is at the beginning of the 1959 complete show on YT), talked about his relationship with Rand,---very positively. He was educated and groomed a leftist, thought he knew it all, mingled with the nations most prominent (pseudo) intellectuals, met Ayn Rand to challenger her, (a slightly older gal co-worker also turned by Rand, introduced them), and one meeting with rand changed his mind. Mike was a socialist, but he was a good enough man to listen to ideas, (which is not happening today as you note, and is very very bad.). He respected her opinion, (did not try to smear her), because she had a very rational opinion. It was really a good show,---for a socialist. :)
By the way, I think Ayn Rand here in this interview, almost change Mike Wallace's mind also. This is why the collectivist left today, will do anything but debate idea's, especially in public. I think any of us with some life experience can see the potential that the left today, would/do even murder people, before they will debate idea's in public,---because the ideas of individual liberty still exist, and even most hard core socialists still have at least one brain cell left in their head that believe in their "self". And man, can that one cell grow to many with the idea's of individualism exposed. Why? Because we are all individuals, with a brain that has the capability to think. That means, "Individual liberty protected by law", (which is color and sex blind), is the only idea that all men/women can "unite" around, (where groups of people do not get murdered to achieve unity of scared people,---like china communism and islam, the opposite philosophies of individual liberty.).
Back when people used to take turns when debating or speaking... Now its like an episode of Jerry Springer everyone talking over one another... We are less intelligent than we've ever been...
Modern academics tend to despise Ayn Rand. But, then again, they tend to be Marxists: believing people OWE it to each other to just give each other things.
@@NathanJennings1222 You are 100% right , right now with the COVID-19 Sore Throat Scam , I've had to buy lots of supplies because of the irrational behavior of the masses which forces the rational to behave irrationally as well , and anyone I have told of what I have they ask right away for me to share ... People just want handouts which I find annoying... Screw Marxism...
one of the hardest hiting things in life is when you realize youre responsible for yourself
No one is coming to save you!
Whoever said otherwise?
sure the tricky part is, what is the self?
Magic, why is that tricky? Here is how Dictionary.Com defines it: a person or thing referred to with respect to complete individuality:
one's own self.
2.
a person's nature, character, etc.:
his better self.
3.
personal interest.
4.
Philosophy.
the ego; that which knows, remembers, desires, suffers, etc., as contrasted with that known, remembered, etc.
the uniting principle, as a soul, underlying all subjective experience.
adjective
5.
being the same throughout, as a color; uniform.
6.
being of one piece with or the same material as the rest:
drapes with a self lining.
7.
Immunology. the natural constituents of the body, which are normally not subject to attack by components of the immune system (contrasted with nonself ).
8.
Obsolete. same.
pronoun, plural selves.
9.
myself, himself, herself, etc.:
to make a check payable to self.
verb (used with or without object)
I can't do better than that. I will only add that philosophy need not and should not be confusing. There will always be tweaks and adjustments by those who think for a living. But for a mass movement it does little good to make something simple, complicated. I don't mean in any way to shoot you down. Your question is a valid one. I just think the answer to your question is not tricky. However important it may be, the answer to the question "what is the self" is the period to the end of this comment.
Without co-operation the human race would have died out many times over.
"If a man wants love, he should correct his flaws and he may deserve it." - A statement I feel has become very much forgotten.
+Chase H or he can just selfishly take it. Selfishness demands that you put your own pleasures ahead of others. And that you value the self above all else. including society and nature itself. If you have power Use it and force your values on others for your own pleasure and at the expense of theirs.
i mean what could Possibly go wrong :)
+alvisc2002 One has no right to tell others how to live their life. I'm hedonistic, meaning happiness is my highest priority in life to seek out, however, I do not do it at the expense of others as it is immoral and would definitely lead to a more chaotic society if everyone did what you just stated.
Michael Rosche then you're not being selfish. caring for the benefit of others is an act of altruism. you can seek happiness and in the process allow others to seek happiness. or help them achieve the same. it's just called being human
+alvisc2002 Ayn Rand did not use "selfishness" and "altruism" in the same way we commonly use. For you, she wouldn't be considered selfish because she respected other people's rights and cared about other people. I won't explain her philosophy to you, because it's very well explained on the video.
so to reach love obtain perfection. to correct ones flaws is to transcend humanity
It was great to finally see true journalism. The interviewer did not try to smear Ayn Rand yet he was challenging her views.
There's still great journalism out there. Just not in the US. I enjoy Deutchewella and some other outlets. They go out of their way to be objective and intellectually rounded
The problem is thanks to modern culture that swept USA universities and the backlash after that, this kind of "culture" that is in this interview is becoming a lost art. Today people are so polorized in all sides that discussions like this become harder and harder.
The animator, on the other hand
That's the inimitable Mike Wallace of Sixty Minutes. One of the best in the business and is father to Chris, another journalistic heavyweight.
@@gordusmaximus4990 but you only blame the side that universities entertain, conveniently not talking about the echo chamber that had an american conservative rage quit against a british conservative journalist and a mass of people who were encrouage to storm the capitol building and smear their crap on the walls...