When I was younger, back in 2004.... I was having a conversation with some fellow shipmates when I was commercial fishing in Alaska. I was saying things that aligned with Ayn Rand. The Boatswain on the ship asked me if I ever read Atlas Shrugged. I told him I hadn't. Himself and another person was blown away. I was handed The Fountainhead when we got back to land. I was told that this book should speak to me. I came to these thoughts from on my own,,, I though it was self evident. When I read Fountainhead, I found it very powerful... I clearly remember the overwhelming feeling of realizing I wasn't alone in the way I think. I finally wasn't alone.... other's thought like I did. At that time in my life, I had spent about 7 years in Portland and never liked or respected the culture there. I often was at odds with people. I followed up with Atlas Shrugged. Ayn Rand had a profound affect on me. Fast Forward and I have a degree in Mathematics, Philosophy, and I'm a Physicist.... and a Business owner. She had a profoundly positive influence on my life. Edit: I should say, she put words and crystalized what I had deep feelings about. She is the perfect foil to Marxism. Whenever I engage in a debate with people... I always ask them "Who owns you?".
@@Daniela-pr7rz So hard to tell where people are coming from sometimes, especially when having to constantly fight straw- men arguments against Rand. So it can be hard to tell friend from foe. If you're interested in her take on art, I would recommend her non - fiction book, The Romantic Manifesto, if you haven't read it already. I would surmise her take on good art vs bad art would come down to the nature of the fantasy. Glad to discuss further if ya like. ☺️
The beauty of this is that, without an inferiority complex, this interview is an exploration into the mind of someone who questions everything and has firm morals while using her own compass based on evidence and rational. So nice to see, a lost art it seems in today’s public sphere
@@charlesangell_bulmtl no, "Political science" is the study of politic and how it works. "Follow the science" is be a sheeple and get use at the detrimental cost to the sheep.
In a Nathanial Branden essay, he wrote, "If you want to know what someone thinks of themself, find out who they sleep with." Heroes sleep with heroines; degenerates sleep with degenerates.
@@samuellane8691 If you allow, I disagree slightly. Michael slept with Barack and she seemed pure and kind-hearted and invested in the well-being of others.
I don’t see that in this late interview. Here, to me, she just looks fatigued. I have noticed it in earlier interviews, however, and there was a particular chemical cause: Ayn Rand for most of her life was a regular daily user of amphetamines, an addict, in fact.
@@chrisc1257 If you can call someone who smoked 2 packs of cigarettes a day for 4 decades and quit cold turkey one day on the advice of her doctor an 'addict', your program is running on a broken OS. Just consider the average AA gathering as a point of reference.
Sure, Rand was bright, but I would challenge the "challenging mind" bit--depending what you mean by it. By the time of this interview Rand had long been intellectually stultified, reduced to repeating the same well-rehearsed formulas over and over again. If this were the first you time you encountered her, I suppose you might be challenged (depending on your age and philosophical literacy) by her, but if you had already read her--pretty much at all--, you couldn't reasonably be challenged by much of anything she said, wrote, or did in the last three decades of her life--or so.
It’s not a formula…….you must not understand the concepts by which she lived. She is asked to explain things and she does……..interview after interview. If you read, and understand, and think about the concepts you will, reasonably, be not only challenged but be changed.
I suffered severe depressıon sınce chıldhood at the hands of fanatıcally relıgıous parents and a sıblıng, ıt lasted for decades, then Ayn Rand's phılosophy ended all of that, she saved the rest of my lıfe. A wonderful, wıse and sweet woman.
@Ok I am religious and believe the parable of the Good Samaritan by Jesus makes logical sense (example of helping others in need not out of selfishness) and so does the existence of God. If God wants us to care for one another (based on the teachings of Jesus) then Ayn Rand's philosophy is invalid. I am not a big "My brother's keeper" type of person being generally against a bloated welfare state but some basic safeguards for the poor and disabled as a public service makes logical sense not about feelings. I believe we all are given a conscience which prevents us from doing harm to others and turning your back on suffering people also triggers my conscience to help rather than a selfish motive. Lots of her ideas make sense but it assumes you are only doing it for your own benefit which is pure individualism which I like somewhat but it is also impractical since we do have public needs that cannot be privately provided such as military protection which requires a great deal of collective funding. Nevertheless, I am a big believer in what she promotes "pro-capitalist, laissiez-faire, economic freedom and individualism". I am a conservative and Christian so those four ideas are actually very rational and reasonable. Limited government seems to be her goal which is what I agree with. Eliminating God and what God commands: Love thy neighbor as thy self" is contrary to her philosophy and is what I can't and most people can't buy.
@@tntstorms7969 grew up in the church and preached since 17. Practicing sacrificial love almost took my life. First time I heard Ayn was like hearing the gospel, a breath of fresh air to my soul. The idea that I could actually put myself and my needs first has given me hope. I believe in God and the Christian Gospel at its core makes sense. However, the Christian philosophy and the its practical application today is quite destructive to a good hearted person.
Religions were not made by God. They are man made rules and rituals deceiving us into believing we know God. Cut out the middleman. There is one God, his son Jesus ( God incarnate) and you. A relationship not religion.
Ayn Rand fan." The Fountainhead" is one of my favourite novels. Rand was a great fan of America's railroads[ways]. She often traveled on NYC's "Twentieth Century Limited", being invited by the engine drivers to travel in their locomotive as the train headed up the Hudson River.
@@ToxicTorgo It's not a literal rape, Dominique gave consent (sure, in a peculiar way, by whipping Roark's face). But symbolically - yes, it's a rape, because Roark forces out a contradiction in Dominique's soul. Read the passage more carefully.
@@michaelsvoboda1024 In fairness, he did clarify sarcasm. I suspect he understands the context. Just sayin'; but yes, I think you're correct in interpretation.
The entire premise of The Fountainhead would make for a good comedy. A bunch of billionaires leave society to......what? Form their own society? Did they bring their servants with them? Who mows their lawns? Do they try and build their own roads, sewer systems, and electric lines? I mean, the comedy would write itself! Unfortunately, many people actually take that book seriously.
"The highest tribute to Ayn Rand is that her critics must distort everything she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individuals rights to freedom of action, speech,& association; self responsibility, NOT self-indulgence; & a live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an END, not the MEANS of others' ends. How many critics would dare honestly state these ideas & say. "...and that's what I reject"? ---Barbara Branden, author of The Passion of Ayn Rand.
Re: "How many critics would dare honestly state these ideas & say. '...and that's what I reject'?" That's a list of platitudes, not "ideas". Anyone can CLAIM he stands for "reason", etc.--or, for that matter "truth, justice, and the American way" (as the old fifties "Superman" TV show used to put it). That means nothing. Calling yourself "rational" doesn't make you rational. Calling yourself an advocate of rationality doesn't make you an advocate of rationality.
It would be more illuminating for her to have been interviewed by someone like Bryan Magee in the manner that Noam Chomsky was in 1978 (look for the TH-cam video-or any other in the series), although I’m afraid she may have been flailing, lost at sea, in this more heady milieu. Her knowledge of philosophy in general was too superficial and spotty and her own “philosophy” too threadbare and derivative.
@@herbertwells8757 A cult is a religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. I don't think Rand's saying to live realistically is a religion. She doesn't tell you how to live, you are free to choose between reality and imagination not what you must do, she is only saying that to be an individualist you must live within realty of what's going on around you in the present time.
@Skip White I am not trying to bash her, but some of the things she said seemed to me not feasible. She speaks here about how a man should be rational with self esteem. If nothing else would motivate a man, she and other old women, would all be alone in old age, as no rational man would choose an old, bitter woman to a young , beautiful one. I heard her say how monopolies cannot form under unregulated economic environment, where the government stays away from it. How would she know? there's no example of a government that completely stayed away. Just because monopolies formed under economies where government is active , is no proof that monopolies would not form in free economies. Also, she said no taxes, private roads, private everything. So poor men should stay on house arrest, because they cannot afford to use the roads and a s a consequence they would never have a chance to prosper? What about valuable minds that would not have a chance to shine without a scholarship, or some sort of help to get started? i like personal freedom and not forcing people to sacrifice for others, but she is a little too extreme in a way that would make her ideas not work in real life.
@@Daniela-pr7rz Well- no rational man with self esteem would choose to be with an old woman, unless she was rich or had other features, like intelligence to make her interesting. I think she is mostly right about the claim that monopolies cannot form in unregulated economies. Because if very big corporations did not have the option to bribe politicans, they would have to keep createting value to the custumers, to keep competision at bay. Noting is wrong with a big corporation that creates more value than the competion.
@@Daniela-pr7rz She is a genuine pipe dream with a philosophy that will never be tested, just trying to set it up goes against it's own grain... But she is brilliant.
I bet if you guys thought it out all the way through, you wouldn't disagree with her quite as much. Not that I agree with 100% of what she had to say when she was alive, but... *most* of it makes sense. The main hold up in admitting as much for a lot of people, is that it grates against virtually everything they've been taught (from external sources) is "right" their whole lives. Once you get past that though, imo it's pretty easy to see she didn't get much wrong.
Totally. 99% of her critics only know what her through what other critics have said. Yes read Aristotle first then Rand all of their works then tell me how horrible you think she is, until then who really cares what your irrational conclusions amount to.
I have the same thought that she does when I see that men or women are the best in something, it provides me much enjoyment. Just watching someone like Mike Tyson or reading about the Wright Bros. is awe inspiring.
I like how her writings give you a reason to stop feeling unearned, needless guilt. As someone who allowed myself to succumb to much familial and other guilt as a child, this always resonated. I also had this way of downplaying my accomplishments and intelligence in the hope of being accepted or treated as an equal to others around me. Never realizing, I was only dishonoring what makes life so worthwhile. It took until my middle 30s to finally see she was right the whole time.
3 วันที่ผ่านมา
You start of life giving yourself a glorious inferiority complex. Then whoopee, road to Damascus, you read a book written by an evil mad woman with a giant chip on her shoulder with the worlds largest ego (OK Excepting Donald and Elon). Suddenly your a fantasy figure called John Galt. You're NOT John Galt,....... Rand was. Get a grip of your self or you'll end up like Rand dying alone with no loving relatives or TRUE friends to give a shit.
2 วันที่ผ่านมา
@@philipdraper7284 With all due respect your comment was also your opinion. Before I answer your reply have you noticed my initial comment has been deleted? Why was she evil, because she had no humanity, empathy, charity, morality, decency all the things that make human beings human. The fact that you might well have carried a lot of pain in your childhood and young manhood is hardly unusual, it's called growing up. The fact is as we get older most of us get more confident and develop thicker skins. That does not mean we lose our sense of humanity etc. Rand opinions were not based on logic, reason or fact but on her hatred of society in general. Her opinions are no less valid than yours or mine. Just out of interest what would society be like under a Randian regime? I hope they don't delete this before you've read it.
Society following an objectivist ethics would be one that is based on men pursuing their own rational self interest, with respect for the rights of other men. When other men’s’ rights or life is violated in any way, the system of justice is in effect for that reason. It would hypothetically be a society free of restrictive regulations that tend to hamper economic activities. All booms and busts can be traced back to government interference as can monopolies….i don’t believe Ayn Rand intended, however, to institute a political system based on her ideology. But do I believe her views are more consonant with a free society than her ideological opposite, Marx? Yes. Resoundingly.
2 วันที่ผ่านมา
@@philipdraper7284 Let's start with the word objectivist "the philosophical belief that reality exists independently of human experience and can be known through the senses" it's a bullshitters word. meaning nothing. If something can be felt by our senses then by definition they must be know by human experiences " It sounds clever, clever but signifies nothing. Then we come to " based on MEN pursuing their own rational self interest" Rand seldom if ever promoted "WOMEN" pursuing their own rational self interest? Why because, excluding herself, she felt women were inferior to men. Hardly a logical, reasoned, factual opinion. Next up is who is to decide what is a "rational self interest"? What's rational to you might be totally irrational to someone else, like our views of Rand. The only way to decide what is rational is by having laws made by the people which apply to all the people equally. "When other men’s’ rights or life is violated in any way, the system of justice is in effect for that reason." Exactly the point I'm making. The only question to ask is who or what makes the laws? Would you prefer your laws to be made by a Dictator with supreme power over everybody, like Putin or Hitler remember both Russia and China have highly educated highly civilised citizens yet the overwhelming number of citizens knowing that there leaders do terrible unspeakable things in order to stay in power. How about Theocracy like Iran or Afghanistan the way the Christian Right is gaining power in the US it to will become a Theocratic Dictatorship. Let's get rid of multi-party liberal governments elected of the people for the people and by the people and instead simply give economic and political power to the super rich and powerful which is what Rand promoted. Will it work, the next 4 years should supply the answers to that one. "It would hypothetically be a society free of restrictive regulations that tend to hamper economic activities" You mean all economic powers are given to the already super rich and powerful? Guess what would go, minimum pay, workers right, medical care programs, unions, State and Federal welfare, State funded schools, you name it if your poor or helpless you ain't going to get it. How do you like the idea of being governed by Elon Musk? " All booms and busts can be traced back to government interference as can monopolies" For the record America biggest economic disaster the Great Depression was not caused by the Government but by a group of corrupt financiers gerrymandering the investment market s to suit there own ends. it's the Government, not a monopoly company, that decides when a company has become a monopoly . ".i don’t believe Ayn Rand intended, however, to institute a political system based on her ideology."? I do, if she didn't believe in her opinions why the pluck did she spend most of her life promoting them?? True she made lot of money out of it, so much good that did her. "But do I believe her views are more consonant? consistent ? (I think you miss-typed) with a free society than her ideological opposite, Marx? Yes. Resoundingly." Explain to me your vision of a "free society? Keeping in mind the difference between a well regulated "free society" and a "unregulated free society"? . Rand's so call Objectivism, and Lenin's take on Communism are simply at the extremes opposite ends of the same economic/ social/ political rope. Under Communism the State owns and controls everything, Under Objectivism the State owns nothing and does nothing everything would be controlled by a self-selecting, self-promoting, self-regulating, self-sustaining oligarchs. Which shows how stupid she was. Both the French and Russian revolution happened because a small clique of super-rich, powerful treated the lower classes like dirt . If the Russian Aristocracy and Rand bourgeoisie class had treated the working classes better there would not have been no communism and Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum would have married a bank manager and wrote romantic novels. And we wouldn't be doing this. Rest assured Phil if that ever happened you would not be one of the Elites . Again let's hope this stays posted long enough for you to read it.
Objectivism is an entire philosophic system where reason and self interest are its guiding principles based off man’s integration of sensory perceptive abstractions into concretes that are then further integrated into values. What I consider rational or someone else is irrelevant as subjective reality is counter to what exists. It’s based on a premise that reality exists and reason identifies this reality through a process of negation-integration. When I say “men” that simply denotes homosapiens and lends no relevance to a simplistic feminist structural theory about gender or sex. Men denotes both sexes and as a romanticist Rand regularly identified man as species, with little consideration of modern parlance/meanings. As far as the laws are concerned, elected officials. If there is a separation of state and economy…just as there is currently a separation of state and church, how would these oligarchs accede power? If corruption occurs, rational men elect officials to ensure a fair and just system prevails. Rand also believed in helping the poor and disabled but not on an act of government but through private charities, and many men who value life (such as myself) happily donate to such charities regularly….i think those who despise Rand also have accepted the idea that life is cruel, miserable, and cynical…when reality is her adherents see life and man in a more positive way. Corruptive elements breed corruption….look at many of the government institutions that rely on buddy systems rife with nepotism and ineffectiveness. Private companies might also have these problems but cannot afford to waste resources in the pursuit of profits quite like government can….Ayn Rand might not have had all the answers but she certainly had all of the questions. The premise of the thieving rich I also fail to understand. A person who makes 1 million dollars a year, their money will end up being invested in the markets anyway to some capacity, even if you raise income taxes. They’ll just invest it in muni bonds or other real estate/illiquid assets….as much as people decry the capitalist system (which has its share of problems) it is more correct than state control.
Toward the end, when she lists achievement and romantic love as two of the most joyous things in life... little doubt about that. I’ve always found Ayn Rand to be someone that I understood and agreed with in the main, than man should live rationally and ethically and free, but disagreed with on some specific issues, such as some of her views on art and the value of religion. The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are both essential reading, the latter being cumulatively the second largest selling book of all time in the English language, after the Bible. She was quite a gal.
I don't know of a single individual in my life that I have agreed with 100% of the time on 100% of the issues. Not my parents, not my wife, not my kids, not my friends...nobody. I agree with Ayn Rand over 90% of the time. That's pretty amazing. And the small number of issues I disagree with her on...I'm not positive I'm right and she's wrong.
I'm still working on wrapping my head around her definition of selfishness. I believe she's been heavily misinterpreted in that vein, but I need to focus there exclusively until I understand her pov. It's the only aspect of her philosophy I have trouble grasping after reading her most popular books multiple times and the others at least once. They were gifted to me by a sweet man who after we conversed a few months assumed I'd read them. Reading them was like meeting a wise old grandmother whom I never knew.
I was introduced to Ayn Rand's works 24 years ago by a slightly older friend in college. It changed my way of thinking, made me a hard worker and due to Ayn and her Objectivisim I am who I am today. I think Ayn would weep today seeing the state of not just America but the West entirely as we've fallen so far, government has gotten too big, monopolies are everywhere propped up by crooked big governments and people think a homeless junkie that's never worked a day in their life or contributed in any way is more important and worthy of saving than a businessman or inventor who've truly made other's lives better thru their work. All Charity and helping others does is cause them to value nothing, because watch how someone treats something they were given vs something they've had to work for. They will take better care of and value that which they worked hard for.
Oh the state of America and the West was plainly evident during Rand's time, she saw plenty of it. Today's state of society would be no surprise to her, in fact what's happening now is exactly what she predicted. People say that Atlas Shrugged being published in 1957 was prophetic. It wasn't as much so as people think. The signs and root of our current societal degradation, at least in hindsight, have been visible for over 100 years. Rand was just one of the first to call our attention to it.
An inspiration and wonderful role model for mankind. Atlas shrugged should be given to each individual person when they enter into adulthood. Best, Self development & political governance available
It sounds like she said if you pay someone fair wages & you make money from their labor that is a good thing. Sounds like a win win when practiced fairly. Some one should try it.
No she’s saying that someone from whom you seek a job will pay you for the value of your labor.. not necessarily fair in the sense of a comfortable wage.
Lol hell yeah I'm willing to try it. Too bad that is a thing of the past and for books that no one has ever read. I'm 41, I don't know anyone else who has read Atlas shrugged, not one..... I've encouraged everyone I know to read it but I don't think anyone cares, one way or the other. So I say that they will get what they deserve, fuck them they will be fine slaves
The "fair" wage is the market wage, whatever a person can get through voluntary, non-sacrificial dealings with others. But a "living" wage (a meaningless concept), as the altruists demand, is still based on the ethics of sacrifice.
Amazing to hear her talk about what a person should never do, when that is exactly what she did with Nathaniel and Barbara, acting purely out of feelings of rage and frustration
I do not agree that what she did was react through feelings. Brandon lied to her. He pretended to agree with certain aspects of her value system and received her endorsement and cooperation as a result. When she discovered that he had been misrepresenting himself to her she reacted by cutting him off from her support and exposing his hypocrisy. There are a few areas where I disagree with Rand. Had I been in Nathaniel Brandon's position I would have brought up those differences in discussion. That would have been the honest thing to do. I would have risked losing her support, of course, but that is a risk I would be willing to accept in order to remain an honest person. He was unwilling to do that and chose to lie instead. She reacted rationally.
Im a Theist and I agree. „Lack of knowledge is not a license to invent fantasies!“ If you are not able to give rational reasons for your believe in God, you are making a mistake. I feel compelled by the arguments for Gods existence to believe in him. If I where not compelled and would still believe, I would be lying to myself and lose my credibility as a character.
She says art should never be didactic. Amazing. Atlas Shrugged in arguably the most didactic novel of the past century. She's teaching and "preaching" on just about every page.
@@jscottfischer I would say yes. Opinions are what they are and can be quite free of any factual basis or knowledge of a subject under discussion. Instruction, however, assumes (or so it seems to me) a body of knowledge to be conveyed. Intending to instruct would be grounded in that. I can't imagine Rand seeking to instruct on the basis of mere opinion, as she detested "opinions." Her weak characters exercise and state their "opinions." Ironically she claimed that she did not offer opinions while maintaining throughout her life her decision at the age of 12 or so that there was no God. This was nothing other than an immature opinion formed in youth. But it's a question she seems never to have studied. For an alleged philosopher, she seemed very uninformed about religion and theology, other than to ridicule it by repeating popular, conventional bromides.
@@richardterrell1946 Nothing is more adorable than going to all the old greats interviews and noticing the First year Philosophy students spewing their newly purchased vocabulary words
I would say her art more-so portrayed her philosophy rather than preached it. In which case, it is just an honest expression of herself rather than an exercise in didacticism.
You don’t “agree with her”; she has dictated to you what you should think, and you have submitted. She has dictated to you what you should love, and you have submitted.
Ayn Rand was a brave, smart and sincere woman. I disagree vehemently with much of her notions, but on mysticism leading to dogma I'm on a unity ticket with her 100%. Nobody is perfect I guess. But she had courage.
Its always hilarious to me when someone explains that they disagree with someone without stating why. Its like waiting to state an opinion until everyone else has already agreed with it.
@@primategaberocco huh? ... nope... it was correct as is... maybe you can elaborate... how is her views against mysticism wrong? are you saying that mysticism makes sense? this is 2022... and you think there is no such thing as reason...? seriously? you cannot be serious
jeep23862. I think you have it backwards. One cannot prove a negative.
5 ปีที่แล้ว +1
@@franka4312 I think you are in the wrong comment section. By my post 2 months ago I was simply saying to ElAngel that I would be quite willing to discuss Rand's nonsense philosophy rather than her personal shortcomings. Whats negative or positive about that?
jeep23862. When a person wishes to challenge a concept/philosophy/evidence THEY must bring a counter-positive argument to challenge it, provided the original concept has evidence. Example: If I were to say that drinking water kept my brain alive AND I have personal and observed evidence to back my claim, You have every right to not pay any attention to me. If you wish to call it non-sense though, you must bring some kind of explanation/theory/evidence to suggest why. Example 2: if I were to say that ghost exist because I like the idea, but have NO evidence. Then all you can really say is that I have no Reason for such a claim, but you are not called to provide any evidence that they do NOT exist. (Proving a negative) The main thing really is.... what issue do you have with Objectivism specifically?
@ Finally someone discussing what she is saying in theís interview. Help me with this one: She denounces religion, was Atheist, yet she often comes back to the notion of being moral and good? How does that work when you dont have responsibility for others, is it a purely utilitarian motivation not to hurt others because they or society will sanction you and you will have done yourself a disservice?
@ Sorry, this was not the "Atheists are not moral, because they don't believe" question. Literally I'm asking: How do you define good or moral behaviour? Do you define it by law? Who is to decide who is living up to these standards and who's not? When she says that people, presumably most, are inclined to act morally by themself, if they are free to act solely on their own impulses, she has never considered how corruption or price fixing works? I do understand her background, and in that context, moving to America was a liberation as well as a shock when she learned that the same communist mentality existed there too to some extent, but how did she conclude that society can work without oversight? How would environmental protection work?: Successful farmers around a lake prosper, but the fishermen on the lake have their business destroyed, because of excessive Nitrates, so does the Farmers say "Sorry" we are going to reduce our yield by using less fertilizer by themself? Are these farmers guilty of using "force against another free man" are they guilty of a crime? What one think is reasonable and fair, is often highly offensive and damaging to someones else freedom. How would this ever be manageable in a government free society? The "zero tax" argument with volunteer charity for the disabled should work in principle, But it would also have people dying in the street, because some elderly or sick wouldn't have any close family to support them.
Humans are born into the arms of a mother. There is a dependency without which we could not live. It is a social dyad in which 'love' is crucial for development. The baby cannot be self-sufficient. The baby learns to become independent over many years, yet he/she typically would continue to value the parental love. Empathy is developed as is insight to another human who therefore is no longer an 'object', even though he/she lives behind a different physiognomy, ' (There are unfortunate examples when a baby does not receive loving care. Some died even though they had been fed.) The experience of genuine parental 'love' contributes to establishing contact between humans that are objectively separate. Physics and a meta-analysis of parapsychological experiments (mind interconnectedness of 1.3x10 to 104 places probability) indicates we are more interconnected if not interdependent than the conscious mind can consciously perceive. Believing one can be the sole author of one's thoughts and self-care would be illusion.
I have seen many Rand interviews on TH-cam but this one was the most informative. The interviewer was not confrontational...he just camly asked questions and she calmly responded. I totally agree with her views about faith and God but not about abstract art. She has made some ignorant and offensive comments in the past that would not hold up today. For example: calling Native Americans "savages" that deserved to be conquered. Still ..a fascinating lady.
This was not her format to say the least. She wasn't a "Philosopher:," or a "Writer", or any of those noisy things. She was a Woman of Ideas though. 8:50 for those that think that she was black and white.
She still either innately or by early conditioning had the moral template from Moses code . It was at least in her sub. So yes she lived life but she had a template under her shoes as foundation. She knew it but ignored it . Otherwise this woman would have been a monster
Career romantic love ?? It’s exactly what I miss in my life. 2023. Hardly exist these days. I trying about everything in my 26 years of marriage. No life. It’s work pay bills and repeat till you die. Hmm
To elevate reason above the heart of man is the most unintelligent thing you can do. Man is more than the sum of his/her parts. This kind of reductionism has lead mankind down many blind alleys and enabled the narcissists and psychopaths to predate on the unwary. Those who know nothing of love and wisdom are not qualified to define who and what we are. For 'The Heart has its reasons, of which reason knows nothing' (Pascal)
Aantekeningen: - Ideale man: 0) Rationeel, onafhankelijk en besef van eigenwaarde. 0) Weet altijd wat hij doet en waarom (geen grilaanbidding). - Worstel om nooit kwade handelingen toe te staan: Handel naar je maximale vermogen. - Tekort aan kennis is geen excuus voor het serieus nemen van fantasie. 25:15) Regarding death
2 หลายเดือนก่อน
Please supply me with a living man (or woman) that you consider to be Rand's perfect person?
She is a smart and very articulate woman. No question, ...but I cannot say I wholly agree with her worldview. . This idea of the individual verses the collective, objectivism as she calls it., sounds terribly right, as she begins to define it, and I believe some aspects of it are. However, I think it's a fundamentally flawed Philosophy. I truly believe her atheism has played a big part in the formulation of her ideology. Thank you for this video.
How wild would it have been ....You go out to dinner in the middle of the Great Depression in Hollywood and your server is Ayn Rand. Even Texas couldn't handle that much America in one scenario.
Around minute 4:42 -- Interesting how she is quick to qualify the statement that the ideal man should never take part in "enslavement" by amending that to mean "political enslavement." What other kinds of enslavement is she not excluding for the ideal man to take part in? I shudder to imagine the misery of other enslavements (namely, of the disenfranchised) she will "shrug" off as part of the ideal man's actions.
Dearest Ayn Rand, please marry me! I know you are gone! But like Marilyn Monroe, you have a billion people who love you. Both men and women. I was introduced to you while working in Ringling Brothers Barnum Bailey Circus and the Fountainhead was a love letter from you, given to me by the General Manager of the Red Unit. I was never so taken by a literary story. That is until Atlas Shrugged. WOW 💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙😍. I wish I would had met you. But now it's a little late. The Greatest Show on Earth was a easy place to live out the hardships of the human experience. Striving to enjoy the life I'd chosen as a child in school. Living where I work. Working where I live. The Greatest Show on Earth gave me what my Father instilled in me. Don't quit. Think before you act. Mother gave me quitters never win, winners never quit. You gave me a girl to be on the lookout for Dagny💜Taggart 👍😍.
She is a bit robotic, I don't think people are as simple as her theories outline, humans are complicated filled with contradictions and emotions we are not as logical as robots this is good thing. Some people have backgrounds which lean towards abuse and cannot just be explained away by her theory of man having confidence in themselves if it was that easy people would not abuse drugs and alcohol in order to self medicate themselves in order to deal with their past abuse, in Ayn Rands world these problems do not exist, but they do exist in the modern world.
Recent science is saying the opposite of her "we come to a rational conclusion, then act" theory. It appears now that most if not all of our decisions are made subconsciously, and the brain then sends reasons after the fact, to give us the impression we consciously made the decision.
I agree with her and with you. I would guess that 99.9% of what I do and say is "made" when I sleep. But that does not really contradict my attempt to act on rational conclutions.
I wanted to be a writer at the age of nine too-and an astronomer at the age of eleven, a classical composer at the age of twelve, a rock guitarist at the age of sixteen. I wanted to be a Beatle at the age of eight and James Bond at the age of ten. At the age of five I wanted to be a grocery-store clerk. It doesn’t matter when you WANTED to do something; it only matters when you actually did it-and whether you did it continuously from then on. (As it happens, I did, in fact, write stories at the age of nine and music from the age of eleven and so on, but I did lots of things back then. I didn’t have to earn a living.)
7:20 She didn't understand the concept of love and could not even speak. She wanted to start with romantic love because she did not understand love for one another. You fall in love with someone cause you see their values. Sometimes people do not show who they really are until you figure it out. Wow. I guess she wouldn't understand what someone said years ago. When you like someone, you like them in spite of their faults. When you love someone, you love them with their faults. I like the line given to Ali Mcgraw in the movie...A love story. Her husband said that he was sorry and she responded, "Love is never having to say your sorry." I take that to mean, unconditional love. Like God loves us but He hates sin in our life.The Lord Jesus even said, we should love our neighbor as ourself.
@EMInspiration I know guys who admit that they got a person pregnant and married her. She was a rebound to someone he had a crush on. There are all sorts of people who fall out of love because they got selfish on how they should be treated and the marriage did not last. Codependency: A circular realtionship in which one person needs the other person, who in turn. needs to be needed. Google implication. And there is a whole lot more to say about that. The bottom line is...loving someone in spite of their faults because none of us are faultless. The Bible says that, the Lord Jesus Christ died for sinners. He saves a life. The world with all sorts of confusion wants to tear people's life apart.
Reason. try and save a baby instead of saving the mother that has the best odds . Baby lives mother dies . good or bad . Imorral or Imorral . This bitch is dangerous. she aint no aristotle
Marx wouldn’t have bothered, and even if he had bothered, Rand would have failed to appear. Sartre and Rand were contemporaries, for example. How many times did Sartre and Rand debate? Pretty much any philosopher with actual credentials and stature would have considered (or, in the case of contemporaries, did consider) it beneath him to debate Rand, and Rand, for her part, carefully avoided everyone and anyone who would publicly challenge her.
This woman was a very slick psychopath. He found language to PURPOSELY blur the lines between rational self interest and outright selfishness. In conclusion: Selfishness is NOT a virtue - it’s a vice.
She is talking about doing for duty and honor not for feelings. Americans seem to run on feelings and look at the mess we are in. And we believe what we are told. Tsk tsk.
@@OrangeNash I enjoyed her story. Business owners suffering government mistreatment will walk away. That's the story. Oh, and the business owners walk with their intellect intact. .
If there is no God, whence the nobility or morality? Humans always rationalize their selfishness and evil. How would you ENFORCE his type of value system?
In 1910 Ivan Panin, a Russian/ American Harvard math genius and linguistic expert, proved the Bible mathematically. Watch - Math proves the Bible. Most recently a 30 year veteran cold case criminologist J. Warner Wallace proved the Bible forensically in his book, Person of Interest. His testimony would convince any jury of the veracity of the Bible. Some of the amazing things in the Bible include the prophecy of the fall of Tyre and the prophecy of Alexander the great. Bible firsts include knowing life being in the blood long before modern science, or the Bible knowing about mountains and currents in the oceans or how the earth hangs on nothing. You should know about the prophecies fulfilled by Jesus and the impossible odds of that happening. The Bible is a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eye witnesses during the lifetime of other eye witnesses. They report to us supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claim that the writings are divine rather than human in origin. The Bible has also been proven archaeologically, historically and linguistically. 2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
If you reason through it and decide that kindness is a trait that you admire then i guess Rand would probably suggest that you pursue socialising with kind people. She would want those people to be kind through choice rather than obligation though.
@@tribalisnt Kindness is communicating that you enjoy interacting with others, it is a shell in which the message is contained, a la McLuhan if you want, in that sense it is neither a choice nor an obligation, it is a state of mind that flows without conscious intervention. Wouldn't it be a natural way of being human, wouldn't cold efficiency be a choice instead? Her way of being herself makes me very uncomfortable, I cannot say why.
@@rosesprog1722 I would say that both are a choice and most people can be both cold and kind, there is no kind default so to speak. She would want you to be yourself (as long as you are thinking through your decisions in a rationale way) and if you do that and don't like her she'd probably like you. Her delivery and mannerisms aren't everyones cup of tea but she's cool.
Define kindness. if you mean giving the poor money, I believe you're not being kind. Your being altruistic and it causes more damage to that person's life than it helps. If you mean helping that person by giving them advice, becoming their friend, etc. I'm all for it.
@@scottm8579 Oh no, kindness is a state of mind, like smiling, saying a nice word, listening well, softness, not being rude, etc... it is caring about what you say but also about how you say it.
As a Christian (and not necessarily a very good one) I agree with a lot of Ayn Rand's assertions, of course with exceptions. I know Ayn Rand was an adamant atheist but for me personally (since I'm using my own reason), I find added joy when after a long, brutal winter, I see that first daffodil coming up, knowing fully well that I didn't create that flower. It was created for me and its own environs. Since no man created it, the answer must lie elsewhere. I choose God because it brings me happiness and I'm selfish. This is not a falsehood to me because it took me many years of thought to reach this conclusion that I feel is in my own best interest.
I appreciate your points. I have been doing a great deal of research. Positive psychology, philospphy, Ayn Rand and The Bible. Modern positive psycology embraces spirituality because it is proven scientifically. Ergo, Rand would be forced to notice, Jesus was a great philosopher too. Of course, those who can't be bothered to understand the Bible are judging on "feeling", not concept. Rands concepts of good and evil are modern, but the concept, not by any means is original. Truly rational, except her hope of mankind (John Galt) makes us all into saviours, if we want to be. Hmmm.
the promotion of the daffodil by humans helps that flower to evolve and flourish...so that is a relationship and not works of any creator god, but good and bad are a matter of use, so whatever floats your boat
Ayn Rand used the term “selfish” equivocally. This is rhetorical sleight of hand for rhetorical effect. “Selfishness” is a quality, not a thing, and thus its pejorative aspect is part and parcel of its denotative meaning. The word cannot reasonably be denuded of its pejorative intent. If you object to its premise, you’re certainly welcome to avoid it altogether or to complain about it, but Rand, rather, twists its meaning to be provocative and still seem virtuous (by her own lights), to have her cake and eat it too. That’s not arguing in good faith. The term “selfish” does not mean “self-reliant”, “”self-confident”, “self-sufficient”, or anything of the sort, just as “childish” doesn’t mean “child-like.” If I were to conflate the latter two terms, I could argue that because it’s admirable to be innocent, playful, and open, it’s also admirable to be petulant and unruly. Clearly there’s a breach of logic here, and it’s the same breach Rand commits every time she extols what she calls “selfishness”.
The philosophy that she advances is part Aristotle, Adam Smith, Nietzsche, Locke, etc. In actuality she did not propose anything new, but it seems that she had convinced herself that she really did. Her philosophy is very idealistic and does not consider the fallibility and imperfection of individuals. She failed to adopt an approach based on balance and optimal measure, this is where her ‘reasoning’ breaks down in the real world. Anything, even a good thing, when pushed to the extreme becomes toxic. She did not respect this fundamental axiom.
Let's not forget that Ayn Rand, a life long chain smoker, lived her last days on public assistance and under free medical care for her lung cancer courtesy of the American Medicare system.
She paid PLENTY of taxes to that system, taken from her book sales at gunpoint. So she's just getting her own money back. ...And medicare is MANDATORY.
Ignorant people spouting baseless rumors. Ayn Rand NEVER received public assistance. She left an estate worth approximately one MILLION dollars to an institute that still to this day teaches her philosophy. Her books NEVER went out of print and sold throughout her lifetime. She was paid for the movie rights to her novels; she was an in-demand paid lecturer up to the year of her death and she had thousands of paid subscribers to her monthly newsletter. She NEVER received nor qualified for public assistance.
@@johnnynick3621 Wikiupedia: "Rand underwent surgery for lung cancer in 1974 after decades of heavy smoking.[113] In 1976, she retired from writing her newsletter and, after her initial objections, allowed a social worker employed by her attorney to enroll her in Social Security and Medicare.[114][115] During the late 1970s, her activities within the Objectivist movement declined, especially after the death of her husband on November 9, 1979.[116] One of her final projects was work on a never-completed television adaptation of Atlas Shrugged.[117] On March 6, 1982, Rand died of heart failure at her home in New York City.[118] At her funeral, a 6-foot (1.8 m) floral arrangement in the shape of a dollar sign was placed near her casket.[119] In her will, Rand named Peikoff as her heir.[120]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand
I take issue with this idea that a man [person] should act only upon reason, and not belief. Belief is acceptance without proof or reason. If it is not then we do not need to distinguish between belief and reason, it is redundant. The problem is that things are true regardless of whether they are proven to be true. The earth is round, it was round before it was proven to be so. If a person only operates on what they can reason to be true, then they will be a step behind. That might seem innocuous until we introduce risk. For example: Thalidomide administered to pregnant women results in birth defects. That is true, and it was true before it was proven to be true. But if a pregnant woman operates only on what she can reason to be true, then she would initially have had no reason against taking thalidomide, because it was only proven to result in birth defects after it had been administered to many pregnant women. We do not know the future and we cannot prove everything instantly, therefore there is always risk. Not just the risk of doing something, but the risk of not doing something. Edit: If I were to apply reasoning to the thalidomide example, I might reason that the risk was initially unquantified, and therefore I would assign inifinite risk to pregnant women taking thalidomide and advise not to until more was known. But when can we ever say that all circustances have been evaluated?
And who created you ... ? Yourself ...? Reason and science and all observation and experience prove that the effect cannot be greater than the cause. EG entropy, motion, or in more plain terms the painting is lesser than the painter and the table less then the carpenter. As you are the “effect” then your cause is one greater than you. In the simplest terms this is a way to prove God ... your own existence and consciousness. Consciousness and thoughts being immaterial effects prove that there is an immaterial cause of your mind and consciousness as well. Mind could not have come from nature as it is sovereign to nature ... it is greater than nature. So nature could not have been the cause of the mind. Whatever .....
@@obergssin th-cam.com/video/ODetOE6cbbc/w-d-xo.html Here...educate yourself! It's only 9.5 minutes long...but most religious people are cowards when it comes to the truth!
Ben Shapiro is religious or at least pretends to be religious, he is also pro-life and is a conservative...while some things he says are correct and good, Ayn Rand would have zero respect for him because he is not fully rational or pro complete individual freedom.
never thought I'd hear a woman say that about feelings ...I know so many women that treat their feelings as if they are more important than facts and reality
23:30 "So you would oppose anti-trust laws, income tax, all the restraints that are normally imposed? -Certainly, but not "normally", abnormally imposed.". These kinds of micro-adjustments to often spoken, unexamined nonsense are the stuff of life.
When I was younger, back in 2004.... I was having a conversation with some fellow shipmates when I was commercial fishing in Alaska. I was saying things that aligned with Ayn Rand. The Boatswain on the ship asked me if I ever read Atlas Shrugged. I told him I hadn't. Himself and another person was blown away. I was handed The Fountainhead when we got back to land. I was told that this book should speak to me. I came to these thoughts from on my own,,, I though it was self evident. When I read Fountainhead, I found it very powerful... I clearly remember the overwhelming feeling of realizing I wasn't alone in the way I think. I finally wasn't alone.... other's thought like I did. At that time in my life, I had spent about 7 years in Portland and never liked or respected the culture there. I often was at odds with people. I followed up with Atlas Shrugged. Ayn Rand had a profound affect on me. Fast Forward and I have a degree in Mathematics, Philosophy, and I'm a Physicist.... and a Business owner. She had a profoundly positive influence on my life.
Edit: I should say, she put words and crystalized what I had deep feelings about. She is the perfect foil to Marxism. Whenever I engage in a debate with people... I always ask them "Who owns you?".
AWESOME... thanks for sharing that.
Good point!
You said u had deep feelings, but as per her philosophy an ideal man is not governed by his feelings
@@agnipath2743Your values, your sense of justice may be deeply felt and subsecquently validated by art. If rational, by Rand’s art.
@@agnipath2743non argument pedantism . Literal retard
Her face ALWAYS lights up when she mentions her husband! Love that!
She was in a decade's long sexual relationship with someone else. She's a fraud and you don't even know it.
"I don't believe a lack of knowledge is a license to start inventing fantasies."
Truth
so she's against art?
@@Daniela-pr7rz That's an argument against religion actually.
@@mattf2545Damn it, i always forget to put that "/s" in there.
But... ......"inventing fantasies" IS consistent with art too.
@@Daniela-pr7rz So hard to tell where people are coming from sometimes, especially when having to constantly fight straw- men arguments against Rand. So it can be hard to tell friend from foe.
If you're interested in her take on art, I would recommend her non - fiction book, The Romantic Manifesto, if you haven't read it already.
I would surmise her take on good art vs bad art would come down to the nature of the fantasy. Glad to discuss further if ya like. ☺️
More like spin.
The beauty of this is that, without an inferiority complex,
this interview is an exploration into the mind of someone who questions everything and has firm morals while using her own compass based on evidence and rational. So nice to see, a lost art it seems in today’s public sphere
Reason is such a basic thing to human and yet there are those force other not to use reason. IE... "Follow the science"
@@johnmicheal3547 Political 'science'
@@charlesangell_bulmtl no, "Political science" is the study of politic and how it works. "Follow the science" is be a sheeple and get use at the detrimental cost to the sheep.
Thank God for Ayn Rand. We need more honest thinking people like her.
She would not appreciate that sentiment. Where is her god? She refuses to accept anything that is not real.
lol
She said she understands when people say "God bless you," they are offering her their highest regards, so she still appreciates it.
She is insane and you are a cult member
Thank God indeed.
I love this person now since 1979, and more and more every day. Truly one of the most magnificent minds ever.
Agree 100%.
In a Nathanial Branden essay, he wrote, "If you want to know what someone thinks of themself, find out who they sleep with." Heroes sleep with heroines; degenerates sleep with degenerates.
you poor deluded bastard. :-)
She is a disgusting human being. I believe that she was addicted to amphetamines. A hate filled woman that pushed a philosophy of being self centered.
@@samuellane8691 If you allow, I disagree slightly. Michael slept with Barack and she seemed pure and kind-hearted and invested in the well-being of others.
Look how amazingly aware her eyes are. Like she's a human-machine of pure calculation and wisdom. The happiness just behind the eyes.
I don’t see that in this late interview. Here, to me, she just looks fatigued. I have noticed it in earlier interviews, however, and there was a particular chemical cause: Ayn Rand for most of her life was a regular daily user of amphetamines, an addict, in fact.
@@herbertwells8757 Just as CoCo Chanel was alife long heroin user.
Her eyes are darting at an abnormal rate. Something is off.
@@WintersWar She was a drug addict.
@@chrisc1257 If you can call someone who smoked 2 packs of cigarettes a day for 4 decades and quit cold turkey one day on the advice of her doctor an 'addict', your program is running on a broken OS. Just consider the average AA gathering as a point of reference.
nearly 40 ! years ago! she was a very bright and challenging mind. James Day is such a fine interviewer. excellent programs.
Sure, Rand was bright, but I would challenge the "challenging mind" bit--depending what you mean by it. By the time of this interview Rand had long been intellectually stultified, reduced to repeating the same well-rehearsed formulas over and over again. If this were the first you time you encountered her, I suppose you might be challenged (depending on your age and philosophical literacy) by her, but if you had already read her--pretty much at all--, you couldn't reasonably be challenged by much of anything she said, wrote, or did in the last three decades of her life--or so.
It’s not a formula…….you must not understand the concepts by which she lived. She is asked to explain things and she does……..interview after interview. If you read, and understand, and think about the concepts you will, reasonably, be not only challenged but be changed.
@@dd911yup. the original poster is just naive.
1943 the Fountainhead. 2022 and we're still buying and enjoying tremendously her work!
Because you're dumb
I suffered severe depressıon sınce chıldhood at the hands of fanatıcally relıgıous parents and a sıblıng, ıt lasted for decades, then Ayn Rand's phılosophy ended all of that, she saved the rest of my lıfe. A wonderful, wıse and sweet woman.
Beautiful. She also saved me from my depression.
@Ok I am religious and believe the parable of the Good Samaritan by Jesus makes logical sense (example of helping others in need not out of selfishness) and so does the existence of God. If God wants us to care for one another (based on the teachings of Jesus) then Ayn Rand's philosophy is invalid. I am not a big "My brother's keeper" type of person being generally against a bloated welfare state but some basic safeguards for the poor and disabled as a public service makes logical sense not about feelings. I believe we all are given a conscience which prevents us from doing harm to others and turning your back on suffering people also triggers my conscience to help rather than a selfish motive. Lots of her ideas make sense but it assumes you are only doing it for your own benefit which is pure individualism which I like somewhat but it is also impractical since we do have public needs that cannot be privately provided such as military protection which requires a great deal of collective funding. Nevertheless, I am a big believer in what she promotes "pro-capitalist, laissiez-faire, economic freedom and individualism". I am a conservative and Christian so those four ideas are actually very rational and reasonable. Limited government seems to be her goal which is what I agree with. Eliminating God and what God commands: Love thy neighbor as thy self" is contrary to her philosophy and is what I can't and most people can't buy.
@@tntstorms7969 grew up in the church and preached since 17. Practicing sacrificial love almost took my life. First time I heard Ayn was like hearing the gospel, a breath of fresh air to my soul.
The idea that I could actually put myself and my needs first has given me hope. I believe in God and the Christian Gospel at its core makes sense.
However, the Christian philosophy and the its practical application today is quite destructive to a good hearted person.
Ayn Rand would say she did not save you, you saved yourself using her writing and your own rational process.
Religions were not made by God. They are man made rules and rituals deceiving us into believing we know God. Cut out the middleman. There is one God, his son Jesus ( God incarnate) and you. A relationship not religion.
The western world needs more people with her mindset.
God, no. We've had enough recessions already.
Pro selfishness?
Ayn Rand fan." The Fountainhead" is one of my favourite novels. Rand was a great fan of America's railroads[ways]. She often traveled on NYC's "Twentieth Century Limited", being invited by the engine drivers to travel in their locomotive as the train headed up the Hudson River.
I especially like the rape scene. A man should take what he needs, no matter whose it is.
@@ToxicTorgo It's not a literal rape, Dominique gave consent (sure, in a peculiar way, by whipping Roark's face). But symbolically - yes, it's a rape, because Roark forces out a contradiction in Dominique's soul. Read the passage more carefully.
@@michaelsvoboda1024 In fairness, he did clarify sarcasm. I suspect he understands the context.
Just sayin'; but yes, I think you're correct in interpretation.
The entire premise of The Fountainhead would make for a good comedy. A bunch of billionaires leave society to......what? Form their own society? Did they bring their servants with them? Who mows their lawns? Do they try and build their own roads, sewer systems, and electric lines? I mean, the comedy would write itself! Unfortunately, many people actually take that book seriously.
"The highest tribute to Ayn Rand is that her critics must distort everything she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individuals rights to freedom of action, speech,& association; self responsibility, NOT self-indulgence; & a live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an END, not the MEANS of others' ends. How many critics would dare honestly state these ideas & say. "...and that's what I reject"? ---Barbara Branden, author of The Passion of Ayn Rand.
Interesting that she called it "the passion of Ayn Rand" and not "the reason of Ayn Rand" LoL.
And that was probably the best thing Barbara Branden ever said. PAR is basically another Mommie Dearest.
Thanks for your unabashed honesty Barbara
Re: "How many critics would dare honestly state these ideas & say. '...and that's what I reject'?" That's a list of platitudes, not "ideas". Anyone can CLAIM he stands for "reason", etc.--or, for that matter "truth, justice, and the American way" (as the old fifties "Superman" TV show used to put it). That means nothing. Calling yourself "rational" doesn't make you rational. Calling yourself an advocate of rationality doesn't make you an advocate of rationality.
@@herbertwells8757 Individual rights is an idea, duh.
Thanks.
Greatly enjoyed James Day's interview with Ayn Rand.
It would be more illuminating for her to have been interviewed by someone like Bryan Magee in the manner that Noam Chomsky was in 1978 (look for the TH-cam video-or any other in the series), although I’m afraid she may have been flailing, lost at sea, in this more heady milieu. Her knowledge of philosophy in general was too superficial and spotty and her own “philosophy” too threadbare and derivative.
This is a very good interview! I love her !
Excellent interview. Educational, informative and not this CNN nonsense of baiting people with childish questions. Thanks for posting.
Ayn Rand's self belief is so infectious and inspiring that you are happy to follow her.
Cult leaders have that ability, that magical, mystical charm. Even Donald Trump has it. (Obviously the spell doesn’t bewitch everyone.)
@@herbertwells8757 A cult is a religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. I don't think Rand's saying to live realistically is a religion. She doesn't tell you how to live, you are free to choose between reality and imagination not what you must do, she is only saying that to be an individualist you must live within realty of what's going on around you in the present time.
Yes, telling people they have a duty to be selfish and not care about others is very appealing to many people.
People either love her work or hate it... Personally speaking...I was entertained by her work and that's enough for me!
Wonderful, a long time I haven't seen such a good interview!
Read Ayn Rand in college! Changed my life, but it took years to absorb the concept! At 68, work in progress still!
Out of work unemployed and can't pay your house payment, think again
it's silly that this is controversial. It is so basic and fundamental.
Funny how most people have to twist her words in order to criticize her, she was a brilliant mind.
@Skip White I am not trying to bash her, but some of the things she said seemed to me not feasible.
She speaks here about how a man should be rational with self esteem. If nothing else would motivate a man, she and other old women, would all be alone in old age, as no rational man would choose an old, bitter woman to a young , beautiful one.
I heard her say how monopolies cannot form under unregulated economic environment, where the government stays away from it. How would she know? there's no example of a government that completely stayed away. Just because monopolies formed under economies where government is active , is no proof that monopolies would not form in free economies.
Also, she said no taxes, private roads, private everything. So poor men should stay on house arrest, because they cannot afford to use the roads and a s a consequence they would never have a chance to prosper? What about valuable minds that would not have a chance to shine without a scholarship, or some sort of help to get started?
i like personal freedom and not forcing people to sacrifice for others, but she is a little too extreme in a way that would make her ideas not work in real life.
@@Daniela-pr7rz Well- no rational man with self esteem would choose to be with an old woman, unless she was rich or had other features, like intelligence to make her interesting. I think she is mostly right about the claim that monopolies cannot form in unregulated economies. Because if very big corporations did not have the option to bribe politicans, they would have to keep createting value to the custumers, to keep competision at bay. Noting is wrong with a big corporation that creates more value than the competion.
@@Daniela-pr7rz She is a genuine pipe dream with a philosophy that will never be tested, just trying to set it up goes against it's own grain... But she is brilliant.
Twist what words? Like, "The Virtue of Selfishness"? That was the title of one of her books, by the way.
One doesn't have to agree with her, to enjoy listening to her perspective.
That's what I'm gathering. I think I disagree with her a lot but I still really like her.
You need to study
I bet if you guys thought it out all the way through, you wouldn't disagree with her quite as much. Not that I agree with 100% of what she had to say when she was alive, but... *most* of it makes sense. The main hold up in admitting as much for a lot of people, is that it grates against virtually everything they've been taught (from external sources) is "right" their whole lives. Once you get past that though, imo it's pretty easy to see she didn't get much wrong.
Totally. 99% of her critics only know what her through what other critics have said. Yes read Aristotle first then Rand all of their works then tell me how horrible you think she is, until then who really cares what your irrational conclusions amount to.
Jack Sutter what do you disagree with?
I have the same thought that she does when I see that men or women are the best in something, it provides me much enjoyment. Just watching someone like Mike Tyson or reading about the Wright Bros. is awe inspiring.
I like her work
She makes great points.
Her logic is sound.
Admired her for this
I love the light-hearted 'because-you-felt-...' moment at 03:23! 😋
i am greatly enjoying reading atlas shrugged
Finished yet?
Ayn Rand is beyond great and one of the best of intelligent thought.
Way ahead of her time ! We’re living her Atlas Shrugged scenario NOW ! 😢
Why do you think her critics hate her!
@@beth-rg8bm For exposing them.
Exactly my thought on every page!!! The spiritual descendants of the looters never ceased to exist...
We're living what scenario now? Rich people disappearing to form their own society? Where is that happening?
I like how her writings give you a reason to stop feeling unearned, needless guilt. As someone who allowed myself to succumb to much familial and other guilt as a child, this always resonated. I also had this way of downplaying my accomplishments and intelligence in the hope of being accepted or treated as an equal to others around me. Never realizing, I was only dishonoring what makes life so worthwhile. It took until my middle 30s to finally see she was right the whole time.
You start of life giving yourself a glorious inferiority complex.
Then whoopee, road to Damascus, you read a book written by an evil mad woman with a giant chip on her shoulder with the worlds largest ego (OK Excepting Donald and Elon).
Suddenly your a fantasy figure called John Galt.
You're NOT John Galt,....... Rand was.
Get a grip of your self or you'll end up like Rand dying alone with no loving relatives or TRUE friends to give a shit.
@@philipdraper7284
With all due respect your comment was also your opinion.
Before I answer your reply have you noticed my initial comment has been deleted?
Why was she evil, because she had no humanity, empathy, charity, morality, decency all the things that make human beings human.
The fact that you might well have carried a lot of pain in your childhood and young manhood is hardly unusual, it's called growing up.
The fact is as we get older most of us get more confident and develop thicker skins.
That does not mean we lose our sense of humanity etc.
Rand opinions were not based on logic, reason or fact but on her hatred of society in general.
Her opinions are no less valid than yours or mine.
Just out of interest what would society be like under a Randian regime?
I hope they don't delete this before you've read it.
Society following an objectivist ethics would be one that is based on men pursuing their own rational self interest, with respect for the rights of other men. When other men’s’ rights or life is violated in any way, the system of justice is in effect for that reason. It would hypothetically be a society free of restrictive regulations that tend to hamper economic activities. All booms and busts can be traced back to government interference as can monopolies….i don’t believe Ayn Rand intended, however, to institute a political system based on her ideology. But do I believe her views are more consonant with a free society than her ideological opposite, Marx? Yes. Resoundingly.
@@philipdraper7284
Let's start with the word objectivist "the philosophical belief that reality exists independently of human experience and can be known through the senses" it's a bullshitters word. meaning nothing.
If something can be felt by our senses then by definition they must be know by human experiences " It sounds clever, clever but signifies nothing.
Then we come to " based on MEN pursuing their own rational self interest" Rand seldom if ever promoted "WOMEN" pursuing their own rational self interest? Why because, excluding herself, she felt women were inferior to men.
Hardly a logical, reasoned, factual opinion.
Next up is who is to decide what is a "rational self interest"? What's rational to you might be totally irrational to someone else, like our views of Rand.
The only way to decide what is rational is by having laws made by the people which apply to all the people equally.
"When other men’s’ rights or life is violated in any way, the system of justice is in effect for that reason."
Exactly the point I'm making.
The only question to ask is who or what makes the laws?
Would you prefer your laws to be made by a Dictator with supreme power over everybody, like Putin or Hitler remember both Russia and China have highly educated highly civilised citizens yet the overwhelming number of citizens knowing that there leaders do terrible unspeakable things in order to stay in power.
How about Theocracy like Iran or Afghanistan the way the Christian Right is gaining power in the US it to will become a Theocratic Dictatorship.
Let's get rid of multi-party liberal governments elected of the people for the people and by the people and instead simply give economic and political power to the super rich and powerful which is what Rand promoted.
Will it work, the next 4 years should supply the answers to that one.
"It would hypothetically be a society free of restrictive regulations that tend to hamper economic activities"
You mean all economic powers are given to the already super rich and powerful?
Guess what would go, minimum pay, workers right, medical care programs, unions, State and Federal welfare, State funded schools, you name it if your poor or helpless you ain't going to get it.
How do you like the idea of being governed by Elon Musk?
" All booms and busts can be traced back to government interference as can monopolies"
For the record America biggest economic disaster the Great Depression was not caused by the Government but by a group of corrupt financiers gerrymandering the investment market s to suit there own ends.
it's the Government, not a monopoly company, that decides when a company has become a monopoly .
".i don’t believe Ayn Rand intended, however, to institute a political system based on her ideology."?
I do, if she didn't believe in her opinions why the pluck did she spend most of her life promoting them?? True she made lot of money out of it, so much good that did her.
"But do I believe her views are more consonant? consistent ? (I think you miss-typed) with a free society than her ideological opposite, Marx? Yes. Resoundingly."
Explain to me your vision of a "free society?
Keeping in mind the difference between a well regulated "free society" and a "unregulated free society"? .
Rand's so call Objectivism, and Lenin's take on Communism are simply at the extremes opposite ends of the same economic/ social/ political rope.
Under Communism the State owns and controls everything, Under Objectivism the State owns nothing and does nothing everything would be controlled by a self-selecting, self-promoting, self-regulating, self-sustaining oligarchs.
Which shows how stupid she was.
Both the French and Russian revolution happened because a small clique of super-rich, powerful treated the lower classes like dirt .
If the Russian Aristocracy and Rand bourgeoisie class had treated the working classes better there would not have been no communism and Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum would have married a bank manager and wrote romantic novels.
And we wouldn't be doing this.
Rest assured Phil if that ever happened you would not be one of the Elites .
Again let's hope this stays posted long enough for you to read it.
Objectivism is an entire philosophic system where reason and self interest are its guiding principles based off man’s integration of sensory perceptive abstractions into concretes that are then further integrated into values. What I consider rational or someone else is irrelevant as subjective reality is counter to what exists. It’s based on a premise that reality exists and reason identifies this reality through a process of negation-integration.
When I say “men” that simply denotes homosapiens and lends no relevance to a simplistic feminist structural theory about gender or sex. Men denotes both sexes and as a romanticist Rand regularly identified man as species, with little consideration of modern parlance/meanings.
As far as the laws are concerned, elected officials. If there is a separation of state and economy…just as there is currently a separation of state and church, how would these oligarchs accede power? If corruption occurs, rational men elect officials to ensure a fair and just system prevails. Rand also believed in helping the poor and disabled but not on an act of government but through private charities, and many men who value life (such as myself) happily donate to such charities regularly….i think those who despise Rand also have accepted the idea that life is cruel, miserable, and cynical…when reality is her adherents see life and man in a more positive way. Corruptive elements breed corruption….look at many of the government institutions that rely on buddy systems rife with nepotism and ineffectiveness. Private companies might also have these problems but cannot afford to waste resources in the pursuit of profits quite like government can….Ayn Rand might not have had all the answers but she certainly had all of the questions.
The premise of the thieving rich I also fail to understand. A person who makes 1 million dollars a year, their money will end up being invested in the markets anyway to some capacity, even if you raise income taxes. They’ll just invest it in muni bonds or other real estate/illiquid assets….as much as people decry the capitalist system (which has its share of problems) it is more correct than state control.
Toward the end, when she lists achievement and romantic love as two of the most joyous things in life... little doubt about that. I’ve always found Ayn Rand to be someone that I understood and agreed with in the main, than man should live rationally and ethically and free, but disagreed with on some specific issues, such as some of her views on art and the value of religion. The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are both essential reading, the latter being cumulatively the second largest selling book of all time in the English language, after the Bible. She was quite a gal.
agree, except about religion... she was spot on about religion as well... surprised that you do not see that
I don't know of a single individual in my life that I have agreed with 100% of the time on 100% of the issues. Not my parents, not my wife, not my kids, not my friends...nobody. I agree with Ayn Rand over 90% of the time. That's pretty amazing. And the small number of issues I disagree with her on...I'm not positive I'm right and she's wrong.
I'm still working on wrapping my head around her definition of selfishness. I believe she's been heavily misinterpreted in that vein, but I need to focus there exclusively until I understand her pov. It's the only aspect of her philosophy I have trouble grasping after reading her most popular books multiple times and the others at least once. They were gifted to me by a sweet man who after we conversed a few months assumed I'd read them. Reading them was like meeting a wise old grandmother whom I never knew.
I was introduced to Ayn Rand's works 24 years ago by a slightly older friend in college. It changed my way of thinking, made me a hard worker and due to Ayn and her Objectivisim I am who I am today. I think Ayn would weep today seeing the state of not just America but the West entirely as we've fallen so far, government has gotten too big, monopolies are everywhere propped up by crooked big governments and people think a homeless junkie that's never worked a day in their life or contributed in any way is more important and worthy of saving than a businessman or inventor who've truly made other's lives better thru their work. All Charity and helping others does is cause them to value nothing, because watch how someone treats something they were given vs something they've had to work for. They will take better care of and value that which they worked hard for.
Oh the state of America and the West was plainly evident during Rand's time, she saw plenty of it. Today's state of society would be no surprise to her, in fact what's happening now is exactly what she predicted. People say that Atlas Shrugged being published in 1957 was prophetic. It wasn't as much so as people think. The signs and root of our current societal degradation, at least in hindsight, have been visible for over 100 years. Rand was just one of the first to call our attention to it.
Beautiful thinking!
It's funny how even under this video not many people understand that!
Great interview. Mush more reasonable than the Donahue and Wallace interviews. This one and Carson's and Snyder's are great!
An inspiration and wonderful role model for mankind. Atlas shrugged should be given to each individual person when they enter into adulthood. Best, Self development & political governance available
It sounds like she said if you pay someone fair wages & you make money from their labor that is a good thing. Sounds like a win win when practiced fairly.
Some one should try it.
Have you ever had a job? Thats fair.
No she’s saying that someone from whom you seek a job will pay you for the value of your labor.. not necessarily fair in the sense of a comfortable wage.
Ford did.
Lol hell yeah I'm willing to try it. Too bad that is a thing of the past and for books that no one has ever read. I'm 41, I don't know anyone else who has read Atlas shrugged, not one..... I've encouraged everyone I know to read it but I don't think anyone cares, one way or the other. So I say that they will get what they deserve, fuck them they will be fine slaves
The "fair" wage is the market wage, whatever a person can get through voluntary, non-sacrificial dealings with others. But a "living" wage (a meaningless concept), as the altruists demand, is still based on the ethics of sacrifice.
An ever-fascinating mind.
As a case study...
A mind trapped within the narrow confines of its overbearing, claustrophobic, and insufficiently informed and insufficiently imaginative ideology.
She stated a philosophy, which helps interpret facts. Nice try guys 👍
Amazing to hear her talk about what a person should never do, when that is exactly what she did with Nathaniel and Barbara, acting purely out of feelings of rage and frustration
I do not agree that what she did was react through feelings. Brandon lied to her. He pretended to agree with certain aspects of her value system and received her endorsement and cooperation as a result. When she discovered that he had been misrepresenting himself to her she reacted by cutting him off from her support and exposing his hypocrisy.
There are a few areas where I disagree with Rand. Had I been in Nathaniel Brandon's position I would have brought up those differences in discussion. That would have been the honest thing to do. I would have risked losing her support, of course, but that is a risk I would be willing to accept in order to remain an honest person. He was unwilling to do that and chose to lie instead. She reacted rationally.
Back in the day when people were actually educated and independent thinkers
Brilliant
"Sometimes belief and gut feel are all you have, and you must act upon them until there’s more evidence to influence your thinking." - Mark Leonard
Excellent talk on art (around 20:00)
Im a Theist and I agree. „Lack of knowledge is not a license to invent fantasies!“ If you are not able to give rational reasons for your believe in God, you are making a mistake. I feel compelled by the arguments for Gods existence to believe in him. If I where not compelled and would still believe, I would be lying to myself and lose my credibility as a character.
"Facts don't care about your feelings"
She says art should never be didactic. Amazing. Atlas Shrugged in arguably the most didactic novel of the past century. She's teaching and "preaching" on just about every page.
She was often inconsistent, but was an excellent self-promoter.
Is there a difference between expressing your opinion and intending to instruct?
@@jscottfischer I would say yes. Opinions are what they are and can be quite free of any factual basis or knowledge of a subject under discussion. Instruction, however, assumes (or so it seems to me) a body of knowledge to be conveyed. Intending to instruct would be grounded in that. I can't imagine Rand seeking to instruct on the basis of mere opinion, as she detested "opinions." Her weak characters exercise and state their "opinions." Ironically she claimed that she did not offer opinions while maintaining throughout her life her decision at the age of 12 or so that there was no God. This was nothing other than an immature opinion formed in youth. But it's a question she seems never to have studied. For an alleged philosopher, she seemed very uninformed about religion and theology, other than to ridicule it by repeating popular, conventional bromides.
@@richardterrell1946 Nothing is more adorable than going to all the old greats interviews and noticing the First year Philosophy students spewing their newly purchased vocabulary words
I would say her art more-so portrayed her philosophy rather than preached it. In which case, it is just an honest expression of herself rather than an exercise in didacticism.
Very interesting choice of words, "religious training."
I agree with her and love her mind and philosophy
You don’t “agree with her”; she has dictated to you what you should think, and you have submitted. She has dictated to you what you should love, and you have submitted.
Ayn Rand was a brave, smart and sincere woman. I disagree vehemently with much of her notions, but on mysticism leading to dogma I'm on a unity ticket with her 100%. Nobody is perfect I guess. But she had courage.
Its always hilarious to me when someone explains that they disagree with someone without stating why. Its like waiting to state an opinion until everyone else has already agreed with it.
I see no reason to disagree with her.
@@drstrangelove09 Your post is four words too long.
@@primategaberocco huh? ... nope... it was correct as is... maybe you can elaborate... how is her views against mysticism wrong? are you saying that mysticism makes sense? this is 2022... and you think there is no such thing as reason...? seriously? you cannot be serious
I am to this day trying to find critics of her philosophy that tackle the philosophical issues and not her possible personal shortcomings.
jeep23862. I think you have it backwards. One cannot prove a negative.
@@franka4312
I think you are in the wrong comment section.
By my post 2 months ago I was simply saying to ElAngel that I would be quite willing to discuss Rand's nonsense philosophy rather than her personal shortcomings.
Whats negative or positive about that?
jeep23862. When a person wishes to challenge a concept/philosophy/evidence THEY must bring a counter-positive argument to challenge it, provided the original concept has evidence.
Example: If I were to say that drinking water kept my brain alive AND I have personal and observed evidence to back my claim, You have every right to not pay any attention to me. If you wish to call it non-sense though, you must bring some kind of explanation/theory/evidence to suggest why.
Example 2: if I were to say that ghost exist because I like the idea, but have NO evidence. Then all you can really say is that I have no Reason for such a claim, but you are not called to provide any evidence that they do NOT exist. (Proving a negative)
The main thing really is.... what issue do you have with Objectivism specifically?
@ Finally someone discussing what she is saying in theís interview. Help me with this one: She denounces religion, was Atheist, yet she often comes back to the notion of being moral and good? How does that work when you dont have responsibility for others, is it a purely utilitarian motivation not to hurt others because they or society will sanction you and you will have done yourself a disservice?
@ Sorry, this was not the "Atheists are not moral, because they don't believe" question. Literally I'm asking: How do you define good or moral behaviour? Do you define it by law? Who is to decide who is living up to these standards and who's not? When she says that people, presumably most, are inclined to act morally by themself, if they are free to act solely on their own impulses, she has never considered how corruption or price fixing works? I do understand her background, and in that context, moving to America was a liberation as well as a shock when she learned that the same communist mentality existed there too to some extent, but how did she conclude that society can work without oversight? How would environmental protection work?: Successful farmers around a lake prosper, but the fishermen on the lake have their business destroyed, because of excessive Nitrates, so does the Farmers say "Sorry" we are going to reduce our yield by using less fertilizer by themself? Are these farmers guilty of using "force against another free man" are they guilty of a crime? What one think is reasonable and fair, is often highly offensive and damaging to someones else freedom. How would this ever be manageable in a government free society? The "zero tax" argument with volunteer charity for the disabled should work in principle, But it would also have people dying in the street, because some elderly or sick wouldn't have any close family to support them.
That a great interviewer- very c
My favorite writer Ayn Rand y Jack London
Humans are born into the arms of a mother. There is a dependency without which we could not live. It is a social dyad in which 'love' is crucial for development. The baby cannot be self-sufficient. The baby learns to become independent over many years, yet he/she typically would continue to value the parental love. Empathy is developed as is insight to another human who therefore is no longer an 'object', even though he/she lives behind a different physiognomy, ' (There are unfortunate examples when a baby does not receive loving care. Some died even though they had been fed.) The experience of genuine parental 'love' contributes to establishing contact between humans that are objectively separate. Physics and a meta-analysis of parapsychological experiments (mind interconnectedness of 1.3x10 to 104 places probability) indicates we are more interconnected if not interdependent than the conscious mind can consciously perceive. Believing one can be the sole author of one's thoughts and self-care would be illusion.
I have seen many Rand interviews on TH-cam but this one was the most informative. The interviewer was not confrontational...he just camly asked questions and she calmly responded. I totally agree with her views about faith and God but not about abstract art. She has made some ignorant and offensive comments in the past that would not hold up today. For example: calling Native Americans "savages" that deserved to be conquered. Still ..a fascinating lady.
This was not her format to say the least. She wasn't a "Philosopher:," or a "Writer", or any of those noisy things. She was a Woman of Ideas though. 8:50 for those that think that she was black and white.
She still either innately or by early conditioning had the moral template from Moses code . It was at least in her sub. So yes she lived life but she had a template under her shoes as foundation. She knew it but ignored it . Otherwise this woman would have been a monster
Interesting idea...
Career romantic love ?? It’s exactly what I miss in my life. 2023. Hardly exist these days. I trying about everything in my 26 years of marriage. No life. It’s work pay bills and repeat till you die. Hmm
This woman lived through the Russian Revolution - that injustice formed much or her thought. That said, she is startlingly original.
the RR was a great justice lol
To elevate reason above the heart of man is the most unintelligent thing you can do. Man is more than the sum of his/her parts. This kind of reductionism has lead mankind down many blind alleys and enabled the narcissists and psychopaths to predate on the unwary. Those who know nothing of love and wisdom are not qualified to define who and what we are.
For 'The Heart has its reasons, of which reason knows nothing' (Pascal)
🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾
Aantekeningen:
- Ideale man:
0) Rationeel, onafhankelijk en besef van eigenwaarde.
0) Weet altijd wat hij doet en waarom (geen grilaanbidding).
- Worstel om nooit kwade handelingen toe te staan: Handel naar je maximale vermogen.
- Tekort aan kennis is geen excuus voor het serieus nemen van fantasie.
25:15) Regarding death
Please supply me with a living man (or woman) that you consider to be Rand's perfect person?
She is a smart and very articulate woman. No question, ...but
I cannot say I wholly agree with her worldview. . This idea of the individual verses the collective, objectivism as she calls it., sounds terribly right, as she begins to define it, and I believe some aspects of it are. However, I think it's a fundamentally flawed Philosophy. I truly believe her atheism has played a big part in the formulation of her ideology. Thank you for this video.
Interesting set design.
When I was five I lost my parents and pet rabbit. Ayn Randy put me on the right path.
So sad, but who for I'm not sure your parents, your rabbit, Ayn Randy (which she was) or you?
What is the connection between a traumatic childhood and discovering the ridiculous writing of an embittered woman?
How wild would it have been ....You go out to dinner in the middle of the Great Depression in Hollywood and your server is Ayn Rand. Even Texas couldn't handle that much America in one scenario.
Lively open discussion thxu
The CEO of SEARS was a huge Ayn Rand fan. So he decided to apply her principles to the SEARS company.
Not long after, SEARS went bankrupt. True story.
Her russian accent here is stronger than in her earlier interviews, see "The Mike Wallace Interview with Ayn Rand".
Is it? Wallace even emphasised that she said "faith," because in that 1959 interview, her accent made it sound like she was saying "face."
I believe I reasoned!
Around minute 4:42 -- Interesting how she is quick to qualify the statement that the ideal man should never take part in "enslavement" by amending that to mean "political enslavement." What other kinds of enslavement is she not excluding for the ideal man to take part in? I shudder to imagine the misery of other enslavements (namely, of the disenfranchised) she will "shrug" off as part of the ideal man's actions.
Shes very matter of fact.
oh, very much so & a refreshing woman because of that
Or very much matter of theory if you will.
What a cold Godless existence…I couldn’t live 1 minute in such a world.
WHO IS JOHN GALT
Dearest Ayn Rand, please marry me! I know you are gone! But like Marilyn Monroe, you have a billion people who love you. Both men and women. I was introduced to you while working in Ringling Brothers Barnum Bailey Circus and the Fountainhead was a love letter from you, given to me by the General Manager of the Red Unit. I was never so taken by a literary story. That is until Atlas Shrugged. WOW 💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙💙😍.
I wish I would had met you. But now it's a little late. The Greatest Show on Earth was a easy place to live out the hardships of the human experience. Striving to enjoy the life I'd chosen as a child in school. Living where I work. Working where I live. The Greatest Show on Earth gave me what my Father instilled in me. Don't quit. Think before you act. Mother gave me quitters never win, winners never quit. You gave me a girl to be on the lookout for Dagny💜Taggart 👍😍.
You can still meet her serious heirs (Peikoff and Binswanger)
If you plant the seed it will grow.
She is a bit robotic, I don't think people are as simple as her theories outline, humans are complicated filled with contradictions and emotions we are not as logical as robots this is good thing. Some people have backgrounds which lean towards abuse and cannot just be explained away by her theory of man having confidence in themselves if it was that easy people would not abuse drugs and alcohol in order to self medicate themselves in order to deal with their past abuse, in Ayn Rands world these problems do not exist, but they do exist in the modern world.
24:07
On abstract art.
Recent science is saying the opposite of her "we come to a rational conclusion, then act" theory. It appears now that most if not all of our decisions are made subconsciously, and the brain then sends reasons after the fact, to give us the impression we consciously made the decision.
I agree with her and with you. I would guess that 99.9% of what I do and say is "made" when I sleep. But that does not really contradict my attempt to act on rational conclutions.
It's weird how both she and Irving Stone said they started to write (or wanted to be a writer) at the age of nine, on the same show.
I wanted to be a writer at the age of nine too-and an astronomer at the age of eleven, a classical composer at the age of twelve, a rock guitarist at the age of sixteen. I wanted to be a Beatle at the age of eight and James Bond at the age of ten. At the age of five I wanted to be a grocery-store clerk. It doesn’t matter when you WANTED to do something; it only matters when you actually did it-and whether you did it continuously from then on. (As it happens, I did, in fact, write stories at the age of nine and music from the age of eleven and so on, but I did lots of things back then. I didn’t have to earn a living.)
Act on what you know is rational. Do no do evil.
7:20 She didn't understand the concept of love and could not even speak. She wanted to start with romantic love because she did not understand love for one another. You fall in love with someone cause you see their values. Sometimes people do not show who they really are until you figure it out. Wow. I guess she wouldn't understand what someone said years ago.
When you like someone, you like them in spite of their faults.
When you love someone, you love them with their faults.
I like the line given to Ali Mcgraw in the movie...A love story.
Her husband said that he was sorry and she responded, "Love is never having to say your sorry."
I take that to mean, unconditional love. Like God loves us but He hates sin in our life.The Lord Jesus even said, we should love our neighbor as ourself.
@EMInspiration I know guys who admit that they got a person pregnant and married her. She was a rebound to someone he had a crush on.
There are all sorts of people who fall out of love because they got selfish on how they should be treated and the marriage did not last.
Codependency: A circular realtionship in which one person needs the other person, who in turn. needs to be needed.
Google implication. And there is a whole lot more to say about that.
The bottom line is...loving someone in spite of their faults because none of us are faultless.
The Bible says that, the Lord Jesus Christ died for sinners. He saves a life. The world with all sorts of confusion wants to tear people's life apart.
Maan, I wish there was a debate between Karl Marx and Ayn Rand, what a clash of minds it would be! I know it's impossible but could you imagine🧠
Reason. try and save a baby instead of saving the mother that has the best odds . Baby lives mother dies . good or bad . Imorral or Imorral . This bitch is dangerous. she aint no aristotle
@@fredred8029 What?
Marx wouldn’t have bothered, and even if he had bothered, Rand would have failed to appear. Sartre and Rand were contemporaries, for example. How many times did Sartre and Rand debate? Pretty much any philosopher with actual credentials and stature would have considered (or, in the case of contemporaries, did consider) it beneath him to debate Rand, and Rand, for her part, carefully avoided everyone and anyone who would publicly challenge her.
People like this. Just don’t exist anymore.. we depend on technology can’t exist without it.. sadly
This woman was a very slick psychopath.
He found language to PURPOSELY blur the lines between rational self interest and outright selfishness.
In conclusion: Selfishness is NOT a virtue - it’s a vice.
She is talking about doing for duty and honor not for feelings. Americans seem to run on feelings and look at the mess we are in. And we believe what we are told. Tsk tsk.
Isn't honor altruistic? And she rejected altruism. Her ideas seem full of inconsistencies and paradoxes. Irrational, basically.
@@OrangeNash I enjoyed her story. Business owners suffering government mistreatment will walk away. That's the story. Oh, and the business owners walk with their intellect intact. .
Brave woman
If there is no God, whence the nobility or morality? Humans always rationalize their selfishness and evil. How would you ENFORCE his type of value system?
In 1910 Ivan Panin, a Russian/ American Harvard math genius and linguistic expert, proved the Bible mathematically. Watch - Math proves the Bible. Most recently a 30 year veteran cold case criminologist J. Warner Wallace proved the Bible forensically in his book, Person of Interest. His testimony would convince any jury of the veracity of the Bible. Some of the amazing things in the Bible include the prophecy of the fall of Tyre and the prophecy of Alexander the great. Bible firsts include knowing life being in the blood long before modern science, or the Bible knowing about mountains and currents in the oceans or how the earth hangs on nothing. You should know about the prophecies fulfilled by Jesus and the impossible odds of that happening. The Bible is a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eye witnesses during the lifetime of other eye witnesses. They report to us supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claim that the writings are divine rather than human in origin. The Bible has also been proven archaeologically, historically and linguistically.
2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
Une pensée forte.
Moi aussi
Reason is as material as squash.
Sounds great in theory.
"Reality is the final arbiter."
Bingo
How about kindness?
If you reason through it and decide that kindness is a trait that you admire then i guess Rand would probably suggest that you pursue socialising with kind people. She would want those people to be kind through choice rather than obligation though.
@@tribalisnt Kindness is communicating that you enjoy interacting with others, it is a shell in which the message is contained, a la McLuhan if you want, in that sense it is neither a choice nor an obligation, it is a state of mind that flows without conscious intervention. Wouldn't it be a natural way of being human, wouldn't cold efficiency be a choice instead? Her way of being herself makes me very uncomfortable, I cannot say why.
@@rosesprog1722 I would say that both are a choice and most people can be both cold and kind, there is no kind default so to speak. She would want you to be yourself (as long as you are thinking through your decisions in a rationale way) and if you do that and don't like her she'd probably like you. Her delivery and mannerisms aren't everyones cup of tea but she's cool.
Define kindness. if you mean giving the poor money, I believe you're not being kind. Your being altruistic and it causes more damage to that person's life than it helps. If you mean helping that person by giving them advice, becoming their friend, etc. I'm all for it.
@@scottm8579 Oh no, kindness is a state of mind, like smiling, saying a nice word, listening well, softness, not being rude, etc... it is caring about what you say but also about how you say it.
As a Christian (and not necessarily a very good one) I agree with a lot of Ayn Rand's assertions, of course with exceptions. I know Ayn Rand was an adamant atheist but for me personally (since I'm using my own reason), I find added joy when after a long, brutal winter, I see that first daffodil coming up, knowing fully well that I didn't create that flower. It was created for me and its own environs. Since no man created it, the answer must lie elsewhere. I choose God because it brings me happiness and I'm selfish. This is not a falsehood to me because it took me many years of thought to reach this conclusion that I feel is in my own best interest.
I see!
I appreciate your points.
I have been doing a great deal of research. Positive psychology, philospphy, Ayn Rand and The Bible.
Modern positive psycology embraces spirituality because it is proven scientifically. Ergo, Rand would be forced to notice, Jesus was a great philosopher too. Of course, those who can't be bothered to understand the Bible are judging on "feeling", not concept. Rands concepts of good and evil are modern, but the concept, not by any means is original. Truly rational, except her hope of mankind (John Galt) makes us all into saviours, if we want to be. Hmmm.
the promotion of the daffodil by humans helps that flower to evolve and flourish...so that is a relationship and not works of any creator god, but good and bad are a matter of use, so whatever floats your boat
Ayn Rand used the term “selfish” equivocally. This is rhetorical sleight of hand for rhetorical effect. “Selfishness” is a quality, not a thing, and thus its pejorative aspect is part and parcel of its denotative meaning. The word cannot reasonably be denuded of its pejorative intent. If you object to its premise, you’re certainly welcome to avoid it altogether or to complain about it, but Rand, rather, twists its meaning to be provocative and still seem virtuous (by her own lights), to have her cake and eat it too. That’s not arguing in good faith. The term “selfish” does not mean “self-reliant”, “”self-confident”, “self-sufficient”, or anything of the sort, just as “childish” doesn’t mean “child-like.” If I were to conflate the latter two terms, I could argue that because it’s admirable to be innocent, playful, and open, it’s also admirable to be petulant and unruly. Clearly there’s a breach of logic here, and it’s the same breach Rand commits every time she extols what she calls “selfishness”.
Someone in her position has not benefit in claiming they believe in God. It just mixes things up and the sheep go crazy with opinions.
The philosophy that she advances is part Aristotle, Adam Smith, Nietzsche, Locke, etc. In actuality she did not propose anything new, but it seems that she had convinced herself that she really did. Her philosophy is very idealistic and does not consider the fallibility and imperfection of individuals. She failed to adopt an approach based on balance and optimal measure, this is where her ‘reasoning’ breaks down in the real world. Anything, even a good thing, when pushed to the extreme becomes toxic. She did not respect this fundamental axiom.
Try reading her work, and stop reading about it.
@@jamwest3146 - No thank you, that would be a total waist of time.
Exactly...but that's why adolescents love it so. Its black and white, like all religions
@@jamwest3146 EXACTLY
@@jamwest3146 You nailed it. "...and stop reading ABOUT it." on the money!
Let's not forget that Ayn Rand, a life long chain smoker, lived her last days on public assistance and under free medical care for her lung cancer courtesy of the American Medicare system.
She paid PLENTY of taxes to that system, taken from her book sales at gunpoint. So she's just getting her own money back. ...And medicare is MANDATORY.
By her own choice? She made a lot of money selling books.
@Stephen Bonser...........BINGO and her whole philosophy gone.........up in smoke.
Ignorant people spouting baseless rumors. Ayn Rand NEVER received public assistance. She left an estate worth approximately one MILLION dollars to an institute that still to this day teaches her philosophy. Her books NEVER went out of print and sold throughout her lifetime. She was paid for the movie rights to her novels; she was an in-demand paid lecturer up to the year of her death and she had thousands of paid subscribers to her monthly newsletter. She NEVER received nor qualified for public assistance.
@@johnnynick3621 Wikiupedia: "Rand underwent surgery for lung cancer in 1974 after decades of heavy smoking.[113] In 1976, she retired from writing her newsletter and, after her initial objections, allowed a social worker employed by her attorney to enroll her in Social Security and Medicare.[114][115] During the late 1970s, her activities within the Objectivist movement declined, especially after the death of her husband on November 9, 1979.[116] One of her final projects was work on a never-completed television adaptation of Atlas Shrugged.[117]
On March 6, 1982, Rand died of heart failure at her home in New York City.[118] At her funeral, a 6-foot (1.8 m) floral arrangement in the shape of a dollar sign was placed near her casket.[119] In her will, Rand named Peikoff as her heir.[120]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand
Who decides what’s rational?
I take issue with this idea that a man [person] should act only upon reason, and not belief. Belief is acceptance without proof or reason. If it is not then we do not need to distinguish between belief and reason, it is redundant. The problem is that things are true regardless of whether they are proven to be true. The earth is round, it was round before it was proven to be so. If a person only operates on what they can reason to be true, then they will be a step behind. That might seem innocuous until we introduce risk. For example: Thalidomide administered to pregnant women results in birth defects. That is true, and it was true before it was proven to be true. But if a pregnant woman operates only on what she can reason to be true, then she would initially have had no reason against taking thalidomide, because it was only proven to result in birth defects after it had been administered to many pregnant women. We do not know the future and we cannot prove everything instantly, therefore there is always risk. Not just the risk of doing something, but the risk of not doing something.
Edit: If I were to apply reasoning to the thalidomide example, I might reason that the risk was initially unquantified, and therefore I would assign inifinite risk to pregnant women taking thalidomide and advise not to until more was known. But when can we ever say that all circustances have been evaluated?
Don't know whether god created this Universe. But definitely Man created god.
And who created you ... ? Yourself ...? Reason and science and all observation and experience prove that the effect cannot be greater than the cause. EG entropy, motion, or in more plain terms the painting is lesser than the painter and the table less then the carpenter. As you are the “effect” then your cause is one greater than you. In the simplest terms this is a way to prove God ... your own existence and consciousness. Consciousness and thoughts being immaterial effects prove that there is an immaterial cause of your mind and consciousness as well. Mind could not have come from nature as it is sovereign to nature ... it is greater than nature. So nature could not have been the cause of the mind. Whatever .....
th-cam.com/video/ODetOE6cbbc/w-d-xo.html
@@obergssin
Parents...
@@obergssin
th-cam.com/video/ODetOE6cbbc/w-d-xo.html
Here...educate yourself!
It's only 9.5 minutes long...but most religious people are cowards when it comes to the truth!
Good one!😂
Ben Shapiro also promotes facts and minimizes feelings. Both he and Rand say stuff that many times is kinda coldhearted.
Ben Shapiro is religious or at least pretends to be religious, he is also pro-life and is a conservative...while some things he says are correct and good, Ayn Rand would have zero respect for him because he is not fully rational or pro complete individual freedom.
@@NotAnEconomist Ben Shapiro is a pretender in all aspects of his show he calls a life, money grubbing requires it.
@@ducksticks6707 there you go, I didn't even go that deep to learn about him since everything was already on the surface.
No one likes truth anymore 😢
never thought I'd hear a woman say that about feelings ...I know so many women that treat their feelings as if they are more important than facts and reality
Well said. I agree
23:30 "So you would oppose anti-trust laws, income tax, all the restraints that are normally imposed? -Certainly, but not "normally", abnormally imposed.". These kinds of micro-adjustments to often spoken, unexamined nonsense are the stuff of life.
《atalas shrugged》,一本能改变你价值观的书