The DISTURBING TRUE STORY of Ayn Rand’s Indoctrination (Masterclass Excerpt)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 พ.ค. 2023
- Get the "TRUTH SEEKERS STARTER KIT" for FREE: audreyrindlisbacher.com/
WATCH the rest of this lecture: "How I was (almost) INDOCTRINATED": • IGNORING TRUTH: How ad...
Although reason is vital to our survival and progress, what happens when it’s taken too far? Devoted to reason as the highest principle, Ayn Rand taught many powerful truths, but she also caused much pain. Here is the TRUE story of how even something as good and beautiful as reason can be taken too far…leading to confusion, heartache, and absolute destruction.
#aynrand #thetruthwillsetyoufree #indoctrination
----------
Get Your FREE Video Training “Natural Law: The Framework for Successful Living”: audreyrindlisbacher.com/
Get Your FREE article, "Why Self-Help Doesn’t Help and What to Do Instead": themissiondrivenmom.com/freea...
Learn About My Book "The Mission Driven Life: Discover and Fulfill Your Unique Contribution to the World": audreyrindlisbacher.com/my-bo...
My Top 100 Best Reads: audreyrindlisbacher.com/my-to...
Check Out My Program for Moms: themissiondrivenmom.com/
My Instagram: / audreyrindlisbacher
My Facebook: / audreyrindlisbacherauthor
----------
#principles #audreyrindlisbacher #themissiondrivenmom #themissiondrivenlife #MDMAcademy #thetruthwillsetyoufree #servantleadership
![[TH] VCT Masters Shanghai Playoffs DAY 3 // FNC vs FUT | EDG vs PRX](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pw2T5v0ogDI/mqdefault.jpg)
![[4K] TREASURE(트레저) “KING KONG” Band LIVE Concert 킹콩은 라이브를 찢어🦍 [it’s KPOP LIVE 잇츠라이브]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/p8bLLOxPDD8/mqdefault.jpg)
Objectivism does not hold reason as the ultimate value - but LIFE. Reason is a tool to pursue life to its fullest potential.
Well said.
At 81, I have found reason to be my greatest joy in life. I don't separate them, reason/life, life/reason, psychologically united. But, for philosophical study, I see your point.
@@1voluntaryist Life is the primary. You have chosen life even before you could think, since you are a still alive.
Now that you have implicitly chosen to live, the question is - live as what? an animal? a plant? a pragmatist? or as a reasoning human being?
Once you've chosen the later, you now use your reason to maximize your one shot at life by using reason to be as selfishly flourishing as possible.
there is no reason without love.
oh, unless you are an insect ?
Well said, but Rand's mistake was to assume that Reason was THE only tool to pursue life to its full potential. Grievous blunder.
For a person who valued reason, Ayn appears to have rationalized some essentially irrational impulses.
Feels very culty - I think this is what this personality eventually winds up doing because life / people do not as easily fit into ration
essentially "rules for thee not for me"
I’m glad you make the distinction between reason and rationalization. What in particular about Rand’s philosophy do you find unreasonable?
Tell it.
@@EasyMoneySnipersOn point! Well said.
Both things can be true, that she was an intelligent and very insightful person and that she was mistaken on many pivotal life decisions.
@ptolomaeer, exactly. Thank you. And the argument that philosophy X led to some undesirable events for some people, therefore, "God" is a non sequitur.
For me, her own life is evidence of the failing of her philosophy. To claim that her affair was rational is telling. She consistently ignores the role of emotion, even re-sentiment, in her own motivations, from her anti-communism to her love life to how she treated Branden and her intellectual enemies. Her characters are cardboard...not real people with real feelings. In diminishing the non-rational motivations behind human behavior, Rand's ideas are terribly one dimensional.
@ichabodcrane2959
Very well said. She had high ambitions, and a (rightfully) high opinion of herself. ...and I believe she was doing DEXEDRINE, which totally feeds the delusion of infallibility. And so she just couldn't accept that she's an irrational human being. Just like everybody else.
A little bit of humility can be a really good thing.
She’s a narcissist
Most people are more complex than just a one-liner... @@grateful7420
Rand wrote a wonderful short book: Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. It’s available in an audio version. Her lectures and interviews are also available on TH-cam. They are very powerful.
I also watched the movie ‘Fountain Head.’ A very uplifting movie showing the power of an individual not to compromise.
This presentation doesn’t do her justice!
What is the point of being a brilliant person and have no faith in God... Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
The word "indoctrination" implies a specific preformulated doctrine imposed by an outside agency. Ayn Rand's philosophy was derived through self-actuation from a wide variety of influences.
She indoctrinated herself, and then tried to proselytise. So this is a pun: indoctrination to and by Ayn Rand.
Right...so the Branden Institute, her talks, and her books were indoctrination.
I don't think anyone is saying that SHE was indoctrinated.
"Indoctrination" refers to the technique to making people believe something that you want them to believe, not the content of the belief.
@@adrianainespena5654 Over-simplistic. And I basically said that. Who deployed this specific technique you are referring to on Ayn Rand?
@@HazeOfWhearyWater Actually Ayn Rand employed that technique on her followers. Basically installed fear of "collectivists" or "altruists" who would steal their freedom, so they had to come to her for safety. Basic cult leader M.O. Us against Them, and the Only Safe Place.
People who lived and survived Socialism and Communism and tell of their evils, are often criticized by those who love Socialism and Communism but never lived it.
Those who survived the soviet system were also almost all deeply traumatized by the experience. Often, like Ayn Rand, they would seek out political ideologies they felt were the antithesis of Soviet communism. While that's understandable, it can lead to extremes that paint anything to the left of stanch individualism and unregulated free markets as dangerous. Inevitably people start throwing around words like Socialism and Communism to discredit any public issue they don't think government should address, and presumably to frighten small children.
bla bla bla....how much your country owes China today???
not true. Lot of russians today long for sovjet union.
@matswessling6600 yes... long for something they didn't grow up in...
@@matswessling6600 It is only about pride & nationalism. Forget the starving people , radiation from failed nuclear power plants & destroying some countries because they want to destroy orthodox christianity & the caucausion race.
The danger of altruism is that we can lose ourselves in thoughtless giving, as if we have no value. But giving done right blesses both the giver and the receiver. This is well covered nowadays in the various codependency materials.
"My want to endless give to you does not out-weigh my want to give to all (including self)."
There's a great movie about the Branden/Rand affair, one that had pitch-perfect casting: Helen Mirren as Ayn Rand; Eric Stolz as Nathanial Branden; Peter Fonda as Ayn's husband; and Julie Delpy as Barbara Branden. Barbra's the main character, and all the events are seen through her eyes and emotions. Since the real Barbara was the consultant for the movie, she got to play her own mother, with a brief, wordless cameo at the wedding of Nathaniel and Barbara. Ayn's living devotees were predictably not happy with this movie, but even they had to concede that Helen Mirren's performance was practically a reincarnation of Ayn, with Mirren winning the Emmy for Best Actress in a TV film. Here's a sampling: th-cam.com/video/vOqn2Y6ihsE/w-d-xo.html
great comment
If you put aside the accuracy, Mirren gave an amazing and OH so memorable performance. Also Eric Stoltz.
Sounds fascinating. What'e the name of the movie?
@@pickleballer1729 The Passion of Ayn Rand. I highly recommend it; everything I've read by and about these people supports this is as a very true-to-life portrait, both factually and expressively.
@@scottforschler1847 I've read it. You'd be hard pressed to find anything by or about her I haven't read.
I think that Audrey has missed some critical parts of the Ayn Rand story which help to explain the remarkable power of her ideas and influence. First, Rand's overarching argument was with the ideas and ideology represented by Soviet Russia, Marxism and the altruistic (non-self) ideology that the individual is subservient to the state. This is the backdrop to her story that Audrey does not share. Rand's response to the horrors she experienced and observed was to identify for herself valid principles for moral action which were obviously lacking in totalitarian systems. Her approach was based on personal, individual thought and action and, more specifically, consciously articulated argument based on objectively observed phenomena and not divine precepts or totalitarian systems which denied individual choice and responsibility. Her commitment to the individual superseded any altruistic motivation. Rand's quest for a moral basis for personal and social action was extremely important in the mid-20th century given the devastating destructive power of fascism (Hitler) and communism (Stalin). Young people coming-of-age during this period were looking beyond established religious belief in the arenas of personal and political morality - looking toward reason (clear-thinking), a method which was producing magnificent scientific accomplishments. Rand did not promote a "world view", rather she developed a philosophical system which she called Objectivism because it focused on objective facts or events much like the formal sciences. Second, I think it is incorrect to characterize Rand's ideas as religion and her teachings as indoctrination. Nor do I think she should be characterized as god-like. I did not know her personally but my impression is that she was both extremely intelligent and charismatic. Such people attract followers and many of these are unable to find their own way. Third, there have been recurring popularities of "open marriage" and the "delights and vicissitudes" of attractions across the lifespan await us all. Finally, I think it is perfectly valid to point out that Rand's exemplary "rationality" did not play out so well in her intimate relationships. Her concept of Love as the expression of one's highest values seems extremely narrow as this term, like "god", has become as overburdened.
Afterthoughts: I should have also included a comment on Rand's embracing of Laissez-faire capitalism as the socio-political ideal expression of her philosophy. A great amount of her energy and focus was directed at championing this system in which the powers of the State were restricted from interfering in economic activity under the guise of altruistic redistribution. She wanted to be "left alone" and believed that the free, heroic individual, following the accurate assessment of Reason would produce a better social order than a socio-political system based on power which enslaved the individual.
You missed some critical parts also that explain her much too easy entrance in hollywood, publishing, university.
Yes, but you can’t get a free pass on altruism by equating it with totalitarianism. Because what is even altruistic about a dictatorship? Observably, studies have shown that a sense of altruism makes people happier, maybe because we are (an observably) cooperative species. Ayn Rand didn’t even like the concept of evolution. The theory isn’t first hand observable but maybe that’s why objectivity has more do with multiple perspectives than a priori shit.
We are in the greatest spiritual warfare and destitution in all of human history. Its a God versus evil war to the death. Our daily Godliness, morals and prayerfulness are a matter of life and death every day..
* AntiChrist lefties are trying to take over the church, Christianity, America, Israel, media, education, institutions, Vatican, Democrats and the world
* Vatican Exorcist Fr. Malichi Martin knew the third secret of Fatima and though he had an oath of secrecy he despised the church hiding it- he could allude to it though and said in 1996 that it was about Russia, Ukraine and 3 days darkness. He was murdered three years later and an official version of the secret was released a year after his death..
* The cowardly and diabolical abandment of exorcisms, spiritual wafare, deliverances and Godly Holy Spirit infilling has caused all the destructions in the world past and present
Well said.
A short, direct, easily understandable chapter of G K Chesterton’s “The Everlasting Man’ (ch. VII) clarifies for me the futility of of philosophy, and the true liberation offered us by an examination of the Nazarene.
THREE of her books have been made into movies: We the Living (1942, Italy); The Fountainhead (1949): Atlas Shrugged (Parts 1, 2, 3, 2011-2014).
gosh i wonder how that happened - surely not because of having atheist friends in high places
I watched Atlas Shrugged - not even at the level of a B class movie. I thought I was going to die of boredom.
Actually@@janetch7384, "We the Living" could not have been made into a Hollywood movie in 1942 because it was anti-Soviet Union. At that point, the U.S. was pro-Soviet (they were our allies against Nazi Germany) and Hollywood would not have had that. Of course, Italy in 1942 was an ally of Nazi Germany, so an anti-Soviet film was fine with them. Today, I see nothing wrong with "We." It might even be the best of the movies made from Rand's books. Interestingly, Rand was able to legally seize control of this movie because the Italians had made the movie from her book without her permission. Before releasing it in the U.S. in the 1980s, she had the movie re-edited and redubbed in ways that in some cases do not make sense, but it's still pretty good and not too long.
@@lioneldemun6033 I found the worst thing about it the different casts for each part. For example, the first actor who played Francisco D'Antonio(?) was terrible. In the second film, Esai Morales showed everybody how its done. The same with the rest of the cast; some actors were better than others in the same role. For the longest time, I resisted seeing part 3. I finally gave in and was not entirely glad that I saw it.
“Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.”
~ Colossians 2:8
I do not know who Ayn was nor do I know of her work. Not originally from the west. That being said, this seems like a case of throwing out the baby with the bath water. Subscribing dogmatically to any idea or philosophy and using it solely as a guide to life will almost always not end up well. That seems to be what happened with Ayn herself (from what I got from the lecture). Like with every philosophy, you have to test and apply what works and discard what does not work, and this has to be done with constant evaluation and in specific situations, especially when dealing with the complexity of the non-logical human being.
Take what she got right (which seems to be a lot), be grateful for it, build on it, discard what she got wrong and learn from it, don’t use it as an excuse to tear down or discredit even her positive contributions.
For we Christians, David is regarded as one of the greatest kings in the Bible. We learn from his several costly mistakes, we don’t tear him down because of them.
From one Christian to another.....very well said!
“The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of... We know the truth not only by the reason, but by the heart.
Well said 👍 I've said this for years, but you said it better. Today so many times people ignore the right because there happens to be a wrong somewhere.
The one wrong does not negate the many rights. Just dismiss the error(wrong) and accept the rest, even if you don't particularly have a high opinion of the giver of the knowledge.
This is a necessary skill that so many lack, or do not use.
Voice of reason
Sounds more like unenlightened selfishness than enlightened self-interest.
She had simply a narcissistic behavior
@@terezelek277 Bingo. Her narcissism was the shoal on which her prodigious talents foundered and wealthy, entitled narcissists like the Koch brothers are among her biggest fans. One very telling episode was her reaction to a famous kidnapper-murderer in LA during the mid-1920. He apparently gave her the bad-boy tingles and she upheld him as some sort of existential hero for refusing to conform to extraneous rules.
@@gcrav Thank you for these details.
Read more
@@gcrav You have no evidence that the Koch brothers are entitled or narcissistic. As a psychologist I see none. It's just your childish "rich people are bad" mentality.
I've read most of what she wrote. Powerful stuff when applied to only "matter," but essentially thin gruel when coming up "What Matters."
Matt. 16:18 "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."
Her first published novel "We The Living" is in my opinion is her best book. A great Author.
Ayn Rand was a psychopath - clear and simple.
Do you know why she hated “altruism” so much. Because she was utterly selfish and manipulating. She destroyed Nathaniel Brandon’s marriage and drove his wife Barbara crazy - and she eventually drowned while swimming alone.
Do you really think she took proper precautions before going into the water?
I knew Nathaniel Brandon years later after he remarried and broke with Rand. And the biggest irony of all was that the great champion of individualism who hated any kind of social programs spent the last years of her life living off her dead husband’s social security checks. Tge bottom line: selfishness is not a virtue it’s a Vice and Ayn Rand was a horrible human being.
If indoctrination is this: " The process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs UNCRITICALLY", then what Ayn Rand did was not indoctrination. Ayn Rand wanted her ideas to be accepted through rational analysis, not through her social and emotional stability .
If the speaker's intent was to discredit Objectivism she failed. Instead of attacking her ideas, she sunk into whataboutism.
True. This video is whataboutism.
But... Ayn Rand was sort of indoctrination, too.
The scope is making others accept uncritically, but the ways can be much more subdole. For example, someone can have a scope of indoctrination but all the way appealing to your sense of cleverness with statements on the line of "think about this, this is just rational" and no one wants to seem the silly one in a group.
@negy2570 I agree, developing an extraordinary set of values is one skill and living up to them another.
There is a place for "what aboutism" so long as it's not trying to avoid the subject. It can give balance and perspective and counter hypocrisy
The problem with this video, even though it has great insight into the ways in which Rand failed, is that Rand's inconsistent application of her own principles does not mean that her philosophy is wrong. It means she failed to live up to and apply her principles well in this stunning series of events. In short, humans can believe in sound principles without living up to the same standard. Except for her disbelief in God, most of Rand's principles are sound and can be applied soundly.
Why are the missteps of pagan rationalists forgiven but not those of Christians?
I’ve read virtually everything Ayn wrote (well beyond her novels) plus all the books written about her. I’ve met Nathanial, and well, I could go on and on. And as best I can tell, you have it right. Well done. May I add: What kills me is that SO MANY people who hate Ayn Rand, have no idea what she represented. I’m NOT saying most people would love her if they understood her. I’m just explaining how people don’t understand that she would have hated the conservatives that use her name as much as the liberals whom she despised. Heck she didn’t even like Libertarians! One has to read a lot of her work (and her history) before praising or condemning. - And yeah, she was human, and subject to the irrationality that can come with love, sex, attachment. She really screwed up her delusional love life. But it doesn’t negate her philosophy (which should not be criticized before fully understood).
Ayn, to my uneducated brain - sounds selfish, rather indulgent for herself only, a user and pretentious, her philosophy sounds confusing (as far as I have tried to understand it) for the realities of living in a world containing irrational humans.
Only sensible comment here. These morons should put her philosophy to tests not her personal life. I loved her still do and will continue to do. And mind you i am a practising hindu and her philosophy resonates with our principles so much. Salute to you Ms Rand. Her ostrasization still continues.
@@divyabirsingh2905
That's why The Narcissistic Caste System works in your country. Not in American
Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. *"We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.* Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? *But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.*
Ayn Rand, from her book "Atlas Shrugged"
The work of research professor Anthony Sutton goes much Deeper what you're Narcissistic like minded thinking. Just view / research the video / books "The Order of Skull and Bones" (Yale University Social Engineering). Wall Street in The Rise of Hitler, The Best Enemy Money Can Buy, etc. It's a Death Cult and you would fit right in. God has no place in your life.
Seeing as she did her best to live by it, I'd say her personal life *was* a test of her philosophy to some degree.
I would argue that her personal life is a clear reflection of the natural consequences of her philosophy, they cannot be viewed exclusively. One of the errors of her philosophy being that rational thought is all that is needed. When you create a hierarchy of values that is misaligned with reality, negative consequences are inevitable.
I think narcissism is often the result of trauma. Pity for anyone who experiences trauma in early life and spends the rest of their energy trying to control the universe. More pity for those who get caught up under their control. No respect for someone who creates a playbook for narcissism and sells it as the keys to the universe. Thank you Audrey for this work that teachers how to identify and understand the patterns and the impact of narcissistic abuse.
I dontvknow her early life , but narcissism similar to Rand's , usually initiates in infancy. She probably was narcissistic priarctovthecRevolution destroying her family's business.
Her behavior can be just as easily explained by gynocentrism
every extremist is fixated on one thing
like protestants on work hard to prove being predestined
Luther said if you are more sinful repent more lol (if I'm not mistaken)
and if you negate extreme system being raised in it you stil use it's paradigms
you build opposite extreme view
like atheists who negate god but keep whole morality of their ex religion
when Pantheist looses religion he will look for many antigods not one like science or reason. too
her loss of religion wasn't caused by her thought but by being influenced by communist intelectualism of the time
the revolution was won by communisms but also nihilists and anarchists
communism was also fixated on progress and building
I see narcissism as a consequence of never having a bloated ego challenged. A couple years as a domestic servant, a farm or factory laborer, a sales clerk, or a worker in a restaurant would strip most people of narcissism. The worst narcissists are the executives who have never worked on the shop floor in a plutocracy, religious hucksters who hustlegullible people through the airwaves, or the Party hacks in a "socialist" dictatorship who have been activists but never toilers. I would also be wary of some self-professed intellectuals who see their brilliance as a pretext for the worst.
Trauma? Having to develop solidarity with people who do real work is one way to avoid narcisssism. The narcissist can compel the powerless to endorse their own pain, poverty, and helplessness. The narcissist is the one who imposes trauma and never allows others to recover from it.
She could have been a very powerful cult leader..
Ok, this has nothing to do with this lecture, but I love this speaker’s hair. Gorgeous.
I agree!!!
It's all about the hair. The mirror and
The hair.
@@XvonPocalypse Better than the sleek pin stick straight flat hair that girls are sporting now. It's not flattering. (And yes, I have super straight hair).
Carrie Bradshaw realness
1980s special hon
the heart has reasons that reason knows nothing of
Perfect quote here.
What does that mean? Define 'heart'? What does reason 'know' . Reason has been defined as "the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgements logically."..reason is a thinking capacity, it can't and doesn't 'know' anything. In the same way the scientific method does not 'know' anything.
The scientific method, steps:
1. Define a Question to Investigate.
As scientists conduct their research, they make observations and collect data. ...
2. Make Predictions. Based on their research and observations, scientists will often come up with a hypothesis. ...
3.Gather Data. ...
4.Analyze the Data. ...
5. Draw Conclusions.@@lt7378
Nonsense.
Your heart pumps blood, it doesn’t reason.
Well said.
She was a difficult damaged woman but I would not want to think of my life without her. Great contributions are often born of adversity and adversity can also scar.
Agreed. I'm not in complete agreement with her philosophy (e.g. I don't think she ever comprehended States' Rights) but she was certainly prescient about the Left and where it would lead. I think her personal life was a cluster f&ck and she wreaked a lot of devastation on those who loved her but she has had a profound and positive effect on my life, likely because I'm not a camp follower and know what to retain and what to discard.
we don't have much info on other philosophers, and i'm sure if we did there would be much to criticize.
Rosenbaum hated blue-collar workers and farmers. She despised anyone involved in manual labour.
Yes, I found that the people best influenced by her are usually those who've kept the movement at arm's length, sifting the wheat from the chaff and applying the best to their own lives.
@@lerkkweed it's kinda weird to agree with EVERYTHING someone espouses.
I read The Fountainhead while a student at Indiana University, almost at a single sitting. I read it years later as something of an exercise in studying her captivating rhetoric. I have read Atlas Shrugged twice, and my paperback copy is heavily underlined and annotated. I did not know these seedy parts of her life, but I am not surprised given the unbridled sexual aspects of her novels. I follow a different philosopher, who taught that the meek are blessed and will inherit the earth, and the pure in heart would see God.
Wise choice for sure. Especially when you see the decay in society today
Who is that philosopher? Is it God?
Maybe Jesus @@bra_todo
Amen and amen
Actually, it is from the Sermon on the Mount by Jesus, who got it from God.
Audrey, you stated that Rand's stories are "very sexually explicit", but this is not truthful on your part. Have you actually read her books? Maybe 1% or 2% of the content might involve the topic of sexuality, with no dirty descriptions and no demeaning descriptions (like the type that are often found in many novels).
Sexual attraction between characters in Rand's stories is caused mostly by admiration and respect for the other person's virtues and values and personal strength. The characters are attractive because they stand by their convictions and their sense of life without compromising to convenience or trends or trying to impress. The characters are not primarily attractive to each other because of their body appearance or their money or their status.
Rand had the affair with Branden, but my understanding is that all parties remained at free choice related to it. It seems correct to say that pain was caused to a variety of people because of the affair - but it also seems fair to say that each person played their own part in causing it.
I have known many Christian moms who initiated divorce and crushed their children's lives and crushed their husband's lives - simply because the mom wanted to apply feminism to her own situation.
Your framing and your selected focus make your presentation feel like a gossip smear piece - as if you might be envious or jealous of Ayn Rand's successes and you are trying to emphasize the things that went badly in order to show her as being inferior or broken or similar.
Rand's stories appeal to so many tens of millions of people because her core theme is "self-respect", and this modeling is missing from most teachings and most teachers. This is why her stories sell hundreds of thousands of copies per year 6o years after they were first published.
I agree , It has been decades since I have read any of her books , and I did not remember any explicit sexual content.
1.6 birth rates in the developed world.
Middle Class women will succeed
in destroying 2000 years of civilization
by population IMPLOSION
and the destruction of the Middle Class.
The difference between a worldwide
prosperous human race
And a world wide Banana Republic .
Actually exactly what Karl Marx wanted.
What the 4th International and Leon Trotsky wanted.
Intellectual academic feminist SUCIDE.
Huxley defeats Orwell.
Trotsky defeats Stalin in Hell.
Her philosophy does nott fit with my own take on self respect. She is responsible for the ignorant attitudes that we are forced to live with these days.
@@Queenie-the-genie
Wokeism is definitely an ignorant adolescent Narcissism
@@Queenie-the-genie You apparently have never read her writings yourself, so the ignorance you speak of emanates from within.
Barbara's astonishment at Ayn's lack of even basic human empathy and understanding as they deal with institute applications.... big red flag of a serious narcissist.
Yeah
In first couple moments I said
Ah, Ayn’s a narc!
Ok, next lol
Socialist programs have done even worse.
Black inner-city families have been destroyed
@@YeshuaKingMessiahExactly!!!
I didn't get a lack of empathy at all from her. I think she just rejects the typical female idea of endless appeasement as the solution for problems. She tends to think systematically and logically in a particularly masculine way.
She had a good point about taxation. In the US for example, the government collects trillions in taxes and then gives it to dictators (who buy more weapons to oppress their people), and also give our taxes to countries with no obligation to pay it back (countries that do not even have national debts like we do). The central banks get total control of the country and each year the yoke of enslavement gets a bit tighter as the national debt goes up and inflation goes up.
Unless actions are taken to correct this path, there will be a huge separation between rich and poor that does not even allow for class movement based on merit and hard work. The US was founded on principles that we’re supposed to prevent the citizens being debt slaves, and due to taxation without representation we have a completely corrupt government and financial elite that are allowed to spend the tax payers money on all kinds of things that the majority of people would not support if given the choice of how their taxes should be spent.
My solution is that using the internet with tight controls over voting, taxpayers get to vote on where our taxes go. We don’t need a congress, senate or House of Representatives. We can vote ourselves online. When they created the congress, senators and House of Representatives, that was when people needed a trusted elected representative to represent their state in voting for laws and how to spend our tax dollars. We have moved past that stage, and we don’t need them to represent us, we can represent ourselves and decide how our taxes are spent.
I’m not against tax like Ayn was, I’m against corrupt politicians abusing their power and spending our taxes in ways that don’t help us, but only help them and support their agendas that often do the American taxpayer no good. The internet was not around during Rands best days, but had it been, she may have had a different take on taxation.
I read The Fountainhead in College. It became like a religion to me. Then throughout the middle of my life I became a little more “the fighter for the people”. Anyone could be “rescued” and everyone should. Now, coming I to the third part of my life, I’ve been coming back to who I was as a young adult. Not everyone can be rescued, most people will not put in the effort. The ones you try to save re the same ones that will nail you to the cross. Well, let’s say “burn you at the stake” to be slightly less religious sounding. The search for excellence is for the very few. One shouldn’t even try to explain to others. So, this is only for you. Not, not you, you.
Yes sir..so true..
Yes. The search for true personal excellence is for the very few. Most people are not interested or just can't 'get it'
You reject God you reject truth. You reject truth what are you saying that's worth saying?
@@robertbecker7937 is that a riddle?
1) I think you'll discover that there are religious connotations to every form of violent brutal execution... you can't avoid it. And 2) if fighting 'for the people' has become less rewarding...now you know: you were doing it for the rewards not from any moral or ethical drive. Everything else is your justification. : )
We repress our feelings at our own risk. Knowledge is power, and despite the other maxim, ignorance, at least in this case, is not bliss. A person can’t deal with something they aren’t aware of. Ayn Rand’s life is important because she demonstrates the folly of trying to be logic and reason when she was, like all of us, a collection of emotions and sexual desires, along with an ability to think.
Emotions and desires are a big part of the story of Any Rand and her followers.
But there are other faults in her system. It fails to value observation, and thus the chain of "logic" can very easily go astray. Her assertions that there is no such thing as altruism, and that one cannot act against one's self interest are perfect examples. Both of these assertions can be proven false, quite easily, by observing actual people and how they behave.
Almost none of her truisms were true. It takes a special kind of mental blinders to accept her line of "reasoning."
Many of us read Ayn Rand as teenagers in the 60’s. We weren’t very well versed in narcissism back then. Today I would think she’d be a good poster child for it.
Very true
Don't fool yourself...Damn near EVERYONE either IS a narcissist, or has strong narcissistic tendencies. (But in addition to being a "narcissist" I'm also a "cynicalist''🙄)
Ayn MTF Rand. They are all narcissists. FTMs too.
I was infatuated with her when I was 17 in a Catholic School 1967. I was always searching out books that were Not from my teachers and Somehow I learned that she’d be on stage in my area. It was a flamboyant production (with 2 other people) and she was magnetically majestic… clothes speech movements. That is me looking back at myself soooo long ago.
Now, the word Narcissism is used a lot But I truly believe our world is run by Diabolic Narcissists.
What are you saying is narcissist about her? Do you mean ego?
I know that I’m not the brightest bulb in the pack,but I think sometimes people can be too smart for their own good.
The Ayn haters? or Ayn?
Said Ellsworth Toohey...phoohey, gooey- it all sticks together.
I think that negating and dismissing anything based on the human behavior and frailty of a person is shooting fish in a barrel. I think I could make a case on anyone in history as having faults and making mistakes in life. Especially, of the flesh. Those desires are primordial and can be difficult for anyone to control. No matter your reasoning and exacerbated by childhood trauma. I tend to dismiss your dismissal based only on her personal behavior. Every idea and thought in human history could be slain using your method.
No Audrey what she actually said about love is that it stems from our own selfish and rational self interest
The Passion of Ayn Rand is a sufficiently compelling film to expose the hypocrisy of the humanly flawed.
Humans have defects and flaws in the application of their ideas. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the ideas to which they hold are flawed.
Rand’s affair doesn’t constitute anything that represents her philosophical insights anymore than Peter’s denial of Jesus reflects Christian principles.
This video makes a categorical error. It conflates a person’s chosen behavior - which can be rational or irrational - with the philosophy of said person. As mentioned above, this would be akin to conflating Peter’s denial of Jesus as if it were a formal principle of Christianity.
Of course this sophistical approach requires far less cognitive labor than actually learning Rand’s philosophy and doing an internal critique of it.
I’ll convert to Christianity tomorrow if she or anyone else can pull that one off. :)
As do ALL religious practices and in this I including atheism.
@@tezzo55 You’re committing the fallacy of equivocation. Religion is “the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods” (Oxford Dictionary of English). Atheism cannot be a religion by definition.
The literalization of metaphors (“atheism is a religion”) derails the mind from objective reasoning and meaning.
@@vinoverita Thanks for reply. Atheism is built on the belief that there is no god. You no more know that there is no god than the other religions know there is. You BELIEVE there is no god. You believe in a lack of belief and you have a FAITH that your belief is true.
I just don't have that amount of belief.
I could say more but that's probably enough for you to be getting on with
Best
@@tezzo55 You are reifying zero - treating the absence of a belief as if it had ideational content. It doesn’t.
I reject “the idea” of God for the same reason I reject “the idea” of the multiverse: these ideas or concepts don’t correspond to anything objective in reality.
I can imagine God and the multiverse. But in so doing, I’m aware of the distinction between the psychological (e.g. the act of imagining) and the ontological (that which doesn’t depend on my mind for its existence).
My imagination isn’t the standard of truth. Objective reality is what truth describes by conceptual identification in the form of propositions.
It’s a categorical error to say I reject the multiverse or God based on faith. Rejection of arbitrary concepts doesn’t require faith. If it did, then the rejection of any uttered nonsense would categorically count as an act of faith, which is perfectly absurd.
If that were valid, one could walk into a room, announce that there are 372 microscopic aliens in the room too small to be detected by our instruments of vision enhancement, and accuse all deniers thereof as having faith in the non existence of 372 microscopic aliens.
This is sophistical reasoning. Rejection of the arbitrary - that which has no connection to perceptual or conceptual reality - is not an act of faith.
Although we knew about Ayn Rand and her books when I was in high school, we were never taught anything about her. So this video was eye opening. Thank you.
You bet! Thanks for watching :)
yup....garbage made by Rand
No one I know knows of rand.
I wish people talked about her. I learned about Hayek in the last semester of my masters in finance program.
What’s odd is mainstream journalists I’ve read had said rand is a third rate novelist and Hayek is a fringe economist. It’s like academia is really promoting Keynesian economics and that’s it. Hayek and Austrian school of economics is basically the Thomas Jefferson view of life while Keynesian economics is Alexander hamilton wanting a powerful country and rich companies. Jefferson valued individual freedom. Today that’s fringe while a few centuries ago these two economic systems were discussed unlike today.
@@koltoncrane3099 Individual freedom, but only for the 0.001%
“The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of... We know the truth not only by the reason, but by the heart.
As an Objectivist since 1964, I thought about "the big split", and I separated their personal lives from the philosophy. I tend to be unemotional, anti-social, hate "small talk", parties. So, it wasn't hard for me. People who Ayn's ideas upset, will focus on her personal life as "proof" that her philosophy is bad, personally destructive. That's not logical, so why? It's psychological. For some, logic is a tool to support beliefs that comfort, NOT a primary way to develop beliefs. How do they arrive at their beliefs? I don't know because I have always used logic, since earliest memory.
Humans are incapable of reason without emotion. Its not who we are. Objectivism is a manifesto for AI. For machines to rule the world. Bolshevism for machines basically.
My dad was infatuated with her books and philosophy. Out of curiosity, I read The Fountainhead around the age of 10, hoping until the very end to uncover some real insight or punchline. But no, there was only a barren landscape in artistic and spiritual terms. I could see no value, at least to someone who is nurturing the development of a soul or intrigued by the universe romance of exploration. Thanks for revealing a bit of the history behind her life. In a bit of irony, my dad couldn't even begin to understand what the film or book 2001 Space Odyssey was portraying. I grasped it immediately, also being a very young child at the time. Maybe children see a lot of things that adults who have been blinded over time cannot see.
I did not like her books at all and I have read a lot of books in my 67 years. I kept waiting and waiting to be drawn in like so many people were/are and I just couldn’t. Her books keep showing up on you tubers “the best books if all time” and I shake my head.
Is your dad still alive?
@@duncescotus2342 He passed away just a few years ago, at peace as far as we could tell, listening to music. Certain pieces could bring him to tears.
@@coldsteelprogressive i'm sorry to hear that. my condolences. My dad passed away in 2021. I miss him.
You're very wise to have not bitten the Ayn Rand hook. Selfishness is not a virtue. No man is an island.
Some people are deceived by her, though they see the good part, freedom, "self actualization," achieving something great for the good of mankind, even if they don't get it while you're alive.
You got 2001. That stone monolith was the tree of knowledge. Sin.
Maybe @ her age- Bolsheviks were a threat to herself, family and their family's property? Can you imagine that...
Her story sounds like countless stories I have heard about preachers getting into affairs with wives in their church, then using their religion to justify it. So what is the point? People with principles get too much influence over other people and then justify unprincipled actions? Seems to back up the cautions Ayn Rand had of too much power in the hands of an unaccountable few.
Great point.
Focus on a person’s misdeeds instead of the truth or falsehood of the ideas she presented is a way of getting out of thinking, of evading the hard work of learning her philosophy and doing an objective, internal critique of it. If Rand was reputed to be an unparalleled genius, as presented in this lecture, then doing that much is due diligence.
Let’s see the presenter engage Rand’s ideas from first principles and systematically defeat them.
Hell yeah 👏
@@vinoveritabut also, very enlightening to see an example of the personal results of her philosophy.
@@michaelrobertson1736
“But also very enlightening to see example of the personal results from her philosophy.”
That would only be true if said result were a direct application of one of the essential principles of her philosophy. Which essential principle of Rand’s philosophy speaks to the ethics of affairs such that her affair is an example of its application?
@@vinoverita it’s obvious in the same way that Marxism philosophy leads to division, destruction, murder and genocide. Rand’s Objectivism is Cult-like in this way. And the power she used to sexually exploit others is also fascinating. That’s my point.
Ayn Rand, like all of us, are deeply flawed beings. Reading her writings with that in mind is essential. Still, many of her ideas have improved lives, despite her tragic personal experience. Like all ideas and writings, its important to "chew and spit" - keep the good ideas and principles and spit out the bad. Let her be an example that extreme adherence to any ideal, even reason or altruism, can be negative.
absolutely right. i love the government and economics principles she taught!
@AudreyRindlisbacher yes! It's all so fascinating. Unwavering, extreme reason/objectivity is so much more aptly suited to principles of government and institutions rather than emotional, spiritual beings. Nuance exists, and it's so hard to build space for it with a black and white worldview.
Take care of yourself. Screw everybody else. Man has no responsibility for their fellow man. Socialist here, obviously.
@@AudreyRindlisbacher Don't you think she was a bit of a reactionary? I was into her philosophy in my 20s but it seems like a cult to me now. She even changed the definition of objectivism which used to mean ego under reason. Then when I was digging further she was okay with the Europeans destroying the Native Americans way of life simply because they didn't have a concept of private property.
@donaldquirk7801 Considering all the raiding (stealing, r4pe, torture, killing), you certainly can't frame it simply as Europeans destroyed the Native's way if life. It is a true statement but lacks proper context.
If one cannot counter the message, go after the messenger.
The messenger is the message.
I ran across your channel by chance and almost didn't watch this video because the title seemed a bit sensationalized and there are a lot of Rand haters but I really enjoyed it and had things I didnt know.
I appreciate your presentation. My experience is that Heart, intellect and Will come from our source, our origin which is God. That discovery has been a most powerful anchor in my life and caused me not to be swept away by either my emotion, intellect or will. It has caused me to find God's Principles which is the center and origin. My faith, or religion lets say has been the vehicle to get there.
Read up the works of St. Thomas Aquinas
And so the point of the video, then, is that Ayn Rand's views, opinions, and philosophy are all completely invalid with no redeeming quality because she was an atheist?????
God doesn’t exist
The heart is an organ. If you use it alongside “intellect” and “will” - two attributes of the mind - you should specify that you’re speaking metaphorically.
I can’t speak to your “experience,” but I would be interested in hearing you do an internal critique of Rand’s philosophy. If you’re not equipped to do that, then you’re simply rejecting as false what you don’t know.
@@vinoveritaAyn Rand is just plain stupidity philosophical speaking. Anyone who believes in her crap didn’t receive an intellectual education. Go to any university and study some proper philosophy and make your critique yourself. Of course communism doesn’t work, but neither does her system. People who are theologically educated know you can’t follow Jesus with her attitude. People are no objects, they are subjects. Stating the opposite is ignoring reality. There is a reason why no famous names in philosophy follows Rand and why Rand herself is no big name in philosophy.
Boy, you really had me going at first with that true believer stuff about the extraordinary genius of Ayn. I thought this chicks gone in deep but you skillfully led the narrative out of the cul-de-sac of objectivism and hammered out the wrinkles Ayn couldn’t see without ever giving away your own perspective. The only other person who’s done that for me is Nietzsche. Most readers of him still don’t know where he was coming from.
Thank you! It's such a fascinating story.
@@AudreyRindlisbacherThank you. My friend was a radical Libertarian, he loved to talk about her. That was in the mid 70's.
Now I hear "the rest of the story". It is so much fun to hear things I could have never known at the time.
So I'm here because I am interested, and I am listening while I am cleaning a room.
As the story unfolds my own perspective changes then changes again. The moods flowed as well. Because it didn't end simply, I stopped what I was doing to think about it, to read the comments. In retrospect ,I went through a transformation as I was listening to you tell the story and I am surprised by what I learned without trying.
Most people in society, even the people who are generous and devote believers in God, often do acts of charity and it’s totally selfish. They believe that by being charitable or generous will bring favor from God, and it will make them feel good inside for doing a good deed.
Her view on government is somewhat what the founding Fathers of the United States felt about governments role in economics.
The taxation that is going on and has been going on since the Federal reserve act of 1913 that brought in income taxes; it has crippled the economy of the US and the bankers that are owed the US debt have done everything the can to get politicians to run up National debt into the many trillions. They have done this with just about every country.
The fact that politicians are given carte blanche to spend taxpayer money has robbed so many people and is the fountain of corruption that is bringing a dystopian Orwellian nightmare to all of the people of the civilized Earth.
@@RootzRockBand Truth is, that however crippled our US economy is by corruption, it is still the largest and most productive in the world. The dystopian Orwellian nightmare is only in your head. Ayn Rand ended up a miserable and vindictive old woman. So much for the virtues of selfishness. Jesus, you’ve heard of him, said G-d gives His blessings to the just and the unjust, the worthy and the unworthy, so acts of Charity are good in themselves but usually don’t make the givers feel much better about themselves. Despising acts of Charity, as Ayn pretended to do, only reinforces a selfish self-centered perspective on society and isolates that person as one in solitary confinement and destroys them as surely as natural selection destroys the weak and helpless.
her hobbies have nothing to do with her insight about governments, economies, and sociology.
There was a movie about this story. In it, when Barbara wants her husband Nathaniel to STOP seeing Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand emotionally cries to Barbara "All you think about is yourself". That one episode, if true, is enough to show the inconsistency between her Reason and her Emotions.. Another flaw in her thinking is the wiping out of unconscious, irrational forces in humans. But the main flaw is that she treats the individual as if he or she is some form of self-enclosed system . . . whereas ALL things in the universe can only be defined IN RELATION TO a number of other things. I am not "generous" or "stingy" . .. I am "generous to X, y +z but am stingy to A, B + C. My consciousness of all things is a relationship between me and those things/beings/persons. It is thus totally impossible to be totally selfish or totally altruistic.
So true worldwithourwar.
Any altruistic action is underpinned by selfishness. Totally. 💯.
Think about it. An altruistic action is aimed at putting the other first. Why do we do it? Simple - that altruistic action makes us either look good to others or get that seat next to God (however we define him) in the afterlife. That's why we do the altruistic action.
In all situations, are you certain this is true? A mother elephant defending her calf from a group of lions at the risk of her own life? To make herself look good or to claim a seat next to God? There may be more going on here. Totally.
Can someone be totally evil in their nature? Of course. You simply craft your definition of evil to make it so.
@@bethdumont9020
She was only half a person. When I was in college I mentioned her to a young philosophy professor and he suggested if you want to find the truth in something, take it to its limit and see if it holds up there.
Thank you for this. I met Nathanial years ago when I started interviewing for a local magazine in Austin. I was aware of his relationship with Ayn Rand but had no idea of the entire backstory. Again, thank you.
Don't thank her. She apparently knows less on this subject than anyone who bothered to read Rand's actual work. Audrey Rindlisbacher is what Ayn Rand would call a "second-hander" living life vicariously through the efforts of others and spewing garbage gossip instead of doing any actual research.
@@johnnynick6179 wow! I wasn't that harsh in my comments but I fear you are correct. Perhaps the YT channel owner will respond at some point and redeem herself/set us straight.
@@cbr8206 Don't hold your breath waiting for her response. She is happy getting accolades from the other ignorant "second-handers" and parasites who know nothing about the subject upon which they pontificate. The world gets dumber every day. Keep your head down.
@@johnnynick9115ayn rand is that you? Lol. Why are you so upset that your feminist icons highly polished image is being exposed?
You're welcome! Thanks for watching!
1 point that's always missed: together with Vladimir NABOKOV & Joseph CONRAD, *Ayn RAND must rank as one of the very few writers, whose mother tongue wasn't English, but who, nonetheless, became absolute masters of the English idiom.*
Great as some of them are, this credit does not go to Commonwealth writers, like Sir Salman Rushdie etc., for those born amongst the educated classes in Britain's former colonies naturally grow up bilingual, with English as their 1st language, their Anglophonism far surpassing their knowledge of the ancestral or regional languages.
She came to the US some time after her 17 year old sister took her out of Russia just after the Russian revolution. She was 3 when they left Russia…
@@5400bowen She had two sisters, both younger, and no brothers. Ayn (Alisa) was the eldest child, born in 1905. The family traveled a few times outside Russia, and lived in Ukraine for a while beginning in 1918, for health reasons involving one of her little sisters. Ayn did not move to America until 1926.
Nabokov grew up in a multilingual European family where several languages were spoken every day. His governess was Scottish. His English accent had a Scottish tinge. He wrote in Russian French English maybe more. He had multiple styles. Pnin is one of the funniest novels. Pale Fire is mostly a poem. Novels are art, not philosophy. He makes fun of Dusty. Also, The Satanic Verses is so brilliant. It mocks a certain narcissistic cleric in exile in Paris. No one mentioned this in the heyday of the fatwa, as far as I know.
VS and Shiva Naipaul
@@5400bowen I think you need to do some research. She was the only one of her family to get out of Russia and she was a helluva lot older than three.
I remember watching an interview she did and thinking that she did not seem like she was a pleasant woman to be around. I didn't finish it, but I did enjoy reading as much as I did of Atlas Shrugged.
I really enjoyed this talk, thank you for sharing. Years ago, I read a couple of Ayn's books and loved them. I found the exact same lie at the end of the road as I implemented her teachings, as Ayn herself found. The seducing spirits, doctorines of demons are behind the writings. Taking TRUTH but twisting it just enough that it redirects you gradually from heaven to hell. Later in my life Jesus revealed Himself to me in multiple ways and set me free from the foolishness of human ways. Human wisdom is foolishness unto God. His ways are higher than our ways. I trust in Him and in His laws and grace. He is the way, the truth, and the life. ❤
She was an occultist, just like the author of Lord of the Rings. Atlas Shrugged was an occult book, not meant for the public, it just took off. It's an instruction manual on how to destroy the United States. A lot of professors, and authors are occultists.
Can you explain how she twisted truth ?
To ChristianOne… thank you.
Me too. I am not affiliated with church religion, but can agree with you about Rand. Based on my experiences, perhaps similar to yours, Jesus rescued me from my intellectual foolishness. 😇
I think the way I saw her twist the truth to satisfy her philosophy or really her emotional needs you can see from the way she uses people. Frank and Brandon but Brandon's wife especially. She's writing and teaching this doctrine of reason to these three people as well as millions but as soon as her wants conflict with those teachings she uses her superior intellect to persuade them and manipulate them. This is essentially a undermining theme in Atlas Shrugged this idea that advantage is fairness. If I can create an avatar that's the same as truth.
But just like in her life their's a collective responsibility we must have to each other in order to find peace or love or fulfillment.
Jesus teaches us that truth. To love others as you do yourself. Don't walk past a suffering soul without helping if you can. Some of her economic truths are close but they are biblical truths turned a little too inward. The idea that you should always make business or financial decisions based on self interest. There are others but those stand out right now.
@davidclaytonfreeman3306 what she did was typical narcissistic behavior
I can't state it better than @MaakBow did: "If you base your life on ANY one ideal you will end up making bad decisions and hurting people....unless that idea is love." And intelligence without wisdom is like a boat without water. Intellectuals who take their boats into the mirage waters of fear and selfishness would be better off staying alongside the pier, as their impressive intelligence, lacking wisdom, helps them to mislead many people. Elijah has returned, as prophesied, and testifies.
Love of what?
Freud and the psychoanalytic school revealed the irrational phenomenon of transference. No matter how rational we may think of ourselves to be, transference is a reflex. And a person with a deep narcissistic injury easily falls prey to this reflex.
The strangest thing with Ayn Rand is she rejected enlightenment thinkers like Kant who clearly demonstrated via reason the limits to reason. And she obviously rejected Marx, but one of his main ideas is sometimes rational means can result in irrational outcomes.
But her Achilles heal IMO was a ridiculously poor understanding of what the psychoanalytic and analytic psychology schools were pointing out.
The basis of religious thinking comes from the conclusion that there are greater forces at work, that are beyond our control. Whether one attributes those forces as “inner” as psychology did or outer as Judaism and Christianity traditionally has the conclusion is similar, greater humility.
Reading Atlas Shrugged for the fourth time now. And enjoying it even more.
Ayn Rand may have been a bit bats, not quite the full quid, or perhaps even totally insane-
-but she hit so many nails right on the head, spot on. She's still very much own my heroine!
I agree, she is not entirely wrong and got much of it right.
I read an excerpt from her less known title " Age of Envy." A lot of truth bombs she wrote in that work, and I didn't even read the whole thing.
Second time recently I heard about Greenspan being “influenced by Rand. I can’t believe no one mentions that he used to do the economics column in her “Objectivist Newsletter” in the early sixties. My brother brought them home in about 1968. Left them( a bunch of editions) with me when I was maybe 13 at that time. And she didn’t mention that Ronald Reagan mentioned her directly and appointed Greenspan as the head of the Federal Reserve. He had been on Nixons’ economics council.
I read Atlas Shrugged in ‘87. Two things I recall:
- It was boring
- Virtue is equated to intelligence and talent in her characters
Obviously, plenty of talented and intelligent people are also corrupt.
I knew nothing about her personal life but I was dismayed to learn years later that Greenspan, Paul Ryan and others were influenced by her. I thought “What are they so impressed with?” I don’t think she had economic theories. Correct me if I’m wrong but I think she was a philosopher, not an economist.
@@SplatterPatternExpertHere is Rand’s view of virtue:
“Man has a single basic choice: to think or not, and that is the gauge of his virtue. Moral perfection is an unbreached rationality-not the degree of your intelligence, but the full and relentless use of your mind, not the extent of your knowledge, but the acceptance of reason as an absolute.”
So, you came to a fallacious conclusion regarding her view of virtue in reading Atlas Shrugged.
@@vinoverita Yes according to her words I did. My impression of the novel, from 35 yrs ago, is that her virtuous characters were the bright, talented, beautiful people. It is only an impression I recall, based on the characters.
@@SplatterPatternExpert Fair enough
oh boy, Regan mentioned her! 🤣
gold star, Ayn; you have arrived.
I discovered Ayn Rand after I took the IQ tests and joined Mensa in the early Seventies; her name was everywhere in that group. At that time, it was very popular to take LSD and then join a cult; the Hare Krishna movement enjoyed a rapid rise in popularity. I took LSD also, and read Atlas Shrugged. Ayn Rand kept me sane.
Maybe you're just one trip short of a journey.🤫
In no time after I was out of college I realised that Ayn Rand's romantic imagination which had so fascinated me a year back had neither intrinsic worth nor practical applicability.
and the writing was pretty poor
@@lv5966how many story’s have u sold?! #Fool
We can only reason from what we know - and in an era in which what we know is limited, so also is our reasoning.
What are you talking about? What we know is always limited...
@@silvanabaralha8665 So true. Quite a problem, isn't it? Especially since so many of us have even given up on knowing anything.
@@timward3116 why would it be a problem? Do people actually give up on knowing anything?...
@@silvanabaralha8665 Seems like quite a few have opinions based on virtually no facts and actually will not accept any facts that refute their opinions. I would say they have given up on knowing anything, but you may be right in the implications of your question. It might be more that they simply don't want to know anything.
Reason, and objectivity are great, but you cant reason your way out of being human.
For all of her intelligence and a life structured around objectivism, Ayn sure could be emotionally unhinged, petty, and act in an unlogic like manner. I think her ego got the best of her. Our humanity and emotions are the wild card that disrupts our attempts to remain cool and detached.
@@namelastname-qg6qw What?
Being a speed freak didn’t help, either.
"we hate those we have wronged." seems to come into play here. ~ intellectual empty nest? Facinating. I appreciate your telling of this story. thank you :)
Have studied epistemology and all of Rand’s writings over the past 25 years. She died one day all alone with no friends or relatives comforting her. You have to wonder why, with all her knowledge of mankind, how she never achieve lasting love. Think about it. Logic & reason will not bring you happiness. Most humans have used it for sadistic behaviors against mankind.
Well said!
Exactly! Never understood why people worship her so much. Everything isn't relative. Put your own interests first. Competition is good. Make decisions with your mind, not your emotions. That's all the positives I got out of her writings. Good advice, but elevating her to the level of a deity? And her personal life a total failure.
Well, I might as well join in the arm chair psychology session. She came to the USA very young and alone, during a time when communication and international travel was difficult/impossible.
Ayn made her own way, as far as we know without help.
I'm not at all surprised she died alone, or for that matter I doubt she would have wanted her death to be attended by others.
Can we entertain the idea that being surrounded by one's we love during the process of death is somewhat selfish itself? I've seen some difficult deaths that I wouldn't want to impose on family members. The narrative that a dying person's heart simply stops is fantasy.
I disagree. Most sadistic behavior HAS no reason and logic.
She and her husband stayed together to the end after having reclaimed some closeness. In the end, they loved each other. She died alone because she was a widow.
In my twenties I read a great deal of what Ayn Rand had written, both her novels and her essays. Additionally, I studied with her "intellectual heir" Leonard Peikoff. I know Ayn Rand's work quite well. I'm now 75 years old and I can honestly say that my opinion of her hasn't changed. Her politics is excellent, her ethics is good, her metaphysics and epistemology are fair, but better than most. Her novels are awful! They're cartoonish. That anyone would be enthralled by her novels, as many people are (mostly, but not only, young people) is a mystery to me. Why is she so hated? It's because she's extremely aggressive and dismissive of others. The result is that those others responded by being aggressive and dismissive of her. I think that if Rand had been less aggressive and less dismissive of others (and by 'others' I mean almost everyone else), her ideas would have been much more widely accepted. BTW, Leonard Peikoff is far and away the very best professor I ever had.
Cartoons sell big time to billions of children.
Boomers love them even in old age.
@@lorenzo6mm lol
Her theology would have worked very well in a society of Robots and Androids. She misplaced the one and only thing that really mattered: humanism. Being a human, with thoughts, feelings, tantrums, clarity of mind, vindictiveness, joy, sadness, depression, happiness... I can go on and on. She completely ignored her humanity. Her own, despite having a mountain of emotional tsunami herself. But it did come to pass with Nathaniel & Barbara. Her true colours came through; she was human after all. A fascinating tale.
Her novels are actually good. Especially her semi autobiographical "We the Living". It's also more psychologically real. Her other novels are not cartoonish. But they are very black and white caricature'ish. But it IS highly effective because it distills her concepts to concrete memorable memes. So u remember her characters More. But once u start thinking , you realise how shallow and incomplete and superficial they are! They lack the truth of real psychology. Her good ones are too good. Her bad are all rotten. No one in real life is that clear cut. As a 14, year old I was stunned by Fountainhead....but then I started feeling miserable because I felt I am all for high principles but I can never be as faultless as her heroic figures . So I read and re-read the books...and it took me 3 years before I figured I cannot rely on her claim of being a genius and totally rational. The lack of natural organic human psychology truths, tells you her ideas are not reliable. I could not articulate it so clearly then but my hunch was clear...that something was off with her world view. In 2004 when I learnt that she had an affair with her teenage fan prodigy and then inspite of her eulogising of cold logical objectivism...she behaved like a insane jealous old woman who couldn't handle that the affair that she had with the young man, WHILE being married to her (very strange and not brilliant) husband is not all the actions of an upright objectivist woman! That day it all made sense. Truth won. Pretence of high falutin moral superiority flopped.
It feels like she would have been a champion of the WEF and depopulation agenda even though its the opposite of libertarian
How easy it is for some non-entity
to smear greatness with the help of an algorithm that intends to do just that. Instead of this second-hand smear, you should go read Ayn Rand.
4:53
The great thing about Plato and Socrates was that they also would not move forward until the principle of a thing was understood - Socrates famously teasing a principle out while standing still for 18 hours over a frosty night while on military campaign [story told in the Symposium] and on into morning - but they neither of them denied Divinity the unrecorded half of Plato’s work being of mystery school lore and Socrates noted both for mysticism in conversation with the Pythoness - an oracular priestess - and for his reverence to the gods.
She was sadly damaged by being subjected to the evils of the USSR at that time. We never are allowed to fess up to what these victims went thru, I guess because our schools are run by Marxists, like a sour next door neighbor of ours who was an editor for McGraw Hill public school textbooks. The Greeks even got to talk about Atlantis, rare minerals, and Egypt!
@@RawOlympia
Yes! - and these days the old myth of Atlantis descends upon our heads from the future like the mother-ship in Close Encounters! (You possibly may enjoy ‘Uriel’s Machine’ and ‘Civilisation One’.)
I read all about this about a decade ago. I find her to be terrifying... but I realize many people idolize her and her ideas. People are free to believe what they want...( not realizing that so much of what they believe comes out of childhood wounds... but I digress)... I didn’t have time to watch the entire video... but if I recall correctly, this “free market selfish is good” person ended up needing some government assistance at the end of her life. It’s so easy to say you’ll never need help ever when u r a young adult. Get older.... your perspective might change. I can’t figure out ( and I’m sure this is my own subjective view) why people would think we are here to serve only ourselves. I just can’t wrap my head around that. I’m here to get what I want ... that’s it. What a sad commentary that is...tragic really
What about getting government assistance, if that is even accurate, makes Ayn Rand less of a person or philosopher?
More importantly, how does getting government assistance violate or contradict objectivist principles?
Please, enlighten me.
Ignorant people make ignorant comments. Ayn Rand NEVER received, nor did she ever need ANY form of government assistance. She left an estate worth about $1 million to an Institute that still, today, teaches Objectivism. Her books NEVER stopped selling, even decades after her death. Her paid speaking engagements and her paid newsletter brought her a substantial income in the last years of her life; on top of the royalties she was receiving for her books and movie rights.
People are afraid of this tiny immigrant woman because she pulled no punches in exposing the parasitic class of people who demand that those who produce must support those who do not. Anyone who simply joins in the criticism without studying her actual writings are guilty of intellectual parasitism.
If you want to criticize something, you must first seek to understand it by gaining first-hand knowledge of it.
You want exactly what she espouses but you want to come from a communist government. A world government?
@@cbr8206 A depressed vindictive objectivis?
@@lloyds7828 who? Me?
0:47 THREE of her books were made into movies! We the Living (Italy); The Fountainhead; Atlas Shrugged (3 parts).
Her personal failings are separate from her philosophy. Reason . . . but the Heart wants what the Heart wants.
Everything that rand wrote, spoke to was what seemingly worked for her! It’s her story! Not yours not mine! Every single one of us has to write our own personal story! Not someone else’s!
I am weary of hearing people talking up their ‘story’. Human history is a story they should be reading as they live their lives. The people they are around and possibly intimate with- family, friends- are the story they must read. ‘My story’ is the road to narcissism.
Very interesting! Thanks for posting this video. It brought back memories of my college years when I came across a torn-up copy of Atlas Shrugged while working a summer job and read it between shifts. I found the ideas compelling and went on to read Fountainhead somewhat later. Rand's thought processes, logic and disdain for religion were very compelling but her characters seemed to lack human warmth and I ultimately lost interest in them. Your video gives me a little more insight into my own reactions from that time.
Good insights! Yes, the human element was definitely missing.
@@AudreyRindlisbacher the French yew Alphonse ratisbone did not need reason initially; he just needed to wear the miraculous medal around his neck.
You are one of the blessed ones. It looks as if our world is being run by her inductees.
Feminist is one who is selfish ...I me myself is what her reasoning was....a true unhinged narcissistic sociopath reminds me of Meghan Markle
@@AudreyRindlisbacherabsolutely 💯 agree
Separating the author from the work is essential, especially when it comes to Rand and Objectivism. While Rand is imperfect (who isn’t?), Objectivism comes very close to understanding reality based purely on one’s interaction with it. If the scientific method means anything to you it’s a heady ride. A great dissection of Objectivist and their movement is the 1968 book by Albert Ellis “Is Objectivism a Religion?” As we all (young/college; I read Atlas Shrugged” in Vietnam at 19) are in the impressionistic ages, we have a tendency to think we have found the TRUTH, and disparage all who disagree. The lack of tolerance for dissenting thought and Rand’s condescension to it wasn’t her best look, BUT OMG, her followers (me included) thought it and she were great! When she described the scallawags and villains they were so much more vibrant and detailed than Dagny Taggert and Gault. We all followed the love/breakup of Rand and Brandon. For me that drama like the lives of F. Scott Fitzgerald, Hemingway, etc. doesn’t take away from their works. AND, that’s the beauty of it: that grand and glorious art and science can come from inglorious, flawed folks.
I thank God for rescuing me from my intellectual conceit. I’m a changed person, for the better, because Jesus gave me experiences that proved to me that He is real and true…and worthy of my love and obedience.
In spite of my philosophical and intellectual devotion to Ayn Rand, when I was a college student, God showed me that he had his hand on my life, even then, and gave me a lot of lead on the fishing line before reeling me back in to safety. His protection, was with mercy, and grace and love.
When I see how pompous and arrogant and mean-spirited atheists can be, I reflect onto the times of my youth when I adopted the same attitude. I have pity on those who put reason above faith. For neither are not exclusive to one another. But I have discovered that God is sovereign. It takes a humble heart to believe God instead of a proud mind who would believe and follow Ayn Rand.
Love this comment ❤️
@@Southernsunsetters , thank you! May God bless you too ( if He hasn’t already).
Loved your clear concise teaching on the failure of Ayn Rand's self invented morality.
Agreed
Thank you!
@@AudreyRindlisbacher Yeah, you certainly do know who your audience is.
Foolish? Failed?! See predicted like Jung the collective Woke cult we are goI thru now?!
#Brilliant mind #FreeDom Philosophy
The speaker is SOOOO CATTY LOL#ignorance
Fountainhead is a top 10 classic
Funny how Frminists hate here?! Successful strong independent woman?!
Shows feminism is about political control and communism lol
It's a great book. Lefties always hated Ayn.
Her prophetic books Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead are important reads.
to who? dostoevsky was much more interesting to me
She learned it from Mr. Spock on 1960 Star trek! Many of us learned it from him! "It is logical!" or "It is not logical! Does not compute!"
Ayn Rand was born Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum to a Russian Jewish family in 1905. The Fall 2012 update to the entry about Rand in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy said that "only a few professional philosophers have taken her work seriously". Also political scientist Alan Wolfe dismissed Rand as a "nonperson" among academics, an attitude that writer Ben Murnane later described as "the traditional academic view" of Rand.
That photo in the thumbnail reminds me of how much better our culture used to be. What people today would call repression, is actually just holding yourself to a higher moral standard.
I definitely agree
I LOVE THIS THOUGHT!
Nailed it
I am no expert on Ayn Rand by any stretch. What little exposure I had to her immediately repulsed me. To my mind, she was a defective human being. She lacked empathy; she had none at all. That is why her philosophy is poison to human progress, IMO.
Interesting presentation. Thank you.
Spending other peoples money doesnt make you a humanitarian
Would Marxism be better?
If you are not an expert on Ayn Rand by any stretch, then it strikes me as morally questionable that you feel justified in assessing her as a defective person. Don’t you think a charge of that nature would require substantive familiarity with a person?
I couldn't finish reading any of her books. They repulsed me, too.
agreed. but the fan girls/boys will never hear that
"objectivism" but life and the human animal aren't objective nor do we always see the reason for things that happen.
like Marx(ist socialism), her "awesome principles" didn't take much if any realities of (human) nature into account. it's all reasoned out so looks GREAT on paper (if you don't think too deeply and see that it relies on some axiomatic idealizations about we human nature).
tldr, the vast majority of the world doesn't have time to sit and think everything out so make irrational choices/acts... so what happens, in her world, when THAT happens 🤔?
MAGNIFICENT!!!! So, was Ayn actuallly the original scientologist? And L Ron Hubbard ......? how much did he take from Ayn? What is the relationship?
Audrey, you cut it off right when it was getting good. I wanted more detail about how "indoctrination" exists in the Ayn-iverse.
Indoctrination was a figment of the imagination of the fakers who pretended to be Rand's students and friends. The whole lie told by the Brandens about Rand falls apart when you read her journal excerpts in the book "The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics". Remember that she broke with traditional Western values in important ways. You can judge her according to the values you grew up with, but don't then pretend that you are judging her on her own terms.
I finally at 54 read both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged in the last year. I so wish I would have read it as a teenager. I was a pretty successful in my career as an engineer, but I think I would have been far more successful and provided even more value to the world if I'd have had the head start of those ideological foundations that I've mostly built on my own over the 30 years of my adult life.
Shrugged is basically a copy of the better written Fountainhead. moral Rand seemed to be just cashing in. btw she commissioned a home by FL Wright, the model for Roark in her book. it was never built. and in the movie the designs presented were pure international style, very inhuman. i did love Cooper's speech at his trial and the chemistry between him and Neal was real in the movie and in real life.
So you're saying you're a first class jerk now?
NPC’s will never understand novels that are written about the pain that they put real people through. This comment section is very, very vaccinated.
"'There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
John who? Isn't that the director of Pink Flamingos?
Whatever mistakes Ayn Rand made in her personal life are her business. She may have paid the price for them but never went public with her personal life as Nathaniel Branden did. She had integrity and did not violate her moral code of rational self-interest, since she was open about it with her spouse, who did not object to the affair. You cannot condemn her based on a Christian moral code which she not only rejected but refuted in her writings. If you want to argue against her philosophy do so, for she followed it scrupulously. But you will not do that, because you cannot do that. You can only attempt to smear her personally and hope that people dismiss her
philosophy, which is in my opinion a great and noble achievement.
Nicely made point. It is her philosophy I cannot stand, and sadly, her personal life was derived from her philosophy becauase she was so convinced that she was right in all matters.
It is unfortunate that the presenter was unable to present a counters to the philosophy and instead engaged in ad hominem logical fallacies.
I think you need to expand on this lapidary judgement. Also, what you advocate while possible and potentially interesting can only come after this presentation. IMHO, without this presentation, we would lack the basis for "counters to the philosophy".
Side note, I am not familiar with the phrase "lapidary", I am unsure how the art of cutting and polishing stone has anything to do with you inquiry that I expand my "judgment". Unless you mean to say that my "judgment" was so impressive as to cut, and reshape the assertions made by the videos creator; if that is indeed your intended meaning than I thank for you the complement.
In what ways would you like me to expand was assertion that Audrey was, rather than arguing against the tenets of objectivism, demeaning her audience to ad hominum attacks?
The title of the video itself, "The DISTURBING TRUE STORY of Ayn Rand Indoctrination" implied that the conversation would be centered around classifiable indoctrination techniques employed by Ayn Rand.
But rather, Audrey, after much heaped praise of Ayn and her "genius level intellect", as Audrey phrased it; rather Audrey presented a few of the tenets of objectivism, a philosophy based in reason, and proclaimed, see! How foul a woman was she!
Audrey did nothing to counter-point the claims that she asserted Ayn Rand would have made. It is a clear demonstration that either Audrey was wholly unprepared to speak on this subject; unclear as to what point she (Audrey) was attempting to make, or most villainously, simply trying to raise illogical and un-reasoned fear against Ayn Rand with an ad hominum attack vailed in copious praises at the begging of the video.
So I ask again, to what point would you like me to expand on my "lapidary judgement"?
I will answer in two posts. Post one: lapidary is not a phrase, it is a word, more to the point, it is used here as an adjective. I used lapidary expecting it to mean the same as in French, German and Dutch, which is: destructive without nuance in the way throwing a stone would be. It is not positive. Clearly, that was a mistake. Thank you for teaching me. @@ericpalmer7214
I have since informed myself about The lady presenting this. Her stance with regards to her channel is very clear: she advocates that atheism is an extremist view, leading to materialism and that only religion (with a preference for the christian branded ones) is conducive to goodness, virtue and the spiritual. In order to prove this point, as it seems that Ayn Rand is quite popular, she wants to show how AR's life is in complete negation of her alleged logic, reason etc, therefore even the cleverest of atheists is not to be trusted. She prefers this oblique way rather than addressing AR's arguments head on. So, I guess you were right. As to Audrey not being prepared...I disagree: she cleverly built AR up (as you said), only to destroy her by the way of her morality and sexuality, which is in fact nobody's business. Consenting adults and all that. I have done a lot of research on AR since yesterday, and frankly, while she raises interesting points (all philosophers do) I find her very unpalatable. Her comments about Arabs on th-cam.com/video/2uHSv1asFvU/w-d-xo.html are disgraceful. They explain part of the tragedy we find ourselves in today. @@ericpalmer7214
Understandable. I would only comment, in reference to Audrey, "glass house's and all"
@@annepoitrineau5650
Also, Neil Peart of Rush was highly influenced by her writing. Countless young rockers and music nerds like myself knew who Ayn Rand was because of songs like 2112, Anthem, Hemispheres... as well as her ideas being sprinkled throughout Rush lyrics in general. She was a big hit in the 'air-drumming' community :D
This is a great reply
The body builder Mike Mentzer also cited her works regularly as well 👍
That's me. Listening to 2112 as a drummer in the 7th grade. Rand Paul was supposedly named after her.
I heard a bit about that. So interesting...
One of my grade 8 teachers suggested I read Anthem.
Later in the gym. I was a competitive bodybuilder and powerlifter to the age of 21.
A few if us in the gym were Rand Fans. Later when I heard Rush lyrics and spoke with Mike Mentzer, I figured out that there were sane rational people that understood Human Freedom.
What an absolutely brilliant lecture! I knew most of this as I read everything Ayn Rand ever wrote and much of what Nathaniel Brandon wrote as well as Barbara Brandon's book. I was so into Rand and Objectivism when I was in my early twenties that I almost traveled to New York to try to meet her in person. So glad I didn't!
One of her favorite things to say when confronted with arguments counter to her philosophy was "Check your premises ". (Kind of a cop out really, because she never followed up on what she meant by that.) After several years of being totally enamored with her ideas I began to suspect that there might be some of _her_ premises that needed checking, and decided to apply that to her philosophy. While I'm still on board with the metaphysics of objective reality as she calls it, and reason as the best epistemology, when you apply “check the premises” to unregulated, unrestrained capitalism and unqualified self-interest as your ethics, there are a couple of flies in the ointment. Both are based on the premise that you can only hurt others if you intend to hurt them. Thus, your business dealings can't hurt others by destroying the environment, your private actions can't hurt others by misleading them, etc. In other words, there's no such thing as unintended consequences.
In addition to that, just as communism assumes that people have no personal stake in their lives, Objectivism and Libertarianism assume that people have no social interests or responsibilities. We evolved as a social animal. That's a simple, objective, scientific fact, which Rand utterly failed to appreciate.
Plus, I began to wonder what is so terribly wrong with being nice to other people, even if it doesn't profit you materially. Since then I've begun to appreciate the writings of people like Steven Pinker, Lou Marinoff, and Hans Gosling, among others. The world looks much brighter through their eyes, and mine, too.
Great observations! You put it better than I ever could--thanks!!
Perhaps Ayn Rand over-emphasized the autonomy of the individual. After all, none of us has sprung autonomously and fully formed like Athena from the crown of Zeus. When, however, you consider how readily people can be beguiled into so losing their autonomy that they begin performing fatuous and/or oppressive deeds in the name of the "social interests and responsibilities," you must forgive her for having written in _The Fountainhead_ that "the world is perishing from an excess of self-sacrifice." Add to that her having grown up as the Bolshevics were, um, socializing Russia, then her ideas can be viewed as a necessary, even if not totally sufficient, corrective.
What a beautiful passage intellectually and as a part autobiography, thanks for sharing this!
@@Elvisism Thank you so much. That may be the nicest thing I've ever heard anyone say in YT comments.
Interesting how many of us devoured Rand in our twenties, and most of us got over it as we matured, learned of and experienced the actual fruits of laissez-faire capitalism. I wish I could remember whose quote regarding the economic titans really turned the light on for me - something to the effect of "They're different from the average person. They're not interested in having enough; they are driven to have it all, regardless of the consequences."
ITS SHOCKING HOW POPULAR SOME CAN GET FROM STATETING THE OBVIOUS AND PLAIN AS DAY, ITS SHOCKING HOW MANY NEED TO DISCOVER IT.
There seems to always be a great personal cost to extreme intelligence or talent that makes the possessor miserable.
As a person of talent I can tell you that it is not the talent that makes me miserable. When I feel miserable the cause, more often than not, is my lack of perspective.
It's pride that leads to self-destruction, not talent or intelligence. Our ego's capacity for self-promotion and self-preservation is our ruination. Which ought to give us pause in this age of social media self-affirmation and virtue-signaling.
To add a bit of context:
@21:00 - Audrey describes the letter in which Nathaniel breaks it off with Ayn - and the only piece of information she mentions is the age gap. She neglects the information that Nathaniel admitted that he had been lying to her face for years about his sex life - including those "all night conversations" where Ayn asked him clearly and repeatedly about his sexual desires and experiences.
So, while the version of the story that Audrey tells is partially accurate, it leaves out the betrayal and lying that was revealed. Perhaps (and I think this is the lion's share explanation) Ayn reacted more to the lying and betrayal than the formal ending of a sexual relationship that had been on pause for 6 years already.
This presentation is deliberately biased.
I kinda doubt that. I really like Rand but I think she flipped out over being physically and emotionally dumped for a younger, much better looking woman. Who can blame her?
It was undoubtedly a mistake to invest so much of her life and career in a lover, especially given that he was not only much younger but that they were both married to other people. The whole inner circle had, it would seem, become incredibly cultish with no tolerance for dissenting opinions. It's easy to see a lot of what went wrong years later from an outside perspective (isn't it always?) but for those on the inside, it had to have been much more difficult. It's really a shame because Rand really was a genius and it's obvious that her predictions are coming home to roost.
@@HotVoodooWitch - Imagine the person you thought was your most loyal and honorable and intimate friend (and business partner) had been lying to you - to your face - in the face of dozens of hours long conversations in which you discussed the issues in depth. And the reason they lied was to preserve the income and the business you built on your name.
I would personally feel so betrayed and dishonored that I would want to retract and unwind all of the grace and support I had given them.
The woman in question's attractiveness would be absolutely secondary - maybe 3-5% of my short-term anger. Her character would matter to me, and the fact that she was known to me to have a less than admirable character would be more proof that Branden was lying to me.
The enornmity of the betrayal is so psychologically overwhelming for me to imagine ...
I submit that anyone who tells this story without focusing on that is not acting in good faith. They have a point to prove and an axe to grind.
YMMV.
@@Game-of-Heroic-Meaning I hear ya. HOWEVER, that does NOT make WA Soon Yi's stepfather, surrogate father, or a child molester.
It's interesting to point out that her heroines were frequently in love triangles or more, starting from "We, the Living". Dominique and Dagny made the rounds, until they landed the best of the best. The men were not as privileged or active.
The Bible says, "by their fruits you will know them." This story is strong evidence of the hollowness of objectivism.
The Quran , Upanishads etc also have relevant things to say. 🎉
No... this is strong evidence of a troubled soul looking for comfort.
She was overlooking (or unaware of) other, very objective truths about human nature and the psychology of relationships, in her pursuit of what she perceived as a potential fulfilling experience.
What she was trying HAS worked for some people at times... in fact, "affairs" are common in some cultures. And it's entirely normal that her position of power over husband would result in her wanting someone else... not a moral statement.... a psychological one.
Before I realised the extent of her influence, everything I saw of Rand struck me that she was an unpleasant, malign individual.
WARPED!
Like what?
she no doubt knew about marketing and had influential people who pushed her stuff just like when joe kennedy bought up jfk books to make it seem like it was a best seller
That’s because you are not intellectually sophisticated enough to understand what she’s actually saying. Rand is brilliant.
@@phil5569 she may have been brilliant. Still an unpleasant nasty piece as an individual.
Ayn Rand thought Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and Nietzsche were reconcilable. Enough said. And her novels are dreadful.
I found her characters one dimensional.
She is evidence that people are better at rationalizing than reasoning
Fascinating!. I'm more of the St. Thomas Aquinas school of thought that reason can get you to the water's edge, but can't actually ferry you across to your destination. Human beings are much more than the sum of our rationally reducible parts... There's definitely a valuable object lesson here. Thank you.
Rule to thumb:When someone criticizes you, that person has not accomplished even a 10 % of what you have achieved.
This woman (that is known only in her house)criticizing THE LIFE of one of the most prolific and influential writers and thinkers of the past century. I would like this woman to talk about Rand's economic an moral ideas and to compare them to the moral and economic situation of the USA nowadays to see if she thinks Rand was wrong about her "predictions".
Attack ad hominem at it's best.
I'm a musician and one of my idols is Art Pepper, his life was a total disaster but he played like the "gods", that is the important part, I don't care about his life, mine is no way perfect. I guess this lady is perfect and does not have any dark sides in his life.
I met Art Pepper a year before he died and he signed my copy of Straight Life. I play sax. Yeah, his life was a mess, but he was gracious, very funny, and one hell of a player. To add, my parents escaped communism, and they saw and lived at the dehumanization, death and destruction it inflicted on their country and wherever they managed to gain a foothold. I am willing to bet this woman supported Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren and other unaccomplished political hacks
Your rule of thumb is bizarre. If someone criticizes you, they might be right and may have accomplished more than you can even imagine.
@@victoriajarvis2260 hahhaahahaa one more looser here in the comments. Forget about me dude, you didn't have the intelligence to understand my comment. The comparison is between this lady and Ayn Rand.
@@victoriajarvis2260😂😂😂
Making music in philosophy are two separate things. Was art pepper telling people how to live?
Watch an interview with Ayn Rand with the sound turned off and the blink rate is already indicative of the lack of empathy she expressly prescribes. Failure to blink regularly is seen as a sign of psychopathy. Her blinking is almost absent, very rarely does she blink. This adds to her interviews being unsettling.
I submit that she had sociopath tendencies.
All hale arm chair psychiatry!
I never noticed. I was however startled at how hideous she was as far as looks are concerned. I honestly couldn't tell if she was a dude or a chick. I think the people that blink too much and too fast are the creepy ones.
She didn’t blink as pure moral genius poured out of her mouth and is therefore a psychopath? Man, you sound just like your college professors (not a compliment).
Fascinating. I've never thought of looking at her body language but that can certainly teach us a lot.
The fundamental misunderstanding of Rand is the belief that she promoted a sort of atomized individuality that eschews empathy. That’s a huge mischaracterization of her philosophic outlook. Those that start from that specific premise, encompass probably over 80% of her detractors/critics.
Well you are maybe 1/2 right, as she didn't really know how to introduce things like empathy into her limited world view. There are extreme flaws in her world view because she shuns values in favor of a weird pseudo-logic and is uniquely Rand's, and why malignant narcissists love her so.
Logic & reason are wonderful things, but in the 3D physical plane of existence. But, just because an individual can paint a given section of fence in 1hr.; that doesn't mean 3,600 individuals can paint that same section of fence in 1sec. Great talk Audrey, kind regards!
By the way, debating and questioning everything, making sure there are no foundational flaws in assumptions is called “the Socratic Method.”
I find a strange sense of smug satisfaction knowing that she was reliant on publicly funded health services towards the end of her life, something which she opposed.
yep, she was a troll and a miserable old crone.
She paid back to herself what was stolen from her.
@@synewparadigm That's funny because her biography doesn't mention she ever filed a police report about a theft of any money.