She’s so precise with her words, it’s amazing. Pure truth and clarity with understandable language. This is why she’s not respected by academic philosophers. But I respect Rand deeply for giving me a guiding stone in life. Thanks for uploading.
@therepublicofcynica10 ай бұрын
Altruism is dictionary defined as, 'the principle and practice of concern for the well-being and/or happiness of other humans or animals'. It's not an, 'ethical system'. It's a word in the English language. Only someone as twisted and distorted as Ayn Rand would claim it to be something else. It doesn't claim man has no right to exist for his own sake. Just doesn't. It's just a word. The only person to claim it's a system is Rand herself.
@jamesespinosa69010 ай бұрын
@@therepublicofcynica It's both a word in the English language, AND an ethical system. This is obvious if you've ever participated in a modern western feminised society. We're taught from a young age to care more about the thoughts and feelings of other over our own. Particularly if you an able bodied white man.
@johnnynick617910 ай бұрын
@@therepublicofcynica You purposely skipped the most important word in the definition: 'the principle and practice of *SELFLESS* concern for the well-being and/or happiness of other humans or animals'. Merely being concerned about the welfare of others is called kindness. We are kind because we expect something in return. Not money necessarily, but kindness in return, or the respect of others in society, or just the warm feeling of having helped someone else. Altruism requires that you receive NOTHING from the transaction, no kindness in return, no respect from others, no warm fuzzy feeling. To demonstrate: *Kindness* is giving a cash donation to a disabled veteran who you value as a human being for his service. It cost you something but in return you get the warm feeling of having helped someone you hold as worthy. *Altruism* is giving a cash donation to a group of pedophiles who you rightfully despise. It cost you something, but you get nothing in return except perhaps the feeling of revulsion for what you've done. In order to be altruistic, your "kindness" must be "selfless". It must cost you something AND you must receive NOTHING in return, otherwise, it's just plain kindness. In order for it to be "selfless" it must not provide you with ANY benefit at all and it must cost you something of value.
@apokalypthoapokalypsys957310 ай бұрын
@@therepublicofcynicaby your logic, "bread" is not food, but just "a wOrd iN tHe EnGLiSh LaNgAuGe". You do realize that a word also has a meaning behind it, right? And it's both a word and its meaning? But what do we expect from collectivists...
@kimobrien.10 ай бұрын
@@apokalypthoapokalypsys9573 You use this name collectivist to describe anyone who disagrees with you because it is simple enough to define anyone as a collectivist in one way or another much like the belief in original sin.. Anyone who disagrees with Rand is a collectivist by definition. Otherwise they would agree with her. Words have meaning only because we use they for agreed upon meaning in a language that is constructed using grammer. The problem with Rand's philosophy is that man is a social animal who uses social labor and a division of labor to make a life for ourselves We are not crabs who hatch from eggs on a beach and scurry about as reasoning individuals using a crab's brain lto mount a hunt for food and a mate heading for the sea. Human beings have culture which we produce socially after meeting our basic needs. Culture and a surplus is passed down from generation to generation. All the while growing ever bigger.
@hoosez10 ай бұрын
I've read Altas, and a few others of her works. But, this is the first time I've heard her speak. Just an amazing answer. There was some brilliance there. A very insightful woman, she was. ✌
@jochenretter10 ай бұрын
Altruism does not exist, what we need is kindness. She brilliantly explains how these values are mutually exclusive.
@stigcc10 ай бұрын
She said altruism to its extreme makes kindness impossible. She obviously hated altruism, but I feel that she skipped the "altruism might be good in small portions" argument, which is what most people means?
@zardozcys291210 ай бұрын
@@stigccthat is what people might think initially but then eventually they find themselves blanking out the killing of babies and raping of girls in the streets while they shout slogans like from the river to the sea.
@stigcc10 ай бұрын
@coreyflorez9466 Kindness is only impossible under altruism if you sacrify yourself. That is an important and interesting point she made, but it is only true when altruism is taken to its extreme. In reality, both altruism and kindness are group evolution strategies that will increase your and your groups fitness
@stigcc10 ай бұрын
@coreyflorez9466 You are right that humans are fundamentally individuals. But, that does not mean that group strategies can not evolve to be a human trait. For example, the granparents have evolved to take care of their grandchildren. Some even theorize that homosexuals spread their genes by taking care of their nephews and nieces. Altruism is definetely a heritable trait, not a construct. Just like dark triad traits are heritable.
@stigcc10 ай бұрын
@coreyflorez9466 For a study on altruism and heridability, please see "Attachment and politics are two functionally distinct systems, and both share genetics with interpersonal trust and altruism". It estimates the heritability of altruism to 0.32 from using twins (32% of the variance can be attributed to genetics)
@danieljakubik342810 ай бұрын
Ayn Rand certainly had an excellent command of and precision and clarity with language.
@kitchencarvings46214 ай бұрын
Which is pretty amazing since she came to America not knowing the language in her 20s. I as a native speaker can only strive for her level of clarity and precision.
@sayomi842210 ай бұрын
Altruism... I love how it was well explained by Ayn Rand.
@_Solaris10 ай бұрын
Man! -that was concise.
@jwtrucker540210 ай бұрын
One cannot misunderstand her point but by choice. One cannot argue her point and still claim to be intelligent.
@TheJustinJ10 ай бұрын
To argue or argue against?
@jwtrucker540210 ай бұрын
@@TheJustinJone cannot legitimately argue against her points.
@therepublicofcynica10 ай бұрын
What? Those two sentences don't make any sense. For what it's worth I understand Rand and she's wrong, not only about this but many other things to. Be quiet.
@jamesespinosa69010 ай бұрын
@@therepublicofcynica "Be quit". Thank you for proving you have nothing of substance. You are wrong. Because I say so.
@johnnynick617910 ай бұрын
@@therepublicofcynica Confucius say, tis better to remain silent and appear a fool than to open one's mouth and confirm it. You clearly either do not understand Rand's writings, or you are just not bright enough to understand it.
@ancamariastancioiu46886 ай бұрын
Truths that cut like razor blades through the human consciousness... Therefore, few people are willing to accept them...
@Mr.Witness10 ай бұрын
The courses at the institute are amazing !
@ANascente10 ай бұрын
So tell us the reasons why you think this about the courses.
@ricshumack913410 ай бұрын
Agree completely. Psych101 - you cannot by definition do anything but what you choose to do. There is no such thing as selfless kindness, it can still kindness but be honest about the motive
@willnitschke4 ай бұрын
Perhaps, but it's not useful to frame motivations that way, as there is no way to refute such logic.
@toasterhed27 күн бұрын
Not all actions are voluntary. Furthermore, neither are they immune from influence by external factors. The idea that we can be soley responsible for everything that happens and that everything is done with intention is a farcical fallacy. Look no futher than these comments, this absolute drivel and psuedo intellectual ego stroking. Someone was even using Bard for their responses... they clearly have most likely not read Kant, Rand, Socrates, any philosophy at all really om their own.. much less begin to form their own ideas about those things epistemologically or etymologically. I respect philosphical differences but to be truthful imho, Ayn Rand was a quack. She indeed had many insightful things to say, was articulate, but i even stop short of calling her well read since she seemed to twist everything with a level of egotistical bias borderlining on pathology.
@user-sd7et3wx1g10 ай бұрын
Amazing video!
@RandFanOne10 ай бұрын
That is the reason they hate her.
@jamesespinosa69010 ай бұрын
The fascist left hate this because they require the masses to be brainwashed into thinking that it's better they live for the collective, than it is to live for themselves. They hate this because it destroys any argument they have in favour of stealing the wealth and prosperity of others, and siphoning it into their own pockets (and gullet). They hate it because it destroys their faux "Im better than you because I care more about other people", which is their principle defence against criticism.
@yvesgomes3 ай бұрын
"And this is why I thank you."
@avneet1228410 ай бұрын
Darn, that's powerful 👏
@kitchencarvings46214 ай бұрын
They are a moral/political concept. They only apply to individuals in a social setting. If you were alone on a desert island, you'd need morality, a code of values to guide your choices and actions, but not rights because there would be no one to violate your rights. Rights are principles concerning your freedom of action in a social setting. What actions can you take morally without violating someone else's rights? That is what the concept of rights identifies and defines. The basic way that rights can be violated, and really it's the only way, is by physical force. So the basic moral/political principle is: No man may obtain any value by physical force against another. That leaves peaceful, voluntary trade and cooperation as the only moral way for men to deal with each other.
@goschaable10 ай бұрын
Greetings from Kira Argounova
@user-jo2if6ve9y7 ай бұрын
Corporate body..She is ! No question !! Much love and extremely adorable !! Ah !
@MrD_211214 күн бұрын
Hard to find any Newspeak here. 👍🏻
@sandibellinger90759 ай бұрын
If it is collective then there is no gain in the suffering of one, thus it is required to look after each other. If I were very rich, for example I could be kind and give $20 to a starving person and forget about them and go home to my castle. If I were altruistic I would be helping that person to rise also which would demand more than my $20, but also my thoughts, care and possibly more of my wealth. It is not a bad thing-but I think it’s contradictory to capitalism.
@willnitschke4 ай бұрын
Your comment is completely stupid because it's irrelevant. The critique of Altruism as a moral imperative, which lead directly to the NAZI and Soviet regimes, and others, that killed millions of people, is the issue. Nobody is saying "don't treat people with respect or kindness".
@opticalraven193510 ай бұрын
Be kind for the sake of kindness. I get ya.
@kitchencarvings46214 ай бұрын
She's using the definition that the creator of that term used. Dictionaries only tell you how people use the term currently. That's why dictionary definitions change over time. But the word literally means to live for others.
@willnitschke4 ай бұрын
She is actually using it in a specific technical sense, as a social/ideological moral imperative. She is not using it in the standard dictionary sense. Presumably she used this word in this way to garner controversy, hence attention. And it clearly worked.
@johnnynick61792 ай бұрын
Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines altruism as: "unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others" That is exactly the definition Rand is using.
@willnitschke2 ай бұрын
@@johnnynick6179 That's correct, but it's not the whole picture.
@johnnynick61792 ай бұрын
@@willnitschke What are you doing here at this time of the morning? I thought I was the only whack-o commenting so late.... or am I early for tomorrow? Stay well my friend.
@willnitschke2 ай бұрын
@@johnnynick6179 This is because everyone on the planet lives in your jurisdiction and nowhere else? You're not very intelligent, are you?
@MengzisDisciple10 ай бұрын
The Philosophy of the Sith and the biggest cause of Mental Illness in the US. "Moreover, individuals with an anxiety disorder are “afflicted” with self-absorption not because they’re selfish or insensitive to others (as are narcissists), but because they’re locked into bothersome, repetitive thought processes reflecting fears both about their personal adequacy and how others might (adversely) see them." Psychology Today--"Self-Absorption: The Root of All (Psychological) Evil?"
@gaozhi200710 ай бұрын
Crying Soyjack: nooooooo you can't just live for your own sake reeeeeeeeeee
@apokalypthoapokalypsys957310 ай бұрын
A lot of such crying soyjacks are present in this very comment section. They knew it was a Rand video and they came here anyway to throw their entitled collectivist tantrums, it must be their humiliation fetish.
@ANascente10 ай бұрын
Does she make any differentiation between moral and political rights here, or is she being redundant?
@Neo-African10 ай бұрын
That b!tch was crazy for real....
@exnihilonihilfit631610 ай бұрын
What's a moral right?! Only one kind of rights. Rights are the bridge between ethics and politics.
@johnnynick617910 ай бұрын
@@Neo-African Why do the ideas of a long-dead tiny little Russian immigrant woman frighten you so?
@Neo-African10 ай бұрын
@@johnnynick6179 Because the madness she planted lives on after her.... That b!tch was really crazy... Do you know she actually lived off welfare?
@howlingdin933210 ай бұрын
No differentiation made here, but elsewhere. And it's an unnecessary detail, not a redundancy.
@JamieProvost-os1xj3 ай бұрын
83: Hence Crooked LGBTQ
@dsgio72543 ай бұрын
The reason she says that it t argue that one does not have to care for the disabled child at the other side of the town .. that it is OK to ignore it - if you choose to... take this pathological / evil position.. But denying altruism cannot prevent the state to declare that it has to collect $ from you to take care of the child : it has that right because you could not have a business or even exist without state infrastructure , high tech , credit and security ... Therefore it has the right to tax to take care of people who are unable to do it for themselves ... Of course you are free to leave that state .. and go to a remote island to have your own army , high tech , infrastructure ... One is free to do so : just leave your passport and most of the wealth you produced with public aid .. And best of luck....
@willnitschke2 ай бұрын
It's not about caring for disabled children, champ. The reason why she argues what she argues is that state sanctioned altruistic moral imperatives killed an estimated 100 million people in the 20th century, mostly starvation.
@dsgio72542 ай бұрын
@@willnitschke By that mode of analysis -- the book you are referring too - capitalism has k...... much more .. : "Counting bodies" by Chomsky - it is still on line..
@willnitschke2 ай бұрын
@@dsgio7254 No it doesn't, that's just make believe nonsense. And Chimpsky was a defender of Pol Pot. I wouldn't be using him as a credible source. 🤣
@dsgio72542 ай бұрын
@@willnitschke " No it doesn't " is not a argument. It is not about the source (even if we assume that Chomsky is not....... credible compared to .....a random anonymous user.... It is about what he says : India alone capitalism experiment resulted to more d... due to famine compared to all Stalinist regimes ... which is not an opinion or judgment. It is a fact.
@willnitschke2 ай бұрын
@@dsgio7254 If you don't present an argument, I don't have to present a counter argument to mock your bullshit, sorry. What argument is needed if you're just typing pure nonsense and making an idiot of yourself anyway? It's your job to defend your claim not just rant nonsense at people.😂 And no, Chimpsky as a defender of the Pol Pot regime, has zero Geo-political credibility and hasn't had any for at least 50 years. This is fact, not opinion, sorry. The only reason why you cite that fool is because he is as nutty as you. The issue with Stalinism (something which you're defending which just demonstrates how mentally disturbed you are), is that it made famines vastly worse than they needed to be.
@KRGruner4 ай бұрын
This is just bizarre. OF COURSE I have a moral duty to put my children's and even to some extent my wife's needs ahead of my own. I don't get her take at all. Why does she have to re-define altruism to mean sacrifice oneself to any other random human being? I call BS.
@silvanabaralha86653 ай бұрын
Those are VALUES to you. They aren't just simply anybody else...
@KRGruner3 ай бұрын
@@silvanabaralha8665 Uh? Can you rephrase this so it makes sense? I'm guessing English is not your first language, but then again, it;;s not mine either so no excuses...
@johnnynick61792 ай бұрын
@@KRGruner Your regard for your wife and children is a result of you putting VALUE on them. You value them and therefore you want to provide for and care for them. Providing for your children is NOT a sacrifice when you love them. On the other hand, providing for people you do NOT value... providing for a Nazi Pedophile, for example, would NOT support your values. That would be a sacrifice. An altruist is someone who sacrifices something he values for something he deems of lesser value. I contend that this is NOT possible for ANY rational human being.... which is precisely WHY it is demanded of us.
@juanzulu131810 ай бұрын
I disagree. She mixes sacrifice with altruism. Altruism is egositic kindness (you are nice because you expect kindness in return) while placing the collective over youself is not altruism but rather sacrifice.
@k8510 ай бұрын
Don't prattle and try to have your cake and eat it. Altruism and egoism are mutually exclusive opposites, and consistence requires you to make the choice. Altruism is literally defined by sacrifice. Egoism is defined by investment and gain, which individuals can acquire by cooperating. Even by helping someone, without a direct compensation. In altruism, you deal sacrificially with others because it is your mystical duty. In egoism, you deal "selfishly" with others because it benefits both.
@juanzulu131810 ай бұрын
Yes. But altruism doesnt equal sacrifical.
@juanzulu131810 ай бұрын
@@k85 i disagree. If Altruism equaled sacrificial then we would not need a different word for it. Altruism and egoism are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I already described the scenario above in which there is an egoistic dimension.
@k8510 ай бұрын
@@juanzulu1318 As moral primaries, they are mutually exclusive opposites. We are not talking about how things manifest superficially, ever, when Ayn Rand and Objectivism are the context. We are talking principles, and in that context you have to resolve ideas, make the choice, and take a stand. Altruism and sacrifice are separate, but sacrifice defines altruism. Altruism means setting others above self. Sacrifice is putting out value and getting less back in return. Once again, there should be no room for prattle, semantics, and sophistry here. The issue is very clear.
@MengzisDisciple10 ай бұрын
Babies are shown to be altruistic---until they begin to learn language and develop an Ego (it requires the word "I"). Altruism is our natural state--Selfishness is a learnt trait. This is Rand's biggest error---as Selfishness is the cause of one's pain (anxiety and fear). Why her philosophy is one of darkness and evil...
@zabity10 ай бұрын
This kind of robotic logic is both pointless and dangerous. Every 1st year philosophy student knows that any concept is an ideal and no ideal exists in the real world. By the time you reach Wittgenstein you become aware that everything is fluid and that something like altruism exists as a form of situational/fluid stance. If we add Bourdieu's different kinds of capitals then even such an ideal altruist wouldn't become a "sacrificial animal" (pretty poor and thesis-heavy choice of words) but could be rich with happiness and social credit stemming from his constant help. Since Rand is such a proponent of maximizing individual happiness I don't see a contradiction between altruism and aynrandism.
@howlingdin933210 ай бұрын
Try to lighten up on the adjectives when you make an argument, and don't make veiled jabs like "every 1st year philosophy student knows..." it won't persuade anybody who doesn't already agree.
@zabity10 ай бұрын
@@howlingdin9332 how about referring to the point i made?
@willnitschke4 ай бұрын
@@zabity Knucklehead, perfection is not required nor will it ever be achieved. We can head in a good direction by embracing individualism or we can go back to the dark ages of collectivism and mass death. Your comment was the sort of comment a dumb person makes who is desperate to sound clever, and fails.
@zabity4 ай бұрын
@@willnitschke tell me how individualism would be the "good direction" in the universe which provides countless arguments to prove that teamwork and relations are all there is? even your little individualism sits deep in a web of relations with other objects in space, so at best, this whole 'individualism' thingy is nothing more than physical feature of a biochemical construct that was called to life by misterious chain of physical laws that organize a set of matter into a robot focused on it's survival by all means. you seem to have overslept the moment in time when these material robots started organizing matter on a whole other level where the sole one robot's existance is secondary to the bigger idea of survival of the whole code. why does the code exist in the first place? imho not to bring satisfaction to an individual robot, rather for some greater purpose. ps. starting a comment with 'knucklehead' doesn't add you any IQ points, dear.
@willnitschke4 ай бұрын
@@zabity Individualism doesn't exclude cooperation, knucklehead. Social organisation that has affirmed the primacy of the individual, i.e., liberal democracies, have produced the greatest prosperity and security for societies. Societies that have affirmed the primacy of the collective, such as the USSR, China (especially prior to Deng Xiaoping), the Pol Pot regime, NAZI Germany, etc., have all been catastrophically bad with millions dead. These are just empirical realities. Your "theoretical" babblings are just that, babblings.
@MengzisDisciple10 ай бұрын
Calls herself a philosopher--but doesn't realize being selfish causes pain, which means she endorses the opposite of wisdom (wisdom is seeking after virtuous joyful serenity--not material things and feeding one's ego). No living thing on this planet seeks pain over pleasure. She should have read some books on Stoicism or Confucianism. Not to mention her being a hypocrite for surviving on Social Security--when she never even paid into it. No wonder she is loved by Republicans---they do the same thing, criticize social programs and disability, while most of them receive it.
@therepublicofcynica10 ай бұрын
Well said. I couldn't agree more.
@astronautical108210 ай бұрын
Bravo.
@exnihilonihilfit631610 ай бұрын
You're a slandering criminal. Educate yourself.
@geekonomist10 ай бұрын
None of these writings of Uwer-Nie8os should be confused with coherence.
@MengzisDisciple10 ай бұрын
@@geekonomist Sorry. Plato did say the prisoners suffering in the cave would only laugh and mock when a true philosopher would come back in and try to explain the difference between their illusions and the true joy found when one releases their Ego and Selfish ways (their chains). To be wise, you have to be able to make a distinction between good and evil and if you think Rand is good, you deserve your pains--just keep on enjoying your shadows on the wall, but don't blame me for your suffering.
@therepublicofcynica10 ай бұрын
I got 21 seconds in and thought to myself.....wrong. Altruism is dictionary defined as, 'the principle and practice of concern for the well-being and/or happiness of other humans or animals'. It's not an, 'ethical system'. It's a word in the English language. Only someone as twisted and distorted as Ayn Rand would claim it to be something else. It doesn't claim man has no right to exist for his own sake. Just doesn't. It's just a word. The only person to claim it's a system is Rand herself. Rand was a right-wing intellectual who proffessed that man (humans) are inately selfish and that capitalism was the way forward. She had no sense for the poor, the underpriveldged or those that need help. She was a despicable woman. The Ayn Rand Institute wants to perpetuate this. They're dispicable.
@ZeroRyu710 ай бұрын
"The belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the wellbeing of others." "Behavior of an animal that benefits another at its own expense." You are wrong. Those are dictionary definitions of altruism. If you extrapolate from that what a system would like based on such a monstrous exercise, you understand what she's talking about. She does not advocate for never helping others. She advocates against the practice of helping others to your own detriment, and the atrocities that are permissible when a nation follows such an immoral code.
@Neo-African10 ай бұрын
Ayn Rand & @ZeroRyu are clearly displaying the mindset of psychopaths. Humans are not just a Social species,....but a Eu-Social species....(A.k.a "Hyper-Social") Any human that think Altruism is a bad thing is clearly a psychopath.
@geekonomist10 ай бұрын
The dicitionary is not citing the source of the initial inventor of the term. Stop peddling the BS of those who want to forcibly make me an altruist.
@astronautical108210 ай бұрын
@@geekonomist Stop couching an unexamined selfish interest in terms of forgiving yourself for not becoming better minded under the guise of "freedom".
@johnnynick617910 ай бұрын
Why do you collectivists make such blatant mistakes on defining altruism? Could it be that you don't want others to understand the true meaning and intent behind the word? Altruism: "'the principle and practice of *selfless* concern for the well-being and/or happiness of other humans or animals'." You left out the most important word in the definition.
@MengzisDisciple10 ай бұрын
Babies are shown to be altruistic---until they begin to learn language and develop an Ego (it requires the word "I"). Altruism is our natural state--Selfishness is a learnt trait. This is Rand's biggest error---as Selfishness is the cause of one's pain (anxiety and fear). Why her philosophy is one of darkness and evil...
@therepublicofcynica10 ай бұрын
Couldn't agree more. Well said.
@ZeroRyu710 ай бұрын
So be cause babies are naturally altruistic, that should be our moral imperative? Should we also confine ourselves to all the other limitations babies experience? You claim that what a baby learns is bad, saying that language and ego lead them astray. So we should strive to be unthinking automatons? Ego is learned because you begin to differentiate between yourself and "other". Further learning is still required. Altruism is a stain. You demonstrate that even more with your comment in its defense.
@astronautical108210 ай бұрын
@@ZeroRyu7 The argument is that altruism is implicit to our natural state; an evolutionary adaptation which is then conditioned out by cultural constructs that "select" for selfishness. Altruism is not remotely a "stain" except to those who do not know the difference between selfish interest and self interest. The lack of altruism in the implicit social contract is a symptom of mal-adaptive individuality, and it shows up in the degree of inequity people must endure as others serve nothing more than their own selfish interest.
@Neo-African10 ай бұрын
Humans are not just a Social species,....but a Eu-Social species....(A.k.a "Hyper-Social") Any human that think Altruism is a bad thing is clearly a psychopath.
@Neo-African10 ай бұрын
@@ZeroRyu7 You sound like you will bill your kids, friends and parents for any favours you ever did them.... Though I don't believe in God, the only thing I can actually think off that can help you, is God.
@sirbobloblaws10 ай бұрын
I get it now. She was insane.
@ANascente10 ай бұрын
No. You are.
@geekonomist10 ай бұрын
I get you now. You are arbitrary.
@sirbobloblaws10 ай бұрын
@@geekonomist Are you part of the Geek Squad?
@sirbobloblaws10 ай бұрын
@@ANascente Not so far. Maybe by my next birthday.
@exnihilonihilfit631610 ай бұрын
@@ANascenteThat's probably excusing him unjustly. He's _worse:_ he's evil.