Ayn Rand doesn't have all the answers, but she has all the questions | Michael Malice

[@christopherlyons4923]

I read Ayn Rand. I’ve never cared more about steel and trains in my life.

[@commonlogic3646]

Wow

[@tlockerk]

I'm always astonished that she did not learn English until she left Russia, so not until she was an adult; yet STILL wrote clearly enough to form a philosophy.

[@OM-md6ki]

What? Write in Russian

[@theone6189]

More clearly than 99.99%+ of people that spoke English as toddlers.

[@thesunshinemanmusic]

Ayn Rand cleared away tons of mental clutter for me. She was obsessed with forming true, clear concepts. She believed that she established an epistemological method that is THE WAY to get to the truth. Of course, you’ll have to read a lot of her work and decide for yourself if she is right. I see Ayn Rand's philosophy as an extension of Aristotle's thought. Man has one chance at life here on earth and the purpose is for him to reach his potential. Life might be and ought to be great. A man must have political freedom to reach his goals. Without freedom, he gets all jammed up and frustrated. Ayn Rand was a champion of great artists. Notably, Victor Hugo who wrote “Les Misérables,” “The Hunchback of Notre-Dame,” “The Man Who Laughs,” “Ninety-Three,” and “Toilers of the Sea.” She also praised Dostoevsky, Rostand, Rachmaninov and others. I discovered all these thanks to Ayn Rand. Unfortunately, the world is going very much AWAY from the ideas of Aristotle and Ayn Rand and toward some kind of mindless nihilism. I consider myself a student of Aristotle and Objectivism but I have found value in many other thinkers as well including Robert Pirsig (“Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” and “Lila”) and Iain McGilchrist (“The Master and His Emissary”). I think there is always a danger in over-emphasizing the left hemisphere of the brain which leads to obsessively over-analyzing things. I have certainly done that and I find it common with Objectivists. Objectivism can be a very SQUARE philosophy. It’s easy to get consumed in concept-formation and lose touch with the real world. I carry what I’ve learned from Aristotle and Ayn Rand everywhere I go. There’s is definitely more to life and more to philosophy and art and imagination and creativity than just those two. But if you are interested in reason, individualism, truth, freedom, virtue, and goodwill you will find tons of value in Aristotle and Ayn Rand.

[@TheRoyalFlush]

Well said. One beautiful thing about Ayn Rands philosophy -- it pragmatically works. As in, if I follow it, my life starts taking a more productive optimistic course. It certainly has the potential of excesses, but it beats the hell out of nihilistic post modern naval gazing.

[@Newbrict]

@William Loudermilk "Science and mathematics seem to have unquestionably disproven much of Aristotle (and by extension Rand)" in the same string of adjectives you wrote "seems to" and "unquestionably" lol Regardless of that, there is no logical way to ever disprove Rand's axioms. I have no idea what kind of false equivocation you're talking about with your "is of Identity" statement, but I assume that's because nothing was actually said.

[@ivanichianus683]

What did you learn though

[@mariocalvas6372]

The World is going to the path of Chinese Marxism.

[@Guacamully]

Agreed. People make all sorts of leaps with Ayn Rand, to the point they'll hate on you if you even say you like the Fountainhead or Atlas. But for anyone needing motivation to pursue your own path and actually get going, it is great.

[@michaelgrayrn4579]

I swear by my life and my love of it that I shall not live for the sake of another man nor ask another man to live for mine

[@djw6430]

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

[@darkfazer]

@@sybo59 The quote then needs a little more explanation, because it does sound a little strange. It sounds nothing like any mother would say, nor any husband.

[@darkfazer]

@@sybo59 Thanks, this was definitely thought provoking. I realise now I've heard this argument before, but never spent any time on it. I'm not sure if I would entirely agree. Rand does seem to be onto something, but I don't think the ideas of selfish pleasure and sacrifice are mutually exclusive. One can take pleasure in the idea of themselves being so morally superior that they are able to sacrifice their own being for a greater good.

[@mwalsh128]

“The best of trolling is taking down the eye rollers”. I like that :-)

[@kirstinstrand6292]

I read Ayn Rand in my late teens; she definately influenced my young adult thinking. I should read her now, so many years later, to see why many criticize her.

[@Avidcomp]

I'm jealous of people that read Rand in their teens. I haven't even heard of her until I was 40! Then within a couple of years her thinking and my own mistakes shook me up.

[@intellectualdegen]

Read Atlas Shrugged when I was 18 working on night shift in a factory in Detroit. Absolutely influenced my geopolitical outlook. For the better 👌🏼

[@alexanderscott2456]

They criticize her because she rejects 2000 years of Judeo-Christitan morality. Her enemies view living for your own life and happiness as evil at worst and morally suspect at best. And this is even more true of the so-called "secular humanist" Leftists who promote egalitarianism.

[@nicholasgad]

Man, Michael Malice is a freaken genius. His description and comments on Rand are perfectly honest and to the point!

[@alexlight4178]

Taking her books seriously would mean taking radical responsibility for your life and for your dreams. Panning her takes no effort at all.

[@darwin6883]

She was a complete hypocrite. She happily accepted Social Security towards the end if her life.

[@darwin6883]

@@jbscomedycarnival8297 For the entirety of her adult life she pilloried social safety net programs of every kind; yet, she happily accepted SS and Medicare.

[@darwin6883]

@@jbscomedycarnival8297 So she couldn't even practice what she espoused because it's impossible to live a long life without access to affordable healthcare. Completely impractical.

[@darwin6883]

@@jbscomedycarnival8297 Mate, she didn't even listen to what she said.

[@darwin6883]

@Roosevelt L Firstly, a large majority of SS recipients receive more remuneration than what they put in (especially due to inflation). Secondly, Medicare, which she gladly accepted towards the end of her miserable life, is a form of socialized medicine/healthcare- a structure that is anathema to the value expressed in her writings.

[@manfredadams3252]

Rush's best album was their Ayn Rapus opus, 2112.

[@johnobryan6154]

@@salildeshpande7 I was actually introduced to Ayn Rand by way of early Rush.

[@literatureandideasdotcom9907]

As a Brit, I'm reminded of Christopher Hitchens' comment on Ayn Rand: "I have always found it quaint, and rather touching, that there is a movement in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough."

[@royal_berg]

wow i just had a deep belly laugh, thats so funny.

[@larnolarno6800]

We’re all selfish, there’s nothing wrong with that

[@griotolu7040]

He and many others misrepresent how she defined selfishness(Rational Self Interest)! It's not the idea of selfishness that popular culture has promoted.

[@jthemagicrobot3960]

Hitchens was also a socialist until the day he died so put that into perspective

[@thechristianarchist662]

@@griotolu7040 most people don't know that, and those that do are rarely honest enough to admit it, because then they can't take a cheap shot for internet points.

[@andrewlayton9760]

I see flaws in objectivism in that it requires an individual to have a moral base and be able to *THINK* rationally.

[@DrProgNerd]

I'd like to see more people spend the time and effort to read Rand. I just can't see how anyone can read her and not walk away with a net benefit. I like that Lex offered the idea that you don't have to completely agree with someone to glean some value from their thinking. Too many people nitpick in an effort to invalidate. Rand's critics are often guilty of this. She's not perfect, but she profoundly changed my thinking. I'm grateful to her.

[@wildwildben]

To me, Malice looks so much like Ayn Rand it’s logical he’s a charge in her defense. And Fountainhead is a great read, and no, I have no phrenological resemblance to AR. Time for breakfast.

[@tommyrq180]

“The best of trolling is taking down the eye-rollers.” That’s a fairly classic line. The other side of this, of course, is the ridiculous over-use of “underrated” or “greatest of his/her generation” as undeserved compliments. It’s just part of social media hypeville. Glad Malice can read around great minds (all of whom are human and fallible, etc.) to find the good. And he can explain it because he actually reads…

[@gavingonzalez7174]

I just love that they mentioned Yaron Brook😂

[@youtubeuni]

Yaron Brook is an iffy objectivist. Lol decent person, but waayyy too emotional about certain things.

[@youtubeuni]

I don't want you to get it twisted, love the guy.

[@gavingonzalez7174]

@@youtubeuni I just think he’s very passionate about his beliefs

[@youtubeuni]

@@gavingonzalez7174 CORRECT! I agree. Objectivism is supposed to allow you to be impervious to dogma. But Yaron treats objectivism like a religion. It makes him blind to certain things.

[@kib9749]

Why would she believe it if it doesn’t corresponds to reality? Once you find a point where the ideas do not correspond to reality, you reject that aspect of it. Malice need to distinguish between the fundamental philosophy vs the application of it.

[@nicosmind3]

I say "last I checked" not as a sneer but as a qualifier. But now I learn that people use it as a sneering mechanism I'm going to have to think of a different phrase. All I'm trying to say is "this information could be wrong, or not up to day"

[@anhleroy]

I take his point at minute 7:00 but IMHO I actually think David Letterman created that sarcastic vibe in America more than Jon Stewart and before him.

[@nicosmind3]

Malice said Stewart taught a generation, not that he was the first. And he was highly popular, I bet many of his fans haven't even seen an episode of Letterman

[@themadmattster9647]

agreed with the title alone. I'm a weirdo because I'm on the left but like much of what Ayn Rand had to say, loved the Fountainhead- Atlas Shrugged not as much but I think that even for the sake of discussion and debate, her work is important enough to at least go into the discourse

[@TeaParty1776]

A Harvard political scientist recently ordered 600 copies of one of Rands political philosophy essays for his students.

[@longrangehunter6393]

Ayn Rand is awesome, I definitely dont think she was infallible and i view objectivism as a philosophical framework on which to build upon. New knowledge means updating views but the foundation is there/valid and the technique for finding the truth is valid.

[@z0h33y]

@Jimi Cunning Rand had to pay taxes, unwillingly, so SS and medicare was in reality, money that was owed to her. Makes perfect sense.

[@keithwilliams8342]

Objectivisms greatest contribution is the importance of the individual's obligation to pursue truth and strive to create.

[@NominalTopic]

“Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology” EPIC book!

[@NominalTopic]

@Jimi Cunning Yes, but tell us how you really feel...

[@NominalTopic]

@Jimi Cunning Sounds like it.

[@TeaParty1776]

@Jimi Cunning What is your shoe size?

[@TeaParty1776]

@@sybo59 ?> Why not learn what it is you’re attacking before attacking in Radical, dude!

[@lamalamalex]

Philosophy is for man. It is the objective necessity of man. Not for animals. That’s not putting the philosophy to work on the animals.

[@Triple_J.1]

0:23 I am able to speak to many of her weaknesses. I consider myself an adopter of the philosophy of objectivism, to the fullest extent of my ability to reason and live a life of rational self-esteem*. I say self esteem, because Ayn Rand herself laments in several interviews and later works that she was mislead my an english dictionary when she used the terms "selfish" and "egotist" instead of the words Self-interest, and Egoist which appeared in her earlier works. The dictionary did not explain the negetive connotations to those words. Those errors in her second language lead to almost the entirety of the hatred for her. As a person, she comes across a bit cold and ruthless. But she's a Russian-American with a thick accent, who came out of the Bolshevik revolution and moved to America, working odd jobs while unable to speak the language, never saw or heard from her parents again, and she did not have a good relationship with her mother in the first place. A mother who apparently was a certain type of person she didn't like. Though she refrained from saying anything negetive in her interviews which I've listened to, she always states that despite their differences her mother was the one who got her to America and for that she is/was grateful. It was a hard life, and she came to America and met many of the same attitudes and ideas that lead to communism in widespread adoption in the United States. A philosophy which she went to war against. Where I see she deviated from the logical conclusion of her philosophy is in having no children. Not that anyone should, or that she should have, but her outlook on the subject of children was rather dismal. She agreed with a questioner in a Q&A that I listened to recently, that some self-sacrifice is required to have and raise children. This slip would effectively nulify her entire ideology, if the human race followed it to the fullest extent and did not self-sacrifice (a form of alturism) humans would go extinct. This is on the level of non-reason of Jesus and the church, where sex is sin and children are evidence of it, god sacrificed his one and only son, and Jesus demands that everyone pick up their cross and follow him, and he went and died on a cross, and to do this after giving their last penny as the old widow did. My point is, Christianity laments sex and human pleasures as they are called in scripture, the process of procreating, having children, it praises child sacrifices and self-sacrifice a and the logical conclusion is extinction of happiness followed by elimination of the human race. But Ayn was wrong about her own philosophy. The logical conclusion to Objectivism self-interest, and rational self-esteem, is achieving what you want in life, creating abundance for yourself, finding a partner who embodies your values, then recreating the both of you in children who share your DNA. Followed by raising them to subscribe to reason, to reject mysticism and alturism. In my opinion, Rand and Peikoff both missed that logical extension of the philosophy, that having children with the person who embodies your values, after you both acheived the highest level attainable for yourselves through reason and hard work. The highest act of self-esteem and self-assurance and beliefe in ones own abilities to solve future problems, and to attain happiness in life would be demonstrated in having a child. I read Atlas after reading "Objectivism: The philosophy of Ayn Rand" written by her friend and associate Dr. Leonard Peikoff. I found Atlas to be a reasonably good book, with many unique perspectives. A few technical discrepencies, but it's a sort of Distopian Sci-Fi and that's to be expected. It was long and there are several hours of dry parts. I found "Objectivism" the book by Peikoff to be an excellent read, informative and highly stimulating. I'll subscribe to objectivism, because it's what I was looking for in a world of anti-reason, anti-rich, anti-vaxxers, and anti-freedom. 5:20 Rand herself had been vying for an equivalent logical argument against her philosophy for her entire life, in order to strengthen it's arguments. Peikoff claimed she was disappointed that nobody came forward who actually posed a real challenge to her philosophy in her lifetime. I think if we had seen that, objectivism would have evolved to a more comprehensive philosophy than where she left off in her essays. But her fans are all dead wrong about keeping it exactly as she wrote it. She wanted it to evolve and for new areas to be discovered and added to it. To my knowledge, nobody has mounted a thorough or logical attack on Rand. It's pathetic, those rebuttals that surface are really just character assassinations and not logical arguments against objectivism, as laid out in Leonard Peikoffs book on that subject. I'm convinced that nobody is capable of overturning it from a logical argument perspective. And the conclusion I have draw is that my distain for people thinking that they own me, my life, and the products of my labor is that they are horribly wrong and unjust. Anyone who think the Draft is okay, to force me to die for their cause and community. And anyone who thinks taxation of 1/3 to 1/2 of everything I've ever produced, confiscation of my dreams is somehow morally justified. It's not. And I am justified in denouncing anyone who thinks they have a claim to me, or that I should sacrifice myself for them. To them I say: Go get your own cross, and nail your ass to it for the betterment of whatever it is that YOU stand for, homie.

[@nrght]

I appreciate your comment, nicely done!

[@gabrielethier2046]

I don't really like Rand's philosophy but i appreciate how well Malice speaks of her

[@thememaster7]

Objectivist ethics tells you what you should be, not what physical actions you should do.

[@2ndAveScents]

Is no one going to mention how much the thumbnail looks exactly like Malice

[@Menaceblue3]

It isn't????

[@cman101892]

@@Menaceblue3 he's talking about Rand

[@helenmary9416]

Was reading her books in the midst of family troubles. Bad depression. I enjoyed the reading but the depression later was awful. Not her fault but will think about books on tape this time

[@alexlight4178]

Confident creative egos furrow the soil of human creativity. It’s not for them to be accurate all the time, leave corrections to others. Forging ahead can sometimes be their only concern. Like Terence McKenna. He’d have made much less of a positive impact if he worried overmuch about the accuracy of his claims after every talk

[@ClericChris]

Atlus is about to Shrug

[@Caspaah151]

objectivism > social subjectivism.

[@ryanlivitz]

how can a person so intelligent drink Redbull?

[@friendlyone2706]

Perhaps anti-advertising? "Drink Redbull and your speech will be as dynamic and rapid fire as mine." By contrast, has anyone ever seen Ben Shapiro even touch a Redbull can?

[@thememaster7]

It's not cyanide ffs.

[@NotAnnaJones]

Great conversation.

[@robertzehm]

🙄 it’s cute that malice takes himself so seriously.

[@hailymusic5378]

Happiness is NOT an ultimate human purpose. Human-apes may be "happy" doing all kinds of senseless, meaningless and even atrocious things (and, yes, we can debate each of these terms... and then matters certainly get more interesting.. a debate for another day). And, no, I am not eye-rolling. The content here does not deserve even an eye-roll.

[@bretnetherton9273]

Reality is not two there can be no primacy. Awareness is known by awareness alone and is the sole irreducible axiom of reality.

[@SamirPatnaik]

Wise words here

[@TeaParty1776]

Existence, identity, consciousness are the basic axiomatic concepts.

[@TeaParty1776]

@@bretnetherton9273 Existence is metaphysically primary. Consciousness is metaphysically passive. Consciousness does not cause existence. Consciousness is the unequivocal consciousness OF existence. Man unequivocally is conscious of the existence of existence, of the difference between existence and consciousness and that his consciousness does not cause existence. Existence exists. Existence cannot cease existing. Look out at reality, not inward. Focus your mind.

[@TeaParty1776]

@@bretnetherton9273 awareness of existence. Existence can exist w/o awareness, ie, the universe prior to the awareness possessed by higher animals. But awareness is the awareness of existence. Something must first exist so that the awareness of existence is possible. Agreed, perceptions are finite and unequivocal. This is consistent with the metaphysical primacy of existence. Why do you think differently? You have an implicit context that you must make explicit. "Existence in the form of?" Are you splitting awareness from existence?

[@berniekitching7668]

I really enjoy Ayn Rand because of her simple, beautiful ideas. But I think she really avoids all the messiness by never including children, affection, or parenthood in her writings. I find it kinda stupid to write about what is most important in man's spirit but ignore parenthood. When you ask even the most remarkable people what is most important to them in life they answer, "my children". Rand's writing seems so immature by avoiding this foundation of human motivation.

[@xmathmanx]

having offspring is a basic function of many life forms, there is nothing specifically human about it

[@berniekitching7668]

@Roosevelt L I tend to agree with you, I never had children myself. But the biggest thing I learned from Rand is that what you or I think isn't that important, it's how an individual chooses that is the point. If you ask Lebron what is more important to him, basketball or his children, I bet he would say his children (just a guess). That's what he thinks about himself. But I would say his basketball excellence is more important to me than his children. However, my understanding of Rand is that what a man thinks about himself is more important than what others think. Hence my comment about Rand avoiding what individuals believe is more important, and stressing what she thinks is more important. An obvious contradiction. Even so, I love her writing, it helped me mature a lot. 🙂

[@wsad2]

@Roosevelt L, I believe there is a lot to unpack in the “children” subject... - instinctively, having children is the materialization of a basic biological function; - it’s also the materialization of a basic social function (we grow up as kids to our parents, and we see adults being parents and other children being children to their parents; so it’s a huge fit-in, although certainly not obligatory/compulsory); - emotionally, some of the greatest affects/bonds happen between grand/parents and grand/children, siblings, relatives, et al.; parallel to the previous point, desiring/seeking/having the emotional experience of being a parent (the “other half” to having been a child); it’s almost on par with the romantic bonding experience; - speaking of which, having children is, to SOME people, the materialization of the “essential” (?) “union” with the one they love, desire, etc (if one is madly in love with someone else, and they Love them like mad, it’s probably only natural that they might wanna “fuse” with them in some aspects or levels, and children may be seen BY MANY as precisely that; although, again, it’s not obligatory nor in any way defining of “true love” or whatever...); - in a similar way, having children may be seen/felt BY SOME (even if they don’t perceive it or put it in words like that) as the ever on-going “project” of genetic And Memetic improvement of self, family, community, humanity; there’s biological value in the genetic mix of reproduction, for sure (SOME may kinda Sense that, and they wish their children become better and healthier and more capable than they are); just as, for SOME people, there’s Social/anthropological (ideological? philosophical? even spiritual to SOME) value in the Memetic mix of co-raising children (they want their children to be better people, wiser, happier, more balanced than they are; they wanna “leave better people to the world”; they want them to learn the best out of their parents, and improve or do away with the not-so-great stuff of their parents). . Maybe few people have all that stuff going together when they wanna to have children, or when they do have them... but MOST will have at least one of these aspects going on... . Also, another thing: children may Happen... and, then, they become the one of most important, most demanding, and most engaging Responsibilities of the parents (Adults). Many (most?) people will feel like not caring for their own children is a flaw, not expected from most adults... so there’s that also: it kinda mean “being an adult and, hopefully, being successful at it” (although, once again, having children is Not in any way “defining” of adulthood). And we value that people value that: we won’t like if Lebron James says his career is more important than his children; and we’d certainly disapprove of him if he, being forced to choose, chose career over his children... . So it’s no mystery to me that “people are obsessed with children”... and it’s also little mystery that few people (philosophers) dive too deep into it... ‘cause it’s Hugely Tricky and Multifaceted both practically and theoretically... each of its domain is subject to multiple treatises and multitudes of different perspectives...

[@benvanrensburg4261]

Do you seriously expect a serious thinker to say that he's wrong? Do you expect Newton to think that calculus is flawed? Do you expect Mendeleev to doubt the correctness of the periodic table? Should Mozart be faulted for publishing Eine Kleine Nachtmusik -- on the basis that it's arrogant to consider one's own work as good? Why is this criticism of "she thought her philosophy was flawless" only ever flung at Ayn Rand?

[@zesticide1010]

I might be an eye roller, but with a piercing gaze.

[@Eudamonia-123]

Any Rand...my hero!

[@markthesing5693]

Russian language translates to English well. Dostoyevsky. Tolstoy. Giants. Bigger better more incite than Twain, Dickens

[@donagh1954]

The host in these videos gives the impression he is about to nod off.

[@DeeperWithDiego]

The best he has is that Rand didn't neuter her cats? Sigh. Also, the psychology of a woman as president is not objectivism. That's psychology, and she has said this before many times. Objectivism as a broad philosophical set of ideas. Psychology is not.

[@tomsitzman3125]

Great video! Hilarious! Good talk, guys! I'll be using this in my 12th Grade English class! I do agree with you about Jon Stewart's tone. I want to like him, but he's always preaching to his base and I end up rolling my eyes all the time, "seeing past his idiosyncracies".

[@Fabric_Hater]

Be careful, the word preference is bad now, or something.

[@TeaParty1776]

But equality is BETTER than inequality.

[@Fabric_Hater]

@@TeaParty1776 except there is no equality and there will never be equality. Inequality just exists in the world and there's nothing we can do about it.

[@TeaParty1776]

@@Fabric_Hater The US Constitution established legal equality, w/some omissions. And all people are equally people. That said, you are right. Leftists enforce equality in the only possible way: sacrifice the most rational and productive. Egalitarianism-Ayn Rand Lexicon Age Of Envy-Ayn Rand Resentment Against Achievement-Robert .....Shaefer

[@Fabric_Hater]

@@TeaParty1776 that's why I prefer using the term equal justice, not equality.

[@TeaParty1776]

@@Fabric_Hater Words wont stop Leftist advocates of communist equality. They will say equal justice, by taking from the rich and giving to the poor, is social justice. You need better ideas, eg, individual rights and objectivity.

[@aleksandarlazic4620]

Hey, cats don't spray your house if you let them go out for fight club sessions. She failed her cats! :)

[@aimercab8630]

Very true

[@TheRoyalFlush]

In university, all the professors would always make snide remarks about Rand. It always struck me as odd, that there were was a unanimous dislike for her in academia. Now, after experiencing the real world, I understand. They dislike Rand because she made to much sense. Her ideas ran counter to their naval gazing, BS post modern philosophy.

[@TeaParty1776]

My philosophy profs were like that but none had any serious technical refutation of Objectivism. One moron , an Existentialist, confused Stirners subjectivist, pseudo-egoism w/Rands selfishness. He couldnt be bothered to read Rand before commenting on her.

[@JoinTheTemple]

Aye. It’s because Rand bases everything on truth and reality. Most modern academics refute the very notion of objective truth. They think in terms of “your truth”, not “the truth”, as if the world can be changed however we want if we imagine it so. Reality for them isn’t really real, it’s all just subjective and “social constructs”. Bollocks!

[@TheRoyalFlush]

@@JoinTheTemple Precisely. Well said. Let us hope this is the decade that intellectual trend is laid to rest!

[@gijsvandergiessen1150]

It’s impossible to call any moral philosophy objective as there are more than one way in which a society can be good or virtuous. The idea that theres exactly one utopian hypothetical ‘just’ society is weird to me. Therefore your ideas about the direction of society can never be objective. There can be qualitive differences between people’s ideas of ‘justness’ but not an objective truth. And that’s what really really speaks against Ayn Rand to me. I can’t see how someone who spends years studying philosophy can come to the conclusion that what’s right for society is an objective measure.

[@dominicdangelo4801]

I fing love mike

[@albionicamerican8806]

Ayn Rand basically tried to create an alternative form of humanism in response to the death of god in our era. She didn't quite pull it off, but I agree that she was asking the right questions.

[@albionicamerican8806]

@@sybo59 Rand was hostile to motherhood and family life, and that comes across clearly in her novels. Human flourishing in the most literal sense means a situation where healthy young men and women pair up in marriage, procreate and rear healthy children in families. Some of today's Kool-Aid drinkers are trying to rebrand Objectivism as a philosophy of human flourishing, but that simply isn't going to work because Rand's world view in practice promotes a kind of high time preference nihilism for childless adults who leave nothing to show for their lives when they die. Ironically Marxists are often better at human flourishing than Objectivists. At least Karl Marx and his wife, _née_ Jenny von Westphalen, started a family, and apparently they have living descendants now.

[@albionicamerican8806]

@@sybo59 BTW, I use the "death of god" phrase because Peter Watson dates what he calls "the age of atheists" from Nietzsche's writings in the 1880's. HIs book _The Age of Atheists_ is worth a read, though he doesn't mention Rand.

[@albionicamerican8806]

@@sybo59 Let people judge for themselves by reading Rand's portrayal of Peter Keating's mother in _The Fountainhead_ , along with Hank Rearden's mother, Kip Chalmers's mother and the Wet Nurse's mother in _Atlas Shrugged_ . The throwaway mom character in Galt's Gulch doesn't count because she is not necessary to advance the plot, and Rand could have cut her out without losing anything to the story. Frankly Rearden's mother deserves more respect than the novel grants her. If she had decided to live as a selfish, childless sexual hedonist like Dagny, Hank never would have been born.

[@albionicamerican8806]

@@sybo59 It's also interesting to me that Leonard Peikoff waited until after Rand died before he started a family, like he knew that Rand would have given him crap about that if he tried that during her life. Though of course it was futile, because Peikoff's only child, the daughter Kira Peikoff, is well into her 30's now and she has no children. As I have pointed out elsewhere, Karl Marx and his wife were far more biologically successful than most Objectivists, because they started a family, and they apparently have living descendants now. The future belongs to the people who show up for it.

[@ArchonsGame]

@@albionicamerican8806wow I didn’t know people could misread her fiction so badly.

[@trollsearching8968]

The person who wrote 2+2 = 4 also probably wrote and spoke on personal things that they even took actions on that would be out of place with that logic. Again, weird stage 1 thinking in this argument.

[@Thisisntreal867]

Keep doing your thing man!

[@LarryLonson]

Who?

[@kenna3897]

TROLL NOT LEST YE BE TROLLED!❤ Lub these TWO!

[@guitarbuddha74]

Buddhists have said a lot of these things like you should be happy and start with yourself. I haven't really read much of her stuff but it is interesting most of her thoughts have been cherry picked by people that I really don't care for. Her comments on indigenous people that have been out there I don't personally agree with either. Just my thoughts and I don't expect some zero sum argument against it.

[@TeaParty1776]

The Budedhist self is split from reality. Thats their "happiness."

[@guitarbuddha74]

@@TeaParty1776 "True self is non-self, the awareness that the self is made only of non-self elements. There’s no separation between self and other, and everything is interconnected. Once you are aware of that you are no longer caught in the idea that you are a separate entity." -Thich Nhat Hanh or maybe “You, yourself, as much as anybody in the entire universe, deserve your love and affection.” - Buddha. I don't think they are divorced from reality if that is what you meant by split. I think it is a clarity of things. I was also using a more general statement. This has probably been a few times I've commented on this channel and people that follow try this sort of zero sum argument and it's kinda silly.

[@TeaParty1776]

@@guitarbuddha74 Mans power of evasion is strong, eg, subjectivism and mysticism.

[@albionicamerican8806]

It's funny to me that several of the villains in Rand's novel _Atlas Shrugged_ are more successful with women than the allegedly "superior" heroes Rand wants the reader to identify with, despite these heroes' tedious philosophical speeches that they are better at sex than ordinary men. It's like Rand is unintentionally showing what often happens in the real world: The bad boys get the girls, while the responsible, productive chumps and nerds have to go without female companionship for much or even all of their lives. These sexual losers can fill up their lonely hours with extra work, of course, which makes them more money. But they still go home to empty beds.

[@TeaParty1776]

You evade the long run and romance in favor of unsatisfying, alienated, purely physical sex/

[@albionicamerican8806]

@@TeaParty1776 Galt's Gulch is full of the Men of the Mind who mysteriously lack women in their lives, despite their alleged "superiority": Midas Mulligan, Hugh Akston, Quentin Daniels, Richard Halley, Ellis Wyatt, the doctor character, the coal mining magnate, the retired judge, etc. Eddie Willers apparently wasn't good enough to be invited to join the strike, but he is well into his 30's, and he has never had a girlfriend. It's like Objectivism is a philosophy for incels or something.

[@TeaParty1776]

@@albionicamerican8806 Art is selective according to a works theme, not a random, exhaustive list of all facts. And Rand has lengthy descriptions of sex when it

[@hagakure222]

Prostitutes...

[@albionicamerican8806]

@@hagakure222 Prostitutes don't teach a man the social skills he needs to live competently in a world full of women. That's also why John Galt's confident handling of his unexpected confrontation with his secret crush Dagny in Galt's Gulch is one of the most ridiculous parts of the novel. A male virgin well into his 30's is still going to be unworldly about women like a teenage boy, and you can't compensate for that unworldliness through a study of physics, engineering and philosophy. That has to come from experience with sexual relationships starting at an early and appropriate age.

[@banditkarim2577]

Read Atlas Shrugged while taking Via Rail-Canada’s inter city railroad

[@sirmungus7113]

“It’s just fax”

[@oliverjmurph]

This guy has to be out here paying for guests and views bc there’s no way this dude has that many fans. He looks like and sounds like a rock

[@michaelyoon9355]

So just WTF is my EQ? Obviously EQ is different from the skill, technique, and practice of psychotherapy. But EQ is still something you can identify and guess on an individual. My perception is that it is significantly higher now than the average of the general population. How can it not? I underwent 4 years of the most intensive, daily psychotherapy in existence. It's a very difficult experience to describe because I feel like there are so many dumbasses. Yet, I don't think I am SMART. I just think I am LESS stupid.

[@DetachedK]

I fear americans are so ruined that am not sure how much can be fixed, we will see. I read Ayn rand almost 20 years ago, but shocked the lies people know of Ayn today.

[@artemg2745]

Can you please talk about how til tok videos are bad and ruining attention span in people.

[@andrewlayton9760]

You are so wrong. Tik Tok does not rui

[@alpineflauge909]

thank you, solid

[@hookem3768]

I agree, Ayn Rand did not have all the answers, and she would agree too.. she only discovered the philosophy. It needs to be developed more. One example of her ideas thay i think is wrong,, is her idea if people being 'born tabula rasa'. I think modern psychology and biology has proven that humans are born with certain features. Give an example of how Objectivisism "waves away" questions about metaphysics. Also, metaphysics is part of the foundation of the philosophy. So, the philosophy does say things have metaphysical necessity.

[@HAHAHAHAHA477]

I think a more deeper point on man being born tabula rasa is due to the fact that no one is born knowing what is true or false.

[@hookem3768]

@@sybo59 That's right. I forgot that when she says "Man is born tabula rasa" she means man is not born with concepts and ideas of what the world is and offers. Are you saying the average objectivist doesn't discuss metaphysics much because metaphysics (to an an objectivist) is simply understood?

[@TeaParty1776]

Proof is a power of mans free will. Animals cant prove.

[@hookem3768]

@@sybo59 I think we've met different objectvists.

[@hookem3768]

@@sybo59 none that I can remember. I think you have more examples. What metaphysical questions have you seen objectivists "squirm" on?

[@mentalitydesignvideo]

180 IQ galaxy brain [deaf voice]: "Ayn Rand is just facts, impossible to argue against."

[@mentalitydesignvideo]

@@bro4539 oh my... I do have facts, from the idiocy of her book, to her admiration for a psychopathic child murderer, to her collecting social security, to her sociopathic views, but I'm not gonna waste my life giving lectures in the YT comments. I'm here to shit on Asperger victims, ablist as it may be.

[@proksenospapias9327]

Only in the USA would an intellectual dwarf like Ayn Rand ever receive praise.

[@themadmattster9647]

ok, based on what merits was she an "intellectual dwarf"? To quote her "by who's standard"?

[@TeaParty1776]

European philosophy is a rationalization of intellectual disintegration expressed by scholarly blathering. Listen to Zizek. And, concretely, Rand is increasingly popular in Europe, China, India.

[@andersbodin1551]

I wander sometimes the vast majority of both Ancaps and Anarchists are 15yo

[@poleag]

I love super-ideological Jews. Milton Friedman. Ayn Rand. Even Marx. It's the race at its best. Like Jordan dunking on Shaq or something.

[@Cody---]

Check out Murray Rothbard, he's the GOAT

[@TremendousSax]

Who's Shaq for the Jews?

[@theulysses7236]

@Kitten Katt Race is not a concrete biological distinction for many reasons. But it's not an "arbitrary construct", because it's just too useful to use in biological sciences.

[@theragingmoderate7797]

I’m a cynic, but I feel it’s being allergic to lies that makes me this way. I’m not only negative, but if I have criticism I share it. Also if I agree with something I express it.

[@S3aCa1mRa1n]

Why do people hate Ayn Rand? lol Oliver from that late night show made a video about it years ago.

[@alexlight4178]

Taking her books seriously would mean taking radical responsibility for your life and for your dreams. Panning her takes no effort at all. It’s like people panning Jordan Peterson instead of realizing he’s only trying to help the people who are needing to clean skeletons out of their closet.

[@bobschooler7130]

@@alexlight4178 LOL JBP called addicts "moral failures" in his lectures then proceeded to get rekt by addiction. He's a hack

[@alexlight4178]

Bob Schooler I can assure you he’s not.

[@S3aCa1mRa1n]

Bob Schooler What’s he on ?

[@ExistenceUniversity]

They are butt hurt that they live a lie

[@jeremyn4397]

Why do Objectivist act like no other philosophies emphasize the individual as good as them?? Have they not bothered to study the works from the likes of Simone De Beauvoir? She had arguments which promote the individual while emphasizing empathy. Rand seems to act like radical selfishness is all you need, but this just isn't true for most of us. Simone was a marxist and could still acknowledged you can have your cake and eat it too. I don't think Rand was unintelligent, or a horrible person, but she sure as hell isn't among the greatest thinkers on my list.

[@paulrowe4502]

Oh, this guy speaking is like watching pudding set up.

[@jaykay6387]

I'll provide one example where Ayn Rand is completely around the bend. She insists that if there were no "taxes" imposed by the government, "private enterprise" would build all of the roads and other critical infrastructure required. I find that to be a preposterously ridiculous, absurd belief. For that to be even approach the "remotest" of possibilities, you'd require an environment where a critical mass of people were skilled and motivated enough to enthusiastically participate in such an endeavor. The way the world is, there are simply too many incompetents, malcontents and "free riders" to overcome this "utopian" vision, and I use the word "utopian" ironically, so calm down.

[@mknow1]

To follow that thinking - how would Ms Rand and her acolytes deal with administration of justice. What would happen when there was a murder? Who will investigate? Private enterprise? For what money? So only the wealthy will find out who killed their loved one? Then what? If the crime is solved - what to do with the murderer? Sell them to the highest bidder? I'm sure Ms. Rand may have worked for minimum wage in America. With no taxes to pay procecutors - who will stop an employer from paying her less than minimum? Nobody likes taxes but to think of removing them completely is weak intellectually.

[@jaykay6387]

@@mknow1 Exactly. Her ideas would work inside her already "perfect world". The problem is, the raw materials to make it a reality do not exist and never will. People are not "rational" creatures and as George Carlin and others have already pointed out half of us are below average, and that "average" isn't that high to begin with. That last "bit" is all mine.

[@schechter01]

@@jaykay6387 "Her ideas would work inside her 'already perfect' world." True, but that doesn't just apply to Rand. It's a common failing among ideologues who, despite their brilliance (if they have any), simply do not allow for human nature as it really is. People are not angels, just as they're not straight-up devils. The problem with utopian thinking (any kind) is that it tries to build a perfectly aligned & plumb structure out of inherently crooked timber.

[@thebestboss4563]

I absolutely love u 2! Cant wait for the next conversation with one another. And Lex, still want to treat u to dinner sometime. U like The Sizzler?

[@donbustoarigato2997]

Think a little before succumbing to Objectivism. There are dozens of philosophers and the history is DEEP! A lot deeper than Ayn Rand. Sorry! I've been discoursing about Plato in classes for decades and every year there is something MORE I see, think about. Unfortunately, in my reading of Ayn Rand's major work that is not true. She's never met a good critic because she's never spent time in ANY major Dept of Philosophy, right? Or go to a conference of philosophers and get your assed kicked a few times. I've been there and have also dished it out, lol. Great Literature? Dostoyevsky. AMAZING. Atlas Shrugged--formulaic fantasy for Rand believers. You want to KNOW what life means or what the QUESTIONS are? Dostoyevsky, friends!

[@trollsearching8968]

2+2 equals 4. Yeah, but can you criticize the creators or founder of this truth solely on this truth? Lol. I mean yeah I guess if you get into quantum physics or don't understand how word problems and math work. Ah, so you can't criticize it. Its a cult. Very odd thought experiment to negate something.

[@AnthonyMazzarella]

As an objectivist I also don't think that she has all the answers, instead I think that she has the best philosophical Foundation. Meaning that I think good philosophers like Leonard peikoff will come along and build on top of her philosophy.

[@drkzilla]

Michy don't like sarcasm 🤔

[@ratsu2641]

Lex drinks energy drinks ? Lol is this caffeinated lex ? :)

[@johnobrien8773]

Don't yuck up someone else's yum.

[@louiscyfear878]

I love Ayn Rand I also love the 90's Boy Band _The Light Funky Ones_

[@neilcuzon7909]

Her ideas are as much records of trauma, as Max Stirner's was a record of his. Try to look at their lives and see if these people aren't just acting out.

[@Xx_Eric_was_Here_xX]

you could say everybody is acting out their trauma when we do anything even mathematics is tainted by human-devised symbols

[@wdsftygt]

Jon Stewart is a master of bating nothing else , just tribe on tribe back padding here.

[@josephbrindley6038]

Ann Rand's motto: GREED IS GOOD!

[@sebastiannoir5712]

who knows how to spend your money better than you?

[@josephbrindley6038]

@@name5702 No; everyone's on the selfishness spectrum, that's being human. If you're extremely selfish / narcissistic (Trump being a classic case) that's dangerous and not good. Of course all words are relative and therefore opinion.

[@itsamodernmess]

Oh please there are tons of actual philosophers than challenges themselves and us / society to dig deep ponder what’s most beneficial for world... challenging what is greed really doing for use really. You get the point.

[@zoddsonofthor5576]

She was all about looking out for yourself right to the point it affected her and she wanted others to help. Her stance and ideas only equal selfishness

[@josephbrindley6038]

@Adam Warringer Trump is just a current example; almost all politicians (dems +repubs) are narcissists.

[@jnyboy28]

Ayn Rand really just took advantage of her communist roots and gave grown men (at the time, and surprisingly a niche group still...) what they wanted to hear, hard work, self-determination, black and white morality, nothing else matters. Yet she obviously over simplified the complexity of life and in the end lived a lot more egalitarian lifestyle thanks to social welfare programs. And to the point of her coming off poorly, it is because she thought she was right about everything even when she was living against her own values... and kind of was a bitch about it. I was really attracted to her ideas when I was 18 after realizing religion was bullshit... which let's just say is reflective of those who follow her to this day. LOL no offense ;)

[@Kenbomp]

She was also pretty ignorant as hell. She had a strong ideas that appeal but somewhat child like world view. At least from her expressions. Pretty imperialist but she was from a different time.

[@cra4079]

It's easy to come up with an ideology (it's not philosophy) that is based on selfishness when others are obligated to be selfless. In other words, men do the jobs that are dangerous, women, like Rand, do not.

[@nicolasr7209]

Ayn Rand is to philosophy what Qanon is to Catholicism.

[@xxcoopcoopxx]

@6:50 Jon Stewart didn't teach that at all. Lol. The Generation imitates him through their own choosing. Jon Stewart never set out to teach and almost every episode beginning he says, "Folks! This is a Fake News show..." You're just butthurt.

[@scaramouche8244]

Comment on Rand on Donahue saying how rules apply to the world but not Israel.

[@billnyfeler]

People's main criticisms of Rand aren't because she thinks she's flawless. They reject her inconsistencies. They see through the thin veneer of weak philosophical structure attempting to cover up unabashed selfishness. They understand that such actions, when taken by all, are incompatible with a healthy society.

[@eagleeggs3862]

Anyone read Notes from the underground? trolls

[@drstrangelove09]

She didn't have all the answers...? How so, I thought. Then I listed and ... THAT'S IT??? There are no jokes about her? Newton was right about many things, never heard any jokes about him. She was a big advocate of pleasure and enjoyment. That's wrong how? And it invalidates her ideas how? She referred to he philosophy as Objectivism. That's a problem how? And it isn't named that because she's saying it all facts. She named it Objectivism because it values that things are what they are, reality matters. And she said "women should not be President"... yes... and we know that she is wrong how? And even if she is wrong, I see nothing in her philosophy that depends on this claim or that defends this claim... this was her personal opinion... I heard nothing to support the claim that she did not have all the answers. Gove me an example of something that she was wrong about and then provide the evidence and/or reasoning to support the claim. Fail.

[@markspqr]

I love Ayn Rand, but my biggest flaw in her work is what she left out ... the collective produces the individual.

[@JoinTheTemple]

Two individuals produce another individual

[@markspqr]

@@JoinTheTemple do I need to dumb it down for you ... individualism is a modern phenomena in human existence, prior to the industrial revolution even the most complex society an individual could not exist without a collective. An individual cannot create a language in isolation, you cannot think without a language and the limit of that is that of your world ... never heard of Ludwig Wittgenstein?

[@malsealy1949]

Cool guys...nothing to say!👍 maybe just twitter? A virtual safe space for rapers and pillagers to raid.

[@malsealy1949]

Signal to Noise fight fight fight

[@malsealy1949]

Signal to Noise double entendres rolling left, right and centre 😂😂👍

[@locuus7]

Ayn Rand brilliant mind? Lol

[@locuus7]

@@sybo59 she was a racist fascist

[@locuus7]

@@sybo59 and who constitutes the poor she so despised? What of her attitude to LGBTQI? Her attitude to women? Look where her followers have got us to. Massive disparity and climate death. Wonderful. This cult of the individual her admirers love is nothing but destructive

[@locuus7]

@@sybo59 “When [Western Man] discovered entire populations rotting alive in such conditions [in the developing world], is he not to acknowledge, with a burning stab of pride - or pride and gratitude - the achievements of his nation and his culture, of the men who created them and left him a nobler heritage to carry forward?”

[@goodnight8169]

@@locuus7 you think that's racist???

[@icomment2533]

@@sybo59 in most situations the natives are "rotting" bc of what the western man did. The west has no problem destroying entire populations and claiming purity. And it not like the westerners were doing so great.

[@anastaciu]

I think this kzbin.info/www/bejne/lWnQaZaHfpl3na8 sums up Ayn Rand work and some of its consequences.

[@paeyreyes]

On that Donahue interview, she looked absolutely miserable. Beware of following people who promote personal philosophies but who are personally troubled and/or terrible.

[@AverageAngel]

Avoid those who don’t practise what they preach they say

[@ivankaramasov]

If you think Ayn Rand has all the questions, you have a very narrow world view.

[@TeaParty1776]

Evidence would weaken your faith. Stay strong.

[@alejandrobetancourt4902]

Your willingness to entertain this kind of ignorance is deeply disturbing

[@brandonboys9005]

is this dude drunk

[@rainerschnelle1]

You mean Fridman? I was asking myself the same, maybe on some medication? Definitely seems kind of dazed.

[@brandonboys9005]

@@rainerschnelle1 yeah