Ayn Rand on Reason

[@socksumi]

"Feelings are not tools of cognition, they are the product of his premises". Couldn't agree more.

[@yodizzll]

incredibly eloquent and concise. can you imagine how well this woman speaks in her native tongue?

[@GabeOstroff]

Calling out our culture crisis 60 years ago

[@crunkalac]

This aged well

[@fukkyouthatswhy]

@@crunkalac not really , cognitive science/psychology take a different view on the matter, but we can always extend a charitable interpretation because people live life notice things and choose words to represent them :)

[@garryallison4716]

She saw the writing on the wall from my a reasoned perspective of western culture and expectations. She was basically warning about what we have now. All emotional arguments backed by emotion-not eveidence of any sort even philosophical reasoning or evidence. Our political and economic elites or halfwits have used woke to deceive and drive an agenda that suits them and them alone

[@dylaninnes8541]

Makes you appreciate the efforts of Schwab Soros for the last 60 years to break the western powers

[@rerite2]

Agree or disagree, she had a big brain. Much respect.

[@Ral9284]

*Any man who believes that force is practical, refuses to think rationally.* #AynRand #Objectivism #Reason

[@atlaspressed]

brilliant commentary on social structure.

[@JazzJackrabbit]

Fascinating!

[@harishkammavalasa]

Reason is the only means by which man can achieve knowledge of reality.

[@chiefwhitenoise5227]

"a madman is not one who lost his reason a madman is one who lost everything but his reason"(Chesterton)

[@MrJabbothehut]

The witch doctor analysis is very good. She's sharp as a tack our Ayn Rand.

[@pianoman551000]

Brain (intellect, rationale) first, body second, emotions third....yet, most people, when answering a question, begin with the words "I FEEL...."

[@veramann]

If an emotion is stronger, people will override their reason. A good example is love or obsession.

[@jlrinc1420]

Roy Long listen to this www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/segments/91642-overcome-by-emotion

[@jerryashlock5519]

Emotional thoughts- The superhighway to despair....

[@thememaster7]

If that happens, change or tweek the emotion accordingly. It takes as long as it takes.

[@saire1th627]

Everytime whenever I was watching a video in KZbin I used to read comments,but in Ayn Rand video I can't Tak off my brain to read comments..... video....only Video 💯💯💯

[@lukecunningham8793]

She touched on how emotion should not be a medium for perceiving reality, which I agree with. In fact I think it is obvious to any one pursuing philosophy or intellectual endeavors. I wonder if she thinks there is any limit to human reason? In a similar way part of our mind cant truly understand the scale of the universe or dimensions beyond the 3rd, Is there any limit to the logical side of our brains? It would be impossible to know, but it is useful to consider.

[@jlrinc1420]

Luke Cunningham you should listen to this www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/segments/91642-overcome-by-emotion

[@robertmccabe8632]

As your brain is mostly fat, then rationally, fat can think and have emotions. I feel/listening to your quantum brain is the means of conscience. With knowledge of Yah. Hence as a man thinketh so is he. Don't let any man spoil you througj philosophy or vain deceit; such as after the traditions of man and the rudiments of this world and not after Yeshua. For the word of the Yah is with the force of reason with Yahs love for his creation. Ayn Rand omitts Yah. For what readon?

[@ahmidalgdafe264]

amazing just impressive analysis

[@ninagoldiloks]

I am so glad, well way more than glad, lol, i read all of Ayn Rands non-fiction books during my formative intellectual years (late 20s and early 30s). This brilliant Russian-American was and is so influencial in my thinking and life, I really am grateful for her writings. Here's to volitional consciousness. Enjoy this vid. She's dope. ♡♡♡

[@terencewilliamsDFA]

Nina- this lady Ayn is absolutely right in every point she makes in this video and it is a true gem. Emmanuel Kant would be delighted to know of such lively-minded convergence with his own thinking. It is also convergent with my own writings I am very happy to relate.

[@ninagoldiloks]

terence williams​ The New Left, Romantic Manifesto, Atlas Shrugged (her huge novel, they just made 2 movies out of, couple three years back...so, so. : /. ), The Virtue of Selfishness, Anthem (another novel), Capitalism.... You would LOVE her body of work. She is the best writer of the U$ system, which can get lost in the translations. I ran a business with my x-hubby on her tenets. We made canvas and leather bags, from idea to sale under her tutelage. Fabulous! Had 2 workshops/stores. :D. My home library was FULL of her works. She has an institute in Colorado, today. Oh yeah, she didn't get lost in the shuffle over here. There's even a UTube channel on her. I subscribe. Check her out, Terry. You'll sense, and feel validated for real. Happy day to you, sir. ^-^

[@terencewilliamsDFA]

Nina Houchen When you are already on the same page yourself, its nice to know of another old girl. I am Kantian by nature.

[@terencewilliamsDFA]

Nina Houchen jeep2386 Don't panic Nina- - Jeep old chap- I think thou doth 'protest too strongly'. While I would agree with you Jeep there is a smack of sophistry, especially in Ayn's delivery of her thinking, to claim the springboard of her thinking reduces to deep seated emotionalism is so ubiquitous a constituent in the advance of thinking and ideas as to be 'given', indeed even important to us sufficiently not to be discounted, and as Robinson suggests, 'my thoughts and ideas are MY thoughts and ideas 'and thereby 'significant' to me, your brief critique here, I suggest, is something of 'overkill'. After all, even the greatest known sophist, Protagoras, was not 'wholly' wrong about everything, if not so astute as Socrates in his questioning of him, Is it not so that you may be devoted to analytical reasoning, (which appears to be the case), and Nina devoted to solipsism- (if she is)- and in my devotion to scepticism in the dialectic- (as I believe I am)- are we not indeed 'flourishing' as humans. In your case, Nina's case, and my case, are not our inquiries derived all-- from a motherboard of unified categorical and hypothetical competition via both our emotions and our reasoning- defining all three of us as incorporate to the 'humanity' which you yourself rightly applaud?

[@terencewilliamsDFA]

***** 'Perhaps the “reason” why such deep seated emotionalism is so ubiquitous a constituent in the advance of thinking is because it IS a ubiquitous a constituent in the advance of thinking' Glad you subscribe Jeep- quite so. I made no protest..merely an observation. Relax old chap..

[@Hannibal082]

That is a beautiful women.

[@georgestacey9558]

She has a respect for the individual person in a way that is a grade above most traditions and ideologies out there. That to some of us is very beautiful.

[@whattheuniverseisdoing1300]

Wow. So succinct.

[@johnwalker4642]

It is the spiritual experience that will determine your future. As for reasoning, yes.

[@alfredorezende-po8pg]

To identify the difference state of afective and afective that is: what is direct by logic or by moral

[@periteu]

Reason 1:53 - Faculty which perceives, identify and integrates the material provided by man senses.

[@samurai8698]

"The most dangerous state in the growth of civilization may well be that in which man has come to regard all these beliefs as superstitions and refuses to accept or to submit to anything which he does not rationally understand. The rationalist whose reason is not sufficient to teach him those limitations of the power of conscious reason, and who despises all the institutions and customs which have not been consciously designed, would thus become the destroyer of the civilization built upon them." Thomas Sowell

[@bretnetherton9273]

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

[@naresh5sabbani]

She is future human being Atlas shrugged and fountain head what breathtaking books...how she was thought very advanced thinking

[@naresh5sabbani]

@ of course i just read 2 books only 1.fountain head 2. Atlas shrugged now anthem reading... suggest me some good books

[@johnwalker4642]

Breath taking seems extreme. Observe her breathing patterns; she is off center internally. She is living an embodied falsehood. Breath giving is what good teachers of philosophy offer.

[@A_friend_of_Aristotle]

Her rational certainty. That's what people mistake as her being "unkind" or "offensive" when they hear her speak. Part of it might be her accent...she is Russian. She overcame a lot - including learning a new language - to get to where she is in this video. If it is her accent, it is a challenge you need to overcome. I would suggest that anyone offended by her arguments take a deep breath...and listen to her again. Rinse and repeat until you realize what the "offense" is or was. At that moment you will be facing the choice to act on a feeling or a reason. For your own sake, choose to act on a reason. For my sake, *_please_* choose to act on a reason.😊

[@anthonydecarvalho652]

Genius

[@anthonydecarvalho652]

Genius.

[@bruhmoment3731]

2:57 Witch doctor

[@summerohara554]

Will to think 😊

[@samarthgaba27]

I am currently reading fountainhead, and i find roark not at all rational person, this has been my problem with rand, that she says to reason and be rational yet her characters are full of irrational romanticism, you might say that a person should follow ideals but thats the thing what if i die following my absolute ideals and never compromising? What if my ideals tho rationally thought by me were actually faulty and i kept on following them?

[@hellwolf4liberty]

What did you expect otherwise from such a romanticism book? Would a book depicting a person that prescribe the exact amount of compromise is good for you, or a book giving you the excuse that compromise is okay, or a book simply describing all is futile so just give up? We may never reach the level of Roark, and that's okay, the book is supposed to describe an ideal, not to continue to feed us the drug that we are looking for.

[@samarthgaba27]

@@hellwolf4liberty i see, you have commented on my post, thankfully I am now out of my ayn rand phase of life and its been better than before. Good luck to you too :)

[@thomaszeun5551]

Even Nathaniel Branden said that sometimes emotions reflect reality better than reason or thoughts. Rand should take a chemistry and physics course.

[@A_friend_of_Aristotle]

I think you're either misquoting Nathan or deliberately distorting his words. Could you cite where he said this? I have the resource material, even Branden's later works. Title and chapter would be sufficient. I will admit that I haven't read all of his work, just most of it.

[@johnnynick3621]

@@A_friend_of_Aristotle Don't expect to hear back from Thomas with anything even resembling support of his statement. They never do.

[@newtimesnow]

Atillas, Witchdoctors & Snowflakes Enter the reality of objectivism, intellectuals & reason above emotions & mysticisms. Reality grounded with individual rights and selfishness with respect for successes & autonomy of others without infringment or violation. TNX Ayn Rand

[@johnwalker4642]

Fearing God is not needed. Experiencing God is helpful.

[@roar40s]

The viewing stats for this video are dodgy.

[@jasonkloos1498]

Eliminate emotions as motivation. How shall we exclude hope? Is enthusiasm the enemy of rationalism? Should I look to the future as a bleak series of goals and events to be achieved? How do I do that? Since I rise out of bed every day with a new sense of hope? How must I tamp that down in favor of a sense of the immediate? Is every day to be drudge work?

[@loufancelli1330]

She doesn't suggest that at all. Rand was adamant that every individual should pursue their own happiness. The definition of happiness for an individual takes emotions into account. But you must use your rational mind to achieve that happiness. And of course your actions towards that goal must not include force or compulsion of others because their happiness is different than yours. It's really a very simple and basic philosophy at its core.

[@johnwalker4642]

Krishnamurti wrote that hope is useless. Witnessing the possibility for change, change from the horrors of war, for example, to that of piece, is an exercise in problem solving.

[@Twofiddymill]

Where the hell are these people today??? What a woman!

[@ProfessorStrange9]

I wonder what Madame Ayn thinks about intuition…

[@chiefwhitenoise5227]

The problem with this that I don't wish to rule over anybody.,🙂

[@Aethertopia369]

Did she read much Carl Jung? Sometimes one can gain greater innerstanding when you "stop making sense", striking a balance of left and right brain activity. I know that she liked to drink wine from time to time. I'm sure she has experienced synchronicity. Sometimes it is hard to dismiss as a merely meaningless and arbitrary coincidence. Had she caught Star Wars in the theater, I think she would have liked it.

[@lproof8472]

Reason has its limits. Something that Rand never understood, and ultimately why her philosophy is inconsistent.

[@TyyylerDurden]

How does it make her ideas inconsistent?

[@lproof8472]

@@TyyylerDurden because leans on intuition, not reason; concepts that are at odds with one another. She has to or her value-based system falls apart. IMO both intuition and reason are necessary, just as both Plato and Aristotle, the poet and the logician, the imagination and mathematics. You need both the “mystical” and the empirical to get a complete picture of reality.

[@TyyylerDurden]

@@lproof8472 I wouldn't classify Plato and Aristotle in such a primitive way. Aristotle can also be a poet, there is no contradiction. The main question is the fundamental perception of the reality and how and why and on what basis to deal with it.

[@lproof8472]

@@TyyylerDurden Of course Aristotle can be a poet. Poets can use reason, and logicians can be poetic. Accepting this fact as good makes Rand’s philosophy inconsistent though. The goal for Rand is man to be 100% reason-which is not only inconsistent with reality, but, as I stated, not even consistent with her own views.

[@TyyylerDurden]

@@lproof8472 sorry, I can't see why a man can't be 100% reason, because one of the main ideas of Rand is that you act by reason ACCORDING TO YOUR SET OF VALUES. Give me at least one example that can disapprove this position.

[@johnwalker4642]

Being guided by an intelligence greater than your own is humbling. Human beings will destroy themselves with or without reason.

[@johnnynick3621]

Yesssss..... I heard this once before somewhere..... I think it was Elvis who said it.... to bigfoot..... we were all on a starship eating a Milky Way I think.... or was it a Snickers bar. I forget.

[@rasheedrashad6831]

Emotions are not the consequence of reason. Reason is the consequence of emotions. We are emotional creatures first. Emotions drive the intellect not the other way around. Her premise is completely backwards. I don't disagree with her statement mankind should be reasoned creatures, but reason first? As a matter of fact humans aren't build that way. As a side note she goes on to explain the Donald Trump maga tribe to a tee.

[@jackb2491]

She wouldnt be much fun at a Rave !

[@jackb2491]

@ Sounds like a fun girl to me !

[@RogerFusselman]

True, and that is to her credit. Also in that interview, she upholds happiness as the most important aspect of life, and separates it from mindless self-indulgence. Happiness is not a moment-by-moment thrill-seeking experience. It's not a string of highs or adrenaline rushes. It's far more conceptual than that.

[@ilg2012]

This highlights the problem with liberals. Liberals let emotion dictate their decisions, whereas conservatives make decisions based on reason. Doesn't mean one is better than the other, but it's the truth. The problem comes when one side becomes too extreme. Right now, the liberal ideology is winning and it's ruining the country. We need a good balance. Too much of either is bad.

[@econofacil]

+ilg2012 "liberals" as understanded in USA (different of a classical liberal or libertarian).

[@michaelrosche]

Conservatives don't always make decisions based on reasons, more often than not, they don't.

[@jeviosoorishas181]

Conservatives do not make decisions based on reason, they too make decisions based on emotion, their emotion is nostalgia and tradition. The liberal emotion is one of envy, as well as an overwhelming desire to overthrow the status quo.

[@kieranrea4883]

Amen

[@Monchi2006]

Conservatives have been taken over by fundsmentalist christians. That is basically the opposite of "reason"

[@gl8715]

Don’t tell liberals that 🫠

[@markwilson9935]

Wow she reminds me of...Kamala Harris...clear,concise,authentic, rational and intelligent..)%$&XCIYRUC%#$ZQX^I%COV*UKTF L (why is everyone laughing at me???) Seriously what a mind an perception this woman has..staggering!

[@panterajiujitsu1]

sant read a book from a super racist person like Ayn

[@davidbatteau-d3b]

I love Ayn Rand! #TRUMP2020 #Infowars #BuildTheWall

[@RogerFusselman]

No you don't, not with those hashtags. Ayn Rand would never have supported Trump, his heavy hand on immigration, and idiotic conspiracy blokes such as Info Wars. In fact, the video cited above criticizes all three. I cannot tell if you're an enemy of hers and are making her look bad by associating her with these hashtags, or if you're a genuine supporter of those things and are simply mixed up.

[@Zelp789]

Yawn........

[@mogenvonbogel7342]

Communist

[@Zelp789]

@@mogenvonbogel7342 I am not a communist

[@silvanahhas1814]

Read freedom from the known: J. Krishnamurti. She has very limited thinking... Good effort, but falls short of the whole thought. 😔

[@Monchi2006]

I donwloaded it but can you give me a quick overview as it relates to your opinion of rand?

[@jlrinc1420]

Absolutely, she would have hated Krishnamurti.This is a woman who developed a crush on a child killer.

[@luukzwart115]

@Anonymous delivery A.k.a. learn nothing and try to live a life of happiness and fulfillment without the perspectives needed to do so.

[@bezlichnyy7675]

Why did Alisa Zinoyevna Rosenbaum pen name Ayn Rand waste her time on these interviews "educating" people on her ideas and philosophy? I don't see any influence of Rosenbaum's ideas anywhere in U.S. or any country for that matter. Millions have read her book--so what. What are the results of people reading her books? Is this freedom, what we have in the U.S.?

[@JadrankoBrkic]

Heard of the Ron Paul Revolution? Ayn Rand was and still continues to be a great influence on libertarians worldwide.

[@bezlichnyy7675]

Jadranko Brkic Thanks for asking. Yes, I know who Dr.Ron Paul is and his ideas. Unfortunately, Dr.Ron Paul does not follow and practice Objectivism fully. Dr.Ron Paul has publicly admitted so. I don't endorse Dr.Ron Paul though some of his ideas I accept while others I reject. Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum a.k.a pen name "Ayn Rand" rejected the Libertarian Party of the past and would have rejected modern Libertarians as well. Influence is not good enough either a person accepts Objectivism or they reject it there is no in between or middle of the road or agnostic like fake confusion of decision making. A person needs to be decisive. Surprising in many languages there is no concept of "maybe" especially the Romance languages.

[@robfromvan]

All the rich countries to a large degree are following her philosophy and countries that are not rich have adopted the opposite of her philosophy so her ideas are definately in practical usage.

[@kieranrea4883]

Very smart woman... but I can't believe she thinks Christianity is a cult!

[@Monchi2006]

She didnt say it was a cult. She said religion is irrational

[@marnvs]

if you look at christianity in total in the world there are side cults...maybe not the main reason for christianity but there are multiple christian cults

[@kieranrea4883]

@@Monchi2006 in a documentary she called it a cult

[@kieranrea4883]

@@marnvs the Google definition of a cult is " a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or satanic" none of that has to do with Christianity. It is not small and it has to do with the complete opposite of strange and satanic. So Christianity is not a "cult", it is a congregation.

[@mogenvonbogel7342]

It is

[@dsgio7254]

All good until she falsely claims that all liberal socialists don't think operate within reason... Really ? How about all the dictators who enforced capitalism in Latin America, part of Europe , Asia, Africa ... They we're not socialists .... And can someone explain why this claim is valid even in principal ? How and why liberal and socialists do not operate under reason.. This is too weak.. to be taken seriously ..

[@johnnynick6179]

None of the areas you mentioned were ever Capitalist societies. None of them ever had fully unregulated economies or free markets. Every one of them suffered from over-regulated economies.

[@dsgio7254]

@@johnnynick6179 All latin America has been always capitalist - this is a fact ,,, Chile was even more unregulated. Pinochet etc with the support of the US .. Resulting to : totalitarian regimes d.... torture etc .. These are ..facts... Sorry ...

[@johnnynick3621]

@@dsgio7254 This commenter knows he is incorrect. I have discussed this very subject with him before and provided him with the actual definition of Capitalism: _"an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit"_ He still insists that there are countries in which trade and industry are "controlled by private owners" even though not a single country in Latin America lets business owners run their companies without restrictions. They ALL have massive amounts of regulations dictating what they are allowed to do and what they may not do. That is NOT Capitalism. The ONLY valid function of government in a "just" society is protection of individual rights. Period.

[@dsgio7254]

@@johnnynick3621 Oh... thanks for ....providing this info ... its ...enlightening to know the correct definition..... So can you tell us now - according to this definition- which country in the world has ......capitalism..... or ever had ,,,,,capitalism ?

[@johnnynick6179]

@@dsgio7254 There has never been a society that permitted Capitalism. While most people are under the misconception that the US is a Capitalist nation, that is incorrect. The US was NEVER a Capitalist nation... it has ALWAYS been a mixed economy. But what is obvious is that the closer a nation gets to being a Capitalist society and the more freedom they have... the more their populace flourishes. The converse is also true. The closer a nation gets to fully Communist society and the less freedom they have... the more their populace suffers. This is true in every case in every time in history.

[@justathought973]

Who died and made her boss of what the human conditions is and should be? she just a human, a robotic human.

[@gurudeclan]

TimeWarp66 that's all they ever have. Insults or strawman bullshit.