Ayn Rand and Objectivism: Is Atlas Shrugging? (Leonard Peikoff on McCuistion TV)

[@PabloAlvestegui]

Brilliant! Not only Dr. Peikoff, but what a great interviewer, and knowledgeable questioners from the audience.

[@AkiraNakamoto]

The interviewer, Dennis McCuisition, works as a real journalist, not like all those foolish activists on today's media.

[@lebendigesdeutsch5123]

Peikoff is so profound and direct. It is a pleasure listening to him.

[@aviramvijh]

How I miss listening to Dr. Peikoff more often.

[@Cirnenric]

Such an excellent program that took Rand’s ideas seriously.

[@GiovanniH91]

What a good TV show! 👏🏻💯

[@MsElke11]

and the women looked beautiful back then, not purple haired bloated and woke!

[@Avidcomp]

I have thoroughly loved watching this appearance of Dr Leonard Peikoff. Thank you ARI x

[@2Oldcoots]

Stunningly inventive minds on display here. Ayn Rand's Philosophy of Objectivism is well worth time, study, and attention.

[@bp6877]

If you've not read his book, it's a must!!!!!

[@davegarciaofficial]

What book?

[@mannyjeanpierre4062]

Ominous parallels​@@davegarciaofficial

[@senorbinario2855]

Amazing talk

[@CoachNiklas]

Clear thinking galore ..!

[@lukesalazar9283]

Thank you for this

[@joehamian8993]

Thanks!

[@topol6]

Brilliant

[@AkiraNakamoto]

50:40 Peikoff's prediction is very accurate. Individualists have fallen asleep since the end of cold war. And the collectivists take over, in particular by the Obama initiative. Also Peikoff is 100% correct about Hong Kong and Clinton.

[@bretnetherton9273]

Awareness is known by awareness alone; is the sole irreducible axiom of reality. To put forth a syllable to the contrary is but to concede.

[@science212]

Harry Binswanger and Stephen Hicks are good too.

[@Mr.Witness]

Idk about Hicks. His book and some talks are valuble.

[@evanwoodham6296]

Right ​@@Mr.Witness

[@fergaljones4093]

Anyone know the name of the song at the end?

[@lelandanthony2883]

Thanks for the light bulb 💡

[@micchaelsanders6286]

48:37 Well said.

[@mrmuffin5046]

its amazing to me how many people do not know how to say her name right....come on its not that hard

[@micchaelsanders6286]

What year was this?

[@Orson2u]

This is what vintage? 1999, perhaps?

[@_Solaris]

Probably early 2000s.

[@rexlupis]

You're either right or close enough; the start of the presentation the presenter states that it is 16 years after Ayn Rand's death. She died in 1982, so depending on which month of the year this was recorded in it is either 1998 or 1999.

[@alexanderscott2456]

@@_Solaris Early 2000s ARI's entire focus was 9/11. It would have certainly been the 90s.

[@louise7347]

Probably. Saddam n Clinton still presidents. So much change (societal decline) in less than than 25 yrs.

[@SpacePatrollerLaser]

It is unreasonable to ask the people to give up the right of self-defense via firearms: As the saying goes "When seconds count, count on the police to arrive in minutes". In the 1980's, Mar Qillimas featured the story of the court case that said the police were NOT obliged to protect citizens from criminal attack. Given this, If one is responsible for ones life, one is entitled to procure the tools to preserve and protect it. Beyond that, Rand had never settled on the idea of banning firearms. Now, given that existence exists, which do you think is more likely by megaparsecs. Perosns will use firearams to reisist a tyranny or a proper government, and yes, this could be viewed as an intellignece test or a test to see if you are a space alien? The right to life implies the right to defend it with the appropriate and reliable tools

[@berniekitching7668]

I wonder what Peikoff would say about Manifest Destiny. America was literally founded on the belief that both individuals and the government had the right to take what they want by force. When the Supreme Court ruled that it was illegal for President Andrew Jackson to break the legal treaties made with the native Americans, he ignored their ruling believing the right of government to take what they want is above even the constitution.

[@science212]

Peikoff, Ruth Milikan, Helena Cronin, Daniel Dennett, Ned Block and Particia Churchland. The last great philosophers.

[@TeaParty1776]

Can you briefly summarize those other philosophers?

[@science212]

Many philosophers are for religion or socialism. And that is wrong. @@TeaParty1776

[@science212]

Milikan, Dennett, Block and Churchland are cognitive philosophers. Cronin is for philosophy of biology. @@TeaParty1776

[@TeaParty1776]

@@science212 Nihilism is the most influential view among modern philosophers. I know a philosophy dept chairman who teaches contradictions to his students so that they can learn to allegedly live w/contradictions. This sort of thing is so spiritually destructive that Germans chose the irrational consistency of Nazism as an alleged escape. But a human being cannot live his life moment by moment; a human consciousness preserves a certain continuity and demands a certain degree of integration, whether a man seeks it or not. A human being needs a frame of reference, a comprehensive view of existence, no matter how rudimentary, and, since his consciousness is volitional, a sense of being right, a moral justification of his actions, which means: a philosophical code of values. -Ayn Rand

[@science212]

Niilism is wrong. But these philosophers ( Dennett, Cronin, Milikan, George Gale, Penelope Maddy, Nozick, Democritus, Diderot, Adolf Grünbaum, Ludwig Buchner, etc) are very good. @@TeaParty1776

[@coldflu]

Her views dismissed then, open to understanding today.

[@teviny2k7]

Reality existed before Ayn Rand but she has best described it, as it truly is.

[@dougcard5241]

lol ONe person out of 8 billion agrees with your delusion

[@TheNeuralist]

Peikoff is a chad.

[@MrJoeybabe25]

Who is the host?

[@hyperreal]

1:36

[@AkiraNakamoto]

Selfishness is not a virtue. Rational selfishness is. On the other hand, rational altruism does not exist, only irrational altruism exists. Rand had said the above for many times, but people keep on misreading her intentionally or unintentionally.

[@TeaParty1776]

Irrational selfishness is impossible.

[@AkiraNakamoto]

@@TeaParty1776 I wouldn't go that far. Irrational selfishness is impossible? Only if you think cancer is rational.

[@TeaParty1776]

@@AkiraNakamoto Selfishness is based on man as basically a volitionally rational animal applied to one's own life, not short-range pleasures. Virtue Of Selfishness-Ayn Rand

[@AkiraNakamoto]

@@TeaParty1776 Yet, anything becomes poisonous if overdosed. If u drink one ton of pure water in one day, it could kill u because it destroys the metabolism balance of ur body. As a computational scientist myself, I consider "rationality / objectivity" as "trying to find a (likely probabilistic) solution to maximally optimize my lifetime social experience", which is a non-linear programming (NLP) problem which in turn an NP-complete problem. At the society level, it's a multi-player game with Pareto improvement rules, again an NLP problem with the overall NLP goal consistent with each rational person's personal NLP goal. NLP problems are objective problems with unique solutions independent of anybody's mind. In other words, it is not subjective. You definitely need a balanced solution for NLP problems. Any extreme solution will fail.

[@TeaParty1776]

@@AkiraNakamoto > Only if you think cancer is rational. context?

[@micchaelsanders6286]

37:50 Mish mash of the mixed economy

[@Mike-fb5xx]

Today we do not have anything similar on TV. America declined steeply, just like value of dollar.

[@micchaelsanders6286]

7:28

[@science212]

Read George Gale, philosopher.

[@micchaelsanders6286]

34:30 Trying to combine Greek and Christian ethics.

[@micchaelsanders6286]

26:00

[@MsElke11]

I like what Peikoff says about FREE SPEECH and CENSORSHIP: If our gov totally censures us, it's time to go UNDERGROUND and fight it! MAGA ALL THE WAY!!

[@williamchamberlain2263]

'objectivism' - when you turn childhood trauma into a career.

[@johnnynick6179]

That makes no sense, William. What does childhood trauma have to do with Objectivism? What you wrote is meaningless drivel. You can express disagreement with Objectivism but try explaining your thoughts intelligently.

[@rogermenendez4052]

Too sad that she didn't live long enough to accept the impossibility of abiogenesis.

[@nockianlifter661]

She wasn’t a scientist. Philosophically life is a product of causality, which is a product of the law of identity.

[@Mr.Witness]

What does that even mean

[@johnnynick6179]

Rand believed in science. She also understood that there are limitations to scientific knowledge at any given time. Simply because today's science is unable to explain how life originates should not lead you to believe that a supernatural explanation is all that is possible. If we only believed in supernatural solutions to the unexplained, we would all still be praying for rain or sacrificing virgins.

[@artofthepossible7329]

​@Mr.Witness Abiogenesis is the creation of organic-living molecules from inorganic-non-living ones.

[@artofthepossible7329]

Would it change anything when it comes to Objectivism? Anyway, could you tell or link the source(s) of your claim that the theory of abiogenesis is impossible and should be thrown away?

[@lukesalazar9283]

Thank you for this