Egoism in Nietzsche and Rand: Part Two

**** See time stamps below for easier browsing ****
Stephen Hicks reads his article "Egoism in Nietzsche and Rand" from The Journal of Ayn Rand Studes vol. 10, no. 2 (Spring 2009), pp. 249-91.
00:00 Part Two: On Egoism
00:13 Rand’s egoism
01:50 Nietzsche’s rhetoric and system
04:23 The Major Differences between Nietzsche and Rand/Are individuals real?
06:22 Do individuals have free will?
09:56 What is the source of moral values?
11:16 How does the self identify its nature and values?
13:57 Are individual selves ends in themselves?
18:39 Are fundamental values universal?
20:55 Are the relations of individuals win/win or win/lose?
23:38 Rights, liberty, equality before the law?
26:55 Slavery and freedom, war and peace
32:38 Conclusion
Other links:
Facebook: / srchicks
Twitter: / srchicks
Website: www.stephenhicks.org/
Instagram: / stephenhicksphilosophy

[@dougieslats3156]

This is a brilliant analysis, magnificently delivered!

[@jandeenphoto]

We get too little brilliance on the internet, which was meant to enlighten us all BUT HAS BROUGHT US bitterness and petty behavior on a greater scale than ever before.

[@henry6525]

Wonderful, Stephen! A very good, unbiased review.

[@louiscyfear878]

My God... This was enlightening.

[@karlnord1429]

Agreed!

[@jandeenphoto]

This is why we study philosophy. Duh.

[@jandeenphoto]

Returning to this site I see how old it is--in fact to get involved in the topic in any significant way would be quite time--consuming. Let me instead quote from the preface of ECCE HOMO on the relevance of this topic from the precise words of Nietzsche himself: "Listen! for I am such and such a person. For Heaven's sake do not confuse me with any one else!"

[@karlnord1429]

Thank you so much Stephen!

[@karlnord1429]

Truly a beautiful paper spoken beautifully. Your voice is excellent.

[@karlnord1429]

My question is one of declining birth rates. If we look at morality 10,000 years from now---won't it be the morality that best embodied the fitness of children? This was Darwin's observation. Unfortunately, Spencer ignored the importance of teamwork and mutualism (net-positive) relationships. In fact, I think Nietzsche's observations about Christianity miss the importance of teamwork. Why did the egoist ethics of Greco-Roman civilization go out if they are more life-giving than the ethics of Christianity? In my opinion this comes down to the importance of teamwork---and mutualism (net-positive) relationships. Rand's integration of Nietzsche while separating out zero-sum (or negative-sum) relationships is I think key to the modern political debate as you point out. Chomsky, for example, is still suffering under the false belief that Capitalism is inherently predatory. (His video: Capitalism vs Democracy, where he says they are incompatible.) I think game-theory will eventually bear out Rand's ideas. We can break down individual interactions of particular political theories---and recognize that predatory behavior goes against the project of civilization. Unfortunately I think Rand stumbles where the Greco-Roman values stumble---and where Abrahamic traditions did not. The first thing God said to man was, "Be fruitful and multiply." The Roman empire even had declining birth rates leading up to Ceaser's takeover. (This is arguably related to Silphium, a pessuary birth control.) If individualism is to survive it must reconcile itself to a pronatalist position. This is my fundamental disagreement with Rand and where I think Nietzsche was, in part, correct. He talks about the "children's land" as the land we live for. Questions of ethics fundamentally come down to questions of human nature. If we end morality in the individual---isn't that an end? Isn't the child an eternal end? I think this only becomes a question of modernity, since birth control is so ready---although its clear that Greek/early-Roman society had access to a better birth control than most other pre-modern societies.

[@karlnord1429]

I ask this because I think you're probably the best living advocate of Egoism---and I see myself as Egoist---but reading Darwin/Nietzsche pressed upon me the question of children. I think it sucks that Rand only mentioned children in passing (e.x., the two at the end of Galt's gulch).

[@BJoinedBReality]

Thanks so much!

[@Menapho]

Outstanding!

[@BJoinedBReality]

Thrilling stuff!

[@Menapho]

Outstanding

[@whitepatriarch1708]

I like both Nietzsche and Rand, but to some extent. Where they lose me is question of CHILDREN. If one is to have children, and one should, especially if one belongs to better part of humanity, than you can't pursue your excellence or self interest as your only goal in life - children become a priority. You become slave to them or - altruistic towards them. BUT: since they are at least 50% part of you, being slave to your children is in no part as bad as being slave to others since you are in fact serving part of yourself that will continue existing long after you are dead. Both Nietzsche and Rand had no children so they are blind to this reality...

[@jackteare8292]

I find it absolutely mind-blowing that many of Nietzsche's hypothesis on human behaviour are now backed up by neuroscience.

[@jgalt308]

@@jackteare8292 1. Introduction to Human Behavioral Biology 9,253,314 viewsFeb 1, 2011 (March 29, 2010) Stanford professor Robert Sapolsky gave the opening lecture of the course entitled Human Behavioral Biology and explains the basic premise of the course and how he aims to avoid categorical thinking. The first two lectures should be enough...( direct links are being blocked by YT )

[@jackteare8292]

@@jgalt308 I have listened to all of Dr. Robert Sapolsky's Stanford lectures a good while back and read ' Behave' . I have been given abuse by someone from the trans community for referencing him before now, biology is now blasphemy 🤣 Have a great day.

[@jackteare8292]

@@jgalt308 PS, " Buckets" is the term he uses for categories, like I alluded to though, Nietzsche has been backed up by neuroscience. All the best.

[@jgalt308]

@@jackteare8292 That's a common reaction for most people since humans have been in denial of the "animals" they are for most of their sentient existence and it's unlikely to stop anytime soon, even though the "science" makes that rather difficult. ( the idea that we are driven by the same things for the same reasons as we have always been does tend to challenge much of the mythology humans have created to distance themselves from the natural world. ) As for the specifics regarding Nietzche and "neuroscience" nothing, in particular, jumps out at me????

[@OGMizen]

That was bangin

[@sinisterminister4201]

I'm not against altruism in general but I'm against organized and militarized forms of altruism by different groups such as churches and political parties. The agenda of the group makes up the premise of their altruistic endeavors. A church may call to prayer and hold charity events whilst a political group can make altruism a part of their political platform calling it solidarity. Both groups thusly establishes a moral high ground from which they can pass judgment on those that don't adhere to their morality.

[@boxelder9167]

You shouldn’t judge people for judging. Judger! 😁

[@helmeteye]

Was "Studes" misspelled on purpose or is that a typo?

[@craigbowers4016]

And it has been nearly 8 years... pretty sad if it wasn't intentional.

[@helmeteye]

@@craigbowers4016 LOL. Misspellings are common. I can't even recall the last time I read a book without a misspelling.

[@voxtemporis4503]

One wonders how Rand would have reacted to COVID.

[@H3c171]

as any human with a lick of intelligence would, with shock and horror as to how the people in power are using it to force communism and neofeudalism back into society

[@clbrans1]

8:51

[@ggrthemostgodless8713]

Don't know why it throws me off so much the way he says the word "issue" most people say it like "ishu" bu the says it "iseeu"... great talk, but ... we are who we are.

[@pasnthru7x3]

This lady (Ayn Rand) has to be a close relative of Andreas Xertis? Just look at this picture ~somethings up...

[@jgalt308]

1. Introduction to Human Behavioral Biology 9,253,314 viewsFeb 1, 2011 (March 29, 2010) Stanford professor Robert Sapolsky gave the opening lecture of the course entitled Human Behavioral Biology and explains the basic premise of the course and how he aims to avoid categorical thinking. The first two lectures should be enough...( direct links are being blocked by YT )

[@lesdaddyiens-abrahamiens9577]

conclusion, logic is to be preferred over emotion when these two faculties conflict, but if a hunch conflicts with logic, then follow the hunch.

[@fredricknietzsche7316]

I have a hunch your logic is mistaken.

[@36cmbr]

Hicks concludes his essay with a very nice comparison of the principals. Hicks seems to find that Rand’s work communicates positivity but he is restrained in saying so. Nietzsche’s offering is but sputum of an unethical diatribe and pig slop (my words). Hicks has a big stage and his failure to condemn Nietzsche’s motive makes him appear sympathetic. Hicks is largely muted in any outright condemnation of Nietzsche, and in his silence he fails his most vulnerable readers. History condemns Nietzsche’s point of view and so should Professor Hicks. His failure in this regard is damning to his posture as a public intellectual. I grade the essay at C level for failure to present an existential voice in support of Rand or condemnation of Nietzsche.

[@joblakelisbon]

An intellectual's job isn't to condemn other thinkers - but to critique them.

[@fraternitas5117]

WRT "Individual rights" thank you for that explanation I know now I can dismiss Rand as a moron forever.

[@terrymcanalen3031]

Nietzsche is high food for thought , yet one must understand the inherent weakness of his philosophy and be able to move beyond them , " One repays a teacher poorly by remaining merely a pupil " I greatly appreciate and respect much about him and his life work in philosophy , although having said that much , in my own final analysis of his philosophy , I reject his errors and move beyond him , my term for him is , coping old Jack Kerouac in On the Road , referring to the character " Dean Moriarty " " The Holy Primitive " Taking that characterization to mean to me that Nietzsche is a whole pagan atheistic mystic religion unto himself , and as such I myself would like him to something roughly similar to Hinduism without any gods , as such involved , " live dangerously , build a city on Mt Vesuvius .. " LoL 🤣 I've never even heard of a single DUMBER town planning move than that , Fritz old chap , LoL 😂 Ayn Rand is ultimately way more intelligent and modern and a way better philosopher than Nietzsche , I am basically a Libertarian in fundamental philosophical orientation and personal nature . Thank you again professor Hicks for creating these videos and thank you to this channel itself for making them available to KZbin viewers .

[@agc796]

They would have made a great couple.

[@louiscyfear878]

_The Lockhorns_ already got a comic strip.

[@marietjieluyt7619]

Well, Nietszche was a terrible lover. Did he ever kiss Lou Salomé on the mountain that day?

[@seribelz]

I thought freddie disliked the smallhats

[@ggrthemostgodless8713]

Rand took a whole book to say or explain what Nietzsche said in one small paragraph. I don't even think their differences were real, she made them up to look different than him. What really distinguishes IN PRACTICE, for the everyday man, her "ideal man" from her books, from his will to power overman??? they are indistinguishable, even if their MOTIVES were different, they ACTED the same. Their moralities also were in ACTION indistinguishable, that is why I still think Rand owed Nietzsche her whole career. Never acknowledged it though.

[@smashedhulk8492]

You didn't listen to this at all. Or the first one? He is literally laying out the differences.

[@karlnord1429]

@@smashedhulk8492 See "Leeches" in part 4 of Zarathustra.

[@karlnord1429]

The overman is a transhumanist ideal. The higher man is something else. Rand's ideal man is not predatory---within the system of capitalism---"morality ends at the point of a gun." Nietzsche's is predatory. (The difference between biological mutualism and predation.) Their moralities are wildly different. Rand makes life/happiness the end. Nietzsche makes the child's land the end.

[@ggrthemostgodless8713]

@@karlnord1429 This is very interesting.... But let's define the terms, what do you mean by "transhumanist IDEAL", what ideal is that? Nietzsche also spoke of a "higher man" which is also very similar [and that is all I claim, that they are so similar that they are indistinguishable TO THE ORDINARY MAN AND PRACTICE, from Rand's "ideal man", except for academics of course]; and what do you mean by "predatory" in what sense? because in practice even if the one ideal END is "happiness", so is the other, but their happiness are different, what makes each of them happy is different....in fact Nietzsche sarcastically said that only the English believe in happiness. So in what WAYS are Nietzsche's overman predatory? I can see how Rand's ideal man goals are a bit less than the overman, but both of them look for a higher sort of existence...

[@karlnord1429]

Hicks gives examples of predatory Nietzsche vs non-predatory Rand in this audio recording of his paper. He clearly differentiates Rand's ideal man from the Overman.

[@mouwersor]

People, please just read Nietzsche and Rand directly.... Stephen Hicks doesn't know shit. He's famous for misrepresenting philosophers actually

[@dariusthurman8835]

Damn, Nietzsche would be a NeoCon today.

[@MS-il3ht]

No, he wouldn't

[@sudhirpatel7620]

Act like an animal. Think like a priest.

[@chanelbus28]

@ganeshwara