James McConnell Interviews Ayn Rand About the New Intellectual

[@Smiles2U4Ever]

The clarity of the woman's thought is astounding to me. Her ability to articulate such seemingly complex ideas fluidly in a historical context within a 30-minute interview shows how amazingly brilliant she was.

[@JimmyFoxhound]

This is SO much better than the Wallace interview. He was too over the top with questions that made Ayn have to 'defend' her views instead of just letting her talk and discuss her views. This interviewer lets Ayn talk and it's so nice to just let her explain her philosophy.

[@richardtyson100]

It’s a journalists job to push back on ideas though. If you want her ideas, uninterrupted, just read her books.

[@manoftheearth576]

Yeah, but they didn’t let her finish. They cut her off as soon as she began to speak on the government and it’s use of force.

[@gregdiprinzio9280]

Wallace’s questioning was meant to represent the Everyman. This interviewer is levels above Wallace in intellect and nuance.

[@KDean22]

WALLACE WAS JUST A MEDIA HACK

[@TheTektronik]

Ayn Rand opened my eyes to the dangers of collectivism I'm glad I discovered her philosophy.

[@alisonbowles608]

Yes, a friend of mine recently complained about collectivism. I was surprised to even hear him use the word because these days most people don’t think collectivism is dangerous. But he knew it was. And I was glad to hear it. He disappeared from my life recently. But, it was good to know that we had common ways of thinking.

[@carlosayala8171]

Same with me.I feel liberated.

[@nattcoleman6202]

Indeed. Collectivism is gaining momentum in the west and leaving a trail of distraction in its wake. She could see it coming all those decades ago! Phenomenal!

[@TheTektronik]

@@nattcoleman6202 As hard as it may seem but the duty is up to us individuals not to let it happen!

[@petekdemircioglu]

It explained why all my life I have been alone and I have been a target. I love Ayn Rand. After finding her in the US I became obsessed with her collectivism vs individualism philosophy because it validated my life long fight with the collectivist. And like a religious book I turn to it whenever the collectivist attacks become unbearable for emotional support.

[@paulinmt2185]

A wise and prescient thinker. Frightening how her words of warning apply more and more each day. Every couple years I re-read my copy of "Atlas Shrugged" to remind myself of what the USA has devolved into. Also recommend are "Anthem" and "The Fountainhead" as stories (lessons) equally important for civilization's long-term survival. Thank you Ayn Rand. Thank you ARI.

[@nascar0509]

Her words resonate and are more relevant today than ever!

[@obviouslykaleb7998]

Erich Addler No rebuttals?

[@contenau22]

im pretty sure her words wouldve been more relevant in the 1940s

[@obviouslykaleb7998]

Erich Addler No rebuttals.

[@arsxxmoriendi]

On the New Left perfectly predicted the present day woke SJW circlejerk.

[@obviouslykaleb7998]

Erich Addler No rebuttals.

[@princessnyeni5548]

Genius! my hero...... i wish she was interviewed everyday of her life. so lucky to have found her. she left a legacy......

[@rylandavis2976]

Neitzsche was better

[@observer.b_e_l_l_i_s]

She really was. Such a raw and direct Philosopher and personal favorite.

[@zhengyangwu8289]

@@rylandavis2976 Nietzsche is nothing in comparison to Rand. His idea of the strong man is rubbish in comparison to Rand's ideal man.

[@gloriouscontent3538]

Maybe go read her.

[@carlosayala8171]

It's a true gift to have discovered her some years back.

[@christophermoawad9930]

This should be taught in schools

[@nikolasbbq]

this - and plumbing and carpentry and not all the other crap they force on you - like CALCULUS.

[@christofl6523]

@Erich Addler Go away Bernie bro. She was forced to pay into it why shouldn't she collect on it?

[@Sketcher86]

@Erich Addler All human beings have objective biological and psychological needs, and one's actual interests are identified by reference to these needs. "exact meaning" of selfishness is "concern with one's own interests" Rand argues that a virtue is an action by which one secures and protects ones "rational values" so ultimately, one's life and happiness..since a concern with one's own interests is a character trait that, when translated into action, enables one to achieve and guard one's own well-being, it follows that selfishness is a virtue. One must manifest a serious concern for one's own interests if one is to lead a healthy, purposeful, fulfilling life. Let's talk Erich!!

[@christofl6523]

@Erich Addler You need to study her writings more. Clear back in the 70's she told college kids to go ahead and take government grants to fund college and social security and Medicare were never violating an Objectivist's beliefs as the money was forcibly taken from them for decades. Why would you not accept the "investment" returns that you paid into for years? You want people who don't agree with your socialist musings to be thrown in camps? That shows the morality of your philosophy.

[@christofl6523]

@Erich Addler Everyone is egocentric. Again, if you studied Rand's teachings you would know this.

[@socksumi]

For those accusing Rand's philosophy of being hedonistic; in this very interview she says... "Happiness does not mean momentary pleasures or any kind of mindless self indulgence. Happiness means a profound, guiltless, rational feeling of self-esteem and of pride in one's own achievements". I think it fair to say she was not an advocate of hedonism.

[@EarthSurferUSA]

You are correct. Hedonism is the act of gaining pleasure through the senses, (which would include drugs and erotic massage), not the reasoning of the brain. If you ever saw a child who smiled because he/her figured something out, that came from reasoning of the brain, finding that happy achievement as you just figured out a piece of reality. Yea,--it makes you feel good too, if you thought about it. :)

[@nattcoleman6202]

I absolutely adore this woman. Worldly, intelligent to a fault and so ahead of her time it’s mind blowing. She would be turning in her grave given what has unfolded in the world over the past 18 months.

[@Gorboduc]

She already lived through it all in 1917. Check out her essay The Lessons Of Vietnam.

[@EarthSurferUSA]

She was no ahead of her time, and I think it proved to be a big mistake for here to claim "objectivism" is all her philosophy, as it was the existence of the USA's founding philosophies that actually validated her thoughts and her revisions. If she were alive today, I am sure she would agree that her philosophy started with Aristotle, and was reinforced by the fact that the USA already existed because she did claim, Aristotle was the original founding father of the USA. The big mistake she made, (metaphorically), was claiming she made the radio when she added a few good channels.

[@LNCMD2023]

@@Gorboducwas killing innocent men, women and children for the sake of some ideology OK with her ?

[@mik72el]

Her intellectual clarity is amazing.

[@TeaParty1776]

True. She guides the mind to realism.

[@notanotherguitarchannel]

Her clarity is the key to her appeal as a speaker and as a writer.

[@kthmalloy16]

Best 30 min's of KZbin watching I have ever done.

[@BNevrgivup]

Ms. Rand must be listened to with concentration her views in my opinion are the quintessential explanation of the importance of Freedom and insight in following the most certain aspects of the Human Condition. Now in this time this teaching is as she has stated repressed by a System that leans on stirring emotions and ultimately if necessary violence to ensure a collective extremist movement most dependent on all else than reason and thought. In fact as she paraphrases it's basic premise as being an "Attila" characteristic where wanton force is the way and means to gain control over a society. Her distinction of the ideal leaders is based on a Human of the highest level of integrity formed through a highly priciple of inner purpose, there for driven by a independent desire for personal performance and success that is attained by Reason.

[@periteu]

Reason: 10:45 Be rational: 15:58 - Leads by reason - Guided by logic, by his concepts, by reason

[@AddisonLerwill]

This woman is such a clear communicator and profoundly insightful.

[@lorengjoka1078]

my favorite philosopher :)

[@iemandmusica]

Loren Gjoka EVER

[@alexanderx33]

It's very gratifying as a hobby epistomology philosopher to hear Rand give it so high praise as the most important branch of philisophy (paraphrased from 8:50)

[@drbonesshow1]

As a physics professor, nothing could be worse than having others do my thinking for me.

[@EarthSurferUSA]

Physics/engineering,---the study of reality.

[@francistremblay8098]

how do you feel about the secrecy being revealed by the united states about UFO? literally means we know nothing and most we've been taught were lies

[@JayStudioProductions]

She's my hero...until her, I never met such a rational and articulate person. I sit at her feet and just listen. I recommend others do the same.

[@qrit91]

Unbelievable how far ahead time she was. I think objectivism was always a part of me. Raised a christian, i started questioning myself at age 11, always had the feeling they do what they do because they WANT to believe it, not because of results. I just dont understand how and why people can convince themselves to start fooling themselves and each other. What a waste of reality.

[@EarthSurferUSA]

Not far ahead of her time,---she already experienced it in russia before she moved to the USA. She simply understood that "Policy comes from principles, and principles comes from philosophy", and she saw communistic policy in place when she got to the USA in the early 20's.

[@dalemarshall8662]

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

[@davidohara7669]

@Erich Addler asshole

[@MaledictGaming]

@Erich Addler Ok, I get the "meaningless" part, close minded people often result to insult instead of contradiction. I get the "claptrap" part, when you hear a person whom you disagree with talk for a perlonged amount of time, they can become irritating to you very quickly. What I don't get, is the "Jew" part. Like... was she Jewish ? And why at all address it here ?? Just why the regard ? What has her being (or not being ?) a Jew change anything about what she sais ? And even if it in your opinion does effect what she sais... Why did you feel the need to address it in your insult ? Wouldn't the "meaningless claptrap" be enough ? I am siriously curious.

[@MaledictGaming]

@Erich Addler TL,DR: Look at people as individuals. Until they proove themselves to be ignorant enough to identify themselves with the group they feel associated with. (The difference between: "Hello, I am {a heterosexual, a woman, caucasion, a Liberal, a Budhist, etc.)" and "Hello my name is Marcus, and I like to build sandcastles.") If the person chooses the first at any point in the conversation, feel free to apply any prejudice based on their steretype... If they choose the first option however, do not dare to insult them by approaching them with prejudice. You may learn you disagree with the person on somehting. But I guarantee you, the reason why originated in their own head. ------------------------------------------------------------------ You read Mein Kampf recently didn't you ? (Just a joke, don't get stuck here, read on...) With all due siriousnes: Asserting negative traits of individuals to entire races (or cultures) is generarly unwise. If your logic applied all the time: 1. All white people would be warmongers and brutes. Constantly seeking conflict. (what the SJWs are saying theese days, you might notice) 2. All Asians would be immoral opportunist (thiefs and dishonest bussinesmen). 3. All black people would be sex obssesed dimwits. 4. All the Middle-Eastern people would be religious zealots. (Lazy yet expecting the world to bow to them.) I could continue... But I think you get the point, judging all people of any culture (or race in this case) by any stereotype (or by actions of a group of individuals) would ultimately deny the very existence of human individuality. Yes... Majority of human race has a tendency to be lazy and often allow them selves to be imprinted by their own stereotypes (since it requires less thinking to repeat that, which those simillar to you have already "succesfuly" done) But... That does not mean, that all people of any group (especialy when it is a racial group, instead of a political or ideological) must (or should) be judged as that. Just membes of their respective group... I personaly tend to (all the time) ignore theese prejudical intentions when confronting an individual for the first time. (Or in this case, when I listen to/read their work, ideas and values.) And I then evalute: a) the person is an idiot, and they choose to identify themselves by a group they associate themself with, like so: People say: "Hi my name is X, and I am {a Democrat, a homosexual, an Asian, a Christian, and so on...}." You see, in my eyes if the only (or the most important) thing about a person is who they affiliate themselves with (or who/what they like to diddle...) then they loose all value in my eyes. b) the person prooves to not be n absolute tragedy, and instead chooses to inform me of what concerns them. For instance: "Hello my name is Y, I like to build paper Boats." As simple as it may seem this difference in self-identification tells you a lot about the person. (And should you choose, wheter or not they deserve your "positive" outlook at their character.)

[@siresorb1419]

Clearly she's not a parent then lol. Jk I love my kids.

[@garyla3584]

@Erich Addler Sad that your brain is broken.

[@zinebl303]

The denial of reason ultimately leads to insanity. I have been taught all my life that there is no ultimate truth and everything was only a matter of perception. A perception that is influenced by your experiences and environment, language etc. The external world def influence us, but our experiences do not make everything we see as subjective. Denial of ultimate truth based on reason will eventually make you miserable by only basing every single action by your emotions. Emotions are good, but acting on them (since rejecting reason) will make you crazy. Even if REASON is constructed, we need it. Ayn Rand has that reputation to be pretentious by thinking that her philosophy is the ultimate truth, but really her philosophy is based on a tool she humbly embraces: REASONING/ OBJECTIVITY. What is pretentious is to think that you are so above reason and is able to live on subjectivity. She basically asks us to make a choice, following REASON and Objectivity, to live a graceful life at your full potential, owning your self. OR Living a life based on emotions and subjectivity (everything based on your perceptions) perceptions that leads to self pity and self sabotage.

[@Prodigious1One]

Deep.

[@higgpigg4326]

Jesus Christ is the truth,the way and the life

[@Prodigious1One]

@@higgpigg4326 Amen.

[@TeaParty1776]

> Even if REASON is constructed, we need it. Reason identifies reality. Thats why we need it.

[@albeon81]

If there is a god his name is reason. Not Jesus.

[@milcamonera4054]

My inspiration as a professor.

[@milcamonera4054]

@ Philosophy

[@Sketcher86]

@ All human beings have objective biological and psychological needs, and one's actual interests are identified by reference to these needs. "exact meaning" of selfishness is "concern with one's own interests" Rand argues that a virtue is an action by which one secures and protects ones "rational values" so ultimately, one's life and happiness..since a concern with one's own interests is a character trait that, when translated into action, enables one to achieve and guard one's own well-being, it follows that selfishness is a virtue. One must manifest a serious concern for one's own interests if one is to lead a healthy, purposeful, fulfilling life.

[@derekbrown7392]

I love how they cut her off right before she said that no government has the right to initiate force 😄

[@kr674937]

I love that you acknowledge the importance of it. Too many don't.

[@notanotherguitarchannel]

...and that's all we have time for, folks!

[@azatkhabibulin7514]

...and left the whole system of premises that make this final statement possible.

[@ElianaBenador]

Shameful. And that tide goes on, and we are Rand.-less.

[@yodizzll]

blows my mind that she can speak so eloquently. She casually freestyles what most intellectuals would need an entire thesis to put into words.

[@rmartin9426]

& in her second language. I’m still working on one.

[@willyh.r.1216]

Ayn Rand was certainly a great mind. She left a valuable non-mystical legacy for human beings. Rationality should be valued than any kinds of mysticism.

[@EarthSurferUSA]

So how would you get religious people to vote for you? You see, God did not give man his/her rights as is often incorrectly preached. God gave man/woman something that no other living entity has here on Earth: God gave us a brain that can reason and figure out reality in our universe, if we practice it. God gave man/woman a brain so we can figure out our rights based on our own nature to think and achieve. Everything lives on Earth by its own nature, except man/woman? When we figure out our nature, (the age of reason, a construct of mans brain gift), and gained the integrity to stand for it, ---then we founded the USA, and God was very proud of us. That is how.

[@gregdiprinzio9280]

But her ideas about faith are mistaken, the product of the time I suppose. If she could chat with William Lane Craig or John Lennox she would hear compelling rational reasons for faith.

[@OldsmobileCutlassSupremeConver]

Especially today 2023 her words ring True. Our country is on a Slippery Sloap

[@etownsterguy9489]

What is a sloap?

[@tinak8081]

Truth 💯

[@jonbrandon6793]

​@@etownsterguy9489A soapy slope.

[@staynsaddle]

Smartest person I have ever heard. She is the complete package.👌

[@dominicdiorio]

Nobody wants to debate objectivists. Everyone is so quick to dismiss, but never want to debate. Nobody wants to admit that the female Russian novelist who came out of practically nowhere had a point- many great points actually.

[@olegzandrvondenmanoresoftw596]

She saw postmodernism develop early on. Genius.

[@3of12]

Post modernism's height was in the 60s on college campuses. There are lots of insightful books written by their early leaders on how they think, and how they operate. "Words are violence" is a perfect example of this, they reason that since words are violence, a speaker that criticizes any idea especially postmodernist ones is assaulting people and therefore the people should riot in self-defense.

[@siresorb1419]

Tbf, postmodernism is technically just religious ideology without a mystical prophet to gather around.

[@3of12]

@Erich Addler words are not violence. Full stop big no. This makes any public discourse impossible because if you can label any criticism as literal assault in a society, the only thing that remains is physical assault. And gee whiz, thats exactly what happens. Thank the spaghetti monster that most progressives are not full fledged post modernists because when they did get a toehold we had a national epidemic of mobs starting riots at Universities and statues. They didn't like getting torn down in the middle of the night, including ones of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Post-modernism is the dark eco of politics, many have tried to control but they always end up corrupted

[@Morningglory007]

@@3of12 The way of the Brute, not the man of reason and intellect.

[@TeaParty1776]

@Erich Addler Is Christian goo the way to go?

[@JacksonTaylorandTheSinners]

A great human being and a great American. 🙏🙏🙏

[@BenitoCamelas-rw7gv]

Russia

[@cervgiovanni]

The last part where they cut her off, my dude asked a level 25 question and got a level 25 answer. The level 18 people had to leave

[@CraigCastanet]

I didn't care for her fiction, and didn't need it. Her lectures revealed the most intoxicating intellect I've encountered. God bless Ayn. And I use the expression that way Ayn would, as a figure of speech, not an implied belief. She did have some incongruencies, I don't think she could really conceive of her husband as heroic. And she harmed herself with cigarettes, but we must find the heroic in our fallible human teachers. And Ayn was a blessing to us all. Among the most courageous people I have seen was this little Russian immigrant woman. And she was freedom's greatest explicator and proponent. A beautiful light in humanity.

[@jackwarr3439]

This is excellent. There isn't enough footage of Ayn Rand explaining and comparing her philosophy with those of other philosophers and in philosophical language. Many of her present day cheerleaders, you get the impression they aren't at all well versed in the history of philosophy beyond Objectivism and its few antecedents, and while it stands to the credit of Objectivism as a system that it's simple enough to be understood by anybody, it does make it easier for its opponents to dismiss it as unsophisticated or somehow partial, incomplete.

[@TeaParty1776]

Rand wrote philosophy as a guide to life, not for technical philosophers.

[@k85]

There is a great amount of material, but it is unpublished. The Ayn Rand Institute has only in recent years began to dish out loads of it. Just wait. It will all come out, and haters are going to have an insurmountably hard time misrepresenting.

[@leeeatmon5176]

Haven't seen interviews like this on television since the early 70's, now, we are bombarded by celebs, musicians, psuedo gurus, etc,. ...today's tv is loud, emotional,, and less responsive, the latter meaning that those interviewed are constantly interrupted by the host.....who is now the celebrity.......

[@edbonz2]

Excellent thoughts by Ms Rand! Thank you, Ayn Rand Institute. $

[@johnlyons3607]

What a mind, I wish I discovered her years ago. Kant and his ilk have given people an easy way way out. I say again : what a mind. Especially from where she came!

[@joelwesko1812]

Given people an easy way out? Have you read Kant? His philosophy has been known to be one of the most complex system out there. He is a giant, but so is Ayn!

[@r_m6074]

Mom.

[@KDean22]

RAND IS A POWERFUL INTELLECTUAL

[@GEOMETRYSINE]

King Solomon was known to be wise, but he was also known for his high class mannerism. He was once asked about, how did he become so well behaved and well mannered? He responded by saying, that he had learned good behavior from rude and low class people. Those who asked the question were amazed by the kings answer, they asked him to explain. He said it's simple, I simply did not do what they did. Applying the same logic, the leftist watched her and did all that is opposite. I wonder if she did us a favor by revealing so much. She gave them the blueprint and they traveled at light speed and here we are.

[@theeasykg2319]

I like her grounded thoughts, I with society would adhere to her ideas on reason so that we can move forward.

[@MrCountrycuz]

Achievement is still the greatest virtue. Not charity!

[@isrberlinerin4063]

Leto Idaho ,what is that achievement ? Without charity (love) one is lifeless and achievement has no ultimate meaning . What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and loses his soul !

[@Prodigious1One]

Perhaps you're right. Or maybe love is the greatest virtue?

[@hauvo3586]

@@isrberlinerin4063 if there is no achievement, there's no charity.

[@TeaParty1776]

@@isrberlinerin4063 Soul wins the world.

[@TeaParty1776]

@@Prodigious1One Love of life.

[@ansugar]

Fascinating... A real treasure.

[@nascar0509]

"That honourable title once implied", so true!

[@Gorboduc]

28:22 the editor initiates force.

[@dinnerpartyempire]

Inspiring Rucka Rucka Ali to make food raps is a wonderful thing you set in place, Ayn. Nicely done.

[@EarthSurferUSA]

I take it you started your own business,----and discovered what human freedom is. I did too. :)

[@KDean22]

SHE PREDICTED THE PARASITES THAT LEFT CREATED

[@tinak8081]

Ayn predicted 2023...we are here now...😢 Time for true Americans need to save America 🇺🇸

[@rerite2]

There sure are a lot of Witch Doctors and Atillas out there in this modern world. SMH.

[@williampaulbeaugruendler7901]

King Solomom is the Ultimate Objectivist. Ecclesiastes 7:29 “Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.”

[@sivass1860]

Plz provide subtitles..

[@nbach2202]

She was alone. It wasn't easy to be Ayn. RIP..

[@alnsyhn1726]

Notes: The Pursuit of Happiness: Man defining his values: 23:56

[@jamielamarche2276]

Ayn was so spot on, just take a look around. What a terrifying life she must have led.

[@gordonloughton9800]

Best teacher I ever had.

[@realjacob9800]

Where can we find the uncut interview? She continues to expand on that last idea when they cut her off. I would guess she was about to say, "no group of people have the right to initiate force." Any lip readers? Would love to find this conversation in its entirety.

[@vicnighthorse]

Damn, I knew and worked for James McConnell in the mid-80's just before his death. He was an excellent fellow to work for and was once a one way pen pal with Ted Kaczynski.

[@jackripper9348]

Great upload! Thank You

[@withoutthestatepodcast4989]

Inspiration to us all.

[@TopSpinWilly]

Where was i in 1973? How did i miss this? Yes The Fountainhead was popular. I thought it was romnce novel. 😢

[@delerium2k]

At the end did they cut her off right when she said the state has no right to use force? lol.

[@phillipngongo7398]

Natural selection is purposeless, visionless and goalless but it generated a thinking being with purpose, vision and a goal.

[@ЕржанНасанов]

God, how I love her it's unbelievable

[@mayurpatel2182]

Philosophical geniuses are born only once every hundred or thousand years. If her work is lost, we may have another dark age.

[@milcamonera4054]

My mentor, my hero

[@drbonesshow1]

I wonder what Ms. Rand would have thought of BLduMb.

[@rickchase6990]

Just as relevant today in Canada

[@GabeOstroff]

Decades ahead of her time

[@roar40s]

This world uses the threat of socialism over and over again. It's a breakdown of reality. It's all fake.

[@LydellAaron]

10:45 perceive, identify, and integrates from senses. Interesting. Will is required.

[@jonbrandon6793]

Yes, as Ian McGilchrist correctly said somewhere or other, in so many words, naive realism and naive idealism are equally false philosophies.

[@drbonesshow1]

Nowadays, reason is unreasonable.

[@Jazzper79]

My favorite interview! - Genius!

[@kennyfernandez2866]

Which book are they talking about?

[@jaswerner419]

Pull up the Johnny Carson interview...it was done at the beginning of the Vietnam War....one of the best yet...the interviewer here also allowed her to explain her ideology without cutting her off until the Censor KGB intervened.

[@mentorman6285]

" The Mind ,the intellect ,reason, had no value in those earlier cultures" We have caught up in Words and new meaning we assign - " I think - Therefore I am "

[@richiem7716]

Michael malice yaron brook and lex fridman brought me here. New to me, but very interesting philosophy.

[@JonathanLevinTKY]

Simply amazing

[@looper2586]

What does she mean when she says that emotions are not tools of cognition? Can't seem to get my around this idea on which unfortunately she does not expand here. Please someone expand on what she means if you have read her or think you understand. Thanks

[@ttthttpd]

Feelings are not thoughts, and shouldn't be used as an excuse not to put the effort in and think. In fact feelings are largely dependent on earlier thoughts. More fundamentally, in other places she explains her theory on where emotions come from and their purpose. They are a subconscious "summation" of your general condition. A quick and dirty guage on how well or poorly you're satisfying your values. A mental analogue to the body's feeling of pain when hungry or tired. Or of pleasure when satiated. The important bit is "satisfying *your* values". The same experience can cause different emotional responses in different people due to their different values, situation, and purpose in life. More importantly, these values and ones life purpose can change over time, and can be consciously chosen. Choosing requires thought. To her, Philosophy's entire point is to guide chosing ones values. Though philosophies that don't acknowledge man as a thinking animal and individuals have specific natures, are doomed to produce contradictions and emotional pain. As one is gauging onself against an inconsistent standard. She thought her's had deduced the Objective set of values, hence "Objectivism". Though in all honesty, its mostly meta theories on what is necessary for an individual to deduce their individualized philosphy for living on earth amongst other individuals.

[@TeaParty1776]

An intelligent interview! Its almost dizzying.

[@diggydice9041]

I know little about her until less than 1 hour ago from a movie based on a 1957 novel about bad economic times & a oil shortage. The Oil Embargo of 1973 came to mind & led me to ask if this was a coincidence or was she aware of what was going on w/ Iran and the shortage that would come just 15yrs later? I saw this before I could look at her book but she's so well known I'm getting things together to research her works a little bit deeper. Some comments below helped me decide..... thanks

[@daddyeagen]

How does this only have 58k views?

[@Jazzper79]

Because people are dead inside

[@atomicosediceatomico4033]

Hi, I clearly remember that interview.

[@matthiaskroll7740]

Interesting view

[@jbvaav8474]

I love this woman!

[@ernestkovach3305]

Thank god fof the University of Michigan and it's precious archives with various scholars and other brilliant people in history. M GO BLUE.

[@isrberlinerin4063]

Those so called intellectuals call them self wise and they became Fools !

[@drbonesshow1]

Today, would Kant be Mexikan't?

[@ccampbell7214]

Amazing!

[@michaeljordan215]

One thing that I think she missed about feelings are that a complete healthy and sober person who has been exposed to nature properly and in contrast to their enclosment to society and synthetic stimuli, like TV, will be able to sense reality and the logic in it with emotions. They aren't always correct, but emotion can act as a quick response that works in tangent with reason rather than acting on it's own. I think that if she didn't miss this fact that she left it out because there is only ever a handful of people anymore who fit this description all others are intoxicated or sick to some degree.

[@mikeg2482]

I really appreciate the simplicity and relevance of your comment Michael Jordan. If you have not already read it, I think you might like her book "The Romantic Manifesto". She elaborates in a cool way about some of the ideas in your note.

[@michaeljordan215]

@@mikeg2482 thx for the advice.

[@dek2000utube]

What an amazing woman. If only she had acknowledged intuition and revelation as a valid input as well as sensory input. Of course, reason would still be the final arbiter!

[@EarthSurferUSA]

Intuition is not a wild guess, but more of a rational guess. It is based on at least some reason and understanding. It is part of a discovery process. You can't have intuition unless you can at least start a process of reason. Then we can bet each other money. :)

[@rickyracka]

They're always talking about things falling apart because of general entropy? This is the only explanation I have for why it makes sense.

[@imstevemcqueen]

Man is a creature with a never ceasing lust for power and control of as much as possible, and War has/is his ultimate means of attaining that power amd control.

[@enematwatson1357]

Which is why man needs morality, which is exactly what Ayn Rand sought to provide.

[@TeaParty1776]

Maybe "man" should focus his mind.

[@solsticemoon1220]

False. Man's only real desire is to have the power to direct the course of his own life. If man seeks unlimited power over others it is to compensate for his own feelings of lack of control over himself.

[@walterkersting9922]

I’m an amateur intellectual; I graduated laude how come.

[@humantacos9800]

TV back then sucked. Where are the paternity tests? Who's sleeping with who here? It's not clear.

[@pasthomas]

she changed or rather affirmed my life.

[@petekdemircioglu]

I love Ayn Rand

[@transcendevolution5138]

Given what she said about native americans and europeans i d be really interested to know what her viwes would be on animal rights

[@damonhage7451]

Animals don’t have rights. Rights are the recognition that man must use his mind and be free of force in order to enact his thoughts in reality. Since animals are not conceptual creatures, they do not have rights.

[@transcendevolution5138]

@@damonhage7451 U make 3 claims and then a forth one that's based the 3 previous ones. I will try to make a critic to those claims even tho u use extremely veuge terminology. Claim1 : " Man must use his mind and be free of force in order to enact his thoughts in reality ". Well... What do u mean by "free of force" ? If u mean it in a general sense then it's crazy. We live in endless ocean of pressures. Laws of physics apply certain restrictions to what is possible. No agent no matter how conscious, animal or human, can ever be completely free. On the other hand if u mean " force " exclusively in terms of interaction with other conscious agents then it's ...still crazy. It's impossible to define violence in an objective way. To someone, even something as simple as the mere look of my face, might be extremely violent simply through its capacity to provoke a series of powerful paralysing emotions (from love up to disgust) that obviously might have highly impactful effects. There is no such thing as absence of force. It's a naive illusion. It's impossible to maximize the freedom of action for a particular individual without simultaneously somewhat decreasing the freedom of action to at least some other individuals. And that decrease to freedom would be force. Wouldn't it ? So I'd say it's not just possible, but actually inevitable for someone not to act under some pressure/force. Therefore claim one can't be true. Claim2 : " Rights are the recognition that claim1 is true ". Well first of all claim1 isn't true. But even if it was, it's not obvious to me at all why that would be the definition of a right...Imo the right of an individual X is : A series of rules with the purpose of restricting the actions of all those individuals who can interact with the individual X in an attempt to increase the freedom of action (in some arbitrary manner) for the individual X. So yeah...Up to this point i completely deny both claims 1&2 Claim3 : " Animals are not perceptual creatures " And ofcourse ... Claim 4 : " Since claim2 & claim3 are both true => animals don't have rights " Ok. When u say not perceptual...what perceptual abilities are u referring to exactly ? Do u mean animals are not conscious/sentient ? First of all it's fundamentaly impossible to have access to the quality and the degree of sentience or conscious experiences of another organism (even if the organism is a human). Neither can we compare those with our personal ones. We can only make assumptions. That's just a completely undeniable fact and an ancient philosophical problem. Not to mention that if consciousness didn't give a competitive advantage then evolution wouldn't invent it. Having said that i think the most common view by academic and thinkers is that all animals have at least some perception of the external world in order to interact with it. How would they do that without SOME amount of consciousness. Even something as simple as a few million cell eukaryotic organism needs to make some kind of model of it's environment. In that case claim 3 would also be false. On the other hand if u mean it in the sense of advanced cognitive abilities like abstract thinking, future planning, math, music etc then ok i grant u that animals aren't "perceptual". But then all u have claimed is that u created some arbitrarily defined criteria (applying to the multidimensional space of cognitive traits) that may or may not permit to a cognitive trait to be included in SOME list of cognitive criteria, called "perceptual abilities". So what ?? What does that mean ? Why would that mean that animals don't have rights ? And why those criteria instead of other ones ? Rights obviously have something to do with morality and ethics. So with that as a given, how can anyone ( who's NOT a braindamaged, hyper selfabsorbed, psychopathic, deprived from empathetic abilities, homoeconomicous , dumbass ) ever claim that it's undeniably NOT worth investing the slightest amount of energy & time whatsoever in order to prevent a conscious/sentient creature from experiencing unbearable amounts of suffering, is beyond me.

[@damonhage7451]

@@transcendevolution5138 "It's impossible to define violence in an objective way". Why? What is so special about violence that makes it unobjective, or are you one of those ones that claim that everything is subjective and therefore nothing can be objectively denoted? If so, why not say that? "It's impossible to maximize the freedom of action for a particular individual without simultaneously somewhat decreasing the freedom of action to at least some other individuals." I'm not talking about what you presumably mean by "freedom of action". Freedom means free from physical force. Freedom of action as you are using it seems to mean any action you could possibly take. It is obvious that that isn't what we are talking about. We are talking about what actions SHOULD other organisms be free to take without physical force being used against them. That is what the question of rights addresses. Neither Ayn Rand or I argue that you should "maximize freedom" if by that you mean that it should be morally sanctioned that a man take any possible action whatsoever. I think you've slipped into arguing against a strawman, or at least I can't think of a time Ayn Rand or I used any concepts similar to what your talking about. Judging by your position on this and your qualms about the word force, you seem to be quite the context dropper. After clarifying your confusion on part 1, part two has nothing left to resolve. By conceptual creatures I mean they don't have free will. They don't survive by use of forming concepts and as such, are not capable of respecting your rights either.

[@transcendevolution5138]

@@damonhage7451 👐🙏👐🙏👐🙏👐🙏👐🙏👐🙏👐🙏 That was amusing 👍👌 It's amazing how some people can be that delusional and in denial of everything that proves them wrong. Or is it shameless manipulative strawman and red herring ? Both are equally terrifying to me. However IN CASE it is the 1rst one i'd suggest u to read A FEW MORE times my previous comment. All u need to escape your confusion is in there. Carefull tho ... read ALL OF IT this time. Oh and maybe without ignoring/picking specific arguments based on what's repulsive/attractive to your ego or fits your agenda. Who knows pal... Maybe this time u manage to understand what i m actually saying.

[@damonhage7451]

@@transcendevolution5138 Lol. actually laughing. Exactly the comment I'd expect from someone who even brings up the concept of forces in physics with a discussion about ethics. Didn't address anything I said either even though I addressed your entire comment.

[@mozartoon]

Anyone knows why did she say that scientists are turning more mystical outside of their profession? What does she mean by that? I know that she is not saying that scientists are turning more religous but I don't get what the word "mystical" means

[@hauvo3586]

Like religious people who believe blindly in God explain everything in God terms. Some scientists think they have master reality and try to explain everything by science (there are ton of things science can't explain), such they distort their own reality, not much different from superstitiously religious people

[@duosayso]

AR's 'Atlas Shrugged' is about railways, I think. How would AR react to the UK government's plan to evict people (by force?) from their homes if they are in the way of HS2? (Britain's planned high-speed rail link, to those across the Atlantic.)

[@Psychiatrick]

King John gave England and Ireland to pope (inc) at 1213 ... you can read the 1 page by searching "King John's Concession to Pope 1213"... By the weigh, King John gave pope (inc) his heirs and successors thus the reason why ALL presidents are Vatican appointees! Don't you just LOVE "our" Ecclesiocracy? CHELSEA Clinton CHELSEA Manning 2020 ... BECAUSE America DESERVES the Best! duckduckgo.com/?q=presidents+related+to+king+john&t=h_&ia=web

[@enematwatson1357]

I think she was not a fan of eminent domain laws and that's probably "too weak a word".

[@Psychiatrick]

@@enematwatson1357 Eminent Domain is the SOLE concept of pope (inc). HIS eminent domain was given England and Ireland in King John (Trump) Lackland at 1213 with its concession to pope (inc) ... Germany was given to pope (inc) July 1933rd with the signing of the Reich Concordat ... America was given to pope (inc) at 1776 by its property the "Free"masons and lawyers .... the Western World is under what is known as an "Ecclesiocracy" ... once you factor this in you get a whole new ball game. If you can get you mom to read Article 10 of the Reich Concordat you will see the clergy ARE military officials ... CHELSEA Clinton and CHELSEA Manning 2020

[@hectortellez7776]

Saint Thomas aquinas, I try to live the professional intellect, no one listens lol! Thank you ❤️

[@rnnr3719]

I feel like she talking more about Hume than Kant. I don't remember Kant ever saying we cannot trust what we perceive. That was Hume... can someone perhaps shed some light on this?

[@AI-gd7lz]

I think you are right. Kant was all about ethical realism and the categorical imperative. I think he would be almost the opposite of Hume in ways of thinking about rationality.

[@mikeg2482]

Hello 1NationUnderRon. I'll insert a few comments about Kant that might be helpful for grasping Rand's meaning about him. Kant explains in his writings that the phenomenal world is the world of earthly physical reality including man’s senses, perceptions, reason, and science. He claimed that this phenomenal world, as perceived by a man’s mind, is a distortion or misrepresentation of the real world. Kant contends that the distorting mechanism is man’s conceptual faculty itself. Kant self-destructs because his own reasoning process demonstrates that he is wrong, because every paragraph of his own books openly shows Kant using his own conceptual faculty again, then again, then again, then again in order to communicate his own ideas to his own reading audience. Kant claimed that man’s concepts form a collective delusion from which no human being can escape. In essence, Kant’s gimmick involved switching the collective for the objective when he advanced the idea of common mental categories collectively creating a phenomenal world. He also reassigned the validity of reason from its place in the objective world to the collective delusional world. He claimed that reality as perceived by man’s mind is a distortion and man’s mind is a distorting faculty. Except Kant's own mind, right? Kant fraudulently said that knowledge, to be valid, must not be processed in any way by human consciousness. He fraudulently said that only knowledge independent of human perception is valid. Kant wants us to accept that his own human consciousness arrived at his own claims, and that we should accept these claims from him after he processed them through his own human consciousness and his own faculty of reason. Therefore, every time that Kant explains something in his own writings, he always immediately conflicts with his own asserted claim that a person cannot use reason to acquire knowledge and present knowledge to others. Kant knows that he’s being bogus, because as a man he already knows that he must include himself in any claims about humans. He wants to get away with making claims of his own while simultaneously claiming that no human may make any valid claims. This is one of the major frauds that Kant is guilty of throughout each chapter of each one his own books. Kant fraudulently states that reason is impotent because of a priori limitations on what can be known via reason. He fraudulently says that the mind’s categories are limited to appearances, and knowledge of the real world cannot occur for a human. He fraudulently says that the inability to know reality must lead to relativism and skepticism at all times, and this is appropriate to man. Except when he himself wants us to accept HIS conclusions, because his own statements are magically immune from his own doctrine, right? And with what personal faculty of his did Kant evaluate and conclude this? Kant obviously used his reasoning faculty to explain his viewpoints to all of us, and then he fraudulently kept concluding in front of everyone that reason is invalid. This shows him to be irrational, and it shows him to be a fraud. This fundamental fraud is present in every chapter that he wrote.

[@rnnr3719]

@@mikeg2482 that makes much more sense. and I'm not defending him... I just didn't know what specifically he had said. Thanks for the clarification.

[@AyameSama]

critique of pure reason is likely the main source

[@socksumi]

@@mikeg2482 It seems like Kant was more of a cynic than a skeptic.

[@nickygoldchains]

I despair, for no mind of my time is as rational and profound as Ayn Rand.

[@justsayin3647]

NickyGoldChains Thomas Sowell.