Jordan Peterson Vs Ayn Rand

Buy 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos by Jordan Peterson
www.amazon.com/12-Rules-Life-...
Buy Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief by Jordan Peterson
www.amazon.com/Maps-Meaning-A...
Buy The Romantic Manifesto from Amazon
www.amazon.com/gp/product/045...
Buy Atlas Shrugged on Amazon
www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged...
Buy The Fountainhead on Amazon
www.amazon.com/Fountainhead-A...
Find more books by Ayn Rand
www.amazon.com/Ayn-Rand/e/B00...
Donate to the Ayn Rand Institute (tax deductible)
ari.aynrand.org/donate/credit...
Beethoven recording by Skidmore College Orchestra provided by www.musopen.org
Photo of Jordan Peterson by Adam Jacobs cc-by-2.0
Photo of Ayn Rand is in the Public Domain

[@fredslick643]

"The highest tribute to Ayn Rand is that her critics must distort everything she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individuals rights to freedom of action, speech,& association; self responsibility, NOT self-indulgence; & a live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an END, not the MEANS of others' ends. How many critics would dare honestly state these ideas & say. "...and that's what I reject"? ---Barbara Branden, author of The Passion of Ayn Rand.

[@TheScottishoats]

Music is totally distracting. Lose the music!

[@flyshacker]

Especially Beethoven's 9th. Not exactly background music.

[@kenticser]

Agreed!

[@tristanteller7990]

ESPECIALLY AGREE!!! Mega Fail video maker! Change the music!!!! Ayn Rand specifically said she found Beethoven's music broadcasted the sense of a Malevolent Universe which ran counter to her 'sense of life' in which we live in a 'Benevolent Universe' - which she found most exemplified in this piece of music: kzbin.info/www/bejne/l6eaoZSsfpdsZqM. - and no I'm not kidding. All in the book 100 Voices

[@HeelPower200]

Tristan Teller Rand believes in a benevolent being and sees beethoven's music as communicative of a malevolent universe ? did I understand you ?

[@tristanteller7990]

not quite : ) She believed in human beings having the power to perceive life/reality either accurately, or alternatively - if not completely accurately then you can perceive life in every other slightly or heavily distorted way. If you suffer the latter the more likely it is that you'd have a vast set of ideas, conclusions and so then feelings and emotions which together in your mind, both consciously and subconsciously, constitute a symphony of experience - of what it feels like to be alive - for you. This feeling she labelled as a 'sense of life'. In the latter case your sense of life would be more as if you lived in a universe where the general tone of how things are put together in form and in action - was malevolent. So with this sense of life - the Universe is not particularly pleasant, and things are just not very good, even maybe really bad etc. On the other hand, if your perceptions of life/reality are accurate, i.e you've done your homework in reasoning what you're senses are giving you and not taking stuff people tell you on faith, but seeing if you think it is true or not and knowing for yourself why you think so etc etc ... then the more attuned your ideas, your mind is going to be to 'reality'. And the more this is so, the more likely you are as a human being to experience being alive as a good thing, that the world is - although perhaps full of challenges - still a great and wonderful potentially very happy place to be living etc. This would result in you having a 'symphony of experience' - a 'sense of life' - in which you experience being a benevolent being living in a benevolent universe, where the Universe is great, where life and things are well, really rather good, and maybe actually pretty wonderful. And importantly, this is possible without believing in any kind of god/spirit/consciousness running everything, and indeed is much more likely if you spare yourself the suspicions of believing anything like that, which if you did believe in them, is really much more likely to breed anxiety and fear, make you think this life doesn't matter because there's another coming next etc etc. So that is how Objectivists define the difference - using my language to get there, they'd probably put it very differently : ) And She appreciated Beethovens talent and compositions for their majesty and their brilliance, but she would never listen to Beethoven for pleasure, because it was very clear to her that he had a 'Malevolent Universe' Sense of Life. Hope that helps.

[@thetimberjack3347]

Why do these people have an orchestra rehearsing in their closet??

[@fntime]

Because they are good people and not filthy dishonest lazy moronic cannucks like you. You stink young junkie!

[@mjonausk]

still funny 2 years on. Lolz.

[@Michaelc-wt8wg]

It's like the grand piano in the background of a scary scene, they follow them wherever they go with their instruments at the ready 😂😂😂

[@owlnyc666]

Because the bathroom was full? 😀😉

[@carrstone01]

I wanted to hear what was being said but the damn music kept interfering. So I didn’t.

[@geriburrito]

Jesus, you couldn't be more passive-agressive even if you tried.

[@DroppedMyController]

Turn the captions on.

[@carrstone01]

@@geriburrito Oh I could, baby, I could

[@dorfmanjones]

I wanted to hear the Beethoven but this woman kept yakking.

[@carrstone01]

@@dorfmanjones Dat ain't no woman, them's Ayn Rand!

[@Grumpyfrump]

I enjoy reading critics of Ayn Rand who seem to love to apply the word "baseless" as if that is an argument.

[@afriedrich1452]

Yup, that is a valid argument, if you are truly objective.

[@louisboliou7432]

Your choice of music is fine, but in context to a philosophical discussion, it's very distracting -- which is why I stopped listening after a few short minutes.

[@thomasmanning829]

I'm 66. I have been completely independent since 17 years old. I struggled in my 20's when I left the army. I tried to lift myself up by running since running cost only the cost for decent running shoes. And by reading, since I could find interesting used books for ten to 25 cents each. Always trying to improve myself I began reading philosophy. But was disappointed with the unwieldy and mostly useless philosophy that I had read. Somewhere I stumbled upon The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand and my connection with the world seemed to begin. I decided to read her books from date of publication. I have read all of her books. Se wrote many non fiction books. Her novels of course reflect her philosophy beginning with Anthem. The Fountainhead is an overture to Atlas Shrugged. Rand gave me a life compass where prior I had none. If you read her books, you'll learn that her critics have not read much of her. Her arguments are logical, and conclusions compelling. Read Atlas Shrugged. Prepare to plod for some hundred pages. Staying focused will pay off! Guaranteed!

[@imogenrex6286]

Same happened to me!

[@LordAnonymous31]

How has her philosophy helped you. I mean, being 66 you must have some prominent achievements to talk about, no?

[@thomasmanning829]

@@LordAnonymous31 Yes, iwata able to establish my connection with myself. I had nothing. I was called "a drifter". I was searching for answers. I found guidance in Rand's writings that I could not find anywhere else. Trust me I did a lot of reading. With mo help from others beyond her teachings i saved fir years and at at 34 purchased a 90 acre property with a two story home on the Oregon coast. I started(from scratch) a real estate firm there. Today, America is dying. Our economy is dying. (Read Capitalism: the unknown ideal by Ayn Rand) American and European morality is not a subject for serious discussion but merely a subject to indulge in as meaningless. As Rand pointed out, we can deny reality but not the consequences of reality. Ayn Rand clearly understood what she was saying and why she was saying what she said. I'm 70 now. Why am I so much healthier than my peers? Why do I understand our current economic situation better than my peers? How come I can find my way forward at a time when others are giving up? I owe a lot for who I am and how I have learned by learning what I ought to learn. Ayn Rand gets more credit than anyone for who I am.

[@outlawmaster25]

@@thomasmanning829 Well said!

[@leroyhayes3251]

@Malhab I’m sure she does come off that way, if you’re a Marxist.

[@199pterosaur]

I'm waiting for Jordan Peterson to say something other then "It's complicated and she is over simplifying it". Then he says "she just isn't a top rate philosopher"? "It's too formulaic, verges on the ideological". He is right that she was making a political point although it's far more then that, it's a code of ethics. It irritates Peterson that "she knew what she was saying", I find that rather funny. Art apparently is supposed to be dream like, blurry, fuzzy, difficult to delineate.

[@BJoinedBReality]

I'm gonna have to side with Ayn Rand on this one.

[@rebelliousfineart8202]

Yeah same, I think that reading her books when I was young really shaped my current perspective on individual freedom and the right to be my own unique force in the world. To be seperate from the responsibility to a social construct in whichever facets I choose. I know what that would sound like to somebody like Jordan Peterson but I don't subscribe to the "woke" stereotype, existentialism, socialism, anarchism. I just want to live and be left alone without rules for interacting with land and people and country etc. People should be exposed to information naturally, not indoctrinated to think and feel and believe it a certain way. We shouldn't be denied access to anything or any part of our garden, and we shouldn't need to feel like we owe our lives to wars that we as individuals had no part in creating.

[@jaggedlines2257]

Yes, she believes in Psalm 14 verse 1. So sad.

[@Michaelc-wt8wg]

I love both of them, but I think it's kinda ridiculous to say that Ayn Rand is not an intellectual because she knew what she was talking about 😂😂

[@monkeysezbegood]

I think she is way overrated and a bit of a mess. Jordan Peterson is far smarter IMO.

[@azmtkdzv]

Saying words in order that don't make grammatical errors and convey a certain sense don't make them philosophical or prophetical. She definitely believed in the things she was talking about.

[@hamter5349]

@@monkeysezbegood Jordan Peterson just regurgitates old philosophical ideas

[@monkeysezbegood]

@@hamter5349 to be fair I don't rate Peterson highly either. Rand less though.

[@jaggedlines2257]

She knew what she was talking about ( bi -polar ) but nobody else knew what she was talking talking about. Why they call her a genius, misses the point.

[@LittleImpaler]

I love Ayn Rand and Peterson. .

[@camerondye6108]

You shouldn’t because their ideas on morality conflict greatly

[@Feefa99]

I despise both

[@Feefa99]

@nick m. If you call glorification of selfishness reasonable, I could despise with you 😉

[@Feefa99]

@nick m. I am skeptical, just because she label herself as reasonable, it doesn't mean it is true. For example Rand was known chain smoker who denied scientific evidence about smoking and she died cancer. Peterson did same thing. He took antidepressants for years, despite the fact he's clinical psychologist with knowledge how pills works and claims that he'll never stop take them. Don't listen anyone who claims that person is reasonable, look how they act. Addiction is not reasonable.

[@hyacinthlynch843]

@nick m. There's good reasoning and bad reasoning.

[@felixucoff]

This was really badly edited

[@4rnorthwest]

felixucoff yes, terribly so! I don’t think JP would much appreciate the butchery that is this video, especially when he’s explained many many times that he is extremely careful with his choice of words and must speak at length so as to avoid out context situations which this video has managed to do very well! Many cuts of his words out of context which becomes a mockery of his lectures and interviews. This video is garbage and hopefully the 92,000 that saw this before me checked out early as I did as soon as they noticed which was only about 90 seconds in.

[@ManonVarendaz]

I totally agree. I have seen a lot of his interviews and while you might be able to boil her ideas down to a few sentences, with him it's just not possible. His statements are a lot more complex.

[@jsimp8540]

@@ManonVarendaz It’s not that his ideas are more complex. The editing gives much more time to Ayan Rand than Jordan Peterson.

[@thisbetterman]

I stopped the video at 58 seconds because the background music is too loud and freaking annoying. Reupload without the music and people can actually hear what these two are saying instead of the Annoying loud background music

[@ERICPJ54]

57 sec for me

[@existentbeing9678]

I actually like both Jordan Peterson and Ayn Rand. Despite Peterson's philosophical groundings in Christianity and Rand's atheism, I would say that they actually run parallels in a number of ways. However, I don't think that this video at all defines the difference between the two. The first clip isn't at all commentary on Rand, Peterson is simply responding to the idea that we ought to put women in high ranking government positions because, essentially, we already know what a male dominated system looks like and we don't like it. I hope we can all agree that this is an ill-placed reason to want to elect a woman into office. The whole middle section of the video is just Peterson ragging on Rand while Rand explains Objectivism. Say what you will, but I don't think that type of content is at all useful when the main goal here appears to be to pin the two's ideas against each other. The only part where you see their ideas somewhat challenged is at the end, and I still think that it doesn't do the concept of Peterson vs Rand much justice. First of all, both Peterson and Rand seem to agree that art is not grounded in reality, however Peterson would say that art is about the exploration of the unknown whereas Rand focuses on writing about what she knows to be true about the nature of man (he comes off as a bit of a dick for refusing to consider it literature, though). The part where Rand talks about how the ideal man does not act without knowing what he's doing really isn't a comeback to the view of art that Peterson posits, either. I think a Peterson vs Rand video should include a lot more of Peterson's philosophy. The whole thing was really Peterson taking shots at the idea that Rand was a "top rate philosopher" while Rand lays out the foundations of Objectivism, not much to compare unfortunately.

[@existentbeing9678]

Petar Silic I don't want to. Does that mean I don't have a say in this conversation? I'm sorry, what would you prefer me to say? I'm sure that's something Rand would approve of.

[@rhonaannproxenos5243]

"The whole thing was really Peterson taking shots at the idea that Rand was a "top rate philosopher" " I totally agree and as she has long left this conscious reality, she was not afforded an opportunity of proper right of reply. His analysis of current situations is always done on the foundation and perspective of the philosophies of others - Jung, Dostoevsky etc . He has not come up with something new but rather regurgitates the ideas of others... Rand clearly condemned this practice in The Fountainhead. She broke new ground, in the 1930's -1950's announcing her own belief system that is a) diametrically opposed to the socialist liberal doctrine that is being forced on us (and which is destroying our societies exactly as she said it would) and b) of course the post modernists will vehemently reject it . My opinion is she outranks, outsmarts and outplays Jorden Peterson in this video.

[@TheMomanslm]

Existent Being Peterson became a Christian?

[@temperateortropical161]

RAP: Many would agree with all but your final concluding sentence.

[@rhonaannproxenos5243]

And here will agree to disagree.

[@hjallew8744]

You know, they aren’t exactly comparable since Ayn Rand tied together empiricism and rationalism (mind and body) when Jordan B. Peterson teaches psychology.

[@azmtkdzv]

You know they aren't comparable when one is a novelist and other is social scientist and clinical psychologist that studied evolutionary ties with religious instincts. She brought from the motherland the ideology that destroyed her country but went to the west because of their stories. Irony.

[@deathbutt4496]

@@azmtkdzv when was Russia controlled by Ayn Rands philosophy?

[@realityisreal3928]

Peterson never address Rand's "ideal man" concept. He twice uses the "argument from authority", to dismiss her ideas. He knows this is fallacious. As far as his argument vs. her basic framework/idea of literature , doesn't his favorite authors, Dostoyevsky and Solzhenitsyn, also use her framework in their writings? I like Peterson's ideas/work, but he's wrong about Ayn Rand in this interview. Ayn Rand is a philosopher of the first water.

[@grotesquehead322]

I agree wholeheartedly.

[@andrewclemons8619]

Check out Kant

[@afriedrich1452]

The "ideal man" was Nathaniel, until he wasn't. Ask Barbara.

[@lkaneshiki]

Well, this is heavily edited, but Peterson does not give Rand her due.

[@wh5254]

Peterson makes some valid points. And I love Rand.

[@ericdebord3603]

Ayn Rand is simple enough for the common man to understand. Jordan Peterson is thinking too hard about it, going into the personality and subconscious mind. Ayn Rand tells it straight up. There is good or evil.

[@nicholasbogosian5420]

I mean, even JP said it, that you're not supposed to know...its supposed to be an exploration.

[@user-lx8vv1bi5u]

Who is he to say what art is supposed to be....or how it is to be done? Many great novels have themes, Rands are no different. @@nicholasbogosian5420

[@taylorkurtz1513]

This was an awesome video! loved the music, made it hilarious! She obliterated him from the past... I died when he complained “she knows what she’s saying” xD he looked like Professor Stadler honestly

[@vabiance1]

It’s interesting that this video has Beethoven’s 9th Symphony as the soundtrack, yet Rand thought that Beethoven had a malevolent sense of life.

[@hwleitner2009]

She was too intelligent to be truly understood by most.

[@hauntologicalwittgensteini2542]

🤡

[@Carvin0]

She is not unusually intelligent. Top 1%, maybe, IQ 135 or so. Plenty of people that intelligent or more. You meet people that smart all the time. But very, very obsessive. Wants to construct a neat, plausible, self-consistent and complete model of ideal human nature. A more intelligent person would find a way to accomodate uncertainty, and open-endedness.

[@kumarsuraj9450]

More like too stupid to be truly understood by most

[@johngleue]

@@Carvin0 What is there to disagree about? Is the individual a tool to be used for the benefit of the greater good (the group). Or is the individual the most important thing and therefore ends in himself? Building a value system around the latter protects us from unnecessary sacrifices and political careers built around taking from those who have EARNED what they have in order to support an otherwise unsustainable outcome. i.e. bailouts, welfare, disability, social security, special interest groups, tax exemptions, monopoly of ideals on things such as social media. Big government uses altruism because altruism devalues us as individuals and forces us into groups. Groups to be sacrificed to other groups. Because groups are easier to appeal to and control than a bunch of individuals. I can rattle off one pandering sentence about lgbtq in a political speech and lock in thousands of votes and not honestly give any indicator as to my actual principles or values. It's manipulation plain and simple. Altruism isn't above using force to make people do or think a certain way and objectivism is against the use of force. Objectivism says the opposite and that we're more than just sacrificial animals and gives us an opportunity to actually thrive and flourish. And those who thrive using Ayn rands principles make the world better for everyone else. Think of what all the technology and modern medicine we have now would look like if we did away with government regulation allowed capitalism to do its job. Freeing people to make up their own minds about what risks they are willing to take. We'd probably be teleporting and living for multiple hundreds of years longer than we do now. We could never know the true potential because altruism says self interest is bad. Rational self interest is good. Altruism is evil. I didn't understand those who try and put Ayn rand down or discredit her. She knew what she was talking about.

[@NoName-xc6cg]

@@johngleue hi, you seem like someone that has really put effort into understanding Ayn Rand, so I would like to ask you a question about something I don't understand: why did Dagny Taggart, Hank Rearden and Francisco D Anconia risk their lives to save John Galt from the place they were torturing him at the end of Atlas Shrugged?

[@danalawton2986]

Reading Atlas Shrugged or Fountainhead, often changes the perspective of the reader, especially a young reader. It often wakes them up from a slumber they didn't realize they were in. If you base Rand's work just from a motivational view point, she was amazing. The young reader isn't necessarily picking up the finer points of her books but what they do get is a role model that is highly intelligent and is being forced to compromise. I think Rand got caught up in her celebrity, kind of like what is happening to Peterson.

[@anthonyvasquez1112]

Agreed with Jake. I'd like to also mention that Ayn Rand is an exception, and should not be compared to Jordan Peterson's general thought on what a powerful woman running things might be like.

[@wk3820]

Although Rand would never condone this, one major reason for her popularity among conservatives is the modular nature of Objectivism. It comes neatly divided into six tenets, four or five of which most conservatives would agree with. Maybe the atheism is the lone exception. Maybe some aren't ready to give up fully on altruism. That's not a problem because these areas of disagreement in no way diminish the effectiveness of the rest.

[@charlesr.aliffjr.4050]

Early in this video, Jordan Peterson said he didn’t regard Ayn Rand as having a great mind. One question Jordan...exactly, what in hell were you smoking or drinking when you made this statement?

[@aloowalia2849]

I laughed too hard that I spilled my coffee on the mattress My mom is gonna kill me

[@sprezzatura8755]

Both are towering individuals with great contributions to their names.

[@CommonCentsRob]

Brilliant compilation!!!

[@RenanL.S.]

Two great humans. I admire both. It is so unfortunate that Peterson never studied Rand's philosophy properly, if he had I am sure he would change his mind, he red only her literature and assumed he knew her philosophy. I actually agree a little with his take on her literature, despite still liking it, but her greatest work is her philosophy, by far, her take on metaphysics, epistemolgy... Etc.. I would love to see his opinions on Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

[@codeypendent1899]

To me sounded like two great characters in the same book just on different pages. Grateful for them both.

[@pelicanbird901]

Ayn’s main message reminds me of Steven Covey’s advice: Live intentionally. So simple and yet so hard.

[@jwwwbc]

very nicely done. get a good idea of their differences. very nice pairing of the clips. thanks.

[@henrysmith9734]

Each have a partial view of reality and truth. No one knows everthing. I love both of their contributions

[@gbernardwandel4174]

I’d rather listen to Beethoven’s 9th separately from trying to tease out the dialogue of Ayn & Jordan I also wish this wasn’t edited so choppily It appears that right when someone makes a partial point it gets obscured by music or the other point of view If one is trying to learn about how JR differs from AR this 10 minutes would probably not be helpful It might serve as platform for anyone who already knows a lot about both So I guess my searching this point ended fruitlessly for these 10 minutes

[@marybachmann]

Brilliantly done!

[@LSebastien]

It's interesting how clear and concise Rand can define her thoughts, despite her heavy accent, whereas Peterson speaks perfect English but has an almost pathological aversion to speaking in simple terms.

[@paulnitz8368]

What's with the interfering music? Trash the music in favor of narrative. Thank you.

[@Nicagwody]

Music makes it kinda hard to hear...

[@jordanh2515]

What interview is this? 05:05 I have never seen it before

[@markpong5435]

Notice how they express themselves. Ayn Rand is very cool. She appeals to her audience from position of reason. Peterson is very animated and emotional. It seems he feels that the subject isn't his strong side and a result he is not very confident. It is very clear what Ayn Rand is stands for. Peterson's position isn't clear at al.

[@Storabrost]

Bravo. Amazing clipping and editing, with the music and all. This took a lot of work. I'm sharing this on twitter :)

[@KP-dd2ci]

Music in background...completely unnecessary

[@paulbradford6475]

The background music was annoying. A longer explanation by JP would have countered or supplemented what Rand said.

[@user-jo2if6ve9y]

Tnx bro we understood from earth.

[@vinoverita]

Intellectually comparing Peterson to Rand is like comparing an ant to Atlas.

[@wardropper]

She's probably right about the purpose of art though.

[@lancehaseltine494]

Everything we do is art, but there are two kinds of art-good and bad. Good art is beautiful as it works in concert with the Spirit of God. Bad art is ugly because it doesn’t. Bad art is what Ayn Rand and her disciples do.

[@jaspermcminnis5538]

@@lancehaseltine494 Then allow me to introduce to you comic book artist, writer, and co-creator of Spider-Man, Steve Ditko. Whom has made his mark on comicdom forever. For a few examples, look up FizzFop1 for a video called, "Steve Ditko - 12 Superheros He Created or Co-Created".

[@lancehaseltine494]

@@jaspermcminnis5538 Thanks.

[@jaspermcminnis5538]

@@lancehaseltine494 You're welcome.

[@jasonswiatkowski9127]

I clicked on this thinking it was an Epic Rap Battle!

[@davee91889]

Jordan, what do you mean she wasn't a great mind? She created the best kind of philosophical belief ever, she was so intelligent many people like you can't understand her

[@GODHATESADOPTION]

No she was weak.

[@bruceruttan60]

Rand was far more expert as a philosopher than any other. The essence of things. The causal base. She stripped away the blur of more common thinking. Jordan is a fine man but rarely hits the nail on the head. His imprecision is like his improvised definition of art in this video.

[@manleybeasley]

Bruce Ruttan -Rand's epistemology is self refuting. If all beliefs must be based on reason, how does she come to that belief? If she does it using reason her epistemology is viciously circular. It she presupposes reason then she admits not all beliefs are based on reason which contradicts her premise.

[@bruceruttan60]

If evidence is considered an essential part of identity and argument, then of course reason is essential, indeed man's only tool in interacting with reality. It is important for the mystic to debunk reason because it makes obvious the trickery of faith.

[@billandpech]

"If all beliefs must be based on reason, how does she come to that belief?" -Chris Beasley, All GOOD beliefs must be reasonable, not all beliefs.

[@hauntologicalwittgensteini2542]

Rands shitty epistemology pretty much denies Quantum Mechanics and Relativity

[@PeterBinns]

dont need the music....

[@johnnysalter7072]

Anton LaVey, Founder, the Church of Satan said: My religion is just Ayn Rand’s philosophy with ceremony and ritual added. And naturally Republicans and people like Peterson are all for her. Paul Ryan said, No better palce to find the moral case Capitalism and Individualism than Ayn Rand, writings and works. He continued, More than anyone else, did a fantastic job of explaining the morality of capitalism, the morality of individualism, and this, to me, is what is [sic] matters most.” Ryan appeared at a gathering of Rand devotees and declared Rand’s philosophy was “the reason I got involved in public service,” that he makes it “required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff,” and that her philosophy continues to inspire “almost every fight we are involved in here, on Capitol Hill.” Rand is in essence the founder of the Tea Party. www.rawstory.com/2015/02/happy-birthday-ayn-rand-8-scary-quotes-from-the-guru-of-selfishness/

[@ceasormayhem101]

Man is not happy when he serves. Man is happy when the fruits of his labor amount to achievement. Man is not happy when he sacrifices, he gives up what weighs him down. Ayn Rand does not understand humanity. Anything that involves creativity and skill is art, that includes all forms processional writing.

[@StoneUFO]

why the music, thumbs down

[@davee91889]

Peterson is quite far from being as good and potent philosopher as Rand

[@thedevo01]

He isn't trying to be. He's a professor.

[@jamest1759]

Thank god for Ayn Rand

[@praisethesun69]

so i'm reading the objectivist comments in rand's voice and defenders of dr. peterson in his voice and i have to say it makes this comments section very entertaining.

[@borderlord]

It would have been good if Ayn Rand and Arnold Schwarzenegger had had this conversation!

[@controlmore8618]

ayn rand and bhad bhabie

[@almarenee12]

The music in this totally ruins it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@edstud1]

My belief is that altruism should not be forced on anyone!

[@melissahernandezm379]

The music was fine for me ☺️☺️☺️☺️

[@Meditatum101]

This issue is really frustrating me. There's some disconnect between these two perspectives, and I'm having trouble articulating how exactly it comes about.

[@Upharius]

Jake Ayan doesn't talk about responsibility in a wholesale manner like Peterson does. I think the disconnect is what the individual actually exist for.

[@carlwhite4233]

Peterson is much more open to the possibility that reason and objectivity will not deliver to you ALL of life's answers. At some point unjustifiable (equivalent to epistemologically unknowable) decisions must be made, things must be interpreted emotionally, ect ect. Ayn Rand made several of these, she just doesn't recognize it.

[@johncart07]

Jake The disconnect is.. separating things as if the exist on the own. Things like morality, philosophy, theology etc. One might say that is "just a philosophy". Which is true but saying it is "just a philosophy" is a philosophy also. But saying it is "just a philosophy" might mean you object to it and can't generate a counter argument. There is also some obvious morality involved in saying it is "just a philosophy ". It is the reductionistic rationale that muddies things.Things can be objectively true in there local context but you need morality to figure out what that means. That is the inescapable reality to the picture of the truth. A pychologist is the only one able to even tackle the issue because investigate the motivations behind a person's worldview. Everyone else is just familiar with there own field of study.

[@VangelVe]

Peterson points out that as social animals there are mechanisms that civilize the individual and bind him by custom. He would have changes come more gradually by exposing problems with the existing narrative that holds back society from progressing and changing it when it is right to do so. Rand tends to dismiss the need for a logical and correct analysis to account for the existing customs. For her, the individual is the highest good and if that means destroying the social order entirely, so be it. Actually, the two are not very far apart in terms of the goals that they want to be reached. They want a better world where the individual is more secure. Their point of conflict seems to be about how to get there. Peterson respects custom and biology far more than Rand seems to. For her all that matters is logic so she dismisses the worst part of ourselves when making her pronouncements in either her fiction or non-fiction.

[@johncart07]

Vangel Vesovski Dictatorship doesn't work, that destroys her philosophy. I believe she had good intentions, but was a little shortsighted. There has to be an abstracted great good above man itself. That humanity can strive for. That is a whole left by not believing in God. We are wired for religious thinking not scientific thinking.

[@fabb91]

For you people that don't understand why JP seems to be at odds with Ayn Rand I'll explain to you. Folks like JP and all the disciples of Carl Jung, realize that for as much as noble and important concience and rationality are, our psyche is fundamentally irrational, and to just wake up one day and expect a man to be 100% rational and aware and in control of his emotions and isnticts is simply absurd...and that man must come at terms with his nature (which is emotive and social)...and that every attempt to go to war with our subconscious leads to disaster.

[@BuFFoTheArtClown]

Men don't have instincts. Well to be perfectly clear, you need to Define instincts since there are a few definitions for it. Also, objectivism clearly states that emotions are uncontrollable. Objectivism clearly understands what emotions are. Objectivism though gives you the tools to understand where emotions come from, what they are in your present life and how you can consciously control them once they happen. Humans are not slavering Beast directed by the instincts of our DNA and unable to control our emotional outbursts. And just because a human is a rational being by Nature does not mean a human act rationally. Most humans do not act rationally and that is why most humans live in some sort of misery because they have not been giving the tools to understand what it means to live a rational life.

[@LtDeadeye]

It seems that Rand, by her own statement, presupposes that man's life is a standard of value to begin with and bases her morality on that presupposition through the reason of man. That doesn't sound objective to me and it may even be circular. If we could ask a shark what the standard of value is, it might say those beings which have been on the planet the longest are the standard because they have seniority. How can man but not sharks be said to be the standard of value without appealing to arbitrary speciesism? Why is it that human reasoning is authority giving? I'm not entirely sure how value (greater than and less than) can even be grounded objectively, apart from an objective standard of reference by which we can measure it against. The term different, not better or worse, makes more sense in a Godless state of affairs.

[@DeeperWithDiego]

The objective standard is your life, and based on what is best for your life ( the entire course of your life, not just whats "good" in the moment ) is how you derive morality. It's easy, actually. I need money. I can rob people on the street and make money quick, or I can get a job and make money slowly. One has a high risk of putting you in jail, while the other, doesn't, and keeps you free to be happy. One destroys your self esteem, while the other is how you build it. Every single person on the planet must do what's best for their well being and happiness. Why? each person's life is the standard by which they measure their happiness in said life and how they should be making value judgments to achieve happiness.

[@blakejameson1114]

Instincts, definitely, and sometimes emotions, are rational, but neither are substitutes for logic, reason, and evidence in the long term. Adhering to either for any length of time can be detrimental in a number of ways.

[@kingfillins4117]

"One has a high risk of putting you in jail, while the other, doesn't, and keeps you free to be happy. One destroys your self esteem, while the other is how you build it." False. Both could destroy and build self esteem or freedom based on the whims of a persons own reason. A person could legally work for a corporation that creates pollution making money slowly and end up reliasing this and feeling miserable or knowing it and not care, only thinking of heir own bank balance. "Every single person on the planet must do what's best for their well being and happiness. " Not so. This is just a trick used by people like Edward Bernays and other assholes to create customers for supermarkets etc. Go live in an indigenous culture... you think everyone is just doing their own thing to be happy? No some will risk their lives to find food and protect the tribe. Rand is a delusional product of a contemporary myth.

[@Lost_In_LA]

Fan of both.

[@Aethertopia369]

I wonder if Ayn Rand ever met Salvador Dalí? I could see Dali doing a painting of her called the 'Enigma of Ayn Rand' with John Galt strung up on a tesseract cross while Gala and Ayn float beside him, Ayn has a turtle shell for clothes and both are seemingly suspended by Dali's mustache, as Dali himself is sitting on a plate that's on top of a book, and he is holding a telephone with fish for hands. The shape of the fish look like mini Ayn Rand's. Giant, majestic, mountains are seen in the background. Small mountain goats stand tall at the foot of the mountains. They have long legs and huge rhinoceros horns. There is a crowd of people surrounding the goats. Dali, himself, is also sipping tea.

[@Holler_Rat]

I can't focus on anything said because of the damn music. Seriously? Someone actually thought that would help....

[@naveenbommakanti8309]

I didn't even realize that the music is distracting until I read that in comments. I was completely focused on what she and he conveying.

[@wjs437]

Rand is Peterson's moral and intellectual superior. End of discussion.

[@ditesvritinela]

Why is it the end of discussion ? Just because you are not able for one ?

[@wjs437]

Oliver Kovač retort then.. you have no content

[@ditesvritinela]

Plenty of . And it is very easy. Even if we only discuss the shit she threw shown in this video only. Would you like that ? For a start ?

[@pby1987]

If I had to choose I would ratber have Rands objectivism over Petersons psychology.

[@MrRyanmcmahon]

They both think you should clean your room before attempting to change the world.

[@josephk2414]

What a nonsense is that stupid background Music? What the publisher tries to achieve? To give more weight to one part and less wight to another part of the show? Why the publisher just don't shut up and let people to think what they want to think without the interference.

[@JohnVKaravitis]

3:38 Uh, actually, yes, she IS a "top-rate" philosopher. If you listen CLOSELY to what she's saying, it's that everyone should stand on their own two feet and not impose one's own ideas or moral code on anyone else. How threatening people find this idea! Isn't THAT the real conundrum here?

[@TheDionysianFields]

Rand presented a very distilled and pure philosophy which turned a lot of people off. Myself, I love it...for the very reasons Peterson scorns her. I think the fact that Rand knew exactly what she wanted to say is refreshing. And she said it so damn well! Writing is more science than art, Peterson should know that. The irony is that he's the closest thing we have to a Howard Roark in this world.

[@TheDionysianFields]

@Kenneth Sloan Every decision affects others. The idea is to not make a decision that disrupts another's ability to make a decision or pursue their own interests. This doesn't necessarily assume that there are unlimited lanes on the highway of life, only that we obey the rules of the road.

[@lavistro84]

I like Rand, but with respect standing on your own feet and individuality isn't revolutionary. Its common sense and predates America.

[@circlesinthenight3141]

I never read anything by her that was that great

[@markcampbell9227]

Ayn Rand definitely resonates with me. I don't believe in altruism or claiming that I am living for others. It feels disingenuous. But I think if Ayn Rand had looked more deeply into Man's search for happiness she would have found and been forced to express that actions that seem altruistic are in fact self serving. It is the act of seeing these connections that links these two great thinkers. We do for others because we are social animals and because it makes us feel good. It also is essential to help others in order to achieve goals that make our lives better. We love and are loved when we value others and are valued and validated by others. This is a major contributor to and determining factor in individual happiness. We act based on these factors and it appears altruistic but it is self serving in an interconnected way. I think Jordan Peterson would also benefit from some of Ayn Rand's viewpoint since it would become clearer to him that many of those who attack his viewpoints are acting from the same motivations as those who revere him. They are both striving for their own happiness. But many of those that attack him do so because they themselves cannot be happy without defending an ideology that they see as essential in defending the rights of the powerless. They believe themselves to be altruistic but they are still using reason in some way to validate their feelings and chart a course of action based on that validation.

[@nedmerrill5705]

I like Peterson, but he doesn't get it (don't ask me why).

[@pana376]

Why?

[@nedmerrill5705]

@@pana376 Peterson, in his snippets, is saying that the artist should not know what he/she is trying to say or represent. "You tell a story about what you _don't_ understand." makes no sense.

[@pana376]

@@nedmerrill5705 I agree what nonsense was that

[@grotesquehead322]

@@nedmerrill5705 it sounds like a postmodern argument; a perfect defense of abstract art. In fact it is not far off from an argument in defense of such art that I came across recently in which the author proclaimed that artists are a conduit for "the spirit of the times", or zeitgeist, and are often if not always unaware of the forces that motivate them (strangely enough, my profile pic is of a pastel painting I finished two years ago that is eerily relevant today). I do not completely disagree with this notion, but he then uses this to explain that abstract art is to classical art what particle physics is to algebra, which I find absurd. Peterson's argument seems even more dismissive; by his definition, nearly all classical western art could be discredited in one fell swoop. This is quite disconcerting coming from a man who is supposedly a committed defender of western civilization. I don't know about Peterson, but when I create a portrait, I have a good idea of what I am doing. An artist cannot avoid injecting some of his subconscious thought into his art, and I recognize this as I am sometimes surprised when I notice some odd detail in a finished piece that I hadn't been aware of, but the greatest artists of the west, for example Leonardo and Shakespeare, knew what they wanted to express with their work and put great effort into achieving their goals. Peterson's claim can easily be reduced to the argument that an artist cannot know that he is creating art if he is to make true art. It is very frustrating to here this from Peterson because I've heard it from so many people in reference to my own art. What is left for an artist to do? Slap some paint on a canvas in an arbitrary manner and hope that it is recognized as art? Scribble some random words on a page and hope the finished product is hailed as magnum opus? I think not. Edit: I only recently changed my profile pic so you may not be able to see the painting I mentioned in my post for a little while.

[@pmac91619]

@@grotesquehead322 Well did anyone ever ask Leonardo or Shakespeare if they ever knew what they were achieving from the start? Did Peterson ask Ayn Rand about her phillosophys? Probably not but it sounds like they are saying the same thing and sometimes Jordan can’t let go of his ideas, rightfully so if he spent so much time formulating them. They both have a point and I have no idea what to do about it I’ve only just heard about Ayn Rand and thought what does Jordan have to say about it. My heads spinning now.

[@kimokeokeahi8526]

Unwatchable. What's with the annoying soundtrack? Great tune, but inappropriate here.

[@viper595]

I love how a lot of people are saying how they can enjoy both, Peterson and Rand. As do I, I consider myself as an objectivist. But I still enjoy and find a lot of value in how both Peterson and Rand say, get your metaphorical shit together in thier own personal way and how they look at how you can get you metaphorical shit together.

[@GoldieTamamo]

This has been quote-mined the shit out of in favor of Ayn Rand. A system that operated under Rand's assumptions, would work without need for choice, because everyone's highest choice would already be implicit under man's naturally rational, reasoning nature. Unfortunately, man is not always rational or reasonable. Nor are his interests necessarily immediately compatible with those of his neighbor. One can choose their own happiness, and stand by one's own choices, and still fail, simply because they don't understand the things that would make them content, or how to pursue them in the first place, and lack the means to place their contentment higher than the priority of survival. Abraham Maslow and Franz Kafka. Contrast their ideas, with Rand's.

[@MrSmackdab]

I respect Jordan Peterson but he should consider putting down the pipe; Ayn Rand was both sophisticated and an intellectual giant.

[@crucifyrobinhood]

Don't blink. Rand is about to become more relevant than Orwell.

[@montesquieu19]

her accent is perfect

[@vodkatonyq]

LOL Rand sweeps the floor with Peterson.

[@RaniShrividya]

I love Ayn Rand and I like Dr. Peterson too... Considering today’s cultural, social destruction by liberals, Ayn would've been sympathetic to and maybe in harmony with Dr. Peterson's fight.

[@ftsmallwood]

Yes, the fight is the same but the philosophy is not the same. They both agree that liberals are destroying us so it's a common enemy which we face regardless of which philosophy we embrace. I love Rand but am not that familiar with Peterson's ideas beyond some generalities. I agree he does seem to have some interesting ideas.

[@MrRyanmcmahon]

They both think you should clean your room before attempting to change the world.

[@ragnardanneskjold7259]

Ayn Rand owns Peterson despite having been dead for decades.

[@vilaintrolltrollinsky8007]

Ayn Rand is a insane anarchist. Living under Ayn Rand will be worst than Hong Kong. And she is a slow and boring speaker

[@ragnardanneskjold7259]

@@vilaintrolltrollinsky8007 You obviously know nothing about Ayn Rand: she hated anarchists and libertarians. So there goes your theory. Do a little research next time.

[@vilaintrolltrollinsky8007]

@@ragnardanneskjold7259 I know what a anarcho capitalist is and she is one of them.

[@ragnardanneskjold7259]

@@vilaintrolltrollinsky8007 Prove it.

[@vilaintrolltrollinsky8007]

Easy, selfishness destroys solidarity and encourages domination. A generation of dominant selfish people will quickly reject the principles of law and equality. Without morals and without law, these sociopaths will be able to freely express themselves, crush the masses of the people, exploit the sheep that we (and you) are and wage war against the competing lords. Ultimately, sociopathic egoism leads to the absence of law, violent chaos and neo-feudalism worthy of a Tarantino movie. Nothing will survive long under regime and America will become the new Africa.

[@0749Rockystar]

The best description of this video should be: "Not all Women." I believe Mrs.Rands to have her own ideas some bad some good. Same as Jordan Peterson.

[@davee91889]

this is not Rand vs Peterson, this is "some bits out of context of jungian psychologist and an objectivist philosopher"

[@robertrowland1061]

Ayn Rand had shifty eyes.

[@ERRYKA09]

Rather devilish eyes.

[@paulellis4693]

A symptom of a hard thinking mind

[@edluisrivera3317]

Exactly she’s thinking & analyzing everything

[@DarrinSK]

his criticism of her literature is moronic considering his harping about archetypes in story telling/myth.

[@stealingfire5036]

This sentiment exactly, her novels are explicitly written in the style of archetypes, so much so that she's accused of writing "wooden" characters. This should be JP's ideal style, but apparently not - according to his 'intuition'.

[@DarrinSK]

yes, exactly. he is obviously confused. but then, he is a statist so...

[@leerman22]

I think they're both statists. Respecting property rights from a central authority isn't directly against rand's ideals as far as I understand them. Subjective laws are a real problem to me like C-16. A law must push a judge into a corner, not give him wiggle room the size of an elephant.

[@TheDionysianFields]

@@leerman22 I don't understand how the 2nd half of your comment relates to the first half. And I disagree that they are statists. Was Nietzsche a statist? Is anyone who believes a limited number of people will obtain significant wealth and status a statist?

[@ej-fo8pd]

Yes. What Timberjack said three years ago is still the question. Cannot listen for all the noise.

[@Randsurfer]

Obviously, Rand thinks before she speaks.

[@apocalypticskepticus3299]

Ayn Rand wins the debate.

[@johncart07]

Only if you have a materialistic reductionistic rational worldview. But if you believe in a soul in is a little different.

[@johncart07]

GCKelloch Sounds like positivist epistemology. I think Peterson believes in constructionist epistemology. He believes our internal imaginative structures are born with a place for God. Ultimately that has a psychological effect on us either way. God is anthropomorphic. We project our ideals on him. We don't have metaphysical tools to measure metaphysical evidence. It is a leap of faith whether you believe in him or not.

[@omarbaassiri8689]

Mr. Peterson, please remember she lived under different times and that she's seen more atrocities than you and I are ever going to.

[@operaguy1]

It is simple. Rand is consistent in rejection of God/religion, Peterson caves in to the "feeling" that you can't dismiss Jesus.

[@charliesheen9693]

Her eyes

[@SupBabyFresh]

Never thought I’d say this... but Jordan is way off

[@jhljhl6964]

Jordan stumbles on his words, while Rand is clear and to the point.

[@787Speedbrakes]

JBP stated in the Rubin Report interview shown here (that has been stupidly edited to show he didn’t agree with her) that one, he read Atlas Shrugged twice because he thought it was so good and two, that he agrees with her points about individual responsibility.

[@jaugernautkp]

Petersen is an intellect whose goal in life appears to be showing his intellect and his ability to be and promote "rational" thinking, for which I cannot argue. Ayn Rand merely promoted a very logical and fundamental way of simplifying life to be to the indirect benefit of the whole of society. Neither is artist, nor useful intellectual in my opinion, by reason they don't act to directly change or persuade the "irrational" people to begin to think rationally. I can talk tell I'm blue in the face about what's a good ideology, but what purpose does that really serve which may make my life better when the people around me are not swayed by it.

[@edwardmorris3453]

JP met his match and doesn't know it.

[@KT-ti9bk]

Edward Morris heheh.. go ask him if your right..

[@edwardmorris3453]

Ummm...what?

[@rjh6037]

You are of course correct. And I might add by taking AR on, JP exposes the thinness of his intellectual capacity.

[@belindacarter6872]

He’s a male chauvinist and won’t admit it

[@AdamMann3D]

The difference is Rand was a sociopath, Jordan is not.

[@nottoofaded2]

Yeah... all women are like Rand... right.

[@javiertrevino5535]

ultimately she is an important figure for philosophy and also one, if not the most iconic writer for libertarians. I agree that her novels can seem preachy and predictable but they were influential and fresh in their time. I recommend reading this great new ebook to get into her work without the dread of reading her novels right away: "Ayn Rand: An Introduction" by Eamonn Butler ( it's free , just Google it)

[@tomhitchcock8195]

Reason is based on an a priori. A faith