"The Psychology of Altruism" by Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand at Columbia University -- part 10: The Psychology of Altruism
Course playlist: • Ayn Rand at Columbia U...
In this 1964 radio interview, Ayn Rand defines altruism as “an ethical system which claims that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that the sole justification of his existence is the service he renders to others, and that self-sacrifice is his cardinal virtue, value and duty.” Explaining why altruism should not be confused with kindness or respect for the rights of others, Rand addresses some of the psychological consequences of attempting to embrace an ideal of self-sacrifice. She also discusses whether anyone can consistently practice altruism, and whether altruism can be justified as self-interested by the claim that is makes one happy.
SUBSCRIBE TO NEW IDEAL, ARI'S ONLINE PUBLICATION
aynrand.us12.list-manage.com/...
SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S KZbin CHANNEL
kzbin.info_...
ABOUT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE
ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism. We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world - and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today.
SUPPORT ARI WITH A DONATION
ari.aynrand.org/donate/credit...
EXPLORE ARI
www.AynRand.org
FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER
/ aynrandinst
LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK
/ aynrandinstitute
EXPLORE ARI CAMPUS
campus.aynrand.org/
INFORMATION ABOUT OBJECTIVIST SUMMER CONFERENCES
objectivistconferences.com/
LEARN ABOUT AYN RAND STUDENT CONFERENCES
aynrandcon.org/

[@go4damo]

"The sole base of altruism has always been mystical. Namely, the issue of self-sacrifice to others has to be taken on faith, because no rational justification for it has ever been offered, nor can it ever be offered." - Ayn Rand

[@paisleyjane14]

That’s completely inaccurate. Only a soulless person could help another individual and gain nothing. The entire concept is fatally flawed. I challenge you to prove that ANY human being actually believes this, lives this way, or would want to.

[@francescaerreia8859]

@@paisleyjane14it’s not about whether they gain something but about the ultimate end of the action; and many people are frequently aiming not at bettering their own lives but at sacrificing them for the sake of others in the spirit of altruism. People are called to do this all the time and the vast majority frequently rise to the occasion. If you can’t simply put on the tv and watch the news or any old tv show or movie and not spot this being preached and playing out just about everywhere, you’re simply not paying attention or deliberately not seeing it.

[@paisleyjane14]

@@francescaerreia8859 I have been a caregiver for my late husband, then my mother. I’ve never met a human being who genuinely gains absolutely nothing from sacrificing themselves for the sake of someone who can’t help themselves. If you sacrifice yourself to a human and receive no benefit of any kind, you’re either being abused and manipulated by a selfish narcissist, or are a soulless human who is sadly missing out on the experiences that make life meaningful. Humans lived this way for thousands of years. Giving a crap about other people and actually helping them based on out of one’s FREE WILL, PERSONAL ethics and values, is a 19th century invention. Prior to that , there were slaves and women to do all that work. I would argue that the definition of altruism as Ms Rand advocated, died with slavery and women’s liberation. Again, prove me wrong. Find me a human civilization on earth where the majority of people are not hopelessly selfish. Please. I’ll move there immediately!

[@francescaerreia8859]

@@paisleyjane14 its not about gaining nothing, it’s about whether overall its win or lose. And people are in every society routinely intentionally losing more than they gain with their actions for the sake of others. And this isn’t good. Because this is your life and you deserve for it to be good. You can’t be benevolent and advocate for people not to live good lives for their own sake. This is ironically what being kind and caring about others sincerely actually requires, it means advocating for their own good which mean fighting for them to not sacrifice but instead work with other people only when it’s win/win. So everybody benefits who is good and deserves it. That is what healthy positive relationships are, not games with winners and losing, harming themselves in the process. Altruism is not about kindness or helping other people as were commonly told, it’s about self sacrifice. And if you truly care about other people and want what’s best for them, you wouldn’t dare suggest they should engage in it. So the last thing anyone should want is another altruistic society, all of them preach that. What we need is the first rationally selfish one.

[@brooke4627]

She conflated altruism with self sacrifice. From a Buddhist perspective the two are totally different. By practicing the dharma you consider the welfare of others as important because it is karmically connected with your own welfare and existence. Remember Rand contradicted herself by accepting American welfare and medicare which she herself disagreed with. By doing so she prooved to be a contextually contradictory philosopher.

[@gosugosu1280]

This should be played on Germany's and Austria's national television.

[@howardhill3395]

Love Ayn Rand's clarity on altruism. Benevolence is natural. Altruism is forced.

[@SlamminGraham]

Rand never skipped a beat. I wish I were so eloquent.

[@elliotlambert3817]

You have no opinion about the subject only her adamant view point

[@brooke4627]

Actually she was somewhat infantile in comparison to some other philosophers and novelists of the day. She lacked the field of vision held by Russel, the conciseness of her fellow atheist A.J. Ayer and the pure originality of Karl Popper. As for her novels, they were mediocre to say the very least - I would not insult the great writers of the twentieth century by comparing them with Rand.

[@AnKebiseManda]

“Who is a society? It is only a number of individual men.” I have never felt so personally validated in my life.

[@AnKebiseManda]

I can level with her at about 14:22 in depth of introspection.

[@danielkohen1777]

"If you hold to your own belief as to what is true, then it is selfish" The basic evil of Altruism; it does demand the sacrifice of your mind

[@AristotleFreeman]

The power of reason. Amazing!

[@obviouslykaleb7998]

jeep23862 Well that is certainly a claim. Any evidence?

[@obviouslykaleb7998]

jeep23862 So no evidence?

[@obviouslykaleb7998]

jeep23862 “Randism would fail because of it’s built on indifference and cruelty to the masses.” Factually wrong. She believed that the best way to help others is to help yourself first. It’s a rejection of altruism, which Rand describes as “putting others before one’s self,” not “it’s ok to go and scam others.” The fact that you believe that she thought this reveals much about your knowledge of her philosophy or the lack thereof. “Indifference and cruelty to the masses” is not adequate to describe anything. She believed in private charity so long as it is *VOLUNTARY* and not forced. In that sense she would most likely be described as a libertarian today in regards to politics. Worth noting however, is the fact that libertarianism is a political leaning and objectivism (you called it “randism”) is a philosophy. atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/3789-libertarianism-and-objectivism-compatible She called racism “the lowest form of collectivism,” which itself proves you wrong in regards to “cruelty,” given the fact that being a racist is essentially a pass to treat others lower than oneself. She believed that if one company is making unethical business practices it is the *consumers’* job to boycott them until they change or the company dies. Explain to me how, in a system where no deals are forced (Rand’s perfect system) anyone can be cruel? If I accept a deal for an iPhone for 500$ then later the manufacturer says “he scammed me,” wouldn’t that be cruelty on the manufacturers’ behalf? She believed in the free market which is, in itself diametrically opposite to cruelty. Monopolies cannot happen in a free market. She believed that, if one company is failing, to let it fail. Others will rise up in its place and everyone will benefit from it. In this way, “tyranny” is the opposite of objectivism. “If the imperial family, the land owning aristocracy and Rand’s own class of wealthy merchants and business people had cared more about the welfare of those they considered to be inferior to them Rand would have stayed in Russia and married a shop owner.” You are describing the government when you say “the imperial family.” One can boycott a company but one cannot boycott a government. Hence, that was not objectivism. At least learn what you are talking about.

[@obviouslykaleb7998]

jeep23862 The fact that you believe government is effective in charity is mind boggling. Government uses 70% of its “charity funds” to pay the employees that run the damn things. At least learn what you are talking about. Objectivism is not anarchy. Stop strawman-ing, it makes you look stupid. Objectivism believes that the governments’ role is to protect its citizens from being lied to, killed, stolen from etcetera. It believes that the people can decide what they want to do and how they want to do it. It puts more power in the hands of the “we” of the masses and less in the hands of the “them” of the government. Don’t like your job? Quit and find a new one. Minimum wage just kills jobs anyways. Don’t like a car manufacturer because it produces too many fumes? Don’t buy from the manufacturer. The market literally chases money, and the money goes wherever the people go. If people don’t like google tracking them they will go elsewhere and if google doesn’t change it will die. It puts the economy into your hands and specifically NOT in the hands of the higher ups. A company will die if it doesn’t get money. Simple as that. Don’t like a company? Boycott it. What do you think happened to the movie “Cats,” which flopped, as opposed to the movie “Sonic,” which was a huge success? What do you think happened to “Birds of Prey,” which flopped, as opposed to “Joker,” which was a huge success? I’ll give you a hint. Only one of each of those fit the market. This *shows,* without a shadow of a doubt, that the free market will naturally weed out those that will rise to the top and those that refuse to change. What do you think happened with carbon farms, a decently new technology that should (if allowed to) fix global warming? The free market. Let people profit off of solutions and you will have less problems. Don’t let people profit and you will get more “Cats” and “Birds of Prey.” Why bother making quality products anyways? You can’t make any money off of it. Why make a car that’s quiet, fast, gets good MPG and doesn’t smell anyways? It’s not like you can profit off of it. Not worth it. People had known this fact for probably a hundred years before colleges became indoctrination camps for radical leftism. Make a good thing, get a good reward. Make a bad thing, get no reward. Simple as. Now we just need to stop government from bailing out corporations. Here’s some links that relate to government spending. kzbin.info/www/bejne/bIK1nHugnsRgoNE kzbin.info/www/bejne/jpekdmiborJ2qZo And this one about private charity. This one has the “uses 70% of its money” stat. kzbin.info/www/bejne/j6S1eWaufa-cZ68 This one is about a “living wage” kzbin.info/www/bejne/hYbGoniPpqt4erc

[@obviouslykaleb7998]

jeep23862 Lol the pure semantics. “What? I never said it was charity!” Despite the fact I put “charity funds” in quotations, denoting that it isn’t charity but rather serves the general purpose of charity. Get a better point.

[@ianboard544]

I'm more struck that an interesting discussion like this was on the radio.

[@greg_austin]

Thank you for your lesson, Ms. Rand. Benevolence, the volition of goodness toward others, is the opposite of altruism, placing one's self on the altar of sacrifice. Altruism is therefore closer to martyrdom, whereas benevolence describes a common welfare, such as from father to son.

[@greg_austin]

@jeep23862 “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” ― C. S. Lewis

[@greg_austin]

@jeep23862 (yawn) Your turn.

[@kbs1212]

​@jeep23862 You lost that debate. Miserably, might I add. The icing on the cake: "... you have no reasonable of logical counter argument to disprove what I have written is not true (which it is)" Do try and keep awake while typing, because that sentence was on a whole new level of drunken incoherency. I don't get comment notifications, so I won't see your reply, but feel free to try and defend yourself below for others to see you prove yourself wrong.

[@aaaaaa2350]

@jeep23862 Rand speaks of altruism as an ethical system, so you should be looking for the definition of precisely that. Let me even quote Wikipedia to make this simpler: Altruism (also called the ethic of altruism, moralistic altruism, and ethical altruism) is an ethical doctrine that holds that the moral value of an individual's actions depend solely on the impact on other individuals, regardless of the consequences on the individual itself. James Fieser states the altruist dictum as: "An action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone except the agent."[1] Auguste Comte's version of altruism calls for living for the sake of others. One who holds to either of these ethics is known as an "altruist."

[@aaaaaa2350]

@jeep23862 Basically, when you're helping someone because you want to, it's in your own selfish interest, one way or another. Not because you want to get something out of it in the perverted common sense of the word. If you pay for your sick wife's treatment or send your children through college or help your friend it is not a sacrifice. It's natural to care about different causes and other people. But you should understand that doing something for causes that matter to you is essentially selfish. There's nothing wrong with giving to others when you want to give to them, but it is immoral to place upon people the obligation to blindly give to all those who are in need. So altruism as Rand means it is giving up on your own desires to fulfill what the public says is good, to blindly give to others because that is the highest virtue. You can't force a man to live for the sake of others and give up his own life, that's what's truly evil. What you described can't be altruistic, because such action is either selfish (and this is not in any way a negative description) or forced.

[@tigerwolf8338]

Now I finally understand the joke in GTA 5 with the "Altruist" Camp

[@mdarrenu]

Her explanation of kids doing drugs is quite amazing. Maybe that is why I never did. I am a natural-born objectivist. I do give, but I know it helps me when I do.

[@AristotleFreeman]

Thx for the upload!

[@caligulapontifex5759]

The ultimate form of altruism is martyrdom. The perverse belief that sacrificing one’s life for some myth has resulted in countless human suffering.

[@jhaduvala]

It's called the military.

[@AnKebiseManda]

You sound like a middle schooler tbh.

[@TheOrdener]

Great great talk. Thank you for making this available.

[@Alacard0malley]

I can't wait to listen to this again

[@looper2586]

this needs more views!!

[@Jazzper79]

Brilliant

[@TheTektronik]

There'a lot to learn from Ayn Rand I have to take it few steps at a time.

[@TheTektronik]

@jeep23862 what are you doing here then if she has nothing to teach?

[@silvanabaralha8665]

@jeep23862 Not an argument! You, leftist, INSIST on coming to Rand videos to insult people! GET OUT!

[@silvanabaralha8665]

@jeep23862 Go back to the irrational hole you came from! STOP bothering other people!

[@silvanabaralha8665]

@jeep23862 That was not an irrational comment. I just happen to be TIRED of you being a silly leftist! Go away! Shoo!

[@silvanabaralha8665]

@jeep23862 Of course you are a leftist! A colectivist! That is WHY you make the kind of remarks you make! No matter how reasonable a person can be, no matter how solid the argument, you will ALWAYS come up with something idiotic to RESIST facts! Go away!

[@prometheansujith5017]

Getting new insights...

[@homosapienze]

Well, there is an eye opener and no mistake

[@ddstar]

24:36 thank you

[@barthofste9039]

I think a much more interesting contrast is found between ethical egoism and utilitarianism - interestingly, the latter can degenerate in Peter Singer-style 'altruism' as well.

[@georgegordner7795]

Is Ayn Rand my mother? My mother loved her so much.

[@truthseeker3397]

You had a great mother

[@truthseeker3397]

@jeep23862 why is that?

[@truthseeker3397]

@jeep23862 lol

[@truthseeker3397]

@jeep23862 aw didn't mean to trigger you. *Hug*

[@truthseeker3397]

@jeep23862 love it

[@chaveraoh]

It is NOT true that NO other alternative to altruism has been available. There is: Love your neighbour AS yourself. Not MORE THAN but AS. This means you will not act toward your neighbour as worth more or less than you. If you have your bread, you eat it without any altruistic tension even when you encounyer a drunk begging for some small change or a piece of bread. You do not NEED to share what is yours if this person has NOT worked AS YOU would (were you in his shoes) to provide the daily bread for yourself and your family. Who does not work (when one can) does not eat. Easy. Moreover, I begin to think that Ms Rand puts the industrial-money-making-mind on the pedestal with INsufficient attention paid to what it morally/ethically stands for. Ford that promoted Hitler and eugenics seems a dubious quality example of an entrepreneur worth calling up as a successful (=money making) mind that is concerned with his own/human progress or self-realisation. If the mind is analysed in detachment from its social, moral, political inclinations, then a psychopath successful in business and charitable out of his own volition would find Ms Rand's aproval, wouldn't he? In "Atlas Shrugged" the minds of the heroic entrepreneurs are mainly great, free thinking, intellectually strong, but strangely weak/naive in their psychological or social understanding of reality and related actions. They DID NOT HAVE TO financially support their PARASITIC families. Yet they did. They were UNABLE to OPENLY teach them the lesson they so WILLINGLY offered to the whole world: The Great Reset 🤔. They DID NOT bother themselves too much with those who DID want to progress, but had been subject to the brainwashing-education provided by the system and books and unlike the grand minds had NO means to OPPOSE the system. Many of them died used and abused because they, like the tramp on the train, were made to jump off the train to get killed just because they were less able than the great minds to create a hiding place in which they could wait for the great reset to take off. They only had their own little ways of mantaining their own integrity at work and in life. In Ms Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" world they seem not to matter at all. Moreover, the great mind of John Galt did not have an issue with giving away his love, Dagny, into the hands of his companion for sexual relations, and she found no issue with being treated instrumentally when she found this out. I am shocked. The only thinking woman in the whole novel... awhoring and with little self respect. I do wonder why Ms Rand treats these skewed social relations with such an indulgence. I do wonder what her definition of a great mind really is. In "Atlas Shrugged" she actually despises the farmer, the low skilled worker and claims that these great entrepreneurial minds such as Galt could just as well do these menial jobs. This, however, is detached from reality. Just because there ARE those people that DO this LOW SKILLED work, the great mind can devote MORE time to his own progress. Moreover, good workers in some professions share their knowledge and skills from generation to generation. It is NOT SO easy as Ms Rand thinks to be a successful farmer, shoemaker, plumber, or carpenter. They are also often great minds tho their work pays less.

[@go4damo]

Wow...very interesting!

[@thebluedan]

I wonder if she ever read the book of Job. … it is true, there is and order, love god and then yourself… but these two are so inter connected as to be one love… then when this love is in balance one can love your neighbor… Because this preeminent love exists… but no one talks about the how to love. Sometime the best way to love is no action at all. This person needs may be met in you not giving them what they think they need in the moment or even what you think you observe they need. Test the spirits and discernment is a task. It seem altruism assumes it knows what is best and the results it wants. But the lord give and the lord takes away… and it’s all good. We don’t sit in a position to judge. In the moment it might be best guess…how to love. If to sacrifice or serve. And motive is everything, all should be in service not to the other…or even the self, but to God. All Feelings aside. It’s about the union of wills, not about being good which from are perspective is often unknown. “Good” I don’t think can be objective. Only god is good. And if we are able to agree to his will then ultimate good will know doubt come. Even when it doesn’t look like it. God allowed bad thing to happen to Job but it was good.

[@PraniGopu]

Ayn Rand praised Ford to the extent of the virtues he displayed in his work. Obviously, if you know anything about Ayn Rand or her works, you'd know that she'd condemn people who hold immoral views regardless of their virtues in other areas. Responding to some other points, Rearden was the only one supporting a parasitic family, and his character arc led to him learning not to do that. As for Dagny and John Galt, no one "gave away" anyone for "sexual relations", what are you even on about? As for the people who suffered under the system, consider the fact that the government kept undermining the rights of the heroic entrepreneurs to the point that they were barely able to function. The system was using their productivity to fuel its own corruption, so leaving the system was a way to save themselves and prevent the system from growing in power. Having a great mind does not mean you get the ability to fight against a whole state backed by the monopoly over the use of force. They could only choose not to boost the system any further with their work and their silent sanction (which they would have given the system by continuing to work under it). You blame them for not preventing the suffering caused by the people running the system, even though they were taking the most effective approach they could to defeat the system. Responding to your last point, she never shows that she despised low-skilled workers, farmers and other such vocations. In the Fountainhead, for example, one of the positively-portrayed characters is an electrician. In Atlas Shrugged, she writes about many low-skilled or average workers (e.g. the cigarette-seller in the train station, Cheryl, the tramp, Rearden's secretary, Eddie Willers) with respect, warmth and even compassion where appropriate, especially when showing how the conscientious, hard-working average person becomes the most tragic victim of an immoral social, political and economic system. It's not that they don't matter to her, rather, she is showing that if they matter to us, we should fight for the right kind of society that allows them to survive and thrive. Incidentally, the only farmers she despises are the soy-bean cultivators who used government handouts to get a leg-up. She says nothing negative about farmers as such. Also, nowhere did Ayn Rand say or even indicate how easy it was to do menial or vocational jobs successfully. Yes, the entrepreneurs who escaped into Galt's Gulch did take up such jobs to support themselves, but was it anywhere mentioned how easy it was? I mean, you can learn new skills and do them well if you have to, doesn't mean they are easy or that people who do them for a living are not to be appreciated. Don't put your words in her mouth. I'm sorry to say that your comprehension of her story is poor.

[@PraniGopu]

​@@thebluedan It's very disturbing to me that people regard the story of Job as a show of virtue. If anything, it demeans the human spirit by saying that we humans must submit ourselves to a capricious, sadistic god because we are nothing compared to him.

[@nhutranquynh]

Would anyone help me with the names of the discussion panel, and the moderator as well? I got that one person is Mr. Gotthelf who is a well-known advocate of Ayn Rand, but I cannot hear the names of the other three clearly. Thank you if you know them and share with me.

[@gergster6899]

Rand was one of three brilliant women who were writing on freedom in opposition to the predominance of collectivist thought in the 30s and 40s and which continues to destroy society today. I forgot the names of the others but one was the daughter of the woman who wrote the Little House on the Prairie books.

[@Orson2u]

@jeep23862 - and thus independence of mind and thought must be punished! QED.

[@maryahhaidery7986]

Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson. She talked extensively with both of them and stole most of their ideas without ever them credit as was her habit. The idea she left behind was Lane’s idea that America was built on rugged individualism but also community and civic responsibility. So if your neighbor’s house is burning down, it would behoove you to help them put it out. Rand thought this idea was ridiculous.

[@OldsmobileCutlassSupremeConver]

Kind of like "The Giving Pledge"

[@terrythompson7535]

Side note: Many people who were capable, independent, and self reliant and did not need any form of altruism are compelled to need it through having been conquered by centralization in business. The winners simply destroy the livelihood of their competitors and then choose not to hire the vanquished workers. So a few people have billions of dollars while so many people who used to employ themselves, are no longer able to earn a living.

[@terrythompson7535]

@jeep23862 No it isn't. It's communist centralization by using the state to destroy small business competitors, and using plank number 5 of communism: central banks, to prop up big business while leaving small business to die. Anti-trust laws are antithesis to communism because centralization is much more difficult without them.

[@terrythompson7535]

@jeep23862 First off, the use of the term "conspiracy theory" is completely impotent. It's lazy, and cheesy sophistry for you to use that term. The entire world is a giant conspiracy of caste systems.. rulers against their subjects, domination, subjugation, and warfare. It's completely STUPID for you to suggest otherwise. Entire organizations, especially espionage agencies exist for this very reason. It is literally their job description to conspire against others. So GTFO here with that lame, impotent, limp dick tactic. It DOES NOT WORK. Conspiracy is planning to WIN the competition.. competition for mates, resources, status, wealth and power.. and it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to argue that such competition is not taking place while evidence of it is so ubiquitous that it is suffocating. Secondly, yes anti-trust laws exist but they are not being enforced. Laws have no power without enforcement. Furthermore, laws can be broken behind the veil of secrecy and "national security", and they are on a regular basis, which is precisely why agencies require secrecy.. and we're back to espionage again. Yes, the airlines should fail, and then someone else, who has money, and was responsible and made intelligent decisions, could purchase the bankrupted companies assets, and CONTINUE WITH THE SERVICE. Big business use regulations as a weapon because if they use the tactics you have suggested, they may actually receive violence as a result, so instead they use state sponsored violence to secure protection, in the same way the mafia operates. Your argument is either foolish, naive, or intentionally deceptive.. because there is no possible way for you to defend the use of regulation in such a way. The rule of law only has legitimacy when it actually IS used to protect people, WITH THEIR CONSENT. It has no legitimacy at all when it is used for the financial conquest of those who are subject to it, by the authors who bribe legislators to put it in place. Even police are waking up to the fact that they are being used as foot soldiers for conquest and they are starting to say "NO!".

[@terrythompson7535]

@jeep23862unfortunately for you, gas lighting doesn't work either, and on Earth, right now, conflict is happening everywhere. You haven't refuted any of my arguments. You are opposite to reality.. a reality that is completely self evident. Caste systems and slavery still exist.

[@terrythompson7535]

@jeep23862 Just saying someone is wrong, isn't an argument. You have to state why.. but even then.. you can't refute that humans are in a perpetual state of conflict. Trying to do so is ridiculous because it's quite evident to everyone paying attention. Also, I am not wrong. IT IS TRUE. That means it has nothing to do with me or my opinion. Conflict and competition existed before me and will continue long after I am gone for the same reason it has all this time; Struggle for dominance. You just make yourself look stupid by trying to refute a fact which is so obviously true. The public is going to just laugh at you.

[@terrythompson7535]

@jeep23862 You are the laughing stock of existence right now because of your inability to think for yourself, and your willingness and naivete to believe everything furnished to you by the media monopoly, and soon, when fiat currency is all hyperinflated, you yourself are going to have to figure out how to get food, and have conflict with other human beings..

[@maxmusti8101]

People are motivated differently, one has a strong connection motive and the other has a strong performance motive. The first motive will be satisfied by social signals and the second by being better than others and improvements of own skills. In other words, everyone is looking for other emotional gains. If people's motivation becomes frustrated, if they don't get the desired emotions from their activities, they become unhappy. Why should people all adopt a single philosophy if they are different ? One can get happier by sacrificing himself to others, direct or indirect, than when he does something for himself. We should suggest such philosophy as something that can be embraced but not as something that is true. Now, people believe that this kind of philosophy boosts the economy but the contrary is true if one lives in an american/european economy. You can calculate it. I like many of her ideas anyways.

[@diegoalameda99]

1)Could you explain more specifically what connection motive is? Despite that, 2)people should adopt a single morality ("rules" which will guide you through your decisions/judgements, in a right way, so you can abstractly think (as humankind does) without missconcluding everything and getting neurotic)[not philosphy, and here I remember philosophy is settled on logical reasoning] because WE'RE ALL EQUAL, all dependent of the Reality where we live, in first place (Yes, over "emotianal gains"). See it kind of risky (to your own life) 3)to depend of something such as variable and uncontrolable as others whims ("social signals")...it sounds to me like you're making yourself a slave of other's opinion. 4)The one who has a strong performance motive will be satisfied himself by the results of his own work, not by ohter's reaction about it. In fact, the ones who value it as he does, will be his friends, mates, lovers...and they'll just be it genuinely because HOW it's done as a recognition of it (again reallity settled as and objective starting point). Here social signals are just a consecuence of each individual judment, compliments to your effort which you can estimate or ignore, BUT NOT ITS REULT 5) To conclude, if philosophy can be embraced but not as something that is true, then the conclusions of any thought would be philosophy, the pleasure of discovering a truth by reasoning /dialoging with other's mind would dissapear and philosophy would not exist anymore (this is just my opinion) . Glad to read your coments ;)

[@ElParacletoPodcast]

Do unto other as you would want others to do onto you.

[@CuriousCattery]

What if you're a masochist?

[@ElParacletoPodcast]

@@CuriousCattery they are idiots

[@mikeb5372]

What is the point of your comment?

[@AnKebiseManda]

This is not an objectively solution producing mindset in my experience. That quote is filed under "Things that sound good but don't add all the way up." over here. Humans are humans, shocker. ⚖️

[@ghirardellichocolate201]

So you want to make sure that youth has met the basic psychology, which is I am so excited to???? Looking forward to???

[@marcpadilla1094]

Its counterintuitive. Knowing that success inflicts loss and minimizing that cost to maintain morale and productivity is a waste of valuable energy and resources. In any engine however there is what you call slaving .A point in the cycle when a piston is just along for the ride.In this regard labor and the power driving the engine must accept as part of the cycle or system. Still, however, it is not part of the energy cycle. Then there's the taxpayer and their revenues with which to shift the burden and create an entirely new stream of wealth and prosperity under the same Capitalist principles. Nothing is wasted Rand. Misery is negligible.

[@MT-2020]

WOW

[@JaeWhite140]

Ayn Rand 🗽

[@jvadoptante]

This desperately needs an improvised title for the sake of reaching more individuals.

[@davidhunt7427]

I believe you can choose what charities are worthy of support by your own moral standards. If one person would aid an unwed mother by offering her a subsidized abortion, while another would offer to adopt her child, who has the right to insist that only one or the other is acceptable - that support for the one standard of compassion will be compelled upon everyone, while the other is criminalized. You, and you alone, know how much you can afford to share with others after seeing to your own needs, and the needs of your family. Further, you, and you alone, know best how you can help. Do you really believe that love can be scaled up in size by coercive charities? Is the value of charity in the wealth that is given, or in the thought with which the wealth is given? Are you only concerned with the food in a man’s belly without a second thought about his soul? Can you only offer the poor the affection and esteem one would give farm animals? Does coercive love beget genuine compassion, or its antithesis, apathy and guilt? Is not government charity to voluntary charity as rape is to consensual sex? Do you really believe that institutionalizing government in the role of Robin Hood is a good idea? Robin Hood was a thief! But, at least, he was a thief because he had to be. There was no private property in King Richard’s England because ALL property was owned in the King’s name alone! And remember, Robin Hood’s enemy was the Sheriff of Nottingham,… THE GOVERNMENT! You and I would have been called serfs back then. Why, in the name of love, would anyone want to bring that life back? Do you regard others as only fit to live as serfs? Is that all you want out of life for yourself and your family? Is the only measure of charity you care to be tested upon to be your willingness to vote yourself (and everyone else) higher taxes? What are you saying you believe about yourself? How long must it be before humanity understands that it is more humane to create new wealth than to merely distribute wealth to those in need? It may be unfortunate, but governments will likely never be able to universalize love as readily as they can universalize equal process under law. When your main unique characteristic is having a socially sanctioned monopoly on the use of initiatory violence,… it is simply more difficult, not less, to universalize love. Voluntary means are not certain to succeed, but only by voluntary means can there ever be any possibility of universalizing love.

[@truthseeker3397]

Does anyone know where I can get moe info on her concept of the men who produce but have an altruist spirit? Elaborating on how hes even more dangerous than the freeloading parasite?

[@d68st90]

@jeep23862 altruism noun al·​tru·​ism | \ ˈal-trü-ˌi-zəm \ Definition of altruism 1: unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others //charitable acts motivated purely by altruism 2: behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species 3: A term first employed by the French philosopher Comte to denote the benevolent instincts and emotions in general, or action prompted by them: the opposite of egoism. I wonder how the dictionary definition of this world is different from Rand's one. Or in your altruistic mind it is something totally different?

[@d68st90]

@jeep23862 no problem at all. I make donations for carity and it is not being altruistic act... I do that and of course voluntarily. Just look the dictionary, you put the life of the others above you, it doesn't matter if it's your own choice or not. Do you think it is right??? Poor you... And no I don't follow her, she's wrong on many things, but if you become full altruism in the end you're a dangerous person, eventually you'll force your "good way of thinking" above others, ending up in coercion

[@kylemenos]

@@d68st90 She never talks of giving to others as a bad thing. The act in and of itself is not evil it is the desire for which the act has taken place for a reward that is evil. She is teaching the reason you give to charity is a selfish act and this is not a bad thing when you can recognise that it is in your best interest to do that based on your morals. I will give another example of this I heard recently. A women was working for 8 hours and her husband was working for 10 hours a day but had to travel home and would be 2 hours later. She had 6 hours free time and he had 2. She said she hated him for coming home and not complimenting on how she cooked dinner for him and cleaned up. It was a sign of the patriarchy and society that was at fault. Later she found a new job and he swapped roles with her in the house. He left his job and did the housework for them both. She came home and realised she forgot to tell him he was doing good work at home. This is the problem of the Altruist mentality. You expect others to give you reward for a task that you do for yourself but it cannot and will not happen. You should take pride in doing what you want to do for yourself and do other tasks for others if you desire to do that. Then you can be happy without the reward of the other person because you believe in yourself.

[@AhmedAhmed-xs1fk]

I think altruism is tied to a certain circumstance.

[@ghirardellichocolate201]

Whether resposibilities first does not guarantee you a life in academia, which also Now says we are immoral, cause we have not met that minimum requirement... We question what you spend your money in? Churches?

[@Tobyyy369]

Altruism means doing the right thing even though you're not emotionally affected.

[@CuriousCattery]

Can you explain what the "right" thing is?

[@mikeb5372]

No it's not. That's not it's definition whatsoever

[@yasserostyn8296]

28:05

[@venture3800]

ive come around an certain parts of Ayn's philosophies... she was a very strange person, not someone whose actions and cynical attitude I agree with entirely, since Ive met others who were truly benevolent and maybe bought into some of these beliefs she denounces. and some of her followers are nutjobs for sure. but intelligent and wise for sure

[@mystars4573]

@jeep23862 Aristotle was some "obscure branch of philosophy?" Never mind...you are one of those to whom your own statement: being educated is not guarantor of intelligence much less wisdom--would apply to wholeheartedly. You don't have a clue as to what she is saying.

[@ghirardellichocolate201]

Anyways, looks like there was a cut.

[@sandyshoals7565]

Did Ms. Rand describe Kill Gates & his ilk at the end? 💯!

[@danielkohen1777]

A man can not do any intellectual thinking in ANY realm If his basic standard is what do others want of me and what way can i serve them The issue of need is an issue of unwillingness

[@drakeequation521]

So what is her stance on the function of militaries? I take it she is against them?

[@PiedFifer]

The sole function of the military is to defend rights and property against enemies abroad. Police, courts, and military, i.e., the objective use of retaliatory force is a moral government’s only function. Do not ever take anyone else’s word for what Miss Read said. Do your own reading. As you see her explanations are crystal clear.

[@drakeequation521]

@@PiedFifer Too bad her philosophy, once put into practice, fails even on the very small sampling. www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling

[@mikeb5372]

@@drakeequation521 Not sure why you posted that link. Rand is not a libertarian, she denounced them

[@drakeequation521]

@@mikeb5372 She separated herself from them but not by much, describing herself as a radical capitalist. Rand described Objectivism as "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute". Sounds good on paper. Until philosophy steps into the lab and shows something, then it is an interesting babble. Niels Bohr pointed that out long ago that philosophers are like an artist who engages a painting with her brush as a participant. But she must back up and let her observing ego see the painting from a distance, giving her the role of an audience. They can't get things done because no matter how many times one goes from participant to audience and back to participant again, there is always room for more improvement. Neurosis sets in. What is missing is a similar exchange of roles with another artist, invited to critique the painting. Listening can't exist without giving up the ego, allowing the change from student to teacher and back to student again. It takes socializing skills to do that and too many philosophers don't have the socializing skills to release the ego. She salutes heroism and productive achievement and the individual too much in reaction to the dictatorship she despised. Without that dictatorship in place, a woman like her would have been forbidden entrance into schooling. And like many who run from such dictatorships, they can't avoid carrying a lot of it with them. Philosophers do play a role, but better as one of a search engine rather than that of a web page. They all have something to contribute, but none hold all the answers or are standing on any mountaintop. Her love for Dostoyevsky's writings I share.

[@mikeb5372]

@@drakeequation521 I find it strange that you felt compelled to make an explanation of Ayn Rand to someone who has studied all of her books and many of her writings and yet you asked a question as to where she stood on the military. If you haven't read her books then I'm pretty sure you have no informed opinion. Just a floating, detached opinion

[@sriharshakodati]

This stuff is so cool. What part of Ayn Rand's philosophy restricts one from behaving immorally?

[@greg_austin]

Q: To whom does morality answer? A: Self. Juries determine guilt (self-accusation), not shame (accusation from others). Each individual operates with others given a code of ethics (morality) that is self-maintained. When we act against that self-imposed code, we are guilty, and others--in the form of a jury--ascertain that guilt, the guilt that the individual carries as the indicator of his own act of immorality, immorality that is against one's own code of moral ethics. To thine self be true.

[@edwardhernandez8289]

@@greg_austin what if you are shameless and feel no guilt? Are you then exonerated from your actions? Be true to yourself soon becomes, Do what thou wilt.

[@greg_austin]

@@edwardhernandez8289 Nope. Juries determine guilt, not shame. To thine own self be true. Not, "I'm askeered no one will like me, so I'll join the lynch mob too."

[@edwardhernandez8289]

@@greg_austin that makes no sense. Why do you need a jury to ascertain anything. Are they checking on how guilty you feel? Besides the only way your system might work is if everyone had the exact same moral code on which to judge by. Which would negate, to thineself be true . The point I'm making is what happens when someone commits a crime that he feels no guilt about? Something he feels doesn't violate his own morality but which violates the morality of the jury, hence the crime.

[@greg_austin]

@@edwardhernandez8289 I am not the topic.

[@Sean97082]

Its so funny to me how folks reject what she says, but hate the world that they exist in now. Look at your world its nothing to brag about. Keep on sacificing everything.

[@ghirardellichocolate201]

So above an average citizen flaws, presidents do not touch already accomplished people. Their job is to make sure these people get a job, before the rest follow their path. So equal rights are the rights to have a goal. Africans say sure have a goal to become a rapper, Ukrainian a cook, intellectual says these are not goals, they are empty words. So u see the job of the President is not to ensure everyone gets what they want. It is to protect your rights whether you are a school teacher or a rapper.

[@dalelerette206]

Anyone who rejects altruism is most certainly deluded. Altruism is taught by God and manifests as self-sacrifice -- helping others less advantaged IS the ideal of morality. As a corollary, Ayn Rand believed in 'capitalism versus communism', as if the STRUGGLE was more powerful than authentic altruism. Ayn Rand believed that government should play as little of a role in people's lives as possible, in order to grant them more individual freedoms and rights (and I agree with her here). BUT the ANSWER to this was found in the distributism model of G.K. Chesterton If we read the parable of the sower in Matthew 13 we read that Jesus said a farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up - Anarchy. Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root - State Ownership. Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants - Corporate Ownership. Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop-a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown - Family Ownership. Whoever has ears, let them hear. Anarchism advocates ‘no ownership’ of property and the means of production. Socialism advocates 'state ownership' of property and the means of production. Capitalism advocates 'corporate ownership' of property and the means of production. Distributism advocates 'family ownership' of property and the means of production. “The family that prays together stays together.” - Father Peyton - The Rosary Priest All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. -- Acts 4:32-35

[@johnnynick3621]

Dale's silly comment begins by calling "deluded" the people who do NOT believe in a magic man in the sky. He then demonstrates his hypocrisy by NOT giving away the computer he typed this comment on to someone who doesn't own a computer. Dale is EXACTLY the irrational; deluded hypocrite Rand was discussing... and he knows it.... that is why she scares him.

[@user-fi5kc7fr2k]

Waht about israely jew american....?

[@bretnetherton9273]

The very foundation of Objectivism is nothing more than the shifting sands of a meaningless tautology; Existence exists.

[@johnnynick3621]

How is that meaningless, Bret? Existence does exist, Bret. We are NOT living in an imaginary world embedded in YOUR mind.

[@DeadEndFrog]

Spooky As for her 'egoism' a step in the right direction is still wrong by not going far enough. As for her worldview; there are plenty of consiquences one selfish action has on others, to assume something else is to dismiss reality. But its only the unegoistic who feel the need to mask their egoism as moral, or ignore basic cause and effect to make their entire worldview fit. This is why so many people feel the need to dismiss science which doesn't fit their ideological dogma, because they can't accept a world where their selfish actions actually do have an effect on others. While the true egoist does it regardless of morality, Ayan rand feels the need to desguise it as morality. There is much more to be said about egoism, but it goes far beyond mere morality, logic and ideology. Its pragmatic, like reality.

[@PraniGopu]

"Egoism" only points out that the recepient of a value should be the value-seeker himself. It leaves open the issues of what values are, how we come to know them and by what principles we should pursue them, which are issues that Objectivist epistemology and ethics deal with.

[@DeadEndFrog]

@@PraniGopu values are by their Very nature intrinsically linked to the valueseeker themselves, If you anwser the first question on who should be the recipient of these values, you already did the work, because the principles that guide you will be the ones that furfill your egoistic desires, they will have the values you value, and they will be what you already feel they are. There will be No need to do the extra philosophical justification when you are an aware egoist, its only those who think more of these values, that they somehow have intrinsic Worth beyond you who feel the need to put all these extra considerations on to them. A philosopher feels the need to justify himself to others, have "consistant" ways to argue for His principles, and why one should adopt them ect. While an aware egoist will only do it to make others follow his own desires (get you to adopt my views, do what i want) "i feel like it" is as much a justification as any. But its the philosopher who needs to embelish it with morality, god and the law But that doesnt mean that one cant use these philosophies to justify ones reasoning, and make it more clear, its just that philosophy is a tool for ones desires, and not a slave to follow

[@PraniGopu]

@@DeadEndFrog “I feel like” is not a justification at all. Emotion is neither a means of cognition nor an irreducible primary. In fact, it draws from the worldview and values you have internalised, which is why “I feel like” evades the reality of your choices. I mean, people knowingly have and follow desires that lead them down a path to objective self-destruction, which means what you feel like does not necessarily tell you what is in fact in your self-interest (i.e. what would lead to objective success and flourishing in your own life). The validity of your desires depends on the validity of your internalised worldview and values.

[@DeadEndFrog]

@@PraniGopu Well an aristotelian would say that, but there is nothing one can say to someone who reverses the logic. "Your feelings come first, and you essentialy pick reasons and logic to justify them counteractivly", and if one really cared about forcing this type of logic onto another one would show the philosophical litterature on the matter, then the scientific studies conducted to show that people are indeed 'feelings first' then comes the supposed 'justification' Little do they know that they can simply skip that step. As for people being self destructive, thats only when you presuppose an aristotelian view of the world where you discount Humes is/ought gap and evolution to determin some supposed 'objective' values. If someone really cared about such a discussion one would point to the fact that what seems self destructive to some values is not so in accordance to others. I for one see someone giving their life for pleasure and drugs as atleast following their desires despite their destruction, just as as someone who follows a god, or a nation or a principle to his own detrement is equally destructive to themselves. No matter the "principles" supposed "objectivty" by some old philosopher "greater goods" are simply a matter of which master you serve. Not 'objective' at all

[@PraniGopu]

@@DeadEndFrog Yes, many people choose to take their feelings as a given and try to rationalise them rather than base their views on reason; in other words, yes, many people choose to be irrational. But feelings are an effect of one’s premises, an important effect but an effect nonetheless. We may form new premises by trying to rationalise our feelings, but the fact remains that there had to be some premises that caused the feelings to begin with. Very often, these premises are implicit, i.e. unstated and taken for granted, formed perhaps in our infancy or unconsciously later in life. Yet, with the ability to focus our awareness on the evidence (both internal and external), we can grasp them, validate them or invalidate them. If you doubt it, consider the fact that when people change their core beliefs about something - not because they felt like it but because they could not or chose not to evade reality - their feelings toward it also change; think of a racist learning to let go of his prejudice, or a religious man overcoming his dogma, etc. Feelings (i.e. emotions, I’m not talking about physical sensations here) do not “come first” - logically - before some sort of knowledge and/or beliefs. Hence, reason can and should come before feelings if we want to deal with reality. You can only say that the ideas of “self-destruction” and “value” are subjective if you think the nature of the self is subjective, and of course, I reject these claims. It is not relevant what people think or what alleged “values” they hold, the reality of the self is what it is. To concretise my point using your example, a junkie wasting away in his addiction is as unselfish as the fanatic serving “the greater good” out of some social or mystical duty; they are both unselfish precisely because they both ignore the reality of what their self is and what sustains it or makes it flourish (based on its nature, as identified objectively). In essence, following one’s feelings as a primary is as unselfish as following any “duties” as a primary, because both evade the facts that give rise to and sustain the self. Feel free to follow your feelings as a primary if you so choose, but the fact is that reality - including the reality of your existence along with what makes it possible and worth sustaining - is objective, knowable and the only basis for true selfishness. Yes, you can choose to degrade or even destroy your existence under any alleged “values”, or alternatively, you can choose to ignore objectivity and decide on a whim what is or isn’t a value, but then you have no grounds to call yourself selfish or egoistic because it is precisely your **self** that you are violating.

[@thedarkstormed]

Can anyone point me to where she gets her definition of Altruism? Every definition I find says nothing about putting others in front of yourself this dramatically. Every definition I find shows that an Altruist may sometimes put others before themselves sometimes at risk of themselves. Nothing about it being this extreme. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan. I just can't find any literature to back up her definition of Altruism. How do we go from caring about the well-being of others to caring about others so bad, that every single bite of food I take is something I'm guilty about because it could've gone to someone else? Not hating, I need to know.

[@saumitrsharma2816]

Altruism was Coined by Auguste Comte. If you will further search about it, you will find it

[@MrSimonrolls]

Ayn Rand rarely adopts other people's definition for anything (she does accept Aristotle's definition, sometimes); in this case, she is calling it as she sees it. This is why she is an original thinker. You don't have to agree, but you are poorer if you haven't considered what she says.

[@KaizorianEmpire]

She is looking at the logical end of the statement. If you are consistent in that world view what absractions will ensue from it. She isn't wrong for example, today Transgenderism is a form of gender dysphoria however due to the notion of making everybody confortable we the public are being forced to change our outlook and accept that not only is it not a mental illness but we should not point it out lest we are bad people. The rational perspective is to help people suffering from this condition not normalizing the irrationality for example.

[@zackmyers3850]

She isnt giving a defintion. She is explaining the psychological purpose individuals do acts of Altruism. The definition only explains it as an act not the morality or philosophy behind it.

[@TheIndividualRights]

Altruism teaches that you must give until you have nothing left to give

[@darkroom3116]

"Altruism demands that you regard everybody as a value except yourself" Complete horse shit. We have NEVER been told we must spend our last penny on someone else, but some will claim this is so simply to justify their own greed.

[@waldemar9999]

Ayn Rand is wrong - mans essence is solidarity.

[@ingevankeirsbilck9601]

Do you mean altruism as defined at the beginning of the interview?

[@mikeb5372]

No, she's exactly right. She doesn't reference solidarity here at all, which is a different term with a different meaning altogether

[@mikeb5372]

The problem with you is that you have no faculty for cause and effect. She's exactly correct that altruism has been the prevailing morality throughout the world and the atrocious history of the world is a glaring example supporting her explanation. Try studying nazi Germany and you'll eventually discover it is the result of a doctrine built on the foundation of altruism

[@jmswlkrsn1]

I'm wary of Atheists that dare to speak of the spiritual. They want it both ways. It's convenient to present spiritual pros and cons to further their argument, only in the sense they use such vernacular as a shortcut for unexplained concepts that go beyond "mind" and body. In the end I don't believe mankind has ever needed any help in being selfish. Mankind has always needed help against the powerful collectives. We as a people will never escape the hierarchy. It will never be fair. The best we can do is try hard to maintain a system that will value the individual for its own spiritual sake, being careful to distinguish between the value of a soul and that individual's perceived contributing value to the collective economically. I believe it is 100 times easier for Atheists to throw people away like trash or burden them like animals. By the same token those who are Ultra-Altruistic are easy prey to the powerful despot that promises them a fair and just utopia, be it Hitler or Marx.

[@greg_austin]

I have learned that those who claim they do not believe in the existence of God, usually have no problems believing in the existence of Government. These supposed atheists balk at supporting the church through willing tithing, yet fully cooperate with the force of will that is taxation. I guess some people are only motivated by fear, and not by faith.

[@sriharshakodati]

So where should a rational man derive his self esteem from?

[@apriledleblute6261]

sri harsha his own happiness.....

[@MaxineShaw_84]

Himself?

[@DanNorton1]

In significant/large part, through productive work.

[@aussiejones214]

Mathsdebation

[@ambrosejoseph4843]

from within.

[@aussiejones214]

Upspeak commentator is horrible

[@edwardhernandez8289]

I think she may have conflated altruism with forbearance

[@Orson2u]

Or did Rand chide those who confuse courage with giving? Yes. She did.

[@AnKebiseManda]

Brains are not Euclidean.