What Does It Mean to Be Selfish? - Ayn Rand’s Vision of Rational Egoism by Tara Smith

“Give back,” “Serve something higher than yourself,” “Put others first” - this is the wisdom of the ages. Raised on these platitudes from religious and secular quarters alike, most people assume that to be moral simply is to be selfless. Ayn Rand rejects this assumption. She champions the virtue of selfishness. But what does that mean? This lecture highlights some of the key elements of rational egoism to illuminate what it is and is not. By refuting common misconceptions as well as indicating what genuine self-interest demands, it paves the way for the healthy exercise of selfishness and the happiness that it makes possible.
Handout link: hubs.la/Q01KqQZj0
Recorded live at Ayn Rand Con Europe 2023
Subscribe to ARI’s KZbin channel to make sure you never miss a video:
www.youtube.co...
Download or stream free courses on Ayn Rand’s works and ideas with the Ayn Rand University app:
- App Store itunes.apple.c...
- Google Play play.google.co...
ARI is funded by donor contributions. You can support our work by becoming an ARI Member or making a one-time contribution: ari.aynrand.or...
******
Keep in Touch! Sign up to receive email updates from ARI: aynrand.org/si...
Follow ARI on Twitter: / aynrandinst
Follow ARI on Facebook: / aynrandinstitute
Follow ARI on Instagram: / aynrandorg
Subscribe to the ARI Live! podcast: podcasts.apple...
******
Explore these ideas further! ARI's online publication, New Ideal, explores pressing cultural issues from the perspective of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism: newideal.aynra...
Join an upcoming virtual or in-person event: ari.aynrand.or...
Visit ARI’s website for more about our content and programs: ari.aynrand.org/

[@2Oldcoots]

Love this woman's ability to communicate clearly to anyone willingness to listen and internalize.

[@2Oldcoots]

Having practiced what is preached here (rational egoism) for a lifetime I can bear witness to the truth and wisdom of this Philosophy. Out.

[@Shozb0t]

Tara Smith is always giving handouts. It’s like being in school again, in a good way.

[@kphaxx]

She's giving handouts that are earned by virtue of understanding them 😁

[@science212]

Tara is a good scholar.

[@YashikaDabur]

Tysm, I'll ponder over it.

[@thememaster7]

Much of Objectivism underestimates the importance of sound quality. It's a fallacy to say "The argument is more important therefore it shouldn't be prioritized that much." The best businesses prioritize everything highly so that everyhing is as good as it can be.

[@wildcat189]

How in the year 2023 can a lecture have worse sound than in 1990?

[@Pioneer_DE]

When the *libertarian* foundation doesn't spend proper money on a good camera/microphone to safe money, that's how.

[@maurices5954]

@@Pioneer_DE Ouch! The economical calculation problem strikes again!

[@mwesigeJoramfreedom]

Great thanks

[@kphaxx]

EGOISM

[@periteu]

HONESTY

[@Ferdinand208]

What is with the terrible audio? It is clear that the microphone you choose requires you to keep your mouth in one place. But she is moving because she is presenting. So the audio constantly goes from quiet to loud as she moves. If you can't hear it; put on headphones and listen again. At the same time you hear an echo. Either give her a clip-on microphone or a headset. But you can still make this audio listenable. Put it through a normalizer so you get equal loudness (you don't need dynamic range). You might even be able to filter out a bit of the echo.

[@thememaster7]

pure negligence

[@Pioneer_DE]

Why would they, they'd need to pay for it but why pay for something that educates the masses when you can fulfill your own *ahem* "Rational self-interest" by saving money.

[@thememaster7]

@@Pioneer_DE htf is that rational?

[@jonathanbauer2988]

@@Pioneer_DE if you are trying to reach people its in your rational self interest to have good audio, what a ridiculous statement you made lol

[@sergiyavorski9977]

Fire your audio people. They have no idea how to mic a speaker for a lecture.

[@ericjames7819]

Man cannot have a good life without considering what we evolved to do. An animal that is a predator cannot have a good, happy life because it cannot hunt and kill. That is it's evolved purpose. Human beings also have evolved purposes that we must live according to in order to have satisfying lives.

[@ericjames7819]

Egoism isn't natural or inborn?? Apparently she has never had small children.

[@sergiyavorski9977]

"Selfishnes" and "egoism" should be dropped out of the objectivist vocabulary if we want to reach out to the broader public. Those words will always have a bad connotation. " Rational self-interest" should be used instead.

[@Pioneer_DE]

The fact you need to hide central keywords of an ideology should open your eyes. No offense though, you are an american.

[@thememaster7]

They hate self interest as well. Rewording it won't change their ethics. It's the concept they hate, not just the word.

[@thememaster7]

*An Objectivist may prefer self-interest if they have a built in rejection to the word selfishness, but the altruist doesn't care.

[@KRGruner]

Exactly why Ayn Rand has had little impact in society at large. Re-defining common words away from their normally accepted usage is a recipe for failure. Egoism (as normally understood) and selfishness (as normally understood) are unethical, although not immoral (they are amoral). Sure, Ayn Rand's re-definition of these words changes this interpretation, but so what? In the mind of the average person, she does appears as either a moron or a perverse person. But hey, have fun in your cult...

[@mwesigeJoramfreedom]

I follow Ayn Rand, what do you mean?

[@KRGruner]

@@mwesigeJoramfreedom Uh... I guess I mean what I wrote. Arbitrarily re-defining words in a way that is sure to confuse people is NOT a good way to do philosophy, if you really want to get your point across. Just saying...

[@ingevankeirsbilck9601]

@@KRGruner It's a few decades ago since I took the obligatory introduction to Western philosophy at University, but if memory serves most philosophers use certain terms in very specific ways, and the same term can mean different things in different philosophical schools. Learning the definitions of the terms as they are used in specific philosophies is therefore elemental to understanding the philosophy in question. This isn't limited to philosophy; a "swing" with a golf club isn't the same as a "swing" with a tennis racket, yet nobody would think of making the same movement in tennis and golf. The alternative would be to make up new words entirely, which I'm sure would be off-putting to some people. Sometimes there is no "ideal" solution.

[@KRGruner]

@@ingevankeirsbilck9601 Not the point! There may be some differences in interpretation of terms between philosophies, but as soon as they go contrary to common usage, they become either useless or misleading. And one thing we want in GOOD philosophy (and yes, there are lot of bad ones, including Objectivism) is at the very least CLARITY. This is unfortunately not heeded by a lot of philosophers who pretend that obscure language is the sign of profundity. NO SO! If you cannot express your thought clearly, you are a waste of time,. In Rand's case, she wrote clearly in general, and it is all the more disappointing that she chose to confuse people by being needlessly provocative in her use of the concept of "selfishness." This is NOT good philosophy. And indeed, the proof is in the pudding: Rand is almost completely irrelevant in philosophical circles.