Why philosophers ignore Ayn Rand | Sean Kelly and Lex Fridman

[@mantasvicius4232]

To fix Lex on the statement that Ayn Rand was a Feminist, she herself in one of her speeches stated that she is not a feminist but "a male chauvinist, proudly".

[@Beyondflix]

first trans activist! No wonder Jordan Peterson doesn't like her

[@MrRand0mGamer]

wow kind of based

[@sealife12]

That’s cute

[@fortusvictus8297]

She was famously male centered. She disliked what I believe she called 'Female passive-aggressive anti-intellectualism or somesuch. Gotta put it in the context of her times, but yeah, she was not a favorite at any Tupperware parties. She liked intellectual things, and didn't consider most women intellectually gifted.

[@theangryconstitutionalist583]

@@Beyondflix she does kinda look that way, to be honest.

[@DKZK21]

Jordan Peterson made a point in one of the university lectures in his channel that it can be hard to take her work serious because she depended so much on writing weak, pitiful strawmen that she could then easily squash, rather than doing the hard work of properly considering the opposing argument and building up a smart, formidable opponent that she could then work through the long and laborious process of dismantling like Dostoevsky would do in his work, like The Brothers Karamazov.

[@totallyUnimodular]

That is the same reason why JP is not taken seriously by most researchers.

[@totallyUnimodular]

@@burgerbob7324 e.g., his take on atheism is one strawman after the other. As for the academic community, this is quite true. People claim that it is because his position about pronouns or his overall criticism on the academia, but in reality researchers stopped taking him seriously long before his controversies.

[@baTonkaTruck]

That’s exactly my problem with Rand. Her writing is a thinly veiled manifesto with no sense of compelling characters or narrative. She obviously doesn’t care about the reader, she only wants to propagate her ideas. Contrast Atlas Shrugged with The Stranger by Camus and it’s not even close. Camus writes these utterly compelling, emotionally powerful stories about people you care about and believe in, and reveals his philosophy indirectly by inspiring you to self-reflect. His philosophy is rooted in being human, hers can easily be taken as diminutive towards humanity and emotion, given how little of it she displays in her writing. Also, it doesn’t help that she died penniless and alone, abandoned by family and loved ones. Seems like she might have missed a few ideas…

[@baTonkaTruck]

@totallyUnimodular You have to admit Peterson is extremely influential. He’s absolutely ruthless towards modern university academics, so of course they dismiss him, he leaves them no choice. But that doesn’t make him wrong. I’ve listened to his lectures and courses, and found his teaching compelling, personally helpful in a practical way, impeccably well researched, and backed by valid data. He almost always points out when he’s stating opinions, or when he’s not sure but conjecturing, or when his arguments are weak. He can come off as a bit paranoid, and he’s extremely emotional, which makes some people uncomfortable.

[@jozan9]

@@totallyUnimodular but he is tho... he's a top 0.1% of researchers when talking about publication and citations

[@dannyrahmon5262]

Atlas didn't shrug. He lifted the mother fucking earth above his head and did OHP for 5 sets of failure, then had the common decency to rerack the earth in proper orbit around the sun.

[@hugosoberanes8309]

He did 5 sets

[@gecko5873]

It sounded like Lex was interviewing himself on Ayn Rand. Sean Kelly did not seem to care

[@fortusvictus8297]

Yeah, Sean was like 'I like having a job, the cool kids don't like her so I don't bother...also, collectivism is kinda cool innit?'

[@alexcipriani6003]

No serious academic cares about Ayn Rand

[@rvc121]

@@alexcipriani6003 does that say something about her or them?

[@alexcipriani6003]

@@rvc121 her

[@rvc121]

@@alexcipriani6003 well, i guess we disagree. Have a nice day.

[@markw6031]

One problem with ignoring Rand is that the better criticism of her goes unheard.

[@orioguy9]

Ooooo, fascinating! The criticism that she should have loved the libertarian party?

[@thememaster7]

People who critisize her sound like broken records lol. If you know of better ones, please fill me in; would actually be refreshing in a way.

[@cas343]

I think her critics can be summarized as: - Read her fiction and use that a summary of her philosophy (90%) - Read her non-fiction and did not think about it (9%) - Read her non-fiction and understood it (1%)

[@MoonkeyAcid]

People who don’t have ties to the Soviet Union often times can’t fully understand Rand in my opinion. She is the antithesis of Soviet mentality. Ayn Rand is absolutely a influential thinker. Agree with Lex here

[@cristianmartinez9091]

Lmao, read Plato or Heraclitus. Those are actual philosophers. Rand is a political writer, and not even good at that.

[@PeterSosinski]

totally. coming from the soviet rule she was a genius. yes she had problems, but her explanation, the russian explanation of struggle and why, reducing it the way she did was pure genius.

[@brianphilippoi349]

Right. I see her as anti-socialist propaganda. It gets repetitive and has limited applicability.

[@baTonkaTruck]

Solzhenitsyn hated communism too, but he could actually write a compelling story.

[@madhusudansawant8157]

@@brianphilippoi349 so everyone should give away their rights to the government ? And why do you owe capital earned by me?

[@vitaminboss]

Her book "The Virtue of Selfishness".. It explains her entire philosophy.

[@greencarpetgrowing]

I’ve read it 100 times. Pure gold!

[@joshuagould548]

Yes, her ethical philosophy mostly, while touching on the rest of her philosophy. She has many other writings that can explain her entire philosophy in more depth. Her philosophy is airtight in my opinion, which is partly why I think most philosophers ignore her. They don't like that she's solved the Is-Ought problem.

[@thememaster7]

Why is altruism a good thing? Give me one good reason, just one!!!!

[@adrianainespena5654]

@@thememaster7 What you call altruism, other people call investing. Think about it. A woman goes on welfare as she has a child to feed. Living off other people allows her to write. Ayn Rand would have demanded she quit mooching off others and support herself. Thus J. K. Rowling would never have written Harry Potter, and give gainful employment to the people making the movies, or merchandising her characters.

[@maikhentricht3320]

She did in no way solve the problem, but decided that it did not exist. The best arguments that bring down the whole philosophy are real life examples, from psychopaths over groups like ISIS.

[@DeeperWithDiego]

As an objectivist, let me break down too many of you what happened in this clip. Lex ask him why Ayn Rand is ignored in philosophical circles. He then spent a few minutes speaking in the negative, that Rand Championed free will. He then said at the end, Rand is ignoring nature-versus-nurture. This is why Ayn Rand is ignored by philosophical circles. Because she is correct about man's nature, and she threatens every academic philosophers career out there if they were to change their ignorant point of view and stop misleading children and young adults in schools into thinking that all they are is nature and nurture. Imagine having an educational system where the focus was the individual and his or her flourishing, and not this John Dewey religious trash that's socializes individuals into unthinking voting machines to be sacrificed to their neighbor and politicians.

[@saagarAKmusic]

Butt hurt Rand fan

[@avokado9444]

But its a fact that humans are effected by nature and biology?

[@DeeperWithDiego]

@@avokado9444 Yes. Absolutley.

[@avokado9444]

@@DeeperWithDiego then why should you not ignore her if she discount that fact?

[@DeeperWithDiego]

@@avokado9444 She didn't.

[@ZatoichiBattousai]

All humans should be a little bit Mentat, and a little bit Bene-Gesserit and a lot of love for self and others.

[@OtakuRicky]

Yes. With a lil spice?

[@ZatoichiBattousai]

@@OtakuRicky All Praise Shai-hulud! :P

[@scottgascoyne]

and a little bit of sandra in the sun

[@dlldll]

Why do poets ignore Dan Brown?

[@ComradeYinkai]

Dan Brown is trash! But so, too, is poetry!

[@ElieSanhDucos0]

THANK YOU. I was trying to find a good analogy

[@toddsmith5715]

Very good analogy.

[@rvc121]

@@toddsmith5715 how is that a good analogy? She was a philosopher. The reason they ignore ger is because she belive in reason and selfishness and they don't like that.

[@toddsmith5715]

.Way to miss the point entirely. @@rvc121

[@macrosense]

When intelligent people read Ayn Rand most of them do not take her seriously.

[@vs-tm1ch]

That is a mistake, obviously

[@pattilapeche]

please, she was an idiot

[@thememaster7]

Objectivism has a university. You can't create a university without intelligent people.

[@macrosense]

Jerry Falwell’s family has a university. The Scientologists have a University. Even Trump claimed to have a University. I cannot find any listing of an Objectivist university. There is an Institute, but it is not a University.

[@pricejoss]

100% agree with this. Fragments of Rand’s thinking are somewhat useful but more often than not her apologists and defenders don’t appear to be that bright. Amusingly, they think they’re very bright and it’s everyone around them that isn’t. In my 20 year career, I’ve found Rand-style thinking to be a hallmark of driven people lacking in intelligence. That’s conservatism in general though. Even as a conservative philosopher, Roger Scruton acknowledged this.

[@ENZUH_OFICIAL]

Poor Ayn Rand, 50 years, and men still have no clue of what she was about...

[@rvc121]

@@t.a6159 that's a wierd comment on a philosopher who claimed that your purpose in life is your own life and happiness.

[@rvc121]

@@t.a6159 She objected to the initiation of force and claimed that any relationship between two or more individuals should Be based on consent and not coorcion. Sounds like her political ideas of the rights to life, property, liberty and the prasuit of happiness flow naturally from her belive that each human being should prasuit he's own well being and happiness. Maybe you should check your premises.

[@dcissignedon]

What a deep thinker this guy is - he figured out that some living things face obstacles that other living things do not. What genius.

[@doclime4792]

Did you not understand where that idea comes from? It's not his idea.

[@jameswalsh1452]

There is such a massive difference and distinction that needs to be made between philosophers, philosophy professors and people who study and put into practice the philosophy of their choosing. The philosopher feels as though they have a different view of the world that hasn't been suggested or elaborated on by anyone else that they know of, and good philosophers study themselves and question every aspect of their own beliefs in order to create the most elaborate and wide ranging view of the philosophy they are creating. Philosophy professors, unless they choose to only focus on one specific philosophy, are there in large part to help teach people how to think through and fully understand the ideas that philosophers have put into the world. The professor shouldn't be influencing their students beliefs or nudge their thinking to one side or the other, even though that unfortunately happens fairly often. The main focus should be developing the skills that people need to comprehensively understand and then adopt whichever philosophy they choose, or even to adapt aspects of several philosophies in a way that can benefit them and their life the most. In doing so the student can eventually develop their own personal beliefs to carry with them and live their life by, which is what leads people to becoming the practicing student of philosophy. Always improving their practice and realizing that they will never be done with their study of whatever the choose to adopt of their own personal philosophy.

[@thememaster7]

To philosophically teach how to think is to teach epistemology. Each philosop[hy has its own epistemology. If the "philosophy professors" are correctly teaching studenta how to think, they are teaching the right epistemology. So, the students should then discard any epistemology the "philosophy professor" is teaching about another's philosophy. This is insane.

[@vinrico6704]

as you take in more and more information from your enviroment, logic would suggest you need to adjust your philosophy accordingly, if you were starting from scratch and building your own philosophy as the vast majority of people do in reality, religion or no religion, its an operating system, most are flawed as most things are.

[@gergster6899]

Rand along with Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson were three women in the 1930s who were brave enough to stand up for freedom against the onslaught of socialism/communism/fascism. For this alone, Rand and the others should be admired and respected. Rand speaks to average people, unlike many of the philosophers.

[@rafrokid79]

We can admire her and also not think highly of her philosophy at the same time

[@someonenotnoone]

@@rafrokid79 or neither.

[@James-we9ro]

Nothing to do with her being individualist. Robert Nozick and Friedrich Hayek have absolutely not been ignored by philosophy departments. She was just not a good academic philosopher.

[@rvc121]

Maybe the fact that she is pro reason is the real problem they have with her. The only pro reason philosophers that are being taught today, to my knowledge are the greeks.

[@saagarAKmusic]

This.

[@thememaster7]

When I search: "Friedrich Hayek individualism" and "Robert Nozick individualism" the word individualism doesn't come up. Can you send me anything they said about it?

[@lashropa]

Speaking from 20 years of experience arguing viciously on her behalf: *The* reason philosophers hate her is because her rhetoric is IN-VIN-CI-BLE. The woman is like The Credible Hulk, or The Juggernaut. You can get a stalemate if you gang up on her, but one-on-one, face-to-face, unscripted... She's the intellectual Mike Tyson of the 20th century. It's just veiled envy, man. I think so anyway. Agree or nitpick or reject her ideas; fine. But as a human being who walked her talk, man, she's one of my top five, if not my #1 hero of Truth. She's not *absolutely* perfect, but as far as willful or conscious hypocrisy or self-contradiction, the woman has a *flawless* record. She never lied about what was on her mind and she was always charitable & she never hurt anyone but with her words. How anyone could not respect that is beyond me. Great episode, as always.

[@mattthelearner2797]

She was a narcissistic zionist hedonite

[@lashropa]

@@mattthelearner2797 So, I'm really *not* keen to fan a flame here, but I really do want to ask *you* something, then. Not about her. I want to know about *you*. How would *you* describe *yourself*, in relation to *her* given what you've just said. Really now, I'm not trying to hurt you; I'm just curious. Dare you speak?

[@mattthelearner2797]

@@lashropa I'm against extreme individualism, hedonism and zionism

[@mattthelearner2797]

@Germán Diago I know what individualism is. And I know that there are different levels of it. You could even say that the good thing about the west (with respect to other cultures) is that it gives more importance to the individual. The problem is when a certain kind of individualism leads to consumerism, which in turn corrodes a nation, its identity and the individual himself. Collectivism as in absence of private property or free trade is evil, but again there are different levels of it. You have to exist in a society, a nation and the requirements for it are not merely being nice to others. You have to contribute with labour, having children (if you can) and defending the soil (if necessary). If you think about it, if you are not down to this, then you are only taking and never giving.

[@micchaelsanders6286]

Ayn Rand was an absolute genius. Changed my life. The fact that she is ignored and dismissed shows the corruption amongst todays intellectuals.

[@orioguy9]

I would say ignorance more-so than corruption. But still, like.

[@micchaelsanders6286]

@@smoothinvestigator Her ideas correspond to reality. The fact that that has not been recognized in academia is an indication of an ailment. Read her for yourself.

[@volition51]

@@smoothinvestigator Perhaps she likes this person *for a reason* .

[@polymathg]

Lex was fairly accurate about Ayn Rand, but she most certainly was not a feminist. In fact, she was very much the opposite, and by today's standards would be called a misogynist. In her view, men were notoriously more noble and superior to women. All of her heroes were valiant men, and it was always the woman who struggled to understand and reciprocate his magnificence.

[@luukzwart115]

It depends on what you mean by 'feminist'. Rand certainly was all about equal rights. In this sense she certainly could be considered a feminist and I think Lex meant to use the term in this sense as well.

[@stranger8105]

Rand called the existentialists "witch doctors".

[@GeorgWilde]

And that's an instult to the witch doctors. Because witch doctors at least provided placebo and sense of meaning.

[@thememaster7]

Not sure what she means there, when did she say that?

[@stranger8105]

Ayn said that numerous times including on national tv with Mike Wallace. She meant existentialist philosophers create a sense of confusion vs objective rationality

[@Undone545]

I think Rand and her writings _work_ better as the anti socialist/capitalist literature in the way Orwell may write his books on his views. I find that as a "philosopher" her writing become less clear, less potent and more easily scrutinised. It takes a certain hubris to take your subjective values, that cannot be proven empirically or otherwise to be truer/better anothers and label it Objectivism.

[@KimOyhus]

Nope, because since you know your subjective values best, you can optimise to them best.

[@Undone545]

@@KimOyhus how does this differ from simply being called " my life" and not a philosophy. If in "my life" I would do X and in "my life" another would do Y. Which part of that of that is objective. Especially when there is an ideal, of her own choosing. If the ideal is for instance John Galt. And not say Christ or Muhammad or Buddha or whoever. Best to call your own philosophy randism or galtism. But there's nothing objective about Objectivism

[@KimOyhus]

@@Undone545 - The difference is that some people try to optimise for other people, to the detriment of themselves. And since they do not properly know the values of other people, they fail with them too.

[@SamuelHauptmannvanDam]

this.

[@miguelponceespinel5666]

@@Undone545 the objective part on Rands philosophy is reality. People are subjective, they choose different values they want different things and it’s ok, it’s perfectly compatible.

[@matthewstroud4294]

Come on Lex, get Stephen Hicks on the show.

[@jeremiez381]

Lex is the smarter one

[@keenanmiller6231]

The correct answer was “ I don’t really know anything about Ayn Rand . Next question “

[@DeeperWithDiego]

Exactly.

[@benediktzoennchen]

actually, his answer was quite good

[@keenanmiller6231]

@@benediktzoennchen not to anybody who actually knows anything about Ayn Rand … but people who already dislike Rand will very much like what he had to say. I agree . But people who dislike her almost never know anything about her just like this guy.

[@alecfoster5542]

"Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" is the best advocacy for that economic system ever written. It surpasses Adam Smith, in my opinion. Check it out if you have not already. And "The Romantic Manifesto" is a brilliant, often overlooked analysis of the importance of art in our lives, with her assertion that it is a rational endeavor.

[@theangryconstitutionalist583]

So great hearing two people who have no actual knowledge of something having a discussion about it.

[@BebehCookieIcecream]

The irony is you're a trump supporter.

[@theangryconstitutionalist583]

@@BebehCookieIcecream based on what, you ignoramus?

[@kiandinyari3740]

Yes because I'm sure you've fully read Ayn Rand's full works. Care to educate us instead of just dropping a useless comment?

[@theangryconstitutionalist583]

@@kiandinyari3740 I've got all of her collective works on display on the bookshelf in my living room, but I still wouldn't make a KZbin video trying to dissect her philosophical views for the public, not without doing a lot of preparation to make sure I got all the details right. And I don't even have a huge platform of viewers. If neither person in a conversation has a genuine understanding or even serious interest in a complex subject, why even bring it up, much less stumble through explaining it? There are plently of subjects I have little to no interest or knowledge of- so I don't talk about them. Especially in a public forum with lots of viewers.

[@bend4236]

@@BebehCookieIcecream how long will Trump haunt your every thought?

[@illuminatiCorgi]

‘Radically free’ is particularly apt.

[@baTonkaTruck]

I like the way Camus said it: “The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”

[@Rhallifax2]

Lex hit the nail on the head when he said Ayn came from the Soviet Union. She has been discarded by those who consider themselves as " our betters" that are still sad that the Soviets should still be in power, with their superior compassion if not for some unlucky happenings.

[@waneagony]

It’s sad when a culture doesn’t seem to think that Ayn Rand was a philosopher, having invented Objectivism and built on Aristotle, but considers the guests that teach philosophy at a school that are on Lex’s podcast philosophers. It is clear to me which one contributed significantly to human thought and great ideas, but I guess that that is no longer the standard that we recognize philosophers by.

[@thememaster7]

They don't think it, they just want other people to think it.

[@benediktzoennchen]

Maybe she is not taken seriously because of more obvious reasons: Her ideas are not worth our time.

[@YashArya01]

Most people (including philosophers and scientists) critiquing Ayn Rand haven't studied Objectivism in significant detail. Reading The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged in your teens isn't the same thing as studying Objectivism. To be sure, I have my own differences with her philosophy, but most of what you find online is just lazy and incorrect. Leonard Peikoff is a masterful teacher and you can refer to the following courses. His wit and clarity alone makes it worth it. I can't say whether or not you'll be convinced, I can say that your criticism will be significantly more relevant if you actually understand it. Leonard Peikoff - The Philosophy of Objectivism kzbin.info/aero/PLqsoWxJ-qmMuYO4AKp7NZ_qBy6gaj3cUv Leonard Peikoff - History of Philosophy (Volume 1; Volume 2 not currently available for free.) kzbin.info/aero/PLqsoWxJ-qmMuYO4AKp7NZ_qBy6gaj3cUv

[@HandSolitude]

If it's easy to see it riddled with logical fallacies as a teen, it's not going to get any better as you age. When you're young is when you're most susceptible to poorly thought out ideas.

[@YashArya01]

@@HandSolitude and what about the possibility that you didn't read it carefully enough? Also my point is that those two works of fiction are a good starting point but it's pretty difficult to put together a coherent framework out of it. Not going to happen if you just read them as novels. That's why Peikoff is such a brilliant teacher. If nothing else, you'll learn how to teach better. I took his entire intro to logic course on audio and wrote notes for every lecture. I didn't think it was possible to follow along a course on logic with audio alone. I was pleasantly surprised!

[@lordrichardson4447]

Bingo. Its obvious a majority of the people in these comments know not what they speak of in regards to Rand or Objectivism.

[@mikeg2482]

@@HandSolitude Hello mcc4m1sh. Could you please describe some of those "logical fallacies" that you truly located within one or more of Rand's books? You said it's easy to see. Also, could you please describe "poorly thought out ideas" that you truly located within one or more of Rand's books? Were you making serious remarks after thinking about Rand's actual statements and her actual ideas as presented by her, or were you just repeating subjective criticisms that someone else superficially stated to you? I ask these questions because Rand invested quite a few years authoring each of her books while doing thorough editing and rewriting and testing of her premises and propositions. Additionally, she regularly opened up herself and her writings to so-called experts in the field of philosophy to please come forward and debate with her seriously, rationally, and intellectually ... and none of them would come forward to accept her invitations and none of them offered any real challenge to what she wrote. Thanks.

[@mikecare3116]

In the opening paragraphs of her “ Virtue of Selfishness” She makes a obvious mistake, of straw-manning. She compares and contrasts her version of selfishness with “Altruism” And she defines ( without giving a source) Altruism to hold that anything done for others is good, and anything done for oneself is bad. This is a absurd notion of altruism, which, I’m not surprised she doesn’t provide a source for, because essentially nobody believes such a thing. And this barely 5 paragraphs in. She claims that her notion of altruism is reasonable, by pointing readers to her own novel, “Atlas Shrugged”, which is frankly, not a credible source in ascertaining If her use of altruism is reasonable. Which, she uses to justify her definition of selfishness. Later on, in the segment “ The Cult on moral Greyness” She claims that if asked “ Surely you don’t think in black and white” The answer should be “ Damn right I do” the segment is about how morality cannot be made of shades of grey, because of the slippery slope of from grey to black ( arguing that grey lead to black) , and because grey is a mix of white and black, and so grey requires white and black to exist. You need good and bad to define neutral. She claims that morality is black and white, due to such reasons. However this is blatantly false. You dont need good/bad to define neutral. You just need extreme Vs extreme, without making value judgements of either side to define neutral. You don’t need to know which side is good or and you define grey, you just need to know grey is in the middle of the two. Her argument is also weak, because it assumes a binary, outlook. Things are either good/bad, moral or immoral. However, such a binary notion is not proven to be true. It could be the case that actions exist on multitudes of levels, and are good and bad at the same time. She hasn’t showcased why morality has the property of being binary. She claims believing in the “grey” leads to bad morality. But doesn’t prove it at all. She just makes claims with no evidence.

[@PWizz91]

You bring this woman up alot Lex

[@coachgoody421]

Well someone told him ayn rand was cool in the conservative circles so whenever he talks to someone not in that echo chamber, he wants to know why they dont want to be in that echo chamber with the other people he likes...

[@Weirdomanification]

​@@coachgoody421 She ain't cool in conservative circles. Her philosophy leads to atheism.

[@hectorsanabria385]

I don’t understand, he didn’t finish his point. What is the other thing she was missing?

[@danstar455]

Rand is intensely disliked because she ridiculed God believers and said Do Gooders are bad for society.

[@cameronberden5047]

i am really enjoying your conversations

[@SiriusDogStar369]

I’m at 0:33 as I start writing this. I understand, I thank you for your feedback- and needless to say, I completely empathize with her story, which I didn’t know about until just now. I’d love for the opposition in this context of conversation to be reciprocated. Someday.

[@rvc121]

Your culture only form you if you let it form you. Or if it use force to form you. But in a relatively free society the culture can only influence you by your choice and consent. That's definitely not a fact that our society form us, like this guy claimed.

[@edstrandberg2448]

It is a fact; you just cannot admit it. You are a product of your culture.

[@rvc121]

@@edstrandberg2448 well, i am also vert suspicious when people say that there are facts that only they can see and that see. But i guess it's also my culture fault. I will still believe the facts i can actually see that human beings are effected by their culture only of they choose to. And you can believe whatever you want to believe.

[@edstrandberg2448]

@@rvc121 yes, it is. I’m glad you agree, because cultural bias effects everyone. Unless you’re some kind of ubermensch, that is.

[@edstrandberg2448]

@@rvc121 i lead my life my own way, according to the dictates of conscience. Nevertheless, culture is omnipresent and inescapable. Even going against the grain, or “rebelling”, is a part of the cultural dynamic, just another thread in the fabric.

[@Weirdomanification]

​@@edstrandberg2448 Where did culture come from?

[@laertesindeed]

The more important question is why all engineers and scientists and intelligent businesspeople in society essentially ignore modern philosophers....where the weakness is in the latter and not the former.

[@episteme8650]

No one ignores Philosophers. Its like saying why you are not a historian and take interest in that stuff? Because its not your field of work. And in modern fields like AI people do consult philosophers. Sow what are you on about?

[@laertesindeed]

@@episteme8650 You're complaining about a strawman which isn't me or what I typed.... so re-read what I typed or go off and attack your imaginary argument you had with yourself.

[@mikeg2482]

Hello Laertes Indeed. I like your question, I think your observation is good, and I'll offer a view about it. I'm an engineer, and in engineering we usually cannot get our work done without resolving the contradictions that are often a natural part of customer desires and a natural part of solving invention puzzles. We often use physics principles, financial models, conceptual debate, and prototyping to help us sort it out. We have to mentally test, adjust, and refine our concepts before committing significant money and time, and we must try our best to ensure that our suggestions and designs will pass challenges and evaluations from other accountable scientists and business people. We're required to research and evaluate how our ideas will interface with objective material realities and operator handling. Many of us in scientific fields can become upset and frustrated when we must partner with another person who is being evasive about details, or tries to make politics more important than product integrity, or tries to insert irrelevant variables. I have read primary perspectives and claims of many philosophers, both modern and not so modern. Not only did I discover that their ideas are fairly easy to defeat by using basic logic and basic questions, but often they defeat themselves within their own materials, thus saving us the time and effort. An example of this can be found in Kant's writings. Kant contends that the distorting mechanism is man’s conceptual faculty itself. Kant said that in order for knowledge to be valid it must not be processed in any way by a human consciousness. He said that only when knowledge is independent of human perception can it be considered valid. He said that real truth is unknowable because to know it a person would have to relate to reality directly without depending upon their own conceptual mechanism. Any ten year old child could tell Kant that his primary thesis is self-defeating, corrupt, and nonsensical. Kant must certainly have known that he’s being bogus, because as a man he necessarily must include himself in the human population, and this necessarily would make his own ideas meaningless because he said that a human cannot know anything. He must surely have realized that he cannot assume an ability for himself which he himself has already stated cannot exist for any human. He wants to get away with making claims of his own, while simultaneously claiming that no human may make any valid claims. It's my opinion that, if he was being honest with his readers, Kant would have ensured that every one of his own published books must include a first page which warns the reader: "Dear reader, in this book of mine that you are about to read I will continually try to persuade you that no human can know anything, and therefore my own ideas require you to consider my own ideas to be invalid because I am a human just like you. Therefore, it is a waste of your time to read my book, and probably it will be a net-negative to you because it will twist your thinking into knots and cause you to lose general confidence in the integrity and intelligence of academics and authors". But Kant did not include this introductory warning to his readers as he probably should have. And Kant is still currently one of the most influential trusted sources of philosophical training within our system of modern college campuses. My opinion is that Rand was perhaps the first philosopher who went to extraordinary efforts to ensure that her proposals and premises were logical, that her ideas ought to always be tested against reality, that her presentations were free of contradictions, and that any philosophy ought to be intended for guiding real people to handle real life conditions, opportunities, and challenges. I have not been able to locate any other philosophy authors who bothered with making this combination of normal reasonable efforts to support their own models and frameworks. Rand outlined an important series of six stages for properly creating and maintaining a philosophy: metaphysics is first (before doing anything else start with naming the realities of existence without self-conflict), then epistemology is second (name the reliable method for a human to learn and know about those realities of existence named in step one), then ethics is third (name what is right/good and what is wrong/bad in alignment with the first two prior steps), then politics is fourth (non-contradictory community governance), then economics is fifth (non-contradictory community environment for building, trading, and property ownership), then aesthetics is sixth (artistic modeling of ideals). Each step must remain consistent with the claims, conditions, and conclusions of all the prior steps. As an example, one should not present their ideas about ethics or politics until and unless one has first defined and tested a realistic and accurate metaphysics and epistemology at prior steps. And those ideas about ethics or politics cannot conflict with the what is said about metaphysics and epistemology at prior steps. This approach helps prevent contradictions and helps preserve rationality in the philosophy. Philosophers other than Rand do not follow these obvious important rules, and Rand follows them. I believe that this is why many engineers and scientists and intelligent business people often feel comfortable and respectful regarding Rand, and they enjoy reading and discussing Rand's ideas and views. Rand used a rational approach and Rand held herself to a standard of rationality that is similar to the standard that is required of engineers, scientists, and intelligent business people. While the other philosophers never bothered with using a rational approach of this nature to self-edit and self-filter and self-test their own ideas prior to publishing those ideas. (for example, see my notes about Kant in my previous paragraphs). Therefore, it should not surprise any of us when engineers, scientists, or intelligent business people consider most of the available philosophy presentations to be incoherent, nonsensical, and not worthwhile. Cheers, Mike.

[@manny75586]

1. Being the exact opposite of a leftist which automatically makes her degraded in academia. 2. It's utterly fair to say she didn't really concern herself with fully systematizing her philosophy. Though I'd argue Camus didn't really go far enough either, but he is a leftist. The same goes for Marx, who is at times referred to as a philosopher. Among others, really. 3. I personally wouldn't called Rand a philosopher. She, for me, is a polemicist with a strong internal philosophy.

[@baTonkaTruck]

My opinion ofc, but the difference for me is Camus wrote haunting, beautiful stories with characters that could rip your heart out, and his philosophy was omnipresent and obviously well-formed, but mysterious, a constant discovery through your own reflection. Rand, on the other hand, wrote dry, ball-achingly boring, thinly veiled manifestos with a focus on telling you her ideas, not revealing them with a compelling story. I don’t necessarily disagree with her philosophy, I just think she’s a terrible, God-awful writer.

[@szymonharbuz9052]

1. Try to tell that to scholars of Heidegger, Hegel or Kant. You can literally believe that babies born out of wedlock should be murdered and be studied in academia. You only need to be an important and influential thinker. 2. Neither did Nietzsche, Camus, or even the Poststructuralists. Marx is primarily called a philosopher, what the fuck are you talking about? And The Capital is a very systematic work. 3. Yeah, neither do actual philosophers.

[@ElieSanhDucos0]

She s an awfull awfull thinker and writer. She has litterally NO academic following because she litterally dont have a academic work. As for libertarians and people reflecting on the tyranny of the state , people like Robert Nozick are great US thinker that we re studying here in France in political science schools. Ayn Rand to him is what 50 Shades of grey is to our Sade

[@szymonharbuz9052]

@@ElieSanhDucos0 Well, you don't need to write academic works order to be studied academicaly. And novels can absolutely be studied interdisciplinarily by political scientist and philosophers, hers are just garbage.

[@volition51]

She's dismissed because people who don't know her, sense that she's against those fundamentals that they've accepted all their lives: that the good is whatever is good for society, that feelings are primary, that principles are futile or an embarrassment. The base of her moral code is reason as our means of identifying values and of discovering how to achieve them, and freedom: absolute freedom from the enforced will of others. We 𝘤𝘢𝘯 know, each of us, and we must be free to act on our knowledge if we want to live and flourish. And that really goes against the religious and secular traditions of the past 2000 years. She 𝘪𝘴 original (although influenced by Aristotle), and her discoveries are based on the observation of objective reality, observations that anyone can verify; she truly is 𝘯𝘰𝘵 a product of the Soviet Union or her upbringing or her gender. (!) Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, is the philosophy of rational individualism. P.S. "throwness" is on the wrong track: it denies free will and keeps us back on the strictly automatic level of an animal's consciousness, or awareness. Human consciousness is different, it's volitional. We don't 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 to be the product of where we are "thrown," but that's scary, and *THAT* is why Ayn Rand is dismissed.

[@maikhentricht3320]

Yes, her whole ideology boils down to being a selfish piece of shit, which is inherently destructive. Secondly, she is also universally hated for preaching against government and in favor of individual responsibility while living off social programs - it makes her a hypocrite that doesn’t even lead her own life according to her philosophy.

[@lennardchan2764]

It is sad that most people view her as a political philosopher like Marx and are disappointed with the lacking content in it. In my opinion, the most interesting aspects in her philosophy are her epistemology and ethics. Her advocacy of Capitalism is simply a direct consequence of her ethics and her view of human nature.

[@someonenotnoone]

No matter how much I learn about her, her ethics and view of human nature just seem a direct consequence of her advocacy for capitalism. Not the other way around.

[@lennardchan2764]

​@@someonenotnoone You have the cart before the horse. Politics must hierarchically come after ethics and human nature. How can anyone have a view of politics at all if they don't have even an implicit view of human nature or ethics? Take an idea of property rights as an example, which is an aspect of Capitalism. One needs to hold that in order to live, people need material values and that material values are produced by the mind and efforts of the individual (human nature). One must also hold egoism, the ethical view that the beneficiary of ones actions must be himself, rather than others or the group, to hold privately-owned property as opposed to communism where "property" is publicly owned (ethics). I don't know where you learn about her so here are some recommendations to learn more, since what I illustrated above does not go into depth. 1. An essay "What is Capitalism", which you can probably read online or in the book "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal". Here you can see how she views the connection between ethics and politics and more. 2. "The Virtue of Selfishness" is a great book, but if you can't get a hold of it, look for the essay "The Objectivist Ethics" online. This essay can get technical and dry, but it is a good introduction to her ethics. You can see the train of thought and reasoning she uses to get to her conclusions. 3. If you really want to go deep, I recommend "Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Leonard Peikoff. In this book, Rand's philosophy is organized in a logical structure from metaphysics all the way to art and politics.

[@someonenotnoone]

@@lennardchan2764 these are religious beliefs. I'm no more going to join the faith of objectivism by reading these books than I would become a Christian reading the Bible. No one must do what Ayn Rand did, people are free to not share her beliefs.

[@someonenotnoone]

@@lennardchan2764 animals, including people, can clearly live without property rights. This is the kind of thing you say that makes it clear objectivism is a religion.

[@lennardchan2764]

@@someonenotnoone I'm not trying to "convert" you to Objectivism. Ideas are interesting to me whether it's Christian theology or Marxist political theory or Objectivist philosophy (though I do think Objectivism is fundamentally true). Whether Objectivism is a "religion" largely depends on what you mean by religion, because no one can seem to define what that means. In regards to property rights, I agree that people, as animals, do not need property rights (or any rights). All they need is food, water, etc. The issue of rights only arises when we ask ourselves: how should we humans organize ourselves in a social context? For example, who has a right to eat this loaf of bread? The baker? The farmer, who produced the materials? Perhaps we need bartering/currency to mediate exchange. Perhaps everyone should have the right to the loaf. The idea of rights is a human need in terms of organizing ourselves in society and in that sense, rights are a human need.

[@TyyylerDurden]

It is 100% irrelevant - what "philosophers" think of Rand. She made a titanic job by examining and criticizing a lot of at least controversial statements, topics, and beliefs. Nobody has ever said she was 100% right in every single critique, but she certainly got a point, a common sense, and shacked the World of indisputable "authorities".

[@samanthaqiu3416]

is not irrelevant. It is a weird anomaly worth analizing. It leads to understanding how the Frankfurt school operates

[@TyyylerDurden]

@@samanthaqiu3416 the only thing a decent man with common sense can do, is to debate all evil, demonstrating the power of truth in every sphere of life. There is no other options to fight bad philosophy back.

[@samanthaqiu3416]

@@TyyylerDurden you cannot fight effectively what you don't want to understand

[@wildbeast99t]

Hahaahahhahahahah. Your username is so telling. You must be a 14-18 year old who thinks they are enlightened. No one is appealing to authority, her ideas and argumentation is just pure shit, constantly uses strawmans and poor rhetoric. She's like Kayne, makes good/amazing art, buts whose philosophy is motivated by ego and a false sense of self-importance and enlightenment.

[@TyyylerDurden]

@@wildbeast99t I give you only one question, just like I give it to all clowns, pretending to diminish her thoughts: give me at least some of her ideas with a detailed exposal provided with decent arguments. If you can't do it, then everybody will see that you are merely a cheap junkie.

[@nunyabiz6918]

I enjoy philosophy as much as any laymen who’s incapable of understanding most of what they’re being explained. That said I can’t help but think of someone explaining why NFT’s are a legitimate currency and our financial system is fraudulent (or vice versa ) when I hear a philosopher argue why their view is superior to other philosophers and their philosophies… but I’m an idiot so…

[@samanthaqiu3416]

there is nothing legitimate about NFTs

[@samanthaqiu3416]

@@kurokamei this is the legacy of the Frankfurt school and postmodernism. It wasn't always like that

[@mvivier1]

Sean Kelley and Lex should reread Atlas Shrugged and have a discussion with Yaron Brook.

[@ComradeYinkai]

Or they could do something more productive, like...literally anything else!

[@sku7842]

@@ComradeYinkai boo hoo boo hoo

[@ericanderson7346]

Ugh, if you slogged through that once, why subject yourself to it again?

[@greatsajby9266]

The Fountainhead is a book like no other. The most well-developed characters I've ever encountered (including the most singularly evil figure in all of literature, Ellsworth Toohey). I never clouded my love for that masterwork of fiction by getting my shorts in a bunch about any other aspect of her work, life or politics.

[@doclime4792]

Most singularly evil character in all of literature. For you to feel confident enough to bestow that honor on her is a testament why no likes Ayn Rand and her fan base.

[@lproof8472]

I wonder if they don’t take her seriously because her ideas are psychotic.

[@rodronognec]

A statement made by LOSERS

[@GallowayJesse]

Because her ideas are correct.

[@luukzwart115]

With that logic the same argument could be made for altruism-based philsophies as caused by neurosis.

[@mustang607]

Nearly all philosophies are based on collectivism. Philosophies based on individuals and their rights and their responsibilities are a minority. Nuff said.

[@aspiringnormie9499]

Appeals to the masses is fallacious

[@louierubio]

I could be wrong but there’s a hilarious irony in her being dismissed.

[@CptChandler]

Ayn rand critics: “Trust my senses to show me reality, and use my mind to integrate that information and determine what’s best for me? BOOO I want to think that I’m a pathetic worm!”

[@jacobunderwood4957]

There's hilarious irony in her being considered 'dismissed', for sure. She's a damn philosophical meme at this point and little else. She's the epitome of shallow strawman-ridden and half-thought political positions and this had made her works smashingly popular.

[@ericanderson7346]

@@jacobunderwood4957 My two biggest gripes with her are the assumption she makes that the most brilliant minds in society must be laissez faire capitalists and her complete ignorance of economics and American economic history.

[@RaulGarcia-ps9ri]

The hilarious irony is in her collecting Social Security and her foundation taking Paycheck Protection Program loans from the government. A bunch clowns that don't practice what they preach. And people wonder why are not taken seriously.

[@soumyadipgoswami1721]

@@RaulGarcia-ps9ri nope she did have to pay the taxes for it although unwilling that alone makes it justifiable that she was on welfare

[@ericd9827]

Philosophers generally ignore Ayn Rand because she's at best a non-philosopher's idea of what a philosopher is.

[@HigherPlanes]

She also had a great mind, and perhaps it takes a great mind to receive her message.

[@erheetrherh2659]

@@peteMickeal33 Ah yes the Marxist's who dominate academia and who also seems to have zero influence on economic policies of western countries.

[@JesusTrombone]

@@peteMickeal33 lmao or maybe And Rand is a terrible model for objectivism

[@aaronpannell6401]

@@peteMickeal33 Ayn Rand didn't live up to her own views. She lost all credibility when she took money from the government.

[@aaronpannell6401]

@@kris3451 no, cuz Rand didn't have to take money from the government.

[@HillbillyRock]

This is a classic. Rand is completely ignored and slandered by academics primarily because she obliterates the premise for socialism in her work. This guy pukes up some fashionable, generic tripe about Rand's ideas: sexism, racism, the crushing oppression of gender roles in society, and the personal impotence of everyone, except white men. All the while, he completely flies over the fact that she was, in fact, a "strong and independent woman" who dominated thought in male-dominated mid-20th century America, succeeded on her own merit, and didn't try to ride the victim's chariot to get there. Thanks for the keks, Lex.

[@derekmcaleer2386]

Ever feel like someone has read and memorized much philosophy and understood little?

[@derekmcaleer2386]

@@nofurtherwest3474 no.

[@laertesindeed]

@nofurtherwest No, the amateur pseudo-intellectual that was sitting across from Lex. It reminds me of one of the idiosyncrasies that differ between British and American institutes of higher education. Most often, if you ask an american about their educational history they will say "I received a degree in bla bla from such and such institution" and if you ask the same question of a british person they will very frequently say "I read bla bla subject at such and such institution" ...where the literal interpretation of the latter in any american mind would be to mutter under our breath we don't care what they read, we want to know if they understood it and can apply it and add to it in some novel or original or creative way. This guy sitting across from Lex is not british.....but the entire interview was just him spewing out what some other people said; and not judging or evaluating what they said compared to our current knowledge. Moreover, quoting from somebody who was wrong but famous doesn't make it less wrong.

[@hernancortez491]

Ayn Rand not being liked at a time when people don’t want to accept personal responsibility.... Strange...

[@jacksonstone246]

“This is the music”, I spit on that statement. To quote Dostoevsky since it’s only appropriate. “In short, anything can be said about world history, anything that might enter the head of the most disturbed imagination. Only one thing cannot be said- that it is sensible.”. To look at destruction and decay caused by irrationality and call it music is part of that decay and destruction. Where does the music come from? Whose music is being played?

[@jacksonstone246]

Not to get emotional but f that type of mentality.

[@gergster6899]

I'd rather read Rand than most of these academic philosophers. Atlas Shrugged seems quite prophetic seeing how things are going today. She and two other women writers, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel paterson, were braver than most writers in standing for freedom against the onslaught of socialism/communism/fascism in the 1930s.

[@dakilangoposa]

I don’t know if it’s just the place where I come from, but nietzche is a lot more popular than ayn rand

[@benediktzoennchen]

because he had at least something interesting to say

[@tillasmax]

did any of you notice this guy's wokeness. I am not surprised he doesn't like Ayn Rand's work.

[@dirtymeatball6315]

Yea this guy drank the “woke” kool-aid. Anyone who considers privilege a thing to be discussed in philosophy loses credibility

[@laertesindeed]

@@dirtymeatball6315 Yes.... as if men born today have no expectations or limitations on them because they are men...... this guy sitting across from Lex was a buffoon.

[@1godlessmonkey]

Would anyone know who Sean Kelly is if he were not being interviewed by Lex? Enough said!

[@luukzwart115]

Your argument doesn't even make sense. ''I don't know you, so you're opinion can immediately be disregarded.'' is not a valid argument.

[@justme-iw6rk]

Silicon valley is a big fan.

[@robertcontreras2209]

On the surface level it’s easy enough to answer even with only having read one of two of her works, she is disregarded in the mainstream because she is anti-communist. Your guest alludes to this in saying she resembles a libertarian. Any right leaning ideology means fascism today and she is for personal responsibility which today is not even a topic of discussion

[@ElkoJohn]

Altruism is a concern for the well-being of others. She did abide the precept, ' 'do not harm others who are innocent.' '

[@luukzwart115]

Because she argued that acting on this principle ultimately contributes to your own wellbeing, like the principle of integrity and the principle of honesty.

[@paulhaube]

If there is no determinism, she was determined.

[@lenyabloko]

I think philosophers ignore Ayn Rand because she ignored all the philosophers before her, including Nietzsche. Her "philosophy" starts where Plato left it 2000 years earlier by ignoring all the questions he asked.

[@TyyylerDurden]

Could you provide some statements of Rand which prove your words regarding "ignoring" of all the philosophers? She didn't ignore any of philosopher; she CRITISIZED and EXAMINED them carefully, instead of those like you, who simply accept every equivocation without any doubts.

[@scottgascoyne]

@@TyyylerDurden Shey actually says she was only influenced by Aristotle. I have heard her say that in interviews a few times. And she does say that she ignored everyone else. She didnt need to regard the work of other basically

[@TyyylerDurden]

@@scottgascoyne I haven't heard her saying that she had ignored everyone except Aristotle. Aristotle inspired her because he applied reason to existence on Earth in order to achieve a decent and harmonic life. Other philosophers were also explored very carefully, otherwise how could she disagree with them?

[@YashArya01]

@@scottgascoyne That's not true. She rejected (not ignored) most philosophers, and was positively influenced by Aristotle, and to some degree Thomas Aquinas. Leonard Peikoff (Ayn Rand's intellectual heir) has two courses on History of Philosophy, the first one is available for free and is amazing! kzbin.info/www/bejne/hprQo6qcoNOlfas

[@YashArya01]

@@markv785 I believe it refers to this remark by Ayn Rand: Recorded live before New York City audiences in 1976, this course was endorsed by Rand in print as “the only authorized presentation of the entire theoretical structure of Objectivism, i.e., the only one that I know of my own knowledge to be fully accurate.” Rand attended the entire course and participated in eight of the twelve question-and-answer sessions. kzbin.info/aero/PLqsoWxJ-qmMvgfp2mg-AAFnCROvtu9NVR

[@LeifurThor-qu2bz]

She’s an American hero, and a brilliant philosopher.

[@520LUNNY]

Hitchens had a great line on Ayn Rand and the virtue of selfishness: Some things need no further reinforcement.

[@PeterSosinski]

that's pretty solid

[@luukzwart115]

And it was the most superficial, lazy, strawmanned and catered to emotion critique of Objectivism I've ever come across. Other academics at least try to get to know the ideas Rand stood for.

[@520LUNNY]

@@luukzwart115 Would you be willing to provide a more in-depth critique of Ayn Rands philosophy? Thank you!

[@luukzwart115]

@@520LUNNY On the Randian argument - Robert Nozick A Critique of Ayn Rand's Epistemology - Scott Ryan

[@ubiktd4064]

Somebody who specialises in developing AI systems with a fascination with Ayn Rand?...sounds like a great combination.

[@richardlecomte6839]

Scary thought. An Artificial intelligence based on the personality of Ayn Rand? I keep wondering who will win between Siri and Lexi.

[@neththom999]

@@richardlecomte6839 Rand would shrug those basic b*tches

[@neththom999]

What u sayin'?

[@richardlecomte6839]

@@neththom999 Rand collected welfare

[@richardlecomte6839]

@@neththom999 Rand was a basic bitch. Hehe

[@itsbeenwritten2518]

this women might of hit the pinaccle of idealism for those men that are bound by the constraints of a man...maybe she took away any room to continue debating and we can see these people just love to talk and talk....

[@seanfaherty]

I don't know the other two but philosophers tend to ignore Rand because rationalizing selfishness is not a philosophy. Now the question should be " why do so many people who claim to be Christians also claim adherence to the ideas of Ayn Rand even though the ideas are mutually incompatible ? "

[@TheJeremyKentBGross]

Because despite her words, what is evident in Atlas Shrugged is that the allegedly selfish people who just try to mind their own business and build stuff by effort and merit are actually the ones benefiting society by their efforts, AND they are not NEARLY as selfish as the people doing the accusing. The latter use accusations of selfishness to guilt and manipulate the hard working, or as an excuse to use government force to steal from and sabotage them for personal gain and/or out of envy and resentment of their accomplishments. Regardless of the poor labels used by adopting the slander of the disingenuous, she paints an accurate picture of the evils of socialism and the goodness of what used to be called the protestant work ethic. All of that is profoundly Christian despite the admittedly poor labels and her own lack of faith. I seriously doubt people who say stuff like you just did have actually read her work, but just accepted the demonizing rhetoric that comes from the religious fervor of people dedicated to preserving the blood soaked vanity project of equality of outcome. That is not to say I'd defend her person life, just that she has some spot on understanding of the allegedly "greater good" folks underneath her mediocre novel writing skills, and they hate her for it with a passion. The rest talk like you, apparently not actually knowing what she was writing but just accept the misframing that she was advocating ruthless and destructive short term self interest over any common good for society, which isn't what is depicted or championed in the novel at all. It's not hard really. Try reading the book instead of judging by the cover.

[@seanfaherty]

@@TheJeremyKentBGross well I did but I also read the Bible. Jesus said Ayn didn't know what the fuck she was talking about. I'm paraphrasing but yeah, that's what he said

[@TheJeremyKentBGross]

@@seanfaherty I read the Bible as well, in it's entirety, more than once cover to cover. I'm now an agnostic atheist, but I don't see how you reach that conclusion at all whatsoever. The folks running around screaming how everything isn't fair or equal and that the successful are greedy and should give them everything in Atlas Shrugged don't remotely resemble any morality presented in the Bible. They look like Cain who killed his brother for being hard working and successful, just like real life Socialists do.

[@havelyntherockelyn1576]

@@TheJeremyKentBGross "cover to cover" X

[@TheJeremyKentBGross]

@@havelyntherockelyn1576 I don't care if you believe me or not, it's true. I was raised in a young earth creationist and abstinence only environment, and home schooled for most of grade school where I was frequently encouraged to read it myself from a young age. I read tons of parts randomly even as a kid including stuff that they never put in sermons, but when I was 19 I was going through a lot of personal stuff and read it all the way through 2x in one year, once in only 4 months. Although to steelman your criticism, it was with a "read through the Bible in a year" plan which divided reading into some Old Testament, some New Testament, some Psalms and some Proverbs per "session." The content of each session was sequential from each section and together it was comprehensive. So you could argue that was in it's entirety but not proper "cover to cover", EXCEPT: the Bible I had was reorganized for reading through in a year with this method, so I still technically read it cover to cover, multiple times, even though admitted in the normal ordering it would have been harder because of some long boring stretches in especially the OT.

[@lamalamalex]

Libertarian and Ayn Rand? Oh no no no. She hated libertarians and with good reason. They take her views as a grab bag. Not as an integrated philosophical system.

[@derekmcaleer2386]

That might need some explanation. I’ll admit that while I’ve read most of her novels, I’m unaware of her hatred for libertarians.

[@lamalamalex]

@@derekmcaleer2386 check out the book Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A. In the table of content check out the section on libertarians. She does not hold back

[@derekmcaleer2386]

@@lamalamalex thanks! I’ll check that out.

[@kalidesu]

It was the dumbest thing to come out of his mouth, It was the other way round Rand had massive influence on Libertarians. And in turn Aristotle had a massive influence on Rand, it is the height of ignorance not understand Ayn wasn't in her own vacuum, her philosophy is tried to classical enlightenment philosophy and very little with the German school. Maybe there is an element of sexism with people like Sean Kelly. If Rand was a man, maybe they would have listened.

[@lamalamalex]

@@kalidesu The minute he said, maybe his faulty grasp is because he misunderstood her was very telling. Clearly he’s wrong. And what does he do? Go back to see where he went wrong? Correct his errors? No. The convo should’ve ended right there. He’s not fit to speak adequately about the topic, he has no knowledge of it.

[@authoritarianismaengussong]

Something one should never forget about philosophy professors, and teachers generally, is that they are (almost) all "welfare professors." That is, they make a living through compulsory extractions from their fellow citizens, not through capitalist free-market transactions. This goes a long way to explaining why academics despise Rand, and ("classical") liberals generally. A world where philosophy professors had to hawk their wares like free-market businessmen hawk automobiles would be, for those professors, a much less secure world. Bear this in mind when you hear any professor, not just a philosophy professor, disparage Rand.

[@benediktzoennchen]

Yeah, a space to think freely is a bad thing for capitalists. Thanks for saying it out loud.

[@seanzibonanzi64]

Philosophers ignore her because she was wrong. Reality is not an objective absolute (quantum physics), reason relies on emotion to get off the ground and any man that exists for his own sake is a narcissist.

[@bumpin0]

If your going to say reality is not objective your going into some postmodernism bullshit. Where there is not such thing as reality or objectivism.

[@tribalisnt]

Are you absolutely sure about that?

[@seanzibonanzi64]

It's not postmodernism, it's quantum mechanics. The micro-world of atoms and particles is governed by the strange rules of quantum mechanics. Two different observers are entitled to their own facts. In other words, according to our best theory of the building blocks of nature itself, facts can actually be subjective.

[@bumpin0]

@@seanzibonanzi64 Your using a very simplistic look into quantum mechanics and applying it to your opinion. Just because in very unique senarios in quantum mechanics can't be observed doesn't negate objectism.

[@benediktzoennchen]

exaclty. Both basic philosophy and basic science tell a very different story than Rand.

[@richardking3206]

Why don’t Americans pronounce Sartre’s name properly? Most often they seem to say ‘Sart’, and miss the second ‘r’ altogether. It’s insulting to him.

[@chad872]

You think human beings need any more of a reason to be selfish??

[@luukzwart115]

Yes, true selfishness means long-range rational egoism. It means coming to know how much of a value other people can be and extolling effort in order to start and build friendships, because it ultimately contributes to your own wellbeing over the entire span of your life.

[@chad872]

​@@luukzwart115 lol how bout no... you think it was selfishness that got us to dominate the planet or thousands of years of curbing primitive behaviors incongruent with the development and spreading of complex civil society?

[@luukzwart115]

​@@chad872 I give you that rational egoism didn't have much to do with the development of civilization. That's because rational egoism hasn't been consistently practiced by any civilization throughout history. That's why even the most individualistic cultures of today still regard it as a vice, rather than a virtue.

[@chad872]

​@@luukzwart115 "That's because....That's why...." Got any evidence or just conjecture? What if these principles/behaviors already existed before they were given a label and were so significantly disadvantagous it was weeded out through the course of human history.

[@luukzwart115]

@@chad872 What if. . . what if. . . It's ironic that you're accusing me of not coming up with any evidence when you don't have any evidene for your 'what if's'. Every culture known to man placed more emphasis on altruism than on rational-egoism/selfishness. If you've got any civilization in mind which didn't, let me know👍

[@Dbunkr55]

She's disliked b/c conservatives (some) have embraced her notions of individualism vs. collectivism. It's actually that simple....imagine were she a hero of the left? Would be hailed as a genius trailblazer.

[@Napalm6b]

Speaking from my liberal arts degree I will say Rand's integration of her philosophy in her fiction makes her characters unbelievable. I read The Fountain Head and I found it to be absurd. The essay on atheism at the beginning itself was great. The book from a purely literary position was piss poor.

[@anabellarivolta]

i love you, lex. thank you.

[@lamalamalex]

Purely original? Ayn Rand admits that she was heavy influence by Aristotle’s fundamentals only. And the rest of her system was by her own thinking. There is nothing like objectivism out there. Absolutely nothing. So in this other sense, she’s absolutely original.

[@elandy]

This guy's woke, I don't think he would enjoy ayn rand

[@aando5269]

Yeah, respectful, kind, open, and tolerant people don't usually like the obtuse and myopic ramblings of Ayn Rand.

[@benediktzoennchen]

calling an Heideggerian woke is the most funniest think I have read in a long time XD

[@notabot0101]

It seems to me the only reason ayn rand is relevant is because modern conservatives like to reference her.

[@rvc121]

Or because she offered a philosophy that allow man to understand the world around him. Or because her ethics are about achieving a long and happy life wich i for one want to achieve.

[@adriansolorio4730]

“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." -- John Rodgers

[@adriansolorio4730]

@@markv785 Lol..., No they didn't because nobody is trying to develop a philosophical movement out of the LOTR. You're talking out of your anus. I'm pretty sure academics (such a broad meaningless term) took LOTR as a book of entertainment. Do you have any sources on academics holding contempt for LOTR?

[@ajiththomas2465]

"Saint Petersburg in revolt gave us Vladimir Nabokov, Isaiah Berlin, and Ayn Rand. The first was a novelist, the second a philosopher. The third was neither but thought she was both." - Corey Robin

[@adriansolorio4730]

@@ajiththomas2465 Excellent quote!

[@ac-uk6hs]

Lex you know you know the answer to this . you're just afraid to say it. She's on the conservative spectrum andSo called teachers and professors have become more left wing fascist and completely closed off to any thought that's not more left wing than theirs.... Professors are getting fired left and right even tenure professors for not for not being lambs and following far left wing thought in University's. One poor professor just lost a job here at ucla last week... Not a peep from any other professor standing up for him and the ACLU has their head in the sand

[@paulprescod6150]

There are conservative and libertarian philosophers who are influential. Burke and Nozick being two prominent examples. Your hypothesis is thereby disproved. Ayn Rand is not influential simply because her philosophy is so bad. I don't mean evil. I mean poorly thought through: easily debunked. Her claims are grandiose and her products are mediocre.

[@laertesindeed]

@@paulprescod6150 You're very abysmal at logic if you think anything you typed disproves the original commenter.

[@Weirdomanification]

She was not a conservative. She was a staunch atheist.

[@ac-uk6hs]

@@Weirdomanification those are not mutually exclusive terms

[@gasun1274]

well she's a woman, and a woman who voiced non-traditional opinions at that, AND had following.

[@ET_LWO]

“Objective epistemology”

[@oosa358]

The irony that she lived off of welfare in her later years

[@Luigizares]

She did?

[@GW-gy1my]

She disliked taxes and that is where her taxes went to so of course she did

[@hermofvn]

Zizek doesn't ignore her

[@hymnsake]

Because her philosophy is the Keytar of worldviews. Sure it had a run and some cool people liked it but most people see it as lame in every sense of the word

[@IanGilmore]

Lex needs to stop trying to explain Rand to people, because he doesn't seem to understand her very well. He describes her as if she's an arch-rationalist, setting up a few axioms then deriving everything else, including morality, from them. That is the opposite of Rand's approach, which is relentlessly focused on reality and on keeping your ideas tied to reality at all times.

[@Ohgreatcj.]

Dude is an existentialist. Rand would’ve destroyed someone like him in a debate about ethics and epistemology.

[@cristianmartinez9091]

I wonder if she could argue with Socrates on any of her positions... I wonder if she ever read Plato or even Aristotle at all...

[@jakw97]

I feel like Rand is an existentialist, the guy is a social role theory guy. Saying you controll your mind more than society and your role in it is an existential truth, and I subscribe to this. But I think some people are more group member than individual, and it could be based on low personal extroversion but im not sure.

[@jakw97]

@@kurokamei Ok, not too familiar with here work but from how her arguments sounds it makes sense. Im not all there with the super Individualism but I see how it works, and it reminds me of liberal naturalism in some ways. I do think whe is to quick talking about caring for others as a display of social cues and it not being real, or something to that effect. I think she does not think about evolution enough, woman having to protect infants and so on. Just my opinion

[@jakw97]

@@kurokamei Interesting, felt the same first reaction about it living in sweden that has a very outspoked social norm of equality oriented social institutions and politics. Unions swing massive control over wages and workers rights, high taxes and state spending to "help the poor". My view on econonics has traveled more to the right since going to college and observing the amout of state politics that talkes place in there. Im a constructional engineer/social-planer so most people in my class could spot the politics in what we read, becouse we learned to read and do both disiplines. Every subject that did not revolve around some form of math was not objective science but mostly political talking points. I did 6 months of climate science, and most of it was badly supported scientific methods campared to construction. Mostly reasoning and some logic derived models, very little solid math and proofs. (PS. Im think man made climate change is a fact, but I thougt there was more to it than what I saw atleast). STEM programs in sweden are good, social science and teaching is a joke mostly. I meet teacher students who was told by their professors that evolution was evil, kids and people are ONLY formed by societys and openly told them what political partys not to vote for(illegal i Sweden). Ill try to read some Rand i guess, maybe that will solve it haha

[@Lunarvandross]

It’s interesting that privilege assumes that there are some innately valuable things. It feels like money is one, and that acceptance is the other.

[@ElieSanhDucos0]

Its with those kind of questions that sadly , from Europe, we see the more structural causes that makes a Trump or a Fox News possible. The fact that a Lex Fridman Can ask this is so so so telling. Post modernism/ Post truth 101. Why dont AI researchers never talk about Isane Clown Posse ? Why dont astronomers talk more with flat earthers ?

[@tribalisnt]

To even get it to a point where you can talk about how circumstances and culture can effect your reality you need to have reasoning and objectivity, like why is the black man in the elevator not a white man? How can you tell the difference? How do you know what an elevator is? Rand is saying i know what a fucking elevator is and in order to solve racism we'd both need to establish that we breathe in oxygen and that a tree is a tree or there's just no point. Are quarks sexist?

[@freethinker79]

Most modern "philosophers" are anything but. Read some Algis Uzdavinys, Pierre Grimes, or Jacob Needleman if you want the real deal.

[@Avidcomp]

Can't understand why so many have strong opinions about something …someone that they clearly do not understand.

[@someonenotnoone]

At some point you might want to consider that it is Rand's fault that her life's work is so poorly understood.

[@Avidcomp]

@@someonenotnoone It's not that. It is because most people don't want to let go of their mystical ideas. They want their emotional traits reassured first, and turned to dogma second. Therefore it's much easier to disregard her work. the fact is, to anyone that choses, her work is very clear to understand.

[@someonenotnoone]

@@Avidcomp Choice is the key matter - if you choose to believe her, she's understandable. If you don't believe her, she has nothing to say. This is just like a religion. As opposed to say, thermodynamics which works even if you don't believe in it.

[@Avidcomp]

@@someonenotnoone You obviously haven't studied Objectivism. You are right in that it is a choice. But it is a choice to think. Think through a process of reason. And then demonstrable that one may test it. Rand herself said she would reject anyone that followed her on faith - hardly a religion or a cult then. The purpose of her work was never to convince others to adopt her philosophy, her purpose was to explain her philosophy as she had created it as an end in itself. It just so happens it works. For you to say it is just like a religion knowing full well that religion depends on faith, and that Rand and her philosophy completely rejects faith. You are trying to criticize something that you know nothing about. That is not a process of reason. In my estimation it is the action of a mere cynic at best.

[@someonenotnoone]

@@Avidcomp Who would say they are leading a cult? No one says that, even when they are. "It just so happens it works", no, computers work. Objectivism is believed. Unlike steam engines and levers.

[@periechontology]

Why do philosophers ignore her? Because she's not a philosopher.

[@neway20045]

The fact that he has no idea about her philosophy tells me anything I need to know about his intellectual curiosity and scholarship.

[@benediktzoennchen]

yeah, did not read something which is not interesting to read. Good job!

[@DurangoC]

Rand was a clown, a shallow thinker in stereotypes and a horrible writer. Putting her in the same sentence as Nietzsche is disgusting. Lex should go back and take a good philosophy 101 class.

[@egioch]

Ayn Rand is a terrible novelist but is a brilliant mind. She practically predicted what is going on today with the world.

[@DeeperWithDiego]

Translation, I never read any of her books.

[@malapertfourohfour2112]

@@DeeperWithDiego try reading her essays if you think the books are bad 🤣

[@DeeperWithDiego]

@@malapertfourohfour2112 I don't think her books are bad. They are works of genius. And her essays are what scares every liberal and conservative today, because she identifies the flaws in western civilization and scientifically elaborates on what we need to improve our crumbling, dying way of life.

[@saagarAKmusic]

Please elaborate, what did she predict?

[@saagarAKmusic]

@@DeeperWithDiego exactly

[@jerrytaliercio9087]

I think Rubber Band is a

[@jdmathys1]

Aww man, that was an awesome question... ...this guy comes back with the worst backpeddled wet fart of an answer.

[@laertesindeed]

Back-pedaled, even. But yes, I agree..... the rolling of my eyes could have competed in a drag race when he answered by spitting out a stupid lie about how only a woman figures out there are expectations and limitations on them.... as if men aren't also born into a world that has expectations on them and limitations on them.

[@mchlnhs]

@@laertesindeed "I think it was easier for her to recognise that than Sartre because she was women." People hear what they wanna hear...

[@samanthaqiu3416]

his backpeddled fart of an answer (awesome description) actually answers the question: philosophy schools don't acknowledge their existence and hope everyone plays along pretending it doesn't exist. Which is what meant a 150% redpill for me about what the Frankfurt school is really about (not intellectual honesty, to begin with)

[@laertesindeed]

@@mchlnhs You heard wrong, as did he.

[@laertesindeed]

@@samanthaqiu3416 Agree with your latter comment.... but just fyi... "peddling" is a synonym for selling things... "back-pedaling" is the word for what the guy sitting across from Lex was doing. Pedaling is not peddling.

[@Vashthestampede967]

Ayn rand is not a philosopher. Why not? I've hears this in a lot of places but I have to ask what qualifies a person to be a philosopher? Education? Not really, Lotz of philosophers didn't have immense education but plenty of mental ability. Not writing fiction? No Satre wrote multiple plays that were semi scuessful. Politics? No, we can count camus, satre and simone as philosophers and they were openly political and wrote about poltics. Same thing for a lot of philosophers. Consistent or none flawed arguements? No they all have open flaws and issues otherwise there wouldn't be such a debate. Really I can't think of a metric where she would not qualify aside from people saying they didn't like her writing or think she wasn't that great. I get that but really she doesn't have a reason not to be considered one when she openly explains how she thinks about the world in such detail.

[@michaelrodriguez2780]

A philosopher is a lover of wisdom. Did Ayn Rand love wisdom? She certainly has her own philosophy, but it’s not really clear to me that she pursued philosophy in general. She didn’t seek philosophy out for philosophies sake. What I don’t like like about her, and why I wouldn’t consider her a philosopher, is that she has too many absolute statements to really be open enough to be a lover of wisdom. She’s too certain in her own worldview.

[@Vashthestampede967]

@@michaelrodriguez2780 as opposed to philosophers that didn't? I don't know that I can't see any of the problems your described for rand for any other. Camus certainly wrote for other reasons and tons of philosophers have made very certain statements. Also how many is too many absolute statements? 2? 65? 196? It seems to me most people can't think of a standard that makes sense for why she cant qaulify except they don't like how or what she said. Tell me in honesty what about what you said that I cannot openly say about anyone of the philosophers in history? Saying your a lover of wisdom is hardly a metric for a philosopher when most can hardly determine what is being wise. What is the difference between loving one wisdom. (Artistotle in her case) and hating say kant? These are anything concrete. At the end of the day people won't call her that because because doesn't do what they like. I could say camus wasn't a philosopher he was anovelist. I mean his best work was a novel and he didn't love wisdom as a playboy he made too many assumptions. These are nebulous at best. These aren't concrete facts these are opinions off of metrics that don't mean anything when put to reality.

[@nicholasbogosian5420]

because she was so provocative and because she had a following.

[@samuel_wilson]

I think Ayn Rand's philosophy could only ever appeal to an American