:) I'm not trying to turn anyone into anything. This is my interpretation of why ayn rand is significant. I may be wrong, I may be right. You just have to use your own opinion, and decide for yourself.
SD's arrogance has obviously obliterated his ability for clear thought processes. The world is better off now that his videos have been deleted. Thank you
Ha! nope I'm afraid not. We are not the Borg, and you have a choice whether or not to accept your culture or not. We are a result of history (the past), but not the definition of history. Humans are too insignificant to lay such a claim.
Saying that your the "result" of history confines you, and thus refutes your claim that you are an individual. The computers, the ikea desk assortment, your cloths, all were the influence of the culture around you. Sorry Spark, the city is prior. You cannot escape your social/ political associations. You are defined by them, even your reference to the Borg (star trek) proves my point.
I liked this video, but I disagree about your "philosophy making sense in 20 books" comment. Rand was not advocating anything like Occam's Razor. She made a great emphasis to encourage integration and a rigorous pursuit of understanding of material.
ok, I can agree to that. But I feel there is a division and disparity between views a person has adopted without real critical analysis and views a person has reviewed critically and claimed ownership over.
I still believe that if you have to rely on the work of other thinkers to make a point, or validate your ideas, then your just using them as a crutch. I think a person has a responsibility to be philosophically self-reliant.
This idea that Ayn Rand heroically circumvents the arbitrary, elitist treehouse of academic philosophy is idiotic. Actual philosophers of her time, such as Bertrand Russell (a populist philosopher, by the way) would have chewed her up if they believed she deserved to be regarded in the first place.
I disagree, the point is not that Ayn Rand philosophy is flawed. No person is perfect. No philosophy can ever be perfect. And it's not even about how right, or rigorous any philosophy is.
The significance IS that she circumvented the "elitist treehouse" and spoke to a broader public. If continually repeated, it either raises the general philosophical consciousness; or creates some stupid fan club. Philosophy sucks right now because it's not making us any wiser. Rand attempted to change that.
I disagree. It's true that no philosophy is perfect. What is also true, however, is that there are standards of logic and analysis that make a five year-old's musings on the world less truthful than a physicists, or Ayn Rand's thoughts less valid than David Hume's. The problem with Ayn Rand is that her philosophy is irredeemably flawed; this should be of no surprise to any philosophically minded person who cares to examine the logical foundations of her doctrines. That's why she is ignored.
As well, painting Ayn Rand as a populist hero ignores the fact that there were plenty of populist philosophers in her time. Many of the biggest figures in 20th Century philosophy, such as Russell, Sartre and Camus were populist philosophers, writing plays, novels, journalistic essays, and popular books to communicate their ideas to the public. The difference is that THEIR philosophies could stand up to scrutiny, as well as speak to people's hearts and minds.
Also, there are no "rigid proofs" in philosophy, or in sciences for that matter. There are, however, are systems of thought that can be logically assessed. When you apply systematic, logical criticism to Ayn Rand, her "philosophy" vanishes, and that's why her thinking has never had significance.
You're right that a lot of academia does not touch the mainstream when, responsibly, it should.
However, the point is not that Ayn Rand wasn't seeking "validation" from academic philosophy. The point is that academic philosophy is not interested in Ayn Rand, because her philosophy is not academically rigorous, nor is it academically justifiable. Her "self-validation" is irrelevant because her standards of thought do not make the cut. Ayn Rand is to philosophy what Creationism is to biology.
By what standard do you judge truth? It's funny how many times people have to reinvent the wheel. Ann Rand was a just crazy bitch that just couldn't stand reading real philosophical inquiry as it shows how little she actually knew. I mean really...
My own experiences are my constant reminder that her philosophy is true. My knowledge, my conceptualization of reality, is the same as hers (as far as I know).
My standard of truth is REASON.
Most philosophers have spent their lives denouncing truth. They have been working to undo the very purpose of philosophy: the standard by which a person makes choices, based on what they think is true.
Most philosophers basically say, you can't know, stop trying.
"[Ayn] Rand was [just a] crazy bitch that just couldn't stand reading real philosophical inquiry"
Actually, she had read the things that the philosophers before her had said. She actually knew that philosophy has a purpose, whereas people like Kant and Hume just tried proving that it has no purpose because truth isn't possible and reason is limited.
In fact, for you to say things like that with words like 'crazy bitch' shows much about your intentions and character.
We have no organ at all for knowledge, for truth: we know (or believe or imagine) precisely as much as may be useful in the interest of the human herd, the species: and even what is here called usefulness is in the end only a belief, something imagined and perhaps precisely that most fatal piece of stupidity by which we shall one day perish.
A couple years ago, a class I took in modern political philosophy began with assigned material by Karl Marx and ended with Ayn Rand. The professor, who selected each item in the class reader, was not an Objectivist.
Well I'm not really interested in projecting Ayn Rand or Objectivism into schools or academia. I mean a common way people identify with ideas is by comparing them with another idea. Ayn Rand is not a philosopher by criteria that she never sought a rigid proofs in a peer reviewed papers.
But the state of modern philosophy is so bad, that more people are familiar with her ideas than the many 1000's of philosophers that came after her. So she gets brought up in conversation a lot, but many people read her books, and I think improve in their ability reason... whether for or against... So I'm all for that.
Ayn Rand was a sociopathic pig. Capitalism all the way, grafted from other brtual pigs.
hopkins4545 2 years ago
:) I'm not trying to turn anyone into anything. This is my interpretation of why ayn rand is significant. I may be wrong, I may be right. You just have to use your own opinion, and decide for yourself.
Sparkygravity 3 years ago
SD's arrogance has obviously obliterated his ability for clear thought processes. The world is better off now that his videos have been deleted. Thank you
Sepero1 3 years ago 3
Ha! nope I'm afraid not. We are not the Borg, and you have a choice whether or not to accept your culture or not. We are a result of history (the past), but not the definition of history. Humans are too insignificant to lay such a claim.
Sparkygravity 4 years ago
Saying that your the "result" of history confines you, and thus refutes your claim that you are an individual. The computers, the ikea desk assortment, your cloths, all were the influence of the culture around you. Sorry Spark, the city is prior. You cannot escape your social/ political associations. You are defined by them, even your reference to the Borg (star trek) proves my point.
Explitiv3 3 years ago
I liked this video, but I disagree about your "philosophy making sense in 20 books" comment. Rand was not advocating anything like Occam's Razor. She made a great emphasis to encourage integration and a rigorous pursuit of understanding of material.
orangeman4242 4 years ago
ok, I can agree to that. But I feel there is a division and disparity between views a person has adopted without real critical analysis and views a person has reviewed critically and claimed ownership over.
I still believe that if you have to rely on the work of other thinkers to make a point, or validate your ideas, then your just using them as a crutch. I think a person has a responsibility to be philosophically self-reliant.
Sparkygravity 4 years ago
This idea that Ayn Rand heroically circumvents the arbitrary, elitist treehouse of academic philosophy is idiotic. Actual philosophers of her time, such as Bertrand Russell (a populist philosopher, by the way) would have chewed her up if they believed she deserved to be regarded in the first place.
Meibukan 4 years ago
I disagree, the point is not that Ayn Rand philosophy is flawed. No person is perfect. No philosophy can ever be perfect. And it's not even about how right, or rigorous any philosophy is.
The significance IS that she circumvented the "elitist treehouse" and spoke to a broader public. If continually repeated, it either raises the general philosophical consciousness; or creates some stupid fan club. Philosophy sucks right now because it's not making us any wiser. Rand attempted to change that.
Sparkygravity 4 years ago
I disagree. It's true that no philosophy is perfect. What is also true, however, is that there are standards of logic and analysis that make a five year-old's musings on the world less truthful than a physicists, or Ayn Rand's thoughts less valid than David Hume's. The problem with Ayn Rand is that her philosophy is irredeemably flawed; this should be of no surprise to any philosophically minded person who cares to examine the logical foundations of her doctrines. That's why she is ignored.
Meibukan 4 years ago
As well, painting Ayn Rand as a populist hero ignores the fact that there were plenty of populist philosophers in her time. Many of the biggest figures in 20th Century philosophy, such as Russell, Sartre and Camus were populist philosophers, writing plays, novels, journalistic essays, and popular books to communicate their ideas to the public. The difference is that THEIR philosophies could stand up to scrutiny, as well as speak to people's hearts and minds.
Meibukan 4 years ago 2
Also, there are no "rigid proofs" in philosophy, or in sciences for that matter. There are, however, are systems of thought that can be logically assessed. When you apply systematic, logical criticism to Ayn Rand, her "philosophy" vanishes, and that's why her thinking has never had significance.
Meibukan 4 years ago
You're right that a lot of academia does not touch the mainstream when, responsibly, it should.
However, the point is not that Ayn Rand wasn't seeking "validation" from academic philosophy. The point is that academic philosophy is not interested in Ayn Rand, because her philosophy is not academically rigorous, nor is it academically justifiable. Her "self-validation" is irrelevant because her standards of thought do not make the cut. Ayn Rand is to philosophy what Creationism is to biology.
Meibukan 4 years ago 3
Yes, it is kinda sad that many people take "significance" as being how many times they have been referenced.
Philosophy _should_ be judged by how true it is, not by how many people agree with it. With this standard in mind, Ayn Rand was quite significant.
horvay 4 years ago
By what standard do you judge truth? It's funny how many times people have to reinvent the wheel. Ann Rand was a just crazy bitch that just couldn't stand reading real philosophical inquiry as it shows how little she actually knew. I mean really...
Explitiv3 3 years ago
My own experiences are my constant reminder that her philosophy is true. My knowledge, my conceptualization of reality, is the same as hers (as far as I know).
My standard of truth is REASON.
Most philosophers have spent their lives denouncing truth. They have been working to undo the very purpose of philosophy: the standard by which a person makes choices, based on what they think is true.
Most philosophers basically say, you can't know, stop trying.
How much do you know about her?
horvay 3 years ago 3
"[Ayn] Rand was [just a] crazy bitch that just couldn't stand reading real philosophical inquiry"
Actually, she had read the things that the philosophers before her had said. She actually knew that philosophy has a purpose, whereas people like Kant and Hume just tried proving that it has no purpose because truth isn't possible and reason is limited.
In fact, for you to say things like that with words like 'crazy bitch' shows much about your intentions and character.
horvay 3 years ago 4
truth isn't possible...
We have no organ at all for knowledge, for truth: we know (or believe or imagine) precisely as much as may be useful in the interest of the human herd, the species: and even what is here called usefulness is in the end only a belief, something imagined and perhaps precisely that most fatal piece of stupidity by which we shall one day perish.
Explitiv3 3 years ago
Funny guy. Now get back in your hole!
horvay 3 years ago
What, oh I thought I heard a pig die outside... wait that's just your mouth moving.
Explitiv3 3 years ago
Excellent, excellent video!
nine9s 4 years ago
Ayn Rand rocks, and so does this video. :-)
legendre007 4 years ago
Ayn Rand does rock, and I'm glad you liked the video.
Sparkygravity 4 years ago
A couple years ago, a class I took in modern political philosophy began with assigned material by Karl Marx and ended with Ayn Rand. The professor, who selected each item in the class reader, was not an Objectivist.
jwoodswce 4 years ago
Well I'm not really interested in projecting Ayn Rand or Objectivism into schools or academia. I mean a common way people identify with ideas is by comparing them with another idea. Ayn Rand is not a philosopher by criteria that she never sought a rigid proofs in a peer reviewed papers.
Sparkygravity 4 years ago
But the state of modern philosophy is so bad, that more people are familiar with her ideas than the many 1000's of philosophers that came after her. So she gets brought up in conversation a lot, but many people read her books, and I think improve in their ability reason... whether for or against... So I'm all for that.
Sparkygravity 4 years ago
Good stuff!
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago 3
Self-Validating...Yes!
Inaissance 4 years ago