I would like to point out that Ayn Rand does offer a story of redemption in 'Atlas Shrugged'.
If you recall the character "The Wet Nurse', who worked for Hank Rearden, he was a subjectivist and a collectivist in the beginning but by the end he changed his character.
Unfortunately, he died shortly afterward, Not much of a story of redemption.
Personal responsibility & accountability.. These are virutes that have been erased in America today. Everybody is either a victim of something or can point the finger of blame somewhere else. The 'societal experts' have fed us this mind-numbing garbage for decades. Look at the decline that has occurred in the last 40-50 years. Dumbing-down in every sense. I'm reading Atlas Shrugged' and it is an eye-opener. I've also read the works by Nathaniel Branden...very good reading.
Ayn Rand was a moron who thought she could survive on her own genius but when cancer threatened to wipe out the little bit of wealth she managed to put away for her old age she changed her name and applied for welfare benefits. The queen of the Libertarians, a stupid bitch preaching to the ignorant. She had a modicum of success on her own but like other so called self made successes, when she failed and she turned to the state to keep her ass off the street.
@logtype47 She didn't change her name, her legal name was Ann O'Connor (married to Frank O'Connor). Claiming someone is a hypocrite for using a system they paid into despite being a proponent of self reliance is exactly as fair as calling someone who hates capitalism yet uses an iPhone a hypocrite; no more, no less.
I think the term "self-esteem" has been wholly corrupted by the self-esteem movement. Instead of not ascribing unwarranted guilt or accepting undeserved acclaim, today's children are told that they are unconditionally special, regardless of a lack of merit or any particular qualities or achievements. This is the way in which schools in particular are breeding narcissists. They teach an ethical system based on unconditional esteem, but not for any merits you exhibit.
Rand was a hateful shill for the rich... She had no philosophy... She was a shit writer who spouted the tripe of shit people with a powerful sense of entitlement... And this dude sounds like a jerk-off scam artist... Who in the hell would pay this dude...much less anything approaching a living wage?
@yanikv Opinions are not facts, and ad hominem attacks are a type of logical fallacy. One can only convince the weak minded with arguments containing obvious logical fallacies.
A world where men work 18 hours a day, are cold and un-emotional.... I'll take a pass. Give up on the dream guys, it will never happen. Notice how none of her characters had kids?? No man with a family can handle much more than 8 hours a day... nor should he. Don't make me explain why, you're all smarter than that. (I think)
@DanLetts97 What would cause people to suddenly start working 18 hours a day? Do you even slightly understand how the economy works? Who the hell would agree to that? Farmers don't work that long, and bushmen living off the land dont work that long.
Check out how many hours a day the Chinese work, and keep in mind that they're WAY more poor than us. You'd think that things would have to at least get worse than they are in China first wouldn't you?
@theredscourge It wouldn't be sudden... Ayn Rands characters (Roark and Rearden in particular worked 18 hours a day) and in her view they were "ideal men" Howard Roark in fact collasped from exhaustion and was found in the morning at which point he got up and went straight back to work. Study some history and see for yourself, it was unions (left-wing ideals) that brought about a 40 hour work week and days off.
@DanLetts97 Ideally I'd have 10 billion dollars, but it doesn't mean it's gonna happen.
If you think working long hours is ideal you will work long hours. If the the average person will not be willing, the market will not bear it. If the market will not bear it, it will not become the standard, and the market will adjust accordingly. So far, in the grand scheme of things, the market has been adjusting towards less work hours per day.
@theredscourge ..but how would the "average person" dictate the appropriate work load, for that is not their choice to make. A captain of industry will always want to maximize profits which means more work by fewer men. The only way an "average person" could have a say in such matters would be to unionize. By the way, Ayns life constantly contadicted her own philosophy...read Nathaniels book! Nobody could live like Henry Rearden.
@DanLetts97 the average person would dictate the appropriate workload by being unwilling to work for a higher wage that also required higher hours, or by banding together to stop working when they can no longer stand the lousy conditions. or by negotiating better conditions with management. if a chinese citizen is willing to work for $0.20 per hour making shoes, so what, robots put us out of a lot more work than chinese, and besides, many services can not be outsourced or automated.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
god.....look how he is busting with ego........just like ayn........I bet they are a wreck when they are by themselves. They must be stroked. They have a superiority complex. on intelligence....they are 7's that think they're 10's.
Every few years a new wave of self-righteous assholes rediscover that you can cloak malintent /greed / myopia with a facade approximating philosophy. This is all based on the childish notion of an observable "Objective Reality" that we can know and understand.
And if you disagree with it you're labeled heretical.
@bobbygnosis If you disagree with it you're labeled a fool. So you don't observe an objective reality? Does the ground spontaneously turn to water where you live? Does money grow from trees? Do the birds bark and dogs sing? Most importantly, do people with full volition choose to live their lives in pursuit of death, rather than joy and happiness? No, you don't regularly consume poison and expect to live? Well then, there's your objective reality.
@AashiquiTheri Between the time of sense data hitting your nervous system and you acting is a lag time. That lag time is when your brain interprets the data (like when you find your hand is burning on a hot stove). You make an interpretation based on the data. But it's a model. No more. No less. You think the model is 'reality.' I don't.
So, to answer your 'question'; yes and no. What I experience is real to me.
@bobbygnosis Your brain has no default values to it besides those of survival. The rest you have to decide on your own. You mention that the interpretation of data defines your reality. But who chooses to leave their hand on the stove, and who chooses to take it off? Your brain does not have a default action. The Stoics of the past believed in the separation of emotion from action. They would leave their hand on the stove. I believe I quite like my hand. I would take it off.
@bobbygnosis I quite enjoy rainy days. And much prefer the sunrise to a sunset. I hate the winter. But these are not automatic to everyone. I have two friends who jump to mind immediately as loving winter. Not very many others enjoy rain as I do. And sunrise, most are not even awake early enough to witness. Again, these are the choices you make, even though the same data is presented to the both of us.
@bobbygnosis It is an act of perceiving and responding to value. It is more than a model of the brain that interprets a sunrise to mean pleasure. It is a set of values corresponding to your uniqueness in genetics and your uniqueness in circumstances and experiences. How you have chosen to behave in your life will give you your values. Your brain does not give you these based on models of interpretation.
@bobbygnosis The Stoics and I are both acting on the same interpretation of the data. We are in pain. But it is the individual who must act to remedy or reinforce the situation. Any individual who wishes to live has to consider reality as it is presented. It may just be a stream of sense data, but it is the same data for all of us. Objective reality does not change, ever. This is the premise of Aristotle's "A is A". How you interpret, or evade, the A is up to you. But it is always there.
@bobbygnosis I understand where you're coming from, but look at it this way. Objectivism is a philosophy about living on Earth. I deal everyday with people, with work, with the elements I have come to rely on as being constant in my life (stone is hard, wood is durable, water is good, concrete is rough, etc.) Do I really care to theorize on whether these and everyone I meet are only existent in my head? No, I do not. Why? Because when I go to sleep in five minutes, I will wake up tomorrow.
@AashiquiTheri I also understand where you're coming from too.
I used to think my models were 'reality.' My models were shown to be nonsense. I got upset. I realized that an Objective Reality apprehendable by all humans was clearly impossible so I gave up on the notion. People kill each other over definitions of 'reality' you know. I want none of that.
So I started reading Lao Tzu. I think he's much better than Ayn Rand.
@bobbygnosis As has been the case for as long as I can remember. A has always been A, and the only thing to have ever changed is my perception of it. I care only that I live my life to the fullest potential, while respecting all others that do the same and not wasting my time with others that don't. I respect you for your perspective and understand it, but I believe in the rightness of Objectivism in living life. Why? Because A has always been A for as long as I have had the rational sense to
@AashiquiTheri Your model about A is a stable model. This is useful. I'm not saying otherwise. However, if, one day, A suddenly becomes B then the recognition that it was a model to begin with wouldn't make it too upsetting. I've found very often that my 'A's turn out to be a variety of other things that I didn't expect. I used to get disappointed. When I realized that all I had to do was call them models everything was a lot easier.
@bobbygnosis (Although it could be said that it was in his long term self-interest if it helped him to avoid contracting an STD. That's the only credit I can apply, and even then, you don't need "marriage" so much as a single partner.)
@AashiquiTheri You believe in the rightness of Objectivism because A is A ? This is a non sequitur. It's like saying I am a vegetarian because A is not B.
@bobbygnosis perceive it. I can't address the concerns of others towards their reality. I can only deal with others who are willing to live on the same planet as I do. And so long as I and the other 7 billion respect the rules of the world we live in, there will always be an objective standard to live with. Universal Truth, as the Greeks called it, Natural Law, as the Romans spoke of it, and Objective Reality as Rand wrote of it.
@AashiquiTheri Do you think a Christian and a Muslim would describe 'reality' exactly the same? What about a person who speaks English and a person who speaks Chinese? Do you think they'd describe 'reality' the same?
@bobbygnosis I hate to but in here but I'm not quite sure I understand what point you are trying to make . Are you saying that everything we experience is only in our minds and that there is no reality? Or just that we can't know if an objective reality exists?
@ryan84160 Yes and no. Everything you experience is in your head. However, the sense data is not coming from your head. It's coming from 'reality.' But we're continually finding out that our models are wrong (lies / miscommunications / inacurrate data / etc.). So we're experiencing SOMETHING, but the models that we create i our heads are not the things. They're models. The most mindblowing thing I've ever contemplated is that there is no spoon outside of the mind. It simply doesn't exist.
@bobbygnosis I think I understand what you are saying. I often wonder how and why our minds make sensory representations for things like colour. I know that there is a specific wave length of electromagnetic radiation called red, but I really doubt there is anything objectively "red" about it in reality aside from the way our brains perceive it.
@ryan84160 Yes, it's a shift in thinking. I find the model idea most useful when encountering things like errors and information that challenges my current models. I simply put everything into a 'maybe' state and reserve all judgement until I'm comfortable with my analysis. Strangely enough my stress levels have gone down tremendously because of it. I also find that I can explore deeper analytical lines because of this 'maybe' state.
@bobbygnosis If you disagree with reality, on what basis do you act? Towards what purpose? Objectivism asks you to work towards your best interests in life, on this planet. If you really, truly disagree with that ideal, than what would you prefer? To die and live in Heaven? To live in perpetual sleep? Are you waiting for a nirvana you can not know until you die? I live on this planet, with full conscience of what it means to do so. This is Objectivism.
the reality is that morality is subject to the variables of any given situation at hand, but that doesn't make it Arbitrary. And there is no doctrine or dogma, in objectivism, to the great many moral generalizations that people pose as moral question. but morality is objective in that it pertains to reason. if you want to understand something in science you adhere to the constants/concretes and the variables, and what the consequences of your experiment are. if you want to understand morality...
@KilllaCaleb I'm sorry but this is nonsense. Reason can not tell us what we ought to do. There is no such thing as a morally true fact as Rand claims. The only thing reason can do is to tell us how we ought to behave to maximize our success once we have determined what out values are. IF we value human life we OUGHT not kill.Likewise, there is absolutely no logical contradiction in one valuing someone else's life more than ones own or not valuing ones own life at all and committing suicide.
@ryan84160 so reason can't tell us what we ought to do, but it can tell us how we ought to behave, after we've determined our values. because we determine our values outside of reason? I disagree.
If you value human life over your own life and all other circumstance, then you WONT kill, unless you hold contradictions in your premises. but if you value human life circumstantially, such as holding your own life above all others, then you will consider all circumstances before choosing to killornot
@KilllaCaleb I am not quite sure I follow how you reach those conclusion, but that is beside the point. The ONLY way you got to those conclusion is because you decided what you should or should not value.
@ryan84160 there is no contradiction in valuing someone else's life over your own. but if you don't value your own life at all then you are amoral and you will kill yourself. if you hate yourself for what you've done or thought or for any reason, but you still appreciate thinking, and feeling, and knowing, and the fear of death supersedes your self-hatred, well then you still value your own life. self-loathing is deprecated self-esteem not the loss of valuing your own life.
@KilllaCaleb There are people who are so depressed or in so much physical pain that they do not value life anymore as the pain is unbearable. For them to kill themselves would be a rational choice based on their values. This may seem strange to you or I and you can even call it Immoral, but this is merely your opinion that is based on your values. This is NOT an objectively true fact. To think that there are objectively true moral actions is absolutely absurd!
@ryan84160 I'll give you an objectively true moral action. Act always in the interests of your own happiness, and towards the ideal of a eudaimonius life; a flourishing life. If yours is a life not worth bearing any more, then perhaps to end it with dignity is where you will determine your greatest value to lie. Not that I agree with this, but I will not argue against something I can't understand. Nonetheless, I hold eudaimonia to be true.
@AashiquiTheri How is this an objectively true moral action ? the only thing you can say about this action is that it is in accordance with your values and is something that you personally find to be a moral action. It is a subjectively true moral action.
@ryan84160 Objectivist ethics are objective, in that they are objectively in the long-term self-interest of a rational man. They are subjective on whether or not it is your goal to live for your long-term self-interest.
@SculptedThoughts Actually that is not true. I don't have the exact quote( I can find it if I must), but she said that she could "prove" her ethics were "true" using logic. However, even what you are saying is not true. It completely depends on how you define self interest.
@SculptedThoughts This is pure bullshit. Saying that something will or will not "help you function for the long term" is purely subjective. A christian could easily argue that waiting until marriage for sex is good for the long term. It is 100% based on your own long term goals and values.Even then it is NOT black and white, it is NOT either or, there are grey areas and nuances. Objectivists are exactly like religious fanatics when it comes to absolutist thinking.
@SculptedThoughts Ok fine, replace that with communist that says sacrificing for the greater good will inevitably lead to the best long term outcome for every individual in society. You have two massive problems with your argument. First, you need to define exactly what you mean by long term self interest and why it is an objective fact that we MUST follow it. Second,you need to explain how you have certain knowledge that following objectivism is the only way to maximize long term happiness.
@ryan84160 Man...how did you get so smart? Smarter than Ayn rand, smarter than Aristotle.Damn! Although sometimes you start an argument with an incorrect premise and propose it as fact, but hey! No big deal. Oh...and when others offer better arguments you don't process them. But other than that, you are so smart!!
@ryan84160 If your objective is life, than your values will support any action in that interest. Your morals will be biased towards the flourishing and accomplishment of your life. If we assume that all people want to spend the balance of time in their lives in pursuit of joy, then we can assume that any action towards that goal is an objectively moral action, as it is true of all. If you disagree with living life, then you embrace death. Then any action towards that end is an immoral action.
@AashiquiTheri Uh no we can't then say it is an "objectively true moral action" . The only thing we could say is that it is an action that most people would not agree with. And furthermore, even if you do value life and being happy, this does not mean you must not sacrifice anything at all for other people and live without regard for the suffering of others.
if your purpose and values do not conflict with your actions then you are morally just, that may sound arbitrary but you have to remember that your purpose and values are partial to reason, and are only subjected to variables that must be identified. if you hold psuedo purposes and psuedo values, were you've replaced your partiality toward reason with a partiality toward emotion, then your purposes and values become unjust, unidentifiable, immoral, unreal, you can't even begin to defend them.
if your purpose does not subject your reputation, business, or association, and there is no threat to any of your values that allow you to live, that is any value that if lost, would deprecate your competence and worthiness of living. then you have no moral obligation to kill or repress the man.
if your purpose is or partial to associating and socializing, and you value order and community than you are morally obligated to fight. if your purpose...
now the only other rationalization, beyond self-defense, that an individual may hold in moral defense of taking another's life is, purpose. I must differentiate that purpose is not passion, it is not purposeful to kill someone out of an emotional rage or whim, purpose is partial to reason. If you are open caring in the mall, and a lone gunman decides to go on a killing spree you are prompted with choice to flee or fight and to make a rational choice it must be derived from your purpose andvalues
self-defense, easy, if someone is threatening your life and your ability to live and your only away to alleviate the dilemma is to dispatch him than it is your moral obligation. because your morality pertains to your life doesn't it? your base value is your own life isn't it? if it doesn't and your life is not your base value then you are amoral and it is more likely that you would have died before this dilemma.
now you may hold several arbitrary values but they will be partially derived from your life values or the base value of your own life. if they aren't then you have not considered yourself rationally and you need to check your premises.
now to consider murder, is it wrong to take the life of another individuals life...
If you don't have purposes beyond life, then you are doing nothing, which is what you do when your dead, so you need purpose to live. now Self-esteem, objectively, is not a social issue. it consists of your reasoning that is derived from the question 'am I fit to live, and am I worthy of living'. if you are trying to live but you think you are incompetent or unworthy, it's because you have not considered your life rationally, you can not live in fear of life.
Purpose is partly based on reason and partly arbitrary because it is partly derived from the several variables of your situation and environment. but it is objective because you it is based on reason and because you can identify the variables your purpose is subject to...
now there are a set of values, called life values, that are intrinsic with the value of your life, because you need them to live. these values are Reason, Purpose, and Self-esteem. reason consists of the law of identity and the law of causality, reason is always objective and always rational. if you need to eat to live than you need to find the cause and effect of your hunger and identify what it takes to alleviate it...
If you don't believe that your life is good, then you will kill yourself, and there would be no need for morals, and you would therefor be amoral. if you believe your life is bad but you are reluctant to kill yourself then you are cognitively dissonant, you are holding contradictory values and you need to identify them and discern, do you want to live or die. if you want to live then have acquired your first value, your life...
So, as an Objectivist, what is your view on whether we should, as a society, let persons who cannot find work or sufficient charity starve and, if your answer is no, how exactly are we supposed to feed them?
and if that is your definition of a cult, an idea that people are interested and excited by, then yes objectivism is a cult along with every academia and ideology out there.
Within mathematics there is a genuine problem of universals and Ayn Rand didnt quite deal with it trying to dodge between the skeptic antirealist-nominalists and the platonistic mystical-realism. Thats quite an ambitious project for anyone to come up with "THE ANSWER" to these metaphysical dilemmas. It keeps philosopher academics employed and still writing books long after Plato vs Protagonistes, & aristotles debates.
What a great little interview! It has a few well made points and then ends. Especially interesting are his remarks about "redemption" as a missing topic in the works of Ayn Rand.
can i ask a question? if you don't like her why are you looking her up and watching her? if you don't full grasp what she is talking about there are alot of books out that will at least help you understand why she believes what she does. please if for no other reason then respect for the dead don't fill up these pages with overly simplified agruments and bad launguage, if you don't have anything constructive to say move on.
@ryan84160 do consider every political or philosophical ideology you don't agree with a cult? don't you understand that cults and religion are based on mysticism not reality? if you honestly consider the philosophy of objectivsim a cult then you obviously are very misinformed and have know true knowledge of the concepts of objectivism.
@Zimnyification what an absolute arbitrary assertion. what is a strange practice? define that and I will consider whatever it is you wish to concede. but if what you mean by a 'strange practice' is to imply a feeling, a negative feeling on which you derive your disdain. if it is without thought and only on this feeling that you derive your premises from, then in a word you are saying, 'Actually, a cult is a group that makes me feel weird. Just saying.' in which case, you aren't proving anything.
@Zimnyification I have no idea what you are talking about, i have not defined cult or attempted to define it. if you are referring to my initial reply I was alluding to the nature of a man who uses words as sophistry with out identify what they mean.
@Zimnyification I'm sorry you must have misconstrued my intention, but it's really not important. it's terribly hard to communicate ideas over the internet anyways, so let us just conclude this inane discussion.
I read it "For skeptics, the idea that reason can lead to a cult is absurd. The characteristics of a cult are 180 degrees out of phase with reason." "The fallacy in Objectivism is the belief that absolute knowledge and final Truths are attainable through reason, and therefore there can be absolute right and wrong knowledge."
Michael is the one being a skeptic and these statements are blatant fallacies.(continued)
if you can't derive truth from reason then what is Michael's epistemological premises? he is essentially saying that it is unreasonable to find truth in reason. this is the 'borrowed concept' fallacy. also he explicates the fallacy that objectivist philosophy is some form of absolutism which is wrong, if you were to go to a theater and you had to choose between two movies, objectivist philosophy doesn't dictate that one choice is wrong and one choice is right, because in reason there is no...
@KilllaCaleb Uh no, that is not what he is saying at all. Did you even read the article ? He was NOT arguing against reason.He was arguing against people that claim to have found absolute "objective" truth and that absolute moral or immoral thought or action can be found through reason.
@KilllaCaleb The is a direct quote. "There are no final absolutes in science, only varying degrees of probability. Even scientific "facts" are just conclusions confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement, but never final assent."
@KilllaCaleb Objectivism might not be able to tell you what movie you should see, but it does claim to know what "objective" moral thoughts and actions are.
wrong or right answer. Michael's basic underlying conflict with objectivism is his disdain for others enthusiasm for the philosophy, he doesn't exhibit any real proof or evidence for the falsehood of objectivism, he simply insinuates that 'reason is unreasonable and that you can't know the what is right and wrong by thinking about it, thats the fallacy of objectivism' what a load of shit. he's really just saying people are enthusiastic about it, must be a cult...
@KilllaCaleb No, his conflict with objectivism is not merely a "disdain for the enthuiasm of others". He layed out the critera and why objectivism fits the criteia of a cult.
@KilllaCaleb Hidden Agendas: Potential recruits and the public are not given a full disclosure of the true nature of the group's beliefs and plans.
Deceit: Recruits and followers are not told everything about the leader and the group's inner circle, particularly flaws or potentially embarrassing events or circumstances.
@KilllaCaleb Financial and/or Sexual Exploitation: Recruits and followers are persuaded to invest in the group, and the leader may develop sexual relations with one or more of the followers.
Absolute Truth: Belief that the leader and/or group has a method of discovering final knowledge on any number of subjects.
@KilllaCaleb Absolute Morality: Belief that the leader and/or the group have developed a system of right and wrong thought and action applicable to members and nonmembers alike. Those who strictly follow the moral code may become and remain members, those who do not are dismissed or punished.
@ryan84160 but that is because they exhibit characteristics that we can observe but have yet to reason and integrate into our understanding, like why the dark matter/energy between galaxies weighs more than the galaxies themselves. but when it comes to things like the letter A, things that we have immediate perception of, things that we can fully observe without obstruction, we can absolutely discern or identify. this does not mean you can ignore facts when they present themselves.
or ignore new/spontaneous characteristics about the letter A, because a characteristic is something that is concrete/empirical and must be integrated with what you know.
now Morality is, an immediately discernible concept. morality is the knowledge and understanding of how we interact with others and how we live our own lives, there is no great distance or wall or obstruction to keep us from perceiving how people have and are living their life and how they have and are interacting with...
Objectivism, in it's premises, isn't a philosophy of absolutes, it's a philosophy of what is real/identifiable/concrete and in many cases what is real can vary or change, but in most cases it doesn't and in some cases you can prove that the reality of it never will change, for example: triangles will always have 3 points, and never 4 points... you can't even conceive of a 4 pointed triangle, you may think of a rectangle or pyramid or some strange polygon...
Now, the implication that Michael is trying to make is that, objectivism states absolutes facts in contrast with what is. that we are willing to ignore facts and variables and empirical evidence to uphold our moral premises. AD HOMINEM
if you have been reading any of my annotations you understand how untrue that is.
now, all these criteria you have posted about objectivism, well most of it really only pertains to ayn rand and her social circle. none of it pertains to me or other objectivists whatsoever beyond 'absolute morality' which I just explained isn't absolute but objective. I don't worship ayn rand, I don't agree with her full heartily (she was a republican). if she was alive today and she said something that I didn't agree with I wouldn't put my social integrity above my rational integrity.
@KilllaCaleb You can not use reason and get from the laws of logic to a code of ethics. As much as Rand tried to assert this over and over, you can not get from "A is A" to "man must live for himself and not initiate force on other etc." Her ethics are not objective,but are based on her personal values. To have a code of ethics you MUST start with your values. The only thing reason can do is tell you what you ought to do be in harmony with your values.
@KilllaCaleb I did not mean to say that literally every person that believes in objectivism is a member in a cult. However many of her "followers" are very cultish and her "inner circle" behaved almost exactly like a cult.
@KilllaCaleb " I don't worship ayn rand." I did not think that you did. But there is a reason why her followers are called "randriods" . I have argued with objectivists about various topics that would literally not respond to my questions untill they had read what Rands opinion on the subject was. This is the exact same behaviour that a practitioner of dianetics would have untill he had read L.Ron's opinion.
I don't go to a secret club where there is a statue of ayn rand and we all pass around a pot to put money in and we all worship the words of atlus shrugged and if someone has evidence to the contrary we don't ignore him. this whole idea of objectivism being a cult is as absurd to say that astronomy is a heavens cult, or geology is a gaia cult, or zoology is a pagan cult, etc. etc.
Michael is certainly a skeptic to an unwarranted degree, and I assume you are too... quite extreme.
@KilllaCaleb Again, I did not mean to imply that you,personally, were a part of the cult or participated in cultish behaviour.
That analogy if flawed. First of all astronomy is a branch science. However, if there were a particular astronomer that claimed a controversial hypothesis was absolute knowledge and anyone that disagreed was an objectively immoral person, I would say his followers were behaving exactly like a cult.
@ryan84160 well, the only thing we seem to disagree upon is the objectivity of morality, I am quite confident in my understanding of morality I don't derive my stance on morality simply on belief, I am confident I have thought about it and reasoned it correctly. but I don't expect you to agree with me, I'm simply identifying our disagreement.
@KilllaCaleb I have no idea how anyone that does not believe is a supernatural deity that is giving us moral "laws" that we must follow, could also believe in objective morality. I think it is safe to say that we both would believe that murder is wrong, but you would deny that this is merely your opinion and instead say that this is an objective fact they way that gravity is an objective fact or that 2+2=4 is a fact ? This just seems absurd to me.
@KilllaCaleb How would even begin to test the claim that "murder is wrong" is an objectively,factually wrong moral action? To me this makes about as much sense as trying to prove that chocolate ice cream is the objective,factually correct ice cream choice.
@ryan84160 well it all comes down to an individuals premises, whether they believe morality simply has to do with "good and evil" or more directly, what they love and fear. Or does morality pertain to the sovereignty of life, which would require preserving what you love and abstaining what you fear, (and would therefor be a more rooted basis to derive from). if your premises is the former than your morality will certainly be arbitrary. now to explain why the later is objective/correct...
@KilllaCaleb It is funny because he would probably share almost every single belief concerning the government,individual rights, and liberty as she would. The difference is that he would not say this is objective moral knowledge.
@ryan84160 ok... first he is not advocating for reason whatsoever, he is say that the truth about morality or anything else for that matter is arbitrary or can't be known, he is very much anti-identity. he is saying A isn't really A it's just a momentary conclusion derived from extent of our limited knowledge. but how does he know our knowledge of A is limited? now I understand that there are things that we do not hold full knowledge of like dark matter/energy...
@KilllaCaleb When we say that A is A, we are using a law of logic. Logic,reason and science are simply the best tools that we have to discern information and come to conclusions about how the world is. However, the conclusions that we come to can never be claim of absolute knowledge or truth as it is always possible that new and better information or data could come in. We can only know things with varying degrees of probability.
@KilllaCaleb There are many political and philosophical ideologies with which I disagree that are not cults. Objectivismas a philosophy isn't a cult, it's just often cold-hearted. Objectivism as an organization was as cultish as it gets, though these days there's not much left to the organization.
@acr08807 cold-hearted organization heh? well you have surely shown me you have no idea what Objectivism is, or philosophy. philosophy is the rational investigation for truth in all things, it's not a bunch of political organizations. and if you find purpose reason and self-esteem cold-hearted then yes it is cold-hearted, objectivism isn't against charity, cooperation, and order. it's against enslavement, theft, and the arbitrary whims of irrational coercive men.
@Zimnyification if you really want to know what is right and wrong then go learn it for yourself and stop relying on others to tell you what to believe. do you really want this moron to tell you how to think? what a pathetic excuse for knowledge.
@KilllaCaleb That is exactly what her philosophy is about. It would help if you knew something about it before you called her a cunt and her philosophy rubbish. And I'm not as credulous as you make me out to be, by the way.
@Zimnyification I think you think I'm @ryan84160 because I haven't called her philosophy rubbish or called her a cunt, infact I've been defending it from ryan's bigotry.
"If you really want to know what is right and wrong then go learn it for yourself and stop relying on others to tell you what to believe. do you really want this moron to tell you how to think? what a pathetic excuse for knowledge."
My response: That is exactly what her philosophy is about. And I'm not as credulous as you make me out to be, by the way.
I took out the cunt part because I thought I was talking to Ryan, yeah.
@ryan84160 That is exactly what her philosophy is about. It would help if you knew something about it before you called her a cunt and her philosophy rubbish. And I'm not as credulous as you make me out to be, by the way
A is A is a tautological statement. So what if A is A? A is A and threfore A is not B? Of course! So? Reason is the only reliable source of knowledge. Unfortunately, for Rand ot her disciples, this reason is confined within the realm of materialism. What is reasonable is something that could be measured and verified by experiment or observation under a scientific instrument. Thus, only the material object is real. Hence: objectivism is equals to materialism.
@tekproxy Because truth and reality is something that could be touched, seen, heard, smelled and tasted. The rest would be dismissed as fantasy. Metaphysics and mathematics, love and generosity would be nothing more than constructs of the mind and would have no reality in the real world, which is nothing more than physical.
@wbarquez Hm, are you suggesting that mathematics, love and generosity are somehow not quantifiable and not materialistic? You must have a very simplistic view of what is physical or I'm not understanding you. Metaphysics such as what?
@tekproxy Mathematics and love are abstract concepts or mental constructs but they exist in reality and we see them in the physical world. We see two cups and two cups make four cups. We see concrete acts of love shown by one person to another. The human nature and consciousness are not things we can touch, but they manifest in the physical world so that their reality cannot be denied. We come to know about essence (metaphysics) through existence (physical).
There is also a fallacy of composition involved when people say "mathematics, love and generosity" are "just physical"
Ultimatelly the foundation of all reality may be some energy/matter dynamics be itquarks or Higgs Bosons or whatever may be discoveed next. However once these assemble into complex systems relating to each other then we have "love, generosity and mathematics" What would love & generosity even mean outside a physical framework ? Mathematics can be more tricky....
@jaybb789 Very True but I also believe there are other variables that attribute to the Rand group and it varies a bit. Either way, these people seriously need professional help.
@jaybb789 Her hate filled passion, her irrational thought process leading to her moral hypocrisy can wear thin very quickly, that is the reason so many abandoned her in her later years. Normal people solidify relationships as they age, tone down and get wiser, Ayn Rand was the complete opposite.
@jaybb789 Well then, you must admit that Helen Mirren is a lot more attractive than Ayn Rand!
And yes, Rand loved sex, ONLY WITH MEN, and she did like it a bit, uh, "urgently spontaneous" as do many of the female characters in her writings (Dagny Taggart).
@jaybb789 I saw the film based on Weidman's book but have not read the book; the film does make the point that Weidman wasn't so interested in sex but that could have just all been "Hollywood."
Interestingly, at some point, Branden starting fucking a women ten years HIS junior, so now he was having sex with THREE women; this younger gal subsequently accidentally drowned while they were on vacation.
@jaybb789 Of course one only has to study Rand's pathetic life, her failed relationships, her disrespect to her own spouse, her hatred of other groups and other people and her frustration at being Rand.
@jaybb789 As for labeling her supporters losers, I am afraid that there is truth to that statement. The majority of those that have latched onto the Rand mystic have failed in many parts of their lives, be it education, marriage, personal relationships or financial success and hence they latch on in sheer desperation believing that to do so raises their status in life when in reality it supports their utter desperation and keeps them in a state of fantasy fueled by hate and narrow mindedness.
@jaybb789 One can judge Ayn Rand by her legacy, research Leonard Peikoff, the legal heir to Rand. I am conflicted because in theory I agree with many philosophical and political statements and beliefs that he supports and advocates, it is in the execution that I lose all respect for this hateful little man and Rand.
.....
Unfortunately, the majority of those on the Rand bandwagon are pseudo intellects that have joined in order to belong, the majority are ignorant of what Rand actually believed.
I would like to see a statistic of Ayn Rand followers that would show how much or how little they know of her writings. She seems to have built a cult of ignorant simpletons that have taken her writings in piecemeal fashion without putting any effort in exploring other writings or interviews that contradict the basis of her tainted philosophy. This woman was a hypocrite in her instructions versus her actual behavior. 'Do as I say and not as I do' should have been her rallying cry.
Why do I get the weird impression that he's talking like a robot and doesn't blink like a human?
fairdose 1 week ago
@fairdose because he is ill, with Parkinson's, dude
lynnex17 1 week ago
oh man.. splitting a fat brownie with Ayn woulda been cool as hell.
seeqr9 1 week ago in playlist Reason.tv: Ayn Rand
18 people are afraid to be judged on their own merit.
seeqr9 1 week ago in playlist Reason.tv: Ayn Rand
gaze into the eyes of a zombie haha
teletran8 2 weeks ago
Very good interview.
erikvdln 2 weeks ago
Poor guy.
hagbard72 3 weeks ago
I would like to point out that Ayn Rand does offer a story of redemption in 'Atlas Shrugged'.
If you recall the character "The Wet Nurse', who worked for Hank Rearden, he was a subjectivist and a collectivist in the beginning but by the end he changed his character.
Unfortunately, he died shortly afterward, Not much of a story of redemption.
APaleDot 1 month ago
Just saw the movie. It was awesome. Can't wait for part 2.
zeerebel 1 month ago
Personal responsibility & accountability.. These are virutes that have been erased in America today. Everybody is either a victim of something or can point the finger of blame somewhere else. The 'societal experts' have fed us this mind-numbing garbage for decades. Look at the decline that has occurred in the last 40-50 years. Dumbing-down in every sense. I'm reading Atlas Shrugged' and it is an eye-opener. I've also read the works by Nathaniel Branden...very good reading.
MrGchiasson 2 months ago
Objectivism deals with principles folks. Some of you hear are showing your intellectual powers which are very small.
Bigturns33 2 months ago
Ayn Rand was a moron who thought she could survive on her own genius but when cancer threatened to wipe out the little bit of wealth she managed to put away for her old age she changed her name and applied for welfare benefits. The queen of the Libertarians, a stupid bitch preaching to the ignorant. She had a modicum of success on her own but like other so called self made successes, when she failed and she turned to the state to keep her ass off the street.
logtype47 2 months ago
@logtype47 She didn't change her name, her legal name was Ann O'Connor (married to Frank O'Connor). Claiming someone is a hypocrite for using a system they paid into despite being a proponent of self reliance is exactly as fair as calling someone who hates capitalism yet uses an iPhone a hypocrite; no more, no less.
theredscourge 2 months ago
6 pillars FAILS ,its ridiculousness
WhiteMoonLights 2 months ago
The scientific evidence doesn't support Branden's beliefs about self esteem. Google Lauren Slater's article, "The Trouble With Self-Esteem."
MrAdvancedAtheist 3 months ago
@MrAdvancedAtheist
I think the term "self-esteem" has been wholly corrupted by the self-esteem movement. Instead of not ascribing unwarranted guilt or accepting undeserved acclaim, today's children are told that they are unconditionally special, regardless of a lack of merit or any particular qualities or achievements. This is the way in which schools in particular are breeding narcissists. They teach an ethical system based on unconditional esteem, but not for any merits you exhibit.
Alexshrugged92 2 months ago
Rand was a hateful shill for the rich... She had no philosophy... She was a shit writer who spouted the tripe of shit people with a powerful sense of entitlement... And this dude sounds like a jerk-off scam artist... Who in the hell would pay this dude...much less anything approaching a living wage?
yanikv 3 months ago
@yanikv Opinions are not facts, and ad hominem attacks are a type of logical fallacy. One can only convince the weak minded with arguments containing obvious logical fallacies.
theredscourge 2 months ago
A world where men work 18 hours a day, are cold and un-emotional.... I'll take a pass. Give up on the dream guys, it will never happen. Notice how none of her characters had kids?? No man with a family can handle much more than 8 hours a day... nor should he. Don't make me explain why, you're all smarter than that. (I think)
DanLetts97 3 months ago
@DanLetts97 Your assumption is that hard labor for 18 hours a day is the inevitable outcome of this philosophy, and it would be false.
theredscourge 2 months ago
@theredscourge What would govern those limits??
DanLetts97 2 months ago
@DanLetts97 What would cause people to suddenly start working 18 hours a day? Do you even slightly understand how the economy works? Who the hell would agree to that? Farmers don't work that long, and bushmen living off the land dont work that long.
Check out how many hours a day the Chinese work, and keep in mind that they're WAY more poor than us. You'd think that things would have to at least get worse than they are in China first wouldn't you?
theredscourge 2 months ago
@theredscourge It wouldn't be sudden... Ayn Rands characters (Roark and Rearden in particular worked 18 hours a day) and in her view they were "ideal men" Howard Roark in fact collasped from exhaustion and was found in the morning at which point he got up and went straight back to work. Study some history and see for yourself, it was unions (left-wing ideals) that brought about a 40 hour work week and days off.
DanLetts97 2 months ago
@DanLetts97 Ideally I'd have 10 billion dollars, but it doesn't mean it's gonna happen.
If you think working long hours is ideal you will work long hours. If the the average person will not be willing, the market will not bear it. If the market will not bear it, it will not become the standard, and the market will adjust accordingly. So far, in the grand scheme of things, the market has been adjusting towards less work hours per day.
theredscourge 2 months ago
@theredscourge ..but how would the "average person" dictate the appropriate work load, for that is not their choice to make. A captain of industry will always want to maximize profits which means more work by fewer men. The only way an "average person" could have a say in such matters would be to unionize. By the way, Ayns life constantly contadicted her own philosophy...read Nathaniels book! Nobody could live like Henry Rearden.
DanLetts97 2 months ago
@DanLetts97 the average person would dictate the appropriate workload by being unwilling to work for a higher wage that also required higher hours, or by banding together to stop working when they can no longer stand the lousy conditions. or by negotiating better conditions with management. if a chinese citizen is willing to work for $0.20 per hour making shoes, so what, robots put us out of a lot more work than chinese, and besides, many services can not be outsourced or automated.
theredscourge 4 weeks ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
god.....look how he is busting with ego........just like ayn........I bet they are a wreck when they are by themselves. They must be stroked. They have a superiority complex. on intelligence....they are 7's that think they're 10's.
sssssjjjj1 4 months ago
@sssssjjjj1 I'd prefer a confident speaker to one ridden with doubt and uncertain of his own words.
U jelly?
TheColdTruth 4 months ago
Every few years a new wave of self-righteous assholes rediscover that you can cloak malintent /greed / myopia with a facade approximating philosophy. This is all based on the childish notion of an observable "Objective Reality" that we can know and understand.
And if you disagree with it you're labeled heretical.
bobbygnosis 5 months ago
@bobbygnosis If you disagree with it you're labeled a fool. So you don't observe an objective reality? Does the ground spontaneously turn to water where you live? Does money grow from trees? Do the birds bark and dogs sing? Most importantly, do people with full volition choose to live their lives in pursuit of death, rather than joy and happiness? No, you don't regularly consume poison and expect to live? Well then, there's your objective reality.
AashiquiTheri 5 months ago
@AashiquiTheri "What I experience is real."
^A very medieval world view.
Do what you like. I'm just saying you sound a bit silly.
bobbygnosis 5 months ago
@bobbygnosis Well, if you disagree with that...what alternative can you offer? What you experience isn't real? That's lovely...I guess...
AashiquiTheri 5 months ago
@AashiquiTheri Between the time of sense data hitting your nervous system and you acting is a lag time. That lag time is when your brain interprets the data (like when you find your hand is burning on a hot stove). You make an interpretation based on the data. But it's a model. No more. No less. You think the model is 'reality.' I don't.
So, to answer your 'question'; yes and no. What I experience is real to me.
bobbygnosis 5 months ago
@bobbygnosis Your brain has no default values to it besides those of survival. The rest you have to decide on your own. You mention that the interpretation of data defines your reality. But who chooses to leave their hand on the stove, and who chooses to take it off? Your brain does not have a default action. The Stoics of the past believed in the separation of emotion from action. They would leave their hand on the stove. I believe I quite like my hand. I would take it off.
AashiquiTheri 5 months ago
@AashiquiTheri No defaults besides those of survival?
Odd. I could've sworn I enjoyed a good sunset when I was a little kid.
bobbygnosis 5 months ago
@bobbygnosis I quite enjoy rainy days. And much prefer the sunrise to a sunset. I hate the winter. But these are not automatic to everyone. I have two friends who jump to mind immediately as loving winter. Not very many others enjoy rain as I do. And sunrise, most are not even awake early enough to witness. Again, these are the choices you make, even though the same data is presented to the both of us.
AashiquiTheri 5 months ago
@AashiquiTheri Enjoying a rainy day is not about survival.
bobbygnosis 5 months ago
@bobbygnosis It is an act of perceiving and responding to value. It is more than a model of the brain that interprets a sunrise to mean pleasure. It is a set of values corresponding to your uniqueness in genetics and your uniqueness in circumstances and experiences. How you have chosen to behave in your life will give you your values. Your brain does not give you these based on models of interpretation.
AashiquiTheri 5 months ago
@bobbygnosis The Stoics and I are both acting on the same interpretation of the data. We are in pain. But it is the individual who must act to remedy or reinforce the situation. Any individual who wishes to live has to consider reality as it is presented. It may just be a stream of sense data, but it is the same data for all of us. Objective reality does not change, ever. This is the premise of Aristotle's "A is A". How you interpret, or evade, the A is up to you. But it is always there.
AashiquiTheri 5 months ago
@AashiquiTheri "A" only exists in your mind.
I don't think you understand the significance of that.
bobbygnosis 5 months ago
@bobbygnosis I understand where you're coming from, but look at it this way. Objectivism is a philosophy about living on Earth. I deal everyday with people, with work, with the elements I have come to rely on as being constant in my life (stone is hard, wood is durable, water is good, concrete is rough, etc.) Do I really care to theorize on whether these and everyone I meet are only existent in my head? No, I do not. Why? Because when I go to sleep in five minutes, I will wake up tomorrow.
AashiquiTheri 5 months ago
@AashiquiTheri I also understand where you're coming from too.
I used to think my models were 'reality.' My models were shown to be nonsense. I got upset. I realized that an Objective Reality apprehendable by all humans was clearly impossible so I gave up on the notion. People kill each other over definitions of 'reality' you know. I want none of that.
So I started reading Lao Tzu. I think he's much better than Ayn Rand.
bobbygnosis 5 months ago
@bobbygnosis As has been the case for as long as I can remember. A has always been A, and the only thing to have ever changed is my perception of it. I care only that I live my life to the fullest potential, while respecting all others that do the same and not wasting my time with others that don't. I respect you for your perspective and understand it, but I believe in the rightness of Objectivism in living life. Why? Because A has always been A for as long as I have had the rational sense to
AashiquiTheri 5 months ago
@AashiquiTheri Your model about A is a stable model. This is useful. I'm not saying otherwise. However, if, one day, A suddenly becomes B then the recognition that it was a model to begin with wouldn't make it too upsetting. I've found very often that my 'A's turn out to be a variety of other things that I didn't expect. I used to get disappointed. When I realized that all I had to do was call them models everything was a lot easier.
That thing seems like an A to me.
^Much better.
bobbygnosis 5 months ago
@bobbygnosis (Although it could be said that it was in his long term self-interest if it helped him to avoid contracting an STD. That's the only credit I can apply, and even then, you don't need "marriage" so much as a single partner.)
SculptedThoughts 5 months ago
@SculptedThoughts You replied to the wrong comment.
Also Rational Self Interest is a childish concept.
bobbygnosis 5 months ago
@bobbygnosis Sorry.
- Statements don't equal reality.
SculptedThoughts 5 months ago
@SculptedThoughts You are correct - the map is not the terrain.
Ayn Rand / Aristotle, however, don't have a very good grasp of this.
bobbygnosis 5 months ago
@AashiquiTheri You believe in the rightness of Objectivism because A is A ? This is a non sequitur. It's like saying I am a vegetarian because A is not B.
ryan84160 5 months ago
@bobbygnosis perceive it. I can't address the concerns of others towards their reality. I can only deal with others who are willing to live on the same planet as I do. And so long as I and the other 7 billion respect the rules of the world we live in, there will always be an objective standard to live with. Universal Truth, as the Greeks called it, Natural Law, as the Romans spoke of it, and Objective Reality as Rand wrote of it.
AashiquiTheri 5 months ago
@AashiquiTheri Do you think a Christian and a Muslim would describe 'reality' exactly the same? What about a person who speaks English and a person who speaks Chinese? Do you think they'd describe 'reality' the same?
^Not rhetorical.
bobbygnosis 5 months ago
@bobbygnosis I hate to but in here but I'm not quite sure I understand what point you are trying to make . Are you saying that everything we experience is only in our minds and that there is no reality? Or just that we can't know if an objective reality exists?
ryan84160 5 months ago
@ryan84160 Yes and no. Everything you experience is in your head. However, the sense data is not coming from your head. It's coming from 'reality.' But we're continually finding out that our models are wrong (lies / miscommunications / inacurrate data / etc.). So we're experiencing SOMETHING, but the models that we create i our heads are not the things. They're models. The most mindblowing thing I've ever contemplated is that there is no spoon outside of the mind. It simply doesn't exist.
bobbygnosis 5 months ago
@bobbygnosis I think I understand what you are saying. I often wonder how and why our minds make sensory representations for things like colour. I know that there is a specific wave length of electromagnetic radiation called red, but I really doubt there is anything objectively "red" about it in reality aside from the way our brains perceive it.
ryan84160 5 months ago
@ryan84160 Yes, it's a shift in thinking. I find the model idea most useful when encountering things like errors and information that challenges my current models. I simply put everything into a 'maybe' state and reserve all judgement until I'm comfortable with my analysis. Strangely enough my stress levels have gone down tremendously because of it. I also find that I can explore deeper analytical lines because of this 'maybe' state.
Whatever, you seem like a good bean.
Cheers.
bobbygnosis 5 months ago
@AashiquiTheri "Same sense data as for all of us."
This is the beginnings of Naive Realism.
No two people have the same data sets or beliefsets. It's physically impossible.
bobbygnosis 5 months ago
@bobbygnosis Pardon me, then. Same stimulus from which to derive our data.
AashiquiTheri 5 months ago
@bobbygnosis If you disagree with reality, on what basis do you act? Towards what purpose? Objectivism asks you to work towards your best interests in life, on this planet. If you really, truly disagree with that ideal, than what would you prefer? To die and live in Heaven? To live in perpetual sleep? Are you waiting for a nirvana you can not know until you die? I live on this planet, with full conscience of what it means to do so. This is Objectivism.
AashiquiTheri 5 months ago
@AashiquiTheri I act on the model my brain generates.
Purpose? The best things in life have no purpose.
bobbygnosis 5 months ago
@bobbygnosis If they had no purpose, you would not be doing them.
AashiquiTheri 5 months ago
@AashiquiTheri The focus is different.
"Purpose" suggests an interest in ends and conclusions.
I think those things are nice, but not worth obsessing over.
bobbygnosis 5 months ago
you adhere to reason and circumstance and what the consequences of your actions are. That is Objective Morality.
KilllaCaleb 5 months ago
the reality is that morality is subject to the variables of any given situation at hand, but that doesn't make it Arbitrary. And there is no doctrine or dogma, in objectivism, to the great many moral generalizations that people pose as moral question. but morality is objective in that it pertains to reason. if you want to understand something in science you adhere to the constants/concretes and the variables, and what the consequences of your experiment are. if you want to understand morality...
KilllaCaleb 5 months ago
@KilllaCaleb I'm sorry but this is nonsense. Reason can not tell us what we ought to do. There is no such thing as a morally true fact as Rand claims. The only thing reason can do is to tell us how we ought to behave to maximize our success once we have determined what out values are. IF we value human life we OUGHT not kill.Likewise, there is absolutely no logical contradiction in one valuing someone else's life more than ones own or not valuing ones own life at all and committing suicide.
ryan84160 5 months ago
@ryan84160 so reason can't tell us what we ought to do, but it can tell us how we ought to behave, after we've determined our values. because we determine our values outside of reason? I disagree.
If you value human life over your own life and all other circumstance, then you WONT kill, unless you hold contradictions in your premises. but if you value human life circumstantially, such as holding your own life above all others, then you will consider all circumstances before choosing to killornot
KilllaCaleb 5 months ago
@KilllaCaleb I am not quite sure I follow how you reach those conclusion, but that is beside the point. The ONLY way you got to those conclusion is because you decided what you should or should not value.
ryan84160 5 months ago
@ryan84160 there is no contradiction in valuing someone else's life over your own. but if you don't value your own life at all then you are amoral and you will kill yourself. if you hate yourself for what you've done or thought or for any reason, but you still appreciate thinking, and feeling, and knowing, and the fear of death supersedes your self-hatred, well then you still value your own life. self-loathing is deprecated self-esteem not the loss of valuing your own life.
KilllaCaleb 5 months ago
@KilllaCaleb There are people who are so depressed or in so much physical pain that they do not value life anymore as the pain is unbearable. For them to kill themselves would be a rational choice based on their values. This may seem strange to you or I and you can even call it Immoral, but this is merely your opinion that is based on your values. This is NOT an objectively true fact. To think that there are objectively true moral actions is absolutely absurd!
ryan84160 5 months ago
@ryan84160 I'll give you an objectively true moral action. Act always in the interests of your own happiness, and towards the ideal of a eudaimonius life; a flourishing life. If yours is a life not worth bearing any more, then perhaps to end it with dignity is where you will determine your greatest value to lie. Not that I agree with this, but I will not argue against something I can't understand. Nonetheless, I hold eudaimonia to be true.
AashiquiTheri 5 months ago
@AashiquiTheri How is this an objectively true moral action ? the only thing you can say about this action is that it is in accordance with your values and is something that you personally find to be a moral action. It is a subjectively true moral action.
ryan84160 5 months ago
@ryan84160 Objectivist ethics are objective, in that they are objectively in the long-term self-interest of a rational man. They are subjective on whether or not it is your goal to live for your long-term self-interest.
SculptedThoughts 5 months ago
@SculptedThoughts Actually that is not true. I don't have the exact quote( I can find it if I must), but she said that she could "prove" her ethics were "true" using logic. However, even what you are saying is not true. It completely depends on how you define self interest.
ryan84160 5 months ago
@ryan84160 No. Something either will or will not help you to function for the long-term.
Did I say that I was quoting Rand? No.
SculptedThoughts 5 months ago
@SculptedThoughts This is pure bullshit. Saying that something will or will not "help you function for the long term" is purely subjective. A christian could easily argue that waiting until marriage for sex is good for the long term. It is 100% based on your own long term goals and values.Even then it is NOT black and white, it is NOT either or, there are grey areas and nuances. Objectivists are exactly like religious fanatics when it comes to absolutist thinking.
ryan84160 5 months ago
@ryan84160 Except that if there is not a god, it wasn't good for his long-term. He was wrong. That's all there is to it.
SculptedThoughts 5 months ago
@SculptedThoughts Ok fine, replace that with communist that says sacrificing for the greater good will inevitably lead to the best long term outcome for every individual in society. You have two massive problems with your argument. First, you need to define exactly what you mean by long term self interest and why it is an objective fact that we MUST follow it. Second,you need to explain how you have certain knowledge that following objectivism is the only way to maximize long term happiness.
ryan84160 5 months ago
@ryan84160 Man...how did you get so smart? Smarter than Ayn rand, smarter than Aristotle.Damn! Although sometimes you start an argument with an incorrect premise and propose it as fact, but hey! No big deal. Oh...and when others offer better arguments you don't process them. But other than that, you are so smart!!
drbadself 3 months ago
@ryan84160 If your objective is life, than your values will support any action in that interest. Your morals will be biased towards the flourishing and accomplishment of your life. If we assume that all people want to spend the balance of time in their lives in pursuit of joy, then we can assume that any action towards that goal is an objectively moral action, as it is true of all. If you disagree with living life, then you embrace death. Then any action towards that end is an immoral action.
AashiquiTheri 5 months ago
@AashiquiTheri Uh no we can't then say it is an "objectively true moral action" . The only thing we could say is that it is an action that most people would not agree with. And furthermore, even if you do value life and being happy, this does not mean you must not sacrifice anything at all for other people and live without regard for the suffering of others.
ryan84160 5 months ago
@ryan84160 Individualism / Objectivism is not concerned with groups.
Your posit is unrecognizable to a Randroid.
bobbygnosis 5 months ago
if your purpose and values do not conflict with your actions then you are morally just, that may sound arbitrary but you have to remember that your purpose and values are partial to reason, and are only subjected to variables that must be identified. if you hold psuedo purposes and psuedo values, were you've replaced your partiality toward reason with a partiality toward emotion, then your purposes and values become unjust, unidentifiable, immoral, unreal, you can't even begin to defend them.
KilllaCaleb 5 months ago
if your purpose does not subject your reputation, business, or association, and there is no threat to any of your values that allow you to live, that is any value that if lost, would deprecate your competence and worthiness of living. then you have no moral obligation to kill or repress the man.
KilllaCaleb 5 months ago
if your purpose is or partial to associating and socializing, and you value order and community than you are morally obligated to fight. if your purpose...
KilllaCaleb 5 months ago
now the only other rationalization, beyond self-defense, that an individual may hold in moral defense of taking another's life is, purpose. I must differentiate that purpose is not passion, it is not purposeful to kill someone out of an emotional rage or whim, purpose is partial to reason. If you are open caring in the mall, and a lone gunman decides to go on a killing spree you are prompted with choice to flee or fight and to make a rational choice it must be derived from your purpose andvalues
KilllaCaleb 5 months ago
self-defense, easy, if someone is threatening your life and your ability to live and your only away to alleviate the dilemma is to dispatch him than it is your moral obligation. because your morality pertains to your life doesn't it? your base value is your own life isn't it? if it doesn't and your life is not your base value then you are amoral and it is more likely that you would have died before this dilemma.
KilllaCaleb 5 months ago
self-esteem is rational conscious security.
now you may hold several arbitrary values but they will be partially derived from your life values or the base value of your own life. if they aren't then you have not considered yourself rationally and you need to check your premises.
now to consider murder, is it wrong to take the life of another individuals life...
KilllaCaleb 5 months ago
If you don't have purposes beyond life, then you are doing nothing, which is what you do when your dead, so you need purpose to live. now Self-esteem, objectively, is not a social issue. it consists of your reasoning that is derived from the question 'am I fit to live, and am I worthy of living'. if you are trying to live but you think you are incompetent or unworthy, it's because you have not considered your life rationally, you can not live in fear of life.
KilllaCaleb 5 months ago
Purpose is partly based on reason and partly arbitrary because it is partly derived from the several variables of your situation and environment. but it is objective because you it is based on reason and because you can identify the variables your purpose is subject to...
KilllaCaleb 5 months ago
now there are a set of values, called life values, that are intrinsic with the value of your life, because you need them to live. these values are Reason, Purpose, and Self-esteem. reason consists of the law of identity and the law of causality, reason is always objective and always rational. if you need to eat to live than you need to find the cause and effect of your hunger and identify what it takes to alleviate it...
KilllaCaleb 5 months ago
If you don't believe that your life is good, then you will kill yourself, and there would be no need for morals, and you would therefor be amoral. if you believe your life is bad but you are reluctant to kill yourself then you are cognitively dissonant, you are holding contradictory values and you need to identify them and discern, do you want to live or die. if you want to live then have acquired your first value, your life...
KilllaCaleb 5 months ago
So, as an Objectivist, what is your view on whether we should, as a society, let persons who cannot find work or sufficient charity starve and, if your answer is no, how exactly are we supposed to feed them?
acr08807 5 months ago
and if that is your definition of a cult, an idea that people are interested and excited by, then yes objectivism is a cult along with every academia and ideology out there.
KilllaCaleb 5 months ago
"romantic conflict between Branden and Rand" Jesus fucking christ, you're kidding? With her? Ick.
cochranexyz 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
He has a vagina on his chin.
Zimnyification 5 months ago
Within mathematics there is a genuine problem of universals and Ayn Rand didnt quite deal with it trying to dodge between the skeptic antirealist-nominalists and the platonistic mystical-realism. Thats quite an ambitious project for anyone to come up with "THE ANSWER" to these metaphysical dilemmas. It keeps philosopher academics employed and still writing books long after Plato vs Protagonistes, & aristotles debates.
transformations1 6 months ago
What a great little interview! It has a few well made points and then ends. Especially interesting are his remarks about "redemption" as a missing topic in the works of Ayn Rand.
bryher2 7 months ago
How did Peikoff come into the picture?
webmatros 7 months ago
"Valuing Love" by Nathaniel Branden
is featured in
"I Fysche
II Fysche
Raw Fysche
Gold Fysche"
who will be interviewed on Tuesday June 14 10amEST on SpirituallyRawDOTCOM.
Thank you for being so inspirational!!!!!!!!!
AsiaSiva 7 months ago in playlist Ayn Rand
Is this the guy she had an adulteress affair with?
nellgwen48 8 months ago
can i ask a question? if you don't like her why are you looking her up and watching her? if you don't full grasp what she is talking about there are alot of books out that will at least help you understand why she believes what she does. please if for no other reason then respect for the dead don't fill up these pages with overly simplified agruments and bad launguage, if you don't have anything constructive to say move on.
shelbeh94 8 months ago
@shelbeh94 Respect for the dead is an outdated concept. Because Ayn Rand is dead does not mean she was any less of a cunt/cult leader in her life.
ryan84160 6 months ago
@ryan84160 do consider every political or philosophical ideology you don't agree with a cult? don't you understand that cults and religion are based on mysticism not reality? if you honestly consider the philosophy of objectivsim a cult then you obviously are very misinformed and have know true knowledge of the concepts of objectivism.
KilllaCaleb 6 months ago 5
@KilllaCaleb Actually, a cult is a group with strange practices. Just saying.
Zimnyification 5 months ago
@Zimnyification what an absolute arbitrary assertion. what is a strange practice? define that and I will consider whatever it is you wish to concede. but if what you mean by a 'strange practice' is to imply a feeling, a negative feeling on which you derive your disdain. if it is without thought and only on this feeling that you derive your premises from, then in a word you are saying, 'Actually, a cult is a group that makes me feel weird. Just saying.' in which case, you aren't proving anything.
KilllaCaleb 5 months ago
@KilllaCaleb Actually I had my definition of 'cult' a bit off. You're right, it could be considered a cult.
Zimnyification 5 months ago
@Zimnyification you haven't defined what you mean at all.
KilllaCaleb 5 months ago
@KilllaCaleb I wasn't trying to. The definition of 'cult' would fit your use of the word, not mine. I was wrong.
Zimnyification 5 months ago
@Zimnyification I have no idea what you are talking about, i have not defined cult or attempted to define it. if you are referring to my initial reply I was alluding to the nature of a man who uses words as sophistry with out identify what they mean.
KilllaCaleb 5 months ago
@Zimnyification I'm sorry you must have misconstrued my intention, but it's really not important. it's terribly hard to communicate ideas over the internet anyways, so let us just conclude this inane discussion.
KilllaCaleb 5 months ago
@KilllaCaleb Search for an article written by Michael Shermer for skeptic magazine called "The Unlikeliest Cult in History".
Also, calling a set of beliefs "objective" when they are clearly based on her own personal values is a ridiculous.
ryan84160 5 months ago
@ryan84160
I read it "For skeptics, the idea that reason can lead to a cult is absurd. The characteristics of a cult are 180 degrees out of phase with reason." "The fallacy in Objectivism is the belief that absolute knowledge and final Truths are attainable through reason, and therefore there can be absolute right and wrong knowledge."
Michael is the one being a skeptic and these statements are blatant fallacies.(continued)
KilllaCaleb 5 months ago
@KilllaCaleb Of course Michael is being a skeptic, he is editor of skeptic magazine.
ryan84160 5 months ago
if you can't derive truth from reason then what is Michael's epistemological premises? he is essentially saying that it is unreasonable to find truth in reason. this is the 'borrowed concept' fallacy. also he explicates the fallacy that objectivist philosophy is some form of absolutism which is wrong, if you were to go to a theater and you had to choose between two movies, objectivist philosophy doesn't dictate that one choice is wrong and one choice is right, because in reason there is no...
KilllaCaleb 5 months ago
@KilllaCaleb Uh no, that is not what he is saying at all. Did you even read the article ? He was NOT arguing against reason.He was arguing against people that claim to have found absolute "objective" truth and that absolute moral or immoral thought or action can be found through reason.
ryan84160 5 months ago
@KilllaCaleb The is a direct quote. "There are no final absolutes in science, only varying degrees of probability. Even scientific "facts" are just conclusions confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement, but never final assent."
ryan84160 5 months ago
@KilllaCaleb Objectivism might not be able to tell you what movie you should see, but it does claim to know what "objective" moral thoughts and actions are.
ryan84160 5 months ago
wrong or right answer. Michael's basic underlying conflict with objectivism is his disdain for others enthusiasm for the philosophy, he doesn't exhibit any real proof or evidence for the falsehood of objectivism, he simply insinuates that 'reason is unreasonable and that you can't know the what is right and wrong by thinking about it, thats the fallacy of objectivism' what a load of shit. he's really just saying people are enthusiastic about it, must be a cult...
KilllaCaleb 5 months ago
@KilllaCaleb No, his conflict with objectivism is not merely a "disdain for the enthuiasm of others". He layed out the critera and why objectivism fits the criteia of a cult.
ryan84160 5 months ago
@KilllaCaleb Veneration of the Leader: Excessive glorification to the point of virtual sainthood or divinity.
Inerrancy of the Leader: Belief that he or she cannot be wrong.
Omniscience of the Leader: Acceptance of beliefs and pronouncements on virtually all subjects, from the philosophical to the trivial.
Persuasive Techniques: Methods used to recruit new followers and reinforce current beliefs.
ryan84160 5 months ago
@KilllaCaleb Hidden Agendas: Potential recruits and the public are not given a full disclosure of the true nature of the group's beliefs and plans.
Deceit: Recruits and followers are not told everything about the leader and the group's inner circle, particularly flaws or potentially embarrassing events or circumstances.
ryan84160 5 months ago
@KilllaCaleb Financial and/or Sexual Exploitation: Recruits and followers are persuaded to invest in the group, and the leader may develop sexual relations with one or more of the followers.
Absolute Truth: Belief that the leader and/or group has a method of discovering final knowledge on any number of subjects.
ryan84160 5 months ago
@KilllaCaleb Absolute Morality: Belief that the leader and/or the group have developed a system of right and wrong thought and action applicable to members and nonmembers alike. Those who strictly follow the moral code may become and remain members, those who do not are dismissed or punished.
ryan84160 5 months ago
@ryan84160 but that is because they exhibit characteristics that we can observe but have yet to reason and integrate into our understanding, like why the dark matter/energy between galaxies weighs more than the galaxies themselves. but when it comes to things like the letter A, things that we have immediate perception of, things that we can fully observe without obstruction, we can absolutely discern or identify. this does not mean you can ignore facts when they present themselves.
KilllaCaleb 5 months ago
or ignore new/spontaneous characteristics about the letter A, because a characteristic is something that is concrete/empirical and must be integrated with what you know.
now Morality is, an immediately discernible concept. morality is the knowledge and understanding of how we interact with others and how we live our own lives, there is no great distance or wall or obstruction to keep us from perceiving how people have and are living their life and how they have and are interacting with...
KilllaCaleb 5 months ago
each other.
Objectivism, in it's premises, isn't a philosophy of absolutes, it's a philosophy of what is real/identifiable/concrete and in many cases what is real can vary or change, but in most cases it doesn't and in some cases you can prove that the reality of it never will change, for example: triangles will always have 3 points, and never 4 points... you can't even conceive of a 4 pointed triangle, you may think of a rectangle or pyramid or some strange polygon...
KilllaCaleb 5 months ago
but triangles always have 3 points.
Now, the implication that Michael is trying to make is that, objectivism states absolutes facts in contrast with what is. that we are willing to ignore facts and variables and empirical evidence to uphold our moral premises. AD HOMINEM
if you have been reading any of my annotations you understand how untrue that is.
KilllaCaleb 5 months ago
now, all these criteria you have posted about objectivism, well most of it really only pertains to ayn rand and her social circle. none of it pertains to me or other objectivists whatsoever beyond 'absolute morality' which I just explained isn't absolute but objective. I don't worship ayn rand, I don't agree with her full heartily (she was a republican). if she was alive today and she said something that I didn't agree with I wouldn't put my social integrity above my rational integrity.
KilllaCaleb 5 months ago
@KilllaCaleb You can not use reason and get from the laws of logic to a code of ethics. As much as Rand tried to assert this over and over, you can not get from "A is A" to "man must live for himself and not initiate force on other etc." Her ethics are not objective,but are based on her personal values. To have a code of ethics you MUST start with your values. The only thing reason can do is tell you what you ought to do be in harmony with your values.
ryan84160 5 months ago
@KilllaCaleb I did not mean to say that literally every person that believes in objectivism is a member in a cult. However many of her "followers" are very cultish and her "inner circle" behaved almost exactly like a cult.
ryan84160 5 months ago
@KilllaCaleb " I don't worship ayn rand." I did not think that you did. But there is a reason why her followers are called "randriods" . I have argued with objectivists about various topics that would literally not respond to my questions untill they had read what Rands opinion on the subject was. This is the exact same behaviour that a practitioner of dianetics would have untill he had read L.Ron's opinion.
ryan84160 5 months ago
I don't go to a secret club where there is a statue of ayn rand and we all pass around a pot to put money in and we all worship the words of atlus shrugged and if someone has evidence to the contrary we don't ignore him. this whole idea of objectivism being a cult is as absurd to say that astronomy is a heavens cult, or geology is a gaia cult, or zoology is a pagan cult, etc. etc.
Michael is certainly a skeptic to an unwarranted degree, and I assume you are too... quite extreme.
KilllaCaleb 5 months ago
@KilllaCaleb Again, I did not mean to imply that you,personally, were a part of the cult or participated in cultish behaviour.
That analogy if flawed. First of all astronomy is a branch science. However, if there were a particular astronomer that claimed a controversial hypothesis was absolute knowledge and anyone that disagreed was an objectively immoral person, I would say his followers were behaving exactly like a cult.
ryan84160 5 months ago
@KilllaCaleb A skeptic is simply someone that will doubt a truth claim until there evidence to justify a belief.
ryan84160 5 months ago
@ryan84160 well, the only thing we seem to disagree upon is the objectivity of morality, I am quite confident in my understanding of morality I don't derive my stance on morality simply on belief, I am confident I have thought about it and reasoned it correctly. but I don't expect you to agree with me, I'm simply identifying our disagreement.
KilllaCaleb 5 months ago
@KilllaCaleb I have no idea how anyone that does not believe is a supernatural deity that is giving us moral "laws" that we must follow, could also believe in objective morality. I think it is safe to say that we both would believe that murder is wrong, but you would deny that this is merely your opinion and instead say that this is an objective fact they way that gravity is an objective fact or that 2+2=4 is a fact ? This just seems absurd to me.
ryan84160 5 months ago
@KilllaCaleb How would even begin to test the claim that "murder is wrong" is an objectively,factually wrong moral action? To me this makes about as much sense as trying to prove that chocolate ice cream is the objective,factually correct ice cream choice.
ryan84160 5 months ago
@ryan84160 well it all comes down to an individuals premises, whether they believe morality simply has to do with "good and evil" or more directly, what they love and fear. Or does morality pertain to the sovereignty of life, which would require preserving what you love and abstaining what you fear, (and would therefor be a more rooted basis to derive from). if your premises is the former than your morality will certainly be arbitrary. now to explain why the later is objective/correct...
KilllaCaleb 5 months ago
@KilllaCaleb It is funny because he would probably share almost every single belief concerning the government,individual rights, and liberty as she would. The difference is that he would not say this is objective moral knowledge.
ryan84160 5 months ago
@KilllaCaleb Objectivism meets every one of these criteria, with the possible exception of having a hidden agenda.
ryan84160 5 months ago
@ryan84160 ok... first he is not advocating for reason whatsoever, he is say that the truth about morality or anything else for that matter is arbitrary or can't be known, he is very much anti-identity. he is saying A isn't really A it's just a momentary conclusion derived from extent of our limited knowledge. but how does he know our knowledge of A is limited? now I understand that there are things that we do not hold full knowledge of like dark matter/energy...
KilllaCaleb 5 months ago
@KilllaCaleb When we say that A is A, we are using a law of logic. Logic,reason and science are simply the best tools that we have to discern information and come to conclusions about how the world is. However, the conclusions that we come to can never be claim of absolute knowledge or truth as it is always possible that new and better information or data could come in. We can only know things with varying degrees of probability.
ryan84160 5 months ago
@KilllaCaleb There are many political and philosophical ideologies with which I disagree that are not cults. Objectivismas a philosophy isn't a cult, it's just often cold-hearted. Objectivism as an organization was as cultish as it gets, though these days there's not much left to the organization.
acr08807 5 months ago
@acr08807 cold-hearted organization heh? well you have surely shown me you have no idea what Objectivism is, or philosophy. philosophy is the rational investigation for truth in all things, it's not a bunch of political organizations. and if you find purpose reason and self-esteem cold-hearted then yes it is cold-hearted, objectivism isn't against charity, cooperation, and order. it's against enslavement, theft, and the arbitrary whims of irrational coercive men.
KilllaCaleb 5 months ago 2
@ryan84160 How was she a cunt?
Zimnyification 5 months ago
@Zimnyification I can't prove that she is cunt, it is merely my personal opinion based on her moronic "philosophy" and everything she stood for.
ryan84160 5 months ago
@ryan84160 I gathered that much, what's wrong with her philosophy?
Zimnyification 5 months ago
@Zimnyification if you really want to know what is right and wrong then go learn it for yourself and stop relying on others to tell you what to believe. do you really want this moron to tell you how to think? what a pathetic excuse for knowledge.
KilllaCaleb 5 months ago
@KilllaCaleb That is exactly what her philosophy is about. It would help if you knew something about it before you called her a cunt and her philosophy rubbish. And I'm not as credulous as you make me out to be, by the way.
Zimnyification 5 months ago
@Zimnyification I think you think I'm @ryan84160 because I haven't called her philosophy rubbish or called her a cunt, infact I've been defending it from ryan's bigotry.
KilllaCaleb 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Zimnyification It was a response to this,
"If you really want to know what is right and wrong then go learn it for yourself and stop relying on others to tell you what to believe. do you really want this moron to tell you how to think? what a pathetic excuse for knowledge."
My response: That is exactly what her philosophy is about. And I'm not as credulous as you make me out to be, by the way.
I took out the cunt part because I thought I was talking to Ryan, yeah.
Zimnyification 5 months ago
Oh sorry hahah, responded to the wrong comment
Zimnyification 5 months ago
@ryan84160 That is exactly what her philosophy is about. It would help if you knew something about it before you called her a cunt and her philosophy rubbish. And I'm not as credulous as you make me out to be, by the way
Zimnyification 5 months ago
@Zimnyification "That is exactly what her philosophy is about." What is ?
ryan84160 5 months ago
Haha, I love his smile at the very end of the video! I just finished reading My Years With Ayn Rand. He is amazing!
SMSUMarine 8 months ago
A is A is a tautological statement. So what if A is A? A is A and threfore A is not B? Of course! So? Reason is the only reliable source of knowledge. Unfortunately, for Rand ot her disciples, this reason is confined within the realm of materialism. What is reasonable is something that could be measured and verified by experiment or observation under a scientific instrument. Thus, only the material object is real. Hence: objectivism is equals to materialism.
wbarquez 8 months ago
@wbarquez Why is it unfortunate to be confined to the realm of materialism?
tekproxy 8 months ago
@tekproxy Because truth and reality is something that could be touched, seen, heard, smelled and tasted. The rest would be dismissed as fantasy. Metaphysics and mathematics, love and generosity would be nothing more than constructs of the mind and would have no reality in the real world, which is nothing more than physical.
wbarquez 8 months ago
@wbarquez Hm, are you suggesting that mathematics, love and generosity are somehow not quantifiable and not materialistic? You must have a very simplistic view of what is physical or I'm not understanding you. Metaphysics such as what?
tekproxy 8 months ago
@tekproxy Mathematics and love are abstract concepts or mental constructs but they exist in reality and we see them in the physical world. We see two cups and two cups make four cups. We see concrete acts of love shown by one person to another. The human nature and consciousness are not things we can touch, but they manifest in the physical world so that their reality cannot be denied. We come to know about essence (metaphysics) through existence (physical).
wbarquez 8 months ago
@wbarquez
There is also a fallacy of composition involved when people say "mathematics, love and generosity" are "just physical"
Ultimatelly the foundation of all reality may be some energy/matter dynamics be itquarks or Higgs Bosons or whatever may be discoveed next. However once these assemble into complex systems relating to each other then we have "love, generosity and mathematics" What would love & generosity even mean outside a physical framework ? Mathematics can be more tricky....
transformations1 6 months ago
@jaybb789 Very True but I also believe there are other variables that attribute to the Rand group and it varies a bit. Either way, these people seriously need professional help.
MACKATTACK1970 8 months ago
@jaybb789 Her hate filled passion, her irrational thought process leading to her moral hypocrisy can wear thin very quickly, that is the reason so many abandoned her in her later years. Normal people solidify relationships as they age, tone down and get wiser, Ayn Rand was the complete opposite.
MACKATTACK1970 9 months ago
@jaybb789 Well then, you must admit that Helen Mirren is a lot more attractive than Ayn Rand!
And yes, Rand loved sex, ONLY WITH MEN, and she did like it a bit, uh, "urgently spontaneous" as do many of the female characters in her writings (Dagny Taggart).
SatchmoSings 9 months ago
@jaybb789 I saw the film based on Weidman's book but have not read the book; the film does make the point that Weidman wasn't so interested in sex but that could have just all been "Hollywood."
Interestingly, at some point, Branden starting fucking a women ten years HIS junior, so now he was having sex with THREE women; this younger gal subsequently accidentally drowned while they were on vacation.
SatchmoSings 9 months ago
@jaybb789 Of course one only has to study Rand's pathetic life, her failed relationships, her disrespect to her own spouse, her hatred of other groups and other people and her frustration at being Rand.
MACKATTACK1970 9 months ago
@jaybb789 As for labeling her supporters losers, I am afraid that there is truth to that statement. The majority of those that have latched onto the Rand mystic have failed in many parts of their lives, be it education, marriage, personal relationships or financial success and hence they latch on in sheer desperation believing that to do so raises their status in life when in reality it supports their utter desperation and keeps them in a state of fantasy fueled by hate and narrow mindedness.
MACKATTACK1970 9 months ago
@jaybb789 One can judge Ayn Rand by her legacy, research Leonard Peikoff, the legal heir to Rand. I am conflicted because in theory I agree with many philosophical and political statements and beliefs that he supports and advocates, it is in the execution that I lose all respect for this hateful little man and Rand.
.....
Unfortunately, the majority of those on the Rand bandwagon are pseudo intellects that have joined in order to belong, the majority are ignorant of what Rand actually believed.
MACKATTACK1970 9 months ago
I would like to see a statistic of Ayn Rand followers that would show how much or how little they know of her writings. She seems to have built a cult of ignorant simpletons that have taken her writings in piecemeal fashion without putting any effort in exploring other writings or interviews that contradict the basis of her tainted philosophy. This woman was a hypocrite in her instructions versus her actual behavior. 'Do as I say and not as I do' should have been her rallying cry.
MACKATTACK1970 9 months ago