Roarke didn't want Cortland to be built exactly the he way he designed it because he is a fascist.He wanted the building to be true to its original function. He had every right to his intellectual property and the agreement on which he submitted was breached.Toohey,and the others you term as capitalist may have wanted to capitalize on Roarkes position(unpopular)or naivety,but Roarkes intellectual property(design)was the primary capital.He was the capitalist.
I actually like this video clip, because it demonstrates how dumb American thugs could be. Even the title of this idiotic video is Orwellish type of absurdity generated by very sick mind of uneducated and brainwashed human excrement. Author of this video-garbage doesn't even understand that Objectivism and Communism are two diametrically different philosophies. And I believe this author is very typical idiot forming today's America's Academy. This is exactly why this country is doomed.
I saw in the preview that some chick was equating Rand to Communism. I listened far enough for her to mention that she wasn't an expert on Rand. All I need to know. Thanks, lady!
Yeah. I'm anarcho-capitalist. I agree with Rand on mostly everything except that it's clear that intellectual property is nonsense. Only thing is that capitalism doesn't enslave people at all, it's socialism that does. Both sides may critique the other on similar points. They both claim the other enslaves people, that's it. In any case, one philosophy (Ayn Rand's/capitalism) is individualist the other (Marxist) is collectivist. No individualist philosophy can be communist in a fundamental way.
although new ideas haven't always been opposed by those in power, you are wrong to claim that good ideas are always supported. what about heliocentrism and evolution? what about monarchs trying to censor ideas about democracy throughout history?
stupid fuck, the length of the guy's hair is completely fucking irrelevant, don't be an ignorant bitch, if you have some point to make, then argue it, if you don' then keep your goddamn fucking mouth shut. i totally disagree with this guy, but at least he's arguing something, unlike you!
Straw man attack: "taking somebody's word on everything as gospel truth is sadly miguided." You're making a monstrously huge assumption about every Rand follower that they didn't bother to think about anything she said and just accepted it. And if you "agree on several points," but think she is just "wrong on several significant points," First of all, you're holding contradictions, not her, because Objectivism is a FULLY integrated philosophy, contradiction-free. Try again.
Have you ever read any history and if so, how could you not know about the persecution of people who discovered truths? You seem unaware of the inventions that were "lost" or never improved upon most likely because of superstition or existing slave systems.
What parts are you being tongue and cheeck about? Where is the humor? You claim to be "playing around" yet your comments keep trying to claim a connection between Rand and marxism. This vid and your comments seem sneaky. It's weird.
@foxrobe2 Nah, Marx was definitely criticizing capitalism. Das Kapital was a direct critique of classical political economy, on the political economists' own terms. Most of his arguments assumed a perfectly functioning, classical liberal, free market society.
You need to read an author before you analyze them. If all you do is watch the end of a movie, Jaws in the story of 3 men who want to kill a shark for no reason.
If you read teh book, or even watched the whole movie you would know that they asked him to design the building because they needed HIM. He refused, they pressured him, and the one stipulation of his commission was that it be built to his exact specification,. which they agreed to. He didnt need them to fund the eproject.
I have held the same ideas in my mind about the fountainhead in particular and Ayn Rand in general. I agree with you about her confused and confusing statements. To her, art was superior, her self included.The story is really quite romantic and immature in my opinion. True communism has never existed. Fascist communism, self interested, desperate communism, yeah, Secular feudalism is right To say that the fountainhead supports a capitalist/individualist ideal is stupid, I agree.
It is the decry of capitalism that no man has the right to another man's labour, to take it by force or by fraud. It is the decry of communism that every man has the right to the labour of every other man in his society, and that the state should provide all men that right by force. The Fountainhead is a clear expression of the former and not the latter.
Keating and a gang of other prestigious, incompetent architects altered his design, and made it plainly worse, solely for the sake of having some part in the project and gaining from its success. They had no right. Roark and Keating had a verbal contract that Roark's own design would be adhered to to the letter. Roark held that since this contract had been broken, he had a right to destroy the results of his own work to prevent it from being unfairly exploited.
Yet no one wanted to associate themself with Roark because of the individualist and pragmatic ideas he represented. It was bad politics. There was a man, however, who had no ability whatsoever as an architect but a great deal of respect because of the contrary ideas he represented. This man, Keating, asked Roark to design the building for him in secret. Roark agreed because the only thing that mattered to him was seeing his design put into practice, since a good plan deserves being used.
The situation in The Fountainhead was this: Roark had a building design which all parties in the story agreed was valuable because it was an efficient design which served its purpose well and yet was very cheap to build, the most benefit for the least cost. Getting the money for the project wouldn't have been an issue because whoever payed Roark to use the plan and payed to erect the building would have profitted from its good design.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Marxism holds that you are entitled automatically to wealth regardless of what you can do to earn it, and that if you've produced more wealth than someone else, the state guarantees your right to give that wealth away and expect nothing in return. This is how marxism "frees" the individual, by taking away his obligation to himself, only in exchange it grants an obligation to someone else.
I commented before watching the video itself, just reading titol and description. It looked so incredibly idiot, as I missed the ironic intention, that I had to write something to express my disbelief. My fault :) I'll watch it as soon as I can.
Simple. if you do not know her work, or objectivism, or libertasrianism of liazze fair. SHUT up and stop making a fool of yourself. that you didnt know anything about it bacame appearent after the first minute. Objectivism promotes the scientific thought and the notion that any individual is an individual and enjoys personal sovreinty from state of any other man/woman. but basing your arguments against her on 3rd party mentionings is the most foolish way of making up an opinion.
You know just enough to be impress your friends that are even less informed than yourself. You could not be more wrong. It is hysterical that you didn't read the book but only saw the movie. I guess if you saw "The ten commandments" you would consider your self a theological expert? Ayn Rand does in fact have ALL of the answers. Those being FACT,REALITY, and LOGIC. Anything not covered there is WRONG and BAD! Really pretty simple! arm chair philosophers like you are damaging to society.
@tygerlyons in a sense, though, there really is. People behave and think differently in groups than they do by themselves. This is well documented in psychological phenomena like the bystander effect and group-think. Describing society as a collection of individuals is not the only meaningful or useful way to describe it.
To answer your last question...no, you're not necessarily crazy, just under-educated... but hey, all is not lost; wisdom comes with age...relax, you'll get there.
2:15 You're not an expert alright, you're not even clever enough to stear away from a poor rethorical point. Obviously it didn't even occur to you how much more demanding it is to support objectivism than any other kind, which is always a grade of collectivism. If you did know this simple, well known fact, you would stopped yourself from this your moronic remark.
Marxism and Randism sharing the same mistake: the real life is not thinkers rational utopia. Ideas are holy therefore people must suffer. Humans will keep on dreaming and making the same faults. Capitalism depends on a dynamic collectiv phenomenon: the market. Ironical hazard: thinker convincing others her moral standards is a starting point of an collectiv idea. The fountain of a cult. Nobody is perfect.
I think you miss the whole point of the book. It had nothing to do with actual architecture or intellectual property. These things where just elements used to convey the message - you know to make it a novel/story not a historical lecture on the trends in architecture or intellectual property. This is a novel, not a manifesto.
The architecture of all the buildings represented collectivism. Roark's design represented individualism.
Roark's complaints were against collectivism, and for individualism. He wanted his intellectual property honored as such--not betrayed, stolen, and abused. A communist believes no individual has intellectual property; only the collective has intellectual property. Drawing comparisons between Roark and Marx is not only illogical; it's dishonest as well.
@Attritive why is it so few people see to grasp the tongue-in-cheek nature of this video? for all Rand talked about self interest, it is ironic that building the project their way rather than Roark's was in THEIR self interest. it has nothing to do with collectivism. its conflicting self interest.
@tooltime9901 It's not in one's self-interest to do what they did to Roark's building. It's also not in one's self-interest to think by their method, or to aim for the 'values' you seem to claim they were aiming for. Nor was it intended to be. I refer you to the passage in the book where Toohey convinces Keating to admit Roark was the designer.
@tooltime9901 the bad guys didn't represent "Self-Interest". They were not making the changes for an individuals self-interest, but to make the design conform with the collective view of how it should be. I don't think self interest plays in to this story line much at all. Again you are reading this as if it is a manifesto (or guide to life), but it is a story filled with symbolism to make the Ayn's point about how the collective destroys the individual and the adverse effects of it.
@tooltime9901 "Their way" would be throwing out Roark's ideas and coming up with their own, not changing his. Collaboration is a form of collectivism.
@toolturd9901 -You are so confused. Quit trying to be serious you clown. lolAyn Rand puts you to shame. If you have something to say read a BOOK. Dont try to take a CLIP from a movie she wrote about a NOVEL. LOL!! Dude you are way out of your league. There is communism right now you fucking dip-shit and collectivism is the most destructive catastrophe in history. You are just an inebriated squirt from your D-bag father gone wrong. He should have let you run down the drain. Pseudo intellectual.
@tooltime9901 I think most of us understand by now your title is a joke (after you say so). But your comments say Rourke was like a Marxist and some of the other things you posted and say in the video, you say the stuff seems "fascist" or Marxist or Communistic which is what I think people are commenting on. I just wanna say WTF to your brain. Not trying to be mean just sayin. I think your views of what Marxism and Objectivism are slightly fundamentally flawed. Not crazy just innacurate.
first of all, in Rational Egoism, you can only serve your best interests as long as you are not actively violating the rights of others; therefore, either way, they don't have the right to infringe on his intellectual property. Also, it has nothing to do with the self-interest of the people building the project--it was a non-profit housing project. they added superfluous decoration and luxuries since they were under-budget.
@tooltime9901 Did you even read the book.. They wished to use and alter his buildings for their interests.. They tried making a building and couldn't accomplish the goal by themselves. This was against Roarks interests.... duh :-B
@tooltime9901 Did you even read the book.. They wished to use and alter HIS buildings for their interests.. They tried making a building and couldn't accomplish the goal by themselves. This was against Roarks ideals.... duh :-B get off "the man" idea.. its "the men".
@tooltime9901There was no conflicting self interest between Roarke and those who wanted to steal his ideas.Keating made money by plagiarizing Roarke,but his ability an success were dependent upon Roarkes willingness to help.When he didn't have Roarkes ideas his career began to fail,because he had never developed skills of his own.He stole Roarkes fish and never learned to catch his own.He misidentified his interest by a whim of the moment gain.but it proved not to be in his self interest.
I think, unfortunately, that we are surrounded by people who intrinsically love or are attracted to hero-worship. .. I was sad to see you video go south though-Roark's arguments were not communistic-you have perverted what Ayn wrote. I propose to you that you have ganged up on Rand the same way that other people follow her...there is a blindness to your hatred of her. You are "just crazy." You can't take parts of what Roark said and discard the parts you think are nonsense. Illegal.
the Fountainhead was mostly just about a mans work just a mans work and how he must fight for his idea plus what ideas aren't flawed all ideas must be flawed and you are crazy, you say that historically Ayn Rand was wrong during Howard Roarks speech but was she really you said if its a useful invention of corse people won't fight against it but think how long it must have taken for said 'inventions' to really be considered useful
No I do not see your points but one. The part about fighting throughout history is somewhat accurate. The rest is not. Rourke said they violated the terms of the agreement of the contract they signed with him. From what I remember of the movie that is correct. They took his design and totally transformed it.
Regarding the cult comments I do take offense. There are bad objectivists just like there bad cops etcetera. Ayn Rand herself disapproved of this type of behaviour.
I hadn't thought of this youtube video in a long time but when I saw DasAmericanAtheist's latest Atheist politics it reminded me of it. This video didn't have in it what I thought it did, but my basic impression of Das as he made an emotional spectacle of himself was "Das sounds just like Rand." in that they both have abandoned an economic analysis of the issues they discuss and are more than fervent about their views. it was pretty surreal and I initially thought his video was a parody.
I agree Ayn Rand was born in an atheist communist country and being an atheist she is devoid of the sense of the human spirit, however she hits it correctly and right on every other issue regarding love, altruism and mostly regarding the future in the
U.S. regarding socialism 'creeping into society and to our children in schools' and
what will happen to the U.S. and our future "IF the U.S. does not wake up"!!!
I hear this a lot from Objectivists. Isn't there at least an exchange rate between economic capacity and political influence? I know in Rand's Fountainhead, Wynand was famous for being unable to manufacture influence using his newspaper. But in reality, I do think the media peddles influence. This is why advertising works. This is why so much money is thrown around on political campaigns. Money~=political power. Granted, there is a market economy for political ideas.
@SBRslacker00 In a truly capitalistic society, no there is no exchange rate. You can buy out a corner of a market if you want, but you can't buy legislation to keep people out.
I agree whenever anyone is deified, put on a pedestal as much as some do Ayn Rand, as having all the answers, critical thinking and logic is set aside for having the reassurance that someone has all the answers.
Inventors should be able to have critics look at their work. Especially safety experts!
The difference between Capitalism and Marxism is that under Capitalism man exploits his fellow man. Under Marxism it is the other way around. Ha Ha!
Do we want a society that exploits the average person so the talented tenth can live in stupendous wealth or do we want a society where the average guy has his minimum needs meet and the smart, creative, well connected folks have to pay more taxes. Probably some where in between i would think.
@vudu8ball, I'd agree that the best would be between communism and capitalism. I think regulated capitalism is the best way to reach the middle. Our system worked, for instance in banking after the Depression resulted in strong regulation until the banking regs were weakened in the 90's.
I wouldn't consider myself a full-fledged Objectivist yet, I don't know nearly enough about it, but what very little I do know, I understand to be true based on my faculties of reason and rationality.
Read what she actually said, think about it, and who knows, you may like it. =)
My recommendation, actually look up what she said, read her books, and listen to her speeches, you will disagree with some things, but many things you will agree with. I haven't read much of Rand yet, but what little I have read has been excellent. Before I discovered Rand I was a Marxist (exactly like before I discovered Dawkins I was a christian), but after allowing my rational side a voice in my mind, I was changed for the better.
Another reason why Oists look up to Rand, is because she assisted our philosophical rational awakening, the same way Richard Dawkins assisted my religious rational awakening. While watching his documentaries, I was persuaded that the only true basis for a belief system is a rational, empirical grounding in reality. Same with philosophy, Rand has assisted Oists in realizing that our philosophy should be based in reality, reason, and rationality. That's why we look up to her, and why many
Interesting vid. I have not read The Fountainhead yet, but I am interested in Objectivism, and I have to say, the reason that many Objectivists seem to have a strong sense of endearment to Rand, is not unlike many atheists endearment to Richard Dawkins. We don't worship him, we don't think he's god, we don't follow every word he says (same with Oists, we don't follow every word Rand says, most of us actually disagree with her on several topics), but he/she has changed our lives for the better.
Your error is assuming that Objectivism equals a cynical exploitative attitude towards the rest of the world. Why don't you do yourself a favor and buy "Objectivism in one lesson" on Amazon? Otherwise I'm afraid you'll keep snarking without any actual knowledge. At least KNOW what you critique firsthand. I think you will be surprised by how difficult (and rewarding) it can be to be morally self-reliant and how much it will change your perspective of the world.
The Fountainhead is not about economics at all. Its her vision of the ideal man acting on "rational" self-interest. It shows the selfless oppressing the selfish. It was written to express her philosophy on ethics not politics. She wrote Atlas Shrugged for that, which is entirely capitalistic. In the introduction of The Fountainhead she points out dialog that can be misinterpreted. This was an example. If you want to see for yourself it is in the centennial edition.
As for comparing Nazism to Marxism, that would be unfair - to the Nazis. At least the National Socialists of Germany were honest about their racism, and actually did some good for the Germans at one point. The Marxists are hypocritical racists, and treat workers like serfs. That is what "real" socialism has meant for millions in the 20th century.
Ayn Rand's philosphy is not faith based. She said to see for yourself. She was obviously a gifted person with a wakefulness not seen in the average person. The forecast she made regarding the direction of America is, sad to say, very accurate. Her system would work if everyone viewed life with her clarity. They don't and never will. But those who understand and appreciate the gist of her system find it valuable and very practical.
When I first skimmed Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrigged", I initially dismissed it - the language was clearly used the kind of Marxian absolutism I'd learned to dread. Only later, after a friend insisted I read it through thoroughly, did I find out that Rand championed "capitalism" (as she understood it). It took some reading from Sciabarra to realize why - Rand was not an American thinker, but rather a Russian radical of the 1920s. So your "joke" is not too far off.
But in advocating for the freedom of capitalism and against the secular feudalism of mainstream Marxism, Ayn Rand was quite correct. The theories of Marx were fundamentally flawed (and frankly ridiculous in light of modern economics), but the present incarnation of Marxism is far worse; basically, a form of secular feudalism.
@DrCruel i agree about the superiority of capitalism over communism. sad that so few people seem to get that i am joking in this video when I call her a communist. however, in the story the "capitalists" are show as the bad guys that exploit Roark's talent. the difference is his is an artist rather than a worker. Marxism ignores the value of capital and this story, by suggesting Roark had the right to destroy the building, seems to as well.
@tooltime9901 She wasn't a communist (mainly because she had lived under communism, and didn't like it) but she was something of a Marxist heretic. And you're right - our concept of "robber barons" and Ayn Rand's "looters" are eerily similar. Ayn Rand places those with creative minds above the workers of the proletariat, but does so using recognizable Marxian, indeed Bolshevik memes.
@tooltime9901 Ayn Rand's philosphy is not faith based. She said to see for yourself. She was obviously a gifted person with a wakefulness not seen in the average person. The forecast she made regarding the direction of America is, sad to say, very accurate. Her system would work if everyone viewed life with her clarity. They don't and never will. But those who understand and appreciate the gist of her system find it valuable and very practical.
@tooltime9901 the bad guys did not represent "capitalists". The guy that built Roark's first building would better represent a capitalists. The "bad guys" represented the collective in the way that they advocated for removing the individualistic elements from ALL architecture. They only wanted the collectively approved architecture. To build Roark's design was a "RISK" that the collective (bureaucracy) wouldn't take, but the capitalist would.
@seigneurvoland666 Marxist governments are feudal, in that once a revolution is successful, an elite nomenklatura springs up. Thereafter leadership positions are filled through primogeniture and nepotism. Government in a Marxist society invariably devolves to a single dictator, who rules as a king, and who chooses his subordinates from the pool of party elites and their children.
@seigneurvoland666 I instruct you to look at the governments of the Soviet Union, the PRC, North Korea, Cuba, Syria, Ba'athist Iraq, Vietnam, etc. For example, Fidel Castro has ruled as a king since his successful revolution; now that he has stepped down, rule has devolved to his brother. In North Korea and Syria, teh son of teh previous dictator has risen to rule. One of Saddam's sons was expected to succeed him. And so on.
@DrCruel The little potential that the middle east had in insurrecting a "leftist" government was immediately defeated by subtle (because it wasnt really televised) insurrection of the USA (a capitalist casino land) and yeh, just look at vietnam. There was never any genuine marxist government in place and established anywhere, and if there were (like southern american countries), they were immediately dismantled secretely. The only authentic marxist government that sprang up was the USSR,
@seigneurvoland666 and even the, the USSR could have managed their economy and government much better. Marx was opposed to the idea of a feudal society much more than a bourgeois one. I see so much mix up in terms and misunderstanding in historical concepts that i feel like nothing will make sense to the future generations. People won't know who the enemy is, we're making orwellian fictional conditions ourselves!! What you said cannot be taken seriously anywhere.
@seigneurvoland666 The Soviet Union was evolving towards exactly that sort of "improvement", and under Putin they seem to have accomplished it. This would of course be the natural progression of all successful Marxist states, ie the conversion of the political and economic system over into a Leftist corporate fascist regime.
Mind, fascism is a reform in the context of orthodox Marxism. Marxist theory is extremely primitive.
@DrCruel USSR was never socialist really. It was state capitalist. You conflate these two concepts. Also, let's get one thing straight... socialism at it's core always meant workers control over means of production. period.
@seigneurvoland666 It was certainly "socialist" enough for western Leftists from the rule of Lenin onward. Not that I disagree on one point - the Soviet union never cared about the workers, but then no mainstream socialist does. The "real" socialists - men of principle like Kropotkin, Orwell and Hitchens - tend to get hounded out of the Left by the mainstream charlatans.
@seigneurvoland666 This is much like arguing that Nation Socialist theory is not really anti-Semitic, and that a "true" national socialist state has never existed.
Syria is a merry little Marxist state, and quite brutal and repressive. So are the governments in Indochina. You imply as much int he case of Cuba, and the situation in the previously democratic nation of Venezuela is similar. Your contentions simply are not supportable by the facts.
@DrCruel lol "democratic" as in bourgeois democracy you mean (relating to venezuela). And you say marx's LTV and economics is laughable? It seems like you're trying to relate national socialism to socialism itself; Now that's laughable... Hitlers fascism (under the guise of national "socialism) actually did quite well, and did indeed exist. If you really know what communism is you'd know that it has never really existed ( in industrialized societies at the least).
@DrCruel Also, the majority of the population are in support of Fidel Castro's socialist system. anyone who tells you otherwise, especially in north america, cannot be trusted. Ive been to cuba myself and have asked people. Also, Fidel never ruled as a king, he was in the dirt at the beginning ot the revolution. Fidel doesn't even own his own car or house in fear of being assassinated. Everything you see as is own luxury is merely borrowed from the state, it's not "his".
@seigneurvoland666 I suppose the people who are executed for trying to leave the country are to be included in this "enthusiastic support" set. It is a wonder, with such widespread support, that the Cuban aristocrisy require such draconian punishments to keep all their deliriously happy people in Cuba.
Please. Similar arguments could just as well be used to "prove" that the regime in North Korea is a worker's paradise.
The problem is that, by splitting sectors of a society up into rival factions, then insisting on these factions coming into a "death struggle", Marxism invokes an unworkable worldview - one that must invariably leads to violence and self-destruction. In so far as Objectivism has anything to do with this worldview, it is flawed - and it must be remembered that Ayn Rand got her degree in Marxism-Leninism in St. Petersburg in 1921.
There's one good question you raise - is the architect the creator of a building? Is the financier the creator? What of those that physically carry out the architect's plans? Is Euclid, the geometer upon which most architectural designs are based, the true creator? What ove the Egyptian and Babylonian builders and scribes upon which the Greek geometer got their inspiration from?
I'm familiar with her ideas (I'd suggest reading Sciabarra on Rand), and I very much agree that her philosophy is in the Marxist tradition - in the same way that Satanism is a heretical version of Christianity. Her Marxian "heresy" is to put Marxism on its head - to propose that capitalists are the "working class" while socialist bureaucrats are "looters" and "second handers". It's this heresy that so upsets ideologues of the Left.
All religions are used by the state to control and oppress the brainwashed masses. If you admit you are a Believer you are telling the leaders that you've bought their ridiculous lies. The religious books (Torah, Bible, Qu'ran) are full of lies and contradictions. Leaders protect lies (about the sun moving around Earth) by killing people who exposed the lie. Atheists and others telling the truth are helping citizens to unite around truth to defeat fascist mass murderers.
Karl Marx worked for the Illuminati occult bankers to brainwash the citizens into Believing the state is their god. They were told they had government support to rob the middle class in order to steal their kingdom on earth. The Jews practiced the belief that they could steal from anyone non-Jewish since their Torah & Talmud taught them other humans are worthless and can be made their slaves. Illuminati practice this. It's not atheism that's the problem, it's CRIMINAL leaders.
@ExoticGawdess can you source this rediculous situation. How about this: The leaders know that people who actually feel like the care about humanity and the future we're headed are likely to believe anything that targets an identified group of people. They mix you up with rediculous information coming left and right, enough to the point where you'll accept the above (what you wrote). Karl Marx didnt work for the illuminati at all. Karl marx was a genious and warned us about the dangers of
@seigneurvoland666 If the evidence of his writings are what he is to be judged by, he was hardly a "genius". If anything, he was a substandard amateur economist with delusions of grandeur (his 'labour theory of value' is especially laughable), and was very much a product of 19th century thinking (to include the anti-Semitism so prevalent in his day and age). He has nothing at all of value to add to modern economic theory.
Are you 12? Do you know what you are talking about? You agree on some points? you disagree on some points? Thank you for your guidance. That's very helpful. (just kidding)
10 minutes of mindless babble from an ape. Your qualified to be a professor at a university but nothing else. It sucks being you. You just don't get it.
And yes, "Official Ojectivists" do seem "cultish" and parrot Rand's words, rather than internalize the logic, the truths of her ideas, and truly live as independent minds. I apply few labels to myself, Objectivist is one of them, "Randroid" is not.
You say you do not know the Philosophy well- I do. And I think for myself. I can also discuss Objectivism in a civil manner with those who disagree... most Objectivists cannot. Should you wish to learn of it, I am open to discussion. Good day.
"Fascism- a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government."
I think not. Roark's contractual arrangement, his "payment" was to see his building constructed as he wished it, no alterations. That was his agreed compensation. He was denied that compensation by bureaucrats that feel they answer to no one, and broke the contract.
Your life, your work- is it yours, or does it belong to others to do with as they see fit? Choose. It cannot be both.
It's instructive to listen to dissenting views on Rand, but disappointing to find them peppered with the same vacant logical gaffes, invariably the ad hominem (virtually all of tooltime's caricatures of "Rand's cronies or followers," his parroting of the Rothbardian "cult" epithet, and his Beavis & Butthead-caliber "fascist" and "nutjob" slurs.) The classic Straw Man fallacy ("...holding her up as, like...that she knew everything about everything," etc.,) is a close second.
His take on The Fountainhead is so intensely confused it's embarrasssing, and points up the single most coherent thing tooltime says here: "I'm not extremely familiar with her work." Reason - something Rand was rather big on - would suggest actually, like, studying a subject before attempting to speak intelligibly on that subject.
His take on The Fountainhead is so intensely confused it's embarrasssing, and points up the single most coherent thing tooltime says here: "I'm not extremely familiar with her work." Reason - something Rand was rather big on - would suggest actually, like, studying a subject before attempting to speak intelligibly on that subject.
The classic Straw Man fallacy ("...holding her up as, like...that she knew everything about everything," etc.,) is a close second. His take on The Fountainhead is so intensely confused it's embarrasssing, and points up the single most coherent thing tooltime says here: "I'm not extremely familiar with her work." Reason - something Rand was rather big on - would suggest actually, like, studying a subject before attempting to speak intelligibly on that subject.
I"ve read most of Rand's work (including the non-fiction) but never considered the Fountainhead that way. It's pretty interesting. I might re-read that part of the book again.
To attach Ayn Rand's name to communism is an act of propaganda. Ayn Rand was against Propaganda and all types of totalitarionism. . A point seemingly lost on the disingenuous whilst making their invidious comparisons. . You are using the same tactics as the despots you say you dispise. I can only hope that you made this error through ignorance and not a calculated intention to distort the truth.
Now that's a randian statement. There is nothing "obvious" with that. Please show the 'facts' that Ayn Rand bases her normative theory on.
Or are you one of those sectists that cling on to objectivism and argues that ones own life is the ultimate value?
Because, you see, that is one of Ayn Rands so-called facts. Which are not really facts at all, since she never presents the good reasons for believing that.
If you possess knowledge of that so-called fact, please, present the evidence.
ok two things it is obvious because if he/she listened to much of her stuff and thought about it he /she would see thats there are definite reasons and also she doesn't base her philosophy on facts she bases them on fundamentals, namely that existence exists( a is a) and that the universe should be and perceived with reason not emotions
@VanWinick That doesn't make any sense. So, because she thinks that reason is fundamental, she can not stray from reason? If I think morality is fundamental, does that mean that I'm always virtuous? I think not.
She may think that 'reason' is the correct way to go, but she fails miserably by jumping to conclusions without good reasons for doing so.
Yeah, Leonard "My individualist philosophy and principle of 'no first use of force' means we should start wars and regard everyone in the area as a collective enemy, justifying the use of violence against civilians" Peikoff is a tool.
It's disturbing how a movement that holds individualism so dear ended up so cultish. But you did get the entire point of "The Fountainhead" wrong.
I recommend checking out Jordanowen42's "From a Liberal who Loves Ayn Rand" for a less cult-y pro-Rand perspective.
Actually in the novel (and I suspect in the movie though I haven't watched it) Roark received no monetary compensation. According to the contract his payment was that it would be built according to his design. The legal term for this is creative control. By altering the design the builder had violated the contract. His complaint is not that he doesn't control the means of production but that by not paying him for his work as called for in the contract the builders violated his property rights.
I was looking all over youtube for people who disagree with Ayn Rand in order to find someone who has a legitamet point against her. This video is a fail.
Im just wondering if the classes you take are of a jew/centric bent...i,e ,that everything we teach you, is not to inform ,or enlighten..but to envelope y ' all .
Listen man, he designed the building for a guy named Peter Keating out of sympathy for him in a written agreement that it would not be changed or altered. He blew it up because Keating didn't have the will to tell the investors that it was going to stay the way it was designed. It ended up being built and the outcome was a non-proportional atrocity. It was his development that he created and destroyed. Before you attempt to knock a philosopher please do yourself a favor and read their work.
2) Marxist claims the master must submit to the workers. They are workers because that is all they can do, unless they prove themselves worthy of attaining a higher title. The master earned.
what to do. The blueprints belong to Roark because HE made them. The workers are means to the end. Because HE made the building, it is immoral for others to demand that Roark provide his work to the public. To compromise his work is the same as compromising his morality, his life. He is a master. Masters do not follow the majority votes of "The Organization of Architectural Averages". His is the right way, clearly displayed by his magnifcent work.
just maybe: i always wondered if rand was a crypto marxist all along. marx and rand were both jewish, and knowing jews and their trickery i wouldn't put it past her. you encourage no taxes, no regulations of any sort, and then expect things to work out smoothly in the end? after seeing how that would be a disaster people would turn to marxism by default. although tooltime here in this video is not giving howard roark enough credit.
at 4:26 tooltime says roark was a 'fascist nut job" for demanding that his design was built his way, and his way only. what? as a TOOL fan do you think Maynard would allow someone to change around his lyrics, or Alex Grey would allow someone to change around his artwork??? and when there was a contract made beforehand saying it wouldn't be changed... any real man of conviction would be fuckin pissed off. and an architect is not someone that just scribbles lines and numbers. smarten up.
By your own admission you know very little about Ayn Rand, her works, or Objectivism and judging from your speech, also about Capitalism. So why would you waste ten minutes of your time making groundless, irrational claims?
the reason Roark destroyed his creation was because he realized that he was allowing other people to profit of something the have not earned or created. He showed that you get what you earn. They had no right to take and profit of of his origionality. They could not create anything new, they could only copy and repeat. He realized that he was no better than any of them because he had allowed people like Peter Keating to revolve their life around which they had not created or earned.
when you said that people will not opose good ideas is absolutly false. The government regularly halts new Ideas or methods of doing or making things because they think it is unfair for your competetors and reak havok upon the economy.
Yes, your just crazy. He didn't get a single thing right about Ayn Rand, and its pretty easy to know her positions just by reading or listening. Guy's a marxist I guess, seems to have psychological problem so he makes stuff up, rather than try to prove or disprove anything.
I'd say there are people who respect Ayn Rand and have studied her works...I wouldn't call it worshiping at all. She was a smart woman but only human like the rest of us.
Your critiques are hollow at best. A man is fascist because he demands that contractual agreements do not need to be broken? Since when did that notion become Marxist and anti-capitalist?
You need to READ the Fountain Head, and then make a proper argument against it.
The Objectivists criterion is not what Ayn Rand says: it's what is metaphysically given (i.e., reality). Reason and conceptual abstractions result, but the criterion is still the metaphysical.
"[Ayn Rand] secretly was a godless atheist" LOL! Okay, anyone else care to field the absurdity of that statement? I've been up too late. Secretly? Lol!
No objection that she was godless. Thank God she was!
Obviously you've never read her non-fiction! Obviously you've never even attempted to understand what OBJECTIVISM is. Especially since you call it a "cult". It is a philosophy based on the law of identity and that reason is man's only means of existence.
Don't try to skew her ideas or words to make them fit your needs.
"The cult of Ayn Rand"? Ayn Rand hated those kinds of phrases and I am personally suspicious of anyone who uses that kind of description to describe people who agree with Ayn Rand's philosophy.
This gets into the idea of what independence consists of. Independence requires that one think through and validate the ideas behind one's actions.
This does not mean that one must be the originator of all of these ideas. The role of the Philosopher is to develop philosophical ideas.
The only way to understand Rand's ideas is to take them in and the continuously question them as well as all other knowledge. Only by questioning them can one realize their full implications and apply them.
Who needs god? Of such things don't exist?
redfoxbennaton 2 weeks ago
Marxism isnt about ensuring basic needs for everyone, its aobut workers controlling the means of production and sharing the profit equally.
Marx wanted everyone who worked to get payed equally. equality is more important than prosperity in the mind of Marx.
You are right about one thing thought, Ayn Rand was godless :)
unfad1ng 3 months ago
YOU ARE SOOOOO DAMN LOST !!!!!!!!!!
LOOK YOURSELF IN THE MIRROR ..LOOK DEEP IN YOUR EYES AND TELL YOURSELF THAT YOU ARE NOT !!!!!!!!!
you will just know then that I'm right .. :) ..
sad thing is that you confuse others .. but it's you're sad thing .. NOT MINE !!! :)
energytc 5 months ago
Roarke didn't want Cortland to be built exactly the he way he designed it because he is a fascist.He wanted the building to be true to its original function. He had every right to his intellectual property and the agreement on which he submitted was breached.Toohey,and the others you term as capitalist may have wanted to capitalize on Roarkes position(unpopular)or naivety,but Roarkes intellectual property(design)was the primary capital.He was the capitalist.
AisAbsolute 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AisAbsolute
So if someone wants a building to look exactly like a penis, he has that right?
Don't think so; other people have rights not to look at it. That's a basic covenant of all municipal property.
SovereignStatesman 4 months ago
AYN RAND DIED FOR YOUR SINS !!!
;-)
Xigano1 6 months ago
I actually like this video clip, because it demonstrates how dumb American thugs could be. Even the title of this idiotic video is Orwellish type of absurdity generated by very sick mind of uneducated and brainwashed human excrement. Author of this video-garbage doesn't even understand that Objectivism and Communism are two diametrically different philosophies. And I believe this author is very typical idiot forming today's America's Academy. This is exactly why this country is doomed.
mk181818 6 months ago
I saw in the preview that some chick was equating Rand to Communism. I listened far enough for her to mention that she wasn't an expert on Rand. All I need to know. Thanks, lady!
christerryatl 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bitchslap of Ayn Rand WITH great V8 sound - Youtube can be better than reading :)
Xigano1 7 months ago
Yeah. I'm anarcho-capitalist. I agree with Rand on mostly everything except that it's clear that intellectual property is nonsense. Only thing is that capitalism doesn't enslave people at all, it's socialism that does. Both sides may critique the other on similar points. They both claim the other enslaves people, that's it. In any case, one philosophy (Ayn Rand's/capitalism) is individualist the other (Marxist) is collectivist. No individualist philosophy can be communist in a fundamental way.
Esoparagon 8 months ago
although new ideas haven't always been opposed by those in power, you are wrong to claim that good ideas are always supported. what about heliocentrism and evolution? what about monarchs trying to censor ideas about democracy throughout history?
brodythompson1 8 months ago
I grasp the "tongue in cheek" nature of this video by acknowledging it as a complete joke.
christerryatl 8 months ago
GET A HAIRCUT YOU FUCKING HIPPY!!!
geniusiknowit 8 months ago
@geniusiknowit
stupid fuck, the length of the guy's hair is completely fucking irrelevant, don't be an ignorant bitch, if you have some point to make, then argue it, if you don' then keep your goddamn fucking mouth shut. i totally disagree with this guy, but at least he's arguing something, unlike you!
brodythompson1 8 months ago
@brodythompson1 Only a lonely douchebag would bother typing everything you just did.
geniusiknowit 8 months ago
Straw man attack: "taking somebody's word on everything as gospel truth is sadly miguided." You're making a monstrously huge assumption about every Rand follower that they didn't bother to think about anything she said and just accepted it. And if you "agree on several points," but think she is just "wrong on several significant points," First of all, you're holding contradictions, not her, because Objectivism is a FULLY integrated philosophy, contradiction-free. Try again.
nathanreinhardt 8 months ago
Ayn Rand = Communist?
I guess that would mean:
Hitler = Freedom Lover
Stalin = Man of Peace
Jesus = War Monger
Gandhi = Murderer
sgapplebee 9 months ago 2
@sgapplebee sgapplebee = to stupid to watch a video before commenting. & Jesus would be a war monger.
yellowkrux 6 months ago
godless yes, communist no.
neutonik 9 months ago
Have you ever read any history and if so, how could you not know about the persecution of people who discovered truths? You seem unaware of the inventions that were "lost" or never improved upon most likely because of superstition or existing slave systems.
What parts are you being tongue and cheeck about? Where is the humor? You claim to be "playing around" yet your comments keep trying to claim a connection between Rand and marxism. This vid and your comments seem sneaky. It's weird.
pebblelake1 9 months ago
You are pretty funny!!! The thing is I don't think you were trying to be funny.
jrmex80 9 months ago
The people he proclaims as capitalists aren't really. They are corporatists. Marx was truly criticizing aristocracy, not capitalism.
foxrobe2 10 months ago
@foxrobe2 Nah, Marx was definitely criticizing capitalism. Das Kapital was a direct critique of classical political economy, on the political economists' own terms. Most of his arguments assumed a perfectly functioning, classical liberal, free market society.
warmongerpro 9 months ago
You need to read an author before you analyze them. If all you do is watch the end of a movie, Jaws in the story of 3 men who want to kill a shark for no reason.
If you read teh book, or even watched the whole movie you would know that they asked him to design the building because they needed HIM. He refused, they pressured him, and the one stipulation of his commission was that it be built to his exact specification,. which they agreed to. He didnt need them to fund the eproject.
mcihak1219 11 months ago
I have held the same ideas in my mind about the fountainhead in particular and Ayn Rand in general. I agree with you about her confused and confusing statements. To her, art was superior, her self included.The story is really quite romantic and immature in my opinion. True communism has never existed. Fascist communism, self interested, desperate communism, yeah, Secular feudalism is right To say that the fountainhead supports a capitalist/individualist ideal is stupid, I agree.
heartwings1123 11 months ago
It is the decry of capitalism that no man has the right to another man's labour, to take it by force or by fraud. It is the decry of communism that every man has the right to the labour of every other man in his society, and that the state should provide all men that right by force. The Fountainhead is a clear expression of the former and not the latter.
eggory 1 year ago
Keating and a gang of other prestigious, incompetent architects altered his design, and made it plainly worse, solely for the sake of having some part in the project and gaining from its success. They had no right. Roark and Keating had a verbal contract that Roark's own design would be adhered to to the letter. Roark held that since this contract had been broken, he had a right to destroy the results of his own work to prevent it from being unfairly exploited.
eggory 1 year ago
Yet no one wanted to associate themself with Roark because of the individualist and pragmatic ideas he represented. It was bad politics. There was a man, however, who had no ability whatsoever as an architect but a great deal of respect because of the contrary ideas he represented. This man, Keating, asked Roark to design the building for him in secret. Roark agreed because the only thing that mattered to him was seeing his design put into practice, since a good plan deserves being used.
eggory 1 year ago
The situation in The Fountainhead was this: Roark had a building design which all parties in the story agreed was valuable because it was an efficient design which served its purpose well and yet was very cheap to build, the most benefit for the least cost. Getting the money for the project wouldn't have been an issue because whoever payed Roark to use the plan and payed to erect the building would have profitted from its good design.
eggory 1 year ago
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Marxism holds that you are entitled automatically to wealth regardless of what you can do to earn it, and that if you've produced more wealth than someone else, the state guarantees your right to give that wealth away and expect nothing in return. This is how marxism "frees" the individual, by taking away his obligation to himself, only in exchange it grants an obligation to someone else.
eggory 1 year ago
Have you just put "Ayn Rand" and "Communist" in the same sentence?
FabioCalcinelli 1 year ago 6
@FabioCalcinelli they dont have any form of humor or sarcasm where you come from?
tooltime9901 1 year ago 7
I commented before watching the video itself, just reading titol and description. It looked so incredibly idiot, as I missed the ironic intention, that I had to write something to express my disbelief. My fault :) I'll watch it as soon as I can.
FabioCalcinelli 1 year ago
Comment removed
markdown01 7 months ago
Simple. if you do not know her work, or objectivism, or libertasrianism of liazze fair. SHUT up and stop making a fool of yourself. that you didnt know anything about it bacame appearent after the first minute. Objectivism promotes the scientific thought and the notion that any individual is an individual and enjoys personal sovreinty from state of any other man/woman. but basing your arguments against her on 3rd party mentionings is the most foolish way of making up an opinion.
razoorsharp 1 year ago
You're assuming the marxist critique of capitalism is correct.
mrgav88 1 year ago
You know just enough to be impress your friends that are even less informed than yourself. You could not be more wrong. It is hysterical that you didn't read the book but only saw the movie. I guess if you saw "The ten commandments" you would consider your self a theological expert? Ayn Rand does in fact have ALL of the answers. Those being FACT,REALITY, and LOGIC. Anything not covered there is WRONG and BAD! Really pretty simple! arm chair philosophers like you are damaging to society.
NOMADdaf 1 year ago
tooltime9901 ... 'their self interest' ? You must have missed Rand's point that there is no such thing as the collective mind.
tygerlyons 1 year ago
@tygerlyons in a sense, though, there really is. People behave and think differently in groups than they do by themselves. This is well documented in psychological phenomena like the bystander effect and group-think. Describing society as a collection of individuals is not the only meaningful or useful way to describe it.
Hammerfly86 1 year ago
To answer your last question...no, you're not necessarily crazy, just under-educated... but hey, all is not lost; wisdom comes with age...relax, you'll get there.
tygerlyons 1 year ago
2:15 You're not an expert alright, you're not even clever enough to stear away from a poor rethorical point. Obviously it didn't even occur to you how much more demanding it is to support objectivism than any other kind, which is always a grade of collectivism. If you did know this simple, well known fact, you would stopped yourself from this your moronic remark.
Vocalallusive 1 year ago
@Vocalallusive Don't forget that this video is "tongue and check." lol
henry770 1 year ago
I just saw "The Fountaihead" & it was awful!!!
SLATania74 1 year ago
I have a copy of Atlas Shrugged, and I need to get around to finally reading it :/
SirPwn4lot 1 year ago
Marxism and Randism sharing the same mistake: the real life is not thinkers rational utopia. Ideas are holy therefore people must suffer. Humans will keep on dreaming and making the same faults. Capitalism depends on a dynamic collectiv phenomenon: the market. Ironical hazard: thinker convincing others her moral standards is a starting point of an collectiv idea. The fountain of a cult. Nobody is perfect.
Contextcatcher 1 year ago
I think you miss the whole point of the book. It had nothing to do with actual architecture or intellectual property. These things where just elements used to convey the message - you know to make it a novel/story not a historical lecture on the trends in architecture or intellectual property. This is a novel, not a manifesto.
The architecture of all the buildings represented collectivism. Roark's design represented individualism.
dustinto 1 year ago
Roark's complaints were against collectivism, and for individualism. He wanted his intellectual property honored as such--not betrayed, stolen, and abused. A communist believes no individual has intellectual property; only the collective has intellectual property. Drawing comparisons between Roark and Marx is not only illogical; it's dishonest as well.
Attritive 1 year ago
@Attritive why is it so few people see to grasp the tongue-in-cheek nature of this video? for all Rand talked about self interest, it is ironic that building the project their way rather than Roark's was in THEIR self interest. it has nothing to do with collectivism. its conflicting self interest.
tooltime9901 1 year ago
@tooltime9901 It's not in one's self-interest to do what they did to Roark's building. It's also not in one's self-interest to think by their method, or to aim for the 'values' you seem to claim they were aiming for. Nor was it intended to be. I refer you to the passage in the book where Toohey convinces Keating to admit Roark was the designer.
Attritive 1 year ago
@tooltime9901 the bad guys didn't represent "Self-Interest". They were not making the changes for an individuals self-interest, but to make the design conform with the collective view of how it should be. I don't think self interest plays in to this story line much at all. Again you are reading this as if it is a manifesto (or guide to life), but it is a story filled with symbolism to make the Ayn's point about how the collective destroys the individual and the adverse effects of it.
dustinto 1 year ago
@tooltime9901 "Their way" would be throwing out Roark's ideas and coming up with their own, not changing his. Collaboration is a form of collectivism.
UnrecycleRubdish 1 year ago
@toolturd9901 -You are so confused. Quit trying to be serious you clown. lolAyn Rand puts you to shame. If you have something to say read a BOOK. Dont try to take a CLIP from a movie she wrote about a NOVEL. LOL!! Dude you are way out of your league. There is communism right now you fucking dip-shit and collectivism is the most destructive catastrophe in history. You are just an inebriated squirt from your D-bag father gone wrong. He should have let you run down the drain. Pseudo intellectual.
KingDingaLing090 1 year ago
@tooltime9901 I think most of us understand by now your title is a joke (after you say so). But your comments say Rourke was like a Marxist and some of the other things you posted and say in the video, you say the stuff seems "fascist" or Marxist or Communistic which is what I think people are commenting on. I just wanna say WTF to your brain. Not trying to be mean just sayin. I think your views of what Marxism and Objectivism are slightly fundamentally flawed. Not crazy just innacurate.
CocacolaCowboy1919 9 months ago
@tooltime9901
first of all, in Rational Egoism, you can only serve your best interests as long as you are not actively violating the rights of others; therefore, either way, they don't have the right to infringe on his intellectual property. Also, it has nothing to do with the self-interest of the people building the project--it was a non-profit housing project. they added superfluous decoration and luxuries since they were under-budget.
brodythompson1 8 months ago
@tooltime9901 Did you even read the book.. They wished to use and alter his buildings for their interests.. They tried making a building and couldn't accomplish the goal by themselves. This was against Roarks interests.... duh :-B
CarnieKing 7 months ago
@tooltime9901 Did you even read the book.. They wished to use and alter HIS buildings for their interests.. They tried making a building and couldn't accomplish the goal by themselves. This was against Roarks ideals.... duh :-B get off "the man" idea.. its "the men".
CarnieKing 7 months ago
@tooltime9901There was no conflicting self interest between Roarke and those who wanted to steal his ideas.Keating made money by plagiarizing Roarke,but his ability an success were dependent upon Roarkes willingness to help.When he didn't have Roarkes ideas his career began to fail,because he had never developed skills of his own.He stole Roarkes fish and never learned to catch his own.He misidentified his interest by a whim of the moment gain.but it proved not to be in his self interest.
AisAbsolute 5 months ago
I think, unfortunately, that we are surrounded by people who intrinsically love or are attracted to hero-worship. .. I was sad to see you video go south though-Roark's arguments were not communistic-you have perverted what Ayn wrote. I propose to you that you have ganged up on Rand the same way that other people follow her...there is a blindness to your hatred of her. You are "just crazy." You can't take parts of what Roark said and discard the parts you think are nonsense. Illegal.
craig557 1 year ago
This is brilliant. I'm glad I saw this. Yes, you sell your ideas and the buyer should be able to do what he wants with them.
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
the Fountainhead was mostly just about a mans work just a mans work and how he must fight for his idea plus what ideas aren't flawed all ideas must be flawed and you are crazy, you say that historically Ayn Rand was wrong during Howard Roarks speech but was she really you said if its a useful invention of corse people won't fight against it but think how long it must have taken for said 'inventions' to really be considered useful
eclipce9 1 year ago
No I do not see your points but one. The part about fighting throughout history is somewhat accurate. The rest is not. Rourke said they violated the terms of the agreement of the contract they signed with him. From what I remember of the movie that is correct. They took his design and totally transformed it.
Regarding the cult comments I do take offense. There are bad objectivists just like there bad cops etcetera. Ayn Rand herself disapproved of this type of behaviour.
nottingham2222 1 year ago
Comment removed
CanonPachelbel 1 year ago
I hadn't thought of this youtube video in a long time but when I saw DasAmericanAtheist's latest Atheist politics it reminded me of it. This video didn't have in it what I thought it did, but my basic impression of Das as he made an emotional spectacle of himself was "Das sounds just like Rand." in that they both have abandoned an economic analysis of the issues they discuss and are more than fervent about their views. it was pretty surreal and I initially thought his video was a parody.
Decentralism 1 year ago
I agree Ayn Rand was born in an atheist communist country and being an atheist she is devoid of the sense of the human spirit, however she hits it correctly and right on every other issue regarding love, altruism and mostly regarding the future in the
U.S. regarding socialism 'creeping into society and to our children in schools' and
what will happen to the U.S. and our future "IF the U.S. does not wake up"!!!
carol33189 1 year ago
Simply put you are confusing economic force with political force.
CapitalistPhil 1 year ago
@CapitalistPhil
I hear this a lot from Objectivists. Isn't there at least an exchange rate between economic capacity and political influence? I know in Rand's Fountainhead, Wynand was famous for being unable to manufacture influence using his newspaper. But in reality, I do think the media peddles influence. This is why advertising works. This is why so much money is thrown around on political campaigns. Money~=political power. Granted, there is a market economy for political ideas.
SBRslacker00 1 year ago
@SBRslacker00 In a truly capitalistic society, no there is no exchange rate. You can buy out a corner of a market if you want, but you can't buy legislation to keep people out.
CapitalistPhil 1 year ago
I agree whenever anyone is deified, put on a pedestal as much as some do Ayn Rand, as having all the answers, critical thinking and logic is set aside for having the reassurance that someone has all the answers.
Inventors should be able to have critics look at their work. Especially safety experts!
Good video.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
The difference between Capitalism and Marxism is that under Capitalism man exploits his fellow man. Under Marxism it is the other way around. Ha Ha!
Do we want a society that exploits the average person so the talented tenth can live in stupendous wealth or do we want a society where the average guy has his minimum needs meet and the smart, creative, well connected folks have to pay more taxes. Probably some where in between i would think.
vudu8ball 1 year ago
@vudu8ball, I'd agree that the best would be between communism and capitalism. I think regulated capitalism is the best way to reach the middle. Our system worked, for instance in banking after the Depression resulted in strong regulation until the banking regs were weakened in the 90's.
sophiemarie49 1 year ago
Anther inarticulate Leftard haplessly trying to explain away Rand's enduring, resurgent relevance and popularity.
alphecca2539 1 year ago
your understanding of reality is warped. you are exaggerating reality. yes, you are truly off in your understanding. keep trying. i believe in you.
ed9s 1 year ago
I wouldn't consider myself a full-fledged Objectivist yet, I don't know nearly enough about it, but what very little I do know, I understand to be true based on my faculties of reason and rationality.
Read what she actually said, think about it, and who knows, you may like it. =)
seanthedonconsidine 1 year ago
[part 3]
many atheists look up to Richard Dawkins.
My recommendation, actually look up what she said, read her books, and listen to her speeches, you will disagree with some things, but many things you will agree with. I haven't read much of Rand yet, but what little I have read has been excellent. Before I discovered Rand I was a Marxist (exactly like before I discovered Dawkins I was a christian), but after allowing my rational side a voice in my mind, I was changed for the better.
seanthedonconsidine 1 year ago
[part 2]
Another reason why Oists look up to Rand, is because she assisted our philosophical rational awakening, the same way Richard Dawkins assisted my religious rational awakening. While watching his documentaries, I was persuaded that the only true basis for a belief system is a rational, empirical grounding in reality. Same with philosophy, Rand has assisted Oists in realizing that our philosophy should be based in reality, reason, and rationality. That's why we look up to her, and why many
seanthedonconsidine 1 year ago
Interesting vid. I have not read The Fountainhead yet, but I am interested in Objectivism, and I have to say, the reason that many Objectivists seem to have a strong sense of endearment to Rand, is not unlike many atheists endearment to Richard Dawkins. We don't worship him, we don't think he's god, we don't follow every word he says (same with Oists, we don't follow every word Rand says, most of us actually disagree with her on several topics), but he/she has changed our lives for the better.
seanthedonconsidine 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Your error is assuming that Objectivism equals a cynical exploitative attitude towards the rest of the world. Why don't you do yourself a favor and buy "Objectivism in one lesson" on Amazon? Otherwise I'm afraid you'll keep snarking without any actual knowledge. At least KNOW what you critique firsthand. I think you will be surprised by how difficult (and rewarding) it can be to be morally self-reliant and how much it will change your perspective of the world.
smellyasss 1 year ago
The Fountainhead is not about economics at all. Its her vision of the ideal man acting on "rational" self-interest. It shows the selfless oppressing the selfish. It was written to express her philosophy on ethics not politics. She wrote Atlas Shrugged for that, which is entirely capitalistic. In the introduction of The Fountainhead she points out dialog that can be misinterpreted. This was an example. If you want to see for yourself it is in the centennial edition.
1mmbop 1 year ago
As for comparing Nazism to Marxism, that would be unfair - to the Nazis. At least the National Socialists of Germany were honest about their racism, and actually did some good for the Germans at one point. The Marxists are hypocritical racists, and treat workers like serfs. That is what "real" socialism has meant for millions in the 20th century.
DrCruel 1 year ago
Ayn Rand's philosphy is not faith based. She said to see for yourself. She was obviously a gifted person with a wakefulness not seen in the average person. The forecast she made regarding the direction of America is, sad to say, very accurate. Her system would work if everyone viewed life with her clarity. They don't and never will. But those who understand and appreciate the gist of her system find it valuable and very practical.
ghahandi 1 year ago
you're not an expert in marxism either apparently. Im completely appalled by this title lol
seigneurvoland666 1 year ago
When I first skimmed Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrigged", I initially dismissed it - the language was clearly used the kind of Marxian absolutism I'd learned to dread. Only later, after a friend insisted I read it through thoroughly, did I find out that Rand championed "capitalism" (as she understood it). It took some reading from Sciabarra to realize why - Rand was not an American thinker, but rather a Russian radical of the 1920s. So your "joke" is not too far off.
DrCruel 1 year ago
who would ever read Rand's pathetic generalizations, they are banal, trite, and tiresome.
there's a great vid on YT where these dudes burn "Atlas Shrugged", you time would be better spent viewing that vid
COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY 1 year ago
But in advocating for the freedom of capitalism and against the secular feudalism of mainstream Marxism, Ayn Rand was quite correct. The theories of Marx were fundamentally flawed (and frankly ridiculous in light of modern economics), but the present incarnation of Marxism is far worse; basically, a form of secular feudalism.
DrCruel 1 year ago
@DrCruel i agree about the superiority of capitalism over communism. sad that so few people seem to get that i am joking in this video when I call her a communist. however, in the story the "capitalists" are show as the bad guys that exploit Roark's talent. the difference is his is an artist rather than a worker. Marxism ignores the value of capital and this story, by suggesting Roark had the right to destroy the building, seems to as well.
tooltime9901 1 year ago
@tooltime9901 She wasn't a communist (mainly because she had lived under communism, and didn't like it) but she was something of a Marxist heretic. And you're right - our concept of "robber barons" and Ayn Rand's "looters" are eerily similar. Ayn Rand places those with creative minds above the workers of the proletariat, but does so using recognizable Marxian, indeed Bolshevik memes.
DrCruel 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tooltime9901 Ayn Rand's philosphy is not faith based. She said to see for yourself. She was obviously a gifted person with a wakefulness not seen in the average person. The forecast she made regarding the direction of America is, sad to say, very accurate. Her system would work if everyone viewed life with her clarity. They don't and never will. But those who understand and appreciate the gist of her system find it valuable and very practical.
ghahandi 1 year ago
@tooltime9901 the bad guys did not represent "capitalists". The guy that built Roark's first building would better represent a capitalists. The "bad guys" represented the collective in the way that they advocated for removing the individualistic elements from ALL architecture. They only wanted the collectively approved architecture. To build Roark's design was a "RISK" that the collective (bureaucracy) wouldn't take, but the capitalist would.
dustinto 1 year ago
@tooltime9901
better read up on the fountainhead again... the government messed up his design, not capitalists.
brodythompson1 8 months ago
@DrCruel how is marxism a form of a secular feudalism? wtf?
seigneurvoland666 1 year ago
@seigneurvoland666 Marxist governments are feudal, in that once a revolution is successful, an elite nomenklatura springs up. Thereafter leadership positions are filled through primogeniture and nepotism. Government in a Marxist society invariably devolves to a single dictator, who rules as a king, and who chooses his subordinates from the pool of party elites and their children.
DrCruel 1 year ago
@seigneurvoland666 I instruct you to look at the governments of the Soviet Union, the PRC, North Korea, Cuba, Syria, Ba'athist Iraq, Vietnam, etc. For example, Fidel Castro has ruled as a king since his successful revolution; now that he has stepped down, rule has devolved to his brother. In North Korea and Syria, teh son of teh previous dictator has risen to rule. One of Saddam's sons was expected to succeed him. And so on.
DrCruel 1 year ago
@DrCruel The little potential that the middle east had in insurrecting a "leftist" government was immediately defeated by subtle (because it wasnt really televised) insurrection of the USA (a capitalist casino land) and yeh, just look at vietnam. There was never any genuine marxist government in place and established anywhere, and if there were (like southern american countries), they were immediately dismantled secretely. The only authentic marxist government that sprang up was the USSR,
seigneurvoland666 1 year ago
@seigneurvoland666 and even the, the USSR could have managed their economy and government much better. Marx was opposed to the idea of a feudal society much more than a bourgeois one. I see so much mix up in terms and misunderstanding in historical concepts that i feel like nothing will make sense to the future generations. People won't know who the enemy is, we're making orwellian fictional conditions ourselves!! What you said cannot be taken seriously anywhere.
seigneurvoland666 1 year ago
@seigneurvoland666 The Soviet Union was evolving towards exactly that sort of "improvement", and under Putin they seem to have accomplished it. This would of course be the natural progression of all successful Marxist states, ie the conversion of the political and economic system over into a Leftist corporate fascist regime.
Mind, fascism is a reform in the context of orthodox Marxism. Marxist theory is extremely primitive.
DrCruel 1 year ago
@DrCruel USSR was never socialist really. It was state capitalist. You conflate these two concepts. Also, let's get one thing straight... socialism at it's core always meant workers control over means of production. period.
seigneurvoland666 1 year ago
@seigneurvoland666 It was certainly "socialist" enough for western Leftists from the rule of Lenin onward. Not that I disagree on one point - the Soviet union never cared about the workers, but then no mainstream socialist does. The "real" socialists - men of principle like Kropotkin, Orwell and Hitchens - tend to get hounded out of the Left by the mainstream charlatans.
DrCruel 1 year ago
@seigneurvoland666 This is much like arguing that Nation Socialist theory is not really anti-Semitic, and that a "true" national socialist state has never existed.
Syria is a merry little Marxist state, and quite brutal and repressive. So are the governments in Indochina. You imply as much int he case of Cuba, and the situation in the previously democratic nation of Venezuela is similar. Your contentions simply are not supportable by the facts.
DrCruel 1 year ago
@DrCruel lol "democratic" as in bourgeois democracy you mean (relating to venezuela). And you say marx's LTV and economics is laughable? It seems like you're trying to relate national socialism to socialism itself; Now that's laughable... Hitlers fascism (under the guise of national "socialism) actually did quite well, and did indeed exist. If you really know what communism is you'd know that it has never really existed ( in industrialized societies at the least).
seigneurvoland666 1 year ago
@DrCruel Also, the majority of the population are in support of Fidel Castro's socialist system. anyone who tells you otherwise, especially in north america, cannot be trusted. Ive been to cuba myself and have asked people. Also, Fidel never ruled as a king, he was in the dirt at the beginning ot the revolution. Fidel doesn't even own his own car or house in fear of being assassinated. Everything you see as is own luxury is merely borrowed from the state, it's not "his".
seigneurvoland666 1 year ago
@seigneurvoland666 I suppose the people who are executed for trying to leave the country are to be included in this "enthusiastic support" set. It is a wonder, with such widespread support, that the Cuban aristocrisy require such draconian punishments to keep all their deliriously happy people in Cuba.
Please. Similar arguments could just as well be used to "prove" that the regime in North Korea is a worker's paradise.
DrCruel 1 year ago
The problem is that, by splitting sectors of a society up into rival factions, then insisting on these factions coming into a "death struggle", Marxism invokes an unworkable worldview - one that must invariably leads to violence and self-destruction. In so far as Objectivism has anything to do with this worldview, it is flawed - and it must be remembered that Ayn Rand got her degree in Marxism-Leninism in St. Petersburg in 1921.
DrCruel 1 year ago
There's one good question you raise - is the architect the creator of a building? Is the financier the creator? What of those that physically carry out the architect's plans? Is Euclid, the geometer upon which most architectural designs are based, the true creator? What ove the Egyptian and Babylonian builders and scribes upon which the Greek geometer got their inspiration from?
DrCruel 1 year ago
I'm familiar with her ideas (I'd suggest reading Sciabarra on Rand), and I very much agree that her philosophy is in the Marxist tradition - in the same way that Satanism is a heretical version of Christianity. Her Marxian "heresy" is to put Marxism on its head - to propose that capitalists are the "working class" while socialist bureaucrats are "looters" and "second handers". It's this heresy that so upsets ideologues of the Left.
DrCruel 1 year ago
All religions are used by the state to control and oppress the brainwashed masses. If you admit you are a Believer you are telling the leaders that you've bought their ridiculous lies. The religious books (Torah, Bible, Qu'ran) are full of lies and contradictions. Leaders protect lies (about the sun moving around Earth) by killing people who exposed the lie. Atheists and others telling the truth are helping citizens to unite around truth to defeat fascist mass murderers.
ExoticGawdess 1 year ago
Karl Marx worked for the Illuminati occult bankers to brainwash the citizens into Believing the state is their god. They were told they had government support to rob the middle class in order to steal their kingdom on earth. The Jews practiced the belief that they could steal from anyone non-Jewish since their Torah & Talmud taught them other humans are worthless and can be made their slaves. Illuminati practice this. It's not atheism that's the problem, it's CRIMINAL leaders.
ExoticGawdess 1 year ago
@ExoticGawdess can you source this rediculous situation. How about this: The leaders know that people who actually feel like the care about humanity and the future we're headed are likely to believe anything that targets an identified group of people. They mix you up with rediculous information coming left and right, enough to the point where you'll accept the above (what you wrote). Karl Marx didnt work for the illuminati at all. Karl marx was a genious and warned us about the dangers of
seigneurvoland666 1 year ago
@seigneurvoland666 If the evidence of his writings are what he is to be judged by, he was hardly a "genius". If anything, he was a substandard amateur economist with delusions of grandeur (his 'labour theory of value' is especially laughable), and was very much a product of 19th century thinking (to include the anti-Semitism so prevalent in his day and age). He has nothing at all of value to add to modern economic theory.
DrCruel 1 year ago
Ayn rand is the anti-marx, smart one.
Cytrs 1 year ago
Are you 12? Do you know what you are talking about? You agree on some points? you disagree on some points? Thank you for your guidance. That's very helpful. (just kidding)
TreeLuvBurdpu 1 year ago
retard!! what a waste of time!
dthcap 1 year ago
Ego
nigel65deck 1 year ago
In a Marxist society, the creator of ideas isn't rewarded for them.
christevenson 1 year ago
10 minutes of mindless babble from an ape. Your qualified to be a professor at a university but nothing else. It sucks being you. You just don't get it.
RCWorks 1 year ago
And yes, "Official Ojectivists" do seem "cultish" and parrot Rand's words, rather than internalize the logic, the truths of her ideas, and truly live as independent minds. I apply few labels to myself, Objectivist is one of them, "Randroid" is not.
You say you do not know the Philosophy well- I do. And I think for myself. I can also discuss Objectivism in a civil manner with those who disagree... most Objectivists cannot. Should you wish to learn of it, I am open to discussion. Good day.
1RationalMind 1 year ago
Howard Roark a Fascist?
"Fascism- a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government."
I think not. Roark's contractual arrangement, his "payment" was to see his building constructed as he wished it, no alterations. That was his agreed compensation. He was denied that compensation by bureaucrats that feel they answer to no one, and broke the contract.
Your life, your work- is it yours, or does it belong to others to do with as they see fit? Choose. It cannot be both.
1RationalMind 1 year ago
It's instructive to listen to dissenting views on Rand, but disappointing to find them peppered with the same vacant logical gaffes, invariably the ad hominem (virtually all of tooltime's caricatures of "Rand's cronies or followers," his parroting of the Rothbardian "cult" epithet, and his Beavis & Butthead-caliber "fascist" and "nutjob" slurs.) The classic Straw Man fallacy ("...holding her up as, like...that she knew everything about everything," etc.,) is a close second.
cont'd -
SosakanSama 1 year ago
His take on The Fountainhead is so intensely confused it's embarrasssing, and points up the single most coherent thing tooltime says here: "I'm not extremely familiar with her work." Reason - something Rand was rather big on - would suggest actually, like, studying a subject before attempting to speak intelligibly on that subject.
SosakanSama 1 year ago
His take on The Fountainhead is so intensely confused it's embarrasssing, and points up the single most coherent thing tooltime says here: "I'm not extremely familiar with her work." Reason - something Rand was rather big on - would suggest actually, like, studying a subject before attempting to speak intelligibly on that subject.
SosakanSama 1 year ago
Comment removed
SosakanSama 1 year ago
The classic Straw Man fallacy ("...holding her up as, like...that she knew everything about everything," etc.,) is a close second. His take on The Fountainhead is so intensely confused it's embarrasssing, and points up the single most coherent thing tooltime says here: "I'm not extremely familiar with her work." Reason - something Rand was rather big on - would suggest actually, like, studying a subject before attempting to speak intelligibly on that subject.
SosakanSama 1 year ago
Upvoted for truth.
SuperSmashDolls 1 year ago
HAHA
AWESOME
cheeseit126 1 year ago
I"ve read most of Rand's work (including the non-fiction) but never considered the Fountainhead that way. It's pretty interesting. I might re-read that part of the book again.
ps I gave up on objectivism a long time ago.
jessemaurais 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To attach Ayn Rand's name to communism is an act of propaganda. Ayn Rand was against Propaganda and all types of totalitarionism. . A point seemingly lost on the disingenuous whilst making their invidious comparisons. . You are using the same tactics as the despots you say you dispise. I can only hope that you made this error through ignorance and not a calculated intention to distort the truth.
PS... Please read "We the Living"
jenkinss5 1 year ago
the reason people flow her is because she can back her philosophy up with facts
VanWinick 1 year ago
No, she can't.
ghoulzz21 1 year ago
you obviously haven't listened to her much i guess
VanWinick 1 year ago
Now that's a randian statement. There is nothing "obvious" with that. Please show the 'facts' that Ayn Rand bases her normative theory on.
Or are you one of those sectists that cling on to objectivism and argues that ones own life is the ultimate value?
Because, you see, that is one of Ayn Rands so-called facts. Which are not really facts at all, since she never presents the good reasons for believing that.
If you possess knowledge of that so-called fact, please, present the evidence.
ghoulzz21 1 year ago
ok two things it is obvious because if he/she listened to much of her stuff and thought about it he /she would see thats there are definite reasons and also she doesn't base her philosophy on facts she bases them on fundamentals, namely that existence exists( a is a) and that the universe should be and perceived with reason not emotions
VanWinick 1 year ago
@VanWinick Ah, indeed. She however strays away from reason. Unless she can either:
a) Argue that her fundaments are axiomatic or
b) Present premises which leads to here fundaments,
then she hardly bases her philosophy on reason, now does she?
ghoulzz21 1 year ago
@VanWinick Ah, indeed. She however strays away from reason. Unless she can either:
a) Argue that her fundaments are axiomatic or
b) Present premises which leads to here fundaments,
then she hardly bases her philosophy on reason, now does she?
ghoulzz21 1 year ago
her fundamentals are that reason is the correct way of perceiving the universe so how could she stray from it?
VanWinick 1 year ago
@VanWinick That doesn't make any sense. So, because she thinks that reason is fundamental, she can not stray from reason? If I think morality is fundamental, does that mean that I'm always virtuous? I think not.
She may think that 'reason' is the correct way to go, but she fails miserably by jumping to conclusions without good reasons for doing so.
ghoulzz21 1 year ago
@ghoulzz21 i have never seen her jump to a conclusion
VanWinick 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VanWinick you obviously haven't listened to her much i guess
ghoulzz21 1 year ago
assuming you can own something is a jump for one.
xkeltoix 1 year ago
Yeah, Leonard "My individualist philosophy and principle of 'no first use of force' means we should start wars and regard everyone in the area as a collective enemy, justifying the use of violence against civilians" Peikoff is a tool.
It's disturbing how a movement that holds individualism so dear ended up so cultish. But you did get the entire point of "The Fountainhead" wrong.
I recommend checking out Jordanowen42's "From a Liberal who Loves Ayn Rand" for a less cult-y pro-Rand perspective.
ShadowPa1adin 1 year ago
Actually in the novel (and I suspect in the movie though I haven't watched it) Roark received no monetary compensation. According to the contract his payment was that it would be built according to his design. The legal term for this is creative control. By altering the design the builder had violated the contract. His complaint is not that he doesn't control the means of production but that by not paying him for his work as called for in the contract the builders violated his property rights.
studentofsmith 1 year ago
Comment removed
designtoexpire 1 year ago
Comment removed
designtoexpire 1 year ago
Comment removed
designtoexpire 1 year ago
I was looking all over youtube for people who disagree with Ayn Rand in order to find someone who has a legitamet point against her. This video is a fail.
CWSmith1982 1 year ago
Im just wondering if the classes you take are of a jew/centric bent...i,e ,that everything we teach you, is not to inform ,or enlighten..but to envelope y ' all .
Keep goin' yer almost there .
*****
charliemctruth 1 year ago
Listen man, he designed the building for a guy named Peter Keating out of sympathy for him in a written agreement that it would not be changed or altered. He blew it up because Keating didn't have the will to tell the investors that it was going to stay the way it was designed. It ended up being built and the outcome was a non-proportional atrocity. It was his development that he created and destroyed. Before you attempt to knock a philosopher please do yourself a favor and read their work.
heyjeshx 1 year ago
@tooltime0001 you know nothing concerning Objectivism.
you are aptly named, incidentally.
xTjPx 1 year ago
you do not know what you are talking about
raindog504 1 year ago
Godless Communist? Ayn Rand detested communism you idiot. Another pot head who either doesn't understand or is trying to spread lies.
ArtisanTony 2 years ago
2) Marxist claims the master must submit to the workers. They are workers because that is all they can do, unless they prove themselves worthy of attaining a higher title. The master earned.
The master against the averages.
The averages against the masters.
Opposites.
AmazingCharles 2 years ago
what to do. The blueprints belong to Roark because HE made them. The workers are means to the end. Because HE made the building, it is immoral for others to demand that Roark provide his work to the public. To compromise his work is the same as compromising his morality, his life. He is a master. Masters do not follow the majority votes of "The Organization of Architectural Averages". His is the right way, clearly displayed by his magnifcent work.
AmazingCharles 2 years ago
Atheist? Obviously. Communist? Hell no.
I cannot take this seriously. But...
1) Howard Roark designs the building Everything about the building. Without him, the workers would have no idea
AmazingCharles 2 years ago
just maybe: i always wondered if rand was a crypto marxist all along. marx and rand were both jewish, and knowing jews and their trickery i wouldn't put it past her. you encourage no taxes, no regulations of any sort, and then expect things to work out smoothly in the end? after seeing how that would be a disaster people would turn to marxism by default. although tooltime here in this video is not giving howard roark enough credit.
MrUncomfortableTruth 2 years ago
at 4:26 tooltime says roark was a 'fascist nut job" for demanding that his design was built his way, and his way only. what? as a TOOL fan do you think Maynard would allow someone to change around his lyrics, or Alex Grey would allow someone to change around his artwork??? and when there was a contract made beforehand saying it wouldn't be changed... any real man of conviction would be fuckin pissed off. and an architect is not someone that just scribbles lines and numbers. smarten up.
MrUncomfortableTruth 2 years ago
By your own admission you know very little about Ayn Rand, her works, or Objectivism and judging from your speech, also about Capitalism. So why would you waste ten minutes of your time making groundless, irrational claims?
olipop84 2 years ago 2
Why is it that people who can't cut their hair or shave properly tend to be hopelessly confused about Marxism and capitalism?
richardcadbury 2 years ago
richardcadbury, great question, very funny.
wmhoad 2 years ago
the reason Roark destroyed his creation was because he realized that he was allowing other people to profit of something the have not earned or created. He showed that you get what you earn. They had no right to take and profit of of his origionality. They could not create anything new, they could only copy and repeat. He realized that he was no better than any of them because he had allowed people like Peter Keating to revolve their life around which they had not created or earned.
texandrunk 2 years ago
when you said that people will not opose good ideas is absolutly false. The government regularly halts new Ideas or methods of doing or making things because they think it is unfair for your competetors and reak havok upon the economy.
texandrunk 2 years ago
Yes, your just crazy. He didn't get a single thing right about Ayn Rand, and its pretty easy to know her positions just by reading or listening. Guy's a marxist I guess, seems to have psychological problem so he makes stuff up, rather than try to prove or disprove anything.
razer7echo 2 years ago
Quite simply you confuse economic force with government force.
CapitalistPhil 2 years ago
I'd say there are people who respect Ayn Rand and have studied her works...I wouldn't call it worshiping at all. She was a smart woman but only human like the rest of us.
MetalChickenDragon 2 years ago
Ayn Rand was a communist? She despised Marxism and supported laissez faire market economic policies.
MojaveViper29 2 years ago
Your critiques are hollow at best. A man is fascist because he demands that contractual agreements do not need to be broken? Since when did that notion become Marxist and anti-capitalist?
You need to READ the Fountain Head, and then make a proper argument against it.
The Objectivists criterion is not what Ayn Rand says: it's what is metaphysically given (i.e., reality). Reason and conceptual abstractions result, but the criterion is still the metaphysical.
Note: parasites =/= "followers".
Soupflakez 2 years ago 2
"[Ayn Rand] secretly was a godless atheist" LOL! Okay, anyone else care to field the absurdity of that statement? I've been up too late. Secretly? Lol!
mikejackson4ever 2 years ago 2
Or excuse me, maybe you said communist. I'm too tired to watch the video again.
mikejackson4ever 2 years ago
May want to change your video description. It says "bit tongue and check". Cheek.
mikejackson4ever 2 years ago
No objection that she was godless. Thank God she was!
Obviously you've never read her non-fiction! Obviously you've never even attempted to understand what OBJECTIVISM is. Especially since you call it a "cult". It is a philosophy based on the law of identity and that reason is man's only means of existence.
Don't try to skew her ideas or words to make them fit your needs.
waterstrike08 2 years ago
"The cult of Ayn Rand"? Ayn Rand hated those kinds of phrases and I am personally suspicious of anyone who uses that kind of description to describe people who agree with Ayn Rand's philosophy.
summercures2 2 years ago
Comment removed
collapseofthedollar 2 years ago
This gets into the idea of what independence consists of. Independence requires that one think through and validate the ideas behind one's actions.
This does not mean that one must be the originator of all of these ideas. The role of the Philosopher is to develop philosophical ideas.
The only way to understand Rand's ideas is to take them in and the continuously question them as well as all other knowledge. Only by questioning them can one realize their full implications and apply them.
1337melee 2 years ago