Reason vs. Faith, Question 1 of 8 - Ayn Rand Institute

[M16musicc]

I like how that guy is initially nodding his head like he knows what the fuck he just said

[SuperMegaUberGenius]

liberal douchebag

[JaredR3535]

I love Ayn Rand and her philosophy! This guy has got to stop coughing/clearing his throat between every sentence. Bad habit and sounds less creditable! Get a cough drop dude!

[vulvatronic]

these guys look like jehovas testomoners.

[Knightimehero]

lol@christians

[BeatLab10]

Every time I come on here there is always bitching and argueing. If you see something "dumb", written by someone else, save your ego filled opinions and your own fucking time. Christians and Athiests. Fucks sake it's not about belief it's about personal choice. Such cunty know it all people on this shit.

[lmann2011]

@Deadwood You are just drop-dead dumb. Anyone with a brain cell can argue the moral grounds on which she could receive benefits from the system that had previously extorted her labor. I suppose you would say her paying the immorally mandated taxes and not martyring herself would make her a hypocrit too. I stand in awe. Wow LOL Get off your knees and on your feet, boy. Whether you're begging or blowing, neither is good

[MrGobsmack]

solely relying on reason or logic or trying to separate logic and emotion is the beginning of a slow and painful schizophrenic demise.

[yousmokecrackers]

Atlas Shrugged movie trailer on youtube.

[1400deadwood]

Ayn Rand = welfare queen. She took big money from the government under her husband's name in order to hide her hypocrisy. Government wasn't the problem after all -- it was the solution for her as it is for corporations who receive subsidies every ear.

Such hypocrisy!

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@1400deadwood Maybe you ought to check what Ayn Rand said about welfare before labeling her a hypocrite. You could do this by going to the Ayn Rand Lexicon (use google). Of course, I doubt that you will bother looking but at least now you can't pretend that you hadn't heard of it.

[1400deadwood]

@StudentOfObjectivism - believe it or not I read her bullshit writings before you were born. I was introduced to her bizarre writings some time around 1969. It made no sense then. Now, in view of her proven hypocrisy, they make even less sense.

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@1400deadwood So you didn't check what she had to say then... I thought it might prove too much effort for you, given that bigots hate to be proven wrong.

[1400deadwood]

@StudentOfObjectivism  - not bigotry. Just truth.

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@1400deadwood A truth that is contradicted by the facts... interesting concept. Ayn Rand's own words:

"Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others—the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better...

[StudentOfObjectivism]

The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it . . .

The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind...

[StudentOfObjectivism]

It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money..."

[1400deadwood]

@StudentOfObjectivism - Rand certainly had every right to refund the money she took under her husband's name and which she sought to hide from the public.

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@1400deadwood lol, you're an idiot.

[1400deadwood]

@StudentOfObjectivism - try not to be too stupid. She railed against this type of government coverage for years. Then, she hid the truth from the public. This is hypocrisy of the worse kind. To defend it is even more stupid though given the cult nature of her school it does not surprise me at your continued defense of her stupidity.

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@1400deadwood ha, whatever. The simple fact is that you got caught saying something that is directly contradicted by the facts... rather than admit your error you have chosen to double up on your losses by sticking to your guns and trying to call me a cultist. It's pathetic, seriously.

[1400deadwood]

@StudentOfObjectivism - that's what you think buddy - take a good look at this:

''Ayn Rand took government assistance while decrying others who did the same'' on the boingboing site.

It proves that she was a hypocrite. Only a cultist with a twisted mentality would defend her after this facts were discposed.

[lmann2011]

@1400deadwood You are just drop-dead dumb. Anyone with a brain cell can argue the moral grounds on which she could receive benefits from the system that had previously extorted her labor. I suppose you would say her paying the immorally mandated taxes and not martyring herself would make her a hypocrit too. I stand in awe. Wow LOL Get off your knees and on your feet, boy. Whether you're begging or blowing, neither is good

[1400deadwood]

@lmann2011 - you obviously are too assinine to have read her bogus writings. Had you done so you would know that she went on record as saying that ANYONE who took this type of government money was a ''leech''. This includes those who paid taxes for it. And that means that by her own standards she was a leech. This as well as a pervert who jacked off to young men and an antichrist who profaned Jesus. Don't believe it? Read her stupid writings and see for yourself.

[bma051000]

@1400deadwood What do you think of Rand's epistemology, specifically her theory of concept formation? Why don't any of her detractors go after her epistemology, when it is actually the most groundbreaking and controversial of her entire philosophy? I never hear any of Rand's detractors dig any deeper in her philosophy beneath ethics. Metaphysics and epistemology are far more fundamental and important in my mind.

[1400deadwood]

@bma051000 - I read her 'Epistemology' long ago, cannot recall all the specifics of it, but do recall her denial of divine revelation with ''reason'' being the exclusive source of knowledge for her. As I mentioned above, had she been a liberal, right wingers would call her 'antichrist' for this. But because of her overall political outlook, conservatives went easy on her.

[john42t]

@bma051000 Because no one understands these things - not even most of those who call themselves Objectivists. I wouldn't even recommend "epistemology" but "philosophy, who needs it" and other essays. Because it's far easier to understand her dissection of actual philosphical history and to what disasters it led than to see the importance of concept formation. And even my recommendation would be much more low-level than the altruist-egoist shallowness that dominates the debate.

[AlanCanon2222]

It's interesting that the presumably anti-collectivist ARI speakers both speak using the editorial "we."

[SecondHouseSpecialty]

thank you ARI!!!

[InaneRex]

This is useless.

Please, at least know the 'religions of the east' before you clump them. Or, don't mention them.

He wants to 'well define' things in reference to 'reason' but, he says: 'lots of evils to the world.' No shit Onkar... and what's everyone's excuse regarding 'evil'

Mr. Taggart : "It wasn't my fault!!!!"

He should've just rejected the question.

Or said: "Consult Atlas Shrugged" for my opinion.

[JohnBreadForger]

They sure load their definitions and run on fallacy. And no, I won't ellaborate because no one will bother listening.

[InstrumentSyndicate]

Thank you to the Ayn Rand Institute, means a lot to me

-Joe

[gorwell97]

I love her books. Although I agree with a lot of her ideas, I do not think that unregulated markets are a good idea. Just as History has shown communism to be unrealistic, there are examples that unregulated business is not a utopia.

[601373]

There are not examples of unregulated business being a blight upon human civilization. The Industrial Revolution raised the standard and quality of human life more than any other single event in the entire span of human civilization.

And you say that unregulated markets are not a good idea. Pah!

[gorwell97]

I did not say anything about unregulated markets being a blight!!! Greenspan was a Rand follower, but now he's changed his mind. I'm in favor of markets having more freedom than regulations, just NOT completely free and unregulated. I make a comment disagreeing and you exaggerate it. Does everyone have to agree with your ideas????

[601373]

@gorwell97

Okay well how about you provide some examples of how "unregulated" markets and not those which are in fact regulated by governments have been detrimental to human life? Since completely unregulated markets have never existed you cannot say that they are not a good idea.

If everybody agreed with my ideas the world would be a lot better place. Unfortunately, that is not the case, so it is my responsibility to defend my position and ideas from those who are opposed to them.

[lucentenor]

@gorwell97

If you could identify those examples that would be enlightening. Most often, as in the early Industrial Revolution- regulation was to blame for "free markets" being able to pollute and destroy property. Nations wanted Industry, and governments allowed rights to be violated in the name of progress. Unregulated business requires a government that protects individual rights. So in part, I agree with you. But the reasons for their misgivings was still government protectionism.

[hyobel]

Mind you, as I posted in the video #2, this is just capitalism's propaganda tactics. ARI brought in the least from the religious circles, in order to dismiss religion as nothing but delusive irrationality, in order to make a clown out of the religious people.

The religious people invited in here are all crap. They have not a singe sensible perspective. This is captialism's propagandising, not Reson's strong disposition.

[hyobel]

Before I used to think that Reason is like lawyers. It can twist just about anything. It can incriminate the innocent, acquit the wicked, lessen the evil of the wicked, underpin the mistake of the good.

But then, I found another truth: that capitalism can buy anything, even Reason.

[madmax8903]

Ayn Rand was an original. When she argued her views before an audience, most often there'd be angry denials, mockery and fierce opposition. These guys seem to be rehashing the main points of her philosophy to people who already know it and are in full agreement. Sure, it's good to share pleasant evenings with like-minded people, but is this what ARI is all about?

[xTjPx]

great video, great answer.

thanks for posting.

[hyobel]

Objectivism is Ayn Rand's implement to defend her campaign for unregulated capitalism.

[hyobel]

Objectivism is Reason's nearly-perfected attempt to rationalise every human thought, action and emotions.

Objectivism is an IT expert trying to digitise everything, all in an IO output.

[Philosopher2087]

Dr. Yaron Brook is a great speaker.

[runningfrog43]

lol, what  a bitch of a question. good answer though.

[WeDontNeedGod]

Great answer on the crucial issue of our time.

[narleyg5]

Ayn rand lived in her own little utopian dream, where people have absolute freedoms, and as long as they follow their ego, they are free to do as they choose. As long as their ego is the most important thing to be satisfied. Unfortunately she didn`t take into consideration ``divergent views`` and differences in ideals and personalities. Someone will always control someone else, so we`ll never have the total freedom to pursue our ego. At times we have to pursue another`s ego.

[JamesRoss117]

Why?

[Rjeeeeee]

I advice reading regulations of the human park. It gives an answer to differences, future, possiblities based on the most rational and most destructive anti-religious thing possible. Rules and ethics about cloning people and generating and new future and recreating the past. Based on the idea that if something is possible, it will happen eventually. Peter Sloterdijk is a German with dutch blood, and one of the biggest philosophers in western europe the last 30 years.

[Roannepur]

That's very depressing. I'm sure you get some her ideas. However I think your muse doesn't have a sheild. For instance you use "we" not I. That's your own thought brought on by the allusion of the world around. If you want to pursue the ego of another like per say your child great. But I don't know any egos to fufill other than that. I like your view. It's fully acknowlegding. However, just cause it happens to another doesn't mean you have to subject yourself. But if you do it's not my worry.

[RoulfYelrab]

Stupid Objectivists.

[stratvic]

Reason is stupid?

[RoulfYelrab]

Did I say that?

[stratvic]

The use of reason is what is being discussed. Your comment is that that these people are "stupid" for making it.

[RoulfYelrab]

I didn't say that reason is stupid, or imply anything of the sort. I said "Stupid Objectivists," not "Stupid Reason."

[stratvic]

What makes them "stupid" in this video?

They are advocating the use reason in preference to faith. What points made in the video indicate to you that they might be "stupid".

[stephleom]

@stratvic Don't bother debating with people that don't accept the supremacy of reason. Leave them alone, it's to your own self-interest. They're the ones that'll have trouble living consistently and pursuing their own happiness

[caltrop69]

Nothing wrong with western civilization...However...I think I've got a pretty good argument for why Youtube sucks:

They don't let you respond to people, unless you stand on your head and eat their shorts.

[longlakeshore]

Ancient Greece was built and run on the backs of slaves, as was Rome. That's where their prosperity came from, not from some Aristotlean age of reason. Are you blind? The Old Testament embraced slavery as god-given in Mosaic law, which allowed it to perpetuate in Western law until 1865, leading to the most deadly war in US history. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, the founding fathers Rand most idolized all got very rich from the backs of their slaves.

[longlakeshore]

Do you see the contradiction? Rand and your institute embrace a philosophy of individual rights while at the same time idolizing the prosperity of slaveholding men who founded this country! So much for being objective. So much for reason and the rights of the individual. Your rhetoric may fool amoral men who have no objection to getting rich at the expense of others, but it doesn't fool me.

[stratvic]

What killed slavery?  Faith or reason?

[longlakeshore]

Secular humanism killed slavery. Abolitionists were the humanists of their day, but were so far left politically (domain of the new Republican Party back then) that even Lincoln omitted it from his rhetoric in the build-up to the Civil War. It was about "Preserving the Union", not slavery. He even said he'd preserve the union with slavery intact if he could. Ultimately slavery offended reason in the North even tho God mandates it thru Moses. Cost? 625,000 dead soldiers & 1 dead President.

[stratvic]

What was the cost the rest of the world spent to eradicate slavery? ... passing a law or two and an economic restructure of affected industries.

You will have to cite where Rand idolized the prosperity of slave holding men if what you mean is that they where idolized for their slavery or for ill gotten gains. I think you will find that she advocated neither.

[longlakeshore]

Cite Rand? You have ears. Listen to her interviews.

BTW, slavery is not yet eradicated in the rest of the world, nor is it here in the States where new cases of illegal immigrants held in bondage for labor continue to be prosecuted. And don't forget the sex slave trade. Plenty of prosperity being generated there.

[032125]

While I subscribe to much of Rand's Objectivism, it pains me that so much of her disdain for faith and spirituality continues to taint the Rand institute.

Onkar very unfairly ascribed effectively all of the good of western society to Greek rationalism in one sweeping broad stroke, and with the backhand stroke discounts and vilifies religion as the core of all evil.

[jjmdirector]

it may not be the core. but its very close...

[burkeyatm]

Listen up Christians and other theists..... EVOLUTION EXPLAINS HOW THINGS (living stuff) CAME TO BE THE WAY THEY ARE. NOT THE ORIGINS OF LIFE. That is whole other debate. Look up biogenesis for the scientific viewpoint on the origin of life. For the love of your god, stop taking the piss out of Darwin.

[henrka]

LOL at comparing evolution with gravity. The gravitational forces of newtonian physics have been scientifically proven. The theory of evolution has not. Evolution is actually based on faith, not reason, it's a belief that can't be supported scientifically.

[OneWD]

Wrong. The theory of evolution has been proven conclusively in the lab and in nature. I don't think you understand the word "theory" in a scientific setting.

It is not an assumption, or a hypotheses. It is, like the theory of gravity and the theory of general relativity - the best reasonable explanation based on facts and evidence. It is the top of the hierarchy of scientific reasoning and investigation.

Check out cdk007's channel or talkorigins site if you're still not convinced.

[kwt16]

@OneWD Thank you for your comment, i try to explain this to people all the time and i don't understand why they can't grasp it. Its reassuring to know that there are at least some people out there leaving legitimate comments. Thanks

[23lambs]

Listen to yourself you fool: "reasonable explanation"?! Don't you know where that kind of thinking leads? Study some history and come back when you have a "theory" you can prove.

[23lambs]

Listen to yourself you fool: "reasonable explanation"?! Don't you know where that kind of thinking leads? Study some history and come back when you have a "theory" you can prove.

[OneWD]

@23lambs Science doesn't claim absolute certainty if that is what you imply. You can always contest an existing theory, but it will always fall back on evidence: namely how much the theory is supported by evidence and to what degree can it explain the complexity of the world. This is the beauty of scientific inquiry: we constantly test our models and theories for inconsistencies and make adjustments.

If you think you have a competent competing theory of evolution, please tell us so. Can you?

[pitbull103]

@OneWD Well said. I just finished "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Dawkins, and I am shocked at the volume of evidence for evolution. I knew it was huge, but not THAT huge. It's gargantuan.

[glork2007]

Contesting evolution is like contesting the fact that earth turns around the sun.

[henrka]

The United States is the most religious western country by far, secular Europe, Canada and Australia are not nearly as religious. Church attendance in the Us is the highest of any other western country. More than half of the US population rejects evolution and believes in the literal biblical account of creation from the book of Genesis.

[AdrianBurka]

Most religious people reject evolution as the origin of life, not as a generational biological process.

As the origin of life, it is not definitively provable fact; as a naturally occurring process, it assuredly is.

[dkt80]

Evolution is not put forward as an explanation for abiogenesis - the initial origin of primitive life on this planet. It simply covers what happens next. However, the Miller-Urey experiment demonstrates quite vividly that amino acids could have arisen out of the chemical furnace that was the early earth. See the wikipedia article on abiogenesis for more.

[richardcadbury]

most religious people will reject any part of science they can get away with if it supports their faith.

[henrka]

Well, there are many christians that believe in evolution. Francis Collins, the geneticist that is in charge of the human genome and considered by most the number 1 biologist in the world has clearly said many times that something as complex as the evolutionary process had to be created by God. Francis Collins believes in Jesus Chjrist.

[henrka]

Most americans believe that man has not evolved form monkeys and neither is there a missing link between monkeys and humans. The missing link is actually missing because it does not exist.

God created man out of dust, out of nothing like the account in Genesis teaches. Man did not evolve from any other living species, man was created in God's image by God..

[supertomii19]

I love how anti-evolutionists will disregard learning about the way evolution works, then be so assertive about creation when there is no evidence to support it other than what one book says. FYI, evolution does not support the idea of species "changing" in the sense that you put it. Evolution is genetic variations either supporting or hindering the survival of a species by the phenotypes that they create. Those more likely to survive, reproduce and pass on genes that alter the species.

[ytpyay]

Alright. Let's throw evidence right out the window for a second and look at both of these options at face value. Which seems more ridiculous? That man came from monkeys, or that man came from dust? Even without looking at any evidence, the religious option is infinitely more stupid.

[gjsterp]

Man and the apes had an ape-like ancestor. We are not evolved from apes. That is a misconception.

And, we and other life forms on this planet did originate from dust. Star dust.

[ytpyay]

haha well you owned me, but I'm sure you know what I meant.

[Scrampster]

It's not necessary to know the origin of life to know that you're alive, and then discover how to live. It's arbitrary. Atheism is the rational choice. Saying "I don't know" or "This makes more sense based on reality" is smart. Asserting you know something without evidence is religion.

[supertomii19]

It is not provable fact, but neither is gravity... both evolution and gravity are scientific THEORIES, which in fact are the highest form of scientific notion there is. You can NEVER proove a good theory, only support it; and indeed both of these theories are highly supported and we rely on both of them heavily for mankind's progress in the scientific field

[henrka]

IJohn Calvin and the christian reformation has influenced modern western civilization and made capitalism possible. The "protestant work ethic" and capitalism as we know it would have been inconceivable without the 16th century Reformation.

[Daemonocracy]

Seems to have a shallow understanding of history. The Roman Empire was long in decline before Christianity surfaced. Their decline technically started when Caesar stormed Rome and overthrew the Republic. Greek Civilization failed thanks to the sophists (relativists) and the Peloponnesian War, before Christianity. The Rennaisance and Enlightenment were possible because Christianity allowed it with its endorsement of free will (and preservation of pre dark ages literature).

[mathiastheok]

The linchpin of the Roman empires defeat was the inability to support the massive numbers of standing armies it had in its empire. Its much easier to do that today with the invention of fiat money...something from nothing.

But Christianity allowed free will.....as long as your will was with Christianity : )

[Daemonocracy]

It is true that Christianity has dark plagues in its history but remember that it was politics that often lead to the distortion of true Christian Doctrine. Charlemagne, the "convert or die" King, used this as a method to unite his kingdom, not because he cared about Christianity. As for the Roman empire, not being to fund their armies was a side effect of a long sickness that brought that empire down.

[mathiastheok]

Agreed, and to this day (in America at least) while we profess separation of church and state, no leader of our country would make it past the primaries if he or she did not hold a mainstream religious conviction.

[Daemonocracy]

oh and fiat money is dangerous as well. we need something to weigh our currency down to aboid out of control spending, which is also what hurt the Roman Empire

[mathiastheok]

Yes absolutely, as without an asset to back the fiat, it's value is easier control by those whom print the money. Fiat money was only ever originally intended to replace the risky situation of transferring gold bullion between kingdoms etc..

The other half of the problem is nation states need to control their currency and NOT private banking institutions such as our Federal Reserve...which is no more "federal" than Federal Express. : )

[Isabella8466]

Rand neglected to utilize critical thinking and the scientific method, created utopian characters and ideals, which are inconsistent with human nature.

[geminigemini]

Great clip! Top fave. Thanks for uploading it.

[Nadow]

Read the Romantic Manifesto. She thought art have to inspire us showing how men and life should be. Why would you want a copy of reality when you have the whole reality itself for you??

[mathiastheok]

Art should just be the enjoyment of the interpretation one human has of their reality. I especially like childrens art for the purity and innocence of their viewpoint of the world.

[joopq]

a bunch of fools masterbating logic over nonsense. first of all, aristotle AND plato where both plagerizers of the mystery schools so monotheism has nothing to do with them. secondly you all have missed this and might swallow this tripe.

[polaka03]

Rand's thoughts are very valuable; what is not is a herd of organised followers, lol!

Yet another religion, amen;)

[45a66]

I think these peoble are dangerous, fanaticks and dont care about children and childrens childrens children, eg:Environmentalism, they say this is something bad, They dont understand Greece or european democrasy.Capitalism is also to preserve(keep)and those with lots of money have lots of responserbillity.They should maybe look at usa now and also think about what chief Joseph sayed.Objective, they are not.

[Magnulus76]

Reason is a pile of crap. The 4th century Indian philosopher Nagarjuna saw flaws in reasoning, and post-modernism in the West has reduced reasoning to a bunch of stories people tell each other to soothe their egoes. Objectivism takes the source of all the evil in the world, the egoistic drives of greed, lust, and hate, and puts it on a pillar. You will be held accountable for your beliefs.

[StarKyte]

Can you prove that there are flaws in reasoning?

LOL

[iidiott]

reason is required in any instance of proof. reason makes proof possible, not the opposite.

without reason there can be no proof. proof is derived from reason. it is a contradiction to expect proof to have meaning, then use it to attack reason, which gives proof meaning. that is stealing a concept. it's done all the time. another one

is "faith in reason". without reason, there

can be no such thing as faith. to use the concept "faith" concedes the premise of reason.

[iidiott]

anyone who denies reason is ruled out of rational discussion. what other kind of

discussion is there? and who would want to

engage in it? pointless.

[jetta230]

Jesus Christ is a Mythic creature?

[jetta230]

who are these people?

[45a66]

dangerous.

[45a66]

Ayn Rand is crab.

[RadAntelope]

Rand's ideas are not "dangerous" to anyone other than collectivists who think that it is their providence to decide for others what is good for them and who hold as a tenant that life is to be lived for others rather than for oneself. It is a suicidal, tyrannical set of empty beliefs that Rand painstakingly dismantled and threw onto the rubbish heap of history. Reality took care of the rest. Name one collectivist government in history that has improved the world's living standard.

[45a66]

ofcause I belive in freedom of speech(from denmark)and individual freedom, but their capitalist idea is like big musckle without brain.They don't care about childrens children as I understand them not bothering about environmental issues.These has to get solved by themselves(crab)and no regulation(then the system will destroy itselves). America has to be mature now and join democracy, you have been running on debt too long.Think about china, they are long timers(share holders:)

[45a66]

I don't know much about colectivists.Iknow we were very happy when ur farther or grandfarthe, the canadians, enhlish and australians came and freed us in 1945, if that's collectivisem,so be it.They don't want we help u now(don't think u can by ur selves).Have heard about Gasprom?"tiny"china.I'm living in the western world, but think there ideas about capitalism is anarchy.U need Georgia also.god damn.and don't u think we have soldiers in afghan too and they also die?

[teewillis1981]

I couldn't agree more. Rand was the first philosopher to deal with the reality of the human condition. While other philosophies, ideologies and faiths strive to make humanity into some sort of collectivist utopia. Rand refused, through reason, to institute or reiterate any collectives creed that would restrict the rights of the individual. Deal with humanity how we are...that's real change.

[mathiastheok]

I particularly like Ann's stance on altruism vs selfishness. Altruism stifles free will with the doctrine that to do for others is better than to do for ones self.

[shovelcharge]

who the hell is Ann

[mathiastheok]

Oh my gosh, your right I spelled Ann when I meant to spell Ayn.

We are all glad you showed up to correct me because even though the video and everything on this page pertains to Ayn and not Ann, I shudder to think what would have happened if you hadn't and saved us from what surely would have been a complete breakdown in understanding, communication and well, sanity.

Hats off to shovelcharge for his altruism, as I'm sure you didn't mean your comment in a selfish attempt a humor...did you?

[AzureFlameElk]

I love crab!

[pookiehohn]

I hear it's good with butter.

[teewillis1981]

Start with The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. Then follow with Atlas Shrugged. Then, continue to think freely.

[PureLiberalChallenge]

No! Western Civilization is perfect! ;-)

[AdamVReedCA]

The typical listener thinks of "Western Civilization" as a synonym for Christendom. Now that reason has become the core of a global civilization that thrives even in places relatively uninfluenced by Christianity, it is time to junk the old package-deal and start using a new term, such as "Human Civilization," without the Christian baggage.

[jprational]

Thanks ARI for finally distributing some quality material to the mass-media. How about a weekly (or daily?!) podcast? :)

[jprational]

Thanks ARI for finally distributing some quality material to the mass-media. How about a weekly (or daily?!) podcast? :)

[iratuber2]

Peikoff podcasts are available on his site if you are interested

[snakeinthegrass20]

Very interseted in Peikoff's podcasts, but they don't work from his site ??

[shovelcharge]

yes they do...

[skabbskip]

so.. you.. basically don't know anything about any civilisation? Both the claim that no other civilisation has the same focus on reason and the claim that our civilisation has a focus on it has to be one of the most uninformed statements I've ever heard.

Maybe you could try to stop reading books with narrow presentations of other cultures and visit them instead?

[smoovegeek]

Protip: When alleging that someone is uninformed and has made a false statement, cite at least one example that contradicts their position. Otherwise, your criticism falls flat and you come across as the uninformed one.

[Youhavethebody]

Have to agree with smoovegeek here.

Pointing out counter-examples is a really effective method in demonstrating the invalidity of someone else's assertion. The lack of any in skabbskip's post can be inferred as unconcern for substantiating one's criticism, and makes one appear "as the uniformed one."

[hbar1212]

@smoovegeek Ayn Rand, for all that I love her work, made a couple of mistakes in her personal life. One is that she wasn't always objective enough. What I call absolute objectivism is more to my taste. Number two, if you read a book or two on her biography, her genius was somewhat based on her intuitive skills. That's not bad, just that she didn't recognize the amazing computations abilities of, let's call it, the autonomic nervous system. Science now terms the whole nervous system as brain.

[hbar1212]

@smoovegeek I think of myself as an absolute skeptic. That is, I don't completely believe anything I 'know'. My understanding is the testing trumps thinking that something isn't true. That leaves me open to the infinite complexity of things. I don't rely completely on any self referential system without looking at it from the outside, that is to say, without looking at it objectively also. I think of it at theory, a different theory and a synthesis, often outside a more comfortable matrix, box.

[dduppie]

so what do YOU know about objectivism?

[NateIsOnYT]

Keep it coming, ARI!

[dunkelhaven]

I agree; reason is the core of Western Civilization, and what made us great. Excellent video!

[Youhavethebody]

I think it's awesome that the ARI's putting these Q & A's online.

Please send more, thank you.