Sounds like you've given up already. Religious people can be converted to atheism, not all of them are completely fargone, many are earnestly looking for the best way to live their lives, they just don't see things clearly
@eyecoin Atheism, by its definition means: "absence of belief". The case of not believing in God is based on rational conviction, and not in some supernatural superstition or make-believe. Certainly, if you want believe in an almighty God, a tree spirit, in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or in Santa Claus I honestly don't care, as long as you do not force it upon me. However saying that not believing in these things is a belief in itself is just absurd.
Too bad Ayn Rand's philosophy is Atheistic. This means it will never catch on for the simple fact that most people in the world are religious. It will be a cold day in Hell.
The best you can do is to try to downsize government in a way that doesnt alienate religious people.
What knowledge that should be spread and indulged. Ayn Rand , peter schiff, yaron brook and Frank R. wallace great intellectuals. Selfishness is a virtue !
(...continued) This lecture addresses the reasons offered for this false association, which, despite Ayn Rand's repeated denials in the 1960s, continues to this day. Given that the most commonly asserted basis for characterizing Ayn Rand as a Nietzschean is that they both admire the strong "sovereign individual," the man of "noble soul," this lecture culminates in the grotesque contrast between Nietzsche's vision of the man of "noble soul" and Ayn Rand's.
Yaron, you need to read some more philosophy. It is highly inaccurate to state there hasn't been a philosopher since Aristotle who promoted individual self interest. Nietzsche... hello? Nietzsche puts the individual paramount to anything having to do with the masses or morality, hence a will to power. Ayn Rand probably wouldn't have a philosophy if she didn't take Nietzsche's ideas.
I think you need to read some more philosophy. Nietzsche may have put the individual paramount to the masses; but he believed that man should act as a "beast of prey." Ayn Rand correctly identified Nietzsche as an altruist -- since he advocated sacrificing others for ones own gain. Nietzsche promoted the idea that man should act as a "second hander" -- but that is not acting in ones self-interest. Ayn Rand didn't "take Nietzsche's ideas" -- she corrected them.
How charming that you can misappropriate Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals. You can say "beast of prey," but aristocrat (in an aesthetic sense) would be more fitting. The "second hander" thing has nothing to do with Nietzsche's philosophy, but does appear to be your relation to Ayn Rand.
Yes, I can say "beast of prey" (and you can say "aristocrat" to fit your "aesthetic sense"); but those are Nietzsche's words, not mine. The idea that the ideal man is predistined to rule others, and sacrifice them to himself... those are Nietzsche's ideas - which Rand regarded as immoral. "Second hander" is a term Rand used; and it has everything to do with Nietzsche's philosophy because it is so befitting of his ideal man. If anyone misappropriated anything, it was you in your original post.
Ayn Rand has credited Nietzsche as an early influence -- mainly because he was one of the very few major philosophers who focused on the individual; but she did not adhere to his ideas -- she rejected them. (Read my original response as to why she rejected him.) Giving Nietzsche "credit" has nothing to do with it. Many people misconstrue Nietzsche's views with Rands (for instance you and AriDominique) -- and it is important for Objectivists to differentiate the two opposing views.
This is directed to your first response. You don't know what altruistic means- it's sacrificing oneself for the benefit of others, you have it backwards. Additionally, a will to power is synonymous with acting in one's self interest.
I know what altruism means. Read my post again. It says, "Ayn Rand correctly identified Nietzsche as an altruist -- since he advocated sacrificing others for ones own gain." The word "altruism" is derived from the Latin word, "alter" -- which means: other. It was philosophers who defined it as an ethical code of sacrifice. Rand correctly identified Nietzsche as altruist because he advocated sacrificing others. Self interest is not feeling a will to power; it is using your rational mind to think.
"a will to power is synonymous with acting in one's self interest" Wow what a dishonest leap you make there. Nothing is synonymous with anything. It all depends on an INDIVIDUAL. I for instance just want to be left alone to do my own thing and have no will for power. You on the other hand must have the will to power if you point blank assume others have that will as well - everyone always judges others' natures by his own nature.
AriDominique, if you have the faintest interest in learning the distinction between Rand's thought and Nietzsche's, consider this synopsis of "Ayn Rand Contra Friedrich Nietzsche", a lecture given last month at the 1008 Objectivist Conference: "Since the appearance, in 1943, of The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand has repeatedly been characterized by intellectuals as a follower of Nietzsche. In fact, she is the twentieth century's greatest opponent of Nietzsche. (cont...)
(...)This lecture addresses the reasons offered for this false association, which, despite Ayn Rand's repeated denials in the 1960s, continues to this day. Given that the most commonly asserted basis for characterizing Ayn Rand as a Nietzschean is that they both admire the strong "sovereign individual," the man of "noble soul," this lecture culminates in the grotesque contrast between Nietzsche's vision of the man of "noble soul" and Ayn Rand's. tinyurl 5jnl2x
But the human being is not an isolated machine. The reason why already rich capitalist wants to keep more of their income from themselves is that they need recognition for the fact that they deserved every pennny, and that they are not immoral. That, i think, is itself an evidence that the human being is not a machine only driven by self-interest, but also have a second level of self-interest in being recogniced by others, through recognition of ones property, actions and acievements.
Anyone who wants to sustain their life is driven by self-interest (not just "rich capitalists"). We all have a self-interest in seeing laws that recognize our right to our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness -- not because we get off by being "recognized by others" -- but because we all need protection from those who chose to initiate force (e.g. steal).
He says that the entire western philosophic tradition is wrong in defining moral questions as deciding between what you ought to do and what you really want to do. I don't think it is possible to set up self-interest and moral obligation as antinomies, because sometimes it is in your self-interest to choose an action against what you really want to do in a particular moment. Respecting others' private property is one example. Recieving recognition from others as a moral human being is another.
"sometimes it is in your self-interest to choose an action against what you really want to do in a particular moment. Respecting others' private property is one example."
No, it is not. If no one respected property rights, we would be in a constant, and interminable, state of conflict and violence. For instance, you might be able to take from another person, but there will always be others that will take from you. It is everyones self-interest to respect and uphold private property rights.
Great video, but I don't feel it is in my self interest, that we spend my money on military action in Iraq or Iran, at this time. Furthermore, it's not in my self interest in creating a nationalist political governmental machine capable of such action. The very creation of such a machine directly competes with the idea of self, rugged individualism, and self serving capitalism. A machine capable of a war on terror, is also a machine capable of wars on poverty, drugs, and eventually liberty.
How unfortunate for him that his name has two R's in it. He is forced to introduce himself as YAWON BWOOK. However, his ideas are brilliant, and they belong to Ayn Wand.
I've met Yaron Brook myself (actually, I brought him to Dublin) and he's very personable. He sounds persuasive because even tho he's proposing a philosophy, he seems down to earth, working in business as well. Not that there should be anything about a philosophy that makes it like that, but that's how it is too often.
THATS MY DAD!
YouthisExplosion 1 year ago
Another great video of Dr. Yaron Brook. I love his speaking abilities.
Philosopher2087 1 year ago
What about Nietzsche? If he says EVERY philosopher since Aristotle defended self-interest as moral ideal he is forgetting Nietzsche here.
hyperseauton 2 years ago
Sounds like you've given up already. Religious people can be converted to atheism, not all of them are completely fargone, many are earnestly looking for the best way to live their lives, they just don't see things clearly
Sam26100 2 years ago
Since when has atheism stopped being a religious conviction? Religion takes on all forms, including atheism.
eyecoin 1 year ago
@eyecoin Atheism, by its definition means: "absence of belief". The case of not believing in God is based on rational conviction, and not in some supernatural superstition or make-believe. Certainly, if you want believe in an almighty God, a tree spirit, in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or in Santa Claus I honestly don't care, as long as you do not force it upon me. However saying that not believing in these things is a belief in itself is just absurd.
Wejer3 1 year ago
@eyecoin
Atheism is not a set of beliefs, justa disbelief in god. It's not a religion.
Thill029 1 year ago 3
Too bad Ayn Rand's philosophy is Atheistic. This means it will never catch on for the simple fact that most people in the world are religious. It will be a cold day in Hell.
The best you can do is to try to downsize government in a way that doesnt alienate religious people.
Entropy56 2 years ago
@Entropy56 actually its too bad that most people are religious
w8ting4fri 1 year ago
this guy is great!
whitelacestrange 2 years ago 18
great video
LegalizeCapitalism 2 years ago
What knowledge that should be spread and indulged. Ayn Rand , peter schiff, yaron brook and Frank R. wallace great intellectuals. Selfishness is a virtue !
PureAdrenaline97 2 years ago 5
capitalism has a mowal basis
fomastephanovitch 3 years ago
(...continued) This lecture addresses the reasons offered for this false association, which, despite Ayn Rand's repeated denials in the 1960s, continues to this day. Given that the most commonly asserted basis for characterizing Ayn Rand as a Nietzschean is that they both admire the strong "sovereign individual," the man of "noble soul," this lecture culminates in the grotesque contrast between Nietzsche's vision of the man of "noble soul" and Ayn Rand's.
notanotheraccount 3 years ago
Yaron, you need to read some more philosophy. It is highly inaccurate to state there hasn't been a philosopher since Aristotle who promoted individual self interest. Nietzsche... hello? Nietzsche puts the individual paramount to anything having to do with the masses or morality, hence a will to power. Ayn Rand probably wouldn't have a philosophy if she didn't take Nietzsche's ideas.
AriDominique 3 years ago
AriDominique -
I think you need to read some more philosophy. Nietzsche may have put the individual paramount to the masses; but he believed that man should act as a "beast of prey." Ayn Rand correctly identified Nietzsche as an altruist -- since he advocated sacrificing others for ones own gain. Nietzsche promoted the idea that man should act as a "second hander" -- but that is not acting in ones self-interest. Ayn Rand didn't "take Nietzsche's ideas" -- she corrected them.
mnixnon 3 years ago 4
How charming that you can misappropriate Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals. You can say "beast of prey," but aristocrat (in an aesthetic sense) would be more fitting. The "second hander" thing has nothing to do with Nietzsche's philosophy, but does appear to be your relation to Ayn Rand.
AriDominique 3 years ago
Yes, I can say "beast of prey" (and you can say "aristocrat" to fit your "aesthetic sense"); but those are Nietzsche's words, not mine. The idea that the ideal man is predistined to rule others, and sacrifice them to himself... those are Nietzsche's ideas - which Rand regarded as immoral. "Second hander" is a term Rand used; and it has everything to do with Nietzsche's philosophy because it is so befitting of his ideal man. If anyone misappropriated anything, it was you in your original post.
mnixnon 3 years ago 2
"You can say "beast of prey," but aristocrat... would be more fitting"
According to Thomas Jefferson, there is no difference.
MrCropper 3 years ago
It's true: Ayn Rand owes a lot to Nietzsche. But for some reason Objectivists don't like to give him credit.
DukeUniversity08 3 years ago
Ayn Rand has credited Nietzsche as an early influence -- mainly because he was one of the very few major philosophers who focused on the individual; but she did not adhere to his ideas -- she rejected them. (Read my original response as to why she rejected him.) Giving Nietzsche "credit" has nothing to do with it. Many people misconstrue Nietzsche's views with Rands (for instance you and AriDominique) -- and it is important for Objectivists to differentiate the two opposing views.
mnixnon 3 years ago 3
This is directed to your first response. You don't know what altruistic means- it's sacrificing oneself for the benefit of others, you have it backwards. Additionally, a will to power is synonymous with acting in one's self interest.
AriDominique 3 years ago
I know what altruism means. Read my post again. It says, "Ayn Rand correctly identified Nietzsche as an altruist -- since he advocated sacrificing others for ones own gain." The word "altruism" is derived from the Latin word, "alter" -- which means: other. It was philosophers who defined it as an ethical code of sacrifice. Rand correctly identified Nietzsche as altruist because he advocated sacrificing others. Self interest is not feeling a will to power; it is using your rational mind to think.
mnixnon 3 years ago 16
That's not altruism. Nietzsche was not an altruist, he was a second-handler.
Manx123 3 years ago 2
"a will to power is synonymous with acting in one's self interest" Wow what a dishonest leap you make there. Nothing is synonymous with anything. It all depends on an INDIVIDUAL. I for instance just want to be left alone to do my own thing and have no will for power. You on the other hand must have the will to power if you point blank assume others have that will as well - everyone always judges others' natures by his own nature.
grumpone 2 years ago 2
AriDominique, if you have the faintest interest in learning the distinction between Rand's thought and Nietzsche's, consider this synopsis of "Ayn Rand Contra Friedrich Nietzsche", a lecture given last month at the 1008 Objectivist Conference: "Since the appearance, in 1943, of The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand has repeatedly been characterized by intellectuals as a follower of Nietzsche. In fact, she is the twentieth century's greatest opponent of Nietzsche. (cont...)
notanotheraccount 3 years ago 3
(...)This lecture addresses the reasons offered for this false association, which, despite Ayn Rand's repeated denials in the 1960s, continues to this day. Given that the most commonly asserted basis for characterizing Ayn Rand as a Nietzschean is that they both admire the strong "sovereign individual," the man of "noble soul," this lecture culminates in the grotesque contrast between Nietzsche's vision of the man of "noble soul" and Ayn Rand's. tinyurl 5jnl2x
notanotheraccount 3 years ago
A GREAT SPEECH MR.BROOK
cyberspy034 3 years ago 6
But the human being is not an isolated machine. The reason why already rich capitalist wants to keep more of their income from themselves is that they need recognition for the fact that they deserved every pennny, and that they are not immoral. That, i think, is itself an evidence that the human being is not a machine only driven by self-interest, but also have a second level of self-interest in being recogniced by others, through recognition of ones property, actions and acievements.
Dilettanten 3 years ago
You are confusing self-interest with pride.
Anyone who wants to sustain their life is driven by self-interest (not just "rich capitalists"). We all have a self-interest in seeing laws that recognize our right to our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness -- not because we get off by being "recognized by others" -- but because we all need protection from those who chose to initiate force (e.g. steal).
mnixnon 3 years ago
He says that the entire western philosophic tradition is wrong in defining moral questions as deciding between what you ought to do and what you really want to do. I don't think it is possible to set up self-interest and moral obligation as antinomies, because sometimes it is in your self-interest to choose an action against what you really want to do in a particular moment. Respecting others' private property is one example. Recieving recognition from others as a moral human being is another.
Dilettanten 3 years ago
"sometimes it is in your self-interest to choose an action against what you really want to do in a particular moment. Respecting others' private property is one example."
No, it is not. If no one respected property rights, we would be in a constant, and interminable, state of conflict and violence. For instance, you might be able to take from another person, but there will always be others that will take from you. It is everyones self-interest to respect and uphold private property rights.
mnixnon 3 years ago
I keep on being amazed by the good Doctor. This is a amazing video.
SatanicCod 3 years ago
Great interview!
z2b 4 years ago
I am delighted to find a like-minded individual!
WoundedEgo 4 years ago 3
Great video, but I don't feel it is in my self interest, that we spend my money on military action in Iraq or Iran, at this time. Furthermore, it's not in my self interest in creating a nationalist political governmental machine capable of such action. The very creation of such a machine directly competes with the idea of self, rugged individualism, and self serving capitalism. A machine capable of a war on terror, is also a machine capable of wars on poverty, drugs, and eventually liberty.
saxrider 4 years ago
How unfortunate for him that his name has two R's in it. He is forced to introduce himself as YAWON BWOOK. However, his ideas are brilliant, and they belong to Ayn Wand.
yorkshireluvr 4 years ago
That would be nice but he isn't qualified, since he wasn't born in the US.
JackDoitCrawford 4 years ago
I've met Yaron Brook myself (actually, I brought him to Dublin) and he's very personable. He sounds persuasive because even tho he's proposing a philosophy, he seems down to earth, working in business as well. Not that there should be anything about a philosophy that makes it like that, but that's how it is too often.
NewWhig 4 years ago 2
Yaron Brook is a giant!
Jocke1776 4 years ago
The Ayn Rand Institute should release more videos like this on YouTube (I know this wasn't released by ARI).
qtronman 4 years ago 2
Did you see the presentation on the UFM website? Its great.
WarVideo 4 years ago
Yeah, it was a very good speech--and in Latin America!
qtronman 4 years ago 2
Great Interview, Yaron Brook is great!
WarVideo 4 years ago