Ayn Rand in her first television interview, Part one

[colorbakery]

Brilliant and flawed. Very flawed core.

[The727stpete727]

It is funny to argue against reason. Ayn rand is highly intelligent and would destroy any of you in a debate. I understand that there is a lot of hate for her because she challenges your moronic views and you have no logical recourse so you all resort to cheap blows like calling her a sociopath.

[97kills]

She's Grrrreat..love her

[MrPiccolop]

She clearly hasn't read the Critique of Pure Reason or the Dialectic of Enlightenment. Her views should be rubbished - lo there! They are!

[MrPiccolop]

@King100Joe What do you mean by Liberal?

[Healing6arts9]

look at her shifty sociopath eyes!! Look at her tight rigid sociopath body. This woman is clearly demonic

[MrPiccolop]

@Healing6arts9 Good analysis!

[Healing6arts9]

No Morality cannot ever come from logic, Morality comes from awareness. Logic and reason can be moral but only when that reason comes from awareness, Logic without emotion without awareness is INSANITY.

[Healing6arts9]

She says that man percives reality through his mind. Wrong!!! Man observes reality through AWARENESS..... Awareness is that which is even aware that mind exists!!! She is locked in her mind thinking it is real, she worships her mind hence becomes a sociopath...

[Healing6arts9]

This is what a sociopath looks like boys and girls!

[1divahead]

Ayn R in early years believed in Nietzche, as all her made up philosphy she changed that theory too, over the course of her years. She never stuck to the same reasoning, she always changed her mind. The only thing constant about her philosphies was Changing Them.

[postrealitysyndrome]

I'm not dismissing her views, but her fundamental concept that "reality exists as an objective absolute," perceived by reason, is problematic because it's objectivity isn't absolute; rather, contingent on point of view, context, filters, and other limits of perception, whether physical, emotional, etc.

[ArchitectOfEvil]

@postrealitysyndrome It is only problematic if your perception is skewed, biased, or messed up so to speak.

Some people hallucinate for example. Of course different people may gain a different understanding of something from the same event.

But this is not to say that Reality does not exist as an absolute!

Reality is not what each individual perceives, it is only acquired through "correct" or "attuned" thought processes. Some people have blurred ideas about reality.

[ArchitectOfEvil]

@postrealitysyndrome Objectivity is not absolute, rather it is absolute for the individual. What goes for one does not go for the other.

At the same time it does not mean that they are both correct viewpoints. It means that realty for each individual is absolutely determined by their disposition.

Only one or "some" viewpoints are correct. Reality exists as an absolute. It comes down to perception which is not absolute to filter and create facts for an individual.

[fusermainful]

@ArchitectOfEvil Cognitive distortion is very possible, but there are 34 factors at work, probably more, effecting your perception of reality at any given moment. It has nothing to do with my morales, i've seen whole cities that were full, or at least dominated by, sociopaths and i've seen cities where people like that wouldn't be able to get a job because the people that interviewed them could smell a fundamental lack of decency. Guess which town the average person was happier in?

[fusermainful]

@ArchitectOfEvil Objectivity is really not absolute. In the absence of cognitive distortion there is only one thing that happened. That "thing, incident, action" is going to be perceived by the people who witnessed it different ways due to different perspectives, which determines the overall course of events. But the action and intention of the original person, if perceived correctly by all the individuals witnessing/participating in such an event, will either have a negative or positive outcome

[fusermainful]

@ArchitectOfEvil based on what that person intended. IE- misunderstandings are always possible, saying that she was misunderstood is absurd though. She was a sociopath who completely lacked empathy for other human beings and projected her hate on all institutions. So she created a philosophy to justify her narcissistic ruthlessness, which, if everyone embraced it, would be completely destructive for humankind. Morales aside, everyone dying isn't good for anyone.

[ArchitectOfEvil]

@fusermainful I agree that Objectivity is not absolute, but reality is.

You said "the action and intention of the original person, if perceived correctly by all the individuals witnessing/participating in such an event, will either have a negative or positive outcome based on what that person intended. IE- misunderstandings are always possible"

If they perceived correctly, then how can misunderstanding be possible?

Your argument has no point and defies it's own assumptions.

[ArchitectOfEvil]

@fusermainful Please tell me, who said that everyone dying is good for us?

Was it you who said that?

So she projected her hate on institutions. So what?

Are they all intrinsically good?

Just because she is considered a sociopath it doesn't mean that her philosophy is incorrect or wrong.

You are too emotional, and irrational.

[happylilsunbeam]

I absolutely love this kind of archival footage. I just had to post a verbal thank you for posting it because it makes for much more interesting youtubing. Fascinating. I wonder if there is a dvd collection of old Mike Wallace interviews. Thanks again.

[dontleademsomuch]

anyone thinking of bioshock?

[OneMondBand]

She did not fare very well on this interview...

[robot1ihb]

Thank you for sharing!

[reafdaw01]

@SpencerBosma objection to point 4: In a true Capitalism a lot of individuals do not have the ability to be an end inthemself because they are deprived of recourcess by others. So the mayority is an mean for the end of someone else.

Try to refute that...

[illuminatioracle]

4:17-4:39 FUCKING AWESOME

[deepa12345678]

ask the daughter who was raped..... as a woman i know she would want him die the most painful death!!

[juliaisafilmbuff123]

Ayn Rand was clearly a sociopath. No wonder most countries have never taken up her writings.

[cunnidvd]

@juliaisafilmbuff123 People that label Ayn Rand a sociopath do not know what a sociopath is. They are mud slinging anti-intellectuals.

[1divahead]

@cunnidvd What has Ayn Rand contributed to society?? Name something she has done to benefit the community??

[cunnidvd]

@1divahead WTF does that have to do with being a sociopath? It is this kind of illogical thinking that out of hand dismisses Ayn Rand.

[sewagedweller]

And last but not least , there are plenty of reasons provided by modern economics and world examples that state capitalism as ineffective and self destructive system

[sewagedweller]

ok here it is :

wtf is metaphysics , is like a physics for retards ?

now seriously :

According to her , only reason that is reason is her reason and all socialists are criminals .

no socialist policies or state influnce on economy and social life will result in anarchy .

High level of capitalism is as evil as any tyranny , because it will result in exactly that .

[sewagedweller]

ok lets make it clear , i called rand a whore because she is one. Statment related to my other statement in which i said that thanks to her selfish bigotry she probably died alone .

Seriously , age of the philosophy is over . Now we have social and physical sciences to replace it . And as far as old readings on economics are concerned with , i'll just stick with Marx . I prefer modern economics taking a more realistic , mathematics approach .

[sewagedweller]

and i would suggest get some real info on economics , i suggest basic books like "understanding canadian economic policies" , or "economics for dummies" , etc

So yeah fuck you , and do some real readings on economics rather then pushing old jerk off and her bullshit

[sewagedweller]

just because she was a whore doesn't mean that by the end of it she wasn't lonely .

[dan2002]

Mike is so superficial and ignorant. His reference to Christ etc. is that everybody else is doing it. Would you jump off a cliff if Susie did? Just because everyone else has preached it, does that make it right? no>

[sreverhart]

Take a good look ladies and gentlemen.  You are watching the most brilliant philosopher of the 20th century. She was a genius far advanced for her time.

[FunBoy15]

Are those that are unable to correct their flaws unworthy of being loved?

[FunBoy15]

Objectivism may have been a fringe philosophy in the late 50s, and it may still be so today - but only in name. I see its hallmarks around me every day, in work, in education. People are more selfish today, of this there is no doubt. It's a shame that this selfishness is so rarely the socially justifiable philosophy of Rand. It's greed that will be the downfall of society.

[sewagedweller]

man she looks scary , she's so angry because she's not getting any .

[olga2415]

Rationality is " Unusual" to Mike Wallace?

[sophiah88]

She is right.

Unless one loves oneself it is not

possible to love any other

but to have only mutually enabling

relationships. Love is not what have you done for me latley. It is the depth of

my understanding of my own self that

opens my core to understanding any other has experiences, joys and sufferings all as valid as mine and is

still a fine human in hir CORE just as

I am a fine human in my CORE.

[Revelation6v8]

Yours eyes would twitch if you had Mike the Walrus attacking you from the get go.

He calls her ideas challenging and unusual. Hence marginalizing her in the listeners mind.

Also, he makes fun of her and her idea calling it Randyism which sounds ridiculous.

Remember being Randy in the 1960s meant being horney. See Austin powers.

Then he keeps interrupting and undermining her throughout.

I am a Christian and believe in God and I do not have a problem with her. I am not challenged by her.

[wmbrown6]

At this point, Mike Wallace and his interview show were on WNTA-TV (now PBS affiliate WNET) in Newark, NJ (this explains the "NTA Telestudios" slate); Ted Cott, who was WNTA general manager, had previously worked in that capacity on WABD (later WNEW-TV, now WNYW) in New York when Wallace was first tagged to host a local show, "Night Beat," for that station in 1956.

[farhan00]

I studied Economics, I loved it, and it influenced the way I think. But she's taking things to an extreme.

[OoAfterHoursoO]

I love her mannerisms, she not only is very simply intelligent but she is still very highly intelligent.

I want people to listen to her more and realize that she and the objectivist ideals ARE NOT COLD and CRUDE, she explains love and friendship like anyone else would! it's so funny when people get upset that she puts apparently puts a "price tag" on love, it's ridiculous.

[KenMacMillan]

My personal interpritation of her comments on love is that it must be earned.

[mettabee]

the philosophy of a sociopath.

[spring1978ukma]

Is everyone missing the eye movement? Does anyone know what that particular eye movement MEANS?

[KenMacMillan]

Eyes move back and forth sideways (and sometimes up and down) when the person is visualizing a big picture and is literally looking it over.

[spring1978ukma]

Actually, the eyes moving back and forth or up and down isn't what I am referring to, it is the fast movement. I looked it up already, it is a sign of schizophrenia. I am not saying that she is or anything, it is just a sign of it.

[Ronin0212]

or it's a sign that she is nervous to be doing her first interview on television in front of the entire nation.

[GenocideGod]

Yes, but she does it in later interviews as well. I've seen many highly intelligent people look away when thinking about answers, and processing things, because they do not track the situation with their eyes on the face of the person speaking like most people, it is almost completely processed in their mind. That's what I've come to, at least, when thinking about her mannerisms.

[saved2play]

I do this a lot, and often have wondered whether I do it out of nervousness or out of sheer intelligence. Now I understand it is the latter.

[iferraro]

she's probably a reptilian (sarcasm)

[1divahead]

@spring1978ukma Drugs!!

[ohevshalomel]

Right on!

[apolloxias]

Goddamn. What a profoundly evil person.

[truindep]

she is evil because she believed in reason and facts over emotion? interesting...

[Thvndar]

she is stupid because she dosn't understand the symbiotic relationship between society and the individual, if your neighbor suffers that may cause you to suffer also

[AncientProphecy]

agreed with Thvandar. nothing is inherently absurd or random--there is always a connection and thread of events that form one whole outcome, basically determinism. no one can escape effect completely, thus the idea of a 'liberated' individual is false and just causes escape from responsibility.

[Freethinker12341]

@truindep Lol!

[yurigglutube]

@truindep No, she is evil not because of standing for reason and facts over emotions, but because she was looking for reasons to love herself,

while she could've accept that emotion without any reasoning. Perhaps she was trapped in that in childhood. She fights then emotions all the time, because based on the fact(for her) that she cannot be loved without reason, they telling her that she cannot be loved (which is unacceptable), unless she find reason..so she is looking whole life for them ..

[holiggan2008]

@truindep this (the negation of reason and facts) is the basis of *every* religion, so of course "reason and facts are evil"...

[brushes9]

Also, I have read many many works of literature and Ayn Rand work was so pathetic I had to throw it in the trash.

[brushes9]

I'm glad that we agree on Greenspan and his ilk whom, no doubt, Ayn Rand would despise. In your example, if you followed your reason, is it not because your emotional connections to all your friends would end and you would become emotionally fearful of your cell mate/ass-rapist? That is, are you really following "reason" by allowing society to handle the punishment? "Intellectualizing" is all that Ayn Rand does and is recognized as symptomatic of pathology in our times. Sorry.

[brushes9]

Any person who says that they follow "reason" and not "emotions" is a dangerous sociopath who doesn't understand that emotions are what allow us to assign relative value to the things in our lives and make rational decisions that protect what we come to feel has meaning for us. Ayn Rand is just the favorite play toy of sociopaths like Allan Greenspan who require writer-sociopaths to justify their parasitic and ruinous lives.

[truindep]

scenario:

your daughter is raped. reason says that you care for your daughter and let the rapists punishment be meted out via the legal system. emotion says that you hunt him down and kill him. i prefer the meausred response of reason.

greenspan studied rand, but his corporatist philosphy cannot be compared to simple objectivism. parasitic and ruinous he is, and that is contrary to the ideas of liberty.

[yurigglutube]

@truindep about your scenario, the very wish to let the rapists punishment be meted out via the legal system, comes from the same wish to kill them, but in smaller amount, because why to punish them at all otherwise.Your example is a good example of how reasoning and emotions are working together.Also let's mention emotion of fear to kill some one, which is also there... and when we are talking about listening to emotions, we suggest - to all of them, not only one of them, that you've mentioned

[ArchitectOfEvil]

@truindep I think you too have it totally messed up!

Objectivism or Ayn Rand's philosophy has nothing to do with not getting revenge, or measured responses, or being "reasonable" in a moral sense with respect to society.

If you lose something valuable and loved, it is reasonable to fight for it or get revenge. Reason may tell you to hunt him down and kill him because he must not get away with it or do it again. But it is not reasonable to think you will get back your loved one.

[ArchitectOfEvil]

Reason would also tell you about the law and that would determine how you go about it. It would not be rational to get revenge and be stuck in gaol for life. So you would either work out how to get away with it, or would be forced to use the tricky and corrupt legal system.

That's reason.

[fusermainful]

@ArchitectOfEvil Thats just a bad metaphor to begin with, the whole daughter-raped thing. Look at her eyes, the woman is on sooooo much methamphetamine that anyone who encountered her nowadays would call her a crack head, because she was. Not only that she claims that her philosophy is based on egoism, which means that everyone does what is right for them at all times, caring nothing for social responsibility. In its basic form, thats advocating being a psychopath. If everyone were to follow

[fusermainful]

@fusermainful that philosophy, we'd be back to the stone age within 100 years, because if you were to do what was "right" for you and only you at all times, not taking anyone else into consideration, you would destroy society. If everyone followed this "philosophy" which has less logic than a five year olds temper tantrum, the world would be complete chaos.

[ArchitectOfEvil]

@fusermainful A sociopath doesn't adhere to society's measure of morales or ethics. We are not evil.

There is a massive difference between antisocial personality disorder and having an abnormal lack of empathy combined with abnormally immoral conduct despite an ability to appear normal, which is what a psychopath is!

[ArchitectOfEvil]

@fusermainful Your conclusions are all based on emotion and are Universal in their scope. That means you make bold unsupported statements like, "If everyone followed this "philosophy" which has less logic than a five year olds temper tantrum, the world would be complete chaos."

[ArchitectOfEvil]

@fusermainful Snap out of your self-righteous imposition. Stop using your morales to argue against Philosophy which is attempting to be Objective. You can't do that. You have to follow the concept and see how it works out. You can't just say, "that's wrong" "you are a bad man". What a crock of shit.

[ArchitectOfEvil]

@fusermainful You are emotional. You are talking absolute shit!

Making it up as you go because you dislike her morales.

She is not advocating being a psychopath.

She is a high-functioning sociopath not a psychopath.

Her eyes remind me of my eyes, lots of vigor. If only eyes could kill.

[Kurtyoungblood]

You are using reason in your comment. Are you a sociopath?

I see no exclamation points in your comment either.

[brushes9]

Kurty..

I don't like people who speak with one-liners. They cannot be trusted.

Are you capable of presenting a point of view in a paragraph. If so, then any one sentence alone will make no sense, but all together, I will be able to determine how you think, if you do, indeed, think at all.

[Kurtyoungblood]

Oh.

[brushes9]

That's what I thought. Shoo, fly...

[ArchitectOfEvil]

@brushes9 Don't be ridiculous!

Any person who follows emotion instead of reason is basically like a "Witch Hunter". They would make a judgement based on feelings and preconceptions. For example if a person looks bad, they must be bad or if they possess some attribute which you admire then you may overlook other things about them. That is not objective and not good for making decisions. If someone is a Priest or a Doctor it doesn't mean you can trust them to babysit your child.

[poppanolan]

@brushes9 You are beyond clueless.

[tipsdaturtle]

@brushes9 It's not very kind to go about labeling people as sociopaths. You make a valid point, but validity isn't necessarily correctness, nor is it always appropriate. Just saying