She had no problem with altruism. Voluntarily taking care of those who are incapable of taking care of themselves is well within the Randian lexicon.
Altruism at the point of a gun is what Rand argued, highly intelligently, against.
If you support government taking taxes and then spending those taxes on those who have not earned them, you are an enemy of your fellow man for you are advocating the use of Force to achieve your, and other's, goals.
Ayn Rand PROMOTES selfishness and egotism. I believe that is wrong. That promotes division, hate, violence, social unrest.
I believe altruism and "loving your neighbor as yourself" to be PROMOTED; not by force or coercion, but by words and persuasion. Its in the Bible!!! Rand is intelligent but not that much.
People are more charitable when they are not coerced by high taxes.
We are all in this together!!! Together we stand, divided...
@Miggins88 Miggins Hitler delt with people thru force. John Galt neither proposes violence or force nor excepts force and eals with force only in retaliation of force and does not initiate it. He deals with man thru logic and reason. He excepts reality as his judge and both parties learn and prosper. Hitler dealt with people with the threat to their life if they do not obey his irrational want of worship. John Galt simply walks away if both parties can not agree. I am sorry you cannot see this.
I will not inflict the diseases of tax and spend on society; it harms others, it does not aid them. If I spend it to seek my profit, it hones their productivity and gives them more potential wealth-my interests is theirs, the more our subjective values are different. The division of labour makes society profit from heterogeneity.
No, I will keep my money and use it for private healthcare etc.
I will not pay tax.
I will not inflict tax on the common weal, I will not allow robbers who spend money without even concerning THEIR interests, to be of such perverse incentive to act inefficiently as is the unique unvirtue of taxation dispensation:
If it wasn't for capitalism and the freedom to exchange what and with whom, we will, then the good men would, having no interest in merely linguistic exchange with idiots, not serve idiots. It is through capitalism and our making profit through serving demands that we serve those whom we otherwise could not. THis does not require 'organising,' subjugation of individual will to superior authority, but requires freedom for the division of labour to specialise individuals' fields of production.
'Just as I do not consider my pleasure as the goal of others nor do I consider their pleasure my goal'
This is quite profound because in the division of labour, the harmony of interest does not come from seeking the same materials of entirely subjective value, nor does harmony through economic relation, exchange, come through some deliberate collectivisation of means and ends, but greater wealth and greater means to make individual wealth & for those profiting by his labour, is HETEROGENEITY!
On many Congressional member's websites they have a National Debt Counter - they then have a value box labeled "YOUR SHARE"..I then want to say, excuse me? MY share? Did I spend this money or am I the source of the money that Congress spends and then spends it to ruinious debt? How am I at fault if my congressman thumbs their nose at cocophonus pleas and demands to STOP? I tell you it is not us who ran up the debt but somehow they have the nerve to say "YOUR SHARE"!
But really wish I was given "Atlas Shrugged" as well .I was given "the fountainhead "by a freind when I was 23,and very quickly read every thing I could find writtenn by Ayn Rand.Didnt so much as change my view on life and how we should treat each other.Just alowed me to say ,"YES"
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No one man or women can say they are one hundred percent omnipotent. They shoud have changed the title of those books to anal shrugged and pompus head..
Neither Ayn Rand nor her characters ever claimed omnipotence, and I see nothing to do with that idea in this video anyway. This is about the use of force; To initiate it is deplorable, to retaliate in kind is necessary. How do your silly names apply?
You make no sense. Reality is an objective fact. It isn't intellectual, but it is rational, and so intellect is a way of understanding it. If you disagree, I'd like to know what you think is a better way.
It's pointless to agree or disagree with her philosophy..she is not here to change it, nor would she I think.
This episode stirs my blood. Each image cannot help but fully capture the viewer's attention. It is powerful and gut wrenching, I for one could not turn away from it.
The sense of line in this video is potent and John Galt's character is clearly less enigmatic.
Ayn was a genius in how she developed her ideology/ethic.
I definitely think that this is an improvement over Version 1's counterpart. The points are made clearer because the visualizations brought up when they are made are more explicit.
The only thing I don't like about it is that Sophie actually did choose. I know that's not essential, and that you couldn't edit out those particular subtitles without cutting that scene short and losing it's dramatic effect, but it's sad to see her actually comply with his insane ultimatum.
1) At 54 seconds, Galt says "...obligation I owe to myself..."; I assert that is a fallacy, for there can be no obligations of self to self. An obligation is "something by which a person is bound or obliged to do certain things, and which arises out of a sense of duty or results from custom, law." There can be no sense of duty contingent to self for the same reason there can be no categorical imperatives. Law originates from a collective State not the self. Custom means a habitual practice.
2) That an action is habitually caused by the mind means that it is subjective and not objective. This is because actions do not exist independent of a cause. Cognition, reason, mental functioning are actions performed by brains. When the brains stop doing the actions they no longer occur. Consequently consciousness cannot be an axiomatic primary, for it is a gestalt of complex actions resultant from functioning of divers cerebral systems that have evolved up in hierarchical fashion over time.
3) That the 3rd axiom of Rand's metaphysics is false follows from the fact of material existence that there is no meaning or purpose to life or existence. There can be no teleology for there is no cosmic consciousness to purpose it. Likewise there is no objective morality nor can there be any. Accordingly, it it true then that no humans have mandates to live or do anything. We have capabilities but lack due ethical impulse for their use. The subjective choice to make one's own life the
4) standard of value does not render and escape from nihilism, for Homo Sapiens are mere Hominid Apes and not gods.
There are other problems with Objectivism that render its rather transparent apologetic for Statism and Economic Fascism (Corporatism) fallacious, but this is not an appropriate forum for such discussion
First of all, Rand's use of the word "obligation" there is rhetorical.
Secondly, you can talk all you want about the fact that the meaning humans attach to their physical existence is gestalt, but that doesn't change the fact that that gestalt property is just as real as the physical properties. And that the two are symbiotic. The fact that they are symbiotic means that there is no escape from the necessity to attach meaning to one's physical state...
... Of course a person is capable of choosing to make his physical existence cease to exist by means of believing consistently that it's gestalt properties are meaningless, but that doesn't change the fact that for him the "meaning" is that it's meaningless.
Anyone who says that he's a nihilist simply because they've discovered that their volition is volitional is lying. What he's really doing is trying to take pleasure in his displeasure. If he were serious, he'd kill himself immediately.
I saw this as arising from the earlier sections discussing the fact that if a man chooses not to think its likely he will die. I'd call staying alive an obligation and accept the consequential necessity of thinking. Its a model derived from observations about biology and those laws are not derived from the collective - far from it.
i think galt's demand to choose "our work or your guns" really clashes with the Nazi demanding a mother to choose which of her children will die. I was like "why did he use that picture?" galt's ultimatum is meant for the Nazi, not the holocaust victim.
hey Nat- I'm uploading a alternate version- so many comments are coming back negative I'm rethinking this episode. Maybe I did rush it a bit- trying to recover from the hard drive failure.
Cowboy, Roark didn't let naysayers determine what happened to his art. This video is fantastic.
What XOmniverse posted here is correct -- if U want to upload an alternative version, please keep this one up here as well, maybe as "the unofficial Part 8." :-)
I have to agree with this. The first time Sophie's Choice was used I was left wondering why it was selected as the central dramatic representation of the idea when it brings more attention to her than it does the nazi.
While the officer obviously should be the central focus as he forces her to do an 'unreasonable' thing under threat of death, it goeswithout saying that more attention is brought to HER choice.
Um, Hitler's still there, the exploding swastika is still there. The Schindler's list music was a bit too syrupy, but I still would have used it but the corrupted hard drive also corrupted that audio file so that the mp4 permissions wouldnt work any more. I tried all sorts of ways of capturing the music before deciding that something else might be called for. I'm disappointed after so much effort my first comment should be so negative. If others feel the same I'll consider yank it and star over.
One more thing. Why pose the final ultimatum against that still? The initial showing of the video established the unfairness of the looters ultimatum, but Galt's ultimatum is a just one.
My guess would be that Richard (if I may call him that) did it because it was an ironic twist; it shows that the only person capable of giving an ultimatum is someone who has power over reality. Galt does, a Nazi does not.
However, I agree with you... that's too much to interpret. Putting that as the final frame too easily suggests that he's putting Galt's and the Nazi's ultimately on the same plane. It unnecessarily confusing.
I saw it as spitting the irrational, evil ultimatum back at the people Nazis and the irrational people who do that sort of thing. I didn't take it as characterizing Galt's ultimatum, but slapping the face of those he was condemning.
Its interesting you should depict a slim woman dressed in a white sweater with shoulder length brunette hair before speaking of retaliatory violence. Co-incidence or artful selection?
There's only one, a couple by the sea. Of course I'm thinking that Dagny Taggart wore a white sweater in the final chapters which are the most violent of the book. I'm not sure why you described this comment as negative, it was intended as a compliment!
Who is William Hickman?
shilltheshillXXX 10 months ago
John Galt is not real.
duffh 10 months ago
Ayn Rand's vision is so different from Ludvig von Misses.
Rand believes in self love, selfishness and egotism.
Misses, although a true believer of freedom, understands better human nature; he believes in human altruism... not due to coercion, but free will.
Ddvex 11 months ago
@Ddvex
Clearly you do not understand Rand.
She had no problem with altruism. Voluntarily taking care of those who are incapable of taking care of themselves is well within the Randian lexicon.
Altruism at the point of a gun is what Rand argued, highly intelligently, against.
If you support government taking taxes and then spending those taxes on those who have not earned them, you are an enemy of your fellow man for you are advocating the use of Force to achieve your, and other's, goals.
LeeFoxRox 9 months ago
@LeeFoxRox
Ayn Rand PROMOTES selfishness and egotism. I believe that is wrong. That promotes division, hate, violence, social unrest.
I believe altruism and "loving your neighbor as yourself" to be PROMOTED; not by force or coercion, but by words and persuasion. Its in the Bible!!! Rand is intelligent but not that much.
People are more charitable when they are not coerced by high taxes.
We are all in this together!!! Together we stand, divided...
Ddvex 9 months ago
It's amazing that there's really that much energy in just a few grams of Uranium.
carlmelanson1 1 year ago
Who is this John Galt guy? He sounds like an arrogant nazi cunt about to commit an act of genocide. Fuck him.
Miggins88 1 year ago
@Miggins88 Miggins Hitler delt with people thru force. John Galt neither proposes violence or force nor excepts force and eals with force only in retaliation of force and does not initiate it. He deals with man thru logic and reason. He excepts reality as his judge and both parties learn and prosper. Hitler dealt with people with the threat to their life if they do not obey his irrational want of worship. John Galt simply walks away if both parties can not agree. I am sorry you cannot see this.
lachlandtait 11 months ago
i hope they don't ruin the book with this movie they're puttin together next yr
jmiungerich 1 year ago
I will not inflict the diseases of tax and spend on society; it harms others, it does not aid them. If I spend it to seek my profit, it hones their productivity and gives them more potential wealth-my interests is theirs, the more our subjective values are different. The division of labour makes society profit from heterogeneity.
Nintendomanwill 2 years ago
No, I will keep my money and use it for private healthcare etc.
I will not pay tax.
I will not inflict tax on the common weal, I will not allow robbers who spend money without even concerning THEIR interests, to be of such perverse incentive to act inefficiently as is the unique unvirtue of taxation dispensation:
Nintendomanwill 2 years ago
If it wasn't for capitalism and the freedom to exchange what and with whom, we will, then the good men would, having no interest in merely linguistic exchange with idiots, not serve idiots. It is through capitalism and our making profit through serving demands that we serve those whom we otherwise could not. THis does not require 'organising,' subjugation of individual will to superior authority, but requires freedom for the division of labour to specialise individuals' fields of production.
Nintendomanwill 2 years ago
'Just as I do not consider my pleasure as the goal of others nor do I consider their pleasure my goal'
This is quite profound because in the division of labour, the harmony of interest does not come from seeking the same materials of entirely subjective value, nor does harmony through economic relation, exchange, come through some deliberate collectivisation of means and ends, but greater wealth and greater means to make individual wealth & for those profiting by his labour, is HETEROGENEITY!
Nintendomanwill 2 years ago
grandes agradecimentos X
LampoonedHerd 2 years ago
On many Congressional member's websites they have a National Debt Counter - they then have a value box labeled "YOUR SHARE"..I then want to say, excuse me? MY share? Did I spend this money or am I the source of the money that Congress spends and then spends it to ruinious debt? How am I at fault if my congressman thumbs their nose at cocophonus pleas and demands to STOP? I tell you it is not us who ran up the debt but somehow they have the nerve to say "YOUR SHARE"!
drsolari111 2 years ago
Thanks for posting this.
I was given "1984",
then "Brave new world"
to read when i was in school.
We had to study and compare both books.
It taught me alot.
But really wish I was given "Atlas Shrugged" as well .I was given "the fountainhead "by a freind when I was 23,and very quickly read every thing I could find writtenn by Ayn Rand.Didnt so much as change my view on life and how we should treat each other.Just alowed me to say ,"YES"
So I like to listen to John Galts speech often.
tellmeverything 2 years ago
Line of the day........................
"when you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define them as you're own character"
jimmynorton1001 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No one man or women can say they are one hundred percent omnipotent. They shoud have changed the title of those books to anal shrugged and pompus head..
absolutekev 2 years ago
Neither Ayn Rand nor her characters ever claimed omnipotence, and I see nothing to do with that idea in this video anyway. This is about the use of force; To initiate it is deplorable, to retaliate in kind is necessary. How do your silly names apply?
NiAlBu 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Reality can not always have an intelectual voice,objectivism is an elitest bullshit.
absolutekev 2 years ago
why not?
radical4reason 2 years ago
You make no sense. Reality is an objective fact. It isn't intellectual, but it is rational, and so intellect is a way of understanding it. If you disagree, I'd like to know what you think is a better way.
NiAlBu 2 years ago
And I really don't know how trying to understand reality can be elitist.
NiAlBu 2 years ago 2
Hello All! I Posted an alternate version of #8- Thanks for your input.
XCowboy2 2 years ago
It's pointless to agree or disagree with her philosophy..she is not here to change it, nor would she I think.
This episode stirs my blood. Each image cannot help but fully capture the viewer's attention. It is powerful and gut wrenching, I for one could not turn away from it.
The sense of line in this video is potent and John Galt's character is clearly less enigmatic.
Ayn was a genius in how she developed her ideology/ethic.
One of your best xcowboy2 !!!
lynage1 2 years ago
I liked the Version 1 counterpart more, mostly because of the music. Syrupy, perhaps, but it had a stronger effect.
GamblerJustice 2 years ago
I definitely think that this is an improvement over Version 1's counterpart. The points are made clearer because the visualizations brought up when they are made are more explicit.
The only thing I don't like about it is that Sophie actually did choose. I know that's not essential, and that you couldn't edit out those particular subtitles without cutting that scene short and losing it's dramatic effect, but it's sad to see her actually comply with his insane ultimatum.
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
Where's the great music? Sorry but these are lacking greatly.
kitycalifornia 2 years ago
I thought this was the most powerful one you've done. At the very least, keep this one up as an "unofficial" version.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
1) At 54 seconds, Galt says "...obligation I owe to myself..."; I assert that is a fallacy, for there can be no obligations of self to self. An obligation is "something by which a person is bound or obliged to do certain things, and which arises out of a sense of duty or results from custom, law." There can be no sense of duty contingent to self for the same reason there can be no categorical imperatives. Law originates from a collective State not the self. Custom means a habitual practice.
9432bce6 2 years ago
2) That an action is habitually caused by the mind means that it is subjective and not objective. This is because actions do not exist independent of a cause. Cognition, reason, mental functioning are actions performed by brains. When the brains stop doing the actions they no longer occur. Consequently consciousness cannot be an axiomatic primary, for it is a gestalt of complex actions resultant from functioning of divers cerebral systems that have evolved up in hierarchical fashion over time.
9432bce6 2 years ago
3) That the 3rd axiom of Rand's metaphysics is false follows from the fact of material existence that there is no meaning or purpose to life or existence. There can be no teleology for there is no cosmic consciousness to purpose it. Likewise there is no objective morality nor can there be any. Accordingly, it it true then that no humans have mandates to live or do anything. We have capabilities but lack due ethical impulse for their use. The subjective choice to make one's own life the
9432bce6 2 years ago
4) standard of value does not render and escape from nihilism, for Homo Sapiens are mere Hominid Apes and not gods.
There are other problems with Objectivism that render its rather transparent apologetic for Statism and Economic Fascism (Corporatism) fallacious, but this is not an appropriate forum for such discussion
9432bce6 2 years ago
First of all, Rand's use of the word "obligation" there is rhetorical.
Secondly, you can talk all you want about the fact that the meaning humans attach to their physical existence is gestalt, but that doesn't change the fact that that gestalt property is just as real as the physical properties. And that the two are symbiotic. The fact that they are symbiotic means that there is no escape from the necessity to attach meaning to one's physical state...
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
... Of course a person is capable of choosing to make his physical existence cease to exist by means of believing consistently that it's gestalt properties are meaningless, but that doesn't change the fact that for him the "meaning" is that it's meaningless.
Anyone who says that he's a nihilist simply because they've discovered that their volition is volitional is lying. What he's really doing is trying to take pleasure in his displeasure. If he were serious, he'd kill himself immediately.
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
He certainly wouldn't be on Youtube, trying to get people to see his perspective.
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
I saw this as arising from the earlier sections discussing the fact that if a man chooses not to think its likely he will die. I'd call staying alive an obligation and accept the consequential necessity of thinking. Its a model derived from observations about biology and those laws are not derived from the collective - far from it.
sjgibbs80 2 years ago
94320..
You may choose to have no sense of duty to your self but it is false to extend that personal defect to others.
Martintfre 2 years ago
i think galt's demand to choose "our work or your guns" really clashes with the Nazi demanding a mother to choose which of her children will die. I was like "why did he use that picture?" galt's ultimatum is meant for the Nazi, not the holocaust victim.
natdavi 2 years ago
hey Nat- I'm uploading a alternate version- so many comments are coming back negative I'm rethinking this episode. Maybe I did rush it a bit- trying to recover from the hard drive failure.
XCowboy2 2 years ago
Cowboy, Roark didn't let naysayers determine what happened to his art. This video is fantastic.
What XOmniverse posted here is correct -- if U want to upload an alternative version, please keep this one up here as well, maybe as "the unofficial Part 8." :-)
legendre007 2 years ago
I have to agree with this. The first time Sophie's Choice was used I was left wondering why it was selected as the central dramatic representation of the idea when it brings more attention to her than it does the nazi.
While the officer obviously should be the central focus as he forces her to do an 'unreasonable' thing under threat of death, it goeswithout saying that more attention is brought to HER choice.
Venkman 2 years ago
I find this episode considerably weaker than "The Destroyers, Part I". Why did you exclude footage of Hitler and the exploding swastika?
Not to mention the missing music from Schindler's List.
JohnGaltAustria 2 years ago
Um, Hitler's still there, the exploding swastika is still there. The Schindler's list music was a bit too syrupy, but I still would have used it but the corrupted hard drive also corrupted that audio file so that the mp4 permissions wouldnt work any more. I tried all sorts of ways of capturing the music before deciding that something else might be called for. I'm disappointed after so much effort my first comment should be so negative. If others feel the same I'll consider yank it and star over.
XCowboy2 2 years ago
Please don't yank it. I loved this video.
dannidandannikins 2 years ago 2
I agree with dannidandannikins. Please, please, please don't yank this video, XCowboy2!
:'-(
legendre007 2 years ago
Uhm, sorry, I did not see Hitler and the exploding swastika. My bad.
JohnGaltAustria 2 years ago
One more thing. Why pose the final ultimatum against that still? The initial showing of the video established the unfairness of the looters ultimatum, but Galt's ultimatum is a just one.
sjgibbs80 2 years ago
My guess would be that Richard (if I may call him that) did it because it was an ironic twist; it shows that the only person capable of giving an ultimatum is someone who has power over reality. Galt does, a Nazi does not.
However, I agree with you... that's too much to interpret. Putting that as the final frame too easily suggests that he's putting Galt's and the Nazi's ultimately on the same plane. It unnecessarily confusing.
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
I saw it as spitting the irrational, evil ultimatum back at the people Nazis and the irrational people who do that sort of thing. I didn't take it as characterizing Galt's ultimatum, but slapping the face of those he was condemning.
NiAlBu 2 years ago
Its interesting you should depict a slim woman dressed in a white sweater with shoulder length brunette hair before speaking of retaliatory violence. Co-incidence or artful selection?
sjgibbs80 2 years ago
I'm not sure which image you're talking about.
XCowboy2 2 years ago
There's only one, a couple by the sea. Of course I'm thinking that Dagny Taggart wore a white sweater in the final chapters which are the most violent of the book. I'm not sure why you described this comment as negative, it was intended as a compliment!
sjgibbs80 2 years ago