Ayn Rand - About Love

[DraskyVanderhoff]

Sadly that no one talks that way anymore. She is really true when she talks about the "souls" that a person would show to another.

[theseanze]

Rand could have accomplished so much more with her novels if she didn't place self interest at the heart of her subject matter (which, I know, was the core of her philosophy that motivated her to write anyway).

The point is that she prides herself on being an original thinker, uninfluenced by anybody. That's the problem. Her Freudian analysis in this video is interesting and provoking, but cut short of interesting conversation by the ideological conclusion.

[flupachi]

Great, a world filled with heartless cultists.

[TheTopBloke]

@LaChicaMasTerca Well, good luck with that. Let me know how it works out. I hope it does, but I won't hold my breath. Try some Machiavelli.

[TheTopBloke]

@LaChicaMasTerca I've recently learned myself, that there is no point in teaching those that don't want to be taught. Sad, but true. Wish it wasn't this way, but it is.

[matchbox555]

Nathaniel Branden wrote this not Ayn Rand

[TheTopBloke]

@LaChicaMasTerca Good luck with that. There's so much out there they don't teach you, that you'd be better off not going to school and just showing up at a library Monday to Friday.

[wakeb1444]

It is a matter of logic, as Ms. Rand states. But do you we not examine her logical reasoning, or just take it as axiom? Can the objectivist logically derive that the human perception of reality is objective? I argue that this is impossible, and sets up perception for the same failure as any other construct that elevates any form of consciousness to the supernatural. We subjectively perceive an outstanding reality, which only displaces Ayn's argument by challenging her source of value.

[phoenixtimes2]

As wonderful as are Ms. Rand's epic novels, how about a reality check? As wonderful as are the "chiefs" and there individual goals and objectives, you gotta have the "indians" to spend the money which fills the wallets of those who want to "stand alone." So therefore, (human sympathy, emapthy, and kindness aside) doesn't it make sense that we help those who make us rich so they can keep on making us rich? Maybe a little something? Just sayin.....

[natritious1]

@edsajr86 yeah I hear you, but remember, they didnt have things like the internet and wikileaks back then. she was ignorant about israel and zionism it seems

[logtype47]

It amazes me how these free market dupes continuously yank from Ayn Rand's dusty utters. This morally bankrupt hypocrite and her husband applied for social security and used medicare to pay for her cancer treatment.

[supressorgrid]

@logtype47 As she was forced to pay for these programs most of her life she is deserving them. value received for value given.

[logtype47]

@supressorgrid Despite that rhetoric you're talking, I bet your a union guy. Were unions in the constitution? No. The sooner we abolish unions the better this country will be.

[supressorgrid]

@logtype47 Don;t get nasty, I am far from a union stooge of any kind, I work for a living. I am a constitutional conservative , a libertarian and a Randian objectivist. I am forced to "contribute" to SSI and Medicare and damned well expect to draw from it. I could have put that money into a money market fund at 4% and come out much better. That money is mine and I want it back!

[logtype47]

@supressorgrid Union stooge. Cut the B.S. and be honest. You ARE a UNION trucker.

In order for you to be a good conservative, you have to liberate yourself from that socialistic UNION membership and go straight renegade.

[logtype47]

@supressorgrid A Raggedy Ann objectivist? Are you sure you want to support this philosophy as a overweight man? In a TRUE free market, private health insurance would outright reject you (or) charge you ultra-exorbitant fees because you are a huge liability.

Do you even understand the full implications of what you stand for.

[supressorgrid]

@logtype47 And why should you be responsible for my weight? I im denied insurance because of it that is my problem. Why should you have to subsidize my coverage cause I am a fatty fat ass?If you are responsible for my health care, does it mean that you could also dictate my life style as to eating,fucking,smoking,drinkin­g...ect? To live free is also the chance that you could die free .

[logtype47]

@supressorgrid Get outta here with that freedom shit. Whether you realize it or not the public is forced to pay for your bad health. When insurance companies do their numbers they pass the cost of maintaining unhealthy people, like you, to us in higher premiums. We are carrying your burden pal.

Your overweight union truck driving ass is fucking with my freedom and my bank account.

[logtype47]

@supressorgrid I noticed you backed down from the union topic. It doesn't surprise me that a conservative hypocrite struggles to make sense of his union membership. If you want to be hard core freedom loving conservative, stop sucking on those union tits and go renegade. I'd like to see how far you get. The free market will chew you up and spit you out. The only only cargo you'd be delivering is pizza for Dominos.

[supressorgrid]

@logtype47 You have strayed from your own topic, BTW I am a commercial truck driver I have never nor will I ever join a union. I play free market all the time. Having topped out in pay at one company, I am now on my way to start with a new one that pays better.

[logtype47]

@supressorgrid Oh and BTW the "free market" as you call it does not exist in this country. It's a myth. Most of the garbage you envision as free market is actually subsidized by the government several times over.

[supressorgrid]

@logtype47 So in your mind a free market can only exist within the strict control of government insuring "economic fairness" and justice based on class status? If the government could. it would crank out millions of logtype 47s.

[logtype47]

@supressorgrid It has nothing to do with my mind. The free market is a fools game played on the working class people.

Be aware that in a true liberalized economy, you will be open discriminated against because of your size in the work place, as well as other areas of social life. Civil rights, gone. Labor rights gone, Workers compensation gone. Paid vacation gone, Pensions gone.

Does this sound like something you can sink your teeth into?

[logtype47]

@supressorgrid So you're a unapologetic non-union truck driver. In that case, I admire your courage to proudly work for LOWER WAGES. How foolish can you be. I bet freight companies treat you like two piece with coleslaw.

This ladies and gentlemen, is your beloved free market at work. If the rich could crank out supressorgrid's on an assembly line, they would.

[logtype47]

@supressorgrid Ungrateful aren't you. You wouldn't even make the salary you currently make if it weren't for union sacrifices. Every time a union gets a wage concession from the private sector, your non-union wages go up as well.

[logtype47]

@supressorgrid I am subsidizing your obesity. Private insurance passes the cost of people like you on the rest of us in higher premiums. So YES!!!! I am paying for you which means you are fucking with my financial freedom.

You apparently view life in a vacuum, thinking that you can do whatever you want and no one else will bear the cost. You are a misguided drain on society.

[ImaginedWriter]

@dialoguequent No I'm claiming that most people regardless of gender want children. That's the difference retard.

And no, most straight men will not play with their anuses because that is gay- most gay men will play with their anuses because that is a crucial part of gay sexual relations. Again I stand by what I said- your hatred of women plus your obsession with this Super O thing from this company that sells male anal toys leads me to that conclusion.

[ImaginedWriter]

@dialoguequent Sounds like a major case of blue balls rather than ecstasy.

And no it doesn't, there is a finite number of sperm cells and one ovum. That is not an infinite number of combinations retard. There can be mutations when the baby is developing but that again not an infinite number of combinations. You can't have infinite results with finite resources.

[ImaginedWriter]

@dialoguequent You're a weirdo, it takes two to tango, in most places on Earth women don't have the choice in whether they breed or not further more the violent or otherwise actions of offspring are not the sole responsibility of the mother. You seem to have an irrational hatred of women, blaming them for everything. Again are you sure you're not gay since you've admitted to playing with anal toys?

[ImaginedWriter]

@dialoguequent Btw the majority of guys aren't interested in putting stuff into their anuses, those that are I would not be surprised if they had some gay tendencies.

And there is not an infinite possibility in DNA. It is highly unlikely that my biological children will be half chinese since I'm not Chinese. You are making some really stupid statements.

[ImaginedWriter]

@dialoguequent Again no one cares about your preferences, some people in fact the majority do want a monogamous relationship and children, for those that don't that's their prerogative.

And no it wouldn't since after a while too few men have too many women and you have a surplus of single men so your model wouldn't work. One has to deal with reality not fantasy. That is the problem with Rand as well- her ideas are pie in the sky with no basis in reality.

[ImaginedWriter]

@dialoguequent Man is an animal. Sex and man co-exist in almost every case, to deny one and not the other is absurd. Deal with the fact that most men seek to pass on their genetic heritage by breeding. And marriage was one expression of this natural instinct. And to you marriage may seem pathetic but to others it is not. Your subjective opinion is not objective fact. You sound like Rand stating your opinions as fact, ignoring reality trying to make it erroneously fit your pseudo philosophy.

[ImaginedWriter]

@dialoguequent Again bull shit, you keep going on about female power as if she forces him to settle into married life- she does not. He has the choice to resist, if he does not then that is on him not her, furthermore studies have shown married men live longer than single ones. So the point of strength is false since when are the strong more likely to die than the weak?

Marriage came out of settling the land & a contract formed- I feed you female whilst you birth my genetic offspring.

[ImaginedWriter]

@dialoguequent Wrong, man has the power, women have very little sexual power. Power denotes control. Very few women have control over it. Say a female victim of rape- she is attractive but she has no power over her sexual charms and had no choice when she was forced to sex by the rapist.

It's like saying Helen of Troy is wholly responsible for the Trojan War, the males made the choice and were the active players. She was passive, an object unable to influence or control.

[metaalchemy]

Did I hear the word SPIRITUAL here?

[jcostello117]

I love how all lover's of greed paint this women out to be someone she wasnt.....she was a VERY UGLY cunt!

She had mad problems and I think she had a lazy eye, and turned greed into a philosophy!

Stop trying to make the sole reason of mass greed today (ayn rand) out to be some beauty queen, she was a smeagol and you all know it!

Gotta love when people that you can barely understand over their thick mother tongues' go on about american values.

[josephonwhidbey]

@jcostello117 So in a free country, would you pass a law against greed ? Is the attempt to keep what you earn greed ? I suppose you think that the free exchange of goods and services is greed; do you ? Other then using force to defend yourself and your property, did Ayn Rand ever advocate toe use of force ? Live and let live was the only philosophy advocated by Any Rand. A wise parent teaches their children to share their toys but doesn't force them to give them away.

[jcostello117]

@josephonwhidbey Are you just retyping some verbal diarrhea that you heard on cable news? Greed has ruined this country. THIS cunt's disciples rolled back all of the protections put in place to stop greedy self serving jews called bankers. By rolling back all the taxes in the 80's ALL infrastructure that benefited ALL came to a stop as all the money that paid for it just piled up in the banks of a few families. Then by introducing derivatives in the 90's they created the mess we are living today

[tdetko]

@jcostello117 You are just retyping some verbal diarrhea that you heard on Comedy Channel. You have no imgagination- epic fail as a fiction writer and epic fail as an economist and obviously a failed life. Wealth envy much?

[jcostello117]

@tdetko guess what shithead I havent watched TV in four fucking years! I have NO CLUE what goes on TV! Its made me a very better person but makes me feel like I'm living in the land of the dead. I have all the money I desire. I personally think monopoly laws should restrict anyone from owning more than 1.5 million. Anyone can live a wonderful slave free life for the rest of their lives with 1.5 million. But hey the 1% of america that OWNS the other 99% needs personal mega yachts with submarines!

[Whatever4690]

@jcostello117 LOL.

[dubified89]

@jcostello117 Why you gotta hate on her for a lazy eye if she had one?

[Gjkl345]

I would love to see her debate with an epicurian. Good money, well spent.

[Gjkl345]

Could not a domineering attribute in which simply looks out for the progression of self, contributed by all fair sexes, think further ahead and prosper within the prospect of being responsible to a loved one's objectivism as it weighs heavily on their own? I also disagree with her perception of sex seeing how these "celebrations" can also be fulfilled with other stimulations.

[Gjkl345]

Conceptual. That's a perception on a man's understanding while in the world of the living, conciousness will bear heavily on him seeing the torture, while unliving, there is no thought and therefore it is impossible to feel anything. But, the direct knowledge of hurting the individual beyond death is seemingly passive to the individual in question. Infact, it disregards mutualism and pluralism in existential priorities to a cullimation of the woman of the woman's objective wellness.

[dubified89]

If you really love someone though you don't want them to do well just for your own sake but also for there's. Like if by some force of fate you were never able to see them again you would still want them to do well

[dubified89]

more so than just a stranger obviously though

[KillaTequilla83]

@dubified89 But isn't it still within your own personal interests to have your loved ones prosper? If it gives you joy (she never says utility) then that is a form of selfishness, as far as objectivism is concerned. If you get into a fight however, if thats what I think you're saying, but still hold feelings towards them, then there's still happiness derived from helping them. Same with strangers. If you feel great inside for helping one then I think that falls within Objectivism.

[dubified89]

@KillaTequilla83 Yeah but it's just one way of saying it. One could also make the case that it's a kind of altruism just as much so. Because some people don't care about anyone beyond themselves. I like listening to Rand's perspective though, I agree with her about virtue

[Vocalallusive]

@Andybaby, and by that poor comment you have shown without any reasonable doubt you're outside the target group of any human being seeking excellency.

[Andybaby]

hm - so the truly superior man will be attracted to someone like ... the author herself.

Very clever.

[madderbass]

Just out of curiosity, can somebody tell me what that picture is at 1:44?

[InaneRex]

This is such hypocritical tripe.

read: The Passion of Ayn Rand.

[sbergman27]

I think it is safe to say that this passage pegged most YouTubers, in one way or another.

[balalaikaism]

reading of a smart book doesn't give you a chance to pretend being smart, ya know?

[NinjaJedi]

How can I love someone more than I love myself? Love is the poison of the socialists that interferes with individualism.

[Mirithonomy]

@NinjaJedi No. Love of things above the self is what she protests against. To love someone is a selfish desire. Why would so many of us keep them to ourselves if it were not? In the end it is a philosophy of striving to meet our desires with a reasonable way of doing so. If you wish to do something for others do it for yourself, as a private investor, and do not drag your weight upon others nor vice-verse. In the end, do what you want because you want it.

[TheHomelessCripple]

Ayn Rand sounds completely crazy, but she also sounds completely right

[TimothyBragan]

(　ﾟ,_ゝ,ﾟ)

[travismalk]

google Doe's Account, its mindblowing.

[TheGodofAtheists]

I wish my HS taught something of resonance such as Ayn Rand, rather the closest we got to any assertive logic and reason was Plato, which is actually the opposite of both assertive and logic.

[golguin]

@TheGodofAtheists

An interesting thing that is happening here in America is many copies of Ayn Rand's books are being sold, as soon as Obama was president, and even more copies are being brought since the new health reform.

[81AmericanGirl]

I love all the "love" videos....going on my favorites!

[neway20045]

for all of you that are off topic: please take it someone else! This video is about the nature of romantic love, not the role of govt....

jg

[Pantalaimon345]

I never thought of love in this way but it makes perfect sense wow ayn was a genius.

[sewagedweller]

FUGLY FUGLY FUGLY RAND

[olipop84]

right on! I think it was Branden who wrote this essay though.

[greenghost2008]

you should put the word spoilers in the name.

[Apmhflick]

A smart anarchist would not deny that a country with a gov't who is intelligent and respectful of human value would be better to live in than an anarchical system where violence occurs. But the contract theory of gov't shows that people come together to form public law for the sake of order and so order would still exist if only the law was privatized. Somalia has always been based upon violence.

[mhirtes12]

Actually, Somalia is a real-life Libertarian Utopia. All it needs is some Little Sisters running around to make the setting complete.

[HENN3H]

Ever been there? No? then STFU. Yes? Then define your terms godammit!

[bradmanthethird]

liberty involves free wil, i care not which gun I'm ruled by, whether it's that of an inept government or that of a roaming warband. I'll fight them both just the same.

[BigPurple121]

This is the most powerful statement I've heard in a very long time

[criticaljimmk]

this woman is fucked in the head, even more than her own followers

[TheSaintLLC]

this should replace cosmo magazine...

[54nomore]

She is to me the greatest philosopher of the 20th century. Her works are masterpieces that will out last us all. We, at this time are living "Atlas Shrugged" and if we the people don't do anything about it-Freedom will no longer reign. And we will be the worst for it...

[tugatrader]

I agree 100%!

[Jazzper79]

@54nomore To me she is the greatest philosopher ever.

[DonVoghano]

@54nomore With one page she bashes authoritarianism, with 100 pages she prepares the ground for it. The logical conclusions of her denial of guilt, her ecstatic praise of personal power (bordering sexual arousal) all conduce to an intellectualized justification of abuse and domination of others. The strong MUST rule, the weak MUST suffer. She simply redefines strength as intellectual or technological strength, and then all abuse is permitted - indeed it's JUST!

[DonVoghano]

@54nomore The only reason why her bullshit is so popular in America (indeed she is quite unknown in Europe) is that she simply reasserts the winner-looser dichotomy that has imposed itself in US culture. This mentality, spread by business PR for decades to the advantage of a thriving power-hungry elite, has turned the US from the beacon of western civilization to a borderline 3rd world country. She intellectualizes the reigning US zeitgeist and the sheeple adore her for that.

[bepetersn]

@DonVoghano You have clearly never read any of Rand's work and understood it. She says very explicitly that the initiation of force upon others is the antithesis of morality. In fact, you got the formulation wrong. The man who tries to rule others is as a weak and repugnant as the weakest follower, because he is dependent upon those he tries to rule and draws his purpose from control over others. He is selfless, i.e. having no self, and thus is evil. Selfishness is the only proper moral stance.

[DonVoghano]

@bepetersn There is only one possible practical outcome when pride is elected as an a-priori value and guilt as an a-priori threat, and that is authoritarianism. That's because the acceptance of guilt is the only possible way of recognizing the harmful effect of one's actions upon others (externalities), and concerted action is the only means of repairing such harm. Selfishness and selflessness, like all things, need to be balanced: when one dominates the other society implodes.

[fntime]

@DonVoghano if I had to bet, I'd bet YOU are one

of life's 'loosers'.

[DonVoghano]

@fntime ah I certainly have been, and throwing such concepts in the trash where they belong has helped me pick up the pieces. I have a family and attend med-school at present, seems to be working out, but in life it's better to keep skeptical...

[Mufaso1000]

@DonVoghano : Not winner vs loser, but man-of-integrity vs man-of-nonintegrity. Which are you?

[DonVoghano]

@Mufaso1000 I hope with all my heart that Ayn Rand would despise me.

[Mufaso1000]

@DonVoghano Why?

[freezzertime]

@54nomore Greatest philosopher ever.

[Jazzper79]

@54nomore Right on. She is the greatest philosopher ever!

[JMartins1981]

Thanks for making this.

[nine9s]

You're putting out some great videos! I'm looking forward to more.