Dude I mean no disrespect, but you totally have missed the point of her philosophy. The center of objectivity is the morality of the mind and of selfishness. The economic aspects of her philosophy, know as the laissez-faire system, advocate the rights of the individual mind over the masses and disagrees with the use of coersive force, aka "the gun" of government, which only intervenes in the system of trade among merchants by unnecessary regulations and unfair taxes, thus uncapping the economy.
Promise me something. Promise that you'll read it again in 10 years, when you're out of school, hopefully working and in a great career, but without skipping the most imporant part of the whole novel. Trust me, you'll get so much more out of it if you do.
@Grintoth Kant is dense. Kant is illegibly, incomprehensibly dense. Galt's speech is Dick and Jane compared to Kant. Give yourself some time and real life experience. You'll really appreciate it a whole lot more.
@tsummerlee I want to suggest my favorite piece of non-fiction by Rand, "Philosophy-Who Needs It?" I think you'll really enjoy it. Or perhaps "The Virtue of Selfishness," which is wildly popular on college campuses in India right now.
@CooleyReviews As if what they "like" matters? As if anything in my life is made anymore meaningful by what some whim worshipers "like?" You can't get any more clueless.
@tsummerlee I'm not sure why you highlighted the word "like." If you didn't get what I was trying to say the first time, then here it is again: Atlas Shrugged has an immoral philosophy.
@CooleyReviews Logic 101: Claims aren't proofs. You're making a claim. Now prove it. I highlighted "like" because it offers a subjective context to a completely non subjective issue, which makes it irrelevant, not to mention ignorant. Morality isn't subjective, unless you think your own life is subjective. Is your life subjective, or are you a fact? Are you mere opinion, or do you exist? What you "like" is irrelevant to what is true.
@tsummerlee No one can prove their opinion or claim because the other person debating with them can 'prove' their's as welll. I'm a person and not a statement, so asking if I'm subjective, a fact, or an opinion doesn't make much sense. How do you know that your opinion is the right one? There are no facts to prove your viewpoint. There's just your opinion which is all that's needed. It was the only thing that Ayn Rand needed. How am I ignorant in saying that you have a right to an opinon?
@CooleyReviews Its possible to prove slavery is moral? You're saying there is a rational moral argument for murder, theft, and corruption. You're saying that there are no moral standards to the human condition. You don't know what you're talking about. I'm not talking Rand here, but 2000 years of philosophical discipline, which you'll deny for the sake of what you claim to "like." Ethics is a science, not a rule book. Ethics are principles to live by, not dictates to avoid death.
@tsummerlee Slavery, murder, theft, and corruption are obviously all bad things. I'm not talking about those things. I'm saying that selfishness is bad and that promoting selfishness doesn't make sense when people are already selfish enough. There are a whole bunch of other examples that people can debate about: when we should go to war, the role of government in our lives, people's free rights, etc. Ethics is not a science. At most it could be considered a social science.
@tsummerlee Slavery, murder, theft, and corruption are obviously all bad things. I'm not talking about those things. I'm saying that selfishness is bad and that promoting selfishness doesn't make sense when people are already selfish enough. There are a whole bunch of other examples that people can debate about: when we should go to war, the role of government in our lives, people's free rights, etc. Ethics is not a science. At most it could be considered a social science.
@CooleyReviews Sorry, young individual, but ethics is indeed a science. In what way are people "selfish enough?" What does that even mean when at every single turn people are taught to deny their own lives for the sake of others who are taught the same thing? Who lives for whom, if not for him/herself? If you have no selfish interest in this exchange, why are you here? The fact that you choose to live at all proves how very selfish you, and everyone else is.
Kudos on diving into such deep waters at such a young age all on your own.
As a clarification, Objectivism is primarily about choosing to use your intellect rather than your emotions in order create the moral philosophy of your life.
Personally, I find that anything but radical.
What I do find radical is that so many people, with nary a whimper, surrender their very essences to those that wish to dominate and control them.
thanks for a sincere and first-handed review of "atlas." rand was not actually all that anti-charity, btw - she was just against it as the sole standard of goodness. "My views on charity are very simple ... above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue."
Many philosophy buffs dislike that Ayn Rand never published her work in peer review papers. She never presented her work and asked "what do you think of this? or Hey, do you think this is a good idea?" Academics are very concerned with collective creditability. Ayn Rand was more interested in self-validation, and they are semi-conflicting. Anyway I'm not an objectivist, but I do appreciate that she wrote for an audience rather than just for a PhD dissertation.
Well. This was out of the blue.
ahoyhoyable 2 days ago
I put this book down after half way. I couldn't take anymore . I did the same thing with fountainhead.
ImThinkingShhhh 2 weeks ago
Hello...long time no see
So to change the subject how about that ps vita pretty cool huh? I think I might get it when it releases here. What do you think?
xxkevinisgreatxx 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tsummerlee It has value *to me*, Mr. Intrinsicist.
ppw00 2 months ago
What if there was nothing to share. Owner could be taken away and everything that was destroyed would be everyones destroyed object or thing.
z6x6v 5 months ago
Your hair grows super freaking fast......
dirtbagian 7 months ago
So what are your views on the band "Korn?"
z6x6v 7 months ago
So what are your views on the band "Korn?"
z6x6v 7 months ago
Dude I mean no disrespect, but you totally have missed the point of her philosophy. The center of objectivity is the morality of the mind and of selfishness. The economic aspects of her philosophy, know as the laissez-faire system, advocate the rights of the individual mind over the masses and disagrees with the use of coersive force, aka "the gun" of government, which only intervenes in the system of trade among merchants by unnecessary regulations and unfair taxes, thus uncapping the economy.
Marioag0412 7 months ago
Promise me something. Promise that you'll read it again in 10 years, when you're out of school, hopefully working and in a great career, but without skipping the most imporant part of the whole novel. Trust me, you'll get so much more out of it if you do.
tsummerlee 9 months ago 3
@tsummerlee But it's so DENSE.
Grintoth 9 months ago
@Grintoth Kant is dense. Kant is illegibly, incomprehensibly dense. Galt's speech is Dick and Jane compared to Kant. Give yourself some time and real life experience. You'll really appreciate it a whole lot more.
tsummerlee 9 months ago
@tsummerlee I want to suggest my favorite piece of non-fiction by Rand, "Philosophy-Who Needs It?" I think you'll really enjoy it. Or perhaps "The Virtue of Selfishness," which is wildly popular on college campuses in India right now.
tsummerlee 9 months ago
@tsummerlee A block of wood is dense and, unlike Kant, has practical value. Kant is a dense liar.
TeaParty1776 8 months ago
@TeaParty1776 LOL! No dispute from me on that score!
tsummerlee 8 months ago
@tsummerlee Some people have ethics and those people don't like Atlas Shrugged. Sorry.
CooleyReviews 5 months ago
@CooleyReviews As if what they "like" matters? As if anything in my life is made anymore meaningful by what some whim worshipers "like?" You can't get any more clueless.
tsummerlee 5 months ago
@tsummerlee I'm not sure why you highlighted the word "like." If you didn't get what I was trying to say the first time, then here it is again: Atlas Shrugged has an immoral philosophy.
CooleyReviews 5 months ago
@CooleyReviews Logic 101: Claims aren't proofs. You're making a claim. Now prove it. I highlighted "like" because it offers a subjective context to a completely non subjective issue, which makes it irrelevant, not to mention ignorant. Morality isn't subjective, unless you think your own life is subjective. Is your life subjective, or are you a fact? Are you mere opinion, or do you exist? What you "like" is irrelevant to what is true.
tsummerlee 5 months ago
@tsummerlee No one can prove their opinion or claim because the other person debating with them can 'prove' their's as welll. I'm a person and not a statement, so asking if I'm subjective, a fact, or an opinion doesn't make much sense. How do you know that your opinion is the right one? There are no facts to prove your viewpoint. There's just your opinion which is all that's needed. It was the only thing that Ayn Rand needed. How am I ignorant in saying that you have a right to an opinon?
CooleyReviews 5 months ago
@CooleyReviews Its possible to prove slavery is moral? You're saying there is a rational moral argument for murder, theft, and corruption. You're saying that there are no moral standards to the human condition. You don't know what you're talking about. I'm not talking Rand here, but 2000 years of philosophical discipline, which you'll deny for the sake of what you claim to "like." Ethics is a science, not a rule book. Ethics are principles to live by, not dictates to avoid death.
tsummerlee 5 months ago
@tsummerlee Slavery, murder, theft, and corruption are obviously all bad things. I'm not talking about those things. I'm saying that selfishness is bad and that promoting selfishness doesn't make sense when people are already selfish enough. There are a whole bunch of other examples that people can debate about: when we should go to war, the role of government in our lives, people's free rights, etc. Ethics is not a science. At most it could be considered a social science.
CooleyReviews 5 months ago
@tsummerlee Slavery, murder, theft, and corruption are obviously all bad things. I'm not talking about those things. I'm saying that selfishness is bad and that promoting selfishness doesn't make sense when people are already selfish enough. There are a whole bunch of other examples that people can debate about: when we should go to war, the role of government in our lives, people's free rights, etc. Ethics is not a science. At most it could be considered a social science.
CooleyReviews 5 months ago
@CooleyReviews Sorry, young individual, but ethics is indeed a science. In what way are people "selfish enough?" What does that even mean when at every single turn people are taught to deny their own lives for the sake of others who are taught the same thing? Who lives for whom, if not for him/herself? If you have no selfish interest in this exchange, why are you here? The fact that you choose to live at all proves how very selfish you, and everyone else is.
tsummerlee 5 months ago
@tsummerlee "young individual". The failed attempt to replace the word 'kid' with something that sounds less condescending.
ppw00 2 months ago
@ppw00 Failed in the eyes of a relativist. Your opinion couldn't have less value.
tsummerlee 2 months ago
@tsummerlee It has value *to me*, Mr. Intrinsicist.
ppw00 2 months ago
I didn't agree with everything you said, but you deserve enormous kudos for giving a critique of Ayn Rand that isn't hysterical or hateful.
murdoog1 9 months ago
Kudos on diving into such deep waters at such a young age all on your own.
As a clarification, Objectivism is primarily about choosing to use your intellect rather than your emotions in order create the moral philosophy of your life.
Personally, I find that anything but radical.
What I do find radical is that so many people, with nary a whimper, surrender their very essences to those that wish to dominate and control them.
Food for thought.
Again, kudos.
*smiles*
LeeFoxRox 9 months ago
did you see the movie of pt 1 that just came out? any opinions?
kasyapa 9 months ago
thanks for a sincere and first-handed review of "atlas." rand was not actually all that anti-charity, btw - she was just against it as the sole standard of goodness. "My views on charity are very simple ... above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue."
kasyapa 9 months ago
Many philosophy buffs dislike that Ayn Rand never published her work in peer review papers. She never presented her work and asked "what do you think of this? or Hey, do you think this is a good idea?" Academics are very concerned with collective creditability. Ayn Rand was more interested in self-validation, and they are semi-conflicting. Anyway I'm not an objectivist, but I do appreciate that she wrote for an audience rather than just for a PhD dissertation.
Sparkygravity 9 months ago
yay! ur back! nice to see you..wassup with the hair..?lol... r u on facebook?..im ur age :)
farisahmed123 9 months ago
Nice to see you again,cool video. Peace
choro1981 9 months ago
You should read The Pillowman or any plays by Sarah Kane. Also do a video about Catcher In The Rye.
factoryboii 9 months ago
You are back, again!!! Nice man.
tafkase7en 9 months ago