An Introduction to Objectivism Part1 - Lecture by Leonard Peikoff

[outsidemendham]

"Not sure what mean with last pts."

Quantum mechanics makes a deterministic universe impossible. And Objectivism does not take into account the environmental sciences but simply states industrialism is virtuous no matter what the consequences.

[RebornYesika]

Like? I love this where is that button?

[SwordOfApollo]

I find that most who dismiss Ayn Rand’s morality don’t really understand it. Her “selfishness” is long-term, principled self-interest. People are a combination of the physical and mental, and your self-interest includes psychological values. Self-interest is not to be reduced to only the physical, such as money. Other people can be of tremendous psychological value (i.e. friends, lovers, children.) Rand recognized that benevolence toward strangers is in one’s own interest, in a free country.

[maximemeis111]

Great lecture.

[woogoose]

If you watched it carefully and still stand by that statement, may I ask why?

[outsidemendham]

@woogoose

Yes: I am close to Objectivism in metaphysics and epistemology. It is a mess however in ethics, politics and aesthetics.

[outsidemendham]

Objectivism is bullshit!

[woogoose]

@outsidemendham Did you watch all 8 parts and still come to that conclusion?

[outsidemendham]

@woogoose

No, I started with that axiom. But I watched all 8 parts after leaving my comment.

[db11289]

@outsidemendham Can you elaborate?

[outsidemendham]

@db11289

Sure: Objectivism is bs, because it fucks over the poor, the disabled, the weak, women. Objectivism is bs, because modern art is a much deeper form of art than merely painting what is being seen. Objectivism is bs, because we have no free will, and our senses don't tell us the truth about the world. Objectivism is bs, because of quantum mechanics and its implications. Objectivism is bs because of global warming.

[db11289]

@outsidemendham 1. It certainly does not. It advocates a political system (capitalism) that has raised the standard of living for the average person more then any other system. 2. Modern art is a joke - what is your definition of art? Objectivism holds art's purpose is to concretize abstract ideas for a human mind. Modern art's chaotic garbage is a purposeless scam. 3. We do have free will and our senses do not fail - it is our conceptual faculty that can fail. Not sure what mean with last pts.

[MyITRcom]

@dodgeball441 Then you got an F in Objectivism.

[Moragauth]

@dodgeball441 How?

[MagisterPridgen]

@TheCrookedTimber By this logic, we should object to physics as some sort of dogma because it tells us how matter and energy do in fact behave, or biology because it tells us how life does in fact nourish itself, grow and reproduce. A factual description of how something is in reality is not prescriptive, it's descriptive. Integrity is not dogma. Your assertions are unfounded and you have no evidence to support them.

[MyITRcom]

@MagisterPridgen It does not tell us, we use extremely sensitive scientific equipment to observe it and gather data, then we don't make a claim, we let peer review and cooberative evidence form the conclusions, not faith, not hope, not prayer or wishful thinking, but evidence for real. Epic Fail on your part.

[MagisterPridgen]

@MyITRcom Yeah, that's what I meant by "tells us", that we apply reason to the facts of reality and that's how we draw accurate conclusions, in this case "facts of reality" being synonymous with evidence and application of reason being synonymous with observation of that data, often with "sensitive scientific equipment." So I'm not sure what point it is we are disagreeing on, your argument appears to be a strawman based on a misunderstanding of what I said. Epic fail on your part.

[logtype47]

Ayn Rand was a moron who thought she could survive on her own genius but when cancer threatened to wipe out the little bit of wealth she managed to put away for her old age she changed her name and applied for welfare benefits. The queen of the Libertarians, a stupid bitch preaching to the ignorant. She had a modicum of success on her own but like other so called self made successes, when she failed and she turned to the state to keep her ass off the street.

[me8357]

Is this guy on crack?

[urdisturbing]

Objectivism is anti-intellectual. Ayn Rand hated nearly all philosophers and believed that the only person in history who understood truth besides her was Aristotle. Confusingly enough she also said there are no disagreements between rational people. In my opinion, if there are any randroids out there who actually care about philosophy should pick up Spinoza, then see if your not ashamed to have ever had Atlas Shrugged on you book shelf.

[ch322]

the indoctrinating mullet welcomes you!

[TheFlanker35]

@5:47,

A reference to French Existentialism?

[Joxer247]

ANDREW RYAN

[zellballen]

sweet mullet

[Ontologistics]

Watch my video, 'Destruction of Objectivism: Ayn Rand is Dead'.

[ObjectivistAesthetic]

@Ontologistics You are an idiot.

[Ontologistics]

@ObjectivistAesthetic

You're an 'Objectivist'.

[dannidandannikins]

@Ontologistics To any viewers of Ontologistic's incompetent attempt to attack Objectivism: please view my response to his video - which he has blocked because he can't deal with criticism.

The guy is a transparent fool.

[Ontologistics]

@dannidandannikins

You've made a video against my Objectivist video? I've only seen two needlessly protracted videos which accuse me of views I do not even hold! The absolute epitome of the straw man fallacy.

But please Danni continue your obsession with me, it's fun and brings me more viewers.

[dannidandannikins]

@Ontologistics Of views you don't hold???? lol.

I used a video clip of you stating that you think that there is not always such a thing as cause and effect, then I demonstrated how stupid that argument is. Then I showed a clip of you arguing that everything is pre-determined because of cause and effect - which is a direct contradiction of your previous statement and also wrong. So far I've demonstrated that you fail Ontology and Epistemology, my next will show how fucked your Ethics is.

[Ontologistics]

@dannidandannikins

Oh dear Danni, you're really not educated here. Schopenhauer, like Kant, believed that causality applied only to the phenomenal world. To the noumenal it does not apply as it's the condition of that causality. As the universe consists of both aspects, for K and S, the cosmo argument fails. In this particular case, Hume is also in agreement as he neither believes the universe as a whole needs a cause.

My views on causality cannot be extracted from a few quotations!

[dannidandannikins]

@Ontologistics Oh dear ontologistics... you think that the assertion of a noumenal realm is logically defensible...

[Ontologistics]

@dannidandannikins

That is what Kant and (in other terms) Schopenhauer believe, as I said. The fact that you didn't realise that explains your error in attributing contradiction to me.

[gratex]

@dannidandannikins

ur mom's face is a transparent fool, and is gay, also.

[dannidandannikins]

@gratex that doesn't even make sense.

[gratex]

@dannidandannikins

there are millions of people who would find sense in my comment, you, however, Will not.

[luigiperso]

@gratex , yes, millions of people gave a shit about the crap you wrote before. They are all marching on the streets for you.

[MagisterPridgen]

@gratex Sweeping, vague generalizations don't qualify as arguments. They fall short of the mark. In other words, they FAIL.

[MagisterPridgen]

@gratex Great argument! Who could possibly disagree with your impeccable logic?