Typical arrogance I would expect with anyone that enjoys Rand's trash. There is a reason why Rand appeals to a high school audience: they are unfamiliar with good literature and they think themselves to pretty fucking important. I have learned that most people who like Rand's delusions, however, would probably be the first to suffer in her "utopia".
I don't live like an objectivist, and you didn't "call me out" on anything. And if you knew anything about philosophy, you would see that "objectivism" is essentially a plagiarized philosophy: the grotesque love-child between Max Stirner and Friedrich Nietzsche. Rand is at best unoriginal and poorly-worded.
@phoenixdef Not much of anything is completely original, that doesn't prove anything. Most philosophers are 90% just circle jerking each other off. Rand just puts a lot of correct observations in one place. And she is recent enough that she has been filmed and archived so there are plenty of examples of her clarifying her points in person so numbskulls like you can't keep taking her written words out of context.
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.
This is why Christianity is both bullshit and brilliant, after all the crucifixion had to be symbolic of a victory of altruism over objectivism and vice versa!
Friendship can be like a cult. I've seen this with drug addicts, they all "help" each other do the thing that's killing them and reject anyone who wants to save them. friendship can make our lives better or it can be the biggest trap ever.
Curious as to the number of people who shudder at Ayn Rand's views actually VALUE the well-being of the unfortunate enough to spend their own money on them.
Alot of times i think the virtue of selfishness gets out of hand with the right winger libertarians who use it as an intellectually justified excuse to be a pig. However, i do think if Rand was on the money on one thing it was freindship. 5:37 to 6:07 is most concise and accurate description of freindship that I have ever heard.
What if, the husband sacrifices the one wife, and in turn gains those ten women as wives? "If I save each of you, then each of you must be my wife." That would be rational selfishness.
Again her logic is twisted and conflicted. Altruism is not devoid of joy, and it does not END joy. The logic in altruism is, "There is MORE happiness in giving than there is in receiving." Altruism MUST require a sense of love, for both friends, families... and even strangers. Without love, altruism is evil.
A second case can be made where you can trully love someone and separate yourself from them for the benefit of both parties involved. Love in this case leads to separation and in no way an indulgence of your love for the love of another. In fact you are willing to stop your enjoyment or love feeling to ensure that the person you love is in a better context. This scenario happens often and reflects selfless love.
What if, the husband sacrifices the one wife, and in turn gains those ten women as wives? "If I save each of you, then each of you must be my wife." That would be rational selfishness.
Again her logic is twisted and conflicted. Altruism is not devoid of joy, and it does not END joy. The logic in altruism is, "There is MORE happiness in giving than there is in receiving." Altruism MUST require a sense of love, for both friends, families... and even strangers. Without love, altruism is evil.
@MrTobiathan sry i double posted by accident. lol I just find her reasoning incredibly flawed.
I guess it made Ayn Rand selfishly "happy" to call altruism evil, because she was fully aware of her own personal inability to display. She is much like the racists that she condemns. 'If they feel inferior to something, then they must attack it in order to raise their own level of pseudo-confidence.'
She recognized the power of altruism, and hated that she could never match it.
@jathanator Plenty of act of kindness are not given out for the right reasons. They are really to get something in return or to harp on about it forever. Look for examples in real life. The co dependent parent who lends their drug addict child money, to have them die young, that's not love that's clingy. Think of the bossy mum who doesn't teach their child to cook so they have to come home! Loving someone can be letting them go. Not loving some people is the best thing.
An aspect of love may be selfish and a portion of people may feel selfish love either all the time or at some moments but I don't think that this negates the existance of a selfless love. If I loved or was so in love with my love for another then I would be capable of even detroying that person in my attempt to maintain that love. The absurdity of the last statement should be evident.
this is love from the usual perspective, this is love that comes from the false self, it is not unconditional, not real. most people love in this way, they see it as possession, they dont really even care or want the best for that person, they just want to be with them for what they can gain from that relationship, that is not love, that is possession. its only when you are suffering, in a hole, u realise that no one actually gives a shit, they are self obsessed, caring is too much of a risk.
US congresswoman Cynthia McKinney has come out and blamed the pro-Israel Lobby in America (AIPAC, ADL, ZOA, etc) for ruining her political career. While in congress she refused to sign the pro-Israel pledge and took a pro-Palestinian stance. Because of this, McKinney said “war was declared” on her by the Jewish lobby. In 2009 she told TIU's Ognir that “more than 99% of Congress work for Pro Zionist Israeli interests.”
@Deadwind002 -> Most liberals do read views other than what the "left" or "right" prescribes. Liberals are unlike Conservatives in this regard. (translation, "Yo, ass-wipe, your sh!t stinks")
@Deadwind002 I assure you, far more have read Rand than have ever read any of the great writers of the early 20th century. The reason is that almost all of the great writers of that time were socialists and socialism is not a philosophy a capitalist system supports. So writers like Jack London, Oscar Wilde, Hemingway, Frank Norris, H. G. Wells, Shaw etc. have been maligned and forgotten while Rand has been promoted.
These words are the words "sliver tongue devils" I oppose all of these philosophies! A good men should take; the time to understand. The disease, of pure objectiveness! You are losing aspects of what is meaning to be human! We Christians; care not because; we want something in return! But when you have healed; the anger within. You will believe; in the Golden Rule! If you understand; what true Reason means; you will no longer feel; the fear the leads a person; to hold on to pure objectivism!
The authorities° desired to deceive humankind, because they perceived him being in a kinship with the truly good. They took the word �good�, they applied it to the ungood, so that thru words they might deceive him and bind (him) to the ungood.¹ And subsequently, when they receive grace, they are withdrawn from the ungood and placed in the good� these who had recognized themselves
For (the authorities) had desired to take the free (person), to keep him (as a) slave to themselves forever. There is empowerment granted to humans. (The authorities) do not want him [to recognize] (himself), so that they will become [masters] over him. For if there is mankind, there is [slavery].
4:48 "and that one's own happiness has to be achieved by one's own effort." well, sort of. i can't just sit back and do nothing and expect other people to make me happy. i have to exert some effort to accomplish my own happiness. but would i be happy without other people? i can think of several times where other people made me happy.
4:53 "since one's own happiness is the moral purpose of one's life..." yes i agree, but what if you derive happiness from killing people? from spending all your family's resources on gambling or getting high? what happiness means is not always clear and sometimes one's own "happiness" can come at the expense of someone else's. sometimes we confuse happiness for euphoria, fitting in, celebrity/fame, feeling important, being rich, when these things don't necessarily mean you are truly happy.
@LibertyArtist Read her book "Virtue of Selfishness" and all of this will make sense to you. Rand advocates seeking out your rational self-interest. This is a far cry from temporary desires and cannot morally occur at the expense of another person.
@fzqlcs won't i basically be getting the same argument? seek out your self-interest? yes, it makes perfect sense in theory...but it has its limits. A society can't always function if people are only looking out for themselves. at some point, you have to look out for others too and make sure the society as a whole is functioning. if it functions when everyone looks out for their own self-interest, great, but if not, we have to find a way of cooperating as a society so that it does.
@fzqlcs Another problem with the argument is that it says "allow people to seek out their self-interest without doing so at the expense of other people," but oftentimes, people don't. They do things or they profit at the expense of other people. That raises the question of what we do when this happens. It often involves in effect cooperation, which can ultimately be in people's self-interest, but often people misinterpret the philosophy to be, "do for me, disregard the group."
@LibertyArtist First, it's not a matter of "allowing" people to do anything. Who does the allowing? Our rights belong to us because we are human, they are not bestowed on us by our government in their beneficence. For those that violate the rights of others, it is the function of our courts to settle such issues. Also, it is the nature of the capitalist system, in it's true sense, that one can only profit by providing someone else with something that they desire. Both parties profit.
@ScionAscendant Yes, I think in a way it is a matter of "allowing" people to do something in the sense that a large part of the argument is that nobody should try to stop anyone from pursuing their self-interest unless it harms somebody else. Therefore, who does the allowing? People do the allowing. People/society create the courts to deal with disputes. People in capitalism can also profit from gifts and inheritance, not only by providing something to someone else.
@LibertyArtist It depends on your definition of "harm". If it's something that can be readily defined in the context of property rights, then it's easy to see who's to blame and what has been taken or damaged. I can't however, argue that gays shouldn't be "allowed" to marry because it offends my religious sensibilities and leads to a society that I don't like to see, for I don't own "society", nor do I own the economy, nor do I own other individuals. It's all about property rights for us.
@ScionAscendant Yes, but property rights get complicated when we think about how to pay for public goods. Who benefits the most from them? Who should pay for them? What constitutes a public good? In a society that functions well, it's not just a matter of everyone owning their own property. Obviously, it would be a lot easier and cleaner if it were that way, but unfortunately, it's not.
@LibertyArtist Those gifts and/or inheritance didn't spring from nothingness, they were created by someone and they chose to pass it on, and wealth is not self-maintaining like so many like to believe. If an heir does not know how to care for his inheritance, he will quickly diminish it in equal proportion to his incompetence in managing it.
@ScionAscendant Yes, those gifts/inheritance didn't spring from nothingness, but they didn't spring from the heir either. They might have been received by the heir because the owner of that wealth valued their relationship with the heir, but does that really mean the heir worked for that wealth or created it? Arguably yes, arguably no.
Charlie Chaplin's speech was the only thing i ever took to heart about humanity. You're all amazing creatures and I have love for each one of you. And if that's being selfish, then I guess being selfish is a characteristic I don't care about.
@sicktoaster Only you know if that which makes you temporarily happy is acting in your own rational self-interest. Shooting heroin, for example, probably is not.
But how do you know what will make you happy later?
It's one thing to think of future consequences and factor that in to decision-making, it's another to insist on going through all the consequences and all the comparisons,...That's ridiculous. Nobody can do that. Anyone who actually reads about her life knows she definitely wasn't doing it. She didn't even follow her own philosophy.
@sicktoaster Who is insisting on going through all the consequences and the comparisons? Thinking about what best serves you in the long run is what she teaches. For example, it may serve your temporary pleasure to have sex with a cute girl you meet at a bar. But, it may not serve your long term interest if you are married and were not aiming for a divorce. Sure, determining what gives you temporary pleasure is common to all animals and rational thinking is hard work. Its still worth doing.
OK, so when someone says your priceless, is that in insult? Isn't it like saying, there's no amount of money that match your service, so why bother ; )
@hibraingoodbye you answered your own statement, defining anything takes away the larger meaning. I like to look at it as pixels on a tv, when you look at the pixels you miss the bigger picture, and the pixels themselves have no meaning. I just don't like the promoting an idea as impossible to solve mystery for the benefit of ones own personal reality. Not meant to be harsh, it was more of a general statement.
Yes it would still be selfish helping the friend as it is (rational) self interest (selfish but not negatively so) to help your friend whom you love. You have stock in them doing well, you care about them and would hope that likewise they would help you if the roles were reversed. Not all acts are selfish e.g. helping someone who you do not know but it may not have any benefit to you and doing too much this kind of thing would drain your resources and leave you unfulfilled/unhappy in yourself
very complex... near the end it is mentioned that one would give money to the starving friend instead of buying a gadget for oneself due to our integrity. However, wouldn't helping a friend make us feel good and therefore would be a selfish act? This recording was so complex I failed to understand wether she is trying to say no matter what you do it is all selfish, or is she tried or did prove that some acts are unselfish. Can someone explain? Thank you for your response.
I pity the person who is crazy enough to believe they can ever pretend to be nice.As if its wiping something. Please love yourself .If you look the world over you will not find another person more deserving of your love than yourself.(the bud ha)
Socialism breeds statistics about society which are usually presented to show how bad off some percentage of the society is. This is completely consistent with socialistic thinking that always classifies people as groups rather than individuals, demanding other people's money be spent to redress other people's problems. Rand championed the individual, not the group.
Isn't using a statement like "Socialism breeds statistics... to show how bad..." and "...socialistic thinking classifies people as groups..." kind of hypocritical? It is grouping socialists together, then making a claim about them as a group. You try to villify their alleged process, yet you repeat it. You are no better.
Evolutionary psychology destroys this nonsense. Nathaniel Branden dumped Ayn for a woman in her 20's because women that age can become pregnant and bear healthy children. Branden acted according to nature, not because he suffered from bad character.
@MrAdvancedAtheist There is nonsense it what she said, that's what most people has fear of. He dumped Ayn Rand for a catholic stupid because it was easier to talk to and impress her. :)
The historical evidence is clear: welfare reduces poverty, and the lack of it increases it. In the 1920s, fully half of all Americans could not make ends meet. Roosevelt's New Deal programs had reduced poverty to about 20 percent in the 50s. Johnson's Great Society reduced this to 11.1 percent by 1973. Since the rise of the corporate special interest system in 1975, individual welfare benefits have been shrinking, and poverty has been steadily rising, to over 15 percent today.
@Scootertuner1000 Don't know why you are commenting about welfare, but what strikes me is how shoddy your thought process is. For one, the 20s were a time of prosperity. It was the 30s that were bad. And, you throw around a bunch of 'poverty numbers' without defining what you mean. This is the same kind of flawed thinking that has plaguing America since FDR and contributed to our huge debt. Welfare simply creates dependency. Liberty and opportunity raise people's standard of living.
@fzqlcs The percentages shown above are completely true so your idea that things were great in the 1920s is complete nonsense. It's a time of prosperity when more than 50% of the population can not make ends meet. Explain to me how that is prosperous. I would say that calling 50% of the population not being able to make ends meet is an extreme example of a shoddy thought process.
@fzqlcs The so-called "Roaring 20s" were a period of economic polarization, with less than 1% of the population earning a "rich" salary of $100k a year, about 15% earning a "middle class" income, and about half of all Americans struggling to make ends meet. While investors and stock brokers were enjoying boom times on Wall Street, entire sectors of the economy were depressed: agriculture, coal, railroads, shipyards, textiles and shoes were all in decline.
@fzqlcs The poverty level is mostly "based on food costs--the government identifies how much it should cost to feed a family of four for one year and then multiplies that number by three. The formula has been used for decades." While the actual level is adjusted each year, the formula for calculating the poverty level remains the same.
@LibertyPen - Of all persons, how is it you choose Ayn Rand and the wisdom she has on this subject? This same Rand had an affair with Barbara Branden's husband with no thought for the repercussions of their affair. "The affair was agonizingly painful," said Nathaniel's wife. Of course, it is no surprise to me that Ayn Rand would have done such a thing, because her philosophy lacks a serious component: "we" and moral responsibilty for others... life is not all about "me" and being selfish.
Ayn Rand put a selfish spin and a twist on subjects and then fed them to all the self centered mouth breathers. Anyone who digs what she said should be classified as a supreme asshole and bad human being in general.
Rand should have studied up on group selection and group cohesion as a mechanism for evolutionary advantage. Periodic spurts of seemingly altruistic behavior can facilitate group cohesion in tremendous ways. The individual gives up for the sake of the group, which in turn aids in his own survival and well being.
I really love this antique photographs...to bad they had to go and throw Jimmy Swaggart in there and Tiger Woods too. What a mood killer. Hey, what is the difference between a pick pocket and Jimmy Swaggart? Well, a pick pocket snatched watches, but Jimmy watches snatches.
oh, but she herself admited, when she lived, that she was a luciferian. She was the mistress to the Mr. Rothschild of her time...do you have any idea who he is..? Look up him and the illuminati....you have lots to get into, the topic is deep and dark.
She has the truth twisted....people, wake up and use your human reasoning...she pours thoughts to people, those are "her" thoughts...use your own. WAKE UP
@izzigogo listening to other people's ideas is not bad. they might have different ideas than you and they might make sense to you, if they dont then they dont.
@EliasJordan3 I appreciate you comment and you are right about listening to other people's ideas not being a bad thing. But I have researched her and she is the main point of contact when it comes to the "me" generation. She belives in "selfishness" in the bad sense of the word and for a fact she was a devel worshoper. She was 100% againt any Christian teaching. Maybe you are also a non Christian, in that case I can see why you might defend her. Reserch and see my point.
@izzigogo I don't really know much about her, but I do think she kind of makes good points here and I have thought the same things sometimes. However I don't really see this philosophy on this video working out well in real life. That would just be really depressing.
And I don't think you can call her a devil worshiper when she doesn't believe in a god. Devil is a similar concept to a god, so I'm pretty sure she doesn't believe in it either.
@Vintexen If you believe such, the self-esteem of the individual is your enemy. It must be destroyed!! After all, having self-esteem is the ultimate act of selfishness.
@pneumatictrousers He who sees sex as selfish is no doubt a poor lover. And, for love to be selfless, it must have no value to the self. That means, by your definition, you can love a stranger as easily as your mother or child. That is warped in my view. Rand's definition works. We love those we value. Those we love the most are those we value most highly.
@fzqlcs "He who sees sex as selfish is no doubt a poor lover." - What about the man whose sexual "kink" is that he derives pleasure from his lover's intense orgasms? Such a man would get the most pleasure from sex when his sexual partner gets maximum pleasure. He is merely acting in such a manner as to maximize his own sexual fulfillment, yet this manner causes him to please his partner to the greatest extent possible - meaning that he would likely be an excellent lover.
She makes a lot of good points, but she has no faith. All being equal, one may choose to risk life and rescue, while trusting God to assist. If that rescuer dies in that noble act, then that one is not immoral. That one is a hero.
The Bible has five words that are all, unfortunately, translated as "love." If one is to logically dissect love, one needs to clarify which love is being dissected. Ayn Rand is a thinker, but she's not the only one.
@mba2ceo For each of us, the perception of humanity is colored by our perception of ourselves. For example, vial scum see others as vile scum. Conversely, those with principled self-esteem do not find it hard to believe others share that attribute.
@griffen98 wow! So when did you enter her mind and heart to understand what is going on there? You sound like an idiot. She can be mistaken. She might be labeling ideas and ideals incorrectly, but you sound shallow with a comment like that. I feel she had a problem with point of view. Her comments make sense from a point of view that doesn't take in all that it needs. Maybe she's mistaken. You're too quick to judge.
Is love selfish when one dies for another? stupid bitch. I hate ayn rand. the most venomous, illogical bitch Ive ever heard in my life. For someone who pays such lip-service to "rationalism" this bitch certainly takes liberal skips around some srs logical holes.
Actually no. Love is based on equality--a shared, yes collectivist--attachment. Prostitution is based on core self serving. Prostitution is fraud (just as Ayn Rand was a fraud who appealed to antisocial people). The reason laissez faire capitalism doesn't work is because it disenfranchises those without power. Historically that is women, ethnic minorities and the working class. The only places in the world it is consistently practiced are fascist military dictatorships like Franco's Spain.
Actually no. Love is based on equality--a shared, yes collectivist--attachment. Prostitution is based on core self serving. Prostitution is fraud (just as Ayn Rand was a fraud who appealed to antisocial people). The reason laissez faire capitalism doesn't work is because it disenfranchises those without power. Historically that is women, ethnic minorities and the working class. The only places in the world it is consistently practiced are fascist military dictatorships like Franco's Spain.
Hearing this square libertarian lady explain love from a pure free market, transaction oriented and economic point of view is like hearing a Biologist explain his definition of love, he would say love is a series of chemical and physical processes that take place within the brain and body. It is a partial view of the whole, which is very hard to define completely, and certainly more vast and beautiful, and complete than this.
Rand is a rationalist. If you look you will always see the happy, noble people giving their love (in whatever form) to others where they know it will be reciprocated. Hence they are also selective about the people they associate with and the people they will let into their hearts.
They will not give out of pity to beggars where they will not receive anything in return for it; this would be irrational.
Being a total narcissist is not what's meant by selfish love.
@SlowPoke3111 "If you look you will always see the happy, noble people giving their love (in whatever form) to others where they know it will be reciprocated."
Always? I'm curious about how Ayn Rand would analyze Ghandi's behavior.
So what would a "non-selfish" love be like? Rand is an idealist that likes to polarize everything. To her everything is a certainty, either a yes or a no. Nothing in between.
Is she equating love to BE selfish, or that selfishness is a quality of love? Could I go a step further than her and obtain the absolute version of selfish love and be a narcissist and fall into a romantic relationship with myself and shut out the entire world and quite literally AND psychologically drown in myself?
@raoulthompson It may not seem that deep to you, but I think it's good for people to think through concepts like unselfish acts of caring for one another or whatever kind of shit is shoved at you from society as what is "good" behavior and decide for yourself weather or not it's good. If she provokes people to think I think she's succeeded
selsish if your caught up in economics and proper better ways to run the beast. like in the bible,"there is no greater love then giving up your life to save a friend" not because it would become unbearable to live after such a tragedy,but rather because you knew there was a chance to save a precious life,because somethings dont need method or analyzation , to know instinct as breath as the warrior,the lover.
I must disagree with so many statements here. What Rand is talking about here is lust, not love. True, pure love is putting someone elses needs and happiness above your own.
@buisyman She cearly isn't talking about just sexual desire. All you have done is take alturism and put the name 'pure love' on it. That's clearly not what people are talking about when they talk about love.
@666or999 I wasn't talking about sexual desire at all. That's just how you (and most everyone else) defines lust. Lust is a perverted form of greed. I understand what you're saying about altruism, and you could be right. there are just too many variables in the equasion for a definate right or wrong. I was just stating my opinion, based on my own personal experiences.
This is all common sense. Of course we're selfish. There are two things we must accept in this life, that is "death" and that we are completely and utterly selfish.
@IamLav Unfortunately, it's not that easy. What most people think is "selfish" is "hedonistic," whim-seeking, and self-destructive. Not everyone is selfish. Being selfish requires rational thought.
@SculptedThoughts I disagree. Being selfish does NOT require rational thought. do you think a 1 year old is capable of rational thought? They sure are capable of greed, though.
One might think that he is being selfish, but being selfish requires one to act for what is best for himself. This mandates planning, and an awareness of the long-term. "Selfish" presupposes a precedence to the self.
@milescend I know I "worship" greatness. Compromising reality to be religious in the theist sense is not a part of self-actualization, however. That has more to do with learning to be helpless. Maslow made a few errors.
@IamLav That's rather blunt. True, though. But you forgot one thing. Taxes. I think we must accept them, too. Gripe about them, yes, but at least accept the fact that we must pay thim, lol.
the hierarchy of needs - This includes self actualisation which surely would include spiritual fulfilment? Having said this, I haven't read her novels
that contributes to your happiness. Or is her definition of happiness purely based on the value one gets to meet one's needs?
Personally, I think this core philosophy would work if people realised the happiness in helping people in general, or generally realised how fulfilling spiritual values and virtues are - I think Rand's philosophy would promote this.
On the other hand, it did mention in this video --- Carries on in my next comment
I'd say the fundamental issues with Rand's philosophy are that people are funamentally irrational: Often we live by whims and emotions that don't have rational sense
She doesn't seem to emphasize and expand on what makes people happy. More specifically, she doesn't seem to consider the social aspect of happiness: Would helping a stranger who is drowning, who provides no immediate value to your life, provide a deeper, rationally selfish, inner fulfillment --- Carries on in my next comment
@cassidy99ful Perhaps because he felt certain he could do it, and because he could do it, he would not be able to live with himself if he did not do it. He perceived self-respect to be a higher value than certain safety guaranteed by avoiding the danger. And thus, by acting in his own rational self-interest, he saves the child.
@cassidy99ful Because he wants to be a hero! duh! If you place the false belief in other peoples minds that you are a selfless person you will be rewarded with attention and praise.
@cgseggal you demonstrate a preoccupation with vomit and masturbation, and then you call HER sick. nonetheless, you are among the more eloquent of her critics and a rather fine spokesman for the irrational.
There is nothing wrong with fundamentalism per se. There are things that have to be defended in a non negotiable way, like freedom, democracy, capitalism, REASON etc. The problem begins when people want to observe to the fullest ordinances from death and sacrifice cults, like Islam and Christianity. That s when people start to blow others up, meddle in other peoples lives, and make everyone miserable. Your comparison is tricky, misleading and fundamentally unjust
@4dsouzaluiz Capitalism is non negotiable!? I like the way you slot it in there with freedom, democracy and reason. There are many similarities indeed between fundamentalist religion and the dogmatic self righteousness of the "rationalist" objectivists. You think capitalist, democratic, free, reasonable people are not blowing up an dmurdering hundreds of thousands of people in other countries (especially where there is oil) in the name of their freedom/democracy etc????
@4dsouzaluiz There is very much wrong with fundamentalism per se. Your definition of what counts as fundamental is not the same as my definition. In real life, according to real, lived, experiential history, when people refuse to negotiate, compromise or reconsider their so-called fundamentals, they begin to kill, molest, rape and plunder others; and their own, very dearly held "fundamentals" serve as JUSTIFICATION.
And that, my friend, is why fundamentalism is evil.
Objectivism doesn't condone the initiation of force. Its is fundamentally for the mind, debate, tolerance and voluntary cooperation for selfish reasons. Read Atlas Shrugged again
Why are you so fundamentally against having fundamentals? Rand said no man has the right to initiate violence against others. What part of "don't initiate phyical force no matter what" don't you understand? Your bla bla bla is only a slogan, a propaganda meant to blurry the distinction between irrational people serving their wishes and objective rational people painstakenly trying to understand reality and its consequencces
@4dsouzaluiz Hey dumbass, "rational people painstakenly trying to understand reality and its consequencces" don't seek people like Ayn Rand to tell them what life is about, they figure it out themselves.
@Deadwind002 I made an attempt, but it's incredibly difficult to read books that are written so poorly (and are so long).
phoenixdef 6 days ago
@phoenixdef Reading is not for everybody, but at lest you tried.
l337pwnage 6 days ago
*least* spell check fail ;)
l337pwnage 6 days ago
@l337pwnage
Typical arrogance I would expect with anyone that enjoys Rand's trash. There is a reason why Rand appeals to a high school audience: they are unfamiliar with good literature and they think themselves to pretty fucking important. I have learned that most people who like Rand's delusions, however, would probably be the first to suffer in her "utopia".
phoenixdef 6 days ago
@phoenixdef QQ much? People just get mad because they know they live like objectivists and they hate being called out on it.
l337pwnage 6 days ago
@l337pwnage
I don't live like an objectivist, and you didn't "call me out" on anything. And if you knew anything about philosophy, you would see that "objectivism" is essentially a plagiarized philosophy: the grotesque love-child between Max Stirner and Friedrich Nietzsche. Rand is at best unoriginal and poorly-worded.
phoenixdef 6 days ago
@phoenixdef Not much of anything is completely original, that doesn't prove anything. Most philosophers are 90% just circle jerking each other off. Rand just puts a lot of correct observations in one place. And she is recent enough that she has been filmed and archived so there are plenty of examples of her clarifying her points in person so numbskulls like you can't keep taking her written words out of context.
l337pwnage 6 days ago
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.
SwordOfApollo 1 week ago
I don't believe love actually exists to begin with.
It's like saying "Papa Smurf is selfish!"
HedgehogRebellion 1 week ago
This is why Christianity is both bullshit and brilliant, after all the crucifixion had to be symbolic of a victory of altruism over objectivism and vice versa!
MrSmackdab 1 week ago
Friendship can be like a cult. I've seen this with drug addicts, they all "help" each other do the thing that's killing them and reject anyone who wants to save them. friendship can make our lives better or it can be the biggest trap ever.
Exsugarbabe1 2 weeks ago
Curious as to the number of people who shudder at Ayn Rand's views actually VALUE the well-being of the unfortunate enough to spend their own money on them.
followthepassenger 3 weeks ago
Alot of times i think the virtue of selfishness gets out of hand with the right winger libertarians who use it as an intellectually justified excuse to be a pig. However, i do think if Rand was on the money on one thing it was freindship. 5:37 to 6:07 is most concise and accurate description of freindship that I have ever heard.
curtmastor 3 weeks ago
@curtmastor you're an idiot
GetTheFaCtss 3 weeks ago
What a heartless display...
zu0832 3 weeks ago
she describes the reality, not how it should be. altruism is the right path, or rather, utilitarianism
diogotomediogo 3 weeks ago
Ayn Rand's Collective is still out there, controlling the world from the back seat. I show evidence here:
slingshotwarrior.tumblr.com
TheSlingshotWarrior 4 weeks ago 3
What if, the husband sacrifices the one wife, and in turn gains those ten women as wives? "If I save each of you, then each of you must be my wife." That would be rational selfishness.
Again her logic is twisted and conflicted. Altruism is not devoid of joy, and it does not END joy. The logic in altruism is, "There is MORE happiness in giving than there is in receiving." Altruism MUST require a sense of love, for both friends, families... and even strangers. Without love, altruism is evil.
jathanator 4 weeks ago
@jathanator Actually, that would be biblical marriage, lol.
l337pwnage 6 days ago
A second case can be made where you can trully love someone and separate yourself from them for the benefit of both parties involved. Love in this case leads to separation and in no way an indulgence of your love for the love of another. In fact you are willing to stop your enjoyment or love feeling to ensure that the person you love is in a better context. This scenario happens often and reflects selfless love.
MrTobiathan 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What if, the husband sacrifices the one wife, and in turn gains those ten women as wives? "If I save each of you, then each of you must be my wife." That would be rational selfishness.
Again her logic is twisted and conflicted. Altruism is not devoid of joy, and it does not END joy. The logic in altruism is, "There is MORE happiness in giving than there is in receiving." Altruism MUST require a sense of love, for both friends, families... and even strangers. Without love, altruism is evil.
jathanator 4 weeks ago
@MrTobiathan sry i double posted by accident. lol I just find her reasoning incredibly flawed.
I guess it made Ayn Rand selfishly "happy" to call altruism evil, because she was fully aware of her own personal inability to display. She is much like the racists that she condemns. 'If they feel inferior to something, then they must attack it in order to raise their own level of pseudo-confidence.'
She recognized the power of altruism, and hated that she could never match it.
jathanator 4 weeks ago
@jathanator Plenty of act of kindness are not given out for the right reasons. They are really to get something in return or to harp on about it forever. Look for examples in real life. The co dependent parent who lends their drug addict child money, to have them die young, that's not love that's clingy. Think of the bossy mum who doesn't teach their child to cook so they have to come home! Loving someone can be letting them go. Not loving some people is the best thing.
Exsugarbabe1 2 weeks ago
An aspect of love may be selfish and a portion of people may feel selfish love either all the time or at some moments but I don't think that this negates the existance of a selfless love. If I loved or was so in love with my love for another then I would be capable of even detroying that person in my attempt to maintain that love. The absurdity of the last statement should be evident.
MrTobiathan 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this is love from the usual perspective, this is love that comes from the false self, it is not unconditional, not real. most people love in this way, they see it as possession, they dont really even care or want the best for that person, they just want to be with them for what they can gain from that relationship, that is not love, that is possession. its only when you are suffering, in a hole, u realise that no one actually gives a shit, they are self obsessed, caring is too much of a risk.
SovereignBeing 1 month ago
Comment removed
SovereignBeing 1 month ago
Comment removed
SovereignBeing 1 month ago
Comment removed
SovereignBeing 1 month ago
i get love but for some reason i can not seem to give love back
318ray 1 month ago
she was a ugly sociapath
BEBOP268 1 month ago
holy shit they actually define love at the beginning of the vid, does lionel richie know about this?
Wutwut1n1 1 month ago
This is a woman who was probably never loved. No matter what she says in interviews, she comes across as a cold hearted robot.
RisenPhoenix68 1 month ago
She was a genius!
Jazzper79 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Who REALLY runs our world?
US congresswoman Cynthia McKinney has come out and blamed the pro-Israel Lobby in America (AIPAC, ADL, ZOA, etc) for ruining her political career. While in congress she refused to sign the pro-Israel pledge and took a pro-Palestinian stance. Because of this, McKinney said “war was declared” on her by the Jewish lobby. In 2009 she told TIU's Ognir that “more than 99% of Congress work for Pro Zionist Israeli interests.”
w(dot)zioncrimefactory com/jew-world-order
LordLindsey12 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Deadwind002 -> Most liberals do read views other than what the "left" or "right" prescribes. Liberals are unlike Conservatives in this regard. (translation, "Yo, ass-wipe, your sh!t stinks")
mrgeorge22301 1 month ago
Comment removed
mrgeorge22301 1 month ago
I want to know how many liberals have actually read her books?
Deadwind002 2 months ago 11
@Deadwind002 I assure you, far more have read Rand than have ever read any of the great writers of the early 20th century. The reason is that almost all of the great writers of that time were socialists and socialism is not a philosophy a capitalist system supports. So writers like Jack London, Oscar Wilde, Hemingway, Frank Norris, H. G. Wells, Shaw etc. have been maligned and forgotten while Rand has been promoted.
Anglagard1 1 month ago
@Deadwind002 I'm an Objectivist. And I'm guessing the number is equal to the amount of Christian conservatives who understand her.
IHeartDenver 4 weeks ago 2
@Deadwind002 I have. They're awful.
1019079 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Michael Prescott: Romancing the Stone-Cold Killer: Ayn Rand and William Hickman
michaelprescottDOTnet/hickmanDOThtm
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
A very self-aware sociopath! Sheer genius, however paradoxical she is...
randy109 2 months ago
<3
codkiller100 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
These words are the words "sliver tongue devils" I oppose all of these philosophies! A good men should take; the time to understand. The disease, of pure objectiveness! You are losing aspects of what is meaning to be human! We Christians; care not because; we want something in return! But when you have healed; the anger within. You will believe; in the Golden Rule! If you understand; what true Reason means; you will no longer feel; the fear the leads a person; to hold on to pure objectivism!
1awareness 2 months ago
Comment removed
1awareness 2 months ago
Comment removed
1awareness 2 months ago
(gospel of Philip)
The authorities° desired to deceive humankind, because they perceived him being in a kinship with the truly good. They took the word �good�, they applied it to the ungood, so that thru words they might deceive him and bind (him) to the ungood.¹ And subsequently, when they receive grace, they are withdrawn from the ungood and placed in the good� these who had recognized themselves
1awareness 2 months ago
For (the authorities) had desired to take the free (person), to keep him (as a) slave to themselves forever. There is empowerment granted to humans. (The authorities) do not want him [to recognize] (himself), so that they will become [masters] over him. For if there is mankind, there is [slavery].
1awareness 2 months ago
@1awareness Amen to all the enlighten masters!
1awareness 2 months ago
4:48 "and that one's own happiness has to be achieved by one's own effort." well, sort of. i can't just sit back and do nothing and expect other people to make me happy. i have to exert some effort to accomplish my own happiness. but would i be happy without other people? i can think of several times where other people made me happy.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@LibertyArtist True, I don't think her speech is meant as a cogent moral argument, more of an exposition
ElJefer 2 months ago
4:53 "since one's own happiness is the moral purpose of one's life..." yes i agree, but what if you derive happiness from killing people? from spending all your family's resources on gambling or getting high? what happiness means is not always clear and sometimes one's own "happiness" can come at the expense of someone else's. sometimes we confuse happiness for euphoria, fitting in, celebrity/fame, feeling important, being rich, when these things don't necessarily mean you are truly happy.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@LibertyArtist Read her book "Virtue of Selfishness" and all of this will make sense to you. Rand advocates seeking out your rational self-interest. This is a far cry from temporary desires and cannot morally occur at the expense of another person.
fzqlcs 2 months ago
@fzqlcs won't i basically be getting the same argument? seek out your self-interest? yes, it makes perfect sense in theory...but it has its limits. A society can't always function if people are only looking out for themselves. at some point, you have to look out for others too and make sure the society as a whole is functioning. if it functions when everyone looks out for their own self-interest, great, but if not, we have to find a way of cooperating as a society so that it does.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@fzqlcs Another problem with the argument is that it says "allow people to seek out their self-interest without doing so at the expense of other people," but oftentimes, people don't. They do things or they profit at the expense of other people. That raises the question of what we do when this happens. It often involves in effect cooperation, which can ultimately be in people's self-interest, but often people misinterpret the philosophy to be, "do for me, disregard the group."
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@LibertyArtist First, it's not a matter of "allowing" people to do anything. Who does the allowing? Our rights belong to us because we are human, they are not bestowed on us by our government in their beneficence. For those that violate the rights of others, it is the function of our courts to settle such issues. Also, it is the nature of the capitalist system, in it's true sense, that one can only profit by providing someone else with something that they desire. Both parties profit.
ScionAscendant 2 months ago
@ScionAscendant Yes, I think in a way it is a matter of "allowing" people to do something in the sense that a large part of the argument is that nobody should try to stop anyone from pursuing their self-interest unless it harms somebody else. Therefore, who does the allowing? People do the allowing. People/society create the courts to deal with disputes. People in capitalism can also profit from gifts and inheritance, not only by providing something to someone else.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@LibertyArtist It depends on your definition of "harm". If it's something that can be readily defined in the context of property rights, then it's easy to see who's to blame and what has been taken or damaged. I can't however, argue that gays shouldn't be "allowed" to marry because it offends my religious sensibilities and leads to a society that I don't like to see, for I don't own "society", nor do I own the economy, nor do I own other individuals. It's all about property rights for us.
ScionAscendant 2 months ago
@ScionAscendant Yes, but property rights get complicated when we think about how to pay for public goods. Who benefits the most from them? Who should pay for them? What constitutes a public good? In a society that functions well, it's not just a matter of everyone owning their own property. Obviously, it would be a lot easier and cleaner if it were that way, but unfortunately, it's not.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
@LibertyArtist Those gifts and/or inheritance didn't spring from nothingness, they were created by someone and they chose to pass it on, and wealth is not self-maintaining like so many like to believe. If an heir does not know how to care for his inheritance, he will quickly diminish it in equal proportion to his incompetence in managing it.
ScionAscendant 2 months ago
@ScionAscendant Yes, those gifts/inheritance didn't spring from nothingness, but they didn't spring from the heir either. They might have been received by the heir because the owner of that wealth valued their relationship with the heir, but does that really mean the heir worked for that wealth or created it? Arguably yes, arguably no.
LibertyArtist 2 months ago
Charlie Chaplin's speech was the only thing i ever took to heart about humanity. You're all amazing creatures and I have love for each one of you. And if that's being selfish, then I guess being selfish is a characteristic I don't care about.
nickyjonrussell 2 months ago
I dont beleive in love. I have a logicl proof that it does not exist. I am considering doing a video on it.
chefshitpiece 2 months ago
What if I love humanity then? What's wrong then with altruism?
Hierarchy of values? Relation to one's own happiness?
Objectivism=Let's all analytically figure out how to be happy and then tell other people they aren't happy if we disagree with their analysis.
OK so many philosophies do this in one way or another.
Here's my philosophy:
Just be happy.
If I'm doing what makes me happy how can I possibly be acting against my self-interest? Did she ever address that?
sicktoaster 2 months ago
@sicktoaster Only you know if that which makes you temporarily happy is acting in your own rational self-interest. Shooting heroin, for example, probably is not.
fzqlcs 2 months ago
@fzqlcs
But how do you know what will make you happy later?
It's one thing to think of future consequences and factor that in to decision-making, it's another to insist on going through all the consequences and all the comparisons,...That's ridiculous. Nobody can do that. Anyone who actually reads about her life knows she definitely wasn't doing it. She didn't even follow her own philosophy.
sicktoaster 2 months ago
@sicktoaster Who is insisting on going through all the consequences and the comparisons? Thinking about what best serves you in the long run is what she teaches. For example, it may serve your temporary pleasure to have sex with a cute girl you meet at a bar. But, it may not serve your long term interest if you are married and were not aiming for a divorce. Sure, determining what gives you temporary pleasure is common to all animals and rational thinking is hard work. Its still worth doing.
fzqlcs 2 months ago
Read Atlas Shrugged
backlighting 2 months ago
OK, so when someone says your priceless, is that in insult? Isn't it like saying, there's no amount of money that match your service, so why bother ; )
whichdocta 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hibraingoodbye you answered your own statement, defining anything takes away the larger meaning. I like to look at it as pixels on a tv, when you look at the pixels you miss the bigger picture, and the pixels themselves have no meaning. I just don't like the promoting an idea as impossible to solve mystery for the benefit of ones own personal reality. Not meant to be harsh, it was more of a general statement.
Rcwatson83 3 months ago
Comment removed
Rcwatson83 3 months ago
Yes it would still be selfish helping the friend as it is (rational) self interest (selfish but not negatively so) to help your friend whom you love. You have stock in them doing well, you care about them and would hope that likewise they would help you if the roles were reversed. Not all acts are selfish e.g. helping someone who you do not know but it may not have any benefit to you and doing too much this kind of thing would drain your resources and leave you unfulfilled/unhappy in yourself
therealblackpope 3 months ago
very complex... near the end it is mentioned that one would give money to the starving friend instead of buying a gadget for oneself due to our integrity. However, wouldn't helping a friend make us feel good and therefore would be a selfish act? This recording was so complex I failed to understand wether she is trying to say no matter what you do it is all selfish, or is she tried or did prove that some acts are unselfish. Can someone explain? Thank you for your response.
chinguidinsky 3 months ago
I pity the person who is crazy enough to believe they can ever pretend to be nice.As if its wiping something. Please love yourself .If you look the world over you will not find another person more deserving of your love than yourself.(the bud ha)
omniralph 3 months ago
Socialism breeds statistics about society which are usually presented to show how bad off some percentage of the society is. This is completely consistent with socialistic thinking that always classifies people as groups rather than individuals, demanding other people's money be spent to redress other people's problems. Rand championed the individual, not the group.
egverlander 3 months ago
@egverlander
Isn't using a statement like "Socialism breeds statistics... to show how bad..." and "...socialistic thinking classifies people as groups..." kind of hypocritical? It is grouping socialists together, then making a claim about them as a group. You try to villify their alleged process, yet you repeat it. You are no better.
AlbinosaurusR3X 3 months ago
Ayn Rand was a moron, and I actually agree with her conclusions lol
Onieracraft 3 months ago
She is brutal!
corteplaneta 3 months ago
Evolutionary psychology destroys this nonsense. Nathaniel Branden dumped Ayn for a woman in her 20's because women that age can become pregnant and bear healthy children. Branden acted according to nature, not because he suffered from bad character.
MrAdvancedAtheist 3 months ago
@MrAdvancedAtheist
I guess rapists aren't of bad character either, then.
Guncriminal 3 months ago
@MrAdvancedAtheist There is nonsense it what she said, that's what most people has fear of. He dumped Ayn Rand for a catholic stupid because it was easier to talk to and impress her. :)
notengonickcojones 3 months ago
The historical evidence is clear: welfare reduces poverty, and the lack of it increases it. In the 1920s, fully half of all Americans could not make ends meet. Roosevelt's New Deal programs had reduced poverty to about 20 percent in the 50s. Johnson's Great Society reduced this to 11.1 percent by 1973. Since the rise of the corporate special interest system in 1975, individual welfare benefits have been shrinking, and poverty has been steadily rising, to over 15 percent today.
Scootertuner1000 3 months ago
@Scootertuner1000 Don't know why you are commenting about welfare, but what strikes me is how shoddy your thought process is. For one, the 20s were a time of prosperity. It was the 30s that were bad. And, you throw around a bunch of 'poverty numbers' without defining what you mean. This is the same kind of flawed thinking that has plaguing America since FDR and contributed to our huge debt. Welfare simply creates dependency. Liberty and opportunity raise people's standard of living.
fzqlcs 3 months ago 3
@fzqlcs The percentages shown above are completely true so your idea that things were great in the 1920s is complete nonsense. It's a time of prosperity when more than 50% of the population can not make ends meet. Explain to me how that is prosperous. I would say that calling 50% of the population not being able to make ends meet is an extreme example of a shoddy thought process.
Scootertuner1000 3 months ago
@fzqlcs The so-called "Roaring 20s" were a period of economic polarization, with less than 1% of the population earning a "rich" salary of $100k a year, about 15% earning a "middle class" income, and about half of all Americans struggling to make ends meet. While investors and stock brokers were enjoying boom times on Wall Street, entire sectors of the economy were depressed: agriculture, coal, railroads, shipyards, textiles and shoes were all in decline.
Scootertuner1000 3 months ago
@fzqlcs In fact, between 1923 and 1929, the lower 93% of the nonfarm population experienced a 4 percent decline in real disposable per capita income.
Scootertuner1000 3 months ago
@fzqlcs The poverty level is mostly "based on food costs--the government identifies how much it should cost to feed a family of four for one year and then multiplies that number by three. The formula has been used for decades." While the actual level is adjusted each year, the formula for calculating the poverty level remains the same.
Scootertuner1000 3 months ago
@LibertyPen - Of all persons, how is it you choose Ayn Rand and the wisdom she has on this subject? This same Rand had an affair with Barbara Branden's husband with no thought for the repercussions of their affair. "The affair was agonizingly painful," said Nathaniel's wife. Of course, it is no surprise to me that Ayn Rand would have done such a thing, because her philosophy lacks a serious component: "we" and moral responsibilty for others... life is not all about "me" and being selfish.
Mwaterfall 3 months ago
This is where I part with libertarians. If you don't have God nothing will make sense, least of all love.
spankula123 3 months ago
@spankula123 Pardon me, but you are doing a disservice to yourself thinking that
kardentyrell 3 months ago
@kardentyrell You're pardoned.
spankula123 3 months ago
Ayn Rand put a selfish spin and a twist on subjects and then fed them to all the self centered mouth breathers. Anyone who digs what she said should be classified as a supreme asshole and bad human being in general.
AnotherAgnostic 4 months ago
Rand should have studied up on group selection and group cohesion as a mechanism for evolutionary advantage. Periodic spurts of seemingly altruistic behavior can facilitate group cohesion in tremendous ways. The individual gives up for the sake of the group, which in turn aids in his own survival and well being.
AntiCitizenX 4 months ago
I really love this antique photographs...to bad they had to go and throw Jimmy Swaggart in there and Tiger Woods too. What a mood killer. Hey, what is the difference between a pick pocket and Jimmy Swaggart? Well, a pick pocket snatched watches, but Jimmy watches snatches.
DiaShanti 4 months ago
oh, but she herself admited, when she lived, that she was a luciferian. She was the mistress to the Mr. Rothschild of her time...do you have any idea who he is..? Look up him and the illuminati....you have lots to get into, the topic is deep and dark.
izzigogo 4 months ago
She has the truth twisted....people, wake up and use your human reasoning...she pours thoughts to people, those are "her" thoughts...use your own. WAKE UP
izzigogo 4 months ago
@izzigogo listening to other people's ideas is not bad. they might have different ideas than you and they might make sense to you, if they dont then they dont.
EliasJordan3 4 months ago
@EliasJordan3 I appreciate you comment and you are right about listening to other people's ideas not being a bad thing. But I have researched her and she is the main point of contact when it comes to the "me" generation. She belives in "selfishness" in the bad sense of the word and for a fact she was a devel worshoper. She was 100% againt any Christian teaching. Maybe you are also a non Christian, in that case I can see why you might defend her. Reserch and see my point.
izzigogo 4 months ago
@izzigogo I don't really know much about her, but I do think she kind of makes good points here and I have thought the same things sometimes. However I don't really see this philosophy on this video working out well in real life. That would just be really depressing.
And I don't think you can call her a devil worshiper when she doesn't believe in a god. Devil is a similar concept to a god, so I'm pretty sure she doesn't believe in it either.
EliasJordan3 4 months ago
@izzigogo ---check out rothschild and illuminati
izzigogo 4 months ago
I think that Selflessness is an amazing good , but it is sadly impossible for humans
Vintexen 4 months ago
@Vintexen If you believe such, the self-esteem of the individual is your enemy. It must be destroyed!! After all, having self-esteem is the ultimate act of selfishness.
fzqlcs 4 months ago
love is selfless
sex is selfish
both are fine, necessary, and true for life
Rand separated herself and is a dead soul
pneumatictrousers 4 months ago
@pneumatictrousers He who sees sex as selfish is no doubt a poor lover. And, for love to be selfless, it must have no value to the self. That means, by your definition, you can love a stranger as easily as your mother or child. That is warped in my view. Rand's definition works. We love those we value. Those we love the most are those we value most highly.
fzqlcs 4 months ago
@fzqlcs "He who sees sex as selfish is no doubt a poor lover." - What about the man whose sexual "kink" is that he derives pleasure from his lover's intense orgasms? Such a man would get the most pleasure from sex when his sexual partner gets maximum pleasure. He is merely acting in such a manner as to maximize his own sexual fulfillment, yet this manner causes him to please his partner to the greatest extent possible - meaning that he would likely be an excellent lover.
TruckerRedbeard 4 months ago
she's an idiot !!
914light 4 months ago
She makes a lot of good points, but she has no faith. All being equal, one may choose to risk life and rescue, while trusting God to assist. If that rescuer dies in that noble act, then that one is not immoral. That one is a hero.
The Bible has five words that are all, unfortunately, translated as "love." If one is to logically dissect love, one needs to clarify which love is being dissected. Ayn Rand is a thinker, but she's not the only one.
wait4itandwait4it 4 months ago
is this woman ever happy with anything?! XD
Mwilson1066 4 months ago
@Mwilson1066 she became so selfish that it made her distrust everything and everyone so that would be a no
pneumatictrousers 4 months ago
Humanity is selfish ... I never meet a honorable or benevolent human. Human nature is vile scum.
mba2ceo 4 months ago 2
@mba2ceo For each of us, the perception of humanity is colored by our perception of ourselves. For example, vial scum see others as vile scum. Conversely, those with principled self-esteem do not find it hard to believe others share that attribute.
fzqlcs 4 months ago
this woman is as ugly on the inside as she is on the outside .she never loved,,how sad
griffen98 4 months ago
@griffen98 wow! So when did you enter her mind and heart to understand what is going on there? You sound like an idiot. She can be mistaken. She might be labeling ideas and ideals incorrectly, but you sound shallow with a comment like that. I feel she had a problem with point of view. Her comments make sense from a point of view that doesn't take in all that it needs. Maybe she's mistaken. You're too quick to judge.
dcorton 4 months ago
Is love selfish when one dies for another? stupid bitch. I hate ayn rand. the most venomous, illogical bitch Ive ever heard in my life. For someone who pays such lip-service to "rationalism" this bitch certainly takes liberal skips around some srs logical holes.
Ninjadelusion 4 months ago
@Ninjadelusion I think you mistake sacrifice for selfishness.
monjiaitaly 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Actually no. Love is based on equality--a shared, yes collectivist--attachment. Prostitution is based on core self serving. Prostitution is fraud (just as Ayn Rand was a fraud who appealed to antisocial people). The reason laissez faire capitalism doesn't work is because it disenfranchises those without power. Historically that is women, ethnic minorities and the working class. The only places in the world it is consistently practiced are fascist military dictatorships like Franco's Spain.
perdondaris 4 months ago
Actually no. Love is based on equality--a shared, yes collectivist--attachment. Prostitution is based on core self serving. Prostitution is fraud (just as Ayn Rand was a fraud who appealed to antisocial people). The reason laissez faire capitalism doesn't work is because it disenfranchises those without power. Historically that is women, ethnic minorities and the working class. The only places in the world it is consistently practiced are fascist military dictatorships like Franco's Spain.
perdondaris 4 months ago
this is what nick diaz likes?
mmaandrew13 4 months ago
Hearing this square libertarian lady explain love from a pure free market, transaction oriented and economic point of view is like hearing a Biologist explain his definition of love, he would say love is a series of chemical and physical processes that take place within the brain and body. It is a partial view of the whole, which is very hard to define completely, and certainly more vast and beautiful, and complete than this.
averaguilar 5 months ago 3
@scorpius319
Rand is a rationalist. If you look you will always see the happy, noble people giving their love (in whatever form) to others where they know it will be reciprocated. Hence they are also selective about the people they associate with and the people they will let into their hearts.
They will not give out of pity to beggars where they will not receive anything in return for it; this would be irrational.
Being a total narcissist is not what's meant by selfish love.
SlowPoke3111 5 months ago
@SlowPoke3111 "If you look you will always see the happy, noble people giving their love (in whatever form) to others where they know it will be reciprocated."
Always? I'm curious about how Ayn Rand would analyze Ghandi's behavior.
thenebbishroute 4 months ago
This lady is obviously a nerd.
doodiethief 5 months ago
So what would a "non-selfish" love be like? Rand is an idealist that likes to polarize everything. To her everything is a certainty, either a yes or a no. Nothing in between.
Is she equating love to BE selfish, or that selfishness is a quality of love? Could I go a step further than her and obtain the absolute version of selfish love and be a narcissist and fall into a romantic relationship with myself and shut out the entire world and quite literally AND psychologically drown in myself?
scorpius319 5 months ago
: )
br1ng1t0ntome 5 months ago
inane psychobabble masquerading as deep thought. All happiness, is of course, at the core self-serving. Get over it.
raoulthompson 5 months ago 3
@raoulthompson It may not seem that deep to you, but I think it's good for people to think through concepts like unselfish acts of caring for one another or whatever kind of shit is shoved at you from society as what is "good" behavior and decide for yourself weather or not it's good. If she provokes people to think I think she's succeeded
Minkki82 5 months ago
selsish if your caught up in economics and proper better ways to run the beast. like in the bible,"there is no greater love then giving up your life to save a friend" not because it would become unbearable to live after such a tragedy,but rather because you knew there was a chance to save a precious life,because somethings dont need method or analyzation , to know instinct as breath as the warrior,the lover.
MyAlternateMe 5 months ago
Nick Diaz likes some funky ass shit..LOL
jnyfried 5 months ago 3
lmao nick diaz is trolling us
SuperAdamBaxter 5 months ago 5
@SuperAdamBaxter ahahahhaha I thought the same!
leandrosoares010 5 months ago
Nick Diaz WTF?
ShogunRuaFights 5 months ago 26
@ShogunRuaFights i think his mather use the pc...lol
ALEdoublebackflip 5 months ago
Nice
FoundationofUnity 5 months ago
Does anybody know the difference between egotistical ethics and ethical nihilism? I don't.
urdisturbing 5 months ago
@urdisturbing One is a lack of ethics one is a system of ethics.
666or999 5 months ago
@666or999 The "System" of ethics is so non-sensical that it doesn't count for anything.
urdisturbing 5 months ago
@urdisturbing What's so 'non-sensical' about egoism?
666or999 5 months ago
I must disagree with so many statements here. What Rand is talking about here is lust, not love. True, pure love is putting someone elses needs and happiness above your own.
buisyman 6 months ago
@buisyman She cearly isn't talking about just sexual desire. All you have done is take alturism and put the name 'pure love' on it. That's clearly not what people are talking about when they talk about love.
666or999 6 months ago
@666or999 I wasn't talking about sexual desire at all. That's just how you (and most everyone else) defines lust. Lust is a perverted form of greed. I understand what you're saying about altruism, and you could be right. there are just too many variables in the equasion for a definate right or wrong. I was just stating my opinion, based on my own personal experiences.
buisyman 6 months ago
So the only true feeling is greed?
badtwin77 6 months ago
This is all common sense. Of course we're selfish. There are two things we must accept in this life, that is "death" and that we are completely and utterly selfish.
IamLav 6 months ago
@IamLav Unfortunately, it's not that easy. What most people think is "selfish" is "hedonistic," whim-seeking, and self-destructive. Not everyone is selfish. Being selfish requires rational thought.
SculptedThoughts 6 months ago
@SculptedThoughts I disagree. Being selfish does NOT require rational thought. do you think a 1 year old is capable of rational thought? They sure are capable of greed, though.
buisyman 6 months ago
@buisyman Greed =/= selfish.
Hedonism =/= selfish.
I want it now attitude =/= selfish.
Impulsiveness =/= selfish.
One might think that he is being selfish, but being selfish requires one to act for what is best for himself. This mandates planning, and an awareness of the long-term. "Selfish" presupposes a precedence to the self.
SculptedThoughts 6 months ago
@milescend I know I "worship" greatness. Compromising reality to be religious in the theist sense is not a part of self-actualization, however. That has more to do with learning to be helpless. Maslow made a few errors.
SculptedThoughts 6 months ago
@IamLav That's rather blunt. True, though. But you forgot one thing. Taxes. I think we must accept them, too. Gripe about them, yes, but at least accept the fact that we must pay thim, lol.
buisyman 6 months ago
the hierarchy of needs - This includes self actualisation which surely would include spiritual fulfilment? Having said this, I haven't read her novels
Does anyone have any comment on my ideas?
milescend 6 months ago
that contributes to your happiness. Or is her definition of happiness purely based on the value one gets to meet one's needs?
Personally, I think this core philosophy would work if people realised the happiness in helping people in general, or generally realised how fulfilling spiritual values and virtues are - I think Rand's philosophy would promote this.
On the other hand, it did mention in this video --- Carries on in my next comment
milescend 6 months ago
I'd say the fundamental issues with Rand's philosophy are that people are funamentally irrational: Often we live by whims and emotions that don't have rational sense
She doesn't seem to emphasize and expand on what makes people happy. More specifically, she doesn't seem to consider the social aspect of happiness: Would helping a stranger who is drowning, who provides no immediate value to your life, provide a deeper, rationally selfish, inner fulfillment --- Carries on in my next comment
milescend 6 months ago
What makes this video work is the flirty "come hither" look that Ayn Rand has in the preview pic, combined with the "love is selfish" title.
EGarrett01 7 months ago
I like it.
sniped101 7 months ago
why did the man rush into the burning building to save the life of a child he never saw before?
cassidy99ful 8 months ago
@cassidy99ful Perhaps because he felt certain he could do it, and because he could do it, he would not be able to live with himself if he did not do it. He perceived self-respect to be a higher value than certain safety guaranteed by avoiding the danger. And thus, by acting in his own rational self-interest, he saves the child.
fzqlcs 8 months ago
@cassidy99ful Because he wants to be a hero! duh! If you place the false belief in other peoples minds that you are a selfless person you will be rewarded with attention and praise.
clintcastle 4 months ago
Comment removed
cgseggal 8 months ago
@cgseggal you demonstrate a preoccupation with vomit and masturbation, and then you call HER sick. nonetheless, you are among the more eloquent of her critics and a rather fine spokesman for the irrational.
fzqlcs 8 months ago
Which is the greater evil: Fundamentalist Christianity or Fundamentalist Objectivism?
cgseggal 9 months ago
@cgseggal
There is nothing wrong with fundamentalism per se. There are things that have to be defended in a non negotiable way, like freedom, democracy, capitalism, REASON etc. The problem begins when people want to observe to the fullest ordinances from death and sacrifice cults, like Islam and Christianity. That s when people start to blow others up, meddle in other peoples lives, and make everyone miserable. Your comparison is tricky, misleading and fundamentally unjust
4dsouzaluiz 9 months ago
@4dsouzaluiz Capitalism is non negotiable!? I like the way you slot it in there with freedom, democracy and reason. There are many similarities indeed between fundamentalist religion and the dogmatic self righteousness of the "rationalist" objectivists. You think capitalist, democratic, free, reasonable people are not blowing up an dmurdering hundreds of thousands of people in other countries (especially where there is oil) in the name of their freedom/democracy etc????
cgseggal 9 months ago
@4dsouzaluiz
Are they doing this because of capitalism? You mean capitalism always causes it?
4dsouzaluiz 9 months ago
@4dsouzaluiz There is very much wrong with fundamentalism per se. Your definition of what counts as fundamental is not the same as my definition. In real life, according to real, lived, experiential history, when people refuse to negotiate, compromise or reconsider their so-called fundamentals, they begin to kill, molest, rape and plunder others; and their own, very dearly held "fundamentals" serve as JUSTIFICATION.
And that, my friend, is why fundamentalism is evil.
cgseggal 8 months ago
@cgseggal
Objectivism doesn't condone the initiation of force. Its is fundamentally for the mind, debate, tolerance and voluntary cooperation for selfish reasons. Read Atlas Shrugged again
4dsouzaluiz 8 months ago
@cgseggal
Why are you so fundamentally against having fundamentals? Rand said no man has the right to initiate violence against others. What part of "don't initiate phyical force no matter what" don't you understand? Your bla bla bla is only a slogan, a propaganda meant to blurry the distinction between irrational people serving their wishes and objective rational people painstakenly trying to understand reality and its consequencces
4dsouzaluiz 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@4dsouzaluiz Hey dumbass, "rational people painstakenly trying to understand reality and its consequencces" don't seek people like Ayn Rand to tell them what life is about, they figure it out themselves.
raoulthompson 5 months ago