Although I still think they should have gotten Penn Jilette as Ragnar Danneskjold. The way he bangs on, I'm pretty sure they could have paid him in juggling clubs.
@CosmoShidan Atlas shrugged is no crappy sci-fi Novel. Just because you agree with the Atheist experience does not mean that they're right about EVERYTHING.
@DasHinchen Hey I couldn't even get past the first four pages of that book since the set-up was so tardy. Also Fountainhead sucks harder since no one in their right mind would tell a hard-headed psycho to calm down. BTW I find defending Rand in any way to be hypocritical of objectivists since it appears that you are acting selfless which is what they are against. Also A is not A. Everything in this world is made of atoms and void. That is beings and objects are made of atoms!
@CosmoShidan I'm not acting selfless, I'm actually acting selfish because Rand's Philosophy is important to me, that's why I have the urge to defend it. Because I feel attacked... Fuck me, you didn't understand a morsel of Rands Philosophy. And still you think you can judge her by the fragments you picked up by her opponents.
@DasHinchen If you were the least bit rational, you wouldn't be using a petty, nonconstructive arguments your using to attack me. Plus I'm against her in a literary sense, at this given time. I have read Anthem in it's entirety, but the book has it's plot holes; for instance, why isn't Liberty ratted out by his friend? Where are the wild animals in the forest? How did Liberty build a light bulb without a blueprint? And just how did the world revert to backwardness?
@CosmoShidan I used your claim as an example to show you how wrong you were about Rand's View on Selfishness. I can't see how this is attacking or irrational.
Now you're pointing out Plotholes? Seriously? She was a writer of medium skill - That does not change anything about the truth of her philosophy, which you will obviously never understand.
@DasHinchen What I understand is she borrowed from Aristotle, an overrated post Socratic philosopher, who rejected the atomic theory and who's science on matter is completely obsolete. Plus Aristotle is in no way the heir to Socrates; it was the Stoics and Epicureans. Your reaction and response has shown me how you objectivists can't take criticism. On the other hand, we humans need to work together to build civilization as dictated by Darwinism as it has been for 2 million years.
@CosmoShidan You'e not even slightly interested in having a conversation with me. You keep smacking unrelated, random, new claims into my face without even noticing what I have to say. This is no conversation, it's masturbation, and I will not help you with it anymore.
@DasHinchen And you haven't even asked me what the heck I was talking about when I said beings and objects are made of atoms either! I was mentioning the atomic theory itself. Either you objectivists think it's mysticism or you just don't get it! Also I'm just surprised at you baffoons dodge or are unable to comprehend Epicurus.
@DasHinchen I serious about the atomic theory that never gets addressed by your kind. I thought you guys were atheists like us and you'd at least believe in science. But in the end, you follow L. Ron Hubbard in drag.
@CosmoShidan your ignorance just went trough the fucking roof. You have no Idea about Obejectivism, NO IDEA. But you keep insulting us with pointless nonsense that you THINK is Objectivism. And I'm stupid enough to get angry about it!
@DasHinchen Really now? Your starting to make the whole philosophy sound like a religion in itself. Why try to make it sound as if you want to join your "secret society"? Well, I sure as hell don't need any philosophy that leads to "self-enslavement" and has nothing to do with the peace of mind. Last you aren't the first objectivist who I've seen act this way. You guys behave in such a collective matter when it comes to criticism you Scientologist-esque schmucks.
@CosmoShidan As for better stories, I recommend Childhood's end, by Arthur C. Clarke, Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein and A Scanner Darkly by Philip K. Dick just for starters.
@DMAN123223 Even though I hold it against Rand for her outdated metaphysics, repulsive ethics, and her position on evolution, quantum mechanics, environmental science, and neurology, and her pedestrian writing, I admit, she has her place in pop culture. Without Anthem, there would be no Borg or even Star Trek for that matter; nor would have Heinlein gotten ideas for his classic books such as the Door into Tomorrow.
@DMAN123223 BTW, Peikoff's "crusade" against the modern sciences listed above I think is just embarrassing for the field of philosophy. It's bad enough that philosophers are slammed for not conducting experiments and introducing questions that science can't answer by scientists. Those fields of thought, philosophy and science should coexist, then conflict. Without philosophy, we wouldn't have the means to pursue intellectual pursuits or understand ourselves.
@CosmoShidan Whereas science is a meant to understand the natural world and confront it. As for Peikoff, he should try to upgrade his thought with a little Locke and Epicurus.
While i don't agree with her stance on objective morality, I do support most of her libertarian ideals. I don't think that people shouldn't be cared about because of their stupidity, but i don't think that that was even the main issue. The main issue was that the stupid people were manipulating the "geniuses" for their own gain without actually doing anything themselves.
Matt, I expected more from you, really, commenting without reading the book is beneath you. The concept is that the :people that get shit done go on strike. They leave and start their own community. There are people that work with their hands there and are proud of what they do. Ayn Rand was right, The world is being run by useful idiots who are benefiting from or make a living politically exploiting others. The people who get shit done are paying the price. Seriously, does anyone doubt this?
@AdUtrumquePeratus76 I havn't read the book, but i kinda get the jist of her philosophy. u dont really have to read the book and study it to go really grasp what she advocated
@Freethinker12341 It is a hell of a lot easier to believe in the bible if one trusts the conclusions of others and has "the gist of it", whereas it is almost a necessity to have read the book in order to accurately criticize it, and one could argue that it is almost impossible to not criticize it after reading it, but that's a different topic. My point is that Free thinkers are better than that. Matt missed an important distinction in the philosophy based largely on his preconceptions.
@AdUtrumquePeratus76 i get the gist of objectivism because i understand libertarianism, its the extreme libertarian aspect of her philosophy that i understand, i dont need to read her books. ive seen interviews with her where she talks about her philosophy and describes the nature of it. I understand how much influence she had on Ron Paul. We both know the nature of Ron Paul's politics im sure. 'I get the gist of it' is enough i think.
The external world doesn't "think," it doesn't process concepts like "objective." Only minds can do that. Does your chair think about what it means to be a chair? What's so tough to understand? Is Russ a Tolkens like mystic, or something? Geesh, talk about confirmation bias, these two don't even think about what they're disagreeing with.
What's with the libertarian bashing? Ayn Rand was not a libertarian, and frequently called them the "hippies of the right." She was a self described conservative. How can I find your other videos on libertarianism?
I used to be an objectivist, until I decided to read the people whom Rand derided in her works. I read Kant, Hegel and Marx. I soon realized she pretty much lied about what those authors were claiming. Kant in particular was grossly misrepresented by her. First read Kant's Groundwork and then read Rand's Objectivist Ethics. She plagiarized the most important parts of the argument, and the things that she changed she made worse. There's a very good reason why academics don't teach her stuff.
@jessemaurais I agree that she misrepresents some philosophers (at least Kant, I haven't read enough Marx to have an opinion on that), but I am still an objectivist, simply because I think the philosophy itself makes plenty of sense. The alternative to life is death, so if we want to truly live, we must hold life as our moral standard, therefore, things promoting life are good, and sacrifice is bad. This makes altruism evil. Seems logical to me
@Chaaarge That's pretty much where I was a few years ago. And I still think you can make sense of her philosophy if you accept the premisses. But in particular I can't accept the proposition that an intrinsic valuation of life can be a standard by which we judge other things of value. What's lacking is the argument that life must have intrinsic value--which it must, if anything has value. At least, I've never heard that argument. Also, I wouldn't begrudge anyone who believes it does.
@jessemaurais from what I understand, and I could be wrong, her argument was that life was a pre-moral choice, and therefore couldn't be called right or wrong, but once chosen, it was the purpose of morality to help people decide how to live that life in the best possible way. It's not that life has any intrinsic value, it's just that the alternative is death, which makes any action pointless.And I don't think she accepted that anything has intrinsic value. As I said, I might be wrong.
@Chaaarge Good/Evi: What one promotes versus what one thinks may not be the same. I believed in belief at one time - there was duplicity with believers, since, I was thinking: I don't believe this junk, but if you do fine...
Promoting sacrifice for some could be...it is okay for you to sacrifice yourself for me...while knowing the same would not be considered.
Good/Evil: Sacrificing thy self to save a loved one (maybe your child).
---
Depends on who's life is being valued...doesn't it...
@MyContext But how are you gonna sacrifice yourself for a loved one? if you love that person, it's not sacrifice to save that person, even if it costs you your own life. Objectivism holds that you cannot love someone above yourself, because it's impossible. Because the meaning of love is that persons value to you, but if you don't love yourself, then what you value is meaningless.
@Chaaarge We all have a different values (made-up/accepted) hierarchy. Goals can be valued notions. The protection of one's child may be considered more valuable than one's life. Just as the killing of the infidels may be more important than the well being of the person doing the killing.
"Objectivism holds that you cannot love someone above yourself, because it's impossible." <- This does not match reality - conceptually, self loathing exists along with the love of others!
@MyContext Love, friendship etc... Is the response of one person to another person's virtues. Basically love is a form of payment for the selfish pleasure you derive from another person's character. If you self loathe, then you cannot recieve any selfish pleasure. Why would you even want to be given any pleasure if you hate yourself? Would you want for someone you hate to be given pleasure?
@Chaaarge Do you think it possible that one could hate who they are, but love another?
Values are notions that we create. If I were a sadist, I could imagine that giving pleasure (conventional sense) to a masochist would be pleasurable (since the masochist would suffer, since, they are not getting what they want - of course this depends on the nature of the masochist - but I hope you got the point).
Perspectives can change all sorts of dynamics that would otherwise be reasonable...
@Chaaarge Interesting how randians can never explain themselves without redefining words as they go - and then pointing to the new definitions as proof of their argument.
@jessemaurais When you say you read Marx, do you mean you became a Marxist? Or did you just stop being a Rand-style libertarian. If it's the former, that's sort of surprising.
@jessemaurais The same academics who spew their economic ignorance all over the tv every day? Weird how libertarians are always spot on when it comes to economics.
@theloveshineatheist I'm assuming the scientific haven in atlas became rapture, it's unlikely given the amount of idiots in rapture. There were a lot if you remember...
To answer the last question... The geniuses. Dagny Taggart, to pay her board while she visits, she tends to Galt’s house. In fact, when these “geniuses” leave their high positions they take a vow to only work in labor positions outside of Galt’s Gulch, so they dont sacrifice their own strength, their intellect.
In Galt’s Gulch, an Actress becomes a Waitress whos valued. An Engeneer becomes a mechanic whos valued.
I'm an atheist and a libertarian, but not a fan of Ayn Rand or objectivism. "Objective Reality" applies to the physical existence and properties of the universe and the stuff in it, not morality, ethics, or psychology.
I strongly believe in enlightened self-interest, the value of the individual, and the importance of individual liberty. One should not be forced to sacrifice himself for anyone else or any "greater good", but he or she is certainly welcome to do so if they feel it is necessary...
Who is Rand to declare all forms of selflessness evil? The beauty of free economic interaction is that being selfish frequently serves a greater social good at the same time. Conversely, short-term selflessness is often in one's long-term self-interest. I don't need to declare my moral opinions to be universal absolutes in order to justify their validity to myself, and I certainly don't have the arrogance to deny that other people may have different philosophies that are just as valid to them.
@entyrion "short-term selflessness is often in one's long-term self-interest" No. If something is in your long-term interest it's not selfless *by definition*. If you're nice to a person because you like them, it's not selfless. If you help someone because you need a friend, it's not selfless. If you let someone else who you don't like let win a game because you mom told you that's moral, *that's* selfless. *That* is what Rand was saying.
@twooffour Maybe you're joking here, but if you're serious: I believe in most situations it won't. If you let someone else win and your mom praises you afterwards, would your valueing your mother really make it good for you? In most cases it's selfless - and will hurt the child's self-esteem, which is indeed a big thing.
Ah, well, that depends - being approved by your Mom (even if your mind, based on what she said) may work for your self-esteem, but it may work against your ego and wel-being as well.
In that case, though, I dunno... I wouldn't call it "selfless". More like feeling compelled to follow an authority. Selflessness, to me, is directed at helping people, not obeying or living up to them.
At any rate, my point was a bit sloppy, because in the end, if you help others against your...
@twooffour Yes, in the wide sense the term would be meaningless. That's why I would define it as "not serving a self-interest in any way other than the satisfaction of one's own moral code". And that includes moral codes as deragened as "always obey your mother". :-) That's the whole point of altruism. True altruists (in the ethical sense) act against their interest but according to their moral code.
@entyrion I notice that the more critically minded libertarians are not fans of ayn rand, and I can see why. I disagree with libertarians, but at least I dont disagree with there epistemology. I just hate the fact she declares things to be true without any real evidence for them being so. "Humans need to act in there self interest" no they don't in fact we are more like ants in that way. We are programed to follow others and act non-selfishly sometimes. I hate objectivism, its silly
Wow! What should we know about Ayn Rand's objectivism? That Selfishness is a virtue and that's good and we should all be self centered human beings? What are we not getting about objectivism?
Wow! They really got it wrong on this show. It wasn't about geniuses and stupid people. It's about those who create value in society and those who leech off the able people because they are unwilling to make their own living. And there certainly was no need of doing any policing in Galt's gulch, because whoever got there were moral enough to do no crimes. And they certainly did all their own cleaning and laundring, etc.
You guys should read more before making such incorrect statements.
@Speedable Its true that Matt was ignorant to the plot and nuances of the book, but he did give a disclaimer saying he never read the book. The conclusions he came to are logical to come to based on limited knowledge.
As far as it not being about geniuses and idiots, I think its pedantic to say that they are wrong in that assumption. IMO, the book is about the enlightened and the laymen. Galt (and others) were the enlightened who knew the value of self, and all else were looters/laymen.
@Speedable It sounds like objectivism requires a utopian society in which there is no crime, no poverty, no discrimination, no prejudice, and perfection in almost every way.. Otherwise many people would be left behind to simply rot and die.
And if this is true, then I must ask, "what's the point?" If we need a near-perfect society for objectivism to work anyway, why even bother with the thought?
@DrLoonatic Objectivism isn't a societal ideology, but an individual ideology. Objectivism works perfectly for me individually, in a society that currently is "near-perfect", with some rotten eggs involved. Besides, whether people "rot and die" or not, is not a question of the issues that you mentioned. Those are all good and desirable outcomes even in today's society. But whether I die or thrive is if I accept full personal responsibility of my actions and making my own living.
@Speedable You didn't understand my main point. If we were all to adopt Ayn Rand's philosophies, the true cruelty of her ideology would shine through within the first weeks. The cruelty is that prejudice would hinder anyone who is not a straight white male from going about life. Rand would have us blame the victims of this prejudice for "not working hard enough". Pure Laissez-Faire Capitalism is the epitome of cruelty, unless all people act in a morally perfect way. That was my point.
@DrLoonatic Then your point is moot and backed by nothing. If you read Austrian economic theory by von Mises or Hoppe et al., perhaps you will better understand that there is no inherent cruelty in laissez-faire capitalism. Just as there is no inherent cruelty in the animal kingdom where those that hunt or gather their nutrition and water will survive, while those who do not will die. Every human being is born equipped with the means to make their own living. And Rand does not promote prejudice.
@Speedable Again you miss the point. All societies everywhere are prejudiced. It's a fact. Rand asserts that "everyone is born with the means to survive." Simply not true. I'd like to see you push that opinion if you were born in the ghetto with 8 siblings and a single mom. Some people are born into a life of shit. Laissez-fair capitalism would see the rise to power of monopolies that trounce on the weak and the poor. Powerful white men would dominate society. This is the cruelty I speak of.
@DrLoonatic A society cannot be prejudiced, only an individual can. Avoid the generalization trap. Also, the tail doesn't wag the dog. An economic or political ideology does not form the values of man. Man's values forms the ideology that he professes. You will see evidence of evil men taking economic advantage of others no matter if they act under a communist or capitalist rule. I'd rather be "born into shit" and make something of myself, than with a silver spoon and flush it all down the loo.
@Speedable A society CAN be prejudiced when its institutions, laws, and media reflect it. Generalization is a necessary tool for survival. Men will be evil wherever they go, this is true. However hands-off capitalism gives evil men the closest thing to absolute power. If you were born in the ghetto you'd stay in the ghetto. Subordinate groups would be subordinate throughout life. I don't think you understand the reality of what you are preaching. Without extreme luck, you'd die poor and sick
@DrLoonatic I really do admire your ability to argue, and unfortunately the character limit in these youtube comment boxes makes it virtually impossible for me to express satisfyingly all-encompassing counterarguments, especially when there are so my different tangent points being discussed. But if you're all game to continue then so am I, but I really need to focus on one thing at a time. =)
@Speedable That analogy makes no sense? There is cruelty in the animal kingdome, many animals are territorial if an animal ( or animal group) can not adequately fight for it's territory it will die. This isn't just a matter of effort here it is also a matter of resources.
@Speedable There's no inherent cruelty in laizze faire capitalism, it's certainly a by-product though. Besides that, I have yet to see anyone whining for LF Capitalism moving completely off the grid of our Keynesian economic system and proving us all wrong. Please, let Atlas Shrug.
I just watched the video in response to yours Objecting to "Objecting To Objectivism", it's my comment on steroids. You guys really should watch it. I avoided using the word must since that word seems to throw you off topic.
I like to drop in on these videos once in awhile to see if someone will mention something useful or I had not considered; not this time. You guys just don't get it and have some of the usual misrepresentation. You really are out of your depth though so I am not surprised. But thank you for the entertainment, it's amusing to watch the equivalent of someone living in the early 1800's trying to explain what a combustion engine is and how it works. Please spare me any quips about how it got there.
lol We're not worthy oh objectivist master of the universe. You'd be much better off blaming single mothers for your own lack of achievement or something.
Cuntsack.
And doesn't you using the comments section of someone else's video to attempt to validate and spread your putrid pseudophilosophy make you a second-hander?
Yes master. If I wave 'em well will you allow me to come to your objectivist utopia where there are no poor people and where we can live happily in adherence to the principle of utter selfishness? Please?
"still have a range of intelligences and so the less smart still end up doing the less glamorous jobs"
And this is antithetical to Rand's ideology that talent is wasted on the less fortunate. Yet you are acknowledging that in this hypothetical society the next Einstein will be cleaning toilets & not putting his intellect to 'proper use.' Certainly not as good as the use he would have put it to in our 'normal' society
"The overall effect is just one society ends up with a much higher average intelligence than the other."
Ahhh, a "master race" as it were, no? Or perhaps a 1st world & 3rd world set up? How long before the 1st world decides the stupid 3rd world doesn't need it resources as much as they do?
Or how soon before the Einstein society decides their toilet cleaners are bringing them down & divide off again?
He never says reality isn't objective. Of course reality is objective, otherwise we could change things by mind manipulation. In terms of objective minds in epistemology he means that if you think whilst making decision according to objective reality then your views will be objective. It work exactly the same way as we do things is science, through a process of reason. You may choose to act non-objectively but you may very well be wrong.
I agree with your dismissal of objectivism, but I think you should look more into libertarianism. Government is very often the problem, not the solution. I'd recommend a book called "The Machinery Of Freedom" by David Friedman, it's interesting.
@bandpractice They clearly haven't read much of Rand directly otherwise they would have known that Rand hated libertarianism primarily because she made the mistake most people seem to make when criticizing it, namely that it is a system of political order only, not a system of morality or a social philosophy. It only says 'you can do things that don't hurt people' not whether those things you can do are inherently "good" or "bad", valuable or worthless, because that's not for governments to do.
Regarding the elistist separtists society, this has been set up in Auroville, India for decades now and it is still running, and poor Indians do all the dirty work. Western utopians like to visit Auroville and rave about it, but they apparently don't notice the grunts. Elitists can't exist without grunts, and most can't replace a light switch on their own, and replacing the motor in the vacuum is beyond them completely. Ultimately elitists are "nice" parasites similar as ants are to aphids.
@rh001YT I suppose you think 'grunts' invented vacuums? Growing up as I did in middle class America, I can't fathom how people seem to think that anybody who is not blue collar lives like some medieval baron with an army of servants. The fact is that even most people with advanced degrees and great careers still cook, do their laundry, and clean their houses. They just don't make their career out that ability because they don't have to. The 'grunts' *have to* make that their career.
Its not that intelligent & successful people don't have to still do their own laundry it is that someone has to clean the public toilet, dispose of the garbage, etc. If you eliminate 'the grunts' then you got Einstein cleaning public toilets....no?
@Hopeful71 I think that even in this hypothetical society, you would still have a range of intelligences and so the less smart still end up doing the less glamorous jobs. Since intelligence is relative to the other members of society, the less intelligent elements are still present, even if relative to the other society they are considered geniuses. The overall effect is just one society ends up with a much higher average intelligence than the other.
@rh001YT If a man is capable of providing a more valuable service than changing a lighbulb, he literally can't get stuck doing such "grunt" work under a fully capitalist system.
Almost everyone actually practices the non-optional values of Objectivism to some degree, someone who was completely without rationality, integrity, purpose, honesty etc would be dead very quickly either by nature or other people. The point is to highlight what those things are so people can practice them consistently so that they can reap the benefits of applying those consistently.
Objectivism doesn't insist everyone have the same values; it asserts that the refusal to hold rational values leads to hardship and/or destruction. "Libertarian utopia" is a figment of Russell's imagination & in fact Rand criticized libertarians as badly mishandling her ideas. "Having not read Atlas Shrugged" leaves Matt with nothing accurate or legitimate to say about it. Again, the failure here is a "pop culture" understanding of Objectivism, instead of genuine understanding.
@trevorzlee YES IT DOES! Have you ever read Peikoff (Ayn Rand's SECOND official successor and interpreter)? NO ONE can interpret Rand except Peikoff by Rand's own order. No one can claim access to the Truth except through Peikoff.
I'm sorry dude, but you need to get informed. Atlas Shrugged was the beginning of Objectivism, not its end.
@jjgdenisrobert Of course, you're absolutely right. What was I thinking, just reading the books myself instead of getting the proper interpretation through the Prophet Peikoff, Peace Be Upon Him. I had forgotten that Rand is the messiah, and I must now self-flagellate. ;-P
P.S.: Was Rand kinda hot in her younger days? Like, in an unpolished granite statue kinda way? Or am I just weird?
Personally, I don't know how you guys are on TV talking about Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. It's almost as if neither of you have read either book.
The way in which one organizes their values in a rational way is by basing your values on rational self interest. In the video, they seemed to mix up "whims" for "rational self interest." If a person wants to sacrifice themselves, that would seem, in the context they present, to be more of a whim instead of a well thought out action. the "inside ones head" side of reality is a persons value structure, but that doesn't mean that it can't be objective :)
Wow, I'm actually really happy these guys took the time to talk about this, but I would like to point out a few areas where they have their ideas mixed up. First, in objectivism, people are not told to all have the same values. A value, by its nature, has a different worth to each person (water has a different value to a drowning man than to a marathon runner). The point is that if a person organizes their vaues in a rational hierarchy, sacrifice is not morally permissible.
@randman83 Once again, not true. Rand appointed two successors during her life who were the only persons authorized to state what Truth was: Nathanial Branden, who was excommunicated after he broke off his affair with her, followed by Leonard Peikoff who is still the leader of the Rand cult to this day.
@jjgdenisrobert Wait, how is this a reply to my post? I wasn't talking about truth or who Ayn Rand appointed to asserting it. I was talking about value (very different than truth) and I mentioned that objectivism does not require all persons to have the same values, only to acknowledge reality and base personal values on that recognition. What does that have ANYTHING to do with your response? I think you pressed reply on the wrong comment :)
I like your guys questions. As someone who studies Objectivism, I would point out that the ethics are not prescriptive (you must do X, Y, Z). If you hold your life & long-term well-being as the standard, then certain actions will enhance your life and certain actions will diminish it.
This presupposes that you: A. Uphold Reason, B. Identify life (itself) as the root of value, and C. recognize that people have free will and can jettison both A&B, or not. She advocates not.
@r74quinn She claims that everyone who thinks rationally would automatically come to the same conclusion as to what is ethical. Sorry, but that is simply a fact of her "philosophy". Since Ethics are Objective, and there can be no disagreement about what Reality except insofar as there is an error of interpretation, all, unless mistaken, must agree on what is Ethical. And since Miss Rand is perfectly rational, all must agree with Miss Rand.
@jjgdenisrobert It took me a lot of mental effort to come to the same conclusion on her fundamentals - it was not automatic, so I don't know why you used that word. I do disagree with her on some applications, but so what?
Thinking is hard, and even to this day I have subconscious ideas tugging me away from some of those conclusions; it takes real effort to actively identify what you believe and why.
Everyone has to do it for themselves, and I think even Ayn Rand would agree with that.
Philosophy and the application of philosophy are two very different things and that is laid out by peikoff. One can be an Objectivist and disagree with John Galt's actions or whatever. Also because people live in different context and have different specific natures, their values will be different, it still remains though that the big ones, which almost all people follow the big one's to a certain degree.
@Manueeel64 i concur, i must sleep now anyways. send me messages with your answers. if you make sense then i will believe how you believe. if you can answer my questions to a satisfactory degree then you will this discussion. i only want to talk to people that can teach me something.
@Manueeel64 OK very well, I mean to strawman your argument.
lets try again
if the government cannot tax because it is immoral, then how does it function without money, or is there another way for it to make money. how does the government pay for the armies if it cannot tax?
@Manueeel64 I have studied the austrian school, never in great detail, because they dont like to use any math, but maybe I will. I cant really speak to the austrian school that well, from the little I have read I was not impressed, but that doesn't that it is wrong.
I do know that sense the late 30's we have had the greatest economic expansion in the history of the world, that doesnt seem to support your case very well.
@Manueeel64 Dont worry, your English is great, but your philosophy is shit. You have a good brain but the software is a little crappy.
What country are you from? and I am sorry for hammering at you like this. ignore what you want. I will bring up what ever I think was important, again if I feel like it was not addressed
@Manueeel64 OOOOHHHHH so when the taxes go to something you agree with then they are moral, but when they go to something i agree with they are immoral and stealing. THATS VERY CONVENIENT. that is some philosophy you got there. that looks like a double standard, LOLOLOL that was awesome, i believe you have just lost the debate. you care to explain that further?????LMAO
you are immoral because i disagree with you, HAHA i love it, wonderful axiom you got there.
@Manueeel64 "You my friend, are the one that has NO FACTS and NO EVIDENCE."
thats funny i can remember proving the evidence of the bikini graph, the 50's and 60's tax rate, DARPA and the internet. what facts have you told me? you may not like them but they are facts and they are evidence that you must refute, right? you are not vey good at this stuff are you. LOL
@Manueeel64 so lets recap, spending can get you out of a depression but only if its for a war. the government cant create wealth or help the economy, unless it does, in which case it is still immoral. the government cannot tax, therefore the government cannot exist, therefore you believe in no government. so why dont you move to somalia? that must be heaven.
@Manueeel64 so before the fed america was growing faster then in the 50's and 60's and even the 70's even faster then the 90's? really?
also if the government taxing people is immoral, then how do pay for the running of it. if the government cant tax then it cant exist, do you not want it to exist?
also lets forget bush for the moment and obama and this data. i perfer to find out why you believe what you believe, unless you want to continue on this line of dialog, it plays in my favor anyways.
@Manueeel64 ok, what about DARPA and the internet and the many of the other technologies that were created by government spending? There is a great book on this stuff from a professor at MIT.
Secondly, if world war 2 ended the great depression, how. Wouldnt that be a keynesians policy of spending your why out of a depression. How would you create liquidity in a liquidity trap? Explain the economic boom of the 50s and 60s, when taxes were higher then now?
Was ayn rand perfect in her philosophy, without flaws in her understanding of humanity or reality? Was she the most intelligent person in the history of world and is her philosophy absolutely true in everyway?
also you have just stated that I am subjectivist, first what the hell is that, and second we are all subjective in some way. its apart of our evolved nature to try and conform the world to our current understanding. the key is to try and break that natural desire to get at the truth. I doesnt seem like you have done that. watch Ive prove it.
@Manueeel64 Again you refuse to acknowledge my facts, so why talk to you. You only listen to the data that supports your position. You are a ideology, you have made the terrible mistake of identifying yourself with a belief, therefore to challenge your belief one is challenging your identity. That is a very foolish way to think. I dont only believe in capitalism, but also what people call socialism and anarchism. Why, because no one ideology is right.
Well, you didnt seem to respond to the data. You are a ideologue and you cannot think for yourself. There is much in common with you and a creationist. You both deny evidence to support your conclusions. I could tell you my education but I dont think you would believe me and you would likely not care. LOOK at the economic data or the bikini graph then talk to me. Also, altruism is a evolved emotional imperative, we are born to care, sorry truth hurts
@Manueeel64 doing great, thank you for asking. the economy is doing mch better under a democrat, then under the republicans. have you seen the bikini graph? its a good picture of how unemployment numbers are improving under the socialist programs. inform yourself first.
well i agree with that and i think that is one of the things wrong with capitalism. if we had free unregulated capitalism do you know what our society would be like. and even under capitalism why should we make corporations people under the law, with all the right of a human?
When he says the external world isn't objective or non objective, he is saying that objectivism is a manner of thought and action not the physical stuff of the world.This is metaphysically accurate since no one has direct contact with the actual external world and we can only infer its properties through observation and reason.
You guys should really stick to debunking Noah's Ark and proving to Wiccans there aren't any fairies.
That movie did not go through.
Although I still think they should have gotten Penn Jilette as Ragnar Danneskjold. The way he bangs on, I'm pretty sure they could have paid him in juggling clubs.
IoEstasCedonta 1 month ago
Atlas shrugged = Bioshock. Nuff' said. :)
DasHinchen 1 month ago
@DasHinchen Bio-shock = good game. Atlas shrugged = crappy sci-fi novel. Starship Troopers = Mobile Suit Gundam! Nuff said. ^_~
CosmoShidan 1 month ago
@CosmoShidan Atlas shrugged is no crappy sci-fi Novel. Just because you agree with the Atheist experience does not mean that they're right about EVERYTHING.
DasHinchen 1 month ago
@DasHinchen Hey I couldn't even get past the first four pages of that book since the set-up was so tardy. Also Fountainhead sucks harder since no one in their right mind would tell a hard-headed psycho to calm down. BTW I find defending Rand in any way to be hypocritical of objectivists since it appears that you are acting selfless which is what they are against. Also A is not A. Everything in this world is made of atoms and void. That is beings and objects are made of atoms!
CosmoShidan 1 month ago
@CosmoShidan I'm not acting selfless, I'm actually acting selfish because Rand's Philosophy is important to me, that's why I have the urge to defend it. Because I feel attacked... Fuck me, you didn't understand a morsel of Rands Philosophy. And still you think you can judge her by the fragments you picked up by her opponents.
DasHinchen 1 month ago
@DasHinchen If you were the least bit rational, you wouldn't be using a petty, nonconstructive arguments your using to attack me. Plus I'm against her in a literary sense, at this given time. I have read Anthem in it's entirety, but the book has it's plot holes; for instance, why isn't Liberty ratted out by his friend? Where are the wild animals in the forest? How did Liberty build a light bulb without a blueprint? And just how did the world revert to backwardness?
CosmoShidan 1 month ago
@CosmoShidan I used your claim as an example to show you how wrong you were about Rand's View on Selfishness. I can't see how this is attacking or irrational.
Now you're pointing out Plotholes? Seriously? She was a writer of medium skill - That does not change anything about the truth of her philosophy, which you will obviously never understand.
DasHinchen 1 month ago
@DasHinchen What I understand is she borrowed from Aristotle, an overrated post Socratic philosopher, who rejected the atomic theory and who's science on matter is completely obsolete. Plus Aristotle is in no way the heir to Socrates; it was the Stoics and Epicureans. Your reaction and response has shown me how you objectivists can't take criticism. On the other hand, we humans need to work together to build civilization as dictated by Darwinism as it has been for 2 million years.
CosmoShidan 1 month ago
@CosmoShidan You'e not even slightly interested in having a conversation with me. You keep smacking unrelated, random, new claims into my face without even noticing what I have to say. This is no conversation, it's masturbation, and I will not help you with it anymore.
DasHinchen 1 month ago
@DasHinchen And you haven't even asked me what the heck I was talking about when I said beings and objects are made of atoms either! I was mentioning the atomic theory itself. Either you objectivists think it's mysticism or you just don't get it! Also I'm just surprised at you baffoons dodge or are unable to comprehend Epicurus.
CosmoShidan 1 month ago
@CosmoShidan Thanks for another gush of unrelated, self-worshipping nonsense. will you trouble another one?
DasHinchen 1 month ago
@DasHinchen I serious about the atomic theory that never gets addressed by your kind. I thought you guys were atheists like us and you'd at least believe in science. But in the end, you follow L. Ron Hubbard in drag.
CosmoShidan 1 month ago
@CosmoShidan your ignorance just went trough the fucking roof. You have no Idea about Obejectivism, NO IDEA. But you keep insulting us with pointless nonsense that you THINK is Objectivism. And I'm stupid enough to get angry about it!
DasHinchen 1 month ago
@DasHinchen Really now? Your starting to make the whole philosophy sound like a religion in itself. Why try to make it sound as if you want to join your "secret society"? Well, I sure as hell don't need any philosophy that leads to "self-enslavement" and has nothing to do with the peace of mind. Last you aren't the first objectivist who I've seen act this way. You guys behave in such a collective matter when it comes to criticism you Scientologist-esque schmucks.
CosmoShidan 1 month ago
@CosmoShidan As for better stories, I recommend Childhood's end, by Arthur C. Clarke, Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein and A Scanner Darkly by Philip K. Dick just for starters.
CosmoShidan 1 month ago
@CosmoShidan Bio-shock was in fact based off Atlas shrugged. Rapture is Atlantis.
DMAN123223 2 weeks ago
@DMAN123223 Even though I hold it against Rand for her outdated metaphysics, repulsive ethics, and her position on evolution, quantum mechanics, environmental science, and neurology, and her pedestrian writing, I admit, she has her place in pop culture. Without Anthem, there would be no Borg or even Star Trek for that matter; nor would have Heinlein gotten ideas for his classic books such as the Door into Tomorrow.
CosmoShidan 2 weeks ago
@CosmoShidan Indeed, I think if not Rand, it would be John Lock and followers of individualism, although that might not quite so obvious to people.
DMAN123223 2 weeks ago
@DMAN123223 BTW, Peikoff's "crusade" against the modern sciences listed above I think is just embarrassing for the field of philosophy. It's bad enough that philosophers are slammed for not conducting experiments and introducing questions that science can't answer by scientists. Those fields of thought, philosophy and science should coexist, then conflict. Without philosophy, we wouldn't have the means to pursue intellectual pursuits or understand ourselves.
CosmoShidan 2 weeks ago
@CosmoShidan Whereas science is a meant to understand the natural world and confront it. As for Peikoff, he should try to upgrade his thought with a little Locke and Epicurus.
CosmoShidan 2 weeks ago
While i don't agree with her stance on objective morality, I do support most of her libertarian ideals. I don't think that people shouldn't be cared about because of their stupidity, but i don't think that that was even the main issue. The main issue was that the stupid people were manipulating the "geniuses" for their own gain without actually doing anything themselves.
dailoh90 2 months ago in playlist More videos from FFreeThinker
Matt, I expected more from you, really, commenting without reading the book is beneath you. The concept is that the :people that get shit done go on strike. They leave and start their own community. There are people that work with their hands there and are proud of what they do. Ayn Rand was right, The world is being run by useful idiots who are benefiting from or make a living politically exploiting others. The people who get shit done are paying the price. Seriously, does anyone doubt this?
AdUtrumquePeratus76 3 months ago 4
@AdUtrumquePeratus76 I havn't read the book, but i kinda get the jist of her philosophy. u dont really have to read the book and study it to go really grasp what she advocated
Freethinker12341 3 months ago
@Freethinker12341 It is a hell of a lot easier to believe in the bible if one trusts the conclusions of others and has "the gist of it", whereas it is almost a necessity to have read the book in order to accurately criticize it, and one could argue that it is almost impossible to not criticize it after reading it, but that's a different topic. My point is that Free thinkers are better than that. Matt missed an important distinction in the philosophy based largely on his preconceptions.
AdUtrumquePeratus76 2 months ago
@AdUtrumquePeratus76 i get the gist of objectivism because i understand libertarianism, its the extreme libertarian aspect of her philosophy that i understand, i dont need to read her books. ive seen interviews with her where she talks about her philosophy and describes the nature of it. I understand how much influence she had on Ron Paul. We both know the nature of Ron Paul's politics im sure. 'I get the gist of it' is enough i think.
Freethinker12341 2 months ago
All I know now is that 'A is not A-okay'
Claframb 3 months ago
so why objective morality??
daddyleon 3 months ago
Here's an even shorter synopsis of The Fountainhead.
/watch?v=x8fkdBz2bds
jussts 3 months ago
The irony in Russ's thinly vailed eye rolling over the length of Roark's speech, and his own ability to droan on and on is clearly lost on him.
tsummerlee 3 months ago
The external world doesn't "think," it doesn't process concepts like "objective." Only minds can do that. Does your chair think about what it means to be a chair? What's so tough to understand? Is Russ a Tolkens like mystic, or something? Geesh, talk about confirmation bias, these two don't even think about what they're disagreeing with.
tsummerlee 3 months ago
What's with the libertarian bashing? Ayn Rand was not a libertarian, and frequently called them the "hippies of the right." She was a self described conservative. How can I find your other videos on libertarianism?
jtropeano 3 months ago
Why Matt, don't you know? Galt brought an army of mindless robots to do all the dirty work! We call them Libertarians.
TheGeneralCritic 4 months ago
Not defending objectivism but in the very last few seconds Matt just made a fail.
Very many of those characters WERE doing manual jobs as a prelude to greatness and saw nothing bad or derogatory about it.
I just have trouble imagining how every toilet scrubber should become an industrial hulk when he hits twenty.
sapunec7854 4 months ago
DILLAHUNTY WOULD DO WELL TO PUT DOWN THE TWINKIES AND ACTUALLY READ THE BOOK BEFORE HE OPENS HIS FAT MOUTH ABOUT IT.
fattymcgee122 5 months ago
@fattymcgee122 Woah, slow down, brah. You're full-on mad.
TheGeneralCritic 4 months ago
This was an amazingly unacademic look at Rand. I was looking for some solid anti-Rand arguments, but found nothing to work with here.
XanderXereus 5 months ago 7
the guy on the right should read the F'ing book, cause the geniuses themselves do all of the mundane tasks
LibeRevolution 5 months ago 2
@VayaConDrPepper Thankyou, i will
jtincubus 7 months ago
Not objectivism
AEVautomatic 7 months ago
I used to be an objectivist, until I decided to read the people whom Rand derided in her works. I read Kant, Hegel and Marx. I soon realized she pretty much lied about what those authors were claiming. Kant in particular was grossly misrepresented by her. First read Kant's Groundwork and then read Rand's Objectivist Ethics. She plagiarized the most important parts of the argument, and the things that she changed she made worse. There's a very good reason why academics don't teach her stuff.
jessemaurais 7 months ago 15
@jessemaurais I agree that she misrepresents some philosophers (at least Kant, I haven't read enough Marx to have an opinion on that), but I am still an objectivist, simply because I think the philosophy itself makes plenty of sense. The alternative to life is death, so if we want to truly live, we must hold life as our moral standard, therefore, things promoting life are good, and sacrifice is bad. This makes altruism evil. Seems logical to me
Chaaarge 6 months ago
@Chaaarge That's pretty much where I was a few years ago. And I still think you can make sense of her philosophy if you accept the premisses. But in particular I can't accept the proposition that an intrinsic valuation of life can be a standard by which we judge other things of value. What's lacking is the argument that life must have intrinsic value--which it must, if anything has value. At least, I've never heard that argument. Also, I wouldn't begrudge anyone who believes it does.
jessemaurais 6 months ago
@jessemaurais from what I understand, and I could be wrong, her argument was that life was a pre-moral choice, and therefore couldn't be called right or wrong, but once chosen, it was the purpose of morality to help people decide how to live that life in the best possible way. It's not that life has any intrinsic value, it's just that the alternative is death, which makes any action pointless.And I don't think she accepted that anything has intrinsic value. As I said, I might be wrong.
Chaaarge 6 months ago
@Chaaarge Good/Evi: What one promotes versus what one thinks may not be the same. I believed in belief at one time - there was duplicity with believers, since, I was thinking: I don't believe this junk, but if you do fine...
Promoting sacrifice for some could be...it is okay for you to sacrifice yourself for me...while knowing the same would not be considered.
Good/Evil: Sacrificing thy self to save a loved one (maybe your child).
---
Depends on who's life is being valued...doesn't it...
MyContext 6 months ago
@MyContext But how are you gonna sacrifice yourself for a loved one? if you love that person, it's not sacrifice to save that person, even if it costs you your own life. Objectivism holds that you cannot love someone above yourself, because it's impossible. Because the meaning of love is that persons value to you, but if you don't love yourself, then what you value is meaningless.
Chaaarge 6 months ago
@Chaaarge We all have a different values (made-up/accepted) hierarchy. Goals can be valued notions. The protection of one's child may be considered more valuable than one's life. Just as the killing of the infidels may be more important than the well being of the person doing the killing.
"Objectivism holds that you cannot love someone above yourself, because it's impossible." <- This does not match reality - conceptually, self loathing exists along with the love of others!
MyContext 6 months ago
@MyContext Love, friendship etc... Is the response of one person to another person's virtues. Basically love is a form of payment for the selfish pleasure you derive from another person's character. If you self loathe, then you cannot recieve any selfish pleasure. Why would you even want to be given any pleasure if you hate yourself? Would you want for someone you hate to be given pleasure?
Chaaarge 6 months ago
@Chaaarge Do you think it possible that one could hate who they are, but love another?
Values are notions that we create. If I were a sadist, I could imagine that giving pleasure (conventional sense) to a masochist would be pleasurable (since the masochist would suffer, since, they are not getting what they want - of course this depends on the nature of the masochist - but I hope you got the point).
Perspectives can change all sorts of dynamics that would otherwise be reasonable...
MyContext 6 months ago
@Chaaarge Interesting how randians can never explain themselves without redefining words as they go - and then pointing to the new definitions as proof of their argument.
Scientologists do the same thing.
KapStuf 5 months ago
@KapStuf what are the words I have redefined?
Chaaarge 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Chaaarge "what are the words I have redefined?"
Life, death, promote, sacrifice, altruism and evil.
If you don't realise you're using these words in technical, highly nonstandard ways, you've spent too long talking to randians and no one else.
KapStuf 5 months ago
@jessemaurais give an example of this I go back into corner you came from lowlife.
Sivels 4 months ago
@jessemaurais When you say you read Marx, do you mean you became a Marxist? Or did you just stop being a Rand-style libertarian. If it's the former, that's sort of surprising.
Madfoot713 4 months ago
@jessemaurais The same academics who spew their economic ignorance all over the tv every day? Weird how libertarians are always spot on when it comes to economics.
theUSER101 3 months ago
leonard peikoff is a whack job. he really has given objectivism a bad name.
1982Nightwing 10 months ago
and then that place turns into rapture from bioshock
theloveshineatheist 10 months ago
@theloveshineatheist that place was full of idiots, you played the game right?
baihbalm 9 months ago
@baihbalm I meant the place from atlas shrugged turned into rapture
theloveshineatheist 9 months ago
@theloveshineatheist I'm assuming the scientific haven in atlas became rapture, it's unlikely given the amount of idiots in rapture. There were a lot if you remember...
baihbalm 9 months ago
@baihbalm How many idiots don't think they're super geniuses?
Fuctmentality 9 months ago
You guys should stick with discrediting religion.
jtincubus 11 months ago 2
@jtincubus Because Rand is a shriveled old target that has actually existed to be debunked as a crackpot, not just her followers?
RamoneHoffman 5 months ago
What was the song at the beginning of this??
SHIBBYiPANDA 11 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA
Rush: "Preists of Syrinx" from their album 2112, which is loosely based on Ayn Rand's novel "Anthem".
thegillotine09 10 months ago
Engineer * rather...
bishonenboy 11 months ago
To answer the last question... The geniuses. Dagny Taggart, to pay her board while she visits, she tends to Galt’s house. In fact, when these “geniuses” leave their high positions they take a vow to only work in labor positions outside of Galt’s Gulch, so they dont sacrifice their own strength, their intellect.
In Galt’s Gulch, an Actress becomes a Waitress whos valued. An Engeneer becomes a mechanic whos valued.
bishonenboy 11 months ago
to answer that last question. robots.
mogghee 11 months ago
@mogghee ahhh... thats so true. First they start to mine the metal... oh wait, first they have to make simple tools for digging -_-
MichaelLV99 10 months ago
@MichaelLV99 simple tools for digging. we can use your skull. :P
mogghee 10 months ago
@mogghee nah, that would be sacrifice. I'd also doubt that one skull would do the trick ;)
MichaelLV99 10 months ago
"Policing" wouldn't even be necessary in a fully objectivist society. Haven't you understand the key about objectivism?
klarkolofsson 1 year ago
@klarkolofsson That is like saying: "Policing isn't necessary in a christian society."
Having a specific set of rules or ideals doesn't do s....
MichaelLV99 10 months ago
I'm an atheist and a libertarian, but not a fan of Ayn Rand or objectivism. "Objective Reality" applies to the physical existence and properties of the universe and the stuff in it, not morality, ethics, or psychology.
I strongly believe in enlightened self-interest, the value of the individual, and the importance of individual liberty. One should not be forced to sacrifice himself for anyone else or any "greater good", but he or she is certainly welcome to do so if they feel it is necessary...
entyrion 1 year ago
Who is Rand to declare all forms of selflessness evil? The beauty of free economic interaction is that being selfish frequently serves a greater social good at the same time. Conversely, short-term selflessness is often in one's long-term self-interest. I don't need to declare my moral opinions to be universal absolutes in order to justify their validity to myself, and I certainly don't have the arrogance to deny that other people may have different philosophies that are just as valid to them.
entyrion 1 year ago
@entyrion Well said.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@entyrion "short-term selflessness is often in one's long-term self-interest" No. If something is in your long-term interest it's not selfless *by definition*. If you're nice to a person because you like them, it's not selfless. If you help someone because you need a friend, it's not selfless. If you let someone else who you don't like let win a game because you mom told you that's moral, *that's* selfless. *That* is what Rand was saying.
john42t 9 months ago
@john42t
Actually, it still would be selfish - you would consider yourself worthy of Mom's approval ;)
Ego and self-esteem are a BIG thing.
twooffour 8 months ago
@twooffour Maybe you're joking here, but if you're serious: I believe in most situations it won't. If you let someone else win and your mom praises you afterwards, would your valueing your mother really make it good for you? In most cases it's selfless - and will hurt the child's self-esteem, which is indeed a big thing.
john42t 8 months ago
@john42t
Ah, well, that depends - being approved by your Mom (even if your mind, based on what she said) may work for your self-esteem, but it may work against your ego and wel-being as well.
In that case, though, I dunno... I wouldn't call it "selfless". More like feeling compelled to follow an authority. Selflessness, to me, is directed at helping people, not obeying or living up to them.
At any rate, my point was a bit sloppy, because in the end, if you help others against your...
twooffour 8 months ago
@john42t
... well-being, you'll still get benefit in terms of some feeling of self-worth in living up to a moral obligation or whatever.
So in that wide sense, there is no selflessness, but in the sense of strict well-being, obviously there is :)
twooffour 8 months ago
@twooffour Yes, in the wide sense the term would be meaningless. That's why I would define it as "not serving a self-interest in any way other than the satisfaction of one's own moral code". And that includes moral codes as deragened as "always obey your mother". :-) That's the whole point of altruism. True altruists (in the ethical sense) act against their interest but according to their moral code.
john42t 8 months ago
@entyrion I notice that the more critically minded libertarians are not fans of ayn rand, and I can see why. I disagree with libertarians, but at least I dont disagree with there epistemology. I just hate the fact she declares things to be true without any real evidence for them being so. "Humans need to act in there self interest" no they don't in fact we are more like ants in that way. We are programed to follow others and act non-selfishly sometimes. I hate objectivism, its silly
thesparitan 1 year ago
Wow! What should we know about Ayn Rand's objectivism? That Selfishness is a virtue and that's good and we should all be self centered human beings? What are we not getting about objectivism?
warnation101 1 year ago
You guys should go back to bashing christianity. This is one subject you know nothing about.
tannalv 1 year ago
@tannalv Typical randiod. Go back to your robotic thinking.
thesparitan 1 year ago
Wow! They really got it wrong on this show. It wasn't about geniuses and stupid people. It's about those who create value in society and those who leech off the able people because they are unwilling to make their own living. And there certainly was no need of doing any policing in Galt's gulch, because whoever got there were moral enough to do no crimes. And they certainly did all their own cleaning and laundring, etc.
You guys should read more before making such incorrect statements.
Speedable 1 year ago
Comment removed
PixelPariah 1 year ago
@Speedable
Too true.
PixelPariah 1 year ago
@Speedable Its true that Matt was ignorant to the plot and nuances of the book, but he did give a disclaimer saying he never read the book. The conclusions he came to are logical to come to based on limited knowledge.
As far as it not being about geniuses and idiots, I think its pedantic to say that they are wrong in that assumption. IMO, the book is about the enlightened and the laymen. Galt (and others) were the enlightened who knew the value of self, and all else were looters/laymen.
FadeStepper 1 year ago
@Speedable It sounds like objectivism requires a utopian society in which there is no crime, no poverty, no discrimination, no prejudice, and perfection in almost every way.. Otherwise many people would be left behind to simply rot and die.
And if this is true, then I must ask, "what's the point?" If we need a near-perfect society for objectivism to work anyway, why even bother with the thought?
DrLoonatic 1 year ago
@DrLoonatic Objectivism isn't a societal ideology, but an individual ideology. Objectivism works perfectly for me individually, in a society that currently is "near-perfect", with some rotten eggs involved. Besides, whether people "rot and die" or not, is not a question of the issues that you mentioned. Those are all good and desirable outcomes even in today's society. But whether I die or thrive is if I accept full personal responsibility of my actions and making my own living.
Speedable 1 year ago
@Speedable You didn't understand my main point. If we were all to adopt Ayn Rand's philosophies, the true cruelty of her ideology would shine through within the first weeks. The cruelty is that prejudice would hinder anyone who is not a straight white male from going about life. Rand would have us blame the victims of this prejudice for "not working hard enough". Pure Laissez-Faire Capitalism is the epitome of cruelty, unless all people act in a morally perfect way. That was my point.
DrLoonatic 1 year ago
@DrLoonatic Then your point is moot and backed by nothing. If you read Austrian economic theory by von Mises or Hoppe et al., perhaps you will better understand that there is no inherent cruelty in laissez-faire capitalism. Just as there is no inherent cruelty in the animal kingdom where those that hunt or gather their nutrition and water will survive, while those who do not will die. Every human being is born equipped with the means to make their own living. And Rand does not promote prejudice.
Speedable 1 year ago
@Speedable Again you miss the point. All societies everywhere are prejudiced. It's a fact. Rand asserts that "everyone is born with the means to survive." Simply not true. I'd like to see you push that opinion if you were born in the ghetto with 8 siblings and a single mom. Some people are born into a life of shit. Laissez-fair capitalism would see the rise to power of monopolies that trounce on the weak and the poor. Powerful white men would dominate society. This is the cruelty I speak of.
DrLoonatic 1 year ago
@DrLoonatic A society cannot be prejudiced, only an individual can. Avoid the generalization trap. Also, the tail doesn't wag the dog. An economic or political ideology does not form the values of man. Man's values forms the ideology that he professes. You will see evidence of evil men taking economic advantage of others no matter if they act under a communist or capitalist rule. I'd rather be "born into shit" and make something of myself, than with a silver spoon and flush it all down the loo.
Speedable 1 year ago
@Speedable A society CAN be prejudiced when its institutions, laws, and media reflect it. Generalization is a necessary tool for survival. Men will be evil wherever they go, this is true. However hands-off capitalism gives evil men the closest thing to absolute power. If you were born in the ghetto you'd stay in the ghetto. Subordinate groups would be subordinate throughout life. I don't think you understand the reality of what you are preaching. Without extreme luck, you'd die poor and sick
DrLoonatic 1 year ago
@DrLoonatic I really do admire your ability to argue, and unfortunately the character limit in these youtube comment boxes makes it virtually impossible for me to express satisfyingly all-encompassing counterarguments, especially when there are so my different tangent points being discussed. But if you're all game to continue then so am I, but I really need to focus on one thing at a time. =)
Speedable 1 year ago
@Speedable That analogy makes no sense? There is cruelty in the animal kingdome, many animals are territorial if an animal ( or animal group) can not adequately fight for it's territory it will die. This isn't just a matter of effort here it is also a matter of resources.
Fuctmentality 9 months ago
@Speedable There's no inherent cruelty in laizze faire capitalism, it's certainly a by-product though. Besides that, I have yet to see anyone whining for LF Capitalism moving completely off the grid of our Keynesian economic system and proving us all wrong. Please, let Atlas Shrug.
MyChallengeChannel 9 months ago
Peikoff is, in my opinion, a MORON. I don't know why Rand made him her heir. I don't even think he really gets objectivism.
Spyder376 1 year ago
I just watched the video in response to yours Objecting to "Objecting To Objectivism", it's my comment on steroids. You guys really should watch it. I avoided using the word must since that word seems to throw you off topic.
eastocean2000 1 year ago
I like to drop in on these videos once in awhile to see if someone will mention something useful or I had not considered; not this time. You guys just don't get it and have some of the usual misrepresentation. You really are out of your depth though so I am not surprised. But thank you for the entertainment, it's amusing to watch the equivalent of someone living in the early 1800's trying to explain what a combustion engine is and how it works. Please spare me any quips about how it got there.
eastocean2000 1 year ago
@eastocean2000
lol We're not worthy oh objectivist master of the universe. You'd be much better off blaming single mothers for your own lack of achievement or something.
Cuntsack.
And doesn't you using the comments section of someone else's video to attempt to validate and spread your putrid pseudophilosophy make you a second-hander?
richard1917 1 year ago
@richard1917
Who or what are you mad at? Based on your reply I can see no reason to continue. Keep 'em waving.
eastocean2000 1 year ago
@eastocean2000
Yes master. If I wave 'em well will you allow me to come to your objectivist utopia where there are no poor people and where we can live happily in adherence to the principle of utter selfishness? Please?
richard1917 1 year ago
was there more to this? it seems like they stopped right as they got to discussing the books.
i would have liked to hear more.
rns13 1 year ago
"still have a range of intelligences and so the less smart still end up doing the less glamorous jobs"
And this is antithetical to Rand's ideology that talent is wasted on the less fortunate. Yet you are acknowledging that in this hypothetical society the next Einstein will be cleaning toilets & not putting his intellect to 'proper use.' Certainly not as good as the use he would have put it to in our 'normal' society
cont...
Hopeful71 1 year ago
...cont
"The overall effect is just one society ends up with a much higher average intelligence than the other."
Ahhh, a "master race" as it were, no? Or perhaps a 1st world & 3rd world set up? How long before the 1st world decides the stupid 3rd world doesn't need it resources as much as they do?
Or how soon before the Einstein society decides their toilet cleaners are bringing them down & divide off again?
All this to achieve what again?
Hopeful71 1 year ago
No matter how smart or cunning, without the other humans the single individual is nearly nothing.
conoba 1 year ago
He never says reality isn't objective. Of course reality is objective, otherwise we could change things by mind manipulation. In terms of objective minds in epistemology he means that if you think whilst making decision according to objective reality then your views will be objective. It work exactly the same way as we do things is science, through a process of reason. You may choose to act non-objectively but you may very well be wrong.
GeorgefromLeeds 1 year ago
I agree with your dismissal of objectivism, but I think you should look more into libertarianism. Government is very often the problem, not the solution. I'd recommend a book called "The Machinery Of Freedom" by David Friedman, it's interesting.
bandpractice 1 year ago
@bandpractice They clearly haven't read much of Rand directly otherwise they would have known that Rand hated libertarianism primarily because she made the mistake most people seem to make when criticizing it, namely that it is a system of political order only, not a system of morality or a social philosophy. It only says 'you can do things that don't hurt people' not whether those things you can do are inherently "good" or "bad", valuable or worthless, because that's not for governments to do.
TheElectricTurtle 1 year ago
@bandpractice But, aren't "we" the people the government in a representative democracy?
cosmicviewer477 1 year ago
Regarding the elistist separtists society, this has been set up in Auroville, India for decades now and it is still running, and poor Indians do all the dirty work. Western utopians like to visit Auroville and rave about it, but they apparently don't notice the grunts. Elitists can't exist without grunts, and most can't replace a light switch on their own, and replacing the motor in the vacuum is beyond them completely. Ultimately elitists are "nice" parasites similar as ants are to aphids.
rh001YT 1 year ago
@rh001YT I suppose you think 'grunts' invented vacuums? Growing up as I did in middle class America, I can't fathom how people seem to think that anybody who is not blue collar lives like some medieval baron with an army of servants. The fact is that even most people with advanced degrees and great careers still cook, do their laundry, and clean their houses. They just don't make their career out that ability because they don't have to. The 'grunts' *have to* make that their career.
TheElectricTurtle 1 year ago
@TheElectricTurtle
Its not that intelligent & successful people don't have to still do their own laundry it is that someone has to clean the public toilet, dispose of the garbage, etc. If you eliminate 'the grunts' then you got Einstein cleaning public toilets....no?
Hopeful71 1 year ago
@Hopeful71 I think that even in this hypothetical society, you would still have a range of intelligences and so the less smart still end up doing the less glamorous jobs. Since intelligence is relative to the other members of society, the less intelligent elements are still present, even if relative to the other society they are considered geniuses. The overall effect is just one society ends up with a much higher average intelligence than the other.
dreamcattcher1 1 year ago
@rh001YT If a man is capable of providing a more valuable service than changing a lighbulb, he literally can't get stuck doing such "grunt" work under a fully capitalist system.
sybo59 1 year ago
@sybo59 Unless, of course, he wants to.
cosmicviewer477 1 year ago
@cosmicviewer477 Exactly. "Stuck" being the key word in my post.
sybo59 1 year ago
Almost everyone actually practices the non-optional values of Objectivism to some degree, someone who was completely without rationality, integrity, purpose, honesty etc would be dead very quickly either by nature or other people. The point is to highlight what those things are so people can practice them consistently so that they can reap the benefits of applying those consistently.
dadrogon 1 year ago
LOL at the objectivist cultists.
Eyedunno 1 year ago
I normally love this show but this was just boring.
lewisner 1 year ago
I liked what Matt said at the last part, because that's exactly one of the things that went wrong in Andrew Ryan's city of Rapture from Bioshock.
SirAMedd 1 year ago
Sometimes I wish Russel would stop smirking and just sat what he has to say.
newcoyote 1 year ago
Objectivism doesn't insist everyone have the same values; it asserts that the refusal to hold rational values leads to hardship and/or destruction. "Libertarian utopia" is a figment of Russell's imagination & in fact Rand criticized libertarians as badly mishandling her ideas. "Having not read Atlas Shrugged" leaves Matt with nothing accurate or legitimate to say about it. Again, the failure here is a "pop culture" understanding of Objectivism, instead of genuine understanding.
trevorzlee 1 year ago
@trevorzlee YES IT DOES! Have you ever read Peikoff (Ayn Rand's SECOND official successor and interpreter)? NO ONE can interpret Rand except Peikoff by Rand's own order. No one can claim access to the Truth except through Peikoff.
I'm sorry dude, but you need to get informed. Atlas Shrugged was the beginning of Objectivism, not its end.
jjgdenisrobert 1 year ago
@jjgdenisrobert Of course, you're absolutely right. What was I thinking, just reading the books myself instead of getting the proper interpretation through the Prophet Peikoff, Peace Be Upon Him. I had forgotten that Rand is the messiah, and I must now self-flagellate. ;-P
P.S.: Was Rand kinda hot in her younger days? Like, in an unpolished granite statue kinda way? Or am I just weird?
trevorzlee 1 year ago
Personally, I don't know how you guys are on TV talking about Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. It's almost as if neither of you have read either book.
mmclees 1 year ago
@mmclees There is no need to read either. Peikoff's book "Objectivism" is the official manual of Objectivism, having received Rand's imprimatur.
jjgdenisrobert 1 year ago
@jjgdenisrobert The why mention those books?
mmclees 1 year ago
Second-Handers = LOL! Fuckin' Libertarians.
kurd55 1 year ago
The way in which one organizes their values in a rational way is by basing your values on rational self interest. In the video, they seemed to mix up "whims" for "rational self interest." If a person wants to sacrifice themselves, that would seem, in the context they present, to be more of a whim instead of a well thought out action. the "inside ones head" side of reality is a persons value structure, but that doesn't mean that it can't be objective :)
randman83 1 year ago
Wow, I'm actually really happy these guys took the time to talk about this, but I would like to point out a few areas where they have their ideas mixed up. First, in objectivism, people are not told to all have the same values. A value, by its nature, has a different worth to each person (water has a different value to a drowning man than to a marathon runner). The point is that if a person organizes their vaues in a rational hierarchy, sacrifice is not morally permissible.
randman83 1 year ago
@randman83 Once again, not true. Rand appointed two successors during her life who were the only persons authorized to state what Truth was: Nathanial Branden, who was excommunicated after he broke off his affair with her, followed by Leonard Peikoff who is still the leader of the Rand cult to this day.
jjgdenisrobert 1 year ago
@jjgdenisrobert Wait, how is this a reply to my post? I wasn't talking about truth or who Ayn Rand appointed to asserting it. I was talking about value (very different than truth) and I mentioned that objectivism does not require all persons to have the same values, only to acknowledge reality and base personal values on that recognition. What does that have ANYTHING to do with your response? I think you pressed reply on the wrong comment :)
randman83 1 year ago
I like your guys questions. As someone who studies Objectivism, I would point out that the ethics are not prescriptive (you must do X, Y, Z). If you hold your life & long-term well-being as the standard, then certain actions will enhance your life and certain actions will diminish it.
This presupposes that you: A. Uphold Reason, B. Identify life (itself) as the root of value, and C. recognize that people have free will and can jettison both A&B, or not. She advocates not.
My two cents.
r74quinn 1 year ago
@r74quinn She claims that everyone who thinks rationally would automatically come to the same conclusion as to what is ethical. Sorry, but that is simply a fact of her "philosophy". Since Ethics are Objective, and there can be no disagreement about what Reality except insofar as there is an error of interpretation, all, unless mistaken, must agree on what is Ethical. And since Miss Rand is perfectly rational, all must agree with Miss Rand.
jjgdenisrobert 1 year ago
@jjgdenisrobert It took me a lot of mental effort to come to the same conclusion on her fundamentals - it was not automatic, so I don't know why you used that word. I do disagree with her on some applications, but so what?
Thinking is hard, and even to this day I have subconscious ideas tugging me away from some of those conclusions; it takes real effort to actively identify what you believe and why.
Everyone has to do it for themselves, and I think even Ayn Rand would agree with that.
r74quinn 1 year ago
Philosophy and the application of philosophy are two very different things and that is laid out by peikoff. One can be an Objectivist and disagree with John Galt's actions or whatever. Also because people live in different context and have different specific natures, their values will be different, it still remains though that the big ones, which almost all people follow the big one's to a certain degree.
dadrogon 1 year ago
@Manueeel64 i concur, i must sleep now anyways. send me messages with your answers. if you make sense then i will believe how you believe. if you can answer my questions to a satisfactory degree then you will this discussion. i only want to talk to people that can teach me something.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@Manueeel64 OK very well, I mean to strawman your argument.
lets try again
if the government cannot tax because it is immoral, then how does it function without money, or is there another way for it to make money. how does the government pay for the armies if it cannot tax?
thesparitan 1 year ago
@Manueeel64 I have studied the austrian school, never in great detail, because they dont like to use any math, but maybe I will. I cant really speak to the austrian school that well, from the little I have read I was not impressed, but that doesn't that it is wrong.
I do know that sense the late 30's we have had the greatest economic expansion in the history of the world, that doesnt seem to support your case very well.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@Manueeel64 Dont worry, your English is great, but your philosophy is shit. You have a good brain but the software is a little crappy.
What country are you from? and I am sorry for hammering at you like this. ignore what you want. I will bring up what ever I think was important, again if I feel like it was not addressed
thesparitan 1 year ago
@Manueeel64 OOOOHHHHH so when the taxes go to something you agree with then they are moral, but when they go to something i agree with they are immoral and stealing. THATS VERY CONVENIENT. that is some philosophy you got there. that looks like a double standard, LOLOLOL that was awesome, i believe you have just lost the debate. you care to explain that further?????LMAO
you are immoral because i disagree with you, HAHA i love it, wonderful axiom you got there.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@Manueeel64 what country do you live in? and have you even been to america?
thesparitan 1 year ago
@Manueeel64 "You my friend, are the one that has NO FACTS and NO EVIDENCE."
thats funny i can remember proving the evidence of the bikini graph, the 50's and 60's tax rate, DARPA and the internet. what facts have you told me? you may not like them but they are facts and they are evidence that you must refute, right? you are not vey good at this stuff are you. LOL
thesparitan 1 year ago
@Manueeel64 so lets recap, spending can get you out of a depression but only if its for a war. the government cant create wealth or help the economy, unless it does, in which case it is still immoral. the government cannot tax, therefore the government cannot exist, therefore you believe in no government. so why dont you move to somalia? that must be heaven.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@Manueeel64 so before the fed america was growing faster then in the 50's and 60's and even the 70's even faster then the 90's? really?
also if the government taxing people is immoral, then how do pay for the running of it. if the government cant tax then it cant exist, do you not want it to exist?
thesparitan 1 year ago
@Manueeel64 ok, fine, then why are is the american economy recovering? if we are becoming more collectivist, then why is the economy getting better?
thesparitan 1 year ago
@Manueeel64 can you answer my ? about ayn rand.
also lets forget bush for the moment and obama and this data. i perfer to find out why you believe what you believe, unless you want to continue on this line of dialog, it plays in my favor anyways.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@Manueeel64 ok, what about DARPA and the internet and the many of the other technologies that were created by government spending? There is a great book on this stuff from a professor at MIT.
Secondly, if world war 2 ended the great depression, how. Wouldnt that be a keynesians policy of spending your why out of a depression. How would you create liquidity in a liquidity trap? Explain the economic boom of the 50s and 60s, when taxes were higher then now?
thesparitan 1 year ago
manueel
Was ayn rand perfect in her philosophy, without flaws in her understanding of humanity or reality? Was she the most intelligent person in the history of world and is her philosophy absolutely true in everyway?
thesparitan 1 year ago
@Manueeel64 lol, ok then prove it.
also you have just stated that I am subjectivist, first what the hell is that, and second we are all subjective in some way. its apart of our evolved nature to try and conform the world to our current understanding. the key is to try and break that natural desire to get at the truth. I doesnt seem like you have done that. watch Ive prove it.
thesparitan 1 year ago
"but it has NOTHING TO DO WITH OBAMA'S ADMINISTRATION"
ok, prove it, prove that statement?
and you dont think for yourself, would you like me to prove that statement?
thesparitan 1 year ago
@Manueeel64 Again you refuse to acknowledge my facts, so why talk to you. You only listen to the data that supports your position. You are a ideology, you have made the terrible mistake of identifying yourself with a belief, therefore to challenge your belief one is challenging your identity. That is a very foolish way to think. I dont only believe in capitalism, but also what people call socialism and anarchism. Why, because no one ideology is right.
thesparitan 1 year ago
Manueeel64 @thesparitan
Well, you didnt seem to respond to the data. You are a ideologue and you cannot think for yourself. There is much in common with you and a creationist. You both deny evidence to support your conclusions. I could tell you my education but I dont think you would believe me and you would likely not care. LOOK at the economic data or the bikini graph then talk to me. Also, altruism is a evolved emotional imperative, we are born to care, sorry truth hurts
thesparitan 1 year ago
@Manueeel64 doing great, thank you for asking. the economy is doing mch better under a democrat, then under the republicans. have you seen the bikini graph? its a good picture of how unemployment numbers are improving under the socialist programs. inform yourself first.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@Manueeel64
well i agree with that and i think that is one of the things wrong with capitalism. if we had free unregulated capitalism do you know what our society would be like. and even under capitalism why should we make corporations people under the law, with all the right of a human?
thesparitan 1 year ago
When he says the external world isn't objective or non objective, he is saying that objectivism is a manner of thought and action not the physical stuff of the world.This is metaphysically accurate since no one has direct contact with the actual external world and we can only infer its properties through observation and reason.
You guys should really stick to debunking Noah's Ark and proving to Wiccans there aren't any fairies.
madscirat 1 year ago
@Manueeel64
Would be great if you called in to their show and set them straight, would love to hear that call.
MyITRcom 1 year ago
Comment removed
SwedxSimon02 1 year ago