ayn rand - "america's material wealth" - pt 2 - 30 oct 1968

[freezzertime]

this video should've had ''no messages''

[aynrand2009]

@freezzertime What do you mean? "No comments"?

[Kobe29261]

Altruism and collectivism are not opposed to science or empiricism. Her error lies in failing to progress beyond selfishness. Its the mark of a very dangerous strain for a man to achieve prosperity without a 'natural' inclination to help others. Take a look at Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Ayn Rand was either cruel beyond consideration or gravely and diabolically misled. The cruelty of Russian Communism scarred her beyond reconciliation with generosity or disinterested service. God rest her soul

[bma051000]

@Kobe29261 WHY is it ones DUTY to serve others? She didn't say that altruism and collectivism were opposed to science. Altruism and collectivism are opposed to the INDIVIDUAL. "The cruelty of Russian Communism scarred her beyond reconciliation..."

You are psychologizing. You are attempting to excuse away her allegedly flawed philosophy by ascribing her conclusions, not on her own thinking or volition, but on the involuntary subjection to the brutal conditions of her childhood.

[Kobe29261]

@bma051000 Not DUTY but 'natural tendency' You are right in your assumptions, we are all products of our environment; of course she was a product of hers. Her position of absolute objectivism is fallacious because modern psychology has proven that each man is impacted not by what they objectively perceive but what they subjectively (unconsciously) accept as well. Don't get me wrong, I respect her philosophy. I think her's was a remarkable mind but her flaws cannot be excused on account of this.

[bma051000]

@Kobe29261 "We are products of our environment." Again, that is another contradiction. If Rand was a product of her environment, she would have turned out as a collectivistic, mystical altruist and would have stayed in the USSR. Not sure what you mean by "each man is impacted." Either people have free will or they don't. And the ultimate choise is to think or not. Your right that most people DO subconciously accept the premises absorbed from their surroundings. To be continued....

[bma051000]

@bma051000 You're right that most peopel DO subconciously accept the premises absorbed from their surroundings. The key issue here is that you have the free will and the ability to INTROSPECT, examine and identify your premises and correct them at will. You have the ability to change your premises, but you are right insofar as that most people choose not to do that.

[Kobe29261]

@bma051000 My problem is that her philosophy denies what all men know for certain by virtue of their existence, that we are imperfect. I have not met one man th@ cud with absolute certainty say their every action follows their highest standards & expectations of themselvs. I did hear Ayn Rand answer this question in the affirmative during a talk show. I find th@ both intellectually deceptive &unnecessary. She did not need th@ 2 make her philosophy work. Thanks 4 caring enough to correct my error

[bma051000]

@Kobe29261 I agree with you that most people are morally imperfect and that they have been intentionally evasive, deceptive, and irrational. However the only problem I have is that when people say: "Well, nobody's perfect" it actually offers a blanket excuse or a blank check on any kind of vice that someone may commit. What make's Rand's political system so benevolent, is that IF a person is immoral, HE is the only one who suffers from his vices.

[Kobe29261]

@bma051000 You are right on both counts! How is altruism and collectivism opposed to the individual; that I'm generous or willing to 'pitch in' as the Americans say must not necessarily mean that I'm socially oppressed or whatever that guy said (JSM I think) Yes I was psychoanalyzing -I don't see anything wrong with that. Psychology is the 'mathematics' of human motivation. To understand the man one must understand their motivation. Look at it from a higher moral ground not the lower.

[CptN3m007]

@Kobe29261

"Altruism and collectivism are not opposed to science or empiricism."

I disagree with that remark. The starting point of science is a selfish desire to know more about a certain object or event. Later people make a connection and see how that discovery can make a profit.

Under the destructive philosophies of altruism and collectivism, you are too busy playing "brother's keeper" to have the spare time that contemplative thought, a precursor to scientific discoveries, requires.