Change Player Size
Watch this video in a new window

Objectivism and Anarchism

A contradiction in Objectivist ethics and politics. Further reading: Nicholas Dykes http://www.libertarian.co.u... George H. Smith http://folk.uio.no/thomas/p... David D. Friedman http://www.dav...  
 
Customize

QuickList(0)

Upgrade to Flash Player 10 for improved playback performance. Upgrade Now or get more info.
82 ratings
Sign in to rate
7,953 views
Want to add to Favorites? Sign In or Sign Up now!
Want to add to Playlists? Sign In or Sign Up now!
Want to flag a video? Sign In or Sign Up now!

Statistics & Data

Loading...

Video Responses (2)

Sign in to post a Comment

Text Comments (269)   Options

Loading...
TheOneLaw (2 months ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
Ditto on the audio - nothing but white noise now, and I was hoping to hear your thoughts on this if the is title accurate.
seanotube85 (3 months ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
When I tried to watch this video, I got nothing but static feed in the audio... Is there something wrong with the video or youtube or my computer? Most other videos seem to have perfectly fine audio... Weird. It seems like the audio should be working correctly based on all the comments you're getting here. But not for me :(
XOmniverse (3 months ago) Show Hide
Marked as spam
It's Youtube. Evidently this video got corrupted later on or something.
gugaLiuzzi (3 months ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
upload it again plz! corrupted audio
Kierkegaard73 (3 months ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
If I follow objective thought to the end, then, of course, I shall certainly have the truth, but the truth for whom? Certainly to be objective as possible is to be non-subjective as possible. Think along the lines of Grammar. What does the object relate to in a sentence? I am not attacking Rand, but perhaps Objectivists might want to ask why David Hume(that rationalist of all rationalists) opined that "Reason is the hand-maiden of passion." Passion is, after all, a subjective issue
Kikarok (7 months ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
Soooooo because the term is inflexible, it is a cult?
fede2 (7 months ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
not necessarily but it does behave as such.

the thing is, it implicitly denies any progression or evolution because it would require to deny one aspect or another of it's starting point and since no philosophy hitherto known is infalible, to be an objectivist you are required not to question objectivism in any way.
Kikarok (7 months ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
I take it more as, "to be an Objectivist, you must have come to the conclusion that you logically agree with all aspects of it."
If, for whatever reason, you decide you do not completely agree with it, then you're not an Objectivist, you're something else.
And to be honest, I doubt Objectivists would call any blind follower one of them.
fede2 (7 months ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
it's possible. i just find the idea of agreeing with one philosopher on absolutely everything a bit strange.

"I doubt Objectivists would call any blind follower one of them."

i dunno. those ARI fuckers are out of their minds.
Kikarok (7 months ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
As do I, but that's the requirement put forth by the maker of the term.

Well, according to what I know, a blind follower, by definition, is not Objectivist, as they rely on faith, rather than reason. I'm actually fairly new to the whole subject, so my knowledge is probably incomplete.

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.