If you want to read the transcript: www.patreon.com/fictionbeast

@LawrenceWilsonFoy

Жыл бұрын

/// / /// Political Systems are essentially an invalid, logically defective, flawed man made construct or concept because Economic Systems are the meaningful (substantive) determinant which makes all the difference. For instance Capitalism enables citizens to own property, and utilize capital to produce profits. Humans had the ability to self sustain human life (at the individual + species level) for millions of years prior to the invention of government. The only logical necessity, humans need to survive is property rights. The right to absolutely.. 1) 100 percent ownership of our lives immediately upon birth. 2) 100 pct ownership of all property we create ourselves, and or properly acquire from others in a mutually agreeable exchange, and or inherit, and or are freely given by others who properly acquired it. the logical basis for property rights is 1) without the ability to own the food (we had the foresight to grow or trade for) humans are unable to self sustain human life .. without depending on the mercy of others, (typically) the evil humans who might take our lives and our property (if property rights didn't exist). the creation of governments, even our American Democracy, 1) is improper because for instance the concept of Democracy is flawed because despite the number of humans who create a majority (need, want or desire) it's imperative that majority opinion never have the (Authority or Permission) to prevail if their opinions violate the Rule of Logic. 2) Democracy at it's best is simply duplicating Rule of Logic and at it it's worst is (improperly) thwarting Rule of Logic. 3) if a (99 out of 100) majority opposes (1 opinion out of 100) this can't change the fact it's improper to consider anything other than the (appropriate) Logic, (which although redundant, must never violate property rights). Unless i myself error'd (formulating property rights) because i will switch to superior logic (instantly as soon as i understand it) because i always win when logic itself wins. Logically, every logical human wins every time any human comes nearer to properly interpreting the logic of any logically flawed thesis. Logic is factually similar to math + science. When logic is properly formulated or templated for the first time it's essentially already optimal or near reaching optimal attributes + properties which are typically able to stand until improved upon but eventually plateaus as nearly maintenance free. I've formulated logic similar to (my best attempts to interpret the logic) (Ayn Rand created). My version adds the fact that prior to the creation of governments humans weren't dependent upon governments thus the creation of governments added a dependency which didn't exist prior to the invention of governments. The words dependency + independent are opposites. One example of our democratic governments failure of Democracy is where the invention of our Social Security Administration error'd by inventing social security + medicare taxes because they (those taxes) 1) violate property rights, and property rights exist as a logical necessity, not an (assumption or first premise). The only premise if any which property rights are based upon is an absurdity i wouldn't mention except to provide the only (assumption or premise) not already defined in the paragraph describing how property rights must exist or humans won't be able to sustain human life without depending upon the mercy of others. The necessity for property rights to exist (to be able to sustain human life) stems from the near absurd but necessary (first assumption or premise) which is that from the point of view of a human (the fact human life exists, is a good rather than bad thing) [for us humans]. 2) the fact social security spends more money than it receives (it, social security) nearly matches the definition of bankrupt. It overspends on overhead costs caused by mismanagement. And our government's plans for future generations to keep funding social security near perfectly matches the definition of a ponzi scheme. the solution for (near all) problems democracy has created is to prosecute our Legislators for their Lawlessness where i define ( their specifically unique) lawlessness as Legislators failure to create Laws (constraining + thus omg limiting) government (Authority + thus the Permissions) it can grant itself to only the (few uniquely anomalous) logically bonafide [ DUTY's ] which for whatever anomalous reasons it's necessary for government to claim it [our government] logically must be able to deny consumers of consumer (products+services) the improved results of individual capitalist, competitive, competitors competing to become 1 of the top 99 (competently competitive) providers within their consumer (product+service) niche. In summary our democracy failed to restrict government's (Authority+Permission) to only the few (if any even exist) bonafide Logical DUTY's. Logically, our Legislators can't grant our government (Authority+Permission) unless anomalous (DUTY) exists + this is because it would deny consumers the benefits of the improved results competitive competition guarantees. Additionally, when government error'd by replacing [independent] self sustainability of human life by adding [dependency] upon government, the single example, our governments near bankrupt social security ponzi scheme provides evidence the [certainty] humans could self sustain life was replaced by the [uncertainty] the [dependency] upon government added and again tho it's redundant, generally speaking near everything if not everything government does replaced [independence with dependence] + [certainty with uncertainty]. In summary, i want to reiterate where government doesn't have an anomalous DUTY 1) it's inappropriate for government to deny consumers of consumer (products+services) the benefit of the improved results of competitive competition. an additional example of our governments failure is the Licensing of Medical Doctors which artificially inflated the cost of medical care. 1) the medical care industry should be completely deregulated. 2) our government doesn't have a DUTY to even notice the medical care industry exists. 3) deregulation will result in advisory services (for instance on the internet) providing competitive advise on who is good at what + these services, as is (near) everything within pure capitalism .. near always adept at self adapting to competitive conditions, which means there's such a high probability of success that near everything will improve so rapidly all of us should be able to experience what logic proves is our birthright ( the right to absolute 100 pct ownership of our own lives + our own destiny's) (including) eternal healthy human life, here on earth for eternity (happening within our lifetimes). voluntary instead of mandatory education will encourage humans to desire competent, timely advice. 1) an example of a forced education's waste of resources is the one quarter of a century (25years) humans are currently delayed from becoming Medical Doctors. The artificial (shortage of supply) of Medical Doctors is a direct result of government's Licensing + Regulation. 2) imagine, everyone born (for the next 25 years) being denied the ability to be a Medical Doctor. Meaning nobody born in the next 25 years becomes a MD (until, the 26th year from today). This seems to deny logic to the point of being a variant of a ponzi scheme or multi-level fraud upon logic itself.

@LawrenceWilsonFoy

Жыл бұрын

/// / /// the accumulated sum of (the lawlessness) of our Legislators failure (to create law) constraining government's (Authority+Permission) to the limited set of (anomalously bonafide logical) [DUTY's] which would have to be quite anomalous for near any task to be claimed as a necessity which only government is capable of providing to consumers because otherwise for all normal tasks which aren't sufficient to rise to the level of a logical [DUTY] the result of Legislators failure to comprehend the imperative need for government to step aside and admit they overstepped their logical bonafide [DUTY's] is provably an immediate necessity because denying consumers the benefits of competitive competition is a very serious logical error which has resulted in 1) not only denying consumers the benefits of the improved results which competitive competition guarantees but also + more specifically .. 2) provably interfering with capitalism's competitive competitor's ability to provide solutions for the grailist grail of all consumer (products+services), the (need, want + desire) for immediate solutions to extend healthy human life to eternal healthy human life, (here on earth), [within omg, my own lifetime]. government's regulation of near everything is grossly improper because it's provably 1) not a bonafide logical [DUTY] of government because it deny's consumers the benifit of the improved results competitive competition guarantees. 2) it's also provably the equivalent of Skinner Boxing [individual] choice into a narrow range of mediocracy know as a bell curve, which is the exact opposite of optimal. The tails of a bell curve are thin because there's not enough diversity of [individual, individuality]. the fat tails of an INVERTED bell curve is provably superior because the rule of large numbers aka larger diversity of [individual, individuality] provably locates outlyer results in greater quantity + more timely exploration of the anomalously fruitful binary combinations which bell curves destroy. 1) evolution of our species succeeds or fails based upon (the extraordinary) results of (1, 2 or 3) [individuals, individual success] or their failure to succeed (in creating the grailist grails) if government's inappropriate Skinner Boxing of everyone (prevents) the bulk of extraordinary successes (our species evolution, depends upon). 2) it's imperative government stop perpetuating the idea that the failures encountered will be unmanagable because 100 pct absolute property rights will quickly prevail in creating the most polite humans (our species has ever experienced). competitive competition which is self regulating results in optimal 1) prices 2) quality 3) timelyness safety doesn't have to be mentioned because (safety) occurs naturally (near effortlessly) within (100 percent pure) completely deregulated capitalism because competive competition considers every necessity or those who don't will fail soon as consumers become aware of any+all neglect. Competition is self regulating, self correcting. Those who fail to politely + voluntarily follow the rules go bankrupt. the brute force of binary search engines + artificial intelligences slightly more optimal, hill climbing algorithm's emphasis on including an appropriately sized near random (reseeding) of the gene pole (both) emphasize the need to explore beyond the bell curves of mediocracy thus again proving the rule of large numbers of near random (diverse) [individual, individuality] is logically the optimal path to locate the highest (quantity+quality) of solutions to near any (need want or desire) which in the context i am framing governments failure is their provable over emphasis on safety and even within that area government provably errors because government licensing + regulation provably created the (scarcity of supply) of Medical Doctors. The one area where scarcity of [individual, individuality] aka deviation from the bell curves grossly improper (way to thin, tails of diversity)'s failing to overcome the mediocracy (of what government, believes is safety) is provably the opposite of the extraordinary (outlying successes) deregulation is guaranteed to provide an abundance of. governments laws requiring consumers participate in mandatory education for the first 18yrs of life, and restrictions on children working are provably not competitively vetted logic because diversity in the form of [individual, individuality] and inverted bell curves is the source of the outlying anomalous solutions for near any consumer (product+service) especially the grailist grails of consumers (needs, wants + desires) [near immediate evolution to eternal life]. 1) on the job training for our children is a logical improvement over making children wait until age 25 to become Medical Doctors, which isn't helping evolution create solutions which can solve consumers grailist of grail (needs, wants + desires). this idea that it's inappropriate for government to deny consumers the benefits of the improved results competitive competition can guarantee likely applies to near everything government does. I am aware of or can develop the proofs which prove government should not be denying consumers the results of competitively vetted [improved results] within near everything including specific areas where government's [logic,itself] is less than optimally competitive as should be (speculated, anticipated, predicted + projected) to be less than optimal given the fact government has existed inside a vacume devoid of proper accountability for their failures to provide consumers with competitively vetted consumer (products+services) for such a long time, the current conditional state of the quantity + depth of governments mistaken (logical premises) is inappropriately beyond any continued effort to cover up.

I read Atlas Shrugged many years ago and although I very much disagree with the views expressed in the book, it really affected me, especially as I see supply chain problems, lack of supplies, garbage blowing in the streets, businesses shutting down.

@cheri238

8 ай бұрын

I totally agree. All sides of American politics and history and world histories. Look at us now, 2023. Ayn Rand, I totally disagreed with her.

I've only read a couple of her books, not enough for an adequate opinion. Looking forward to this as I keep an open mind. Love your channel.

@rinkinkel

Жыл бұрын

I find her books very helpful. I have a very uneven floor.

@OccamsRazor393

Жыл бұрын

​@@rinkinkel I use Rousseau for that.

@rinkinkel

Жыл бұрын

@@OccamsRazor393 bluff

She reminds me of Ango Sakaguchi, a writer in post-war Japan who fiercely criticised people’s herd mentality and cunning political schemes under hypocrisy that led to the destruction of the country. He insists that everyone deserves to be egoistic in ‘depravity theory’. But his egotism is more nuanced. He thinks it’s human nature but all the great geniuses were not egoists. An idea that offends people has something that touches the essence of the matter as someone said, so I watched her interviews on youtube. Her philosophy is extreme and easy to find flaws, but I think she was brave for praising atheism in those days in the US which was (still is) a highly religious country. It is another thought-provoking video and I really enjoy them. Thank you!

Thank you for the new video. ❤

I write poetry, also paint and draw....as a creative person, without even listening to this audio, and not knowing anything abt Ayn Rand's philosophy, I can say for sure that,creative people are selfish. They have to be,in order to pursue their creativity. We will find many examples of this super creative, Genius people being lonely and miserable cause they selfishly prioritized their art above all. Selfishness, has its productive benefits, also has the power to make one miserable too.

@cheri238

Жыл бұрын

Human nature 101

I'm from morocco what I like the most in your videos it's the Arabic caption so it's easy for me to understand them ND you made me understand philosophy more than anyone else, thank you so much now I'll share your videos with my friends

Brilliant as usual! Great stuff!

@Fiction_Beast

Жыл бұрын

Thanks again!

Your work is brilliant 🎉

Please do a videos about Heidegger and his philosophy. A thorough examination.

Fiction Beast is the best!

❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ As a young man I read all of Ayn Rand’s books, hungry for less lies and cold hard truth. I subscribed to the Objectivist Newsletter. I wrote her and asked her for a simple explanation. A letter was received with her signature. It didn’t give me what I wanted. It was a treasure. I gave it to the mother of a young woman I was dating. She said she would study it. I remember the first sentence of ATLAS SHRUGGED: Howard Roark smiled.

In The Fountainhead, the newspaper boss’ behaviour sounds psychologically complicated. I want to read the book if he is a well-developed, sympathetic character. If I can get hold of a copy somehow.

@sachieasamizu4809

Жыл бұрын

@@markvictor8776 Not in the library where I live. But I appreciate the information.

Really broad topic here. I appreciate the effort and presentation. I noticed some factual mistakes, for example, mixing up the characters of Cameron with Francon. In the novel summaries, you go to politics quite often, which unfortunately tends to lead to misunderstanding. It's more productive to focus on the epistemology and ethics. Rand has a more political novel called "We the Living", which is a great read too. The lessons have some great commentary, but also may need more depth to understand Rand's nuanced positions regarding ideas like passion or objectivity. Overall, I think there is good reason to present philosophy as fiction as Rand did. Humans are hard wired to take interest in stories. You can imagine the world as an ideal. You can empathize with characters and their situations. It is a way to absorb philosophy at a more emotional level, something Rand called “sense of life”.

@ZeroRyu7

8 ай бұрын

You phrased this beautifully. I feel the channel here horribly misrepresented Rand and her character, not providing the proper context for why they take such action as they do.

I have Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead in my personal library and read both of them. I've read The Fountainhead in my early 20 and was mindblown by the ideology of the main character and Rand's views. BUT...there's always a but...read it again last year in my early 30's and to be frank left it after a couple of days around the middle. Her characters just cant exist in the real world and thats the tragedy in her novels. The Ubermench can simpy exist in literature.

@ziloj-perezivat

Жыл бұрын

She writes about superheroes?

@yamataichul

11 ай бұрын

Imagine you love and devote yourself to the idea of peak power structures and atlas shrugged is one of the best windows into your ideology 😅 if she really cared about individualism is odd she never ultimately gave in into libertarianism

I have never understood incredible negativity Rand Philosophy evokes from people. And that alone is reason to read her.

@kiepnguoi5058

Жыл бұрын

Because most people have the kind of package-deal negative attitude toward selfishness which is what her philosophy emphasizes. She advocates the freedom of the individual to act with reasons instead of feelings, emotions. Most people would give up their bit of freedom to the state in exchange for their bit of security. And when someone criticizes that way of living, it makes people upset.

@zenstories

Жыл бұрын

Why, because being contrarian somehow makes you feel superior or special?

@not_emerald

Жыл бұрын

@@kiepnguoi5058 her use of the term selfishness is kind of different from what most people usually think of. People usually have a caricature in their mind of selfish as someone who will never think about others, live a plastic life, spit in the face of the needed, etc.. But I feel like that's very unfair to her ideas. I really don't understand the phenomena of people hating her this much.

@dionysian222

Жыл бұрын

@@not_emerald In her books, Ayn Rand clothes her arguments in their Sunday best suits but in her interviews, she’s a caricature of herself. In an interview with Mike Wallace, she argues most of humanity is not worth loving because they have no value to offer to others. This goes against the sensibility of many. It goes against the well accepted tradition that humans, we are all deeply imperfect being who from time to time need an undeserved grace. Would you want to be loved by a Randian that says I love you only for my own pleasure and when you fall, the contract is over?

@emiliog.4432

8 ай бұрын

@@not_emeraldhate? I just disagree with most of her ideas and values. I will definitely defend her right to speak and write about them.

As what Aristotle said of every virtue and vice, each has its excesses and defects, which are neither good. The middle road is always the best.

Really like your videos in general and appreciate how to distill the ideas in the books. With regards to the Fountainhead, I don't agree with your interpretation of Dominique Francon though. He character is more subtle in the ways she expresses her individuality. While Howard Roark directly opposes the collective and lives by his values, Dominique mocks the collective establishment by ardently conforming to the values of the collective. She marries Keating because that's what most women in that era would do and in a way destroys Keating by following everything he, a people pleaser, would want. She marries Wynand because a woman of that era would never turn down the wealthiest man. She is conflicted though with Wynand, as he turns out to be just like her, growing rich at the expense of the lowest virtues of society. She ends up falling in love with Wynand, unexpectedly, but at the end she returns to her true love, Howard.

Great video! I never understood why she was seen as such a controversial figure, since most her novels, for me, were about greatness and following your own passions (*Edit:* actually, after rereading some books years later, it became obvious - people are more politically driven than anything else.) I highly doubt most of her critics have paid attention to her actual work instead of other critics' opinions on her. People tend to box her because of her political views and not actually engage with her ideas. Although she was most certainly a rationalist, I think it's pretty obvious that her thoughts on aesthetic were romantic, so she's kind of a rational romanticist, if that makes sense? I think the greatest virtue in her work is simple: do not let life just pass you by. Live it to the fullest, try to be as great as you can and do not look at others to explain whatever is happening to you. It is what it is, so no crying about it. Edit 2: paying attention to other comments, I notice that people are literally just focusing on her politics, which is kind of sad. Not only is it incredibly dismissive and dishonest to pull a "LiBerTaRiAn ThAt UsEd tHe StAtE" (I mean, do you really think no libertarian has ever thought about that issue or that we live in a perfectly libertarian world so that this issue would be an actual contradiction?), but it's a pity that people really have their opinions about her set on stone and are not gonna engage with them at all. Rand's ideal world was most certainly not what the United States were in the 80s (in fact throughout the 20th century the American government just got more and more bloated), so why do any of you care about what she did? Other philosophers did objectively bad things, including some that were discussed in the channel such as Sartre and Foucault (also didn't Marx leech Engels and had some bastard kids?), but why do these things come up only with Rand? I am *not* an objectivist nor an atomistic individualist such as her, and I generally don't really care for politics, but those attacks are basically ad hominem. At the very least people can read her and be inspired.

@rabidwaffles9022

Жыл бұрын

I agree even tho I prefer a more darker realism and so I prefer art that portrays the ugliness of life. But Ayn Rand was smart and considered how art affected culture and that idealism would create a better society and she was looking at it from a really Greek way I think

@not_emerald

Жыл бұрын

@@rabidwaffles9022 Yeah, my kind of realism is more like Dostoevsky, but I don't mind the kind of writing she does. I think it has its place and it's really well made. The Fountainhead is a truly great book, and politics is the smallest issue, just take a look at the fact that Oliver Stone, basically a communist, wanted to turn it into a movie. Btw, notice in the comments how divisive Rand is. That, for me, is proof that there is actual content in her writing.

@CreativeCat333

9 ай бұрын

You are right. All I see everywhere is hate towards HER. The more I read and listen to her books, the more I understand why. She challenges you and puts the blame on YOU. Not you dad, your mom or anyone else. We always want to blame others for our problems and be told that on your face hurts.

Another brilliant presentation. Thank you.

Most haters are usually envious, or feel shamed

@Traderhood

Жыл бұрын

Envious of what?

@garydeforve5055

Жыл бұрын

Most haters also have other normal human emotions.

@zenstories

Жыл бұрын

Calling people envious or ashamed is not really a valid argument.

Thank you adding Bangla subtitle...

I had no idea about Ayn Rand. However, since she is mentioned again and again, I thought I should read up on her. Then I found out that almost no sensible person says anything about her. The Arte documentary about her lasts 06min and 14sec and ends with a quote from Officer Barbrady: " I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of shit, I'm never reading again!". That seemed too short-sighted to me. Then I looked at some longer lectures by people who had studied Rand's work intensively. Now I can state that I fully endorse Officer Barbrady's thesis. PS: Thanks for the great video. I laughed in tears.

@johnnynick6179

8 ай бұрын

Ed, you are what is known as a second-hander. You place no value on your own assessment of things, you look to others to decide what to think. Note that you said, " I thought I should *read up on her*" instead of saying "I thought I should read *her books myself*". You watched documentaries ABOUT her made by others rather than watching movies made from her books. You read lectures about her by others instead of reading her actual words. That is known as being a second-hander; experiencing life second-hand through someone else's experience. It's a pathetic way to live. You opinion is even less meaningful than those you are citing here.

@juliantapia6180

4 ай бұрын

You just agreed with Ayn Rand, since your opinions are based on others. Their philosophy is that you live for yourself and trust that you are capable of judging, and they are literally avoiding that by going to reviews or people who read it. Read it for yourself and there your opinion will have an argument.

@edhero4515

4 ай бұрын

@@juliantapia6180 I do not agree with Rand. From my current perspective, her theses strike me as not only the stupidest, but the most damaging thing ever written down. That said, I completely agree with you that I should shut up in public comments about her until I've read her myself.

@UNCIVILIZE

12 күн бұрын

​@@edhero4515It'll be hard for you to be objective in reading Rand because you already hate her work that you didn't yet read!

The biggest problem with Rand is she uses a made up story (definitely not purely rational) to romanticize the very idea that we shouldn't do that and should only use reason. And I'm sure deep down she knew she'd never convince anyone any other way.

@theone6189

5 ай бұрын

This comment is pathetically ignorant. Ayn Rand wrote more non fiction than fiction.

Yup eagerly waiting !! I wanted to read her.

@Saber23

Жыл бұрын

Why waste your time? Reading her crap is literally going to cost you braincells

@j.j.w.2269

Жыл бұрын

@@Saber23chill man Ayn Rand got solid ideas

@osakanone

Жыл бұрын

@@j.j.w.2269 She really doesn't -- If you actually read into her life, she's a hypocrite and her ideas just do not work in the real world.

@Saber23

Жыл бұрын

@@j.j.w.2269 no she really doesn’t dude but hey, if you want to believe that while living in times decadent enough to allow you to do so go right ahead

@Saber23

Жыл бұрын

@@osakanone exactly, thank you

Anytime I hear dismissals and critiques of Ayn Rand and her works, it's almost always based on secondary or tertiary accounts and reviews, taking snippets and quotes totally out of context.

“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." -John Rogers.

@user-iw2hw2qr6r

Жыл бұрын

have you read one of her books and made up your own mind?

@simplyafloatingeyeball.8923

Жыл бұрын

Who is John Rogers? Is he irrelevant?

@mikewilliams4947

Жыл бұрын

@@simplyafloatingeyeball.8923 lol

@onpatrolforthejuice

7 ай бұрын

What part of Rand's ideology is a problem for you?

@reshhaverstahm7729

7 ай бұрын

@@onpatrolforthejuice If you're under the age of 30, the answer will come to you in time. If you're over the age of 30, it likely never will.

Thank you.

When in my youth I fell for the ideas in Atlas Shrugged.. then life really began unfolding & I grew up, expanded my reading & returned to education. I cringe these days, when Rand gets taken seriously..

@cheri238

Жыл бұрын

💯 correct

@ziloj-perezivat

Жыл бұрын

Brighten up buttercup. Women gotta start thinking somehow

@yaba1

Жыл бұрын

Hi why Ayn Rand is bad can you please answer me

@pikafresa6841

11 ай бұрын

​​@@yaba1 I haven't read her writtings, but i think the comenter wasn't saying she is bad, but rather that her ideas where wrong. Also i would love the original comenter to elaborate on why Ayn Rand was wrong, speccially since it appears that the comenter was at one point, a fan of Ayn's work.

@yaba1

11 ай бұрын

@@pikafresa6841 ye

I guess I'll have to read Atlas Shrug

@bigmouthstrikesagain4056

Жыл бұрын

Personally I think the fountainhead was better

I’ve not read Ayn Rand, only read about her and nothing good. This should be interesting.

@not_emerald

Жыл бұрын

She's great. Her philosophy is all about being the best version of your self, not being cynical and living life to its fullest instead of just letting life happen to you. She gets a bad rep because of her politics and that's pretty much it.

@osakanone

Жыл бұрын

@@not_emerald She's literally parroting second-hand Kierkegaard. How is this any different from Jordan Peterson publishing a self-help book cobbled together from bits of other self-help books as a trojan-horse for reactionary politics?

@not_emerald

Жыл бұрын

@@osakanone I hope someday you get out of this political mental hellhole you're in.

@ianho-sing-loy7364

Жыл бұрын

​@@osakanone Have you heard of Aristotle and Adam Smith? Maybe Nietzsche, but that is about it.

I think of Ayn Rand as one of the greatest minds human civilization ever create it on the level of… #Tolstoy, #Dostoevsky, #Hesse, #Socrates, #Jesus. I recommend to read at least one of her #boobs “ #Fountainhead “. #AynRand . #Bogoslowsky .🦁🤴

Yes, I was living in NYC and I read "The Fountain Head" and "Atlas Shrugged." I disagreed with her philosophy and her ideas. Furthermore, she took her S.S and Medicare when she was passing with Cancer. ( Everything that she stood against. ) William F. Buckley and Gore Vidal. Mr. Vidal won every debate. Plus , Mr. Gore Vidal's books were enormous with insights. I stand with Gore Vidal. Thank you again, Fiction Beast. With the deepest appreciation and respect for your wisdom and your lectures.

@not_emerald

Жыл бұрын

"Furthermore, she took her S.S and Medicare when she was passing with Cancer." I don't think you understand Rand's philosophy as well as you think

@cheri238

Жыл бұрын

@@not_emerald We may agree to disagree.

@quatele

Жыл бұрын

In the US, Social Security, the government retirement savings program, is mandatory. They automatically deduct it out of your paycheck whether you want it or not.

@bigmouthstrikesagain4056

Жыл бұрын

@Quatele exactly...

@cheri238

Жыл бұрын

@@bigmouthstrikesagain4056 Read Foucault, philosopher.

Decent analysis,but I feel you missed the mark! You never go into the Objectivist Epistemology,or her view on how philosophy needs to be practical and therefore linking morality to the pleasure/pain mechanism. Ayn Rand gets alot of hate and i can understand why,but usually it's because people aren't going far enough into her nonfiction to find any answers. I'm not insinuating that you did that here btw. I've listened to alot of your videos and truly appreciate your in depth research on all these subjects. Merci Beaucoup.

Hi please could u talk about the death of Ivan ilych

Her name isn't even mentioned if you look up great philosopher's,which I did.I've never been interested in reading anything Rand has written,the only thing I got from her was she had a racist view of Arab people,particularly Palestinians.

You're joking right? Ayn Rand pushed against statism: but claimed social security and medicare. Espoused independence: Depened entirely on support from others. Called others "parasites" and "moochers": Literally claimed in her husband's name without his consent. Libertarians are like housecats: Fiercely independent until things get hard, with no understanding of how the world works whatsoever. She was literally so obsessed with logic that she had no understanding of the engineer's fallacy: That the logical answer is not usually the correct answer. The "hero" is a totally imagined entity to service egos, which is why everybody obsessed with heroes is packed with anxiety because to be a hero you must first invent an enemy which then makes your entire life an entirely imagined battle. The idea that all competition is pure too, is also a pure fantasy, which totally negates almost everything she ever said which depended on the idea that competition was the only good filter for ideal vs less ideal. Likewise: pretty much all libertarians are closet socialists, they just want support networks only for themselves and nobody else: They have no concept of their own hypocrisy, because they have no concept of theory of mind to begin with. The occcidental fetishization on this channel is off the charts. Touch grass, I beg you Fiction Beast. The ideas of almost every hero mentioned on this channel collapse the moment you bring ought-is, post-structuralism, semiotics or metamodernism to bare. If you want to be ultimately selfish and depend entirely and only on the self, forget language, fire, and return to the forest.

@AliumMoAnn

Жыл бұрын

very well said regarding these right-wing libertarians

@yamataichul

11 ай бұрын

I've always seen the right wing and libertarianism like water and oil. Yet, these go so well in soups😭

@CreativeCat333

9 ай бұрын

She's not a libertarian lmao.

@Nitrotix1

5 ай бұрын

You referenced one individuals personal views and decisions as an argument against an entire socio-political scope? Surely that's not a serious position. The rest of your argument proves that this is not a serious viewpoint, just baseless presumptions and strawman arguments.

I literally just finished reading Atlas Shrugged like a week ago, lol. Honestly, although there's definitely a lot you can disagree with, I did find it to be pretty brilliant in its argumentation. It was genuinely pretty impressive to see how she totally dismantled conventional morality and built a new version. Really I think it's kinda funny how people say Rand was evil but other, way more insane philosophers like Peter Singer are given credence.

@rabidwaffles9022

Жыл бұрын

Yeah I haven’t heard of a philosopher that I didn’t think was kinda crazy. I think when people get obsessed with the mind they go crazy but Ayn Rands philosophy seems super productive to me. It’s focused on rational selfishness and moral responsibility and is idealistic in a lot of ways so I think it’s easy to see why it inspires people

@bergspot

Жыл бұрын

@@rabidwaffles9022 LOL

@onpatrolforthejuice

7 ай бұрын

There are gaps in objectivism. And holes can be poked in it. But I do think it taps into to something that is clear in the vast majority of nature and which outliers always exist.. But not for very long and leave little impact.

@Itsuser_1234

7 ай бұрын

Hi What’s wrong with Peter singer?

เรื่องที่จะสามารถสงบความเป็นคนที่ชอบสร้างความเดือดร้อนเป็นวงกว้างได้เป็นเรื่องที่เป็นปัญหายืดเยื้อที่โลกโดยรวมถูกต้องคำถามมานานแล้วและยังไม่มีใครเเก้โจทย์นั้นได้ตรงจุดเพราะอะไรคำตอบอยู่ในใจคนที่ไม่อยากมีเรื่องเพราะรู้ว่าไม่คุ้มก็จะไม่กล่าวถึงจะดีกว่า และใครเป็นคนก่อ ใครเป็นใครเมื่อรู้แล้วจะง่ายขึ้นไงจอให้รู้ว่าใครควรที่มีชื่อว่าอะไรควรที่จะอยู่ในสมาคมไหนด้วยจากประเภทนั้นจึงต้องรู้ให้ถึงแก่นอย่างมีมิติและผ่านการกลั่นกรองมาตลอดอย่างได้ความละเอียดอ่อนเพราะเรื่องของคนต้องละเอียดมากถึงมากที่สุดอย่างหาใครมามีขัดหรือหาเรื่องมาเเก้ไม่มีที่เขาว่าไร้ข้อแม้และเงื่อนไขเป็นเรื่องที่ต้องสร้างสื่อให้ไวเพื่อทำให้โลกของทุกคนน่าดูน่าอยู่ด้วยกันอย่างทั่วถึง😊🎉

We think, we do. What's thinking?

I'm glad of this video, I like old Randal.

In the first 14 seconds of the video, a mistake is made. It is said that the hero only listens to himself and no one else. Ayn Rand strongly criticizes this since it seems irrational to her. Saying that something is virtuous just because it comes from oneself is stupid. Anything would be valid and nothing would have to be defined. That criticizes Nietzsche. Be careful with thinking your philosophy that way. It is not a blank check for any whim

You say she was against the welfare state but accepted social security and medicaid. But those are paid in to by the worker themselves and the amount they receive is tied to their contributions. That is not welfare.

Brother it's not Cameron , it's Francon

Things are a bit more complicated than AR saw them. I have something of a romantic streak but not at the expense of my ability to observe the human condition with some amount of candor. No one does anything alone. From the moment we issue forth from the womb, we’re whining for a teat. Few of us evolve beyond our whining. Genuine freedom is pretty hard to come by. AR ain’t it.

@Fiction_Beast

Жыл бұрын

I get your point. She woke me a bit to the reality that if you don’t really perform nobody give an S***. So at the end of the day she points out that life’s ultimate value exchange. You give me something and I have you something in return. Empty words don’t mean anything in the harsh reality of life. Life’s competition whether we know or not. We’re revolved to compete. While it’s nice to be nice and for some that’s good enough but for hungry people like Steve jobs being an a***hole got things done. I don’t think anyone got the answer but AR gives you a closer perspective on human nature in a rather ruthless world. While we have evolved from our jungle mentality of Darwinian world, that mentality is still in us. Ruthless people succeed while nice people don’t. As much as we don’t want to accept that, unfortunately that’s the reality.

I wonder how come you have made no video on Hemingway and still talking about literature?

@Fiction_Beast

Жыл бұрын

He never intrigued me enough to spend 40 hours of my life to make a single video. Give me 3 reasons why I should. Who knows I might make one.

@accountancybydivyankj

Жыл бұрын

@@Fiction_Beasthere are my reasons and why do I love to read him over and over again - 1. His writing style which is concise and pithy. The reason why later minimalists like Carver were influenced by him. I don't know someone who wrote like this before him. 2. His ice berg theory. You can also compare it with minimalism but it's different. With this theory he manages to hide so many complex emotion with his simplistic style yet the reader is always aware of those underlying emotions. I don't know how he does it. Read Big Two Hearted River and Hills Like White Elephants. 3. His philosophy that is shown through his most of the character. A man can be destroyed but never defeated. Yet he is known as a realist and a little pessimistic writer. 4. He was much influenced by Turgenev and Cezanne the impressionist painter. You can see it when you read his description of landscape and country. I mean how many writers could write like a painter? 5. Repetition might make prose boring and monotonous but he uses it to create a moving picture which always intruges me. 6. He helped lots of writers like Joyce, Fitzgerald and the othe members of lost generation As a whole his books are not better than other famous writer's book, I agree. But his style is the reason why he is still one of the most read 20th century writers.

@Fiction_Beast

Жыл бұрын

You make some amazing points. I’m a bit overwhelmed with other projects and other things in my life so cannot promise anything concrete but will rethink Hemingway for a future project.

@accountancybydivyankj

Жыл бұрын

@@Fiction_Beast For sure. I believe it will be a thrilling experience for you as well and a great treat for your viewers.

@accountancybydivyankj

Жыл бұрын

@@markvictor8776 😅 not enough. But yes I read him a lot. I wanted to look at his work through the eyes of a literary critic or analyst like him.

Also, she would be rolling in her grave at your characterization of her view as saying that one should listen to one’s gut or intuition-which is exactly the opposite of what she said, so I don’t know how you managed to be so wrong (100%). Miles above your intellectual capacity I guess

Of course she would take social security and medicaid. Absolutely principled stand: she paid her money into the state and if she leaves it at that, it becomes charity for the 'moochers' and 'spongers' and 'looters'. Today, of course, looters are merely undocumented shoppers. Fascinating predictions. She sold 35 million copies of her books? Clearly she didn't need social security, so why didn't you think about her principles before judging her?

@j.rebekah8605

3 ай бұрын

She was impoverished when she took that money (she spent her millions by then), you missed a valuable part of the story. Anger prevents people from listening well.

@Brunodomini

3 ай бұрын

@@j.rebekah8605Are you sure? I read that she had half a million dollars when she died and willed it to a friend. Just looked it up: New York Times, March 28, 1982.

Her philosophy is similar to Nietzche's idea's about 'the super human', no?

@bergspot

Жыл бұрын

No.

@DreamDosage

Жыл бұрын

Yep

@rabidwaffles9022

Жыл бұрын

There’s aspects of that but her philosophy clearly takes inspiration from multiple philosopher

Wooohooo

The real philosophers drop the idea of heroism the more will you have the more anxiety 😢

@ejtattersall156

Жыл бұрын

Punctuation is useful.

I have an ID thief.

We didn’t need Rand to espouse these values. We live in a very selfish, self centered society already.

You misinterpreted Ayn Rand as cynical

I've read one book of hers, The Romantic Manifesto, and it's really, really bad. It opens with an outright lie and goes on to spout especially silly opinions that merely underscore the rather extensive gaps in Rand's art history and aesthetics theory education -- limitations she apparently neither cared about nor ever tried to address, given the point in her career at which she wrote it. After this introduction to Rand's "thinking," I've never had any desire to read anything more of hers. As for whether selfishness can be generalized as a virtue... If this is a correct interpretation of Rand's philosophy, I'd just say that quite a bit of scientific data has been compiled since her lifetime that at the very least should cast doubt on such an assertion. In this case, it wasn't her fault that she was underinformed, as the information wasn't available at the time.

Tbh I wouldn't say that it is genius philosophy. Her "philosophy" is interpretation of Nietzsche on a rudely basic level. At least, that's how I see it; you may disagree.

@Saber23

Жыл бұрын

@@ubik5453 true but so does socialism

@Saber23

Жыл бұрын

I agree 100% bro and it’s not even fully an “interpretation” of Nietzsche’s work with a 5 year old understanding it’s even worse, literally just a more egocentric carbon copy, with some liberalism thrown into the mix, it’s absolutely ridiculous that we even have to still talk about this woman, her ideas were foolish and frankly just destructive, even more so then Nietzsche’s actual philosophy

@Saber23

Жыл бұрын

@@ubik5453 I mean capitalism has lasted longer then socialism but yeah we agree on Ayn Rand and pretty much everything else your right socialism isn’t that simple, but it’s still awful oddly enough socialists often go on about how “simple” and “common sensical” it is which is ironic as hell

@Saber23

Жыл бұрын

@@ubik5453 also “all that Soviet Union stuff” is that how you describe one of the largest examples of a certain ideology being implemented the failing along with some of the most important events in recent history?

@Saber23

Жыл бұрын

@@ubik5453 dude you’re literally just saying “we should follow Marxist Utopianism” without explicitly saying so, there is no other road to communism aside from the one Marx, Engels and Lenin promoted they’re literally the damn founding fathers of the ideology it’s like saying “we should have capitalism but without prices or value, it just doesn’t make sense and this crap about “profit” doesn’t work in this context ANY global economy would want to maximize profit it’s into the people themselves that’ll help the well being of those dearest to them (generally speaking of course) and you can’t use climate change as an argument because the most effective means to combat climate change has been proven to be people having more mo he in their pockets to innovate and make things better (not that the planet needs us to heal it) but I really don’t want this to turn into a full on debate about economics

I read Atlas Shrugged and thought it the work of a literary hack and philosophical hack. Years earlier, I read the essays out of The Virtue of Selfishness and thought that was the work of a classic nihilist. I cannot recommend Ayn Rand as a serious thinker.

@barrymoore4470

9 ай бұрын

Rand is an extremely callow thinker, and not even a good writer. I don't understand why so many admire her and her works.

🤨

The voice of Ayn Rand is to make you an individual not a botched up crowd lost in it.

In essence, what Rand is saying is that the pre-sapiens in us always wants a bit more of the pie. Heck, let’s exploit that for the general good. Capitalism was born from that egotistical trait. And like some president said, capitalism is a very bad economic system as it separates society into rich and poor. It’s just that all the others are worse. It’s the sapiens in us that must exert logical, reasoned, scrutinized control. We’re here to stop that pie shit.

Who decides who belongs to the "smart people" class that alone can rescue humanity? Barrack Obama believes in the rule of intelligent people and has already selected one person capable of assuming this heavy burden - Barrack Obama. Would Rand and Obama get on very well? Probably not.

@Nitrotix1

5 ай бұрын

The people who voluntarily use and desire their products, services, ideas, leadership, etc... A major concept here is that no one, single person or group can make these decisions arbitrarily. The market decides dynamically and freely.

@peterplotts1238

5 ай бұрын

Markets are the best, most efficient way to sort out economic relationships. Beyond that, I am less certain. @@Nitrotix1

⭐💯💓💯⭐

"To be successful, you have to be selfish, or else you never achieve. And once you get to your highest level, then you have to be unselfish. Stay reachable. Stay in touch. Don't isolate." - Michael Jordan Anyone who disagrees with this is a loser.

Yeah, her philosophy is not even remotely genius, it is just a pseudo-intellectual justification for her own selfishness and egomania. The characters that she creates never really go through some form of character arc or even come to grips with the world, they are just narcissists who think and act like they are above other people and do not even consider the ramifications of their actions. Even worse is the number of people in the real world, especially in politics who praise her work as absolute truth when they do not even look deeper into the works or look at who she really was as a person.

@thecapn_uk8034

Жыл бұрын

Well said!

@bergspot

Жыл бұрын

Not a good fictional writer, not a philosopher.

@DreamDosage

Жыл бұрын

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black

@cheri238

Жыл бұрын

💯 correct, thank you

@quatele

Жыл бұрын

Rand haters are a living meme. If you don't like a piece of literature, you could just scroll on by, instead of spewing vitriol like a crazy person.

So many men dismiss her because she is a woman. It's really sad to see. Y'all can't be open to learning from a woman?

@DreamDosage

Жыл бұрын

Yea I think you’re right… as a dude, I notice it in other realms of life as well

@allanc2827

Жыл бұрын

Have you ever read Suzanne Langer, the American philosopher? She is a true philosopher and respected by all contemporary philosophers. Read her books and see how a real philosopher thinks and writes.

To call her philosophy genius is absurd. Her philosophy is a step above caveman mentality.

@barrymoore4470

9 ай бұрын

Her writing was about on par with cavemen as well (cavemen actually showed more genuine creativity and concern that Rand ever did).

@user-fb2jb3gz1d

9 ай бұрын

@@barrymoore4470 well I can't argue with that........now I have to apologize to the caveman for belittling them.

Alot of pesudo-intellectuals coming from a certain part of the world

Wow! A 50+ minutes analysis of a substandard writer. "I hope you don’t have friends who recommend Ayn Rand to you. The fiction of Ayn Rand is as low as you can get re fiction. I hope you picked it up off the floor of the subway and threw it in the nearest garbage pail. She makes Mickey Spillane look like Dostoevsky." - Flannery O'connor.

Nietzche, Schopenhauer, Machiavelli and so many others had more selfish philosophy than Rand, but she gets so much more hate and disrespect. Can't help but feel likes its because she was a woman

@cannibalzombiechrist

Жыл бұрын

lol

@bigmouthstrikesagain4056

Жыл бұрын

I don't think it was because when was a woman... but rather that her philosophy a threat to the status quo..who are invested in platonism kantianism and a growing threat of anti rationalism... that I do agree with.

Not looking forward to this. It’s sickening that we still give ole Ayn the time of day. 1/10

@svenz.1391

Жыл бұрын

Her ideas and predictions are sadly very real in today's society. Have you even read a book and understood it?

@osakanone

Жыл бұрын

@@svenz.1391 They're really not real at all, there's just a lot of idiots with a lot of money who spend a lot of money to frame things in that way and get deeply upset if you disagree with them.

@paulbrereton5149

Жыл бұрын

Whoever it is holding a gun to your head forcing you to listen, I'd try my best to sneak away for a second and call the cops.

@Genny-Zee

Жыл бұрын

I would complain but I don’t know who she is 😂

@DreamDosage

Жыл бұрын

@@paulbrereton5149lol…👌

So, she's just like a lot of conversative people, hypocrites. Take social security and Medicare. Benefits of others social benefits....

@davidkottman3440

Жыл бұрын

It's not hypocritical to participate in the society as it exists, and still advocate for a society with different policies.

@dobermanlove4797

Жыл бұрын

You really should learn how social security and Medicare works. We pay into them over the decades we work. It’s our money.

@Nitrotix1

5 ай бұрын

So a person who opposes SS and Medicare should avoid paying into it? Would you then call them a criminal for "evading taxes"?

Sexual assault is fine as long as the guy is an objectivist- Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead

@UNCIVILIZE

12 күн бұрын

BS.

Dissapointed that this well thought out channel would consider anything useful from Rand's pseudo-philosophy.

@UNCIVILIZE

12 күн бұрын

But covering varied works is the whole point of educating yourself, especially in philosophy. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it has no value. Let it hone your arguments against it if you like. But don't banish dissenting views. THAT is idiotic.

@bergspot

12 күн бұрын

@@UNCIVILIZE it's just an opinion that is harming no one, like you calling 'idiotic' what you disagree with. That's fine. I have looked into her work and find that she's a poor writer, and as a philosopher, has no substance in terms of bringing anything new to the table... also her Objectivisim is kind of outdated from a psychological and sociological point of view. 'Just because I don't like something', could also mean that it has no value for me. If it has value for you, don't be offended by what I expressed freely here.

Rand is an extremely boring thinker

Ayn Rand didn't find it immoral to support her husband when he was a starving artist and had no money.

@dobermanlove4797

Жыл бұрын

Seriously? Married couples shouldn’t help each other? What a weak comment.

@cynicalandrealistic2678

6 ай бұрын

@@dobermanlove4797 you are absolutely right she was not against helping people she was against forcing people to help other people

@UNCIVILIZE

12 күн бұрын

​@@cynicalandrealistic2678EXACTLY right.