"The enemy of reason is authority."

@emptyeff

2 жыл бұрын

Authorities can’t be reasonable?

@alexrichter1362

2 жыл бұрын

Authorities could be reasonable, but authority itself is unreasonable. But I don't know where an authority would be necessary when both parties are using reason.

@luizdevil6855

Жыл бұрын

@@alexrichter1362 if one wanted to exploit other, Its the only way I see it being necessary.

@RogerFusselman

9 ай бұрын

Review that section. Context matters. Yaron Brook was speaking in the context of an authority coerced upon others. He was not saying authorities on collectible plates speaking on "Antique Roadshow" were enemies of reason.

@kimjun9656

9 ай бұрын

As a guy who from South Korea grew up within highly authoritative atmosphere, what you said can’t be backward even a little.

I think at the very bottom of Objectivism is the understanding that there are no unselfish acts.

@ruthlessjones8220

Ай бұрын

So then what’s the difference between objectivism and egoism?

@jacksonstone246

Ай бұрын

@@ruthlessjones8220egoism is when the end of human action is happiness or usually people think short term happiness like go do drugs or something. Objectivism is happiness being the end of rational action.

@jacksonstone246

Ай бұрын

What do you mean by an unselfish act? Something you didn’t want to do but felt like you had to? Is it wrong to question why you should do things you don’t want to do? I don’t get why this has to be demonized when it’s founded on the idea that existence is supreme over non-existence. Most religion and philosophy is the morbid obsession with non-existence which is something that quite literally does not exist.

@theunseenstevemcqueen

Ай бұрын

@@jacksonstone246 Any and all willful activity is selfish by definition. There's no judgement in this sentiment....one must give your muscles a reason before you can take credit for moving them. No, you shouldn't question why you do things you don't want to...you should not do them. Either don't do those things or stop lying to yourself and others about your core motivations. Accept, embrace, enjoy.

Really interesting discussion. Great to get an emtionless and balanced breakdown of Rand.

Its been 2 years and I keep coming back to this one. This was a insanely good interview.

@micchaelsanders6286

Жыл бұрын

Yaron's thoughts are gold. I would highly recommend his podcast.

How did the man who wrote Grapes of Wrath , a life long Socialist get Freedom and the Value of the Individual’s Mind so right in one of his seminal novels , East of Eden . It is dualism at its best: “And this I believe: that the free, exploring mind of the individual human is the most valuable thing in the world. And this I would fight for: the freedom of the mind to take any direction it wishes, undirected. And this I must fight against: any idea, religion, ideology or government which limits or destroys the individual. This is what I am and what I am about. I can understand why a system built on a pattern must try to destroy the free mind, for that is one thing which can by inspection destroy such a system. Surely I can understand this, and I hate it and I will fight against it to preserve the one thing that separates us from the uncreative beasts. If the glory can be killed, we are lost.” -John Steinbeck, Author and Life Long Socialist

That was great, thanks Lex

really enjoyed listening to this.

Interesting!

We are all human beings & our connections should be on good basis or else there will disasters.

This was greatly appreciated.

So good

If you could control your emotions completely, what then would you desire? Yes, this is a good summary of Ayn Rand's philosophy, but I must add my thoughts here. The composer, the architect, the steel engineer--all of these had different ideas of what was good in the world, of what would make them happy. In fact, Rand states that you should do what makes you happy, defined as progress towards a goal, as long as you don't hurt anyone. The premise of any choice, therefore, according to Rand, is "emotion of happiness" and working towards obtaining that emotion by making progress towards that goal is the method of Objectivism. Therefore, because there are many different ways of being happy there are also many different forms of reason, all of which serve the purposes of the individuals implementing that reason. I refuse to worship some vague concept such as "logic" or "reason"... so should you! Logic is the slave of the emotions: meaning that the processes of cognition are inseparable from their physiological reality of being encapsulated in a body consisting of hormones, neurotransmitters, and other signals commonly referred to as emotions. Look--Ayn Rand was writing before modern neuroscience and modern psychology. I'm sure there's some philosopher out there who none of us know about who's using the discoveries of "1956 Confirmation of acetylcholine as neurotransmitter in CNS (Eccles), 1957 Confirmation of the presence of dopamine in CNS (Montagu), and 1958 Confirmation of dopamine as neurotransmitter in CNS (Carlsson)" [Historical evolution of the neurotransmission concept May 2009 Journal of Neural Transmission 116(5):515-33], etc., in creating some philosophical arguments. The point is, she was doing the best she could with what she was able to understand, which was evidently not even calculus. It's a good start in many ways, her theory. It would be fun to hear from someone who truly understood modern science and who was also motivated to teach us about metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics.

@_antonhit

10 ай бұрын

damn@@luizdevil6855

Introduction to objectivist epistemology is a landmark book in human cognition. Lex would do well to read it.

@A_A_12_

Жыл бұрын

I agree on it being a Landmark. I'm not a fan of novels, so haven't read any of hers. That book alone provided all the objectivism "coverage" I needed, and til this day I consider it the most valuable piece of literature (on many levels and in so many regards) I have had the honour to discover.

kzread.info/dash/bejne/d4Nqmq2vkpzMdJc.html Hans-Herman Hoppe in this speech, addresses what left vs right means and he shows that it is not individualism vs collectivism or capitalism vs socialism. It is equality vs hierarchy and even deeper it is a world view based on socio-biology vs a worldview based on the blank slate view of human nature. Sadly, Rand herself held a blank slate view of human nature which we can forgive her for because she did not have access to the ton of information we have on the related subjects now. Hoppe explains how one of the most important events for humanity was that the northern peoples, ie lighter skinned people, developed greater cognitive skills because of the selection pressures from dealing with the harsh winters from the last mini-ice age (glacial minimum). This changed both the IQ and the reproductive strategies of the various races. This has consequences. Hoppe is the most hated of the Austrians because he has gone down the path of race and sex realism, ie hereditarianism, and included it in his approach to libertarianism. He has gone beyond Rothbard here. Obleftivism at large refuses to do this because it has such a commitment to Rand's blank slate view of individualism that it just won't recognize group differences for fear that it would destroy the entire movement and liberty itself.

@rnw2032

2 жыл бұрын

It’s not that objectivism denies that groups exist; objectivism just assets that grouping should not be done arbitrarily nor should grouping be used out of context. Sure you can say there are people with certain common genetic history who have some certain advantage(s) over others but it doesn’t change the fact that all humans think and act individually. Yes they can act in cooperation with others but it doesn’t change that they individually chose to do so. If race (collectivism) as a grouping does have some utility then use it in those limited contextual situations. But one thing objectivism does say in regard to the concept of race (collectivism) is that it has NO utility in regard to an individual’s rights. Rights are universal moral concepts that belong to every individual being of volitional consciousness regardless of what ‘collective’ they may choose to identify with.

I have so many issues with what he's saying We do have a collective digestion We have a collective consciousness and multiple interpretations of it We socially and culturally condition our emotional cognition and our language This feels like it is damaging to objectivity

@annestjohn4017

Жыл бұрын

Absolutely! Our work decisions are highly influenced by the organisational culture and our social decisions by the preferred media/news provider of group. Family decisions often inflfluenced by religion. Couple's decisions influenced by quality and/or quantity of orgasms. Authenticity is HARD! Gotta keep at it though in our quest for beauty and truth

Brilliant

Even scientists fight "bias". Reason is an aspiration.

Awareness is the ONLY constant of ALL experience what could be more fundamental to reality than that???

Saying we dont have a collective mind is too egotistical, we can even see it with this video: The reason everyone is watching is because we wanted to absorb knowledge about ayn rand from a philosopher. If we tried to get the same information from this video but using only our minds it would take 10 times more but we are conveniently accessing this philosophers memory and inference of the topic.

Government is clearly not doing its job...

Kind of ironic she supported her husband financially which is pretty much against her philosophy I would have thought 😂

@leeuwbama9433

21 күн бұрын

What she got out of financially supporting her husband was probably of greater (spiritual) value than other things she could get with that money. The motive wouldn't be altruism, it would be (rational) egoism.

Robert Nozick, On the Randian argument, 1971

If existence exist as somethìg what is that something and if existence exist as all things what knows all things?

The psychology of objectivism it would be more accurately described.. I don't know if Ayn Rand had a Doctorate in the area but if she didn't she wouldn't have to take no classes on the subject to pass with flying colours if she wanted ❤

*_If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose -- because it contains all the distinctions of the others -- the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to make money'. No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity -- to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality._* ~ Ayn Rand, _Atlas Shrugged_ *_Since there is no such entity as 'the public,' since the public is merely a number of individuals, the idea that 'the public interest' supersedes private interests and rights can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others._* ~ Ayn Rand *_The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities._* ~ Ayn Rand *_America's abundance was not created by public sacrifices to the common good, but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes._* ~ Ayn Rand *_I am not brave enough to be a coward," she said. "I see the consequences too clearly._* ~ Ayn Rand *_Statism survives by looting; a free country survives by production._* ~ Ayn Rand *_The man who produces while others dispose of his product is a slave._* ~ Ayn Rand *_What is the basic, the essential, the crucial principle that differentiates freedom from slavery? It is the principle of voluntary action versus physical coercion or compulsion._* ~ Ayn Rand *_There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide._* ~ Ayn Rand *_You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality._* ~ Ayn Rand *_If a businessman makes a mistake, he suffers the consequences. If a bureaucrat makes a mistake, you suffer the consequences._* ~ Ayn Rand *_The man who lets a leader prescribe his course is a wreck being towed to the scrap heap._* ~ Ayn Rand *_We are fast approaching the stage of ultimate inversion: the stage where government is free to do as it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force._* ~ Ayn Rand *_A government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims._* ~ Ayn Rand *_Capitalism has created the highest standard of living ever known on earth. The evidence is incontrovertible. The contrast between West and East Berlin is the latest demonstration, like a laboratory experiment for all to see. Yet those who are loudest in proclaiming their desire to eliminate poverty are loudest in denouncing capitalism. Man's well-being is not their goal._* ~ Ayn Rand *_Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind, and a step that travels unlimited roads._* *_Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all._* *_Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to reach._* *_The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it's yours._* ~ Ayn Rand *_The government was set to protect man from criminals -- and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government._* ~ Ayn Rand *_Inflation is not caused by the actions of private citizens, but by the government: by an artificial expansion of the money supply required to support deficit spending. No private embezzlers or bank robbers in history have ever plundered people's savings on a scale comparable to the plunder perpetrated by fiscal policies of statist governments._* ~ Ayn Rand *_Government 'help' to business is just as disastrous as government persecution... the only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping it's hands off._* ~ Ayn Rand *_When you see that trading is done, not by consent, by by compulsion - when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you - when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - you may know that your society is doomed._* ~ Ayn Rand *_Economic power is exercised by means of a positive, by offering men a reward, an incentive, a payment, a value; political power is exercised by means of a negative, by the treat of punishment, injury, imprisonment, destruction. The businessman's tool is values; the bureaucrat's tool is fear._* ~ Ayn Rand *_America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to the common good, but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America's industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages, and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance - and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way._* ~ Ayn Rand *_One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve it's problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary._* ~ Ayn Rand *_I feel this country is being destroyed by it's philosophy. Specifically, by it universities. The most dangerous thing in this country today are the universities, because of teaching the kind of ideas that would necessarily have to lead to the destruction of this country._* ~ Ayn Rand *_Do you know the hallmark of a second rater? It's resentment of another man's achievements. Those touchy mediocrities who sit trembling lest someone's work prove greater than their own - they have no inkling of the loneliness that comes when you reach the top. The loneliness for an equal - for a mind to respect and an achievement to admire. They bar their teeth at you from out their rat holes, thinking that you take pleasure in letting your brilliance dim them - while you would give a year of life to see a flicker of talent anywhere among them._* *_They envy achievement, and their dream of greatness is a world where all men have become their acknowledged inferiors. They don't know that that dream is the infallible proof of mediocrity, because that sort of world is what the man of achievement would not be able to bear. They have no way of knowing what he feels when surrounded by inferiors - hatred? No, not hatred, but boredom - the terrible, hopeless, draining, paralyzing boredom. Of what account are praise and adulation from men who you don't respect?_* ~ Ayn Rand, _Atlas Shrugged_ *_Envy is the only name she could find for the monstrous thing she faced, but it was much worse than envy; it was the profound hatred of life, of success and of all human values, felt by a certain kind of mediocrity... the kind who feels pleasure on hearing about a stranger's misfortune. It was hatred of the good for being the good... hatred of ability, of beauty, of honesty, of earnestness, of achievement and, above all, of human joy._* ~ Ayn Rand, _Atlas Shrugged_ *_He thought of all the living species that train their young in the art of survival, the cats who teach their kittens to hunt, the birds who spend such strident effort on teaching their fledglings to fly - yet man, whose tool of survival is the mind, does not merely fail to teach a child to think, but devotes the child’s education to the purpose of destroying his brain, of convincing him that thought is futile and evil, before he has started to think._* *_From the first catch-phrases flung at a child to the last, it is like a series of shocks to freeze his motor, to undercut the power of his consciousness. “Don’t ask so many questions, children should be seen and not heard!” - “Who are you to think? It’s so, because I say so!” - “Don’t argue, obey!” - “Don’t try to understand, believe!” - “Don’t struggle, compromise!” - “Your heart is more important than your mind!” - “Who are you to know? Your parents know best!” - “Who are you to know? The bureaucrats know best!” - “Who are you to object? All values are relative!” - “Who are you to want to escape a thug’s bullet? That’s only a personal prejudice!_* *_Men would shudder, he thought, if they saw a mother bird plucking the feathers from the wings of her young, then pushing him out of the nest to struggle for survival - yet that was what they did to their children._* ~ Ayn Rand, _Atlas Shrugged_

@youtubeiscruel3946

2 жыл бұрын

This women seriously had no idea what she was talking about

The great aspect of Rands thinking at no point could you get to dictatorship and mass murder, where the basic idea of living for others mass murder and dictatorship is a prominent feature.

@AbsbsjdbZhahebsjs

2 ай бұрын

My issue with it, is that it will bring a dictator, the moment the system is at danger.

@johndallara3257

2 ай бұрын

@@AbsbsjdbZhahebsjs Yes, once individual liberty is abandoned ...you are on a path to dictatorship. Once you know this you will see all policies in a different light. Modern times: Decentralized power and individual liberty are the key to human flourishing.

@AbsbsjdbZhahebsjs

2 ай бұрын

@johndallara3257 1 individual liberty, is in fact a tool to develop good virtue according to Ayn. 2. Freedom of capital, mean only the good in virtue will arise to power.....you will argue that people will only work for virtues people. But Rands issue is simple, humans are complex and they hide their "wants".......who says that in the capital sytem there won't be a (COLLECTIVE EFFORT BETWEEN CAPITALIST BILLIONAIRES TO MANDATE OVER THE WORKER) in order to preserve power?

@AbsbsjdbZhahebsjs

2 ай бұрын

In the words of Nietzche, capitalism and even free capitalism will create classes and those classes will eventually identify as poor and rich......as good or bad.......the government cannot intervine and this will create sub groups that will attempt to overthrow the sytem.......creating revolutions(warriors)

@AbsbsjdbZhahebsjs

2 ай бұрын

@@johndallara3257 but perhaps I'm wrong. Give me your opinion on that

Is it possible to live a balanced life of some selfishness and some altruism? Does it have to be one or the other?

@leeuwbama9433

21 күн бұрын

It is certainly possible: A lot of people try to live that way, but Rand would argue that living in such a way would be inconsistent with reason.

Then how come Americans are so unhappy?

@jamisonmaguire4398

3 жыл бұрын

"If you achieve that which is the good by a rational standard of value, it will necessarily make you happy; but that which makes you happy, by some undefined emotional standard, is not necessarily the good."

@flyhigh9314

3 жыл бұрын

The morality of religion, altruism, is probably one reason.

@Whoreallyknows

3 жыл бұрын

America for the most part stopped producing and most Americans are not creating wealth but instead living a hedonistic and superficial lifestyle. People are not perusing the best versions of themselves through personal development.

@greencarpetgrowing4539

2 жыл бұрын

Mass political and corporate corruption is suffocating the lower and middle class. No one is free to pursue their happiness, they are under the yoke of crony capitalism, being exploited.

The American system of government was nearly perfect in its conception, yet here we are. When faced with a contradiction, check your premises.

@MW-sd3ic

3 жыл бұрын

What contradiction are you referring to exactly?

1) Metaphysics - nature of reality is what it is (not manipulated by consciousness) Law of identity- things act on their nature Senses allow us to know reality Truth does not come from revelation or emotion Reason is our means of survival and knowledge We don’t have a collective mind (stomach) and it is our fundamental responsibility to think for ourselves and guide your life towards your own happiness. You should not live for someone else. You shouldn’t use or exploit others. Human flourishing comes from our minds and reason. This requires freedom. Enemy of freedom is authority, oppressive religion, coercion. We must create an environment free to pursue our values free of coercion. Purpose of government is to protect freedoms. Rejects socialism, collective government that is involved in altruism Reject anarchy. Emphasis on individual rights and American democratic structure comes close to optimize freedom of individuals. 5th branch) nutrition, art has an identity, serves a function that humans need it, and a rejection of modern art. Did not use philosophical writing style using history, psychology. The virtue of selfishness. Love of self. Revolutionary concepts of science- root all discovery and concepts in reality.

The thing i love most about objectivism is reality is what it is, you the individual decide what you want weither it be happiness or monitery gain life is like a business some dont have success and some do, no one decides what you do more passificaly those who have a collective mind set

self preservation is the strongest instinct (reproduction & Love as a subset) is why humans are really bad at being random. I don't know for a fact but I would guess that she became a fan of the work of John Nash

How or what about when an individual is pathological and their happiness harms the freedom or happiness of others?

@mveronie

2 жыл бұрын

That's basically what a government is for. The idea is that we are individuals who need to be free to use our minds and bodies to survive and thrive. If you are the only human alive in the world, that's a given, and there really isn't a concept of "rights" that exist, because "rights" is a concept that exist only in a situation of more than one person. As soon as there is another human in the world that you can interact with, there is a need to make sure your "rights" are preserved (that the other person(s) does not use force or coercion against you), and that their rights are likewise preserved and they are protected from any force or coercion you might use against them. Ultimately, life is better for all people if all people are free to interact with others free from force or coercion. For example, if you saw that the other person in the world was good at getting food, and you are good at making shelters, you could work together freely and trade values. But if you decided to murder the other person and take the food they had gathered, you'd find out very soon that life is much harder when you have to make shelter and gather food by yourself.

@terranhealer

2 жыл бұрын

@@mveronie totally agree 👍 that example is kinda portrayed in the biblical story of the two brothers (which is recapitulated numerous times in the old testament). Cain killed Able instead of working together and doomed all generations to come, allegedly.

Great summary. However, comparing the stomach and the brain as if they are rhetorical equivalents as a part if this summary is rubbish.

Reason is Bayesian

21K views from two years ago from one of the biggest podcasters out there....if you don't think the algorithm is actively suppressing objectivism/Yaron's content you are blind.

Does Yaron Brooks have a Philadelphia accent?

@teddybearroosevelt1847

2 жыл бұрын

Nah, he has a fake accent from watching too much American tv.

According to Don Juan it's monstrous to try to reason reality.

So true. People made her to be very dangerous. They demonized her publicly. She was too much of capitalist and libertarian. I think that’s what libertarian party was never major 3rd party. You got too many ceo and politician study her.

I miss Bryan Magee, actually having an meaningful exchange, listening while being critical

Awareness is known by awareness alone; is the sole irreducible axiom of reality. To put forth a syllable to the contrary is but to concede.

How many people have not killed themselves because at that critical moment they thought about some they loved, that loved them....I suppose I just used that person huh?

"We" are a part of reality though, in one way or another, but his words imply a claim that consciousness and reality are separate. Maybe he was just trying to give a quick response and was sloppy with his words, regardless that's how his claim appears. If he does not claim the two to be strictly separate/mutually exclusive, then some label/description to demarcate the two "areas" of reality may clarify this. Also his claim that reality isn't "manipulatively(?) directed by consciousness" is a bit ambiguous, at least in scope. It seems very likely that some of reality is directed by consciousness at least by some degree, depending on the scope and way he meant the word "directed" to apply, so who knows, Just on going by his words about Ayn Rand's ethical philosophy, it appears that their view is that the following example (and a multitude more similar) is perfectly ethical behavior: A capable adult walking past and ignoring a person in fast need of help, which would cost little to nothing of the capable adult to assist and prevent major problem to the person being passed. The non-needy person passing by the needy person is not exploiting this needy person by passing them, but also would not be sacrificing any commensurable well-being by assisting them. They perceive this yet deliberately decide to walk by them, yet (at least by his quick overview, and all other quick overviews of Rand I've heard) this is deemed to be morally upstanding. Of course, for many people they may not be happy to pass by the needy person, but there are many I'm sure who have no problem with it. These people could still be considered morally upstanding. We have seen people go out of their way to hurt people, including needy neutral people. Perhaps there is something in Rand's actual work that reconciles this, so I won't dismiss it outright.

@reginald_1458

2 жыл бұрын

Consciousness is directly linked to reality as the tool that forms it. Also reason is clouded by emotions not by the senses and tools you use to distinguish it unless you were physically or mentally impaired. That example was at the worst extreme of selfishness and overblown. There's a context to it.

@aurelion292

Жыл бұрын

Its been 2 years but I don't feel you were properly answered. Saying reality is separate from consciousness is to counter the philosophies that say reality is in our heads. He is saying there really is a reality out there, it's not made up. Yes consciousness exists within that reality, of course, but the key is that reality would exist on its own anyway. It seems fair for him to make this distinction since there are even some physics interpretations that make this mistake (Copenhagen Interpretation for example). As for Ethics, you have a great example, and you partially answered it yourself. There are many people in the world who would feel happy to help someone in need, and a good society includes many of them. Rand would not say the person passing by is doing the right thing. She is saying that it is their own choice and we shouldn't force them to do what they don't want to do. It is morally worse for us to force them to help against their will, than to simply let them pass by. If you want that person to help, you must ask them, or negotiate with them. If you force them, you are sacrificing their freedom and usurping their values, which is actively harmful. Them passing by is not harmful, it's merely not helpful.

#AwarenessConsciousness

Thanks, useful to understand. Should it be called subjectivism ? Since it is about the individual and their own personal happiness. It's about their subjective ambitions and desires. That's what confuses me. Being objective means to look at the larger picture.

@bendavies1926

2 жыл бұрын

To be objectivist is to accept the facts of reality as a primary. To be subjectivist is to use emotions and personal whims as a primary. Rand's conclusion that correct ethics is about the individual arrives from a recognition of the larger reality of life and the universe. It doesn't get more big picture than that (Rand would have hated the idea that there might be a dichotomy between "the big picture" and the recognition that the individual is the source of all values).

@grant46n2

2 жыл бұрын

I think everyone but Rand fans understand the difference in subjectivity/objectivity. OP is right to point out how subjective the philosophy of objectivism is. I won't rehash arguments i've had, just listen to Yaron, the pitfalls are obvious when you hear them. Basically it all boils down to, objectivism was a poor choice for her philosophy.

@kalamazoo1808

2 жыл бұрын

Objectivism is a funny word to use for her philosophy as it was already a loaded word in philosophy already.

@lennardchan2764

Жыл бұрын

Objective and subjective refers primarily to knowledge, not values. Objective means that consciousness must conform to reality by some means whereas subjective means reality conforms to whatever the ruling consciousness thinks. Rand has more to say on what objectivity means. If values are subjective, then to know about them, we simply need to consult the ruling consciousness, whether individual, collective, or divine. If values are objective, then we would need to discover it.

"The enemy of reason is authority". We discovered that during C19...did we not!?

Hah, freedom without accountability. Sounds like this leads to dominance of those who can.

“Man’s logos” sounds the same . The issue I have is that your conscious creates reality hermetic law 1 all is mind . The oldest and yet most powerful.

Reason over authority is the basis for all revolutionary thought. communism, technocracy, libertarianism. all destroy reason in the end. they all lead to ending the authority of logic itself, therefore the mind, and man itself. this is why opposing ideology is necessarily destroyed in each of these systems.

"Consciousness simply observes reality" & "Emotions are not a part of our cognition": both of these statements have been thoroughly refuted by recent neuroscience. Go watch Lex's interviews with Lisa Feldman-Barrett and Karl Friston to hear them speak at length about this. Imagine explaining your philosophy with phrases like "reality is what it is". This guy seems nice but this is by far the worst drivel Lex has ever had on. "Nobody can eat for me therefore nobody can think for me": a complete non-sequitur. Minds and stomachs aren't the same thing. Of course we reason together, and of course other can reason for us, we do it all the time. Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber have written a great book about how social cooperation was the driving force behind the evolution of reason. The irony of sitting there and spouting off this "philosophy" is that it's precisely the kind of wishful thinking Rand supposedly abhorred - utterly detached from reality.

@QualeQualeson

3 жыл бұрын

I agree so don't think I'm arguing, but could you point me in the right direction regarding the "consciousness simply observes reality" part? I'm still wondering why they all seem to regard consciousness as mystical.

@benwhite8145

3 жыл бұрын

@@QualeQualeson For sure. A good place to begin is this TED talk: kzread.info/dash/bejne/nq2pmdhwnrrgltI.html Seth works in a paradigm known as predictive processing/coding, which understands the brain as active in "constructing" its own experience through a process of prediction and inference. Lisa Feldman-Barrett and Karl Friston (both of whom Lex has interviewed) also work on this. This paradigm is making tentative progress on a science of consciousness but traditionally it's been viewed as "mystical" or at least very difficult simply because of the explanatory gap between objective phenomena and subjective experience.

@QualeQualeson

3 жыл бұрын

@@benwhite8145 Much obliged. I will check out that link and apply myself to it. If I am allowed to make an impulsive remark to your summary, though obviously I'm not sure I understand it yet. I'd say: I still don't see what's mysterious about that either. Prediction probably sorts under the capacity for abstract thinking, and should fit quite logically into the generation of the narrative of the self. Alternatively: why wouldn't it take part in constructing its own experience? It's part of it after all, and the better its capacity for observation, the more it would take part is my guess. Hell, the reason why our brains developed so much at a certain point, may even be due to this. Once that internal chatter opened up, the brain had plenty of demand for increased capacity.

@benwhite8145

3 жыл бұрын

@@kurokamei Are you the driver of your own thought though? Reflect for a second on your own beliefs and how you got to them, on how you feel about a place or a person, or on how you achieve a certain task. Sure, you get to make choices and seem to have an executive role, but the things you're choosing between didn't come from you. Your entire web of thoughts, beliefs, feelings etc is partly constituted by others. Your mind is scaffolded (constituted on some accounts) by its environment and culture.

@benwhite8145

3 жыл бұрын

@@QualeQualeson What's mysterious is simply this: how and why do physical causal processes give rise to subjective experience? It's what's known as "the hard problem of consciousness", a term coined by Dave Chalmers at NYU. To put it another way, what is conscious experience? Take the redness of an apple...the "red" isn't in the apple or the light hitting your retina, and the redness isn't found in your brain. So "where" is the redness you experience in the casual physical chain of apple-light-eye-brain? It seems like it has to be a non-physical thing emerging from the physical. Check this out: kzread.info/dash/bejne/fotpm86GptvTiZc.html

I think you just fucking fixed my mind. Thank you

@bobby6462

3 жыл бұрын

Ikr, this interview completely flipped me in the right direction

@grant46n2

2 жыл бұрын

I found Jesus too. Er Rand, ideologues either way.

Who did ever say that your life's purpose is other people's happiness? I have read quite a bit of philosophy (probably more than Rand ever did who apparently disliked all but Aristotle) and I have never read anyone claiming that.

@kib9749

3 жыл бұрын

Have you ever looked up the origin the philosophy of altruism? The term was coined by Auguste Compte, French philosopher. It simply means otherism. Altruism says what you do for others and concern with their happiness is the moral, not how your live your own life but what do and the concern for other people’s happiness. The influence of that thought today is prominent in ethical/moral education today, the primary concern of subject matter is how you treat others, and the term has been over used to even mean charity (charity isn’t and shouldn’t be the primary driver of anyone’s life purpose but altuirsm does.) There is also the religious morality that focuses on others and other beings.

@oscar7557

3 жыл бұрын

“I read more than anyone” but obviously all that philosophy went right over your head lol

@leeuwbama9433

21 күн бұрын

Rand used the term happiness in the Aristotelian sense. According to Rand the true meaning of happiness is synonymous with the meaning of how Aristotle used the term 'eudaimonia'. A better contemporary term for this meaning would be ''wellbeing''.

How funny: individualism seems so logical and nice with it's inadmission of coercion/conformity, yet life shows how people and any animals acting in concert often easily win out over individuals. Disciplined soldiers usually defeat berserkers.

Objectivism is the ideal creed for those who don't give a shit about anyone other than themselves and who wish to act without conscience . The perfect excuse for rampant laisse faire capitalism , individual freedom has its limits when it impinges on others freedoms and the environment .Rand was the ultimate egoist.

splashing paint on a canvas..not art. interviewing interesting intellectuals at length about a myriad of topics...great art

😴

emotions don't tell us the truth about what's out there? about reality? we are out there, we are reality we're in the same stream of star stuff as everything else...always have been...

@pelado9293

3 жыл бұрын

Of course, but emotions are not tools of cognition. Feeling something is true doesn't make it true.

@treesurgeon2441

3 жыл бұрын

Emotions are important but they make a notoriously poor yardstick with which to measure reality.

Why is it that Ayn Rand strikes me as a sociopath?

Actually Ayan Rand was not really correct in thinking that objectivism in the context of societies is what should be sought after. In nature we see collective behavior in bee's and ants and the animal kingdom. Extreme thinking like Rand is not really applicable to reality. Why should self happiness be the ultimate goal of one's existence? Maybe one's happiness is to see other's around them happy and so they try to help other people in need. If everyone's goal was just to make themselves happy with total disregard for other's happiness and saying that everyone should be responsible for themselves would mean there could be no cooperative basis for a society to even exist.

If asked, how did we get here as a species? I would boil it down to 2 main strands of thought that have primarily facilitated the destruction of planet Earth and its inhabitants (i.e. the natural world). Religion (mono-theistic ‘death cults’) and Ayn Rands’ objectivism. The etymology of the word God is old English/Germanic origin (or Dog if you go way, way back), but the belief in the superstitious, i.e. some magic, supposedly omnipotent (yet never showing itself) super being, whether called 'God' or otherwise, has also been woven into the fabric of our DNA through natural selection over time. In the early stages of our time on Earth, survival rates in childbirth (for both parties) were severe. Tribes, often nomadic and small communities were the norm. The nearest equivalent to a 'Dr' or wise elder, also happened to function as the spiritual guide/shaman; both roles being intertwined. When the 'Dr' came into the cave, hut etc to assist with the labor, if the women genuinely believed that the powers this Dr was invoking, i.e. the woo woo, wah wah, waving of hands, sacrificing of animals, painting, beads, chantings or whatever flavor of ritual the then imagination had adopted; both parties had a much higher chance of survival. This ritualistic technique could also be applied for other injuries and illness, along with other early forms of medical treatments/therapy and again, actual believers in the power of the ritual upped their odds of survival and thus, their ability to thrive and pass on genes. This is the very 'real', placebo effect in action and we are still learning just how far reaching its power can be. Sun worshipping was one of the earliest forms of belief/worship in the so-called 'supernatural' and now, ironically provides harbor for some of the last remaining naïve and/or motivated climate change denialists (grand solar minimum, so called mini or little ice age etc.). I genuinely have no real truck against people believing in stories, our culture and history is largely based around this and it is indeed a protected right (rightly so). But, monotheistic religions have caused more patent harm than good and continue to, which is quite a lot to say for fictional based stories. The old lies are the best ;-) But we are also uniquely placed as a species to be highly susceptible to such social phenomena. As mentioned, we acquired increasing cognitive capacity for belief in the supernatural over time via natural selection (a function of the placebo effect). Which is just as well, since there was a lot we didn’t understand about the world early on (including whether the sun would keep returning) and it really assisted the survival for both parties during birth. This is self evident in how our brains are hardwired (neural pathways) to believe fictional stories if repeated over time, and especially if first introduced during early, developmental stages in growth. We are less likely to show compassion or empathy for a stranger in need after having engaged in ritualistic, religious activity and when listening to passionate sermons or religious leaders, the area of the brain associated with critical thinking (prefrontal cortex) shuts down. The rapture is indeed a convenient or soma-like, self-reinforcing psychological safety net to be able to fall back on and rationalize away the often difficult truths of the physical world. There are lots of objective, non-fictional accounts of our shared history, readily available from sources such as these (to name just a few); Richard Carrier, Bertrand Russel, Yuval Noah Harari, Robert Sapolsky, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett etc. All in, it's kind of ironic that religion or the cognitive capacity itself for religion, is rooted with science at its very core. The severing of the twin obligations typically held by the; ancient shaman, community elder, spiritual advisor etc., as both gatekeepers to the supernatural and practitioners of wellbeing for the community is a relatively modern phenomenon. One mostly associated with monotheistic religions, which themselves tend now to be run largely as businesses. An ugly and cruel practice on the whole, but understandable in the face of long since acquired understanding in history, science and philosophical thinking. The old tribal ways and cultures were in many ways more sophisticated and grounded in a deeper, intimate relationship with nature and thus one another too. Just as Einstein failed to unite the big with the small, so too does for instance the likes of Friedman with so called healthy community expertise. Of what use is the community of the small though, if we are failing at the macro level? Without an understanding of just how much community the natural world can support at both the micro and macro level (i.e. it's carrying capacity), how can one really appreciate each other’s intrinsic values - and costs? Is it even possible to have a real community outside of such a fundamental framework of understanding, i.e. without an intrinsic relationship with and connection to nature, that both properly recognizes our dependence on it, and it's finite limitations? Sadly, some of the most dangerous people going into what could well be the end phase of our species' short time on Earth, will likely be individuals with a more zealous predisposition. True believers you might say, highly indoctrinated and less able/willing to exercise rational, critical thinking with objective science at its core. Such objectivity is precisely what we need now to address the difficult reality that is the reverse geo-engineering we have inflicted on the biosphere (i.e. anthropogenic climate forcing). We are in essence, bound into a war of survival now, collectively as a species. One that is rooted in science, not religion. kzread.info/dash/bejne/q4qipqyTn9W_gKQ.html From where and how does a 'profit at any cost' based business model find its footing in society today? What kind of an ideology, even philosophical justification could even underwrite such harm to the natural world at such scale? That of Ayn Rand's objectivism. There are many ironies wrapped up in this woman’s life story and her belief system. Not just because she ended her days in public housing, on social security and Medicare, but also because of the rather obvious and basic failure to comprehend the finite nature of the resources available. A fatal flaw, at its very core. If religion is the seed with which we sow and the 'rapture' is the shield or soma-like blanket one can seek solace in, objectivism is the sword with which to gauge one's own mark on this world. Here, Ayn Rand sets out her stall on the basic philosophy underlying her academic beliefs and popular works on objectivism. QUOTE: "Man must be guided exclusively by reason. Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the senses. A mans' proper ethics or morality is a morality of rational self-interest. Which means that every man has a right to exist for his own sake and must not sacrifice himself to others or sacrifice others until himself. That the achievement of his own rational self happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life. As a consequence of that, the only political system which expresses this morality is the system of laissez faire capitalism. By which I mean full unregulated, uncontrolled, capitalism. A system based on recognition of individual rights, including property rights, by which all property is owned by private individuals. But if you want me to illustrate what it means. It means that if a man chooses his ideals rationally, he can and must achieve them. Here on Earth in reality, there are no unreachable heights for man, there are no unrightable wrongs. Man can be happy, can achieve the ideal here on Earth." kzread.info/dash/bejne/eHahuMuSdM_Ymrg.html

@rnw2032

2 жыл бұрын

What is your basic argument? You don’t mention objectivism until the end and in that moment you say there is a fatal flaw in objectivism and then provide a long quote, yet don’t specify what you saw as the fatal flaw.

@AlexGullen

2 жыл бұрын

@@rnw2032 Whose asking?

@rnw2032

2 жыл бұрын

@@AlexGullen the person that you asked whose asking.

@AlexGullen

2 жыл бұрын

@@rnw2032 Ah, so a faceless, nameless avatar. A nobody?

@rnw2032

2 жыл бұрын

@@AlexGullen the question is relevant regardless of my identity. Evading a legitimate question based on not knowing the identity of the person who put it forward is akin to ad hominem. Instead of attacking my character to evade the legitimate question, you state that you don’t know who I am and use that as your basis for dodging the question. The similarity here is you dodging a legitimate question. The difference is right now you have no reference other than my words to attack my character so you use that as your basis for dismissal.

Philosophy of love? More about the pursuit of selfish interest. Aynd had affairs & vindictively destroyed the lives of her closest friends. Nothing noble or reasonable when her character was tested. She died alone & broke.

SMH, only if Rand was better exposed to Hegel's philosophy, her work and questions would have been easier for her to wrestle with. She had great questions, but flawed answers. She tried to create a great systematic philosophy like Aristotle but failed to realize Hegel already did it in greater fashion as a response to modernity. Instead, she dismissed Hegel in the most unscrupulous polemic fashion due to what I perceive is as a result of what she believes to be his association with Kant.

It's always cringy seeing someone over 25 who hasn't grown out of their Ayn Rand phase.

@tuntitommosille

3 жыл бұрын

Not nearly as cringy as seeing someone over 25 who still believes in socialism.

@xensonar9652

3 жыл бұрын

@@tuntitommosille Well that was random.

@xensonar9652

3 жыл бұрын

@Aaron Alfeche And you've concluded all that about me based on what?

@xensonar9652

3 жыл бұрын

@Aaron Alfeche Elaborate.

@Shadi_Wajed

3 жыл бұрын

@counselthyself Compared to famines that killed millions in the USSR and China? Compared to abolishing all your rights and give the state absolute power? Compared to not having the same opportunity as everyone else to rise beyond the class you were born into?

How anyone can take Objectivism seriously is beyond me. It’s the clown car of philosophy, which is why it’s never been taught alongside real philosophers. What Lex is doing wasting his time w this guy is a mystery.

Thank you Thomas Payne! UR welcome. Why is that not taught?

The very foundation of Objectivism is nothing more than the shifting sands of a meaningless tautology; Existence exists.

Just confine yourselves to Nathan J Robinson’s view of the disturbing person Rand was. Not worth analysing really other being aware many Republican politicians consider her to be essential reading. If you consider her views to be of interest take a good hard look at yourself!

@zeldariser232

3 жыл бұрын

Im sittin here thinking to myself, if individual liberty is most important, and government job is to protect that liberty how do you not see multi billionaires, and a plutocratic state, as an impediment to that freedom and then the gov. as one to those billionaires.

I've never heard an interview with so many useless trivialities

Ayn Rand was traumatised by life in the U.S.S.R so much so she devised the crazy person version of Capatalism.

@k85

Жыл бұрын

A cop out like this comes up almost deterministically in the mind of a person who believes in environmental determinism in human fates. If you believe people can't come up with reasoned ideas independent of the conditions one may have grown up in, that's it. Complete abdication from human agency, and all the vastness that implies. Very little reason to listen to such a person anymore, as the automaton he himself believes he is. There is nothing and no one there, speaking.

@NothingHumanisAlientoMe

Жыл бұрын

@@k85 A cop out?

@k85

Жыл бұрын

@@NothingHumanisAlientoMe Indeed. An evasion of human agency and reason, a dismissal of the worth of another's idea.

@scotthensley8001

Жыл бұрын

Why is it crazy? It’s a very logical position and if we raised our children following this, our planet would be peaceful, prosperous and productive. From this starting point, individuals can decide whether they wish to give of themselves. What we have now in the US is the tyranny of the looters described in atlas shrugged. We are coerced into sharing the wealth we alone create. Our current direction has but one outcome. Socialism and dictatorship.

@Sannosama

6 ай бұрын

@scotthensley8001 You seem to be the only person in this opinionated batch of vocabulary rich yet intellectually bankrupt comments who has actually read and considered her work for themselves; not commentary and discussion regarding her work, but the work and thoughts as they are. I agree with you that the "looter mind" as presented Atlas Shrugged has manifested disturbingly accurately among the American masses.

I see a few things with these guys; they are obsessed with Ayn Rand, they know little or nothing of spirituality or the nature of reality. Consciousness is not emergent from biology, biology is emergent from consciousness. Your life is one small stop on a much longer journey and should be focused on your personal/spiritual growth. Karma is the underlying order of how things unfold. Yaron sure likes to talk, but he says very little in my view. Ayn Rand wasn't what these guys make her out to be. She was no genius or savior. In fact I see that most who follow her religiously seem to live in opposition of what she preached.