Being selfish is actually very healthy psycologically speaking, as someone that is fighting against my habit of people pleasing, what i can say from personal experience is that although i might make others happy, i always end up miserable and depressed if i people please to much. People should be better at getting what they need or atleast trying to, rather then cave to the demands of others. Selfishness is also a necessary component for freedom, regardless of it`s in a material way or a spiritual way, regardless of the wealth someone aspires to in either of these cases it`s dependant upon the outcome the individual is willing to work towards.

@Davidgopaint

3 жыл бұрын

your right

@thetruth4654

3 жыл бұрын

@@thotslayer9914 An anarchist shouldn`t be trying to lecture others on the ethics of egoism considering you wanna break the system that facilitates the lives for countless of people, and even if you wanna try and talk about lines. That is an entirely subjective opinion, what is breaks the line for you could be were my line starts or vice versa. So trying to draw a line for everyone is impractical and unrealistic

@thetruth4654

3 жыл бұрын

@@timetheory84 Francois de La Rouchefoucauld said that we wouldn`t shame others for their pride(Ego) if we didn`t have ego ourselves. and Schopenhauer said that politeness is the systemic rejection of egoism. Both being "selfish" or "altruistic" has there benefits, selfish gets treated as if it`s entirely bad. Selfish serves a purpose likely based upon survival, and it is still does today the applications of the selfish might simply differ due, to socioeconomic rules, social circles etc.

@scottkraft1062

3 жыл бұрын

The ego is different depending on how unnatural a group or culture lives. American's have the largest ego's while that isolated tribe that hacked up that missionary a few years ago is almost non existent.

@c.galindo9639

3 жыл бұрын

Selfishness is a necessity in the aspect that it helps to preserve who you are and what your end goal is to be. Many things distract or guide you away from your ultimate being. It is up to you to achieve your own self and satisfy the desires to reach the point that is what your entire being is drawn in to be

Stirner actually accounts for altruism, it's the mutual benifical action between two subjects. E.g. buying a present for a friend sates my desire to see them happy and sates their desire to have a present. The Union of Egoists is founded on this Mutual accociation.

@TeaParty1776

3 жыл бұрын

Altruism is the sacrifice of self for an Other beyond the self. Benefiting the Other is not the moral part of the action, merely a coincidence. See Comte.

@iansmith8783

3 жыл бұрын

Doesn’t this prove the distinction between egoism and altruism is not necessarily absolute? Because this ego, a complex of emotional reactions, can be more or less freely projected and localized around different people, objects, and notions. Your ego can even have a negative attitude toward itself! Is it egoistic to be egoless? I think this paradox proves that the word “ego” doesn’t accurately describe any sort of structure that exists in reality.

@koishikomeiji6969

3 жыл бұрын

@@iansmith8783 rather, altruism is an illusion, only egoism exists.

@iansmith8783

3 жыл бұрын

@@koishikomeiji6969 I would assert that neither truly exists. It’s closer to the truth to say only egoism exists, but that only holds if you think there is such a thing as a discrete ego-self, which is a misapproximation, in my opinion. It’s a way of assiduously interpreting sensual and cognitive data according to a certain custom.

@iansmith8783

3 жыл бұрын

@@koishikomeiji6969 you could say “it pleases me to do things that please me” that’s a truism. Or you could say “it pleases me to please others” it’s still the me that’s getting pleased. Is it really an either/or situation here? What you think the “me” is is crucial. I guess you could say the self, not necessarily the ego, is defined as “that which is pleased”. That’s a tricky word ego, it gets used in different ways and I’m not sure it should.

I think we should contrast Nietzsche and Stirner more. Stirner seems to have a project of radical self-acceptance and doesn't give a damn about the species. Nietzsche seems to be against self-acceptance, with the exception of those people who can advance a certain hegemonic project (the species). What is interesting is that Stirner critiques humanism for its tyranny over individual men. Nietzsche thinks the opposite and believes that humanity itself should be held to an external standard, and thus always be improving. From the perspective of Stirner, Nietzsche's philosophy is doubly spooked, evaluating the egoist in terms of humanity, and evaluating humanity in terms of some need to continuously suffer for the sake of advancement.

@strafeist3545

3 жыл бұрын

neitzsche only thinks so because he realises that the root of all "self-acceptance" is biological and seizes the importance of the issue there. conversely stirner is blindly subjectivist, renouncing physiology as a spook and throwing all things aside to pave the way for mere caprice, which will not always prove to be as "useful" to the individual as he would like to think. I think more comparison between rand and neitzsche should have been in order, given their greater relative dissimilarity - Rand's highest virtue of rationality is actually both a replacement and a denial of neitzsche's emphasis on physiology - which she pushes aside on account of its ineffectuality towards rational-self interest. The gap of guiding epistemological principle left by Stirner was filled by Neitzsche, who did so while unfortunately replacing its original purpose of self-interestedness with the good of the human race (entrenching into altruism), which Rand resurrected, simultaneously swapping physiology for rationality and uniting neitzsche and stirner into one by retaining both stirner's self-interest and neitzsche's guidance

@adamisforgiants6762

3 жыл бұрын

@@strafeist3545 Very interesting! A few points to discuss if you are interested. A) How does Nietzsche avoid the naturalistic fallacy in his appeals to physiology? B) It sounds like you are saying Rand improved upon both Nietzsche and Stirner. I am not against the reading I just want to make sure that is what you meant.

@strafeist3545

3 жыл бұрын

​@@adamisforgiants6762 a) I agree that neitzsche doesn't avoid the naturalistic fallacy. not well-read enough or qualified to analyse this one but it certainly seems that way - open to objections b) I think she did yeah

@c.galindo9639

3 жыл бұрын

Stirner seems foolish in trying to create freedom through anarchy as anarchy restricts those that go against it thereby restricting freedom which anarchy was supposed to give freely to the individuals. Stirner is more towards individualism with people’s egos but in a self destructive sense which would be passive nihilism. Nietzsche is more towards existentialism which takes into account everything and everyone not just the human race but universally everything. Rand is noble but foolish. Her views are self preserving but also self destructive as like anarchy it denies those that are not altruistic and shames then. Each have their faults to some’s perspective but I prefer Nietzsche over both Stirner and Rand as he seeks the ultimate end goal of one’s existence but neither denies nor accepts others views as negative but their own parh to seek their own personal freedom and progress to attain their one true desires and self

@c.galindo9639

3 жыл бұрын

@Phoebe Perkins that’s what an anarchist is. Living for themselves and even controlling others to suit their interests. Also what a passive nihilist is with believing everything is meaningless and only desires for yourself matter and nothing else. He is very foolish as those that helped progress things did so for the betterment of everyone not themselves. He is foolish and so is Rand in a sense. Nietzsche seems more so the best of both worlds that they argue and is towards having people be their greatest selves to excel the universe rather than be self destructive

I voted for the frankl/camus but I was very excited for this as well :)

@ndndndnnduwjqams

3 жыл бұрын

Same here

@ThoughtsonThinking

3 жыл бұрын

Frankl & Camus you vote for, Frankl & Camus you will get!

@gracefitzgerald2227

3 жыл бұрын

Ditto! This has my head spinning. With great philosophical content comes 1000 more questions

So to me, Nietzsche’s critical take connecting Physics, Psychology and philosophy, , while not totally eradicating free will as many tie it to the randomness of the universe, Definitely stresses for me that a real philosophical and comprehensive ethics takes not only connecting all fields of study in a theory of everything, but also dispersing power in all forms so that we can truly observe each other in development, as even Stirner seemed to imply that Even if nobody controls each other explicitly, we all subjectively define ourselves in relation to each other. This is why I would be super interested in you exploring three key relations if you ever get around to it: Stirner to Proudhon, Proudhon to Nietzsche, and Nietzsche to David Bohm, who coined the concept of Implicate Order that Nietzsche himself seems to imply here. Emanationism could also be seen As the key term here, as Proudhon believed that order emanated from freedom, and not the other way around, which makes sense when that freedom is how we acclimate to our environment, regardless of any obstruction, either because of or in spite of determinism.

@ThoughtsonThinking

3 жыл бұрын

I look into this, thank you!

@deismaccountant

3 жыл бұрын

That’s wonderful! I also just thought of comparing Stirner and Jung over the process of individuation but I know we only have so much time in our lives.

@EyalRonen11

3 жыл бұрын

@Chris Jones regarding your last paragraph : I think that maybe there is no real contradiction between you and Nietzsche. in a perfect world, each Individual become part of the big Order. the net that connect us all. Nature. where each Individual can feel full sense of Freedom. in that Order, each individual will feel that there is no obstacles that impair his ability to move.. and to satisfied his will to power. in a perfect world. I don't treat Nietzsche as a Nihilist. he preached to think with a hammer. as a critical approach. it doesn't mean he believed in chaos. chaos is only the start point. our challenge is to create this Order or to reveal it.

@c.galindo9639

3 жыл бұрын

@@EyalRonen11 Nietzsche is a nihilist. An active nihilist. Nihilism isn’t self destructive or anything of the sort (that would be passive nihilism and anarchist). Nihilism is accepting that everything has no value both negatively and positively. So in contrast, everything is neither meaningless nor meaningful. It just is blankly observed and understood. That true nihilism is impossible and Nietzsche delves deeper into his belief in nihilism with his book “Will to Power”

@EyalRonen11

3 жыл бұрын

@@c.galindo9639 I agree with you. and with your definition of Nihilism. I also believe, like Nietzsche, that Values are something that we invented. they are not part of the "Nature". the big question is : how you gonna build a stable society, based on that belief. imo

I think this is such an important concept to grasp regardless of your beliefs. The more u can acknowledge ur self interests and ur egoism the more u can strive to put others first. It doesn’t invalidate the good deeds one does if it is something that is inherent to the human condition- it further allows us to understand why people do the things they do.

Exposure to Stirner was, for me, the beginning of my spiritual path. He strikes a chord and he strikes it hard, resonating one out of any fixed moral construct. One is of course, then left to pick up the pieces of what they once were and journey into the nihilistic void, ready to construct an entirely new sense of being. This is where Zarathustra, buddhism, and critical theory come along to carry one forward. All this is under the unspoken, unescapable umbrella of a pure, preverbal Anarchism. An anarchy which faces the radical contingency of all forms of valuation as dependent on the circumstances which birthed them. Forcing one to acknowledge who and what they are, if they are to continue living (evaluating) at all. DO A VIDEO ON FRANTZ FANON THAT SHIT WOULD BE THE DOPEST.

@Graeberwave

3 жыл бұрын

Stirner is awesome, and Fanon would be epic!

@robdog114

3 жыл бұрын

I resonate with this post. The journey into the nihilistic void is real. The Chaos and Anarchism that births, exposes and destroys all forms of valuation is real. The challenge while constructing an entirely new sense of being is the pitfall of constructing a delusional self centered reality that inevitably leads to ruin rather than an authentic sense of being.

@c.galindo9639

3 жыл бұрын

Seems to me you are drawn more towards passive nihilism than active nihilism as true nihilism is impossible and unattainable towards any and all human beings

Can't wait to dig into this. Best original, philosophical analysis on KZread, kudos

Thank you for introducing me to Rand and Stirner!

good video!! keep pumping em out!!

This was a nice introduction to Stirner for me. Thanks!

Stirner > rand

@NeostormXLMAX

2 жыл бұрын

cuz rand is spooked as with niezhe

@calvinfuller5293

2 жыл бұрын

Obviously

@calvinfuller5293

2 жыл бұрын

@@darkocean666 Really weird comparison tbh, I like Konkin and Rothbard

@alexisalex702

2 жыл бұрын

no

@reinarforeman6518

Жыл бұрын

Sentient dog turd > Rand

Thanks! I enjoyed your presentation.

Well done, keep this up champ.

Nice, you did the Stirner video. This should be interesting.

this is an incredibly well done video! nietzsche's stirnerist inspirations are something still highly conspired around, but this puts into perspective that whether he was inspired or not by him and his works, its still worth comparing the two for their surprising similarities and interesting differences rand, on the other hand, when compared to these two, becomes just what rand is: kind of embarrassing.

SIGN UP NEWSLETTER // WEBSITE: thoughtsonthinking.org Hope you all enjoyed the video! :) Follow us on social media: Donate on Patreon (thank you!) www.patreon.com/thoughtsonthinking / Instagram: instagram.com/thoughtsonthinking / Twitter: twitter.com/thoughtsonthin3 /

@fatpotatoe6039

3 жыл бұрын

Very good vid

Hey it's one of the top 5 best video summaries about Ayn Rand and Nietzsche and power Vs selfishness

12:50 oh my that openes things. just like the previous quote.

All my favorite philosophers

A mother who gives her child everything he asks for to the point of making her child permanently dependent then she obviously is addicted to the feeling of being needed and is not being altruistic at all, but otherwise, I don't really care what motivates a person to be altruistic. A mother who sacrifices herself, saving her children from a burning building is a hero. Sometimes it's appropriate to put others before yourself, but you should try to respect yourself.

@TeaParty1776

3 жыл бұрын

> Sometimes it's appropriate to put others before yourself Appropriateness is based on life, not the sacrifice of life.

@joseornelas1718

Жыл бұрын

Rands point would be that your children SHOULD be a highly placed value, else why have them? Some who have children merely as a "duty" to a marriage can create psychological monstrosities. This is also why she was pro-choice. A mother fiercely guarding her children, or being attentive is not being altruistic, she's protecting her values.

Objectivism doesn't advocate obedience to a code of values. It states that if you choose life rather than death then, since knowledge is something we have to work for rather than something we have automatically or by default, then you should live according to your nature as a rational being, since reason is your only means of gaining knowledge and your only guide to action if you are to avoid acting blindly, impulsively, and ultimately self destructively. It's a matter of not contradicting your nature and acting on your own independent rational judgment, not obedience.

When you will talk about stirners metaphysics, its the most radical thing I ever read

I enjoyed this. Thank you. Guys, how many of you see that this channel is going toe to toe with Academy of Ideas? And I'm not complaing; the more philosophizing the better!🤷‍♂️😂

Stirner's distinction between egoism and altruism is his problem. The idea that an action cannot both be done for oneself and another is a baseless presupposition.

@pseudomastix2916

3 жыл бұрын

You've never bought your friend a present then. Mutual desires that coincide with a single action are the basis of The Union of Egoists.

@TeaParty1776

3 жыл бұрын

Actions can be guided by any subjectivist chaos. But life requires valuing ones own life as ones highest value.

@TeaParty1776

3 жыл бұрын

@@pseudomastix2916 Egoism is based on the fact of life, not society.

@SomethingBizzare60

3 жыл бұрын

nope wrong

@bebopbountyhead

3 жыл бұрын

@@pseudomastix2916 Assuming that one must desire to serve one's own interest is exactly what disallows self-sacrificing. The act of defining oneself in contradistinction to other is the result of one's presuppositions. Ultimately, the problem is one of self-definition in the face of an inability to extricate one from another; the misattribution of self-decription as factual identity. A person self-identifying leads to an infinite regress of facade selves.

Super interesting topic. There is a video in youtube called "What is the difference between Objectivism and Nietzsche´s philosophy?" where Rand herself give a very good explanation about this.

@evanpankow1473

3 жыл бұрын

What is the video?

@luukzwart115

2 ай бұрын

@@evanpankow1473 kzread.info/dash/bejne/h2qbuJOGhba-fco.htmlsi=kOsyL7_wsGc8OAV5

There were 99 likes and it was my honor to give the 100!

Great video

nice subject

Which of Nietzsche’s books is the 16:44 quote from? What a dangerous quote if that were to be taken literally to justify an atrocity like slavery or genocide. Kinda makes me wonder about Hitler’s reported admiration for Nietzsche.

@scottkraft1062

3 жыл бұрын

He says nothing about race he's talking about mankind as a whole and how natural selection no longer favors the dominant genes like every other species of animal because society now says everyone is equal and instead of women picking dominant genes like we've done for hundreds of thousands of years. Only in the last few hundred years did that change and look and now more than ever we have Inferior genes winning out over those that have helped us survive and thrive and that's the truth And has nothing to do with genocide or Hitler you need to look a lot deeper

Who is the painting by at 2:00?

Got to agree with Nieztche on this one!

I really like the music of the intro, what is it called?

ok. Time to finaly read the stirner.

>Rand >Philosopher pick one.

@pramodabandaru3566

3 жыл бұрын

Rand any day. Over any other philosopher

@ThreeFingerG

3 жыл бұрын

Hi reddit

ever since i was a young boy i have always though that the reason why people follow [insert religion here] is because they dont care about god, they care about what will happen if you disobey god. everytime i asked someone "why are you a christian, muslim, jew ect they said i believe in god so i will do what im told so i can get into heaven. so i tell them isnt that selfish? they usually say no i am doing it to serve my master. its not only a few years later i found out that people have also thought of this. during the time of not knowing about people like max i thought i was insane or im some kind of idiot not understanding their logic. my cat is good

I thought, maybe I’ll read the comments and comment on them instead of leaving my own, comments: a whole book Oh boy maybe I’ll get around to reading this later. lol

I like all of the input in each perspective although I agree more with Nietzsche as he is unbiased and chooses to have the individual become their ultimate self whether their existence is self destructive or self preserving. It doesn’t cater to desires of those around them, or to the world’s values. It is the self that creates your own individualism and how you accept your perception in life is what defines your own well being

@Liliquan

Жыл бұрын

Lol, unbiased, whatever bro.

@c.galindo9639

Жыл бұрын

@@Liliquan yeah whatever. You basically don’t validate anything and try and throw sarcasm as if you know better. What a joke

@Liliquan

Жыл бұрын

@@c.galindo9639 Yeah, I do know better. I know that no one is unbiased. You’d have to be utterly delusional to believe they are.

@c.galindo9639

Жыл бұрын

@@Liliquan yeah I know people favoritize certain things but given in this video Nietzsche took the neutral route. You have to be utterly delusional to think it isn’t. Then again you’re showing your bias lol how ironic

Yes!!

I don't get egoism at all. To me, people should lean towards altruism and it's worrying that moral egoism is becoming popular. I often feel like if those people were just following their mild psychopatic tendencies.

@Liliquan

Жыл бұрын

That’s hilarious because you likely only help people for your own egoistical desires. Where’s my birthday present? That’s right you only give those to YOUR friends which are the people that you personally prefer and would do far more for than a stranger like me.

@316l_grade_surgical_steele3

Жыл бұрын

@@Liliquan it's funny how people struggle to distinguish between being entirely self centred in a way that you have absolutely no regard for others, and recognising that even actions of kindness are done because they make you feel good whether it's because you feel like a good person due to it or because of the mutual enjoyment of making someone you care for happy. I doubt most people would be happy if they did not care for anyone and focused 100% on material things they wanted at the mistreatment of people around them.

@tastethecock5203

11 ай бұрын

@@316l_grade_surgical_steele3 right, i don't get why many are so afraid to admit that they are doing good things because it makes them feel good. If anything it makes their "goodness" more trustworthy than them following some global "greater good" principle.

The most selfish act is to live and not kill one’s self. Openly suffering and being open to suffering will lead to the truest path of freedom and selfishness.

Are there any philosophers who would be considered in between/blend Rand & Nietzche?

@sibanbgd100

Жыл бұрын

Cynics maybe

Whilst it was probably prudent to mention her, Rand doesn’t even come close to Stirner and Nietzsche. They are serious philosophers (although Stirner is more of an anti-philosopher), she is not.

At 2:28~ you say Nietzsche was influenced by Stirner, and I once thought the same thing but from some studying it looks like nietzsche had no formal knowledge of Stirners work. It seems that these two had the same idea but without interacting with one another. It is convergent evolution but of thought and not physical traits.

@ThoughtsonThinking

3 жыл бұрын

I read somewhere that he did know of Stirner and his writings

@guynametyler

3 жыл бұрын

Thoughts on Thinking From what I’ve read he only knew through other texts who Stirner was but never directly read his work. I’ve even seen people claim Nietzsche plagiarized Stirner. Though we are talking about hearsay from 150 years ago. Their ideas are astonishingly similar either way.

@guynametyler

3 жыл бұрын

Thoughts on Thinking Excellent video regardless brother

can we add kreia to this list

"higher essence is to you - an alien essence... Alienness is a criterion of the sacred:" It is the opposite.

@jaykong1128

3 жыл бұрын

interesting! Go on, tell me more about that. I want to understand what you mean.

Great Video on a fascinating topic! But please, next time check for typos before you upload ;)

I may disagree with Stirner's politics, but Neurology, Psychology, Game Theory and Sociobiology/Zoology has proven his Psychological Egoism more or less right. Ayn Rand was important as well but she trips over Hume's Is/Ought gap.

psychological egoism is not absolute, i do take issue with that. certainly it is when we are our happiest, but there are drives that we seek to fulfill, even without any happiness or lesser of two unhappinesses, but that make us miserable, and not always just through indoctrination. you cant form a full picture of the mind without acknowledging that. But, egoism is absolutely an excellent system, especially in the face of the absurdity of existence.

"The only real freedom is death." - me after watching one minute of this video. Xd

@ThoughtsonThinking

3 жыл бұрын

Death is the final destination, the last place anyone will find freedom (in my opinion) 😂

@ThoughtsonThinking

3 жыл бұрын

Belief is a silly fantasy, you simply don't know. "There are two different types of people in the world, those who want to know, and those who want to believe." - Nietzsche

@ThoughtsonThinking

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah I am also agnostic.

@ganjaericco

3 жыл бұрын

@@ThoughtsonThinking Thanks man, I really love your videos. Some of the groundwork for psychology itself is embedded in the philosophers' views presented in this video. I'd heard of Stirner in name alone, so it was definitely interesting to have an opening to his work and views. Thank you, great work as always!

@nowhereman6019

3 жыл бұрын

That's one freedom I want for everyone.

Selfish? Because the Cosmos seems to be made of three things: (a) Space. (b) Energy (pos/neg). (c) Laws that govern their interactions. Everything we experience are permutations of that fundamental base. (2) That within 17 billion years those permutations should realise senses, life, intelligence and imagination. (3) That a dominant species may arise from amongst the other life forms. Hopefully it will not come from the omni/carnivores but that is in the trembling claws of happenstance. (4) That such a species if it is to have size will require a birth and a development period in which the cubs will be vulnerable, requiring reliable protective mechanisms to encourage selfless care and guidance from the carers. Such mechanisms include instincts, 'designed' mental predispositions and internal drugs. IOW no tabula rasa, brain 'design' and hormones/neurotransmitters. All of these have flaws in development, application and the vagaries of just plain luck. Mutations and subjective natural selection are the drivers. By the way our biology prefers the cooperative universal Alpha model. [see reply 1] Ergo: The value of life for H. sapiens depends entirely on our establishing a culture that attempts to overcome the limitations of reality. Burdened with a desire to survive, even as a species, we have to try. The only truly vital job open is that of vice-master of the universe. And that door is closing because Relativity still hasn't been proven as big a lie as those of religion. It may never happen. If only the Cosmos had a sense of humour. We can even guess that no other previous life form in the infinity that is reality has done it so far. Or this mooted god is one of them still learning the ropes, his first experiment in Universe 101. What a douche. [cont'd]

@peterclark4685

3 жыл бұрын

Why would anyone think that being *an Alpha was a universal human birthright?* ie: Good, strong, purposeful: naturally, genetic misfires excused. [Where the bloody hell did they come from?] Starter level links: a. Born with a basic understanding of morality: (time stamped link) kzread.info/dash/bejne/aoeDs8aun6_Ngto.html b. Driven to find its natural home with its peers (nb: not family): ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/10/teenage-brains/dobbs-text c. The sustainable package: www.huffingtonpost.com/thai-nguyen/hacking-into-your-happy-c_b_6007660.html d: Sinek, on Alpha behaviour (time stamped link) kzread.info/dash/bejne/hJmGxaqdlbitabw.html Summations: (a) Tabula Rasa, 'blank slate' at birth? 5 foundation understandings present at birth: harm/care. fairness/reciprocity. in-group/loyalty. authority/respect. purity/sanctity. (b) "Yet teens gravitate toward peers for another, more powerful reason: to invest in the future rather than the past. This supremely human characteristic makes peer relations not a sideshow but the main show. These traits that define adolescence make us more adaptive, both as individuals and as a species". (c & d) Natural chemicals, Oxyt, Endo, Dopa, Sero: Offer an objectively reliable source of empathic behaviour which cannot be misinterpreted.

@peterclark4685

3 жыл бұрын

However human beings may never be able to create a truly human society. Carnivore's instincts eh? But have we tried hard/clever/informed enough yet? The Sales pitch: The links are to the fullest democracy we can manage. Then work out why it will never happen. Which is a pretty shabby prospect for a species capable of genius. Either link roughly 10 minutes reading - made brief for social media attention spans. facebook.com/Vision-Representation-A-Humanist-Government-262619170609120 (The pinned post and its primary comments (II - VIII) for the gist of the idea. OR demvision.wordpress.com (3 pages)

Are ownness and authenticity the same thing?

@ThoughtsonThinking

3 жыл бұрын

I would say so 👍 what do you think?

@markfreitas9202

3 жыл бұрын

@@ThoughtsonThinking That seems correct. Thank you

Rands ideas cannot be reduced to mainstream philosophy. She was extremely, fundamentally, radical.

What if throw myself in the line of fire to protect my family from a bad guy? Me being shot and sacrifice myself for others - how can this act be egoistic and not purely altruistic?

@ThoughtsonThinking

3 жыл бұрын

The egoist would claim that this act was done for the desire of being known as a noble, self sacrificing hero BUT only for the intention of being known forever as one and only one, also, as it is in protection of the family and for their survival you are purposely giving up your life for the sake of one's family which you deem as more important then ones own life, animals do this to protect and secure the gene pool acting selfishly for the family and the continuation of their gene pool. If you didn't then the entire family would be gone, with this example, you could be acting selfishly either way?

@observer4467

3 жыл бұрын

@@ThoughtsonThinking well I don’t think I would have time to reflect about my intentions when I only have a split second to react . It would be an an Impuls which I don’t have control of in this moment. Same if I jump in a river in order to rescue an unknown little child who will drown if I don’t do it

@observer4467

3 жыл бұрын

@That Dude insightful answer

@wintherr3527

2 жыл бұрын

@@observer4467 I can't think of one act, ONE SINGLE ACT that a human can perform that is not explainable in purely egoistic terms. The reason is very simple: that's like we (living beings) are MADE. This is not a creation of Stirner's mind. He was just brilliantly summarizing what he saw in the world around him.

@Liliquan

Жыл бұрын

@That Dude That’s very true.

Isaiah Berlin - positive and negative freedom Isaiah same as Ayan Rand fled St. Petersburg in October revolution where same as France positive freedom was in power, if you don't want to be free we force you to be free, In Ayan Rand case her family been looted as bourgeoise by red terror, only negative freedom is good - you do what you want if it not makes suffer others. That is also paradox in math is concept of entropy who describes that ideal gas energy distribution always tends a maximum value, in optics Fermat principle light goes shortest path or shortest time path, (why is still mystery) but that is fact, we adapt this optimization rule to humans, they follows same path - maximum happiness for the least work. All humans are egoists some humans choose to do something different, differently Nietzsche choose worst profession in biggest Germany economic prosperity :) Humans have cognitive abilities to do something not by reason or rational tendency. But people who gain immense wealth, virtue signaling (old fashioned christian and socialists shaming) what you must spread around and good Samaritan is just inhuman. Charles Dickens - three Christmas ghosts and Scroodge is nice tale about altruism, morale of tale is that Scrodge one day be very old and will die with all his wealth :) Forceful distribution of wealth is bad, is good only who is in power of distribution. Ayan Rand was a bitter one, Isaiah Berlin more optimistic.

@mattgilbert7347

3 жыл бұрын

Yet Berlin's negative freedom has led us into a terrible trap.

@phyarth8082

3 жыл бұрын

@@mattgilbert7347 specific example ?

@TeaParty1776

3 жыл бұрын

Rand is a rational optimist, w/no bitterness.

@TeaParty1776

3 жыл бұрын

@@mattgilbert7347 Your faith is strong. Evidence would only weaken it. Stay strong.

@phyarth8082

3 жыл бұрын

@@TeaParty1776 John Galt (railway magnate) depicted as superhero in society based on oppressive bureaucratic functionaries and a culture that embraces mediocrity in the name of egalitarianism, which the novel posits is the end result of collectivist philosophy. He is not human in nature and makes this character a bit funny and creepy intimidating. Railway Mania was an instance of a stock market bubble in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in the 1840s. Railway bubble was biggest optimistic idiocy in human history and John Galt could be hero of this story if he lived in this period. And other no restriction on business venture stories stock market crash, dot-com bubble, 2008 housing bubble where government had no restriction on business ventures billionaires became multibilionaires and aftermath millions peoples life were destroyed.

I don't think ideological extremists can make for good moral philosophers because they tend to disrespect balance and averages which are inevitable in the contexts of society and human social systems. It is as though they wish to test ideas in absolutes and whole measures without regard for the outcoming projections implied over time within the environment and contexts of the question. They don't seem much like philosophers as much as people who dictated beliefs rather than those who also looked to question and test their reasoning with self-awareness and respect for what their own subjectivity and or weaknesses might be coloring their "analysis" and that it would be very relevant to such topics. They seem more like self-help writers more than reasoning philosophers applying discipline and standards of quality control. Are you really philosophic if you are advocating a hard-line absolutist perspective to subjects with inherent complex diversity and depth? If they are showing signs of obsession could not they be missing something important in their tunnel vision etc? So are they then a good philosopher or just a good salesman and confidence-man selling emotions and feelings to a flock of followers? Do they care about the accuracy and quality of answers more than they do care to sate a reaction of their ego to some aspect of society? They split a couple hairs and then stop leaving their opinion untested because they got as far as they had wanted from the beginning which was an excuse to feel as they do. They were not refining something to be well reasoned and of higher quality truth within the subjects because they had contempt for the fundamentals of both philosophy and civilization.

@Liliquan

Жыл бұрын

You are incredibly prejudiced. Extremist is just a term to invalidate without argument. It’s a way to justify an us vs them majority vs minority classification that just allowed you to dismiss them as irrelevant. You fell right into their ideological trap.

@III-vg4dp

Жыл бұрын

@@Liliquan Horseshit, he's methodically intolerant, unreasonable and doesn't show signs of objective self critique as is part of philosophic practices of quality control in general let alone when determining legitimacy in social systems involving all the many factors of variance of environment and cultural values. The term exists for practical academic reasons not for means of exclusion. Paraphrase a better term meaning similar qualities if it bothers you less.

@III-vg4dp

Жыл бұрын

Also, I don't claim they are irrelevant. They are the thoughts and opinions of a certain percentage of people in the world, so they are relevant in that they are factors to be contended with in sociological analysis and development, but just because they exist does not make them valid in the way that they would wish. Ignoring all of the previously developed moral theory and qualities of civilizational development to assert something in total opposition without proving a quality standard of work done within the subject matter of philosophy in social systems is indulgent and more pandering than philosophic contribution.

Existentially your life has but one reason to live. Subjectively and objectively in the context of the individual.

@marcpadilla1094

3 жыл бұрын

@Keith Jones I could have written that more effective. The individual and the drive to survive extends to reproduction - subjectively -and the object is the means to that end. At the same time your are the object as you're both influenced by "The Look" - the dalliance between subjects and objects.

@angeloaquinojj

3 жыл бұрын

@@marcpadilla1094 Don't stroke yourself. The only one who says you relayed said message better is the reader. Which is dependent on the readers reading level.

I can image the frustration having a objectivist being in a room with a sternerin and a nietzschean.

@ThoughtsonThinking

3 жыл бұрын

It's funny how Rand develops an "objectivist" philosophy to constrict individuals into their being only this certain format to achieve self interest, individual liberty and freedom but then criticises any other philosophy that attempts egoism and individuality without the use of ethical egoism as a moral principle, reason and rationality. Pretty much developing a philosophical cult.

@samjudge1240

3 жыл бұрын

@@ThoughtsonThinking yeah, almost if theirs conflict of ideas that has its own fundamental conclusions, on how a individual is the best to live by.

@dinksmallwood5561

3 жыл бұрын

@@ThoughtsonThinking Well, to be fair to Rand pretty much every single philosopher can be said to have, at least tried to, develop a philosophical cult. Every philosopher, in some way or another, lays claim to Truth (with a big T). And Truth is absolute, or at least used in a absolutist fashion (even by those whom claim that Truth is not an absolute), and by being an absolute it negates all contradictory ideas. Truth is always totalitarian lol, every philospher is a possible cult leader. The fact that she actually did develop a semi-cult irl should imo not be used as a argument against the validity of her ideas. It's very much possible that she did not herself fully adhere to her own morality, and imo she didn't. I really liked your video but unforutnately you missed out on Rands conception of metaphysics, and how it relates to both epistemology and ethics. She's basically an ethical egoist because she thinks that man is a being with a specific nature - and that that nature is knowable to us. As we are, we are something as opposed to anything, we possess both abilities and limitations. Given this - morality cannot be anything, or nothing. Our very nature, more specifically our limitations and the struggle for life, gives rise to the need of moral principles. And these moral principles cannot be anything since they must be derived from our understanding of human nature and the nature of life itself. Stirner and Nietzsche imo both fail to correctly describe the essentials of human nature and as such their philosophies lead to all kinds of absurdities, absurdities that imo are way uglier than anything Rand's ideas will produce. My two cents.

@JorgeGonzalez-sx7fk

3 жыл бұрын

you should have seen the stranger corners of the internet back in 2014/2015 lol

@richardchikosi4320

3 жыл бұрын

@@ThoughtsonThinking the irony is blinding

Interesting video but the correct German pronunciation is roughly "Mux Shtyrner". But the "y" is only an approximation to the corresponding sound. I don't know if that certain German "i" is even present in English.

@lauraziessler1350

3 жыл бұрын

The "a" in max is also not quite like a u or an a sound... german has a lot of nuance in pronunciation which makes it hard to explain

@howardpope3932

3 жыл бұрын

@@lauraziessler1350 It´s like the "u" in "duck" or in "hut".

If you are not okay with encouraging a way of life that leads to the ruin of the species would that not preclude you desire to sacrifice the species to a stronger line?

@JorgeGonzalez-sx7fk

3 жыл бұрын

stirner was not a darwinist

11:30 fuck she is so fucking spooked.

The Fountainhead completely changed my way of thinking and outlook. The Fountainhead is one of the best books I've ever read

@lastshaman

2 жыл бұрын

hear! hear!

@lastshaman

2 жыл бұрын

most relevant here is Rand's *The Virtue of Selfishness*

It’s fascinating to me that many thinkers after Nietzche forget or rationalize his biological determinism. Like, there’s a reason fascist leaders liked and argued his point politically.

@c.galindo9639

3 жыл бұрын

Nietzsche believed that people had to be their own ultimate which he refers to as supermen

@jacklehobofurtif4414

Ай бұрын

​@@c.galindo9639 Comme le christianisme vous pousse a devenir un SAINT. ....MÊME DÉLIRE. SPEACH FRENCH LANGAGE TRADUC

how the fuck do they make such simple topics so complicated?

The ego is very unstable, your need to treat reality as reality, its better to have a self-awareness that constrained the ego. If you let the Ego does it job for you, you are not taking Freud's advice. Everything should be strived to balance, if you constantly diverge reality by tricking your perception, that says about you, not the community. If you truly want to live a solipsistic/egoistic lifestyle. Anything that is a community to you is a blank, and is constantly challenging your perception of right and wrong. The ego has a problem considering consequences and right actions. Just be in a state where you have a "right amount of selfish"

If one decides to leave someone because of that person not wanting to be in a love relationship with you even against your will of not wanting to take that path and leaving him/her, then he is going against his own selfish desires because of the good of the other person, of course he or she will reliese that made that desision because he/she wanted indeed the best for that person when they let them leave but it was nonetheless their own desire to benefit the one they loved so it was in a sense selfish, however, it wasnt selfish the first moment when they took the dession because it was clearly going against their own desire to remain togheter, for just a brief moment love made them not act in a egoistic way, i think only love can private us from being selfish at least for a small amount of time, or probably im just sayin bulshit

13:40 i think it's necessary to view that statement in context, when she calls anarchism a naive floating abstraction she is directly referring to anarcho communism, because of it's inherent oxymoronic tendency

In terms of morality ask yourself this: what is morality? Rules you put on your self and then expect others to behave the same way. In a sense that means morality is immoral or atleast self serving, but wasnt it sopposed to be not? Dont get me wrong if you do get upset if you accedently hurt your friend then its normal to do so. But the irony is you just dont want to be alone or want to lose someone you care, but its surprsie; just for your own convinience Fuck Echoism

The real question is, why NOT?

Stirners egoism also strongly contrast with Rand in that Stirner believes that capitalism is not an objective system but rather a constructed system that relies upon spooks. Stirner also embraces socialism as long as it is not sacred saying that the abolition of competition is in the best interest of all.

@TeaParty1776

3 жыл бұрын

> Stirner also embraces socialism This is consistent w/ his pseudo-egoism. Rands egoism is the product of mind focused onto reality, ie, a true objectivism ,not mysticism or subjectivism.

I feel like rands implimentation of morality, it is "immoral" to not follow your egoism, is simply there to be an easier bridge to cross to allow deeper readings such as stern, however rands will have a signficant level of congitive dissonance when acting out your egoism; and therefore prove mostly ineffective.

@TeaParty1776

3 жыл бұрын

You recall the professor who taught Existentialism where I studied philosophy. Knowing that I liked Rand, he recommended Stirners,. Ego And His Own. Since the professor and Stirner were irrationalists and subjectivists, I knew that this academic fraud and philosophical incompetent hadnt spent five seconds studying Rands radically new theory of rational life-based egoism. With a tremendous effort of will, I didnt tell my professor to find another profession. You dont have the vaguest understanding of what you are mindlessly babbling about. Stirner is as egoist as Jesus. And as emotionalist. See the Ayn Rand Institute for Rands egoism and get back to me.

Stirner's egoism is not stable without the denial of peoples' ability to act outside of direct self-interest. And even then, they will not be free as they are a slave to their interest.

@DeadEndFrog

3 жыл бұрын

Well its still you who does the acting, so as described in the video, it makes no sense to say its 'outside your self-interest' because acting in accordance to what you want, even if that want is supposedly 'alturistic', its still in accordance to your self-interest. Its a trivial claim. The last point would hold true regardless, you are a slave to your self interest regardless, if you find a way out feel free to tell us. To quote the master in the master “If you figure a way to live without serving a master, any master, then let the rest of us know, will you? For you'd be the first person in the history of the world.” Stirners point is this: god acts for himself the government acts for itself all spooks act for themselves but shame on the egoist who only acts for himself! Either you serve a diffrent master, or yourself, its still servitude, but only one of them works both ways, you act for yourself, or you act for yourself by acting for something else.

@TeaParty1776

3 жыл бұрын

You are lost inside emotion. Egoism is long-range, total self-interest, not a Holy Wish.

There is no tangible proof that Nietzsche read Stirner or that Stirner had an influence on him.

What if I told you each of us has our own individual planet which is remote from everyone else because the way through it is to yourself . You own this planet as you own yourself and only you knows the way. " I have my way, you have your way ......" , as Nietzsche said.

I would consider myself an egoist in a very vague sense, “Fuck you God I can think of a better heaven and way to live” has always been my approach to much of ethics. The world, technology, the ability to distribute resources etc. is always changing and advancing and I prefer the control I have over this system than one which prefers “objectivity”. Why do we assume that objective morals would be good? we say that morals are a good thing but what if they require us to do evil? I do not want to do what I would consider evil just because some universal plaque or mouth piece said it was good to do so. To stop and reflect on the action which I’m doing and to consider why I am doing it is, in my opinion, the most human thing I can do and something which would prevent me from doing so is wrong in my opinion. I have no reason to believe that this objectivity is or would be better at dealing with the situations at hand, yes they may be good in this specific case but not in all, so why would I follow them always? The time we live in is insanity, what if we mad max or fallout ourselves? Would following the same moral system even be useful, I think not. Not everyone will commit to being moral and those immoral people have a way of gaining power and twisting it for their own desires. Evilness or immorality seems to be a universal constant and seem to be the major flash points of human history. Things /may/ get better, from our current standpoint, if we all chose to be “moral” but things would inevitably stagnate due to advancements in humanity. What if this morality was antithetical to Christianity, Islam and Hinduism, religions which make up almost 75% of the world? Would we ban the following of it, what would we do to the theocracies around the world. I am the slave that revolts against the morals of my master. I find this revolution to be healthy because it does not require violence and it makes notable shifts in how we believe society should be run. This change is good because the world is ever changing and we must be able to adapt and change with it.

@jaykong1128

3 жыл бұрын

.......oh Andres Crespo, my sweet summertime child, you are but another creation who resents not being the creator. You are Eve, looking to be 'like' God, so feminine and severe. Who hurt you? XDDDDDD

@1x93cm

2 жыл бұрын

@@jaykong1128 What kind of psychopathic sadistic creator would be so bemused by their creations to needlessly torment them. Eve was granted the gift of creation and would suffer throughout the actual act. The level of depravity and insanity here as akin to burning ants or plucking the wings off flies just because they buzz you. But I suppose, when it's your sand castle, destroying it is as rational as anything else.

FREE THE NIPPLE!!!!!

@thomasflannigan4516

3 жыл бұрын

I saw that blurred nipple....don't let the youtube authorities take your freedom!

Isms are so unhelpful. Ultimately it is an argument related to the complexity of life. To expose the argument is enough. To label it deprives it of its complex composition and relation to everything else.

@TeaParty1776

3 жыл бұрын

Isms integrate trees into a forest; seeds and soil and water into farming. Isms interrelate everything. Man survives by integrating complexity into principles. Unintegrated complexity reduces man to an animal without instincts.

@kennyfernandez2866

3 жыл бұрын

@@TeaParty1776 interesting reply. Yet to understand either of this philosophers one has to understand context and argument in their complexity. In such endeavor, isms are superfluous or misleading.

@kennyfernandez2866

3 жыл бұрын

@@TeaParty1776 Integrated principles are only valuable only insofar as the complexity within them is understood in its entirety. To say Rand is an ethical rationalist says nothing. It could mean different things.

@kurokamei

3 жыл бұрын

@@kennyfernandez2866 This video, while its good does not capture fully how Rand derived her ethics, from her metaphysics and epistemology. I'd suggest you to read The Virtue of Selfishness, an introduction to her ethics, where you can see how Rand arrive at egoism.

@kennyfernandez2866

3 жыл бұрын

@@kurokamei Ok. Thank you. Yet you understand that is sort of besides the point I was making, right?

Rand was not just an egoist, she was also a narcissist. Her "philosophy" barely deserved the term philosophy at all. She was a hack writer and later, a television troll. Her whole world view, her so-called philosophy, sprang from her narcissism. But basically, she just took commmon morality and turned it upside down, rather than created something original. She claimed to have read no philosopher except Aristotle, but she was lying. She clearly lifted a lot from Nietzche but turned his complex ideas into pop culture drivel.

@karlnord1429

3 жыл бұрын

This is very wrong. She was clear with people that she read and enjoyed Nietzsche. It is in the forward of The Fountainhead. You can find the quote here: www.reddit.com/r/Nietzsche/comments/igjsan/stirner_rand_nietzsche_egoism/ If you enjoy Nietzsche, you will probably enjoy her fiction writing, especially the early stuff. She explicitly uses Nietzsche's transvaluation to great effect!

@Domas04

3 жыл бұрын

@@karlnord1429 You're just being stupid here.

@bergspot

3 жыл бұрын

Agree. No one in academia takes her seriously. Modern psychology has discredited her.

@karlnord1429

3 жыл бұрын

@@Domas04 Ad hom being the height of intelligence. The Reddit thread is open if you figure out how arguments work.

@rightweaponry908

3 жыл бұрын

Her life disproves her own theories, she equated selfishness to freedom and ended up poor living on the government assistance paid for by other people. The only time she should be taken seriously is when we are in need of examples of what does not work.

I voted for this because I can't abide Randians who cite Nietzsche when attempting to bolster their tiresome arguments.

@bruno.6610

3 жыл бұрын

I've never seen an Objectivist use Nietzsche in an argument.

@TeaParty1776

3 жыл бұрын

Rand explicitly rejects N's subjectivist, pseudo-egoism.

The irony of 'Randian Heroes' is that all the people on par with John Galt in real life are Socialists: "If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants." ―Isaac Newton If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever increasing inequality." ―Stephen Hawking "I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals." ―Albert Einstein, “Why Socialism?” monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/ “The progressive development of man is vitally dependent on invention. It is the most important product of his creative brain. Its ultimate purpose is the complete mastery of the mind over the material world, the harnessing of the forces of nature to human needs.” ― Nikola Tesla, My Inventions "There is no joy equal to that of being able to work for all humanity and doing what you're doing well. " ― Buckminster Fuller "Above all, we should bear in mind that our liberty is not an end in itself; it is a means to win respect for human dignity for all classes of our society." ―Admiral H.G. Rickover, Father of the US Nuclear Navy “You don't understand anything until you learn it more than one way.” ―Marvin Minsky

@GeorgWilde

3 жыл бұрын

Rand didn't write tragedy. She wanted the end of this self-abnegation. This is why she created the literary immage of the "randian hero". Geniuses who succumb to this trend of self-abnegation for the sake of being socially accepted and leaving "the right legacy" would be considered tragic by the Rand's standard. The most fundamental thing about Galt's character is that he would never do that. He would never self-negate. So there is no irony. The characters are incomparable.

This video is a spook.

🤣

Rand>Stirner>Nietzsche

@nicks.4795

2 жыл бұрын

Stirner>Nietzsche>Rand

@Liliquan

Жыл бұрын

@@nicks.4795 Better to not even include Rand. It implies she’s worthy of being ranked.

Rand > Nietzsche