Fortune Tellers: Ayn Rand, Kurt Vonnegut & Aldous Huxley
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 05. 2017
- Ayn Rand, Kurt Vonnegut and Aldous Huxley: three masters of words and ideas who made some bold predictions about society and life as we know it. What did they get right and where did they go wrong? Here's a trio from the Blank on Blank archive that makes you stop and think. These interviews were recorded between 1958 and 1970.
Subscribe to Blank on Blank: bit.ly/1TO2vCL
More Archival Gold: blankonblank.org
EXECUTIVE PRODUCER David Gerlach
ANIMATOR/DIRECTOR Pat Smith
AUDIO PRODUCER Amy Drozdowska
COLORIST Jennifer Yoo
Help us caption & translate this video!
amara.org/v/7NKh/ - Krátké a kreslené filmy
Huxley's comment on gaining the consent of the governed is especially prescient.
Christopher Johnson , Rand made the same observation, as have many others (left & right, religious & atheist, mainstream and "fringe").
Despite the fact that the "1%" are infamous to the 99%, they prevail because most of the 99% can't see through the pretense of that 1%, and are forever voting (or unconsciously, unwittingly supporting) for the "same old same old."
Lawrence Carroll indeed.
"A is A." -Ayn Rand. "Nobody knows anything" Kurt Vonnegut
Hard to think of two writers more different than Rand and Vonnegut. Rand with her intensely intellectual capitalism, and Vonnegut with his child-like simplicity in story telling, and a "belief in something so warm and fuzzy," he couldn't give it a name. I'd love to hear Rand explain a Vonnegut story, or Vonnegut to write ATLAS SHRUGGED in his style. Imagine John Galt as a Vonnegut character. The both should have written about Tesla. They both still sell their old stuff like crazy. I started reading Rand as a young man, but I grew up and moved on to Vonnegut. So it goes....
Gerald King glad to hear you grew up!
I don't know if Vonnegut would be able to write something like atlas shrugged because oh I don't know... he cared about other people?
I respect Aryn Rands intellect but personally I didn't enjoy Atlas Shrugged at at all I found it so void of any kind of humanity, I dont think it would be possible for a writer like Vonnegut to replicate it without it taking on an entirely different meaning, it would cease to exist at all in the vision Rand had for it.
@@russellhenrybieber6620 You clearly have never read Rand - it’s all about valuing other people. Did you even listen to the clip in this video?
👍🏻
Vonnegut was and still is one of my greatest heroes.
Hey for those of you who don't know, there's Kurt Vonnegut and Aldous Huxley in this video too
EccentricExploringApe share the link bro
Ayn Rand really strikes a nerve with you Socialist rats, doesn't she?
Chris imagine being an adult still calling people rats as an insult
Varad Chapalgaonkar real c- effort here
as cool as it would be to hear george orwell on here i'm not sure i'd be comforted by what he'd have to say...
Madelyn Meagher Well, that's your fault for desiring comfort.
If George Orwell were alive today, I think he'd say "Hey let me out of this box!" Thank you, I'm here all week.
Wow Huxley isn't far off.
Huxley's fictional world is here. We have everything yet we can't do a thing
Oh yeah? You know what is true and what is untrue? It all depends on the place where you stand. If you are doing good you think world is doing pretty good but if something happens like your gets cancer or you get. You will realize what you are breathing and what you are eating.
Sharaf Zaman man this is a old comment but you tryna argue with yourself
The right to interfere is therefore inherent in this simple statement. This right, however, is peculiar in that it does not entail, or does not seem to entail, an identifiable will to interfere. It is not some great power in particular or some group of great powers which is opposed to the re-establishment of nationalist movements; it is an entity much vaguer; it is an entelechy without capacities or offices; it is the conscience of humanity. “We do not want to see that again,” says the conscience of humanity. What that is, as we will see, nobody knows exactly. But this voice of humanity is quite convenient. This anonymous power is only a principle of impotence. It imposes nothing; it does not claim to impose anything. If a movement similar to National Socialism were established tomorrow, it is certain that the U.N. would not intervene to require its suppression. But the universal conscience would approve any government which announced the prohibition of such a party or, for greater convenience, of every party which it accused of resembling National Socialism. Every national resurrection, every policy of energy or simply of cleanliness, is thus struck with suspicion. They have twisted our consciences, and now they look at us limp. Who did that? Who wanted that? It is Nobody, just as the Cyclops shouted. The Super-State does not exist, but the vetoes of the Super-State do exist: they are in the verdict of Nuremberg. The Super-State does the evil which it can do, before being able to render services. The evil which it can do is to disarm us against everything, against its enemies as well as against our own.
And what about those whose minds are not open to these sympathies, or who reject these refusals? Those whose hearts answer to other calls, those whose minds think only in terms of other categories, those who are made differently? I have the same impression here as when reading certain Marxist texts: these people do not have a brain made like mine; it is another race. This thought puts us back on track. There is a closed world of democratic idealism which is of the same order as the closed world of Marxism. It is not astonishing if their methods manage to coincide, if their justice ends up being the same even though words, as they use them, do not have all the same sense. It too is a religion. It is the same attack on our hearts. When they condemn nationalism, they know well what they are doing. It is the foundation of their Law. They condemn your truth; they declare it radically wrong. They condemn our feeling, our roots even, our most profound ways of seeing and feeling. They explain to us why our brain is not made as it should be: we have the brain of barbarians.
This permanent warning prepares for us a form of political life of which we should not be unaware and of which the experience of the last three years on the continent does not permit us to be unaware. The condemnation of the National Socialist Party goes much further than it seems to. In reality, it reaches all the solid forms, all the geological forms of political life. Every nation, every party which urges us to remember our soil, our tradition, our trade, our race is suspect. Whoever claims right of the first occupant and calls to witness things as obvious as the ownership of the city offends against a universal morality which denies the right of the people to write their laws. This applies not just to the Germans; it is all of us who are dispossessed. No one has any more the right to sit down in his field and say: “This ground belongs to me.” No one has any more the right to stand up in the city and say: “We are the old ones; we built the houses of this city; anyone who does not want to obey our laws should get out.” It is written now that a council of impalpable beings has the capacity to know what occurs in our houses and our cities. Crimes against humanity: this law is good; this one is not good. Civilization has the right to veto.
We lived up to now in a solid universe whose generations had deposited stratifications, one after the other. All was clear: the father was the father; the law was the law; the foreigner was the foreigner. One had the right to say that the law was hard, but it was the law. Today these sure bases of political life are anathema: for these truths constitute the program of a racist party condemned at the court of humanity. In exchange, the foreigner recommends to us a universe according to his dreams. There are no more borders, there are no more cities. From one end to the other of the continent the laws are the same, and also the passports, and also the judges, and also the currencies. Only one police force and only one brain: the senator from Milwaukee inspects and decides.
In return for which, trade is free; at last trade is free. We plant some carrots which by chance never sell well, and we buy some hoeing machines which always happen to be very expensive.
And we are free to protest, free, infinitely free to write, to vote, to speak in public, provided that we never take measures which can change all that. We are free to get upset and to fight in a universe of wadding. One does not know very well where our freedom ends, where our nationality ends, one does not know very well where what is permitted ends. It is an elastic universe. One does not know any more where one’s feet are set; one does not even know any more if one has feet; one feels very light, as if one’s body had been lost.
But for those who grant us this simple ablation what infinite rewards, what a multitude of tips! This universe which they polish up and try to make look good to us is similar to some palace in Atlantis. There are everywhere small glasswares, columns of false marble, inscriptions, magic fruits. By entering this palace you abdicate your power, in exchange you have the right to touch the golden apples and to read the inscriptions. You are nothing any more; you do not feel any more the weight of your body; you have ceased being a man: you are one of the faithful of the religion of Humanity. At the bottom of the sanctuary there sits a Negro god. You have all the rights, except to speak evil of the god.
We all have our own mound of clay to work with. If you are creative, and have courage, that is enough. Live and let live 💚.
Is Om Be the world might seem shitty but it doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy being. There is no greater achievement than simply being!
love getting various styles and length of videos from this channel.
Huxley was a genius.
this style is waaay better
Vincent Vinceux I agree. Wasn't too fond of "wisdom - wisdom in your own words."
all your works are such a masterpiece, congrats!
i'm glad to have found this channel
Who's worse? People who've never read Ayn Rand commenting how much they dislike her, or all the Ayn Rand fans who think that *only* people who've never read her dislike her?
David O'Hara is argue the former. The former solution to their hatred is often violence where as the latter only tells them to read more of her work.
Both groups are equally bad.
The rancid smell of Rand's oeuvre precludes closer investigation. Lifes too short.
this is my first time hearing her speak and I've never read anything by her. But i must admit I'm captivated by her words
*both*
It's a fucking moral Philosophy, Aristotle was an idiot too but modern interpretation doesn't completely disregard his ideas. Same goes with Rand, same goes with Schopenhauer, same goes with Russel, same goes with Jung, same goes with Freud, same goes with Plato, same goes with Descartes and essentially every fucking philosopher ever to exist. We're all kinda stupid, but not stupid enough to disregard everything we've ever said.
The _Esquire_ series just highlights how great Pat Smith is! Lively, witty and poetic animation.
Thank you so much, blank on blank. These videos give hope we're not exist.
This is quite nice. Exceptional art/animation style.
Dear lord I got a prager u ad on this
Most dangerous people in history had profound quotes and were great story tellers, doesn't mean you have to like them or worship their every word. The animation is badass and the stories are interesting, thank you!
Great compilation!
Good for Ayn Rand on all the points made in the video. Mike Wallace does a good job jousting with her and she answers extremely well.
They were all so ahead of their time.
Your Videos are so great, it is a shame you don´t have subtitles in other languages. That being said I know that translating philosophical and personal content like the one in your videos is really hard and therefore quite expensive. Still I wanted to say that it would be great to have subtitles. Many people in my family don´t speak English at the level that´s necessarry to understand these interviews.
Hi. We'd love to provide more captions. We do have an active community that translates in a number of languages. Please add your language!
" I have no faith at all... I only hold conviction", brilliant.
wow Aldous...of course. still so relevant, and still ringing true, unfortunately!! its crazy just HOW true, and HOW relevant these words are sixty plus years on..
Even though I may not agree with everything Ayn Rand had to say it was still interesting to listen to what she had to say.
Also, do you think that a Dave Chappelle episode would be feasible? He's a really insightful guy
I'm going to let you in on one of my little secrets, it's free and no one will get hurt. And it's this: I love Kurt Vonnegut and I believe more people should also.
i like that its back to the old animation
wow that was amazing i never heard of them before
"so it goes" in the tombstones was a genius ideia
"The highest tribute to Ayn Rand, is that her critics must distort everything that she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individual’s rights to freedom of action, speech, and association; self-responsibility not self-indulgence, and a live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an END, not the MEANS of others’ ends. How many critics would dare to honestly state these ideas, & say ’..and that’s what I reject?‘"
Me. I reject them.
Who is this quoted from?
You guys should do an interview video on Dylan Rieder
I think we regard Ayn in high esteem through our actions but to see the ideas or hear them outloud causes us to crack under the pressure of our own guilt. Eff guilt, understanding that the same process of saving a loved one who cannot help themselves in the mist of an airplane crash is also the same process of life is truth at its most course and blatant, care for yourself first, once you are safe help others. You cant help others with their load until you have adapted, survived and realized your own.
It saddens me to think that,as awful&repulsive as she was,or, even,precisely because of that, A.Rand understood human nature rather well, unfortunately. We're, mostly, selfish, opportunistic animals. However, being the hypocrites we are, we don't want to admit it, nor we allow others to tell us that, ever! That way, we can fully&freely deny, justify &excuse, but never actually change,our harmful ways.
I wish we'd learn, but,the longer I live, the less hopeful I am.
Still, those who think Rand's (or alike) philosophy's something we should all proudly accept& consciously live by, terrify me the most, as they must be either oblivious or evil. Either way..🤢🤮😭
@@notdeadjustyet8136 I actually like Ayn Rand’s philosophy. Why should we be expected to care about people we don’t know? (Government’s a different issue) It just seems strange that people are expected to like each other.
(Edit: Just to be clear, that’s as far I as go with her philosophy.)
@@notdeadjustyet8136 You have obviously never read any of her works, so you’re a dishonest critic. She did NOT believe that people are inherently selfish. On the contrary. Have some intellectual courage and make an actual attempt to understand something before mindlessly condemning it.
@@sybo59 Well she and her family got to see some of the worst aspects of human greed and selfishness while they were still in Communist Russia before they were able to escape. It would certainly help explain why she was so adamantly against most socialistic ideas. She had to live through them being practiced.
@@mrbigglezworth42 Hi, I’m afraid you also haven’t read her, and are also confused (though your comment is completely polite, unlike the one I was responding to). Let me try to clarify. Rand believed that selfishness was the moral IDEAL, and that it takes a lot of work for an individual to be truly selfish. Most people hear that and assume she was wrong, but they never try to find out what she meant by “selfishness,” nor evaluate her arguments for it.
Here’s a short passage from her essay, “The Objectivist Ethics”:
“The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash-that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value.”
What is so terrifying about this? If you have any interest in her ideas of how to live properly and achieve happiness, I highly recommend her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and her nonfiction book “The Virtue of Selfishness,” which includes the essay mentioned above.
Again, thanks for you polite comment. Cheers!
With respect to the last 2 creators.
Nice video
would you guys be able to do an episode with George Orwell?
Help : does anybody know what is the piece of music from the begining ? seems like a modern take on the Für Elise by Beethoven, sounds great and would love to know more about it.
Will there be an IPO for stock in PBS Digital Studios ???????????????
I don't really agree with Ayn Rand's ideology but I have to admit she had some fascinating perspectives on the world
So what part do you disagree with exactly?
mughat The fact where she states that there is no such thing as a selfless act and every action is done with selfish intentions like in this video where she says she loves her partner for selfish reasons.
While I don't share this belief of hers the idea that every action I part take is because of pure selfish motivations and for my own satisfaction is still a fascinsting and thought provoking view for me.
When you love your partner it IS for selfish reasons because your partner is of value to you. To do something selfless would be to leave your loved (valued) partner for the sake of your worst enemy. In that scenario, you are sacrificing your high value for a low value.
To put things in a binary of an absolute extreme for selflessness and call everything else selfish seems to justify extreme selfishness by putting it in the same category as ordinary behavior.
And if a society were to integrate this ideolgy where one's own gain and satisfaction is what matters most, society would tend to throw out morality and basic human decency right out the window, since the act based on morales might be deemed as a social taboo
ofcourse this could be viewed as an extreme case as well
How about you do a triplet on presidents?
Stay tuned...
Your content is fantastic, please keep it up.
I posit that Aristotle, John Locke, and Ayn Rand are the 3 greatest individuals that have ever walked the face of the Earth.
OH OH!
Huxley 2020!
Timely.
"Imagine the television saying the same thing the whole time."
Can some one please help me find the song playing at 1:57
Holy shit snacks, my 3 favourite people.
ogogo ogpgpg I wouldn't die over it, but yes I do. Deciding not to put love above myself saved me from an abusive relationship. I think she's pretty misunderstood for the most part.
Is this prokofiev playing on the background
Oh Mr Huxley, don't look at 2021.
@4:30 sounds like the plot to prometheus
Kurt Vonnegut is the best of what mankind aspired to when the species invented alphabets.
Currency for Love is Virtue.
It’s telling that Ayn Rand fans make criticism of Rand about the critic. That’s the universal tactic of authoritarians, whether leftist or rightist. Diversity and democracy are messy and not immediately efficient to grasping, acquisitive, self interest. But those qualities of diversity and distributed gain are the essence of resilience and creativity mirrored in all of evolutionary history. Rand’s philosophy is a fatal circle of self reference. “I am, therefore permitted infinite excess without any
this is genius , i m so glad i came across this ,thanks
Ayn Rand summarized: Your only duty is to yourself. You can help other people if you want to, if that is part of your self interest. Don't do it because you "feel you should" because God or society demands it. Do it out of your own desire.
If you want to criticize her, do it for this. Not for her hypocrisy or other non sense.
let's not confuse community with communism. Community is voluntary, communism is coerced.
Question for chris johns: how does a person know which greater cause or power to give himself to? The one that's happens to be nearby? The one that seems to be strongest? Is there some other criteria?
The hypocrasy is a BIG parrt , thought...
No individual has magically apeared, fully grown and capable of work.. ....All of us OWE a great deal to our parents and our society ....we also didn't build the roads, we didn't invent electricity, or even the wheel ...
So if "your only duty is to yourself" ... did you paid all thoose ppl back already, or you are just a shitty personne who runs from his debs and responsabilities ?
speedy your parents had you voluntarily and of their own free will. They accepted the responsibility of having and raising a kid. Giving yo your parents is not outside of objectivism. If you selfishly value the relationship that you have with your parents, then you can aid them in any which way you find of personal value to yourself. That’s not a sacrifice. You can value others happiness. It’s like you all don’t even listen. I’m not an objectivist. I believe in God. I also believe in reason and critique. If you are going to attack someone positions, then you should actually attack their position and not a straw man that is easier to take down. There are plenty of other fronts upon which you can attack Ayn Rand, if you actually took the time to read or listen with an open mind. Do it on those fronts, not on popular misconceptions.
It's funny, when I was young, I read Vonnegut & Rand, almost, exclusively. I always respected Rand more, it's just that Vonnegut was easier to read. Now I believe in my Creator, but I still hold a high opinion of Rand & a low one of Vonnegut.
Love is a beautiful thing. (Sorry, just wanted to say something random & meaningless to relate to the, so it goes, crowd)
Do Tim Burton please!!!!!
I'll disagree with Rand's philosophy on some points but allow me to clarify:
People will always act in their own self interest if not coerced. If I do something charitable, it is because I feel good from doing so. If a mother were to put herself in harms way to protect a child, it is because of the mother's selfish love for her child. But their is no objective reason for one person to be a slave to another by their existence. It is when charity and certain behaviors are forced on another that a problem has arisen. Their is no real argument (unless you can point me to one) that says one must sacrifice their own well being for another's. But if the trade is worth it to oneself, then it would not be objectionable.
I have given things away to people and felt sad about it more than I felt positive, but the other person was happy so that cheered me up afterwards (something I didn't expect).
What do you class that as then?
that is what we call the 'bike cuck incident'
Imagine if these 3 met
do one on Bob
God I love this
do a vid of charlie chaplin and salvador dali pls
also bill hicks
duke psychedelia
Why? They were mute
Rand just exploded my brain
do a Elvis interview
One of these things is not like the others
It should be called Kurt Vonnegut on paranoids.
I don't know.
DARE TO FART, FAIR AND FAST, ONTO THE FUTURE, AND INTO THE PAST. - REGGIE ASSMAN
what is tesla doing ?
Can someone please explain to me why it is ayn rand is so detested?
Ayn Rand: the single greatest philosopher to ever live.
rand says man should not place others over himself
then she tells she takes selfish pleasure in loving her husband
what if someone takes same selfish pleasure in helping others or placing others above himself
Nobody could place others above himself when the reason behind it is for selfish pleasure because at the end is doing it for himself and not for the one "above" him
you forgot about George Orwell
they were fortune tellers in general, but neither of the texts presented here are about their views on a likely future. maybe huxley, but not the rest
Atlas Shrugged was prophetic talking about the dangers of socialisms
Ads right in the middle of these...smh
Lampreys.Fuckin genius
The right to interfere is therefore inherent in this simple statement. This right, however, is peculiar in that it does not entail, or does not seem to entail, an identifiable will to interfere. It is not some great power in particular or some group of great powers which is opposed to the re-establishment of nationalist movements; it is an entity much vaguer; it is an entelechy without capacities or offices; it is the conscience of humanity. “We do not want to see that again,” says the conscience of humanity. What that is, as we will see, nobody knows exactly. But this voice of humanity is quite convenient. This anonymous power is only a principle of impotence. It imposes nothing; it does not claim to impose anything. If a movement similar to National Socialism were established tomorrow, it is certain that the U.N. would not intervene to require its suppression. But the universal conscience would approve any government which announced the prohibition of such a party or, for greater convenience, of every party which it accused of resembling National Socialism. Every national resurrection, every policy of energy or simply of cleanliness, is thus struck with suspicion. They have twisted our consciences, and now they look at us limp. Who did that? Who wanted that? It is Nobody, just as the Cyclops shouted. The Super-State does not exist, but the vetoes of the Super-State do exist: they are in the verdict of Nuremberg. The Super-State does the evil which it can do, before being able to render services. The evil which it can do is to disarm us against everything, against its enemies as well as against our own.
And what about those whose minds are not open to these sympathies, or who reject these refusals? Those whose hearts answer to other calls, those whose minds think only in terms of other categories, those who are made differently? I have the same impression here as when reading certain Marxist texts: these people do not have a brain made like mine; it is another race. This thought puts us back on track. There is a closed world of democratic idealism which is of the same order as the closed world of Marxism. It is not astonishing if their methods manage to coincide, if their justice ends up being the same even though words, as they use them, do not have all the same sense. It too is a religion. It is the same attack on our hearts. When they condemn nationalism, they know well what they are doing. It is the foundation of their Law. They condemn your truth; they declare it radically wrong. They condemn our feeling, our roots even, our most profound ways of seeing and feeling. They explain to us why our brain is not made as it should be: we have the brain of barbarians.
This permanent warning prepares for us a form of political life of which we should not be unaware and of which the experience of the last three years on the continent does not permit us to be unaware. The condemnation of the National Socialist Party goes much further than it seems to. In reality, it reaches all the solid forms, all the geological forms of political life. Every nation, every party which urges us to remember our soil, our tradition, our trade, our race is suspect. Whoever claims right of the first occupant and calls to witness things as obvious as the ownership of the city offends against a universal morality which denies the right of the people to write their laws. This applies not just to the Germans; it is all of us who are dispossessed. No one has any more the right to sit down in his field and say: “This ground belongs to me.” No one has any more the right to stand up in the city and say: “We are the old ones; we built the houses of this city; anyone who does not want to obey our laws should get out.” It is written now that a council of impalpable beings has the capacity to know what occurs in our houses and our cities. Crimes against humanity: this law is good; this one is not good. Civilization has the right to veto.
We lived up to now in a solid universe whose generations had deposited stratifications, one after the other. All was clear: the father was the father; the law was the law; the foreigner was the foreigner. One had the right to say that the law was hard, but it was the law. Today these sure bases of political life are anathema: for these truths constitute the program of a racist party condemned at the court of humanity. In exchange, the foreigner recommends to us a universe according to his dreams. There are no more borders, there are no more cities. From one end to the other of the continent the laws are the same, and also the passports, and also the judges, and also the currencies. Only one police force and only one brain: the senator from Milwaukee inspects and decides.
In return for which, trade is free; at last trade is free. We plant some carrots which by chance never sell well, and we buy some hoeing machines which always happen to be very expensive.
And we are free to protest, free, infinitely free to write, to vote, to speak in public, provided that we never take measures which can change all that. We are free to get upset and to fight in a universe of wadding. One does not know very well where our freedom ends, where our nationality ends, one does not know very well where what is permitted ends. It is an elastic universe. One does not know any more where one’s feet are set; one does not even know any more if one has feet; one feels very light, as if one’s body had been lost.
But for those who grant us this simple ablation what infinite rewards, what a multitude of tips! This universe which they polish up and try to make look good to us is similar to some palace in Atlantis. There are everywhere small glasswares, columns of false marble, inscriptions, magic fruits. By entering this palace you abdicate your power, in exchange you have the right to touch the golden apples and to read the inscriptions. You are nothing any more; you do not feel any more the weight of your body; you have ceased being a man: you are one of the faithful of the religion of Humanity. At the bottom of the sanctuary there sits a Negro god. You have all the rights, except to speak evil of the god.
--Maurice Bardeche
Huxley's world is here, 2023.
everyone's raging at Rand so I'm here just to say that Huxley is the man!
are you cooperating with TED-Ed?
+Stefan we haven't collaborated with TED-Ed but Pat Smith, the maestro director/animator of Blank on Blank has produced some great shorts for TED-Ed.
Wonderfu!
People who HATE Ayn Rand for thinking differently are so narrow-minded.She has her own perspectives, who are you to judge her?
Pay them no mind. People like that are usually socialists and you shouldn't care what those people think. They're literally the flat earthers of politics.
You are asked to love nobody.
One of these things is not like the other!
Or the other possibility is you're wrong
Vonnegut and his space fuck.
People always act in their best interest in all situations. Do not fool yourself into thinking otherwise. People will only help you if helping you will benefit them in some way.
I don’t know who these people are but I think Ayn Rand is a genius.
Yeah, let's hear it for selfishness, paranoia and alienation, what a wonderful life.
Ayn Rand's philosophy I find truthful in reality. Yet, it was executed poorly. Her ideas are great but her writing was subpar. She needed better PR; Rand wasn't going to get to everyone that way.
The order is wrong. Huxley should end it. And then Schwabbs needs to be quoted: you'll have nothing and will be happy. 😏
I agree with Kurt and aldous, but Ann, nope. No compassion there.
Aldous Huxley's point about the overpopulation of third world countries is overstated. It's true that part of a countries development involves a period of population expansion, but that growth evens out over time.
The people who criticize Rand are the same type of people who love the idea of open borders and section 8 housing until the busses pull up and the projects are built in their neighborhood. I have read most everything Vonnegut has written but if I had listened to his semi coherent ramblings first I dont think I would have bothered. 2 old saying come to mind. If you are not a liberal when you are young you have no heart. If you are not a conservative when you grow up you have no brain. A conservative is a liberal who has been robbed, beaten, or raped. A liberal is a conservative who has been arrested. Save your unconditional love for your immediate family. Everyone else needs to earn it.
ayn rand is meme tier
The problem I have with Ayn Rand's philosophy is that while it seems sound and rational on an individual level, when it is scaled up on the level of a corporation or government real world examples completely invalidate it. She doesn't acknowledge the difference between individual mentality, group mentality and systematic mentality. Her philosphy is useless on the very scales she makes the centerpoint in her fiction.
lol. So you are saying sacrifice and collectivism works? Observe reality. If you want life, what works is individualism and rational self interest.
Skipper her acknowledgement of "group mentality" and "systemic mentality" is that they don't exist, and irrefutaby. People may gravitate towards thinking that do, yes. Colleges may self fellate over the same notion, yes. Language may even have been popularized in the culture in mass numbers (see Marxism) but none of these make the base premise true. It isn't. Full stop.
Let me repost the replies the Rand fans marked as spam:
Scott
Outlaw scar fair point
Mughat sacrifice worked pretty well when there were common values in society eg freedom and liberty
***** Agressive self interest
Then it failing to stand up to said scrutiny with be demonstrable by you here.
.Ayn Rand makes her case on Objectivism
.This case, when examined, is found to be full of holes.
.These can be complied into a global counter-case upending all or a plurality of the foundational premises.
So lets hear it.
What are these holes and how did you reason them out as such? Am I about to hear axiomatic assertions with open ends and anecdotes?
Lots of comments by people who only know one thing about Ayn Rand, they're not supposed to like her.
Prospero it's very telling, they have a mindset of only hearing what they want to hear.
god help us
She wrote two shit books that I've read and was the poster child of "Greed is Good" philosophy before Gordon Gecko was even a thing.
Brian Sebor at least you read them, you know what your opponent is trying to say.
I mean that in the most sincere way too
Saying she has a "Greed is good" philosophy is missing the mark on her ideology by a wide stretch. I have only ever been able to see her work as saying two big things :
1) everyone works for self interest, there is no such thing as an inherently selfless act, as even doing charity makes you feel good. If you're the type that enjoys doing charitable good, and another person enjoys being a psychopath, the charitable person is clearly a better person, but both people are still working towards an end that they want and makes them happy.
2) It is immoral in all cases to initiate violence against another person, without exception.
Therefore, someone who uses the state police to extract value from other people to spend on projects that make them feel better is an immoral person. Someone who does a charitable good because they want to is virtuous, someone that uses violence to compel other people to do charitable works is a thug.
She lived through communism and saw the disastrous effects. She was warning against collectivism since involuntary welfare is still theft.
You shouldn't even use the word 'philosophy' when discussing Ayn Rand. She herself used the term 'Objectivism". And that at least does us the service of getting her writing out of the realm of real philosophy (for which her writing does no good) and into the genre of fiction (to which her writing contributes nothing ov value)..
Any 12 year old will tell that your 2) statements are true; they don't have to write opaque treatises on the matter.
Is it just me or was the interviewer really biased against Ayn Rand . I mean loving urself is what Everyman practices and loving ur brother is what every religion preaches . Both veiws can come exhist . But interviewer sounded like he had a grudge against Ayn Rand....
I love Ayn Rand.
Mike Wallace does not give a f......
mindless self-indulgence
in ayn rand's world altruistic superheroes like Batman shouldn't exist because he's a billionaire with good looks wasting it on protecting Gotham and its citizens who are unworthy of his bat-love
"society flourish" is so vague to be meaningless... it's like saying "good stuff is good"
btw, your reply is wrong, having read Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead, Rand says all superior men are always exploited by inferior people, such as me with you
>batman
>real
Read Ditko to see an objectivist superhero
just because someone doesn't agree with Ayn Rand doesn't mean she shouldn't be included here. her work and philosophies are equally as important and valid as the next.
So all personal philosophies are equally valuable regardless of wether they can make accurate predictions or fitting descriptions of reality or not?
Her ideas are much more important because they are true.
Outlaw Scar depends, clearly someone like Ayn Rand, who has plenty of people who subscribe to her philosophy, has something valid to say. People wouldn't believe it if it were complete poppycock. I don't even fully agree with her philosophy, but I'm not going to call invalid or wrong because Ayn Rand is definitely way smarter than I am and has clearly thought through this shit a hell of a lot more than me.
+mughat She was wrong about the smoking though.
Overexploitation of ppls AH
One of them funny, the other a genius, the last one muddying the waters so that it seem deep