Ayn Rand on Love and Happiness | Blank on Blank
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 06. 2015
- " I have no faith at all. I only hold convictions."
- Ayn Rand on February 25, 1959, as told to Mike Wallace
Recording from Mike Wallace Collection @ Harry Ransom Center
The University of Texas at Austin
Get more from the full interview and learn more about Ayn Rand blankonblank.org/interviews/ay...
Ayn Rand, author of the still resonating Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, sat down with Mike Wallace in a dark studio in 1959. The two had the kind of lively, smart, give and take, back and forth, philosophical conversation that certainly feels like it's from another era. Wallace smoked at times during the interview. The mood was still. The camera work direct.
What struck us about this golden interview was hearing Rand passionately and forcefully about her view on the essence of what drives much of life: love. To her it was like a business deal. Love was not about the other person, but the selfish pleasure it brings you.
Was Ayn Rand right about the true meaning of love and happiness?
More classic Ayn Rand:
"Aristotle... is the only philosopher that ever influenced me. I devised the rest of my philosophy myself."
"Man is entitled to his own happiness. And that he must achieve it himself.
"Man cannot demand that others give up their lives to make him happy."
"Nobody has ever given a reason why men should be their brother’s keepers."
"You don‘t love causes. You don’t love everybody indiscriminately. You love only those who deserve it."
Subscribe for new episodes every other Tuesday (it's free):
czcams.com/users/subscription_c...
Executive Producer: David Gerlach
Animator: Patrick Smith
Audio Producer: Amy Drozdowska
Colorist: Diana Tantillo
Music You Heard
APM MUSIC
@ 0:29 "Frozen Wonder" by Marc Frederick Teitler
@ 4:12 "Adagietto" by John Horler And Chris Laurence
Watch our previous episodes:
Joni Mitchell on Illusions
• Joni Mitchell on Illus...
John Coltrane on Giant Steps
• John Coltrane on Giant...
Ray Bradbury on Madmen
• Ray Bradbury on Madmen
Dolly Parton on Getting Dirty
• Dolly Parton on Gettin...
Lou Reed on Guns & Ammo
• Lou Reed on Guns & Amm...
BB King on The Blues
• B.B. King on The Blues...
Elliott Smith on Freaks
• Elliott Smith on Freak...
Robin Williams on Masks
• Robin Williams on Masks
Wayne Coyne on Living with Death
• Wayne Coyne on Living ...
Maya Angelou on Con Men
• Maya Angelou on Con Me...
Bette Davis on The Sexes
• Bette Davis on The Sexes
Michael Jackson on Godliness
• Michael Jackson on God...
Jimi Hendrix on The Experience
• Jimi Hendrix on The Ex...
Meryl Streep on Beauty
• Meryl Streep on Beauty...
Philip Seymour Hoffman on Happiness
• Philip Seymour Hoffman...
David Bowie on Stardust
• David Bowie on Stardus...
Gene Wilder on The Truth
• Gene Wilder on The Tru...
John Lennon on Love
• John Lennon and Yoko O...
Johnny Cash on The Gospel
• Johnny Cash on The Gospel
Heath Ledger on Role Playing
• Heath Ledger on Role P...
Tupac on Life and Death
• Tupac Shakur on Life a...
Kurt Cobain on Identity
• Kurt Cobain on Identit...
Janis Joplin on Rejection
• Janis Joplin on Reject...
Barry White on Making Love
• Barry White on Making ...
Maurice Sendak on Being a Kid
• Maurice Sendak on Bein...
Carol Burnett on Finding Home
• Carol Burnett on Findi...
Grace Kelly on JFK
• Grace Kelly on JFK | B...
Farrah Fawcett on Stiletto Power
• Farrah Fawcett on Stil...
Beastie Boys on Being Stupid
www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4mx2P...
David Foster Wallace on Ambition
www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5R8gd...
Wilt Chamberlain on Tall Tales
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxLiVn...
Larry King on Getting Seduced
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yD8Pz...
Jim Morrison on Why Fat is Beautiful
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhszZ5... - Krátké a kreslené filmy
I love how in this interview he did not only listen but challenged her views and thoughts
It was really interesting to hear them go back and forth
He was a socialist, and maybe the only one who would actually interview/debate a person of individual liberty like Ayn Rand. Today, the ideas of human liberty are omitted and trashed by the opposite philosophies of collectivism dominating our society. It was actually Mike Wallace's young and high level educated producer who met Ayn Rand, became an objectivist, and got Ayn Rand her first TV appearance here, (he did it behind the scenes, because he upset her and thought she would refuse if he asked her to do the show). I have a 3 piece DVD collection about Rand and the objectivist movement, where the now older producer, (Ramus, I think is the name, it is at the beginning of the 1959 complete show on YT), talked about his relationship with Rand,---very positively. He was educated and groomed a leftist, thought he knew it all, mingled with the nations most prominent (pseudo) intellectuals, met Ayn Rand to challenger her, (a slightly older gal co-worker also turned by Rand, introduced them), and one meeting with rand changed his mind. Mike was a socialist, but he was a good enough man to listen to ideas, (which is not happening today as you note, and is very very bad.). He respected her opinion, (did not try to smear her), because she had a very rational opinion. It was really a good show,---for a socialist. :)
By the way, I think Ayn Rand here in this interview, almost change Mike Wallace's mind also. This is why the collectivist left today, will do anything but debate idea's, especially in public. I think any of us with some life experience can see the potential that the left today, would/do even murder people, before they will debate idea's in public,---because the ideas of individual liberty still exist, and even most hard core socialists still have at least one brain cell left in their head that believe in their "self". And man, can that one cell grow to many with the idea's of individualism exposed. Why? Because we are all individuals, with a brain that has the capability to think. That means, "Individual liberty protected by law", (which is color and sex blind), is the only idea that all men/women can "unite" around, (where groups of people do not get murdered to achieve unity of scared people,---like china communism and islam, the opposite philosophies of individual liberty.).
Back when people used to take turns when debating or speaking... Now its like an episode of Jerry Springer everyone talking over one another... We are less intelligent than we've ever been...
Modern academics tend to despise Ayn Rand. But, then again, they tend to be Marxists: believing people OWE it to each other to just give each other things.
@@NathanJennings1222 You are 100% right , right now with the COVID-19 Sore Throat Scam , I've had to buy lots of supplies because of the irrational behavior of the masses which forces the rational to behave irrationally as well , and anyone I have told of what I have they ask right away for me to share ... People just want handouts which I find annoying... Screw Marxism...
This interviewer is a pro, who brings out the best in Rands argument while still trying to ask tough questions
No. He is pointing out how she doesn't make much sense. This is not one of her better interviews.
@@louf7178 You believe you exist only for others. It is your conviction.
@@shangri-la-la-la I do?
@@louf7178 Or perhaps you exist for nothing other than what meaning you give yourself.
Lou Fazio ayn Rand’s entire philosophy tends to struggle under intense scrutiny.
It was great to finally see true journalism. The interviewer did not try to smear Ayn Rand yet he was challenging her views.
There's still great journalism out there. Just not in the US. I enjoy Deutchewella and some other outlets. They go out of their way to be objective and intellectually rounded
The problem is thanks to modern culture that swept USA universities and the backlash after that, this kind of "culture" that is in this interview is becoming a lost art. Today people are so polorized in all sides that discussions like this become harder and harder.
The animator, on the other hand
That's the inimitable Mike Wallace of Sixty Minutes. One of the best in the business and is father to Chris, another journalistic heavyweight.
@@gordusmaximus4990 but you only blame the side that universities entertain, conveniently not talking about the echo chamber that had an american conservative rage quit against a british conservative journalist and a mass of people who were encrouage to storm the capitol building and smear their crap on the walls...
Interviewer: "Is he supported in his efforts by the _state_ ?"
Ayn Rand: "MOST CERTAINLY *NOT* "
and in the end both her and her husband took social security
@@feleepe92 which they were forced to pay into.
If a mugger mugged you and you later found your wallet in an alley with 20 bucks still left in it, you wouldn't go retrieve it because you are "anti-mugger in principle"?
Yeah, okay.
@@Radeo honestly i dont care
@@feleepe92 You cared enough to comment in the first place.
Now you conveniently don't care that your stab at her carries no weight at all.
@@Radeo my comment was just sort of a "ain't it ironic" kinda comment, not an attack on her personality or ideology. i mean i disagree with her whole world view but that is not what my comment was all about
"If a man wants love, he should correct his flaws and he may deserve it." - A statement I feel has become very much forgotten.
+Chase H or he can just selfishly take it. Selfishness demands that you put your own pleasures ahead of others. And that you value the self above all else. including society and nature itself. If you have power Use it and force your values on others for your own pleasure and at the expense of theirs.
i mean what could Possibly go wrong :)
+alvisc2002 One has no right to tell others how to live their life. I'm hedonistic, meaning happiness is my highest priority in life to seek out, however, I do not do it at the expense of others as it is immoral and would definitely lead to a more chaotic society if everyone did what you just stated.
Michael Rosche then you're not being selfish. caring for the benefit of others is an act of altruism. you can seek happiness and in the process allow others to seek happiness. or help them achieve the same. it's just called being human
+alvisc2002 Ayn Rand did not use "selfishness" and "altruism" in the same way we commonly use. For you, she wouldn't be considered selfish because she respected other people's rights and cared about other people. I won't explain her philosophy to you, because it's very well explained on the video.
so to reach love obtain perfection. to correct ones flaws is to transcend humanity
one of the hardest hiting things in life is when you realize youre responsible for yourself
No one is coming to save you!
Whoever said otherwise?
sure the tricky part is, what is the self?
Magic, why is that tricky? Here is how Dictionary.Com defines it: a person or thing referred to with respect to complete individuality:
one's own self.
2.
a person's nature, character, etc.:
his better self.
3.
personal interest.
4.
Philosophy.
the ego; that which knows, remembers, desires, suffers, etc., as contrasted with that known, remembered, etc.
the uniting principle, as a soul, underlying all subjective experience.
adjective
5.
being the same throughout, as a color; uniform.
6.
being of one piece with or the same material as the rest:
drapes with a self lining.
7.
Immunology. the natural constituents of the body, which are normally not subject to attack by components of the immune system (contrasted with nonself ).
8.
Obsolete. same.
pronoun, plural selves.
9.
myself, himself, herself, etc.:
to make a check payable to self.
verb (used with or without object)
I can't do better than that. I will only add that philosophy need not and should not be confusing. There will always be tweaks and adjustments by those who think for a living. But for a mass movement it does little good to make something simple, complicated. I don't mean in any way to shoot you down. Your question is a valid one. I just think the answer to your question is not tricky. However important it may be, the answer to the question "what is the self" is the period to the end of this comment.
Without co-operation the human race would have died out many times over.
“The question isn’t who is going to let me; it’s who is going to stop me.”
― Ayn Rand
If I was Mike, I'd ask her, "Well, what is love? That's an important question because, you can love a mother who cares for you, and you can love reading your favorite book, but if the word means the same thing in both those cases, your mom's gonna feel awful."
For me, there's 2 types of love:
First, there's stereotypical love, it's like saying, "I'm in love with this person because their pretty and nice."
But then there's verbal love, which is an action that you do unto others. Yes, this is VERY specific. For me, love is treating someone with kindness and respect, and wanting nothing in return.
Here's an example: Look at all these charities people give money to. When they do it, they know they'll get nothing but ziltch in return, but they do it anyway, because it's making the world a better place.
Now let's look closer at Ayn's thoughts on this. She believed that you should only love those who deserve it, and nobody else. But who actually does that in our world? Vladimir Putin, Nicolas Marudo, Hassan Nasrallah, and anyone else who deserve's the title of 'Big Brother'.
So profound 🤣 wake.up.
@@JA-nu9jl Blip or me?
@@TommyTallNose In your example of people donating to charities, I would argue that the donators do get something out of it. Maybe not something physical but they still get that good feeling inside. I feel that subconsciously without realizing it people are still doing kind deeds out of self interest.
@@woahitsscarlett0942 This is something I've been talking about elsewhere lately.
I personally believe that the thing that makes an action moral is the outcome, not the intention. Of course, their intention is often purely selfish, but the things that often matters is that their helping to make the world a better place.
Now, I can hear you typing your response already asking, "But, you said that love is doing genuinely good things and wanting nothing back, why are you saying this now?"
Well, good question. When I said that, I wasn't saying that happiness is bad, I do believe that it's a good thing. What I meant was that real authentic love is shown thorough how well you treat people you can't stand. There's the old saying, "It's better to give than to receive." this is true because true happiness comes from connecting with one another, making them happy.
many people misinterpret her philosophy. she is not saying 'you can't love or value anyone' or that you must be selfish all the time. when she uses the term 'selfish' she doesn't mean 'egocentric' or 'self-absorbed' or 'narcissistic.' she is talking about valuing the wellbeing of oneself first and foremost, before tending to the needs of others - because how can you help others, if you cannot help yourself? it is like giving people cups of water from your bucket, but your bucket has a hole in the bottom, forever leaking. transference of energy is a currency - it is an exchange of value. it is man's free will that can decide if they are willing to exchange or not. that is not selfish, that is having your own standards, values, self-esteem and self-worth. in conclusion, one must first be strong enough before they can help others, a bucket without a hole, because if one has nothing and tries to give, then all you are left with is two people with nothing. nobody, in the long-term, is helping anyone.
I like you
That´s true.
At first I misinterpreted her philosophy because we have a bad concept of selfishness. Later, I read her book "The Virtue of Selfishness" and I was able to better understand her doctrine despite not 100% agree with her. Reading her makes you question many things, that´s why I like philosophy. Greetings from Ecuador :)
Then, objectivism is a self-help manual for stressed entrepreneurs.
You have a funny youtube channel.
Actually you can help others without being able to help yourself. If you and I are in locked chains then I can free you if I have a key. But my own lock is not necessarily the same as yours.
Bullshit! Her relationship with Nathanial Brandon violated all tenets of her philosophy. First, it was abusive (psychologically) to Brandon as he was much younger than Rand and abusive to her husband. She interfered with the marriage of Nathanial Brandon to the point where it was broken up.
Then, when HE started seeing someone else, it was SHE, AYN RAND who got violent and then cut him off and "excommunicated" him from her circle. She was an egotistical hypocrite who thought more of herself than she was really worth.
To be independent from one another and yet to choose to live by each other is the greatest form of love there is.
I love your message but why the fly tho🤣🤣🤣🤣
unless you live completely alone and away from everyone you are not independent. if your life in any way, shape, or form relies on the work of others past or present you are not independent. unless you are willing to make your own clothes, farm/hunt your own food, build your own house, be isolated from all human contact, and die with no offspring, you are dependent on others. real love is recognizing that the spark of life that is in you is in all other humans, and interaction with that spark is what makes life even worth living and ultimately dying for. selflessness is the ultimate form of love, because ultimate selfishness is living life alone which not many can do and stay sane. Ayn Rand sucks the love out of life.
Reason nice
Unfortunately if you make money you're not "independent" at all.
To be independent means you build your own house now matter how crappy it is, you till your own soil, you hunt for yourself etc etc. THAT'S being "independent."
But it's still not "independent" bc all that you are eating and surviving in comes from the earth, and if you don't have the earth you can't be "independent"
Even the ego relies on the BRAIN to manifest itself.
So therefore that person of who you think you are isn't "independent"
There is no such thing as independent.
Only interdependence.
Wake up people.
@@brienmaybe.4415 Well everything comes from something...
I disagree with Mike Wallace's viewpoints but it's rare to find a top quality journalist like him nowadays.
“We have complicated every simple gift of the gods” -Diogenes
"Proceeds to shit on the floor"
@@leaderofthebunch-deadbeat7716 most underrated CZcams and philosophical comment ever made.
>whips out penis
>begins watering people
This interviewer is great. He’s engaged, he’s challenging her and clearly is familiar with her ideas, this is a great example of two people from opposite sides of the world with completely different ideas coming together to have a civil conversation. This is how progress is made and how you learn, he’s coming off like he really does want to know her answer to these questions he’s asking, and if he didn’t come up with them himself he’s damn good at making it sound like he did the way he responds to her points, he isn’t trying to shut her down or discredit her or anything, he’s trying to make the conversation more interesting
"Selfishness". She is misinterpreted by the use of that word until today. What she meant with "selfishness" was that people have an obligation only to their own happiness. You can't demand other people to sacrifice for you. And you also can't hurt other people to get what you want. You should pursue your own happiness while respecting the individual rights of everyone. And you can help people if you want, but you shouldn't feel obligated. There is no merit on following your mere obligations. But there is merit in helping other people. That's because caring for other people is not an obligation, it's something more: it's a virtue.
bologna, not what she meant.
Bryan King Than why don't you tell me what she meant ?
+Rick Apocalypse She meant self over everything. She was raised in a middle class family that lost their belongings to Communists. This experience made her paranoid.
Bryan King I still don't understand what you are saying. What do you mean with "self over everything" ?
You're avatar is from Bioshock and you're defending Ayn Rand? I think you missed something there, pal.
"When you are asked to love everybody indiscriminately, that is, without any standard to love them regardless if they have any value or virtue you are asked to love nobody."
More brilliant words have rarely been spoken.
She's confusing the word love with respect, but whatever.
What if you hate everybody indiscriminately?
It's a vapid straw-man argument, merely the flip side of Ayn Rand's glorification of The Individual -- another reified, content-free generality.
@TookALevelInBadass That's pretty ironic because when Ayn Rand would have arguments with her henpecked husband Frank O'Connor, she'd force him to write essays confessing his "flawed epistemology" ;)
@TookALevelInBadass LOLi know rite?
“I have no faith at all- I only hold conviction.”
Brilliantly stated.
But conviction, by definition, IS faith.
@@7seal553 No it isn’t. Faith is belief without reason or evidence. Conviction is strongly holding a belief, and Rand held that belief based on sound reasoning, which she proved in this very interview.
@@sybo59 Yes it is.
According to Webster's Dictionary: "The assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition or statement for which there is not complete evidence; BELIEF in general."
The are degrees of faith, of belief - conviction is simply a strongly held belief. She may say that her BELIEF is based on a firm foundation of her reasoning, but it's still faith...it's just a matter of what that faith is based on to the individual, of what most convinces them in their own mind.
It's also a matter of semantics, which is how Ayn Rand being the sharp wordsmith she was employed wordplay to plug the gaps in her, at times, specious reasoning. Her emotionally loaded use of the word altruism being yet another glaring example.
Ultimately you (and I) will do well to realize and recognize that NO ONE, not even the mighty Ayn, is right about everything - she was just simply convinced and convincing of it. And to become so self-assured in one's own, or other's, reasoning can be fatal as we can only reason, at best, with the information we have at hand - which may be incomplete, completely wrong, or just a self-serving delusion.
And so we MUST have faith in whatever we trust in, but not so rigid that it's subject to snapping. Strength in conviction, as in nature, is firm yet flexible, able to adapt and bend with the wind.
@@7seal553 Merriam Webster provides colloquial definitions legible to a popular audience. Such definitions are not supposed to be taken as technical definitions, nor do the inferences you could deduce from them necessarily hold up. For example, the definition you cite invokes the concept of 'complete evidence', but according to standard mathematical conceptions of evidence (Bayes' theorem, Solomonoff's universal prior, Cromwell's rule, etc), such a thing cannot exist in empiric matters.
As for the object-level issue, conviction refers to the state of being convinced about something, or to the positions you are convinced of. You may be rationally convinced by evidence, which is not the same as holding faith in the absence of evidence. You may hold a conviction based on a preponderance of evidence or a stronger conviction based on overwhelming evidence. You will perhaps notice that these terms are used in the court of law, which also lays down convictions and can thereby turn a defendant into a 'convict', cognate with 'conviction' and 'convincing', yet you would not say that the modus operandi of legal proceedings is for the judge and/or jury to make judgements on a basis of faith.
@@7seal553 Look to the etymology of the word belief. Be is existing in 3 tenses, past, present & future. Connect the word be to lief. She definitely believes in her convictions. She is prisoner to them. Good for her.
Wait , people used to have conversations like these in the past ? wow , how times change
Ikr. These days its all about sweet words obviously all fake or not meant it
well right wing libertarianism is dead, so these types of conversations die too,
Are you really that surprised? Or did you basically make this comment specifically because you knew it would gain you likes?
People still do have conversations like this, and will continue to until we cease to have differing views and opinions.
@@NoWay-nj2mm No, people don't have conversations like this anymore. People of different views and opinions have shouting contests.
Wow Patrick Smith has outdone himself. The moodiness of the design...the wavers in the drawings as the tape messed up...the stylization. Magnificent work, sir!
PogieJoe Glad you noticed the little glitches in line when the audio is distorted! This was an enjoyable episode to draw.. a more serious tone than the others, and we very rarely have video footage to reference for style.
+Patrick Smith it's more than serious, it's somber and moody and sadly plays right along the very common misperception of Rand's actual ideas.. which speak of self-empowerment and liberation, of virtue and hope. oh well
+gavranarh not sure what to say, i drew what i heard. I wouldn't say it's somber, but the overall feel was serious, perhaps that has more to do with the tone of the questions.
+Patrick Smith not sure how deeply you are into Rand but it takes more than one interview to give a fair portrait of anyone, esp.someone as divisive as Mrs.Rand. If you can get a hold of Atlas Shrugged (I'm sure someone you know has it but is embarrased to keep it in the shelf, so they keep it prudently tucked away), read the chapter on the first launch of the John Galt train line, I think that's a nice illustration of Rand's ultimate goals and values. It's joyous to the point of ectasy, almost transcendence. It's naive, yes, but romantic and quaint and ... kinda beautiful.
I like that this channel doesn't only stick to the feel good happy happy stuff. I like a little grime and hardness every now and then.
spoocyguy :)
i agree
Is it jaded that I feel that this interview was not grimy or hard but in fact overly optimistic?
Not at all, I thought it is optimistic too. Though she mentions that there are a few people who really deserve to be loved, she also says that we have free will to change our flaws.
lol you think this is dark?
This is what journalism used to be. I mourn for what we've become.
True journalists are out there, but sadly they don't receive the attention they deserve and many find themselves out of a job.
The only news network I can consistently trust at this point is The Onion, really.
Dint mourn. - TEACH any mind willing to listen to the facts.
The facts are before you.
Challenge yourself and confront your demons.
Life isn't supposed to be easy.
Generally Journalism died with Hunter S Thompson in 2005. Though you sometimes have real ones in this day and age that challenge the status quo like Assange but they get taken down for being to real.
Stossel still legit
interesting that there was a time when TV actually had intelligent programs
Idk man have you even heard of Fanboy and Chum Chum
bogie8 this made my day
too bad the intelligent programming let someone like ayn rand on it
Imagine thinking Ayn Rand is intellectual
Auden H.C. You’re pathetic.
The great irony is that the people who are in opposition to her idea that love by definition cannot be distributed equally to all (and therefore who believe that all people are deserving of love) are the same people who are leaving comments calling her (and I quote): 'witch', 'cunt', 'evil bitch', etc.
You people have betrayed your own argument and are actually supporting hers - should she have to love someone who, rather than engage in mature debate and refute an opposing argument, chooses the cheap shot of calling her a bitch? (ah, she's a woman, too, meaning there's a whole added dimension of insults to hand!)
She makes many interesting points that are relevant to today (Yale kids could really learn from Rand when she says that you cannot demand that others accommodate all your preferences or give you undeserved respect when your own behaviour is questionable) - but most important is that love has lost its meaning. It has become cheapened; devalued; handed out too freely. Younger generations especially say 'Love you!' to people who are barely acquaintances. But love is a commitment and should be respected. It is impossible to love your neighbour as yourself. It is impossible to love everyone. It's unnatural and unachievable, and it's dishonest to claim otherwise. That's her message, and I think it's a valuable one.
Great comment, love you.
+ohwellwhateverr thank you for the thoughtful comment.
We dont have to love assholes.
There are a lot of ways in which I actually agree with her philosophy, but she is so detached that one can make a good case for textbook sociopathy.
How do you feel she is detached? Try to attack her philosophy if you can but when you name call and pretend that you are a clinical psychologist you make yourself look silly. What did she say here that you disagree with?
Love her, hate her, say what you will about her, you can't say she wasn't original. She was going HARD against the grain - and gave zero sh*ts about that fact. She was definitely one of a kind.
I can't help but admire her clarity of thought. It is refreshing to hear someone speak who truly understands what they are about, even if I don't entirely agree with them. So few such people who grab the headlines these days. I agree with Theodore Dalrymple that the older I get the more it appears that the world is becoming more and more in the hands of mediocrities.
"I only hold conviction"
She advocates selfishness. And it showed. Horrible jealous hypocrite
Or demons and control freaks...
... You are mediocre, yourself.
Ayn Rand is a legend, Atlas and the fountainhead changed my life. Rothbard too btw
Ayn Rand is a fascinating figure in literature. Her philosophy of extreme neoliberalism and capitalism is frankly alien to me, but her well spoken and articulate nature makes her an excellent window into the psyche of those who share her views
So much of what's called neo-liberalism just seems like old liberalism from before the progressive era. I don't see what is "neo"/new about it...
this is liberalism. as it was originally understood... Pretty fitting you have a image of the tower of sauron in Mordor given you feel so alienated by the concepts she represents
@@Castle3179 neoliberalism is the frame that gave us the modern world with it's mass inequality, neoimperialism, and every other late stage capitalism bs we see today. She was a huge proponent of toxic individualism and she came before neoliberalism took over the elite class leading it to being the statues quo. Seems to make sense to me.
@@groovy3443 Again, it's classical liberalism. Not Neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is not a thing.
@@mooners544 Its just a fragment of my imagination then ay?
You know you love someone when helping them stops feelung like a chore and somehow gives you pleasure
If you dont help him/her because youre generous but because you take selfish pleasure in it i say youve found real love
she was with him because he allowed her to cuckold him. Thats the love you get from Rand.
@@groovy3443 tell me you're biased without telling me you're biased
@@scottwashere4047 what gave it away?
@@groovy3443 Tardism
@@scottwashere4047 which part of what I said was a lie?
This is so good. I mean, I cry when great people articulate my opinions so eloquently, so precise. When I do sth, I always need to explain: I do this because I love doing it and I love doing this for you, don’t feel you are obliged to give anything back. But people just don’t get it sometimes.
jeep23862 Well, ayn rand questioned if the State had anything to do at all with the welfare of the citizen, or at least to what extent. You missed that important point
Thst leads into another concept. Do we help others because we believe it's the right thing to do and our principles require us to do so...or do we help because it makes us happy to help..meaning the motive for helping was selfish in nature; your own happiness.
I forgot what this is called though.
@@Nonresponder01It's both, we follow our morals and values which in turn makes us happy. That's why having sound morals is so important for Ayn Rand's philosophy, if you're an alcoholic narcissists that beats their wife this whole philosophy doesn't apply to you.
As a theist this is one of the best ways I’ve heard the fact of love reconciled in the atheistic worldview, I disagree mostly but appreciate how well constructed and consistent her notion is.
It is not the atheistic worldview but the objectivists.
Love is this and much more, to theists and atheists alike. Rand is using love in a particular way to make some point and that's fine, but love also means lots of *other* stuff to other people.
@@nikita3569 There is not one atheistic view on love, there are many.
@@Weirdomanification I know you do not have to tell me
@@nikita3569 You seemed confused
"in love, the currency is virtue" :-)
That is right. I get it now. It is the virtues and values we fall in love with, (because we have minds that can think), and with out that, human love for each other as a spouse can not be defined, (ever notice how "Love" is so vague with out that definition?). But kids today are being taught that all values are the same, so they will have nothing of value to pick over another, and we will all be tramps with very short marriages, as we see today. But wait until the next generation of marriages due to this teaching. To teach that values are all the same, if believed, will destroy the family in the first year of marriage, and the state takes over. That is the evil I see anyway.
@@EarthSurferUSA Well said. Post modernism has created more harm then what we see
@@ExPhantomHD Define "Post modernism" please, Just so I know we are speaking from the same page. :)
@@EarthSurferUSA Basically what you mentioned. Post Monernism includes the belief that all values are equal. It's also includes the belief that this chair is just as important at that car intrinsically.
that and some tig ol bitties.
I don't agree with all her ideas but, I love her, she's such an interesting person, she makes you think with every word that comes out of her, she puts you in a trance of thought and curiosity. I repect her so much
I have listened to the audiobook of "The Virtue of Selfishness", which is probably the work - which shows her philosophy in the most fundamental way ― and I tell you - I could write that book and better; and it always was my nature; I didn't need to learn anything for that - from others. My point is ― that the true conclusion of her(our) philosophy ― ISN'T capitalism!
if you want the true conclusion - it's here - docs.google.com/document/d/1GCJlCn844x62IaP4ce2ADSu1M7cfMjLyrcZ0QqwdHAo/edit?usp=sharing
Gnos Is what? What’s the conclusion, my guy
@Soren Tea ― Here's a quote from my comment "if you want the true conclusion - it's here"; then there is the link to the explanation.
BTW ― unlike her - I also had the right human-system in my nature; though I discovered the now known name of it - probably in my 20s.
@@gnosis8142 What is the conclusion of your own life, if you lived in a society that was free, where you can think and compete in a true Lassiez-Faire free market, and your right to do so was protected by law? Would you be able to pick your own "conclusion", or would the state do that for you, like changing a child's diaper?
You are not going to get me to read leftist propaganda from Google, but I looked at it for a bit. I have over a 130 IQ since I turned off my TV set almost a decade ago, and I have no idea what this crap you linked to is, all random text with no origin. That story moral is, if you have a fairly high IQ and do not understand where somebody is coming from,---they are most probably full of crap. You thought is was deep, (because it makes no sense to you either), so it has to be true.
It;'s garbage. Remember this, the people trying to take your liberty away, (when gone, you will have no rights what so ever), have to be confusing, lie to you. But the people who protect individual liberty have no reason to lie to you,--and one of those people was Ayn Rand.
@EarthSurferUSA - there's nothing I can really reply to in your speech; the only thing you proved (that is known since a long time ago) ― is that IQ and correct thinking - are totally different things. Ciao.
P.S. - and to think that the average IQ in the world is 100! Scary.
"The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody has decided not to see" Ayn rand
Listening to Rand speak is like exercising a new muscle. Her view on love and altruism seem callous on their surface, but it makes complete sense in way we don't often see. If you're not in love with someone for your own benefit, then to whose benefit is it? I love someone for my benefit, and someone loves me for her own. And it is a transaction. I love you because you possess these traits that I desire, and you love me because I hold traits that you desire. All of it is really so simple that it appears complicated or counterintuitive when in reality, the popular notion of love is what's been mystified.
EXACTLY anybody who disagrees with her has basically been brainwashed into believing that all love must be a painful sacrifice when in reality it is the oppistite
You can love someone without self interest. I have and do. Just because you do not have that experience or capability does not mean it doesn't exist. To universally declare that all human love is the type and process of love that you have and feel is an absolutist statement when you do not know the interior state of someone else who loves.
@@tiberiuscarey2043 Why do you love this individual if not out of self-interest?
You should try going to college.
@@jekblom123 Try? I have my bachelor's and master's degrees.
Living a good life requires that we invest the overwhelming majority of our time and energy in ourselves. We all know this, it's how we really live. And yet, popular moral theories have almost nothing to say about it, and we call Ayn Rand a villain for trying to explain it.
OK, but how can the time we invest in ourselves, by free will in a free society, be "overwhelming". In a free and free market society, we have never had more choices to take life at our own pace. I am sure that is why I only have a associates degree and a couple of engineering degrees and now a small business. If I had a faster pace by my own free will and love for my work, I might have been the guy like John Galt, and developed a power plant that can run factories for almost nothing. I just have a lot more free time, and that is only my fault, but I love my life because I was able to achieve something. Maybe if I had better teachers of the real human spirit of personal achievement? Hmmmmm. :) What I knew, I learned on my own.
The more a society pushes you to "invest in yourself" the more depressed said society becomes (even if it aids in the economy of said society). Ayn Rand forgot we are social creatures...like penguins...not spiders.
@@bobmcbobbington9220 I disagree. If you invest in yourself you become more productive (profitable). And like you say we are social creatures. It stands to reason that some of this "profit" will go to others. Of course your investment in others has to yield a return. If the return is simply "I feel good", its still a return. Try not to look at it as simply $$$.
The reality is it is not a simple straightforward black and white decision it is about achieving a healthy balance. Investing in yourself enough to gain Mastery - at whatever level you are capable - keep yourself healthy and alive, and provide for your own level of Independence - which again is different for every person. But also to balance that out with obligations you have to your community, your Society, your nation and so on. People don't like answers like this because I like to really come down hard on one side of the other - radical selfishness, or degenerate communistic ideas. People like that because it takes the thinking away for them - they can wholeheartedly throw themselves into one or the other and they don't have to continue making decisions come with the ideology is laid out for them. At the end of the day this is the mind of a slave, even one who is enslaved to their own desires. The truly transcended man must be able to understand this balance, and chart his way through the winding canyons and mounting paths each and every day.
Many people - probably most of humanity - do not have the mental and spiritual fortitude to do this, and so they become followers. Even the greatest people struggle with doing this all the time, so they have lapses. The men who are able to do this on their own will - history remembers their name
@@bobmcbobbington9220 I think she says in terms that are closer to Max Stirner's egoism. Mutual cooperation, open minded and racional egoism.
I totally get her. To love everyone indiscriminately without knowing if they have virtue is impossible. Amazing.
Grew up in a collectivist culture as an autistic person, I rebelled quite hard against the conformity and the homogeneity. I remember quite vividly the refreshing feeling when I read fountainhead in middle school. Ayn Rand will always have a special place in my mind for articulating my thoughts and feelings so well.
You're awesome
I'm on the spectrum too, and sometimes I wonder if I'm worthy or even capable of love. I like to think I am, but it's all really confusing.
I remember being in highschool starting philopshy with the Greeks. Ive never read a philospher as inspiring as Rand. I will never understand why other libertarians disslike her so much.
Foundational to my views personally, the greatest and only true philospher of her time. Truly. A strong woman
Whether you agree with her or not you cannot deny that she was a brilliant human being and a fantastic philosopher
People have forgotten that they can have respect for that which with they do not agree.
She had chutzpah and was somewhat articulate in building a myth. Philosopher? If I call myself surgeon, would you let me cut you open?
If you disagree with her you belief her reasoning and argument is wrong, then how can you disagree with her and still think shes a brilliant philosopher?
Her "philosophy" was watch them starve while she eats cake isn't brilliant it is selfish and barbaric. She happily took advantage of everything a civilized society offered but didn't care who else suffered. Being a dick isn't insightful or "thought provoking". Except how people can't see what she is really saying. There is nothing deep about her or her thoughts.
a brilliant human being? read Atlas shrugged and if you still somehow think she's a "brilliant human being" after that then i want what you're smoking.
From what I've read of Ayn Rand and her philosophy, I was never a big fan... but this is pretty great. It's an interesting perspective, I kinda identify with it at the moment.
I think we should always consider and meditate on the perspective of others, while forming our own ideas. We may discover everything isn't so black and white.
It's always good to be open-minded. :)
TallTyrionLannister I would be curious to know if you have a explicit disagreement. You can brush up on Objectivism in this lecture: czcams.com/video/hlJD0i_WwdQ/video.html
TallTyrionLannister Ayn Rand is the patron saint of black and white!
ILoooooveCamels Maybe so, but it doesn't mean we have to be.
Regardless, I find this particular perspective on this particular subject interesting. Doesn't mean I agree with Rand's philosophy or like her.
TallTyrionLannister If you are a liberal and like being a liberal, do not read Ayn Rand. She will change your mind.
TallTyrionLannister
Yeah, as soon as I published that reply I realized I agreed with you anyway. But I can't resist any opportunity to decry Ayn Rand and her sociopathic philosophy that's somehow found mainstream acceptance!
I breathed a sigh of relief at the fact that this interview was not biased or sexist in any way. He challenged the views not to make her sound stupid but to get new ideas from her. And he challenged them not because maybe he didn’t believe them, but because they are challengeable.
When you take a moment to step back from that thought and realize that this was how Journalism use to be and why it is a Constitutionally protected right. Then you compare that with the reality of why you are so shocked .......
We live in sad sad times.
I challenge the challengingly challengeable because they are challengeable.
CHALLLLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANGE
I reached this on my own and turns out she already said it years ago. She's awesome, she gets life. Time to dive into her work.
Unconditional love is for children. Literally.
Unfortunately we as children seldom get it (you have to be good, not cry, have good grades, be nice first). That's maybe why we look for it as adults. And fail miserably.
Then our frustration rubs on our kids and the cycle continues.
lazyla27
Sadly Rand herself talks about children rarely and objectivists draw wrong conclusions on the issue of raising children.
But remedy is here.
I recommend Roslyn Ross Atlas Society lecture (search for it on YT).
Kibeer Bueskytter any developmental problems found in kids are not solved by showering them with unintelligible love. Unconditional love does not create healthy self-esteem or psychology in kids it creates an either arrogant hubris or passive outlook. Both being forms of second-handers. They look to others to give them recognition without knowing that a soul is self-made.
This is not to say that being a harsh domineering parent/guardian is the way to go either. To put is simply would be that it requires justice within a child's context.
normativeRandroid
I strongly disagree. Arrogance or passive behavior is product of low self esteem. One is overcompensating second is depressed by it. Both result of the child growing up thinking he or she must be a piece of shit if parents seem to withdraw their affection every time they do or don't do some insignificant shit which adults are excused of - being loud, spilling liquids etc.
Unconditional love does not mean there is no guidance.
It means love is not used as emotional blackmail - overt or covert.
@@TheKibeer i love your wise words. thank you.
@@TheKibeer i thank you also. That is exactly the point. Unconditional love does not mean being a passive parent, but just not setting any standard for love. Not making love tied to any ex or intrinsical behaviour. This does not mean you can not tell your child when it has overstepped a societal line. These two things are completely unbound from each other.
Regardless of what you think about her philosophy, this was fascinating. I do think she was just a tad extremist, but she did have conviction. I'll always respect that.
Zappandy enough conviction to except government welfare for years, living off of the teat
Myle Zuckerburg She didnt demand she be given it, and she paid her taxes.
That's a pretty selfless sounding statement. ;)
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."- Bertrand Russell
Hitler "had conviction", too. That's no reason to like anyone. She was pathetic.
Ayn is a true genius. Her thinking is several rungs above conventional wisdom which is why it’s so hard for people to understand. She has to use loaded language to describe her thoughts but much of that language is sullied with preconceived notions. If people challenge themselves they can see the depth of her statements, and how meaningful they are. Usually the opposite of how academics try to pigeon hole her.
The "academics" are just salty collectivists.
Indeed... most of the world believes that "sacrifice" is a virtue, "selfishness" a vice...
This is outstanding. I've seen this interview and the animation is a really nice touch.
The cartoons are actually very distracting.
The animator tried to smear Rand, making her cower from the interviewer when he challenges her position, and designing her to look unsure when she makes points. She doesn't look like she's thinking there, the animator legitimately tried to make her look weak in her argument. Throughout the entire video, she looks like she's afraid of what Wallace will say next. The animation shows an inaccurate portrayal of how Rand would have presented herself.
@@jamesmullins330 I did not get this interpretation at all and I am a fan of Rand.
@@jamesmullins330 I didn't get that.
Maybe you're seeing things.
"but, there are a very few of us worthy of love, by your definition?"
"yes, unfortunately that is true"
Finally somebody speaking the truth!! Enough BS!!
@@ubbdaubermensch1528 Ha ha ha, she is blind on that, people dont get to mature well, lots of obstacles.
@@marcleblanc3602 What bigger obstacle can a person have to not mature, like a school system and government that treats their won citizenry like a child? In the early American days, before the bad influences, free minds in the USA did incredible things before the age of 17. You have to be free,---to mature, and mankind benefits greatly, much better than a welfare system for adult children.
Love isn't something so calculated, you either have it for people or you don't. My bar for loving people is way lower, for me it isn't something as rare as she makes it out to be. According to her I am factually incorrect, which is nonsense. Love is subjective.
@Thomas Hagg I fell in love with my wife because she is a warm, generous, loving person. Ayn Rand’s attempt to box in love rings false to me. It isn’t anyone’s place to define it for other people, to make it “objective”. She has a miserly spirit and she wants to normalize it and tell others it’s the “correct”way to be.
@Thomas Hagg My only point by saying that was to contrast her with ayn rand. Rand tried to pass off her own attitude about something as amorphos as the concept of love as a universal ethos that we’re all morally obligated to follow. She’s trying to present her feelings as fact.
The sensibility present in that animation is breath taking.
Mr. Rogers was the expert at unconditional love. He always said it’s you I like. It’s not what you do or the things you possess it’s you I like.
He also would be completely focused on each child for 10 minutes straight. There was nothing else for him in the moment but the child he was with.
I believe that kind of unconditional love is the best thing you can do for another person.
Every child needs to know that he is worthy just because he is. Just because he exists. His soul is valuable and good enough for love without any other reason.
Speaking from personal experience, I did not experience this in my life until just a few years ago. I know the importance that unconditional love can give to a person soul. And with the lack of such unconditional love can do to damage the person’s well-being.
True and that insight is what is missing from this interview, I would also add, that when you never have received unconditional love، then you either turn into a loving saint or a sad angry human "not worthy of love."
For some reason, I don't think they are talking about parental love in this interview (which is supposed to be the "unconditional love" children get).
@@askatuproductions Parental love is conditional love, whether you like it or not. In fact, it's the most selfish form of love. People give birth to children, or buy pets, to entertain theirselves. To feel authority over something, to have control over another being. You're not doing any good to anyone other than yourself when you give birth. The child didn't want to exist. Being created isn't a gift to them. But it is, to to the parents.
Really waters it down though.
"I love you just the way you are."
"What about Hitler and Charles Manson and Jeffery Dahmer?"
"I love them just the way they are."
"And the coronavirus?"
"I love it just the way it is."
"Why?"
"Because they exist."
"So you feel about me, the way you feel about Hitler and Charles Manson and Jeffery Dahmer and the coronavirus?"
"Yep."
That's unconditional love for you. The man stared at a camera and said "I love you, just the way you are" to millions of people, having no real idea who was watching. Statistically, there were plenty of terrible people he was talking to. We either say that he loves them just the way they are and we're the same as them in his eyes or we say that that message wasn't meant for those people and we have to exercise judgement about who is lovable.
It's clearly the second one. Fred Rogers got married, forsaking all the other women in the world who he supposedly loved for the sake of just one. He had kids and it's pretty safe to assume that he would be more deeply moved by their thriving or perishing than he would be by the same from the teenager working the cashier at McDonald's. If he didn't... it would be psychotic.
So many delinquents receiving unconventional love. It's a freakin waste. What about not throwing your pearls among swine?
The Fountainhead was one of those books that changed my perspective on the way I treated people and most importantly, treated myself. Everything in this world, every emotion, is only and only supposed to enhance your life, not be parasitic. At the end, only you are responsible for yourself.
Even if you don't agree with her philosophy, you have to admit that she's a charismatic woman and her ideas are interesting.
Annoy-o-Tron No, Atlas Shrugged is one of the worst books ever written, a complete guide of how to become a utter sociopath.
Ezra Auden I disagree. Best book I ever read.
mughat If that's the case I regret to inform you of your bad taste in literature. I have laissez-faire capitalist friends (evidence I am a tolerant man) who hate it, not for its message, but for its terrible language, plot, and characters.
SilverCuckoo I disagree. Can you give just one example of bad language? Not everybody understands romantic realism. The plot is logical and the characters are larger then life. It shows how things could be and ought to be. You and your friends should read the romantic manifesto you might evolve your taste a bit.
mughat I threw away my copy after I suffered the pain of reading it. I'd like to save my shelf space for books which are actually worth rereading.
Well of course it's an impossibility a genius such as yourself would like a bad book, it must be that others don't understand it properly.
Scholars laugh at Rand. Her ideas are too shallow to build courses around, and you won't find anyone of great literacy who admires her work. The book works best on naive, bratty teenagers.
You call it Romantic realism. I say it tries.
"You love only those who deserve it"
Nah thats not true for many, strong love goes on with underserving mates.
I mean, that's not true at all, you love who you love. There is little value proposition considered. A vast majority of people love their mothers, but how many of them "deserved it" Doesn't matter. That's the issue with many types of love: they DON'T deserve it and yet you love them anyway. That's just being a creature of earth.
Yes. The rest you have pity on or just desire sexually or just have empathy with, but not love, you only love those who deserve it.
I don’t know why, but every time Ayn Rand pronounces the word “mind,” I get a small shiver down my spine. Because while I am a devout Catholic, I am also a proud Objectivist for one simple reason:
While other secular ideologies will simply toss out the divine value of individual human life as “another lie propagated by the outdated institute of religion,” Rand does not. Her Objectivism, while secular, believes in the sanctity of the individual by merit of them having a mind; intelligence, consciousness, the ability to express freedom of will.
Christianity and Objectivism are incompatible. How did you manage to form one worldview with both of those, without forming major contradictions, if I may ask?
Rand was not just an atheist, but an ANTI-theist (and I like that in her). Read her writing about "the mystics of muscle and spirit" where she rails hard against socialists and the religious. How do you cope with that?
@@luukzwart115 It's a long and complicated explanation that I can't really properly explain in a CZcams reply section, but the tl;dr of it is that, without meaning to, Ayn Rand wrote the figure of John Galt as a Christ-like, messianic figure. Not one who asks for worship, no, but who proclaims great truths that save the truly good and virtuous while also repelling and rebuking those in power warped by corruption and ignorance. Feel free to reply if you have any more questions, because I've put a lot of thought into this particular analysis of Atlas Shrugged.
@@thegrimcritic5494 I don't think it's a strange comparison to make, since I've sensed some similarities between Galt and Jesus as well.
You can be inspired by virtuous heroes or characteristics portrayed in other philosophies/religions/lifestyles but in order to be an adherent to a certain philosophy you have to agree to it's core principles.
I've often been inspired by adherents or aspects of the stoic philosophy and Christianity, but that doesn't make me a Stoic or a Christian.
Since theism is incompatible with the principle that arbitrary assumptions shouldn't be assumed at all, which is an important principle within the Objectivist philosophy, I don't think it's proper to call yourself Christian as well as Objectivist.
@@luukzwart115 I suppose that’s fair. I suppose if I were to choose to identify as a practitioner of either belief, I would be a Christian first and an Objectivist second. But I suppose what I’m trying to say is that many of the concerns I have in most Atheist philosophies I am pleased to say I don’t find in Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. The sanctity of the will of the individual - their divine spark, so to speak - and of the sacrosanct nature of man’s free will isn’t just protected in this belief, it is axiomatic to it. I will remain a Christian for now. But if there is any powerful argument out there about how to live a virtuous life without the presence of God, Objectivism is the one I have the highest respect for.
Whenever I read any of her novels, I visualize the events in the art style. It fits so very well.
Huh. I try to visualize her work in more of a mix of 1950's styles. UPA, Art Deco, Disney, Looney Tunes - a mix of those. 😶
A brilliant and honest observation that nearly everyone knows is true but will not admit.
MarrowEternal if nearly everyone knows something to be true, by Rand's cosmology of finite genius where the masses are bumbling fools and the great are few and far between... in this world, where nearly everyone knows something to be true, doesn't it stand to reason that something ISN'T actually true? Because nearly everyone is a bumbling fool? How do you justify such an intellectual contradiction? Or even defend from the claim that as someone who believes this something to be true (as part of nearly everyone)... You see where this goes? It just collapses under the weight of its own cosmological assumptions
Charles Gill: I've not read any Rand but I dont think theres necessarily a logical contradiction there; if Ayn held that her statements made in this interview do not require genius to know, but are in fact common sense, then it is possible that everyone can know them and still be fools, as even a fool has some semblance of common sense.
ok well in that case Rand's statements do not 'collapse under the weight of their own cosmology', as its perfectly compatible for the masses not to know that it is such and for geniuses to be very finely distributed amongst them...
MarrowEternal more like a teenagers observation while having some serious issues in life in general lol! jesus christ I can't even take her philosophy seriously
Anal Acrobats Worry not, people. Logic shall not hurt us for Anal Acrobats is here to protect us from it
I came upon very similar conclusions on my own, so when I discovered she existed I was fascinated by her way of thinking.
Rand is just as relevant and inspiring today as she was when first I read her. I am an ardent fan.
"We don't have to dream that we are important, we are."
To our own survival, yes.
self esteem.. a lot of people lack of it.. and they don't know they lack it.
That's probably why a lot of people have a deep hate for Ayn Rand, her words are like an air strike straight directly to their ego's :D
irwin leonardo Right on
This
+irwin leonardo Couldn't agree more with you :)
She's a crazy egotistical bitch.
***** like i said.. they dont know they lack it.. lol
My goodness, I watched this video and the whole interview so many times, and she still finds a way to broaden my outlook and raise my consciousness! Majority is yet to understand the deepness and at the same time simplicity of her philosophy.
The art is giving me a feeling of tension that I don't get from the dialogue. Great video.
Her thoughts remind me of those early high school days when philosophical thoughts first started creeping in to my mind........such adolescent extremism......it is so nostalgic
Agreed. I read her novel the fountainhead during my high school years.
Don't be a cynic just because the culture is clueless. Stand by your convictions if you can provide a rational argument for them, regardless of how "extreme" the culture says it is.
“if a man wants love, he should correct his flaws, and he may deserve it; he cannot expect the unearned”.
*edit* - this is horrible advice! love is not the same as respect or popularity. you either love or you don’t. we might earn the trust or loyalty of others but even flawed people are worthy of love (unless they’re just evil dickheads, but that’s an obvious caveat)
So how does this work with children? If they are unable to correct their flaws, they should not expect the love of their parents? Baloney. She was a kook.
@@jsorensen He probably meant romantic love.
@@jsorensen Good point, but you are misreading the quote Children need love and care. How you train then is the point here!!
@@jsorensen "MAN"
@@jsorensen To quote you: "So how does this work with children?" It doesn't, and she never said it did. She said MAN. Children have to adapt to life as they grow, and cannot be expected to behave or see the world as experienced, rational adults. It's a straw man argument and comment. You are being stubbornly and willfully ignorant. And therefore possibly a "Kook" yourself as a result.
I’m very conflicted, while I do somewhat agree with Ayn Rand on this, I have also held the belief that the truest expression of love is self sacrifice. I have held that belief ever since reading Dickens’ A Tale Of Two Cities. What could better demonstrate unbridled affection more than placing their own well being over your own? A father taking a bullet for his child or wife, allowing them to evacuate before himself in a catastrophe such as the Titanic, or even the ending of ATOTC, these are the purest expressions of love in my view, as they show that your love for this person is so incalculable as to surpass your own instincts of survival.
I love the way you put this, and ATOTC is the perfect example!
From my understanding of Rand, particularly some of her other works, I don't think she would disagree much with you on the actions, rather the notion that they are sacrifice. It seems to me she would argue that these acts, including ATOTC's ending would constitute doing something in your own interest, selfishly as Rand would say. Note that for Rand, selfishness means something closer to "what you desire". With the father taking a bullet for his child example, essentially the father decided that to him, his kid's life was more valuable than his: Selfishly he decided that he and his goals would be better suited by this action than the loss of the kid. Essentially her philosophy dictates that there is #1 an objective truth (a bullet is headed to the kid), #2 one has the capability to rationalize a situation (the father could take the bullet to save the kid), #3 one should act in their own self interest (the father would derive the most value from his kid surviving, regardless of his survival), and finally #4 actions are accomplished through capitalism [meaning a free transaction] (the father trades his currency, in this case his health/life, for his desired product, in this case his child's life). I don't think that Rand would have condemned these act's that we are calling sacrifice, as to her they are not altruistic, rather they are rooted in our own desires and will. Her objection to altruism isnt so much rooted in a hatred for being willing to "sacrifice" but rather a willingness to give (or in the case of collectivism in her context take) without transaction. She hated the idea of giving something without getting something else: it is up to you and your utilization of the capitalist system to determine if the cost is worth the product. If you determine for yourself that you and your goals would best be served by dying for your kid (or as in ATOTC dying to grant your life meaning) it's not altruism, it is selfishness which is good.
@@robertnewman4854
u've read Richard Dawkins' THE SELFISH GENE.
Ayn Rand addresses this in the video when talking about her husband. "I am in love with him selfishly. It is in my own interest..." If it is done voluntarily, of your own free will then you are not sacrificing, you are not being altruistic. It is in your rational self-interest to save, protect your highest values. If that includes your child and/or your wife then you are not sacrificing by taking a bullet for them, you are loving yourself.
@@geraldhunt8263 But then why can't you selfishly help a homeless person? Why can you not consider him to have enough worth to deserve help? Why would that be altruism?
I love how the interviewer not only listens to her views but *challenges* them. He asks tough, *challenging* questions as they go back and fourth. Very *challenging* .
challenge challenge challenge.
Brilliant statement, "every activity should have its own currency..."
Is a man not entitled to the sweat from his brow?
Lol.
***** I see Bioshock more as a critic to laws imposed by the state (the way Ryan acted, at some point, like a dictator to Rapture, by not allowing commerce to the rest of the world, and sabotaging the competition to his company), and envy (which is caused by altruistic people trying to convince everybody that they are "unprivileged", and they should fight against rich people).
+Thomas Hägg In fact, the creator of Bioshock said in an interview that the game was not a critique on objectivism. It was in fact a critique on certainty and utopias. He said that in her novel, Galt's Gulch worked because she controlled the story. The characters were in her control. And than he thought how would that society work if it was populated by real people, with their own flaws. But than again, you could also use that same argument against him, since he controls the story of Bioshock. :)
It is kinda, but they repeal bias in presentation.
envy is the desire to be privilveged
She's not telling you how you should live your life, she's telling you how it already is. There is no such thing as unconditional love or true altruism, unless you believe in God. People only seek to help or love others out of their own self interest, whether those are intrinsic rewards or extrinsic rewards.
***** I think from the standpoint of Objectivism, people who believe in God are also doing so out of their own self-interest, especially if the rewards are immortal life in heaven. This would place a believer who would "seek to help or love others" ("unconditional love or true altruism") as not an exception.
***** Except it's NOT how it already is, because it all falls apart under scrunity. Many of those intrinsic rewards aren't part of a zero sum game, and Rand has to pretend they are in order to keep her philosophy together. If I feel good because I've made your life easier, that's still altruism even if we both get a benefit out of it -- characteristically, Rand didn't seem to grasp this idea of "we ALL benefit, and the fact I benefit too doesn't mitigate the fact I'm choosing to serve everybody instead of just myself." Just more sophistry from a very screwed-up, traumatized refugee whose intellect outpaced the quality of her ideas.
***** Intrinsic rewards do not exist. Rewards are values and all values are values for someone for something. Nothing is inherently valuable (nothing is valuable independent a valuer and a purpose).
That is not altruism. That is self-interest. Your "feeling good" is the spiritual reward for helping your friend. Your actions are not disinterested nor a sacrifice (the surrender of a value for a lesser or non-value). You want and wish to help your friend precisely because he is *your* friend - he is a value, to you. Rand continually and repeatedly made perfectly clear what she meant by altruism - abject self-sacrifice, which benevolence is not. The benevolent man is driven out of the selfish desire to see others better off (should they be deserving), not some mystic fealty to a simultaneously bizzare apathy and compassion towards all men ("I care not about those who I help but I wish to help for its own sake."). Of course you care about the people. Help is not an end in itself. The happiness obtained by and through the helping of those who are deserving is.
Funnily enough, your assertion that Rand didn't understand the notion of "how we all benefit", is actually something she cited as foundational to her conception of egoism, holding that there can not and does not exist conflicts of interest among rational people, meaning, we all benefit when acting in our own rational self-interest.
Your opinion on the approach of Objectivism does not subvert the reality it describes. By your logic all people have inherent weaknesses, which you and I both know is true regardless of it being a pessimistic view or an optimistic one.
The problem with your argument is you not only have the burden of proof proving that love IS NOT materialistic, largely it is as her life's work of writings asserts. You also have to prove that "Love is Limitless"
Hippy slogans are not enough.
Potential and reality more often then not don't coincide.
Rand is not imposing a "limit on love" She is saying weather you like it or not the laws of nature have already imposed one.
She also gave an example in the video, please pay attention.
Beautiful, truly beautiful Philosophy.
every time I hear something I could add to it, but I am dumbfounded with her wisdom.
so real, so lucid, so honest
@jeep23862 so right
She makes a valid point. You don't deserve anything, you earn it. Still, not a follower but a good point. It's smart to be a bit of an egotistical person.
531chaz deserve=earn
Ardek Depends on your definition of both words.
531chaz You deserve not to be helplessly violated.
531chaz Technically, there's a difference between an egoist and an egotist. Rand was the former.
lazyla27 You didn't comprehend. What people do is a reflection of who they are: their character, their moral virtue. She said you love people not for what they do for you, or for what you do for them, but for their virtues, which means you love them for who they are. People have a choice: you can be a good person, or a bad person. You can have integrity, honor and conviction, or you can have none of those things, and it is up to you to decide. The former is deserving of love, the latter is not.
I love the interviewer. He is very nice and not overbearing at all. He’s willing to listen to her views. If Fox News was like this I’d eagerly watch it and gain perspective on conservative views.
I get it. I get selfish pleasure from helping others. I do. In love the currency is virtue!💓
The IRS wants 12 grand from me for mistakes they made in 2012. How good would that make you "feel" to help me out? I would surly thank you. :)
And that's why helping others should always be voluntary. Government shouldn't mess with this.
You dont get it. You weren't listening, clearly. She said nothing about getting selfish pleasure from helping others. She specifically said the only reason she helps her HUSBAND was because or selfishness...because of her love for him. She said nothing about getting anything from helping anyone at all.
To be open to just listening to another person regardless of if you agree is such a wonderful thing
I'm so glad my 11th grade History teacher recommend We The Living. If that never happened I wouldn't have discovered this beautiful thinker, and I probably wouldn't have become the person that I am today.
This woman was ahead of her time. And people didn't understand her message partly because she said it so bluntly.
I've seen this video recommended to me for over 3 years. I constantly disregarded watching it until now. My perception was that PBS would do a hack job of Ayn Rands views. I thought they would misrepresent her words and bash her philosophy. I regret not watching this video sooner. I apologize to PBS for prejudging their content without actually watching it. This video was very well done. Added to favorites. Thank you for the content.
People will hardly ever understand her. But she spoke her heart and she did it always.
This hit me right in the feels
This is amazing. Bringing these past figures to life through cartoons!
BEAUTIFULLY animated and edited. This is fantastic work
If you are compelled to love a person with no redeeming qualities, then love itself becomes worthless. That’s very insightful.
Designated Reader Yup bits the same logic that validates the giving of trophies to every player, regardless of outcome of the game. Wining means nothing of everybody wins no matter how they play. It only means that, eventually, nobody will try.
Not so coincidentally, it’s the same people who deem it necessary to dole out these meaningless trophies that can’t comprehend Rand’s philosophy.
True, but there are a lot of toxic people who demand love unconditionally. They rarely succeed in attaining it, but it’s what they’re after.
@@designatedreader2406 I disagree. They aren't after love they are after adulation or worship or praise and compliments. They. Are after admiration or popularity but it's wrong to think they want love . love hurts and that is what they want to escape
I do understand her view. She is basically saying if love is this unyielding ubiquitous force that is given onto everyone then it doesn't have any value anymore. Love is available to everyone but it is procured only by those willing to work for it. Her views are reminiscent of Hermeticism in the way that it's about standards and ethics. Love and redemption is all about responsibility and holding yourself to a certain standard. Light is attracted to light and love is attracted to love. If you are not full of love... why would love want anything to do with you?
This makes total sense I've been living by this philosophy my entire life, cause isn't it obvious why we love someone
Take for example your parents, they provide shelter comfort and food, and you form an emotional bondage just to keep the relationship intact, would you jump in a magma if your parents life depended on it
Most will but its only because we're morally obligated to do so
But deep down we're all alone and responsible for our ownself
Sadly, You cannot expect this kind of discussion or views from today’s television
i've been reflecting on this for a few days. it's not what's typically taught, but it makes sense. it reminds me of the distinction between respect and toleration. respect, unlike mere tolerance, must be earned and deserved. "In love, the currency is virtue... you don't love everybody indiscriminately."
Ayn Rand is an incredible motivation for me.
"At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love. It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality."
~Ernesto "Che" Guevara
@@sabotabby3372ironic part is both Ayn Rand and Che Guevera , two symbols of opposing philipshoies both died being hypocrites of their own ideologies lol
Ayn Rand died of old age accepting living off of SSI (which I guess technically is her money but it's still living off the state regardless encouraging it)
And Che guevera a liberator of fascist and imperialistic ideology engages in forced labor camps, was homophobic, and eliminated free press.
@@greenkidd529 che Guevara was a Communist and he died fighting for freedom in the jungle, and Cuba is one of the freest nations in Latin America with world class medicine, Ayn Rand spent her life bitching about "commies" and intellectuals and died destitute on welfare not having worked an honest day in her life
@@greenkidd529 I think taxes are immoral. Am I a hypocrite if I pay taxes?
Ayn Rand paid taxes. Should she have refused to pay taxes?
@@sabotabby3372 Yeah, Cuba, the Paradise of liberty when the power it's retained in one only party, there is no opposition press, and the people tries to escape...yeah
love the art work. Nice illustration, specially when she shut the door in Wallace's face
I love how she refuses to be interrupted. And I love those last two sentences - makes you think
This is a beautiful edit of this long interview. Thank you for making it
there is a distinction between romance and compassion. first and foremost, sincerity in all expressions.
And a difference between love and respect. She didn't care though.
Beautiful animation. Love this woman.
Huh, after going on a binge through these videos of famous historical figures, I didn't expect Ayn Rand to be the one I vibed with the most. She's got my love.
This was truly a wonderful experience. Loved the artwork too!
This woman was pure, unadulterated philosophy. "I have no faith at all. I only hold conviction." Should be the mantra of every person who holds logic and philosophical thought in any high regard in their life. And I very much agree with what she said in this video. You can't love people just because they are your fellow human beings because that utterly devalues love. It not only devalues love but it devalues people. Somebody who loves indiscriminately (and I have a strong feeling those people are far rarer than this comment section suggests) must therefor believe that nobody is worthy of being regarded more affectionately than anyone else. Hitler and Stalin and the Dalai Lama are all worthy of being held to the same esteem and being loved the same simply because they breathed the same air as you and are part of the same species. That's totally absurd, unscientific thinking and it's simply impractical to daily life because it's an impossible moral code to uphold because it goes against everything inherent within us.
Loving all people ≠ loving all people equally. Don't even try to conflate the two.
Jack Hooper If by loving all people you mean not mistreating them and respecting their rights and recognizing that they are in fact people then of course that is good and Rand doesn't dispute that but if that's what you mean then you're using very loose and ill conceived language that simply sets you up for miscommunication and I don't believe that's the context Rand was thinking of either. When I say "love all people" I'm talking about loving them all as brothers and sisters which is perfectly lovely in a vague poetic context but in real life it's absolutely absurd. How can you love someone if you don't know them? That's just irresponsible for one thing because there are plenty of thoroughly awful human beings and the wishy washy philosophy of the majority bleeding heart liberals calls for us to sacrifice for those people which is, in Rand's meaning of the word, immoral.
I remember seeing this interview.
I keep coming back to this video. it's simply captivating.
Nothing and no-one beyond me, me, me. Great philosophy. Should go far.
Remember when I read and understood Ayn Rand in my 15teens, was inspired and outspoken, I recieved incredible backlash for it. Now, many many years later, I read her and find her naive. But a big portion of our zeitgeist now agrees with my 15teen year old self.
Weird how it cycles - our perceptions on life.
Can you tell how your perception of her changed ? (Sincere question)
Rosenbaum is not naive as you claim. She's an idealist. You obviously disagree with her ideas instead of attacking her ideas--you throw "ad hominems" claiming that she is naive.
She was and will remain one of the most influential intellectuals of the 20th century. Few times has anyone written words provoke such deep stirrings of intellectual deduction and pondering.
I love this - thank you. This interview was very very digestable.
Its great n relieving to know that once someone had been quite honest with the world n the processes of life.