Ayn Rand on Reason 

This aged well

@@crunkalac not really , cognitive science/psychology take a different view on the matter, but we can always extend a charitable interpretation because people live life notice things and choose words to represent them :)

She saw the writing on the wall from my a reasoned perspective of western culture and expectations. She was basically warning about what we have now. All emotional arguments backed by emotion-not eveidence of any sort even philosophical reasoning or evidence. Our political and economic elites or halfwits have used woke to deceive and drive an agenda that suits them and them alone

"a madman is not one who lost his reason a madman is one who lost everything but his reason"(Chesterton)

Luke Cunningham you should listen to this www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/segments/91642-overcome-by-emotion

As your brain is mostly fat, then rationally, fat can think and have emotions. I feel/listening to your quantum brain is the means of conscience. With knowledge of Yah. Hence as a man thinketh so is he. Don't let any man spoil you througj philosophy or vain deceit; such as after the traditions of man and the rudiments of this world and not after Yeshua. For the word of the Yah is with the force of reason with Yahs love for his creation. Ayn Rand omitts Yah. For what readon?

Roy Long listen to this www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/segments/91642-overcome-by-emotion

Emotional thoughts- The superhighway to despair....

If that happens, change or tweek the emotion accordingly. It takes as long as it takes.

Nina- this lady Ayn is absolutely right in every point she makes in this video and it is a true gem. Emmanuel Kant would be delighted to know of such lively-minded convergence with his own thinking. It is also convergent with my own writings I am very happy to relate.

terence williams​ The New Left, Romantic Manifesto, Atlas Shrugged (her huge novel, they just made 2 movies out of, couple three years back...so, so. : /. ), The Virtue of Selfishness, Anthem (another novel), Capitalism.... You would LOVE her body of work. She is the best writer of the U$ system, which can get lost in the translations. I ran a business with my x-hubby on her tenets. We made canvas and leather bags, from idea to sale under her tutelage. Fabulous! Had 2 workshops/stores. :D. My home library was FULL of her works. She has an institute in Colorado, today. Oh yeah, she didn't get lost in the shuffle over here. There's even a UTube channel on her. I subscribe. Check her out, Terry. You'll sense, and feel validated for real. Happy day to you, sir. ^-^

Nina Houchen When you are already on the same page yourself, its nice to know of another old girl. I am Kantian by nature.

Nina Houchen jeep2386 Don't panic Nina- - Jeep old chap- I think thou doth 'protest too strongly'. While I would agree with you Jeep there is a smack of sophistry, especially in Ayn's delivery of her thinking, to claim the springboard of her thinking reduces to deep seated emotionalism is so ubiquitous a constituent in the advance of thinking and ideas as to be 'given', indeed even important to us sufficiently not to be discounted, and as Robinson suggests, 'my thoughts and ideas are MY thoughts and ideas 'and thereby 'significant' to me, your brief critique here, I suggest, is something of 'overkill'. After all, even the greatest known sophist, Protagoras, was not 'wholly' wrong about everything, if not so astute as Socrates in his questioning of him, Is it not so that you may be devoted to analytical reasoning, (which appears to be the case), and Nina devoted to solipsism- (if she is)- and in my devotion to scepticism in the dialectic- (as I believe I am)- are we not indeed 'flourishing' as humans. In your case, Nina's case, and my case, are not our inquiries derived all-- from a motherboard of unified categorical and hypothetical competition via both our emotions and our reasoning- defining all three of us as incorporate to the 'humanity' which you yourself rightly applaud?

***** 'Perhaps the “reason” why such deep seated emotionalism is so ubiquitous a constituent in the advance of thinking is because it IS a ubiquitous a constituent in the advance of thinking' Glad you subscribe Jeep- quite so. I made no protest..merely an observation. Relax old chap..

She has a respect for the individual person in a way that is a grade above most traditions and ideologies out there. That to some of us is very beautiful.

What did you expect otherwise from such a romanticism book? Would a book depicting a person that prescribe the exact amount of compromise is good for you, or a book giving you the excuse that compromise is okay, or a book simply describing all is futile so just give up? We may never reach the level of Roark, and that's okay, the book is supposed to describe an ideal, not to continue to feed us the drug that we are looking for.

@@hellwolf4liberty i see, you have commented on my post, thankfully I am now out of my ayn rand phase of life and its been better than before. Good luck to you too :)

@jeep23862 of course i just read 2 books only 1.fountain head 2. Atlas shrugged now anthem reading... suggest me some good books

Breath taking seems extreme. Observe her breathing patterns; she is off center internally. She is living an embodied falsehood. Breath giving is what good teachers of philosophy offer.

She doesn't suggest that at all. Rand was adamant that every individual should pursue their own happiness. The definition of happiness for an individual takes emotions into account. But you must use your rational mind to achieve that happiness. And of course your actions towards that goal must not include force or compulsion of others because their happiness is different than yours. It's really a very simple and basic philosophy at its core.

Krishnamurti wrote that hope is useless. Witnessing the possibility for change, change from the horrors of war, for example, to that of piece, is an exercise in problem solving.

I think you're either misquoting Nathan or deliberately distorting his words. Could you cite where he said this? I have the resource material, even Branden's later works. Title and chapter would be sufficient. I will admit that I haven't read all of his work, just most of it.

@@A_friend_of_Aristotle Don't expect to hear back from Thomas with anything even resembling support of his statement. They never do.

Fearing God is not needed. Experiencing God is helpful.

Yesssss..... I heard this once before somewhere..... I think it was Elvis who said it.... to bigfoot..... we were all on a starship eating a Milky Way I think.... or was it a Snickers bar. I forget.

How does it make her ideas inconsistent?

@@TyyylerDurden because leans on intuition, not reason; concepts that are at odds with one another. She has to or her value-based system falls apart. IMO both intuition and reason are necessary, just as both Plato and Aristotle, the poet and the logician, the imagination and mathematics. You need both the “mystical” and the empirical to get a complete picture of reality.

@@lproof8472 I wouldn't classify Plato and Aristotle in such a primitive way. Aristotle can also be a poet, there is no contradiction. The main question is the fundamental perception of the reality and how and why and on what basis to deal with it.

@@TyyylerDurden Of course Aristotle can be a poet. Poets can use reason, and logicians can be poetic. Accepting this fact as good makes Rand’s philosophy inconsistent though. The goal for Rand is man to be 100% reason-which is not only inconsistent with reality, but, as I stated, not even consistent with her own views.

@@lproof8472 sorry, I can't see why a man can't be 100% reason, because one of the main ideas of Rand is that you act by reason ACCORDING TO YOUR SET OF VALUES. Give me at least one example that can disapprove this position.

@jeep23862 Sounds like a fun girl to me !

True, and that is to her credit. Also in that interview, she upholds happiness as the most important aspect of life, and separates it from mindless self-indulgence. Happiness is not a moment-by-moment thrill-seeking experience. It's not a string of highs or adrenaline rushes. It's far more conceptual than that.

+ilg2012 "liberals" as understanded in USA (different of a classical liberal or libertarian).

Conservatives don't always make decisions based on reasons, more often than not, they don't.

Conservatives do not make decisions based on reason, they too make decisions based on emotion, their emotion is nostalgia and tradition. The liberal emotion is one of envy, as well as an overwhelming desire to overthrow the status quo.

Amen

Conservatives have been taken over by fundsmentalist christians. That is basically the opposite of "reason"

Heard of the Ron Paul Revolution? Ayn Rand was and still continues to be a great influence on libertarians worldwide.

Jadranko Brkic Thanks for asking. Yes, I know who Dr.Ron Paul is and his ideas. Unfortunately, Dr.Ron Paul does not follow and practice Objectivism fully. Dr.Ron Paul has publicly admitted so. I don't endorse Dr.Ron Paul though some of his ideas I accept while others I reject. Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum a.k.a pen name "Ayn Rand" rejected the Libertarian Party of the past and would have rejected modern Libertarians as well. Influence is not good enough either a person accepts Objectivism or they reject it there is no in between or middle of the road or agnostic like fake confusion of decision making. A person needs to be decisive. Surprising in many languages there is no concept of "maybe" especially the Romance languages.

All the rich countries to a large degree are following her philosophy and countries that are not rich have adopted the opposite of her philosophy so her ideas are definately in practical usage.

She didnt say it was a cult. She said religion is irrational

if you look at christianity in total in the world there are side cults...maybe not the main reason for christianity but there are multiple christian cults

@@Monchi2006 in a documentary she called it a cult

@@marnvs the Google definition of a cult is " a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or satanic" none of that has to do with Christianity. It is not small and it has to do with the complete opposite of strange and satanic. So Christianity is not a "cult", it is a congregation.

It is

I donwloaded it but can you give me a quick overview as it relates to your opinion of rand?

Absolutely, she would have hated Krishnamurti.This is a woman who developed a crush on a child killer.

@Anonymous delivery A.k.a. learn nothing and try to live a life of happiness and fulfillment without the perspectives needed to do so.

No you don't, not with those hashtags. Ayn Rand would never have supported Trump, his heavy hand on immigration, and idiotic conspiracy blokes such as Info Wars. In fact, the video cited above criticizes all three. I cannot tell if you're an enemy of hers and are making her look bad by associating her with these hashtags, or if you're a genuine supporter of those things and are simply mixed up.

Communist

@@mogenvonbogel7342 I am not a communist

TimeWarp66 that's all they ever have. Insults or strawman bullshit.

None of the areas you mentioned were ever Capitalist societies. None of them ever had fully unregulated economies or free markets. Every one of them suffered from over-regulated economies.

@@johnnynick6179 All latin America has been always capitalist - this is a fact ,,, Chile was even more unregulated. Pinochet etc with the support of the US .. Resulting to : totalitarian regimes d.... torture etc .. These are ..facts... Sorry ...

@@dsgio7254 This commenter knows he is incorrect. I have discussed this very subject with him before and provided him with the actual definition of Capitalism: _"an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit"_ He still insists that there are countries in which trade and industry are "controlled by private owners" even though not a single country in Latin America lets business owners run their companies without restrictions. They ALL have massive amounts of regulations dictating what they are allowed to do and what they may not do. That is NOT Capitalism. The ONLY valid function of government in a "just" society is protection of individual rights. Period.

@@johnnynick3621 Oh... thanks for ....providing this info ... its ...enlightening to know the correct definition..... So can you tell us now - according to this definition- which country in the world has ......capitalism..... or ever had ,,,,,capitalism ?

@@dsgio7254 There has never been a society that permitted Capitalism. While most people are under the misconception that the US is a Capitalist nation, that is incorrect. The US was NEVER a Capitalist nation... it has ALWAYS been a mixed economy. But what is obvious is that the closer a nation gets to being a Capitalist society and the more freedom they have... the more their populace flourishes. The converse is also true. The closer a nation gets to fully Communist society and the less freedom they have... the more their populace suffers. This is true in every case in every time in history.