Jordan Peterson Vs Ayn Rand 

Especially Beethoven's 9th. Not exactly background music.

Agreed!

ESPECIALLY AGREE!!! Mega Fail video maker! Change the music!!!! Ayn Rand specifically said she found Beethoven's music broadcasted the sense of a Malevolent Universe which ran counter to her 'sense of life' in which we live in a 'Benevolent Universe' - which she found most exemplified in this piece of music: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-av7pavI290A.html. - and no I'm not kidding. All in the book 100 Voices

Tristan Teller Rand believes in a benevolent being and sees beethoven's music as communicative of a malevolent universe ? did I understand you ?

not quite : ) She believed in human beings having the power to perceive life/reality either accurately, or alternatively - if not completely accurately then you can perceive life in every other slightly or heavily distorted way. If you suffer the latter the more likely it is that you'd have a vast set of ideas, conclusions and so then feelings and emotions which together in your mind, both consciously and subconsciously, constitute a symphony of experience - of what it feels like to be alive - for you. This feeling she labelled as a 'sense of life'. In the latter case your sense of life would be more as if you lived in a universe where the general tone of how things are put together in form and in action - was malevolent. So with this sense of life - the Universe is not particularly pleasant, and things are just not very good, even maybe really bad etc. On the other hand, if your perceptions of life/reality are accurate, i.e you've done your homework in reasoning what you're senses are giving you and not taking stuff people tell you on faith, but seeing if you think it is true or not and knowing for yourself why you think so etc etc ... then the more attuned your ideas, your mind is going to be to 'reality'. And the more this is so, the more likely you are as a human being to experience being alive as a good thing, that the world is - although perhaps full of challenges - still a great and wonderful potentially very happy place to be living etc. This would result in you having a 'symphony of experience' - a 'sense of life' - in which you experience being a benevolent being living in a benevolent universe, where the Universe is great, where life and things are well, really rather good, and maybe actually pretty wonderful. And importantly, this is possible without believing in any kind of god/spirit/consciousness running everything, and indeed is much more likely if you spare yourself the suspicions of believing anything like that, which if you did believe in them, is really much more likely to breed anxiety and fear, make you think this life doesn't matter because there's another coming next etc etc. So that is how Objectivists define the difference - using my language to get there, they'd probably put it very differently : ) And She appreciated Beethovens talent and compositions for their majesty and their brilliance, but she would never listen to Beethoven for pleasure, because it was very clear to her that he had a 'Malevolent Universe' Sense of Life. Hope that helps.

Because they are good people and not filthy dishonest lazy moronic cannucks like you. You stink young junkie!

still funny 2 years on. Lolz.

It's like the grand piano in the background of a scary scene, they follow them wherever they go with their instruments at the ready 😂😂😂

Because the bathroom was full? 😀😉

Jesus, you couldn't be more passive-agressive even if you tried.

Turn the captions on.

@@geriburrito Oh I could, baby, I could

I wanted to hear the Beethoven but this woman kept yakking.

@@dorfmanjones Dat ain't no woman, them's Ayn Rand!

Same happened to me!

How has her philosophy helped you. I mean, being 66 you must have some prominent achievements to talk about, no?

@@LordAnonymous31 Yes, iwata able to establish my connection with myself. I had nothing. I was called "a drifter". I was searching for answers. I found guidance in Rand's writings that I could not find anywhere else. Trust me I did a lot of reading. With mo help from others beyond her teachings i saved fir years and at at 34 purchased a 90 acre property with a two story home on the Oregon coast. I started(from scratch) a real estate firm there. Today, America is dying. Our economy is dying. (Read Capitalism: the unknown ideal by Ayn Rand) American and European morality is not a subject for serious discussion but merely a subject to indulge in as meaningless. As Rand pointed out, we can deny reality but not the consequences of reality. Ayn Rand clearly understood what she was saying and why she was saying what she said. I'm 70 now. Why am I so much healthier than my peers? Why do I understand our current economic situation better than my peers? How come I can find my way forward at a time when others are giving up? I owe a lot for who I am and how I have learned by learning what I ought to learn. Ayn Rand gets more credit than anyone for who I am.

@@thomasmanning829 Well said!

@Malhab I’m sure she does come off that way, if you’re a Marxist.

Yup, that is a valid argument, if you are truly objective.

I think she is way overrated and a bit of a mess. Jordan Peterson is far smarter IMO.

Saying words in order that don't make grammatical errors and convey a certain sense don't make them philosophical or prophetical. She definitely believed in the things she was talking about.

@@monkeysezbegood Jordan Peterson just regurgitates old philosophical ideas

@@hamter5349 to be fair I don't rate Peterson highly either. Rand less though.

She knew what she was talking about ( bi -polar ) but nobody else knew what she was talking talking about. Why they call her a genius, misses the point.

Petar Silic I don't want to. Does that mean I don't have a say in this conversation? I'm sorry, what would you prefer me to say? I'm sure that's something Rand would approve of.

"The whole thing was really Peterson taking shots at the idea that Rand was a "top rate philosopher" " I totally agree and as she has long left this conscious reality, she was not afforded an opportunity of proper right of reply. His analysis of current situations is always done on the foundation and perspective of the philosophies of others - Jung, Dostoevsky etc . He has not come up with something new but rather regurgitates the ideas of others... Rand clearly condemned this practice in The Fountainhead. She broke new ground, in the 1930's -1950's announcing her own belief system that is a) diametrically opposed to the socialist liberal doctrine that is being forced on us (and which is destroying our societies exactly as she said it would) and b) of course the post modernists will vehemently reject it . My opinion is she outranks, outsmarts and outplays Jorden Peterson in this video.

Existent Being Peterson became a Christian?

RAP: Many would agree with all but your final concluding sentence.

And here will agree to disagree.

57 sec for me

felixucoff yes, terribly so! I don’t think JP would much appreciate the butchery that is this video, especially when he’s explained many many times that he is extremely careful with his choice of words and must speak at length so as to avoid out context situations which this video has managed to do very well! Many cuts of his words out of context which becomes a mockery of his lectures and interviews. This video is garbage and hopefully the 92,000 that saw this before me checked out early as I did as soon as they noticed which was only about 90 seconds in.

I totally agree. I have seen a lot of his interviews and while you might be able to boil her ideas down to a few sentences, with him it's just not possible. His statements are a lot more complex.

@@ManonVarendaz It’s not that his ideas are more complex. The editing gives much more time to Ayan Rand than Jordan Peterson.

You shouldn’t because their ideas on morality conflict greatly

I despise both

@nick m. If you call glorification of selfishness reasonable, I could despise with you 😉

@nick m. I am skeptical, just because she label herself as reasonable, it doesn't mean it is true. For example Rand was known chain smoker who denied scientific evidence about smoking and she died cancer. Peterson did same thing. He took antidepressants for years, despite the fact he's clinical psychologist with knowledge how pills works and claims that he'll never stop take them. Don't listen anyone who claims that person is reasonable, look how they act. Addiction is not reasonable.

@nick m. There's good reasoning and bad reasoning.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Check out Kant

The "ideal man" was Nathaniel, until he wasn't. Ask Barbara.

You know they aren't comparable when one is a novelist and other is social scientist and clinical psychologist that studied evolutionary ties with religious instincts. She brought from the motherland the ideology that destroyed her country but went to the west because of their stories. Irony.

@@azmtkdzv when was Russia controlled by Ayn Rands philosophy?

I mean, even JP said it, that you're not supposed to know...its supposed to be an exploration.

Who is he to say what art is supposed to be....or how it is to be done? Many great novels have themes, Rands are no different. @@nicholasbogosian5420

Yeah same, I think that reading her books when I was young really shaped my current perspective on individual freedom and the right to be my own unique force in the world. To be seperate from the responsibility to a social construct in whichever facets I choose. I know what that would sound like to somebody like Jordan Peterson but I don't subscribe to the "woke" stereotype, existentialism, socialism, anarchism. I just want to live and be left alone without rules for interacting with land and people and country etc. People should be exposed to information naturally, not indoctrinated to think and feel and believe it a certain way. We shouldn't be denied access to anything or any part of our garden, and we shouldn't need to feel like we owe our lives to wars that we as individuals had no part in creating.

Yes, she believes in Psalm 14 verse 1. So sad.

I laughed too hard that I spilled my coffee on the mattress My mom is gonna kill me

Bruce Ruttan -Rand's epistemology is self refuting. If all beliefs must be based on reason, how does she come to that belief? If she does it using reason her epistemology is viciously circular. It she presupposes reason then she admits not all beliefs are based on reason which contradicts her premise.

If evidence is considered an essential part of identity and argument, then of course reason is essential, indeed man's only tool in interacting with reality. It is important for the mystic to debunk reason because it makes obvious the trickery of faith.

"If all beliefs must be based on reason, how does she come to that belief?" -Chris Beasley, All GOOD beliefs must be reasonable, not all beliefs.

Rands shitty epistemology pretty much denies Quantum Mechanics and Relativity

🤡

She is not unusually intelligent. Top 1%, maybe, IQ 135 or so. Plenty of people that intelligent or more. You meet people that smart all the time. But very, very obsessive. Wants to construct a neat, plausible, self-consistent and complete model of ideal human nature. A more intelligent person would find a way to accomodate uncertainty, and open-endedness.

More like too stupid to be truly understood by most

@@Carvin0 What is there to disagree about? Is the individual a tool to be used for the benefit of the greater good (the group). Or is the individual the most important thing and therefore ends in himself? Building a value system around the latter protects us from unnecessary sacrifices and political careers built around taking from those who have EARNED what they have in order to support an otherwise unsustainable outcome. i.e. bailouts, welfare, disability, social security, special interest groups, tax exemptions, monopoly of ideals on things such as social media. Big government uses altruism because altruism devalues us as individuals and forces us into groups. Groups to be sacrificed to other groups. Because groups are easier to appeal to and control than a bunch of individuals. I can rattle off one pandering sentence about lgbtq in a political speech and lock in thousands of votes and not honestly give any indicator as to my actual principles or values. It's manipulation plain and simple. Altruism isn't above using force to make people do or think a certain way and objectivism is against the use of force. Objectivism says the opposite and that we're more than just sacrificial animals and gives us an opportunity to actually thrive and flourish. And those who thrive using Ayn rands principles make the world better for everyone else. Think of what all the technology and modern medicine we have now would look like if we did away with government regulation allowed capitalism to do its job. Freeing people to make up their own minds about what risks they are willing to take. We'd probably be teleporting and living for multiple hundreds of years longer than we do now. We could never know the true potential because altruism says self interest is bad. Rational self interest is good. Altruism is evil. I didn't understand those who try and put Ayn rand down or discredit her. She knew what she was talking about.

@@johngleue hi, you seem like someone that has really put effort into understanding Ayn Rand, so I would like to ask you a question about something I don't understand: why did Dagny Taggart, Hank Rearden and Francisco D Anconia risk their lives to save John Galt from the place they were torturing him at the end of Atlas Shrugged?

Women's "agreeableness" is a cultural/social construct; women are not any more "agreeable" than men in their inherent nature ?? wth

GCKelloch The only hardwired instinct that humans have is to suckle after birth. We do, however, have a lot of softwired instincts, strong tendencies that vary in strength from individual to individual, but all can potentially be overcome if enough effort is put into it, for good or ill. Maternal instinct is, unfortunately, like that in us, too. I think one of the fundamental roles of religion is to help us regulate these instincts, to encourage them or restrain and direct them. Feminazies want to push a new religion that abolishes by will all normal female instincts. Rand was not that removed from them on social issues. Children, monogamous marriage, reciprocated consistent loyalty, etcetera, she was on the same page as the worst of them in those regards. That requires a concerted act of will to overcome such normal behavioral instincts, and that includes the tendency towards agreeableness.

Agreeableness is a social construct? Where does the biology come into play?

Agreeableness is statistically more of a female trait...STATISTICALLY. WORLDWIDE...you can't say it's socially constructed because the types and variants of societies is DIVERSE to say the least. Even if I grant that it's constructed, all the argument changes to is that biological females VOLUNTARILY CONSTRUCT agreeableness more than males more often, across all situations, on average. Even Rand acknowledged this, when she said she would never vote for a female candidate for president! It's dangerous to be agreeable when you have something to defend! If America was viewed as an infant to be defended, that would be different. But Rand didn't trust most females' attitudes toward the American philosophy of individualism because they have more of a natural tendency for collectivism regardless of how close a society is to true objectivism. And collectivism pulls individuals down and destroys them.

GCKelloch and I some very agreeable men. 👍

No she was weak.

Men don't have instincts. Well to be perfectly clear, you need to Define instincts since there are a few definitions for it. Also, objectivism clearly states that emotions are uncontrollable. Objectivism clearly understands what emotions are. Objectivism though gives you the tools to understand where emotions come from, what they are in your present life and how you can consciously control them once they happen. Humans are not slavering Beast directed by the instincts of our DNA and unable to control our emotional outbursts. And just because a human is a rational being by Nature does not mean a human act rationally. Most humans do not act rationally and that is why most humans live in some sort of misery because they have not been giving the tools to understand what it means to live a rational life.

It seems that Rand, by her own statement, presupposes that man's life is a standard of value to begin with and bases her morality on that presupposition through the reason of man. That doesn't sound objective to me and it may even be circular. If we could ask a shark what the standard of value is, it might say those beings which have been on the planet the longest are the standard because they have seniority. How can man but not sharks be said to be the standard of value without appealing to arbitrary speciesism? Why is it that human reasoning is authority giving? I'm not entirely sure how value (greater than and less than) can even be grounded objectively, apart from an objective standard of reference by which we can measure it against. The term different, not better or worse, makes more sense in a Godless state of affairs.

The objective standard is your life, and based on what is best for your life ( the entire course of your life, not just whats "good" in the moment ) is how you derive morality. It's easy, actually. I need money. I can rob people on the street and make money quick, or I can get a job and make money slowly. One has a high risk of putting you in jail, while the other, doesn't, and keeps you free to be happy. One destroys your self esteem, while the other is how you build it. Every single person on the planet must do what's best for their well being and happiness. Why? each person's life is the standard by which they measure their happiness in said life and how they should be making value judgments to achieve happiness.

Instincts, definitely, and sometimes emotions, are rational, but neither are substitutes for logic, reason, and evidence in the long term. Adhering to either for any length of time can be detrimental in a number of ways.

"One has a high risk of putting you in jail, while the other, doesn't, and keeps you free to be happy. One destroys your self esteem, while the other is how you build it." False. Both could destroy and build self esteem or freedom based on the whims of a persons own reason. A person could legally work for a corporation that creates pollution making money slowly and end up reliasing this and feeling miserable or knowing it and not care, only thinking of heir own bank balance. "Every single person on the planet must do what's best for their well being and happiness. " Not so. This is just a trick used by people like Edward Bernays and other assholes to create customers for supermarkets etc. Go live in an indigenous culture... you think everyone is just doing their own thing to be happy? No some will risk their lives to find food and protect the tribe. Rand is a delusional product of a contemporary myth.

Everything we do is art, but there are two kinds of art-good and bad. Good art is beautiful as it works in concert with the Spirit of God. Bad art is ugly because it doesn’t. Bad art is what Ayn Rand and her disciples do.

@@lancehaseltine494 Then allow me to introduce to you comic book artist, writer, and co-creator of Spider-Man, Steve Ditko. Whom has made his mark on comicdom forever. For a few examples, look up FizzFop1 for a video called, "Steve Ditko - 12 Superheros He Created or Co-Created".

@@jaspermcminnis5538 Thanks.

@@lancehaseltine494 You're welcome.

ayn rand and bhad bhabie

Jake Ayan doesn't talk about responsibility in a wholesale manner like Peterson does. I think the disconnect is what the individual actually exist for.

Peterson is much more open to the possibility that reason and objectivity will not deliver to you ALL of life's answers. At some point unjustifiable (equivalent to epistemologically unknowable) decisions must be made, things must be interpreted emotionally, ect ect. Ayn Rand made several of these, she just doesn't recognize it.

Jake The disconnect is.. separating things as if the exist on the own. Things like morality, philosophy, theology etc. One might say that is "just a philosophy". Which is true but saying it is "just a philosophy" is a philosophy also. But saying it is "just a philosophy" might mean you object to it and can't generate a counter argument. There is also some obvious morality involved in saying it is "just a philosophy ". It is the reductionistic rationale that muddies things.Things can be objectively true in there local context but you need morality to figure out what that means. That is the inescapable reality to the picture of the truth. A pychologist is the only one able to even tackle the issue because investigate the motivations behind a person's worldview. Everyone else is just familiar with there own field of study.

Peterson points out that as social animals there are mechanisms that civilize the individual and bind him by custom. He would have changes come more gradually by exposing problems with the existing narrative that holds back society from progressing and changing it when it is right to do so. Rand tends to dismiss the need for a logical and correct analysis to account for the existing customs. For her, the individual is the highest good and if that means destroying the social order entirely, so be it. Actually, the two are not very far apart in terms of the goals that they want to be reached. They want a better world where the individual is more secure. Their point of conflict seems to be about how to get there. Peterson respects custom and biology far more than Rand seems to. For her all that matters is logic so she dismisses the worst part of ourselves when making her pronouncements in either her fiction or non-fiction.

Vangel Vesovski Dictatorship doesn't work, that destroys her philosophy. I believe she had good intentions, but was a little shortsighted. There has to be an abstracted great good above man itself. That humanity can strive for. That is a whole left by not believing in God. We are wired for religious thinking not scientific thinking.

I didn't even realize that the music is distracting until I read that in comments. I was completely focused on what she and he conveying.

He isn't trying to be. He's a professor.

Why is it the end of discussion ? Just because you are not able for one ?

Oliver Kovač retort then.. you have no content

Plenty of . And it is very easy. Even if we only discuss the shit she threw shown in this video only. Would you like that ? For a start ?

Rand presented a very distilled and pure philosophy which turned a lot of people off. Myself, I love it...for the very reasons Peterson scorns her. I think the fact that Rand knew exactly what she wanted to say is refreshing. And she said it so damn well! Writing is more science than art, Peterson should know that. The irony is that he's the closest thing we have to a Howard Roark in this world.

@Kenneth Sloan Every decision affects others. The idea is to not make a decision that disrupts another's ability to make a decision or pursue their own interests. This doesn't necessarily assume that there are unlimited lanes on the highway of life, only that we obey the rules of the road.

I like Rand, but with respect standing on your own feet and individuality isn't revolutionary. Its common sense and predates America.

Yes, the fight is the same but the philosophy is not the same. They both agree that liberals are destroying us so it's a common enemy which we face regardless of which philosophy we embrace. I love Rand but am not that familiar with Peterson's ideas beyond some generalities. I agree he does seem to have some interesting ideas.

They both think you should clean your room before attempting to change the world.

Why?

@@pana376 Peterson, in his snippets, is saying that the artist should not know what he/she is trying to say or represent. "You tell a story about what you _don't_ understand." makes no sense.

@@nedmerrill5705 I agree what nonsense was that

@@nedmerrill5705 it sounds like a postmodern argument; a perfect defense of abstract art. In fact it is not far off from an argument in defense of such art that I came across recently in which the author proclaimed that artists are a conduit for "the spirit of the times", or zeitgeist, and are often if not always unaware of the forces that motivate them (strangely enough, my profile pic is of a pastel painting I finished two years ago that is eerily relevant today). I do not completely disagree with this notion, but he then uses this to explain that abstract art is to classical art what particle physics is to algebra, which I find absurd. Peterson's argument seems even more dismissive; by his definition, nearly all classical western art could be discredited in one fell swoop. This is quite disconcerting coming from a man who is supposedly a committed defender of western civilization. I don't know about Peterson, but when I create a portrait, I have a good idea of what I am doing. An artist cannot avoid injecting some of his subconscious thought into his art, and I recognize this as I am sometimes surprised when I notice some odd detail in a finished piece that I hadn't been aware of, but the greatest artists of the west, for example Leonardo and Shakespeare, knew what they wanted to express with their work and put great effort into achieving their goals. Peterson's claim can easily be reduced to the argument that an artist cannot know that he is creating art if he is to make true art. It is very frustrating to here this from Peterson because I've heard it from so many people in reference to my own art. What is left for an artist to do? Slap some paint on a canvas in an arbitrary manner and hope that it is recognized as art? Scribble some random words on a page and hope the finished product is hailed as magnum opus? I think not. Edit: I only recently changed my profile pic so you may not be able to see the painting I mentioned in my post for a little while.

@@grotesquehead322 Well did anyone ever ask Leonardo or Shakespeare if they ever knew what they were achieving from the start? Did Peterson ask Ayn Rand about her phillosophys? Probably not but it sounds like they are saying the same thing and sometimes Jordan can’t let go of his ideas, rightfully so if he spent so much time formulating them. They both have a point and I have no idea what to do about it I’ve only just heard about Ayn Rand and thought what does Jordan have to say about it. My heads spinning now.

Rather devilish eyes.

A symptom of a hard thinking mind

Exactly she’s thinking & analyzing everything

This sentiment exactly, her novels are explicitly written in the style of archetypes, so much so that she's accused of writing "wooden" characters. This should be JP's ideal style, but apparently not - according to his 'intuition'.

yes, exactly. he is obviously confused. but then, he is a statist so...

I think they're both statists. Respecting property rights from a central authority isn't directly against rand's ideals as far as I understand them. Subjective laws are a real problem to me like C-16. A law must push a judge into a corner, not give him wiggle room the size of an elephant.

@@leerman22 I don't understand how the 2nd half of your comment relates to the first half. And I disagree that they are statists. Was Nietzsche a statist? Is anyone who believes a limited number of people will obtain significant wealth and status a statist?

Only if you have a materialistic reductionistic rational worldview. But if you believe in a soul in is a little different.

GCKelloch Sounds like positivist epistemology. I think Peterson believes in constructionist epistemology. He believes our internal imaginative structures are born with a place for God. Ultimately that has a psychological effect on us either way. God is anthropomorphic. We project our ideals on him. We don't have metaphysical tools to measure metaphysical evidence. It is a leap of faith whether you believe in him or not.

Edward Morris heheh.. go ask him if your right..

Ummm...what?

You are of course correct. And I might add by taking AR on, JP exposes the thinness of his intellectual capacity.

He’s a male chauvinist and won’t admit it

The difference is Rand was a sociopath, Jordan is not.

Ayn Rand is a insane anarchist. Living under Ayn Rand will be worst than Hong Kong. And she is a slow and boring speaker

@@vilaintrolltrollinsky8007 You obviously know nothing about Ayn Rand: she hated anarchists and libertarians. So there goes your theory. Do a little research next time.

@@ragnardanneskjold7259 I know what a anarcho capitalist is and she is one of them.

@@vilaintrolltrollinsky8007 Prove it.

Easy, selfishness destroys solidarity and encourages domination. A generation of dominant selfish people will quickly reject the principles of law and equality. Without morals and without law, these sociopaths will be able to freely express themselves, crush the masses of the people, exploit the sheep that we (and you) are and wage war against the competing lords. Ultimately, sociopathic egoism leads to the absence of law, violent chaos and neo-feudalism worthy of a Tarantino movie. Nothing will survive long under regime and America will become the new Africa.