"Everybody on this planet has done things in this world that they wish they had done differently. And those things they may be a little bit ashamed of now or embarrassed by now. So what? Welcome to the human race. The real issue that separates the good guys from and the not so hot guys is what do you want to do about it now?" Nathaniel Branden at 9:24 I love this! Probably the best short critique of Rand's novels I've ever heard.
There are plenty of critics, professional and amateur, that are previously experienced in her work. It is precisely that experience which guides them to opine. Perhaps you are the one that needs to be more objective. Rand should have called the book The Ugly Virtue of Selfish Arrogance
Personal responsibility & accountability.. These are virutes that have been erased in America today. Everybody is either a victim of something or can point the finger of blame somewhere else. The 'societal experts' have fed us this mind-numbing garbage for decades. Look at the decline that has occurred in the last 40-50 years. Dumbing-down in every sense. I'm reading Atlas Shrugged' and it is an eye-opener. I've also read the works by Nathaniel Branden...very good reading.
Accountability? To who? The human race? I thought this was the moral justification of ego and self aggrandizement at the expense or at least indifference to other people's needs or wants.
I used to loath Ayn Rand, and her [selfish] Objectivist philosophy for years, until late March 2018. It also did not help that she was an atheist, as I used to be very atheist adverse as well. However, I heard Ayn Rand's philosophy mentioned in a [somewhat] positive light by Jordan B. Peterson - who I've been listening to for several months - and decided to take a fresh look at her ideas by starting with two movies, The Fountainhead, and, Atlas Shrugged. Now I am completely captivated by OBJECTIVISM and have ordered six of her books this week.
Just finished Fountainhead yesterday and bought another one of her books. Her ideas changed my life honestly, and helped me be a happier and better person.
The word 'selfish' has deliberately been misconstrued and made into a provocative term. Society wants you to be a 'team player'. In other words, not thinking for yourself. Selfish is synonymous with individuality. It's the individual pursuing ones own interests. That's all. It's nothing to do with walking over others to meet your ends. This is what most people can't get their minds past. Rand's work is about the individual using his or her mind, volitionally, since we are all born with rational minds and must figure things out for ourselves. This is what separates us from the plant and animal kingdom, yet we are encouraged not to use our minds but to live our lives following others who may or may not have this thing called life figured out. The irony about those who bash Rand's work is that they have clearly abnegated their minds, themselves, in that they have clearly not looked into her work to figure it out for themselves but have took on a collectivised opinion of it.
Have you seen how the most prominent proponents of organised objectivism (aka obleftivists) are biological dead-end immigrants? Why do we call them obleftivists? What differentiates rightists with leftists is not the difference about capitalism vs socialism, it’s not even about individuality vs collectivism. It is not even a view of hierarchy vs equality. In fact the difference is even deeper. It is a world view based on socio biology vs a worldview based on the blank slate view of human nature. If you just look and analyse these obleftivists you will see why they say what they say. These are not biologically gifted people. They are not tall, handsome and muscular. They may have a speech impediment and their accents in their new countries separate them negatively from the natives. Also they do not have very high IQ levels and thus envy the people above them that do. You see being tribalist is in our DNA, and these obleftivists do not wish to be discriminated against, since this discrimination does affect their quality of life i.e. by not getting the good job or the promotion, or the man/woman they desire. These obleftivists wish to attack the natural socio-biological differences in humans in order to benefit their life (mostly benefit financially). Like all leftists they attack the naturally gifted, the naturally charismatic, the ones that come from a privileged background, the ones that were born smarter (higher IQ) and/or more handsome/beautiful. They attack the Howard Roarks of this world. Their statement is simple. Free will man!!! If you just think it you can become anything you want. This is the fundamental message that obleftivism is selling to all its naïve victims. Scientology without the aliens. The truth about humans and all DNA based life is that we are simply NOT individuals. We are living organisms that stretch across countless generations. Our ancestors live through us and we will live through our descendants. The accomplishments of your ancestors are your accomplishments. Everything they could do, you can do. Everything you can do, your descendants can do. You were not born from a vacuum, you were not born from individuals. You are the product of a tribe’s gene pool, an entire history’s worth of choices mashed together and separated wheat from chaff to create the algorithm of preferences in your brain, the brain that your DNA coded for, including your case specific preference for sacrificing the herd for your own wellbeing. With the right information/situation at your disposal you would sacrifice yourself for the herd, be it in form of pushing your own son out of the way of a speeding car and getting run over, or working a lifetime so that your children can live better lives. You are not alone. You came from something much bigger than yourself, and you have only got one people left in the world that can reciprocate your good will if you choose to direct it outward. Remember where you came from, what you are, and where you are going. Naturally a woman who chose to die childless, who chose to remove herself from her people and her history, would not be able to educate others on the truth. This explains why her heir declared her philosophy to be closed. He did it in order to insulate it from the truth, in order to cover his own failings in life and in order to attract similar failures. We shall call these people with one simple word. Obleftivists!!!
The "media." It isn't a monolith run by an alien brain. Anyone who dumps all his or her complaints on the "media" isn't doing much thinking. Also, my time spent caring about what Ayn Rand said or did is currently zero.
That issue about redemption mirrors my thoughts exactly. I thought it would have been so good if Ayn Rand had shown how one could become moral, that is, the progression from immorality to morality. She always presented her protagonists as if they were born with morality. This is not possible according to Objectivism, because it states that man is not naturally moral, and so must make the decision to become moral.
Anthony Badessa I, too, found myself quietly wishing that he had run out the door that moment and got themselves some. But, alas, it was not meant to be.
That mention of redemption in Rand's work reminds me of two of her characters; Andrei from We the Living and the Wet Nurse from Atlas Shrugged. Both received redemption of morality.
Rick Deckard is apparently a weak-minded irrational coward. I said nothing "rude" to him and yet he removed my comments from his thread instead of addressing them. Notice how he doesn't want YOU to know what I actually wrote. Does those sound like someone who cares about the strength of his own arguments, or someone who's evading reality? In fact, I was nice enough to write some rather long-winded responses to someone else in that thread, about where rights come from, etc. I even volunteered to discuss Objectivism with someone else, saying that they're probably misunderstanding the philosophy. I guess that warrants deletion too. I think Rick got his feelings hurt when I pointed out to him that he contradicted himself.
". I said nothing "rude" to him and yet he removed my comments from his thread instead of addressing them. Notice how he doesn't want YOU to know what I actually wrote. Does those sound like someone who cares about the strength of his own arguments, or someone who's evading reality?" I've noticed that Rick Deckard has removed a number of comments, including some of mine. I agree with you 100 percent, if rick had confidence in his arguments it's doubtful he would have done so.
@RolandStGermain Then of course there is the issue of Rand's husband Frank O'Connor. The affair not only went on in front of him, but before they started the affair she sat him down and explained to him that she was going to have this affair with Branden and why it was rational and acceptable to do so - again that is something that this well known to biographers of Rand from multiple sources including Branden as well as others who were in her inner circle at that time.
As a young know it all with an almost lifeless soul, I was thrown a paperback copy of Atlas at the age of 21 with the admonition, "here, read this! Who knows, you might like it!" The rest became the history of my life. When the break-up between Rand and Branden became public, the results to many, many, "Objectivists," were traumatic. You see, at that time (sixties), many, many, minds and souls were drawn to Rand because they were either seeking a replacement for Jesus, or fleeing from him! Their "savior" or "potential savior," was demonstrating herself, in spite of her seemingly unprecedented intellectual horsepower and literary skill to, alas, be but one of us - a human being. Most of my fellow sycophants immediately felt that they must "take a side." They overwhelmingly chose Rand. No one, save me, chose Branden. I actually didn't choose him, I just didn't automatically side with Rand. The reason? While Rand had awakened my darkened soul to the world I had cynically ignored or impugned, Branden awakened it to ME! His book, "The Psychology of Self-Esteem," was as profound a read as was Atlas, though for different reasons! I have since met both Rand and Branden - the former in 1976, the latter in 2008. Both meetings are memorable. If I read or hear of an admirer of Rand impugn Branden, I immediately ask "why?" It is on rare occasion that I get what I consider to be a "reasoned" answer. I shall always be grateful to both of them that I am able to judge such a circumstance, confidently using reason as I do so!
@bobbygnosis perceive it. I can't address the concerns of others towards their reality. I can only deal with others who are willing to live on the same planet as I do. And so long as I and the other 7 billion respect the rules of the world we live in, there will always be an objective standard to live with. Universal Truth, as the Greeks called it, Natural Law, as the Romans spoke of it, and Objective Reality as Rand wrote of it.
@bobbygnosis Your brain has no default values to it besides those of survival. The rest you have to decide on your own. You mention that the interpretation of data defines your reality. But who chooses to leave their hand on the stove, and who chooses to take it off? Your brain does not have a default action. The Stoics of the past believed in the separation of emotion from action. They would leave their hand on the stove. I believe I quite like my hand. I would take it off.
@bobbygnosis If you disagree with reality, on what basis do you act? Towards what purpose? Objectivism asks you to work towards your best interests in life, on this planet. If you really, truly disagree with that ideal, than what would you prefer? To die and live in Heaven? To live in perpetual sleep? Are you waiting for a nirvana you can not know until you die? I live on this planet, with full conscience of what it means to do so. This is Objectivism.
@bobbygnosis If you disagree with it you're labeled a fool. So you don't observe an objective reality? Does the ground spontaneously turn to water where you live? Does money grow from trees? Do the birds bark and dogs sing? Most importantly, do people with full volition choose to live their lives in pursuit of death, rather than joy and happiness? No, you don't regularly consume poison and expect to live? Well then, there's your objective reality.
A is A is a tautological statement. So what if A is A? A is A and threfore A is not B? Of course! So? Reason is the only reliable source of knowledge. Unfortunately, for Rand ot her disciples, this reason is confined within the realm of materialism. What is reasonable is something that could be measured and verified by experiment or observation under a scientific instrument. Thus, only the material object is real. Hence: objectivism is equals to materialism.
I would like to see a statistic of Ayn Rand followers that would show how much or how little they know of her writings. She seems to have built a cult of ignorant simpletons that have taken her writings in piecemeal fashion without putting any effort in exploring other writings or interviews that contradict the basis of her tainted philosophy. This woman was a hypocrite in her instructions versus her actual behavior. 'Do as I say and not as I do' should have been her rallying cry.
@ritwingr You should really stop, your analysis, your conclusions are all false. Calling someone a Leftist when you don't know the definition is embarrassing. Presenting a question with an answer that makes no sense and follows no logic is embarrassing. Not believing someones educational background or level of success because you can't imagine ever attaining that level of success is embarrassing. Being a Troll is embarrassing. .. I will not respond further, I will not feed the Troll again.
@SatchmoSings And Israel USED to be the biggest importer of military goods to South Africa when all the other countries would have nothing to do with them. So what? It just means that the Jews will ALWAYS sell their goods to the highest bidder. And my "master" also said, "The Jew lives with the lie, but dies with the truth!" And that is what we will see later this century. Tom David Minneapolis
@ritwingr Yeah and then Rand would turn around and make incredibly racist and hateful comments about entire groups of other people. She seemed to base their worth on the technological progress of lack of it in the society from which that person came. Read what she had to say about the American Indians - didn't matter that they were human beings just that in her view they were "primatives." So she would make remarks there were cleary racist and then try to rationalize them.
@Stussy88776655 I apologize if you feel that I have abused you but your hateful and racist comments coupled with your support of an evil woman that was a racist and a supporter of evil men and evil deeds disgusts me. ...... I agree further discourse is useless and I will wish that you educate yourself about this woman so that you will understand her sick and demented words and wishes.
@fntime . A 62 year OLD man attempting to force his silly, senile opinion on his betters. Sorry old man, but I have studied and graduated from some of the finest institutions both in the U.S. and G.B.. I have accomplished in half my life what you couldn't in 10 lifetimes. No resentments here, as a matter of fact I can't believe my good luck in life as I have had and have the love of wonderful women, a great family and friends and have been successful in almost all I have undertaken.
Ms. Rand was hot, brilliant and compellingly committed to freedom. She was a tour de force who survived one of the great evils of our time - Stalin and his fellow travelers. Couple that with the always embarrassing fantasy for the younger man for the older, experienced and attractive women and the rest is history. And then if she acts like she wants you bad enough it is very difficult to get her out of your mind.
Nothing personal, simply an analysis of your analysis. At the heart of the issue is the fact that Marx and his followers have so indocrinated the so-called intelligentia, the counter culturists, of the past 150 years that we have forgotten what made America the greatest country (if only the greatest economical power) ever: individual freedom.
@ryan84160 Man...how did you get so smart? Smarter than Ayn rand, smarter than Aristotle.Damn! Although sometimes you start an argument with an incorrect premise and propose it as fact, but hey! No big deal. Oh...and when others offer better arguments you don't process them. But other than that, you are so smart!!
@Stussy88776655 The video is on youtube. And no it's not accurate. When one stereotypes and entire group of people as all being the same that is a hallmark of bigotry. She was ignorant of history too in regard to the fact that great empires rise and fall. She also had some pretty nasty things to say about the American Indians.
President Bush was not perfect, but he was certainly no Stalin. And people were and are (despite the future according to Obama the 'UNrand') still trying to come to the U.S. A far cry from which direction they have been heading to Russia and the USSR throughout its murderous, blood-drenched, freedom depriving history. Cheers!
@theredscourge ..but how would the "average person" dictate the appropriate work load, for that is not their choice to make. A captain of industry will always want to maximize profits which means more work by fewer men. The only way an "average person" could have a say in such matters would be to unionize. By the way, Ayns life constantly contadicted her own philosophy...read Nathaniels book! Nobody could live like Henry Rearden.
@AashiquiTheri Between the time of sense data hitting your nervous system and you acting is a lag time. That lag time is when your brain interprets the data (like when you find your hand is burning on a hot stove). You make an interpretation based on the data. But it's a model. No more. No less. You think the model is 'reality.' I don't. So, to answer your 'question'; yes and no. What I experience is real to me.
A world where men work 18 hours a day, are cold and un-emotional.... I'll take a pass. Give up on the dream guys, it will never happen. Notice how none of her characters had kids?? No man with a family can handle much more than 8 hours a day... nor should he. Don't make me explain why, you're all smarter than that. (I think)
in Atlas shrugged Dagney is constantly switching partners just cause they are smarter than her current partner or whatever. Apparently Hank Rearden in the novel was supposed to just smile :) "You go Galt" hahah hypocrite
@UBSCARED First of all, Rand was quite dead by the time Greenspan was chairman. Secondly, Greenspan was doing all he could to help G.W. Bush get a Republican Congress and to help Bush's re-election campaign; this is not unheard of for the politically connected.
that was a sordid soap opera. i would have a lot more respect for ayn rand if all that stuff hadn't gone on. and of nathaniel branden was so great, why did he fade out after they broke up....
@AashiquiTheri Do you think a Christian and a Muslim would describe 'reality' exactly the same? What about a person who speaks English and a person who speaks Chinese? Do you think they'd describe 'reality' the same? ^Not rhetorical.
12 лет назад
@theseanze sarcasm sure but the truth is that people don't see that X=X and thus smart people can make money by showing them. The big question is why we don't want to see the truth...
WRONG about redemption! WTF? You lived all these years with AR and you still didn't get her! I don't think a person can be or can't be an Objectivist, it's either you are, or you aern't.
You clearly don't understand Rand's arguments. It has nothing to do with evolution, but with the root of value and the nature of morality. It is a logical argument not contingent on evolution.
@TomDavid88 Until I made your acquaintance I didn't know that it was possible for someone to sexually assault themselves. I now know that self-ass rape is most definitely a reality!
There is no hate in her philosophy, simply a rejection of the prevailing philosophy of altruism, a rejection of the belief that the highest virtue is sacrificing one's individualism for the benefit of another or for the benefit of society. I have watched her interviews and her solo videos and see no contradiction, only consistency.
Yeah...we need a moral philosophy telling people to be more selfish. We don't have enough immoral and amoral narcissistic greed. We need someone to preach the message of not giving a flick about other people.
@@drmodestoesqwhat we need more of is a bunch of liberals who are so arrogant that they think they know what’s best for everyone else and they think so little of their fellow humans that they think they are incapable of knowing what’s best for themselves and are incapable of making decisions for themselves. And don’t kid yourself, people with the mindset I pointed out are some of the most selfish self centered arrogant individuals you will ever meet who only pretend to care for others to feed their own egos.
Why does no one complain about the evils that contaminated the last years of Rand's life? Medicare and Social Security benefits!!! Why do none of you see that by allowing her to sell her integrity for a few doctor visits and living expenses, the nanny state spoiled the pure virtue of her selfishness? A true devotee would be angry with the government for tempting her to live like the kind of useless parasites she hated. What a tragic injustice that they stole her right to die free and made her get medical care from doctors who insulted her by correlating her cough with a harmless capitalist habit like cigarettes.😕
@6:24 Thank goodness that Nathaniel Branden sets the record straight here (as he has in print) about libertarianism and objectivism! Ayn Rand promoted a totally irrational, destructive, movement-destroying, freedom-destroying rejection of the libertarian movement that both preceded her, existed during her life, and continued growing after she died. The ARI philosophical hair-splitters and infighters who have taken Rand's name have mostly continued this in-fighting. Thank you, Nathaniel!
Ayn Rand's philosophy is interesting. Although anytime you take any "ism" theory to its extreme it fails. They all fail because of human nature. Ayn Rand's worlds were lacking real details. A much better but difficult world would be a world of reasonable capitalism and socialism. The problem with doing this is balancing issues on the tip of a needle. Its interesting how society pushes the social pendulum back and forth. When everyone is most happy and productive when it is in the middle.
It's amazing that Nathaniel said to a book store owner, "I'm a big admirer of Rand," and the book store owner could not have imagined that Nathaniel had a sexual relationship with Ayn Rand. In fact, the book store owner would have never believed it.
And what a relationship. He was a married man at the time and Rand just figured his wife shouldn't mind it. When he ended the relationship Rand tried to ruin him and succeeded fairly well. Delightful woman.
Dont hate Ayn. Dont love her. Find her human and flawed. She would hate that 😂 but she never escaped being MERELY human. That is the irony of it and the beauty of it.
Dr. Stadler made moral mistakes in Atlas Shrugged. He sees the error of his ways and begins to move in the right direction. John Galt doesn't absolve him by the end of the book, but a reasonable extrapolation of his storyline moves towards moral redemption.
The same blank stare, the same absence of self-awareness, and of empathy, as in Ayn Rand. No wonder that from this arises a philosophy of a successful society, in which it is nevertheless not worth living.
I’m a big C conservative both economy and social. The sad truth is that this one the lefties a right. She’s a very average writer. She suffers from that which many other narcissists do; a total conviction in their own world view. As literature, it’s pretty much shit
Nathaniel spent too much time and energy on Ayn Rand and is best at critiquing her virtues of selfishness philosophy and didn’t give his own insights enough attention. As a result his psychology of self esteem is a banal rehash of emotional cleansing and self support through self respect. If he had pursued the idea of self esteem relentlessly he would have noticed that esteem is value and self esteem is the value other people place upon you. Your value to them will fluctuate wildly based on many things including how much money you have, which is a great promoter of self esteem, and your value to others can tank precipitously for many things. It is therefore dangerous and unwise to place too much value on the thing called self esteem. It should be said that a person’s value to themself is infinite and cannot be overestimated. Self confidence and self esteem are thusly greatly distinguished from each other.
By "value life", I mean an individual person should value his life, and also the lives of other persons. This means survival, but it also means to pursue happiness, pursue values, to have a sense of life beyond just getting by, etc... “in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute”
@ryan84160 Yes and no. Everything you experience is in your head. However, the sense data is not coming from your head. It's coming from 'reality.' But we're continually finding out that our models are wrong (lies / miscommunications / inacurrate data / etc.). So we're experiencing SOMETHING, but the models that we create i our heads are not the things. They're models. The most mindblowing thing I've ever contemplated is that there is no spoon outside of the mind. It simply doesn't exist.
bobbygnosis The notion that there is no such thing as objective external reality is nonsense. Try sticking your hand in a blast furnace and pretending that it's "inaccurate data" or a "wrong model" that your hand is burned. Try jumping off a 1000 foot cliff and pretending that it's "all in your head" that your bones are broken.
You present the great analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Allow me to point out - you "subjectively" deny the "objective" idea that killing is bad? If I am to understand you correctly - meaning in your opinion, the fact that murder is bad - is okay in other countries where murder is frequent? (sorry about the late response, I enjoy this talk though so send word if you like)
Ayn Rand was neither a great novelist nor a great philosopher. Her philosophy lacked a genuine epistomology, and her novels were not great literature any any sense. She was an early pundit rather than an intellectual leader.
On my opinion, after reading the whole of Branden books, and some Rand's books, errors of morality can be redimed like errors of knowledge, because morality is knowledge of oneself...They should be redimed, and only by oneself. Is the essence of Branden philosophy: responsibility.
So many people commenting who clearly haven't taken the time or effort to understand what Rand was saying. Atlas Shrugged has sold more copies than any other book besides the bible. Bible 2000 years, AS 60 years. It is above the comprehension of many it seems.
The Wet Nurse. 8:30 in to the video, Nathaniel says "there is no treatment of regeneration of your life, of the motion from failure to success in the moral sphere." The Wet Nurse in Atlas Shrugged is my favorite scene. He was THE redemptive character Mr. Branden is talking about.
I will be honest and admit that I wasn't a big fan of Atlas Shrugged, but I would highly recommend reading her non-fiction work, I find it to be a lot better than her fiction. Try "The Virtue Of Selfishness" and "Philosophy: Who needs it?"
i wonder what kinds of meds NB is on during this chat?? Nobody remains wide-eyed and unblinking, unless something is coursing through their bloodstream... but I digress
Ayn Rand didn’t tell us what to do; Ayn Rand told us how to go about it! Forever changed by reading her books, studying her philosophy and putting it into action. I’ve never encountered a Rand critic, that didn’t misconceive, lacked worldly or human-knowledge, or themselves a were a fraud! After studying many years of philosophy, I feel you’ll go far further by putting into practice her ideals and precepts… 😊
Branden has wrote the books on self esteem. I think for Branden he loved all the values that Rand showed and lived and likewise, rand loved the values nathaniel lived. Rand stated this is love. And this is why Nathaniel said this is why we had a relationship.
Laissez-faire capitalism is a policy where the government plays a minimal role in the economy. The term "laissez-faire" translates to "leave alone" or "allow to do".
@theredscourge It wouldn't be sudden... Ayn Rands characters (Roark and Rearden in particular worked 18 hours a day) and in her view they were "ideal men" Howard Roark in fact collasped from exhaustion and was found in the morning at which point he got up and went straight back to work. Study some history and see for yourself, it was unions (left-wing ideals) that brought about a 40 hour work week and days off.
Did Ayan Rand get social security at the later phase of her life ? If yes, why from the state which is collective. She must had huge royalties from the books.
@@cherylannegroth5164 It is socialistic by nature. America, holy land of Capitalism, introduced her into social security system and Ayn Rand adapted herself. Post Lyhman brothers crisis, the USA is more worried about the financial security of corporates. Ayn Rand must have written Capital Shrugged.
