@markvictor8776 yeah and the problem is their philosophy but very few parents realize it. 'i sacrificed so much for you' is such a common line nowadays by parents, it's disgusting
Ayn Rand changed my life 36 years ago, six years after her death. I'm still on the "high", and proud to admit it. Full reasons? I can fill a book. For now, I mention just one minor matter. I was looking down on Philosophy as a mess of words and a waste of time, while worrying that finding answers to actual real-life problems were impossible to unearth by means of reason. Ayn Rand opened my eyes to the way out. I was thrilled and dumbfounded by her courage to state the obvious truth in ways that were hugely offensive in the environment where I found myself (South Africa in 1988). As for this interview, she again lives up to her astonishing skill of being quick to give the right answers by simply going straight to the underlying principles, never allowing an adversary to trap her into confusion about non-essential details. However, I picked up one tiny flaw: it's a pity that one small point made its way into the final product without being challenged. At time 22:30 Wallace says "Get rid of religion. Get rid of altruism. Get rid of feeling for your brother." It cries out to be stated clearly that the last sentence is a complete misapplication. Rand's concept of moral egoism does most emphatically not lead to lack of "feeling" or sympathy. Altruism, on the other hand, is most emphatically NOT about FEELING for others; in fact, altruism makes authentic sympathy, feeling and charity impossible! Rand's response focused on the oversimplified "get rid of religion", and consisted of her defence of freedom of thought and expression. Unfortunately, that last jump to the conclusion about "feeling for your brother" then slipped through uncorrected. And that is precisely the kind of misrepresenting twist that is used to condemn Ayn Rand ad nauseam.
I'm really confused by her definition of altruism. Since when is forced 'giving' by the state, altruism? And we are to sacrifice our desires to God, not to our fellow man. I don't know in reading the Bible where we are obligated to feed everyone else before we feed ourselves. There is absolutely a demand to help the poor and be charitable, but by no means do I see how that becomes a state enforced obligation to put your own material needs last.
@@bobhill4364 I'm really confused by your conception of her definition of altruism. Where, oh where, does she define altruism as forced 'giving'? Altruism is a philosophical view of morality, not an action, forced or otherwise. Altruism is the idea that one must sacrifice yourself, or at least all your own interests, to the interests of others in order to be moral. Altruism entails, but is not defined as, the popular consensus that feeding yourself, working for your own salary and trying to get somewhere, for your own good, is not at all an issue of morality. It follows from the popular consensus that Morality begins with your behaviour towards Others; that 'good' MEANS generous and charitable; that a good person is always a person who sacrifices for the good of others. Forced giving would be a consequence in a state where altruism is the dominant philosophy; it would not be the ism itself. In the Bible Jesus summarises the Commands as loving God with your whole being, and loving your neighbour as much as (not more or less) than yourself. Granted. But read the rest of what Jesus said. Ayn Rand shows that altruism is the currently dominant view, derived from many Biblical ideas, but not directly commanded by the Bible. She knew that the term was unknown until August Comte. Her 'mission', if you like, was to point out that present-day altruism is not primarily concerned with the "demand to help the poor and be charitable", but that its real meaning is a moral demand for self-sacrifice. As witnessed by the rants of, for example, Karl Marx and Richard Woolf against the existence of rich people, the widespread notion that very rich people are psychopaths, etc. Not kidding, I know people who say that, Jodie Foster being an example. (As if she is poor ...) As witnessed by the perennial rhetoric of 'paying the ultimate price for your country' and 'doing your sacred duty', etc in the context of being called up for compulsory military service. (Speaking from experience here.) In fact, I had a hard time getting to grasp why she had to be so hostile towards altruism in order to establish her advocacy of individual rights. I also wondered if her characterisation of altruism was correct. Dig in. You have a lot to learn, but it's worth it.
@benvanrensburg4261 I'm trying to understand. This idea of self sacrifice as you stated is reflected in socialist/Communist rhetoric which is godless in nature. I don't know how anyone can read the Bible and believe they have an obligation to feed someone else before themselves, or that charitable means they must have what you have. Observing this 'altruism' it seems to be prevalent among atheists who want insane things like abolishing the police and prisons. Who are fine with so called trans women in men's prisons, wanting open borders, not even vetting to see if criminals are coming into the country. I have no idea why she is associating this with Christianity, when these ideas are purely atheistic.
You nailed it too. This was precisely my thought, and I was a bit triggered that she didn't defend her thoughts about that. Few know that she was very generous and giving to people within her wide circle. -people we might not expect to be the recipients of her "altruism".
@@bobhill4364 Ayn Rand had a gift for seeing the fundamental causes behind effects. Altruism is the fundamental that justifies this "forced giving" from our governments. Altruism clashes with the very nature of human beings' flourishing, and it also clashes with the principles America was founded on.
Thanks for viewing with the purpose of objectivism's core is the reason that makes the human race happy and worth the existence , the condition is the individual himself liberation from his misbeliefs and find the wall to completeness ... Thank you Ayn Rand!
An interview from many, many years ago. Yet very applicable today ( especially her remarks on Russia and our leaders' inability to capitalism/freedom in the face of it
A lot of aspies probably, because Objectivism is a closed system which appeals to people who are drawn to that kind of structure (myself among them 😄). If Objectivism was more mainstream, there would no doubt be a broader range of personality types. It may happen in time.
Objectivism inherently repels popular people, those people who dedicate their lived to expanding their sphere of influence. Because those people are generally unproductive and derive their wealth from social status. Not from their ingenuity, creativity, or productive abilities. So, there seems to be a dichotomy of what is popular and what is right. I think a better way to spread objectivist principles to a wide audience is with a well written and produced Netflix show. Even just a character or two who embodied rational objective philosophy, who bring value, stability, a fresh viewpoint to the characters around them. These sorts of characters HAVE been very popular in the past. Viewers really get behind those characters for decades to come.
I laughed out loud when I first heard that. It seems like there's a few places where Wallace is trying to catch Rand in a contradiction. And she absolutely does not fall for it. It's awe-inspiring to behold how sharp she was 😁
@@BrandonLisi He always plays the 'good democrat' asking good democrat questions in their discussions. They had admiration for each other. In fact, many on Wallace's staff were turned on to Objectivism after her first appearance on his program in the year prior to this exchange, after her first appearance. For a time Rand and Wallace attended the same social events.
@@DrMackSplackem I think you're right about the admiration they had for one another. We have a photograph in the archives of Rand and Wallace posing together at a party. It's dated circa 1980, so that would suggest they maintained a good relationship in the years after this interview. We also have a letter in which Wallace accepts Rand's invitation to an NBI lecture. Wallace also had some kind things to say about her when we was interviewed for the documentary, "Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life" and for the book, "100 Voices"
«Ideas brought us here, and ideas can take us out. I’m the opposite of a pessimist: why do you think I come out and defy 2,000 years or more of civilization? Because I know that, if the right is on my side, if reason is on my side, I will win. The right ideas have always won». 🧠💵🗽🌎
Great interview. Love it Just a comment: 20: 23 I don’t understand why Ayn Rand didn’t address the question of 'What is the purpose of our being?' by stating the purpose behind her writing or the central tenet of Objectivism-that the purpose of life is life itself. For humans, this means that the purpose is to achieve and maintain a human life. She could then explain that, for a human, achieving and maintaining such a life is not self-evident. So, what exactly is 'human life'? What does it involve, in general terms? Addressing these questions seems more rational than simply saying 'we set our purpose.' Otherwise, what distinguishes Objectivism as a philosophy with a definitive purpose from, say, hedonism, which implies merely 'do what you want' (we set our purpose)?
She actually defines and fleshes out "purpose" in her writings. She could have gone a bit deeper into it with this interview though. Objectivism builds a scaffold, an outline of points (survival & maintenance being aspects) upon which, purpose is set, but each one of us defines for ourselves the purpose we pursue. -each purpose being different from another.
If you appreciate Western Civilization and its values and ideals. Objectivism did not challenge it because Objectivism was the first presentation of the ideas that makes Western Civilization what it is -- and GOOD. For example, the notion that atheism could have a moral component was unheard of; let alone that it NEEDS one. Rahter Ojvectivism PERFECTS Wester ideas and values by making the fully consistent from Metaphysics and Epistemology to Political Economics. I left religion in late 1967 because it was useless; therefore I concluded it was false, and then left the Establishment in caPRIL OF 1968 at age 22 because it started to look too much like Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany with a rather large side of hippie emotionalism. I could not abide that was was prepared to be intellectually homeless...erm...unhoused in the current edition of Newpeak. In October of that same year. I made Objectivism my choice of philosophy because it so resonated with me. Given the speed at which that happened, a mere 6 months, there had to be some rally strong similarities between my values and ideals Objectivism may challenge what you think and believe, but it is not a challenge; i.e. opposed to Western values and ideas. It is the chreey on the sundae. The Bacon of philosophies, if you take my meanings. Is it not the case that bacon makes everything better? And, when obeyed, Nature is commanded, aren't you right in the Zone?
Atheism is antithetical to Western civilization. Christianity is what Western civilization is built upon. We know this because as atheism rises, 'altruism' (odd alternative meaning) rises. Socialism/communism rises. Unfortunately for Rand, her upbringing couldn't be fully abandoned. She knew communism was terrible, but she was a feminist despite her claiming to be against feminism, and she was an atheist. These are cornerstones of communism. In short, you could say she was culturally communist despite her objections to it. In the same way Richard Dawkins calls himself a cultural Christian despite his clear hatred of God.
Most people want to feel safe and therefor are happy to be slaves of state or religion. In the case of religion they are programmed early and are therefor hardwired, it is virtually impossible to convince these people with rational arguments, as for everyone else they usually cling to a philosophy were they benefit first,.such as socialism.or communism The really disappointing thing in my opinion, is that the majority of the population do not even recognise the benefits they receive is due to the effectiveness and competency of scientists and engineers ie rationalists; what sort of world would we still be living in if it was left to mystics and the mediocre?
@@geekonomist Because it was't literally "lost" in the way that the works of Aristotle were lost during the early middle ages. The recording has been preserved in an archival repository, but it's been "lost" or "missing" from the public eye (or ear in this case).
@ if recovered were to have used without quotes, then there would have been no confusion. As it stands the quotes suggest Wallace et al « lost » the interview
To say that it's been "found" or "recovered" implies that it was "lost" at one point. And I think it's fair to say that this is a "lost" interview. It likely hasn't been heard outside of an archival repository in the past 64 years. And it's never been publicly available online until today.
The point being made is the idea of 'sacrifice being the standard of morality'. Let me quote Rand on this: "Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice-which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction-which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good. Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”
@aeomaster32 Where does this idea come from? Certainly not Christianity. I've never heard of this obligation beyond what atheistic socialism posits and is in practice.
@@bobhill4364 from experience, "give till it hurts" is a standard admonition in every church, whether or not it is touched upon in the NT (many claim that it is). Rand never said to not be generous or giving (she was herself, actually). Altruism begins where the pain of self sacrifice begins... ...this is unacceptable.
@@bobhill4364 Does not Christianity hold Jesus as the highest example of its morality? And isn't the sacrifice of his life regarded as the pinacol of the moral good? Sacrifice = Good, Self interest = Bad How could you miss this? Sacrifice (the giving a higher value in exchange for a lower one) is anti life.
@_Solaris Lol no. I can't account for every single Christian church on Earth, but giving to the church is VOLUNTARY. I mean, where do you guys get this stuff? Lol.... A church is nothing like an ATHEIST communist country where you 'give' everything and the state decides if you get to eat.
