Same here.

Rand and Friedman saved me when I was 21 also, she was the first person to honestly tell me how the world is, not how it should be.

I'm 21 now trying to make some sense of the world and what Ayn Rand talks about. Although I understand the context, I'm not always sure I understand what she talks about. Could you explain please? Thanks!

Schools are there to indoctrinate, not to teach useful things.

@@feed5750 precisely

who tf are you to tell parents how they should educate their children? your brain isn't only rare it's fucking well done

They do. They don't want to. Altruism is a deadly drug. It poisions the minds of its users and turns them from the task of living to the task of destroying life.

Jefferson? Paine?

jeffersonianideal - The End Of The World is approaching.

@@samuelluria4744 If that be the case, it's the perfect time to play the entire Ayn Rand anthology.

@johngalt857 Be careful with your use of the word "civilization".

@johngalt857 Those who are Atheistic, Anti-Theist or Unbelievers are NOT by default Left Wing or Communist. There are MILLIONS of Atheists who are Right Wing or Conservative. So much for your little fantasy.

Yeah but there are also problem elements of society (particularly in relation to GLBT (specifically the T) in new-wave conservatism. We must be careful that we do not kill ourselves trying to prove we're not whatever "ist" or "Phobe" they call us by pointing to tokens as supporting our cause, for the run the risk of continuing on the spiral with no form of self-awareness. Anyway I'm not religious, I'm a Mystic. And fortunately there is a very observable explanation for my brand of mysticism that even atheism can acknowledge. That being the acknowledgement of the Universe being the ultimate force in our existence. Even in athiest philosophy, we return to the dirt to feed the insects and continue the cycle of life and death perpetually until the sun expands and burns everything or the earth stops spinning. Athiesm comes in many forms, which i acknowledge. theres the "I was raised christian and don't like how Christians act so I'm going to call ALL religions (Cept islam for political reasons) bad in my hasteful, childish ignorance" and the "Im not sold on there being a higher power. PERIOD" Kind of atheism. I find the latter more agreeable, as their belief isn't spurred by rejection and opposition to something like the former (Which is inherently self-destructive) but rather introspection and discovery of one's beliefs. For the "True self" will never lie to you if you wish to speak to it. In fact religions calls that Prayer, or meditation.

Raimonster yea when the goal is 100%, you will always be higher than if the goal 0% (or any less).

Same place as the humans who invented Religion.

She explained that in many writings especially John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged ('This is John Galt speaking') - morality is derived from man's nature as man and his rational mind.

AND that death would STILL be selfish... you chose that because your mom was YOUR ultimate value.

Wow!! That puts a full stop to progress.

@@rishi2791 Huh?

@@damonhage7451 well, if nothing is better or above me and I am the first and foremost, then it takes away the incentive to strive towards perfection.

@@rishi2791 Better? Who said that? Being selfish means you value yourself, not that you think you're better than someone or something.

Brian Edward Morgan The Bible is not historical fact.

The Bible is a perfect guide book to peace, rationality and especially morality.

History is subjective.

​@@damonhage7451 actually it does contain historical facts. The fifth governor of the Roman province of Judaea. Who is Pontius Pilate for $100?

@@PhilosopherRex Exactly, written by the victors.

"Chinese philosophy" lol

@@DeeperWithDiego Proud of prejudice? Quite sad. Also didn't address my point, which is probably every sadder.

​@@konberner170 So there is an inexplicable feeling, and we are supposed to accept that and not Rand's objective argumentation for ethics?

​@@damonhage7451 Nothing new here: where is she getting meaning from? She talks about love being meeting a specific person who benefits you in a specific way, but her parents did not create her in this way. Therefore, following her advice here means she wouldn't exist. Can you see how this is a problem?

@@konberner170 No. She is a person, who exists, looking at reality, and saying this is what you should consider as love and how you should pick your partner, because it will make you the most happy. So what? So what if she didn't exist? Reality isn't about rewriting the past. Look. She's here. She's identifying truth. Why does it matter how she got here? But secondly, let's apply your ridiculous reasoning to another situation. Let's say I rape a girl and get her pregnant because I have a philosophy that says it is good to rape. Does that imply the child should endorse that rape philosophy because "without it she wouldn't exist"? Would she be wrong to come out against rape? If you see what is wrong with this example, then you know what is wrong with your argument.

No. It isn't. Yes the purpose of acting is to be happy, but that doesn't mean emotions are the guide to being happy. Emotions tell you WHY you should act, but not WHAT you should do. Since emotions are causal, there is no conflict. Also, man could do something without emotions, but there would be no rational purpose to what he was doing.

Damon Hage This isn’t just my opinion. There is actual data from neuroscience on this subject. If you are open to changing your mind on this, do some reading. It’s all well and good to have a philosophical theory but when real world data contradicts it, it is time to change your theory.

@@lucasfabisiak9586 ​ You have an invalid view of the relationship between data and philosophy. I am aware of the data that the neurosciences report, and I'm aware of their interpretations of the data. I'm not challenging the data, I'm challenging the interpretations of the data because people interpret the data USING their philosophy and their philosophies are contradictory and nonsensical. Nobody can just "look at the data" in a vacuum and draw conclusions from it. The conclusions are always within the frame of what philosophy you accept. That is how knowledge works. Putting that aside, I don't need to look at a scientific paper to tell you what you are saying is wrong. Having a guide and having a motivation are not in conflict. If I am building a house, I need a motivation (maybe I desire to be warm) and I need a guide (a blueprint in this example). If I have a motivation, are you going to come in and say "well you can't be guided exclusively by the blueprint because you have a motivation"? The guide is the blueprint, the motivation is my emotions. This is just an analogy but think about it and you will see that motivation and guidance are separate concepts for a reason and one doesn't invalidate the other. So yes you can be exclusively guided by reason, even if emotions motivate you (which is true). You actually are doing something very similar to the Hedonists. You are saying both the standard of value and the purpose of ethics are emotions, but, since emotions are causal, that is a hopeless position, which is what I said before.

Damon Hage You unwittingly refuted your own argument. Well done!

@@lucasfabisiak9586 Care to explain?

Why do you say that?

a man a woman worked, presumably without stealing, to make a child. all these children grow up to be a minority in which more work grows more humans in this minority. are you allowed to destroy someone’s work/product (assuming these people aren’t nefarious)? if you assume the right thing to do is not to infringe on other’s liberty, then no. but as to why you cannot infringe on other’s liberty for your own, say, biological gain (more children), im not too sure. maybe, historically speaking, the retaliation of a group or the future ill cooperation of groups could stop you from producing your own children and, therefore, is a deterrent from anti-social behavior, but that’s assuming these things would happen. if we were to look retrospectively, universal liberty and protection of said liberty has lead to the most universal prosperity and so you could say, generally, not to infringe on other’s liberty if you want general prosperity (aka propagation of the human race), but does general prosperity trump personal prosperity? surely it is better to promote universal prosperity because it gives you a really good chance to bear a fair amount of children (instead of risking death/desertion), but what if some how i know 100% that i can steal/kill for my own gain, what stops me? why do i care? sometimes the risk is worth it. in the past humans and their children with these anti-social traits were killed/unsupported by their tribe, but if you were very intelligent and, say, sociopathic, you would thrive immensely. you’d have a very large and successful family. rationally, you could conquer then have and protect many children. why have children? the ones who didn’t feel like it didn’t and so you are ancestors of people who did feel like it. still, why respect others rights when you could take all their stuff with little retaliation. the short term gain is immense. this reasoning is still mostly in hindsight.

@@leafster1337 interesting reflections,,, I would just add that it seems many psychopaths are doing quite well according to their own standards.

@@tanner865 yea

@TheShadowblade Yes, she must ultimately prove that such "evils' are never in your self-interest... and do so without conflating self-interest with desires from the self instead of about the self.

How so?

@@evil1143 The fact that she is intelligent is obvious, the fact that she is narrow is because she believes the highest goal of human existence is material prosperity and romantic love. According to me material prosperity is means to an end. The end is to be the best version of yourself - not only materially but spirituality (not the same as religion). Ayn Rand dismisses spirituality because she equates it with mysticism. The second thing is romantic love - it's way overrated. According to me any love that does not originate from the self and has its roots on another, is illusory and very fleeting. Think about it yourself how long does passion and romantic love last?

@@rishi2791 There are married couples that stay together forever, if Ayn Rand says that you love someone for their virtues then romantic love must last for as long as the desirable virtues of both parties are maintained, how long they are maintained will determine how long love lasts. I don't quite remember Ayn Rand saying that material prosperity was a necessary goal, she values freedom from coercion and that everyone should seek happiness without bearing a cost on others' rights. Lastly I'm interested in what you mean in terms of spiritual well-being and how it relates to helping you become the best version of yourself.

​@@evil1143 You made very good points in your previous reply. Yes, love based on virtue is important - agree with you. However, people change with time, today the virtue that might seem irresistible in someone will become commonplace and some other virtue will take precedence. This is very common, human beings are fickle and so even if you take virtue as a cornerstone, it does not guarantee forever happy married couples. Even Ayn Rand, who had presumably married her husband for virtues, could not keep up her fidelity, her affairs with Nathaniel Branden is well known. I think Ayn Rand mentioned somewhere in the book Atlas Shrugged that dollar is the currency of values ( something in that vein). No wonder the characters that she admirably paints in Atlas Shrugged are super-rich - Hank Rearden, Francisco D'conia, John Galt etc. Lastly spiritual well-being, I wish I could explain in this short post how spiritualism changed my life from being a "Randian" man ,but a man in an eternal inner turmoil to a different person altogether (it's my personal experience), but if you are really interested to know, I will be happy to share my story privately.

@@rishi2791 I didn't know about the infidelity but I looked into the matter and it seems like it doesn't matter. I could be wrong in making this speculation, however the fact is that Branden was a disciple of Rand and both believe'd strongly in the concept of rational selfishness, could it be that Rand recognised virtues in Branden that were superior to that of her current husband at the time? You say that she couldn't keep up her fidelity but there's a good chance I think that she never valued that or held that concept in high esteem, fidelity requires faith which is a concept Rand despises, moreover her decision to leave her marriage is her right and freedom (not a good thing to do but from Rand's perspective might not matter as long as it doesn't involve force or any loss of freedom from anyone including herself) If what you say about spirituality is important to happiness or sense of self then yes I would like to hear it.

You can say it's been proven wrong and wrong again and yet you provide no proof Almost like your shitting out nonsense out of your shit-eating grind

I would say, you can only let your emotions guide you when you know where that emotion is coming from. And to do that, to evaluate your emotions and think about their source, you must use reason. Actions guided by unknown, unidentified and unpredictable emotional states is not right. Action guided by emotions congruent with the rational path of action, that is alright. Thanks for reading. Edit: Also, she didn't claim romantic love is immoral nor that men are lesser because of a God. She was all about romantic love (and romanticism). And she was all about accepting as truth those thing you have evidence for, and to never accept as truth something that you don't have evidence for. Thank you.

@@jabibgalt5551 she said romantic love is immoral. Not quite the sage wisom people are thinking it is.

What if your emotions lead you to make a bad decision? Even if you are guided by your emotions, you need to let reason, logic and evidence make the decision.

@@legionjames1822 Could you refer me to the source of that? I've read The Virtue of Selfishness, The Romantic Manifesto, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Philosophy: Who Needs It?, and many other books of her, and I've never encountered such thing as "romantic love is immoral".

@@legionjames1822 Nowhere does Rand say romantic love is immoral, not even in this video. Don't let your emotions run away with you and unreasonably misconstrue what Rand's positions are.