Ayn Rand’s Ideas: An Introduction

Рет қаралды 23,184

9 жыл бұрын

Tens of millions have read Ayn Rand’s novels, including The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and half a million copies of her works now sell each year, but far fewer people know of the radical system of ideas underlying the stories she created. This lecture by Onkar Ghate introduces some of the main ideas of this controversial thinker - and their vital importance today.
Recorded June 2, 2003
---
Subscribe to our channel: / subscription_c. .
Headquartered in Irvine, California, ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism.
ARI is composed of a dedicated board of directors and an energetic staff of more than 45 people. We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world - and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today.
Explore ARI: www.AynRand.org
Follow ARI on Twitter: / aynrandinst
Like ARI on Facebook: / aynrandinstitute

Пікірлер: 81

@PaulFredrickTV 6 жыл бұрын

I was there!

@xcell8638 6 жыл бұрын

More talks from Onkar please!

@Storabrost 2 жыл бұрын

I love the Q&A on this. Onkar and Yaron make a great team, and address the issues convincingly and ellequently.

@topol6 5 жыл бұрын

Wonderful lecture. It's 2019 and i am still in awe of Ayn Rand's philosophy.

@dougpridgen9682 5 жыл бұрын

Since philosophy is non-parochial, if the philosophy is correct, that's exactly what one should expect.

@georgestacey9558 3 жыл бұрын

Onkar is one of favorites, and though I love a lot of objectivist ideas I am not sure that pure capitalism is actually possible without serious problems and with the on coming automation we may have to rethink everything. But, the argument they give in regards its protection of individual right is none the less a good one. Hard to say "hey give me your money" and not to feel a pang. Yet, economy and "fairness" is complicated and probably why we have more or less been doing the best we can, which creates a hodgepodge, but what can you do? Ironically it seems that to apply objectivist ethics would help one to best navigate these waters in regards themselves, and in finding trust worthy allies. Still trying to figure it out, but though I doubt some of it, I can not help being impressed by it's integrity and it's clean cut approach to life, it would deliver values for a person, no doubt.

@johngleue 2 жыл бұрын

This comment was written a year ago and I'm curious if you've changed your mind on whether or not the separation of government and business is essential for human flourishing?

@aarondodds7545 7 жыл бұрын

3:52 to skip intro.... ain't nobody got time for that.

@dougpridgen9682 5 жыл бұрын

Let's cut to the chase.

@SureshPatel-pe7ms 9 жыл бұрын

Please, do something about the sound.

@ivanperezs 5 жыл бұрын

Such a clear and comprehensive exposition of her ideas.

@certaindeed 9 жыл бұрын

The grand canyon example was a huge blow to the argument.

@exnihilonihilfit6316 6 жыл бұрын

Did you watch the continuation after 1:38 ?

@kevinakimou9811 6 жыл бұрын

Ethics, laws, property, rights (and their corresponding obligations) are constructs arrived at by COLLECTIVE consent. Even money is a collective construct: its value is by common agreement. The individual cannot function without these SOCIAL constructs. Capitalism is dependent on similar collective concepts: property, money value, the maintenance of a safe structure for protection of property and legal process, exchange by MUTUAL consent (and/or reciprocal altruism). Some things need to be dealt with by decisive governmental decisions: famine, disease, defence from military invasion, natural catastrophe. Rand's model leaves everything to "free market" and minimalist government. An objective view of reality is an internalized abstraction: a rational view of reality varies from one individual to another and is paradoxically "subjective".

@ivanperezs 5 жыл бұрын

I don't think you understand Ayn Rand's ideas fully. Individualism is not the view that the individual can and should survive in isolation. Individualism is a viewpoint about how society should be organized: it should be so that the individual can survive because man survives by reason and reason can only be used by each individual. It dictates how society should be if it is to be of any benefit to its members. Ayn Rand doesn't define objective as that which is independent of one's mind. The objective is that which conforms to facts, but it has to be reached somehow since man's consciousness is something in particular. The fact you are pointing to is a very important epistemological point: knowledge is contextual. A concept that ignores this fact would be false, but that is not what objective means for Ayn Rand. This is perhaps one of her least understood and at the same time most crucial ideas. I invite you to explore her ideas further if you haven't done so already, because I see many similarities to your own premises. Please, feel free to ask me if you think I can be of any value or guidance.

@kurokamei 4 жыл бұрын

Fantastic lecture

@johngleue 2 жыл бұрын

Kid asking questions at the end in the glasses was confusing rights for entitlements, I think. He needed to understand that the rights are a right to TAKE ACTION. The right to life is simply the right to take action uninhibited by government or other men to achieve one's values that will sustain his life. Government would play the role of stepping in if individual rights are violated. Valuing something doesn't automatically make it yours, but you have the right to try and EARN it.

@NewWorldDAO 2 жыл бұрын

You should put your organization on the blockchain. Check. Out EOS DAO, Dan Larimer, Eden on EOS to learn how to set it up. Also read Dans book more equal animals on how to govern.

@smartiepancake 9 жыл бұрын

Under this system can I extract all of the Oxygen from the atmosphere and sell it?

@hUMERETURNs 9 жыл бұрын

D Bruce No, as it would violate people's rights to life. No one owns oxygen, it would be like suffocated someone in a hermetically sealed room. Capitalism serves people's rights and freedoms, not the other way round.

@smartiepancake 9 жыл бұрын

The VOR So why did Rand support monopoly of land? Land is equally important for life. If no-one owns the oxygen, why should anyone get to take/own the land?

@hUMERETURNs 9 жыл бұрын

D Bruce Who owns land if not private citizens? The government? If so you then you have bureaucrats and ideologues control land for their own purposes, not the people according to their rights and the free market. Property, a right due to it being needed for life, and as the product of one's effort, has to include land in many cases. If a farmer needs land to live, and so that all others can, then their must be no interference from government that should protect rights to life, not control or ration them. As to monopoly, it is an outcome at times of a free market, but so is the death of a monopoly, as nothing can stop it, but also nothing can save it. In our hybrid economy, it is anti-capitalist, anti-competition corporations who maintain their monopolies through government deals, in a real free-market there are always ways to break monopolies.

@smartiepancake 9 жыл бұрын

The VOR From a geolibertarian perspective - and Henry George also believed this - land is probably best owned by private individuals as it is now but the wealth accruing from land - the economic rent of land - needs to be shared equally - I understand that Galt's gulch was funded this way (correct me if I'm wrong). All other taxes can then be abolished - workers keep the wealth accruing from their work (no income tax), entrepreneurs keep their profits (no sales tax etc). The land market is currently a state protected monopoly - it is not a free market. Early libertarians all agreed on this. There's a section on Rand in this short essay - pointing out her inconsistency on this point - see what you think: geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html

@hUMERETURNs 9 жыл бұрын

D Bruce I would like to see each US state experiment with different methods, so all these questions can be settled via results. I have no particular preference, thanks for the essay, reading it now. I stay away from the political, libertarian issues most of the time, as I prefer to focus on the philosophical fundamentals of Objectivism. I am weary of Libertarianism as I see the lack of such fundamentals tends to lead them astray, foreign policy for e.g.

@LakevusParadice 2 жыл бұрын

I think ARI needs to be more aggressive in spreading its message

@mrmuffin5046 Жыл бұрын

how? i cant get my canadian friends to watch a 30sec video

@justintempler 9 жыл бұрын

Re: 1:25:00 There's a saying that applies to Israel: Perfect is the enemy of the good

@LucisFerre1 9 жыл бұрын

Nice speech, but Onkar Ghate is very difficult to listen to. His voice constantly cracking, breaking and dropping out like he's going through puberty.

@NaveenBali4 5 жыл бұрын

Although I am a proponent of regulated capitalism over communist and I admire Ryan's for her literary skills and philosophical ideas they aren't feasible and some even flawed. 1)Human being and other species are inherently evolved to depend on each other and function as a group/ society . Hence it is always imperative to ensure collective growth for one self prosperity 2) I love her idea of Liberty and admonishing mysticism. This is very relevant in my country India where Government is elected based on religion and people have caste mentality leading to discrimination and subjugation of the lower caste 3) the speaker criticizes regulatory bodies but in later stage argues that to ensure individuals don't harm others we need checks. How will this be done? 4) these talks look nice and fancy for people with philosophy and literature background but anyone with strong economic background would easily destroy these arguments .. Including self confessed capitalists . 5)The world and Economy is much more intertwined and complicated. There are strong barriers for access to education, capital and resources that otherwise the rich and connected enjoy . This ensures they manipulate and rig the system in their behalf leading to a somewhat aristocratic feaudal society 6) in the end I would conclude to say that we can't be binary in our approach and much pick and choose ideas across spectrum as per situation

@saumitrsharma2816 5 жыл бұрын

1) Other species have different modes of survival, That's why they are called '" Other species". Other than human beings, No one can produce/create material values to further their survival. Human beings don't need to depend upon each other. we can survive by producing material values by our own and can trade with each other without using force. 2) I agree, India is a Mystic Muck. 3) By enforcing the legal contract that the consenting bodies/Org/ indivivuals agree to abide by. The legal contract will be adjuciate or enforce by judiciary and executive branch of Govt. 4) pls.... give me the arguments. 5) I agree, Once a Org/Corporation/individual have enough money, they use that money to buy political power in order to secure their positions. For this we need very strict objective laws and independent judiciary that doesnt allow any legislation that ties the hand of other competitors or try to buy special favours from govt like subsidies etc. 6)Again, I dont agree , I see every situation in very black and white terms.

@dougpridgen9682 5 жыл бұрын

I guess the lady worried about the Grand Canyon never saw National Lampoon's Vacation.

@NaveenBali4 5 жыл бұрын

I will argue that many industries violate my rights for clean air and water. So should we shut all of them. This leads to violation of their rights to make money.

@joshmoore3103 9 жыл бұрын

Ah,The young minds of mush.

@drstrangelove09 2 жыл бұрын

too much throat clearing for me... shoot... can't take it... I'm out :(

@danielwhelan2397 7 жыл бұрын

Edward Barnes. propaganda

@smartiepancake 9 жыл бұрын

Land imposes a collective principle, there's no way around it.

@smartiepancake 8 жыл бұрын

+TimeWarp66 So it's OK for one person to own all of the land?

@smartiepancake 8 жыл бұрын

TimeWarp66 I'm talking about the Randian philosophy - under the Randian philosophy is it OK for 1 person to become very rich and buy all of the land?

@Shozb0t 7 жыл бұрын

I am assuming that the rich person in your scenario intends to become a landlord over all humanity. Consider this: A man invents a Mr. Fusion device which can produce mass amounts of electricity very cheaply. He sells it in the marketplace and makes several billion dollars. The demand for his product is through the roof. (I would certainly buy one.) He then takes his money and begins buying land on a massive scale-wherever and whenever he can. This will actually have an impact on the land market. As demand increases drastically (his overzealous land grab) prices will also increase. Basically, the current landowners will learn of his plan through his actions and will react accordingly, by increasing prices. You want all the land in the world? You can have mine for triple its value. Take it or leave it. The plan to buy all land on earth will quickly hit a snag and grind to a halt. He has a right to do it, but to accomplish it in a free market would require an almost infinite money supply. In addition, I would say that anyone smart enough to invent Mr. Fusion would not be stupid enough to try to buy all the land in the world.

@kevinakimou9811 6 жыл бұрын

Rand's economic model will lead to private sector monopolies (cartel formation, hoarding, dumping, price-fixing, control of raw materials) and formation of large corporations: given time these will fuse and the end result will be a large corporate monopolistic private sector: totalitarian control by the few by the "free" market reaching its logical conclusion.

@damonhage7451 6 жыл бұрын

+Kevinaki mou Give an example of a monopoly behaving like a monopolist when the American market was more free (pre-Federal Reserve). I'll wait.

@dan6506 5 жыл бұрын

Everyone is representing opponents' views dishonesty. Like it's done here towards environmentalists. And I am sure some environmentalists are doing the same towards Ayn Rand's philosophy. The ✌🏻truth✌🏻 is probably in the middle.

@dougpridgen9682 5 жыл бұрын

Can you point to a specific example of dishonest misrepresentation of environmentalism? I must have missed that part.

@michaelcaldwell5786 3 жыл бұрын

Rand Al and Hobkirk decececed makes more sense than this😏

@theteach7314 8 жыл бұрын

I am studying this in an attempt to understand the minds of serial killer, capitalist, welfare thieves.

@kurtdanielson9862 4 жыл бұрын

Rand was to black and white plus most people aren't very rational. Objectivism is a religion that is to difficult to understand for the general public.

@ramprasath3346 3 жыл бұрын

objectivism is not based on faith, hence not religion, if you don't understand then speak for yourself, put in the effort to understand

@MusicMan2065 9 жыл бұрын

Ayn Rand remains the most linguistically gifted, but intellectually bankrupt authors I have ever had the displeasure of reading. If ideas were to somehow turn into matter, Ayn Rand's ideas would materialize as feces in nicely wrapped packages.

@MusicMan2065 8 жыл бұрын

+LucisFerre1 Ad hominem hurled like a typical Ayn Rand 'Objectivist'. I rest my case.

@LucisFerre1 8 жыл бұрын

MusicMan2065 As pointed out, your "case" is the opposite of Objectivism. That you think you actually HAVE a case is comical.

@Shozb0t 8 жыл бұрын

+MusicMan2065 If you dislike Ayn Rand, then just pretend that the ideas she presented originated from someone else--such as Isaac Newton. Then you can advocate reason and capitalism without remorse. She won't be insulted by the loss of intellectual credit. She's dead. Although you might offend some historians.

@LucisFerre1 8 жыл бұрын

MusicMan2065 Not only do you not understand Objectivism, you also don't understand what an Ad Hominem argument is. Objectivism is extremely moral. If you give a shit about yourself or others, then bother to learn a bit about it. If you choose to remain clueless, then you harm yourself and others.

@LucisFerre1 8 жыл бұрын

MusicMan2065 More evasion. LIke I said, not only is it obvious that you don't understand what Objectivism is, you apparently don't understand what an Ad Hominem argument is either. That being said, you're arm-waving and blowing smoke.