+Jack McLean In "The Virtue of Selfishness" chapter 4 is all about the "conflict of interest" situation. I would suggest you read it yourself. a TL;DR version goes something like this: There are no conflicts of interest among rational men, If two men are interested in the same thing, one wins one looses. Anyone who is interested in being successful when pursuing their interests should take into consideration four things: Reality, Context, Responsibility, and Effort. Taking these into consideration a rational man never imagines for something that is unearned, if he encounters competition he either wins or takes up an other interest. I'll post a separate comment with a short example from the reading.

+Joseph Benavidez about the two men applying for the same job-and observe in what manner it ignores or opposes these four considerations. (a) Reality. The mere fact that two men desire the same job does not constitute proof that either of them is entitled to it or deserves it, and that his interests are damaged if he does not obtain it. (b) Context. Both men should know that if they desire a job, their goal is made possible only by the existence of a business concern able to provide employment-that that business concern requires the availability of more than one applicant for any job-that if only one applicant existed, he would not obtain the job, because the business concern would have to close its doors-and that their competition for the job is to their interest, even though one of them will lose in that particular encounter. (c) Responsibility. Neither man has the moral right to declare that he doesn’t want to consider all those things, he just wants a job. He is not entitled to any desire or to any “interest” without knowledge of what is required to make its fulfillment possible. (d) Effort. Whoever gets the job, has earned it (assuming that the employer’s choice is rational). This benefit is due to his own merit-not to the “sacrifice” of the other man who never had any vested right to that job. The failure to give to a man what had never belonged to him can hardly be described as “sacrificing his interests.”

@@_GoldenGoat_ Lots of people are selfish but no one, literally no one is this perverse definition of "rational". You already exploit people by taking part in western society. Ayn Rand is a fool and her philosophy is a non-solution.

@@JD-jl4yy Being that these comments were made 5 years ago. I am not the same person who made them. However, this is a decent breakdown of the Philosophical point that Ayn Rand makes. I have personally taken more to stoicism in regsrds to dealing with issues like two men applying for the same job, as I know understand that most people dont act rationally most of the time. It is hopeless to try to break down a "why" from irrational thinking. Radical acceptance is a decent way to move on from it, rather then breaking ones brain over "why".

If your life directly effects others around you negatively then it's a self problem not society

lol.....The only conclusion I could come up with as well

Aye n

EyeN is how u pronounce her first name

I think it's open for debate, hence why they avoided it entirely.

😂😂😂

Come on., GDF. The very nature of capitalism is one man enriching himself by the sweat of thousands people working for him, for he pays them for the sweat of their collective brow the smallest possible portion of what they make.

@BeGood 2Me Not everybody can be a businessmen, both for personal and general economic reasons. 99% work for someone else. They are our fellow human beings. Should we condemn them to poverty and misery, to powerlessness and unbridled exploitation?

@BeGood 2Me I was never self employed. I wouldn't know where to begin, What you described about upward mobility in America was true in the past. But globalization which relocated industries and jobs from West to East makes this upward mobility no longer realistic. Globalization also destroyed industrial unions, for the above mentioned reasons, so workers can no longer bargain for better wages and working conditions. So, where are we going from here - resort to self sufficiency? Move to rural arias, grow own food, make own clothes, own shoes, etc., etc., etc? Your idea is to move from 21 century to 12 century. I don't think it's very realistic to expect billions of people to do that. All over the world people still running from the farms and flocking to big cities. That's where the world is today. And we have to deal with it now.

@BeGood 2Me I achieved my upward mobility long time ago by writing and publishing 15 books. I am concerned with the future of the next generations.

@BeGood 2Me If I knew your real name I would wish you and anyone thinking like you good luck. Anyone who is happy makes me happy. The more happy people this world has the better it is. P.S. Next time you have a conversation with a stranger try to be polite. Don''t be so aggressive. it doesn't befit intellectual. I take this liberty because I'm sure I'm much older than you are. All the best

gees so depressing. I'm over 55 and can still do most of the things I could do at 15 as well as do a hole lot of things I could NOT do at 15. I strive to move forward, be better. I expect to be prefect when I'm dead.

@@lostvisitor You can't spell Whole!

@@rollotomassi6232 I could never spell in english.

Robinhood rob from one and give to another makes him feel good too, what gov does. Robbery is wrong no mattery how or who does it. Real robbers have more moral than politicians. They jnow what they are doing is wrong, while politicians escalate themselves to godhood.

Absolutely love that book!

Sounds allot like remarks satanists have said. That "it's all about self, self enjoyment. And if you can, then do." or something like that?

@@sudilos1172 no, not even close. The main point is that you DESERVE happiness and attaining it should be a main purpose of your life. Others will tell you that is selfish, that you should sacrifice for the collective. Someone will say “can I have just a minute of your time?”, but the sum total of your wealth is the minutes and hours that you have on this Earth. And no one knows how much time they have. So why let them steal your most precious possession?

@@johnscott2746 Not to bright are we? Happiness is a release of chemicals in your brain, these chemical triggers are signalled when you feel satisfied, so if you feel satisfied with nothing you are happy. That means you can be happy with nothing if you so choose, and it has nothing to do with attaining goals, in fact the biggest reason for suicide is too much pressure to attain goals, or believing that you are worth nothing, and worth is SUBJECTIVE, it is FAR from an objective reality. Happiness does not require goals, you can be happy now, even in the worst circumstances. I also think if your mother died of cancer and could not get treatment cause you live in a selfish country you may indeed be unhappy, it is true even in dark times we can find a place to smile and be happy but that's very difficult if all your family die and you are put in a children's home at 6. Why let them steal your most precious possession? Simple, cause most decent people like to help people, but it's true most American's are brought up to be psychopaths nowadays, it may even explain the shootings of unarmed black people, as well as others including the much hated AYN RAND native Americans who she said had no right to live there - survival of the fittest! And back to the example of the mother, if others actually helped her in a society, you know like about every other country in the world even Russia, India, most of Europe and a good portion of Africa, the whole of America would be a lot happier, especially the 6 year old who's family died because America is a far right selfish society, from outside it is clear it is in moral and economic decline. Evidence, you can see it all around you. War, death = USA got to kill to stay number 1. If you only care about yourself - check out the DSM on psychopathy - congratulations you might even get high marks on this test. SCIENCE - even that is in decline with museums with dinosaurs. But that wont change cause everybody is promoted to be selfish and f the rest. And Trillions on war, but don't bother doing anything about it cause others don't matter.

@@ghostlyphantasm2352 wow! You went bouncing around and didn’t actually say much. Let’s see, first I never talked about goals. I just said that you deserve happiness and attaining it should be your focus in life. That doesn’t mean accumulating stuff. You are right that one can be happy with nothing. There has always been misfortune in this world and it’s a shame. But Americans have been the most generous people in the world . Private charities do a great deal of good. But government has no place in this. Government has no money of its own, only what it gets from taxpayers. No person should be made to work to support another against their will. We used to call this slavery. The liberal ideas that have been expanding the scope of government for a century are the main reason I structured my finances the way I have so as to keep from having to help finance all of it. I agree with you about the military. It is excessive to say the least. Please note that I took a few minutes out of my day to respond. I spent some of my real wealth on you. Your welcome!

Except we're not little special created snowflakes; Homo Sapiens Sapien evolved as a social species, pod-based like all the Great Apes and Monkeys No Man Is An Island~John Donne No man is an island, Entire of itself; Every man is a piece of the continent, A part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, As well as if a promontory were: As well as if a manor of thy friend's Or of thine own were. Any man's death diminishes me, Because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.

@Humanity Galatica Man is by definition an animal; we are Homo Sapiens Sapien and we descend from the same common ancestor as that of chimpanzees, bonobos and the Great Apes. A chimp is 98% the same animal as Homo Sapiens Sapien. We are a social creature, however. The "Rugged Individual" is a delusion.

@@troyevitt2437 The "rugged individual" is the guy that creates value for himself and have the CHOICE to share this value with others in exchange for whatever someone has in abundance and he lacks, promoting a mutually beneficial exchange. Whenever such exchange is not beneficial for both parties, then there should be no exchange. To be social, should be in someones best interest most of the time, but to assume it is an inherent property of our species to extrapolate based on a single point of view. Correlation might be present, but to assume causality is a step too far.

@@ziguirayou I have not heard of many civilization / cultures in the world without "society". Is there ever been a culture with a single person, who lives, laughed, conquered, invented and lived for many decade by him/her self?

@@ziguirayou I guess there are plenty of example where exchange is not "beneficial " to both parties today. If someone is working (many actually, with degree too) with multiple jobs to just stay afloat and ruining there body, it's not actually beneficial in long run to one party. Unless you think shelter, food are not important for a human.

If you asked her, she would say "Aristotle and only Aristotle".

I've done the same. They are certainly areas where they connect. They are both virtue driven, they both value reason and self-improvement. One difference would be who you do it for. Do you live for yourself or for others ? As I see it, if you can marry the self-interest of Objectivism with the self-discipline of Stoicism, you have a pretty good foundation for a succesful life.

Pretty much the same with me. I got exposed to Stoic Philosophy before Ayn Rand; it's really a good mix for me.

Aristotle

I think anyone with a logical mind based in reason develops this philosophy just through living life, and going through struggle.

Exacto

Not entitled to happiness, necessarily, but entitled to be free to take the necessary actions to achieve it.

are you an objectivist

Dean Harris I have been an Objectivist ever since I was a young but I respect your knowledge. live a prosperous life

***** So what if you don't accept this citizenship? You are not simply allowed to peacefully co-exist with the people in the US, you are forced out or thrown in jail through violence. Accepting these "Civic duties" is not voluntary, it is forced upon you and the fact that you have a vote does not make it voluntary. Collectivism (The idea that any individual should not have be allowed to live if his death can provide a service to someone else) is largely what is responsible for the horrific scale of death in WWII.

I live in a lovely house in Australia with food on my plate in a constant state of safety and security. Meanwhile 21,000 people die of starvation every single day. Follow that with, "My happiness is my highest moral purpose." How fucking stupid is that.

Enlightened Tha THIRD You know nothing about me to say that.

ThePeoplesChamp that's what you are already doing.

FREEDOMLOVER USA No. What I'm doing is working my life away under a corrupt system in order to stay alive. That's called slavery for basic human rights, not happiness.

that's your choice you can always walk away from the system you coward.

No one knows that. So, it should remain a question. Ayn said "if," you thought you had only this life . . .

How about " Live this life well, and the after life will take care of itself"?@@q7winq7

@@q7winq7 I think it is

@@bayewkkebede1846 - - - - - There's nothing wrong with thinking. I think what is true is probably beyond human reasoning. I doubt the Universe will condemn us for being wrong about it one way or the other.

@@q7winq7If what's true is beyond human reasoning then the most rational strategy is: This life is all you have. Make the most of it. So you just contradicted yourself, well done.

Then that isn't true selfishness. Thus the entire philosophy is made on a foundation of sand.

@@calathan Invoking the "No True Scotsman" fallacy? Thus, your critique fails. Also, since "selfishness" isn't the axiomatic basis or premise of the Objectivist philosophy, but simply a side aspect of it, you're Straw-manning it. Thus, you're critique fails on 2 counts.

Somehow the Rand followers seem to forget that part.

@@kathypeterson7967 Can you give an example? I can't think of a Rand follower who knowingly violates the rights of others or justifies the violation of rights. And if you're not violating someone's rights, it's difficult to see how you're 'exploiting' them.

@@macsnafu corporate greed that exploits workers to acquire their profits to the point the workers have no means by which to better their own situation?? Does that make sense?

Yes live free in your constant state of security. Fuck those conscientious people who believe humanity is one and we should all unite to help those need. That's too hard and burdens the soul.

@ThePeoplesChamp ahhh a strawman argument. Objectivism is not against helping others. The key detail is that the highest value of a person's life is THEIR happiness and what ever gives value and meaning to their life not the involuntary servitude to others. However, a person can still voluntarily help other people that matter to them and give value to their life. Emotionally charged arguments do not stand very well under level headed scrutiny.

A person who achieves ultimate happiness due to buying a Ferrari for themselves is worthless. Humanity should be working it's fingers to the bone to achieve a global standard of human rights. If having our human brothers and sisters around the world eating every night with a roof over the their heads is not a persons main objective to attain personal ultimate happiness, then such people need to be educated better. Objectivism could possibly be ideal if and when humanity has reached a stable understanding of global unity and love for mankind. Until that day, objectivism can go fuck itself.

I know this is late in the game, but bear with me. First off, nobody simply stops at buying a Ferrari as their ultimate life achievement. Driving and enjoying it is great, but that's ultimately not the achievement, and you very much fail hard at realizing that. It's the journey that counts as much as the goal. There will ALWAYS be suffering in the world. To expect everyone and anyone to bow to that fact and lower their standards of living to appease an inevitable life status is retarded to say the least. Someone will ALWAYS have less than another person. The hell if I, or anyone else, should live their life in shame just because someone, somewhere, suffers. Get bent.

@Evil Black Cat I agree, and many people do use their reason to create things the decrease suffering. There is less chance of being a victim of violence today than in most of human history. There is more opportunity to have an affluent life and chose your own way while being left alone. The world's not perfect, but it's getting better all the time. We should be proud of human achievement and not live life in shame because things are not perfect and some people suffering. I don't like suffering and I chose to try to help where I can. We should not have to put others' needs first because every one of us "others" to everyone else. We be free and left alone to live life as we desire.

CrazedAutisticAnarchist Well it is the Ayn Rand Institute KZfaq channel so there’s that.

Haha objectivism is bullshit and ayn rand was a terrible person.

@@GyroZeppel God told you this?

Newbrict does god speak to you?

@@GyroZeppel do you have any reasons behind your beliefs?

because some of us believe a loving God is real However, her philosophy works within that frame.

Yes but we entered the twilight zone of feelings over facts! Shame!

I have a problem with objectivism philosophy because it is against of altruism and loving everyone

She would roll in her grave if she saw who is advocating for "her" ideas now.

Qwerty Official I can see where you’re going with that. The Ayn Rand institution sucks. However I haves t seen anything wrong with libertypen.

john edwards It’s really a matter of personal opinion. I’ve listened to their lectures and debates, and at times blatant ignorance is apparent. I found a better organization, but I forgot the name.

john edwards Listen to their views on the environment. All they really say is just to move out. I think Ayn Rand wouldn’t agree.

LibertyPen happy birthday you fucking sociopath

So assume you are a nurse or a doctor in these covid times - does it make better sense to quit? After all, you are entering a high risk area Or how about soldiers? I wish that question was asked when she was alive - why would anyone put his life at risk for others?

What if life continues after death? I guess it makes her philosophy kinda silly doesn't it? She is basically another form of godless humanism. It always leads to dictatorship

But soldiers get discounts on home purchases and at restaurants, don't they? And medical staff get good benefits so really if you look at it at this angle, it can be for self interest that they keep doing what they do despite the risk/consequence

@@rachelschendel2476 Those benefits don't outweigh the risks. I highly doubt any soldier would go to war thinking, "I get a discount at certain restaurants; yep, that's definitely worth endangering my life." You're clutching at straws here.

Limited government so that the market (the people) will decide the fate of the corporation, not so the corporation can decide it for themselves even when they fail. It is sad that capitalism is associated with the far rights but their social views are identitarian (much like the far left). Seeing how anything remotely right of the far left is considered far right nowadays, this doesn't really surprise me. If you want to get into it, the far left believe in giving more control to the government (big government), which is essentially the opposite of objectivism, since youre letting the government to control your own objective view points. It is the big government that bails out corporations and create monopolies that will continue to oppress the people and you wish to give them more power.... But youre right on one point, the sad reality that Capitalism is considered to be a nagative marketing point for books nowadays is prevalent and the world will continue to bend backward to support socialism at the tunes of the people who actually support Socialism, the corporations.

Note, in terms of capitalism, that objectivism would never allow for things like bank bailouts and "too big to fail".

I think that the morality of self-interest is more controversial, and more important, which is probably why the most emphasis was placed there. Objectivism as a philosophical system tends to be overly politicized in the eyes of many of its leading intellectuals. Politics is important, but it's derivative, and many people, including objectivists, spend far too much time talking about it and too little time thinking or speaking about the more fundamental branches. Most people don't even question altruism. They simply think of it as a synonym for morality. Capitalism, on the other hand, is already being advanced as an idea, albeit less effectively and in a philosophically compromised way, by very many public intellectuals including mainstream conservatives. Until you get into the nitty-gritty of it, capitalism as a feature of objectivism isn't even very distinguishing. And outside of this 2 minute introduction video there's PLENTY of content on objectivism's take on politics. Therefore I think Hunter Long's comment is way off.

Indeed...this omission was deliberate, as capitalism and corporations are based on elements that contradict the basic tenets of objectivism. Capitalism requires others than the capitalist to perform the objectives of the capitalist in an inherently uneven bargain. Corporations are authoritarian collectives with top-down hierarchies, regulations and cultures that shield participants from personal autonomy and responsibility. Objectivism assumes that everyone will always function rationally and in good faith, be well-informed decision-makers and abide by its idealized tenets, which has not and will not ever happen. This where the libertarian gurus are needed to rationalize these contradictions and allay its cognitive dissonance.

@@ivandafoe5451 You're blinded by envy, resentment of the rich, and a dogmatic commitment to the poisonous, false, religious based morality of altruism. You won't accept the obvious fact of life that it is often in the individual's rational self interest to trade unequally: to trade with someone richer than himself, someone in a superior bargaining position to himself, which may be a well earned position. Both parties do not need to benefit from a trade equally in order for both parties to benefit. For that matter, both parties don't need to benefit equally for it to be the best deal available anywhere in the world for both parties. Capitalism is based on these sorts of transactions. It is based on mutually beneficial trade relationships, and indeed mutual benevolence, between unequal parties. And don't conflate capitalism with the horrible mixed economy that conservatives created by compromising excessively with socialists. That is your system, not objectivists'. Objectivism does not "assume" that everyone will be rational. It understands that individuals are better off being given the opportunity to benefit from their own rationality, which does leave a lot up to their choice, rather than forcing them into some god awful system of mutual enslavement that seeks to "free" the individual from his obligations to himself, and from the reality of life.

Because, one lie labels everything as a lie, and without truth, there can be no value. Despite this knowledge, I have maintained truth as my personal value and rejected those who have lied to me. It would seem that it must be a lonely life, but it hasn’t been. The friends I hold dear, and trust, are truly remarkable people, and have made life a treasured experience. I am now in my mid-eighties, and still smile.

and the one who lies to himself is the biggest of all fool and most corrupt.

@T S I lost most of my response to you, but won’t retype it. Thirty-five years ago I was introduced to Ayn Rand’s works, and treasure the opportunity she has given me to see through the thick haze of lies and find the real truth. I’m 85, and for the first 50 years I struggled to understand what was really true, but that logic told me couldn’t be true. I was a student of history, which is always been written by the victor. And since almost all history is about wars, the truth is clearly slanted and often ignored. But I tried my best. I told a friend about a book I had written for my kids, which had received rave reviews. Yet I was frustrated - I hadn’t found the real truth to pass along to them. She told me to read Atlas Shrugged. She was sure I would find direction in it. I took a lengthy trip to Norway for the Olympics and took it with me. It knocked my socks off, after the first 100 pages. Suddenly all my research made sense and I could see through the haze and see the truth. I don’t know if you will see what I see, but it’s worth a look. There’s another book you may want to read, Ten Days on Jekyll Island by G Edward Griffin. The goals of that meeting are finding fruition as we speak. We are awash in lies that everyone accepts as true because they are too lazy to look for the truth and too afraid it might all be true. Our world we have known and loved is being trampled by those who will enslave us unless we open our eyes to the truth. Good luck!

​@T S the one who speaks it always know if it was truth or lie.

Beware of people who eschew spirituality

+eggory this video fucking sucks....why dont u libertarian shitheads embrace nationalism?

+SlimeGGKing socialism would be better

SlimeGGKing What do you mean by nationalism? You seem to express nothing but frustration with the difficulty in expressing yourself. Nothing in this video contradicts the ideal of having a nation, the sense of belonging to a nation, or the valuing of your nation above foreign nations. So in some sense of the word nationalism, we do embrace it.

*The dumb bitch Ayn Rand was a chain smoker who ended up being dependent on government health services as well as food stamps and government housing when she got lung cancer. She was such an evil person no one loved her and wanted to bail her out. What does that say?*

You must relate a lot with Ayn Rand, Terry, considering you're a dumb bitch yourself.

Ayn Rand is a fantastic writer!

Funny, she would call a public library a parasitic entity

Read The Fountainhead. One of my Favorite Novels to this day.

It will not worth it, it's just wasted time. Read my comment over yours and you will know why I think her Philosophy is full of lacks and mistakes in thinking. Its about what drives her to write such a philosophy, this is why it would not make you happy living this way, not even make you successful or any of that.

akeem hase is in the summary of that book: “some people matter and some just don’t”?

1 - Reality is measurable and objective. Your interpretation of reality is your own, but thinking the you can project your interpretation and make it something concrete by just force of argument is something that should warrant you with either a place as an X-Men or a diagnostic of mental illness, depending on the results you achieve. Secondly, of course humans can change things through work, that was never in question, but the change you make, is exactly the result of the work you put in, so having clarity about your impact on reality is key to understanding it. 2 - Exploiting others is wrong, that is a very strong point of the whole concept of objectivism. All interactions between self governing humans must be mutually beneficial, otherwise they shouldn't take place. Exploitation happens when someone uses force or coercion to make an interaction be beneficial only to one of the parties. Selfishness in the sense of objectivism is related to prioritizing interactions that are good for you, and understanding that if all other people with the same capabilities do the same, everyone benefits in the end. Whenever people use democratic means, backed up by force (law, police, arms, etc) or coersion (threats, psychological offense, taxation, unfair business practices, etc) to force part of society to interact at loss, to benefit a chosen group, this is exploitation plain and simple.

Watch this - The metaphysics of stupidity - kzfaq.info/get/bejne/e-BhlbB0nsDafJs.html

@T S prove it

Aristotle, Aristotle, lol

Life update, I came across this video when I was reviewing for my Master in Public Admin Compre Exam. Guess what!!! I'm now and MPA, Major in Fiscal Admin. Whooho

Thinking for yourself using logic. Existence exist. Reality Exist. Live your existence by Rational Benevolence as base for your values which direct your action in the real world for creativity, joy, success. Irrational believe in a Malevolent-Evil world as base for your values direct all your days for sacrifice and altruism - obedience to some floating destiny in suffering and ugliness. Objectivism denied subjectivism, the duality mind-body. Existence is one objective truth. Selfishness is preserve our existence in the real world: Anyone volunteer for sharing alive the coffin with someone?

if i can legally claim your belongings leaving you on the street that is justice because i did not harm you by taking your ability to produce money and food. if you than try to create a shelter or a farm on my land i will claim everything you produced on my land. because that is the Rational system Ayn Rand supports. You have to find your own Plot of land to produce stuff.

@@sownheard That's not right at all.

@@MT-2020 Your perception defines what you see as a reality and two people can look at the same thing only to make different deductions. She came from a communist country, had some trauma with it, so wanted to prove that capitalism is best, not seeing the havoc capitalism wreaks, how the mindless consumerism is literally destroying the world and her ''objective liberterian'' world depends upon suffering of others. And she basically says ''I don't care, I'll be just fine''

Yup, and the Leftists/Liberals will be trying to prevent kids from learning this every step of the way.

Mostly, your pursuit of happiness shouldn't conflict with others. If you want to buy a good house and live a good life, others can also do the same. If you are trying to achieve a goal or win a title, something only one person can get, then it's a competition. It would be your goal to overcome the competition, as well as the other person's goal. You can choose to be flexible, however it should be decided individually and not forced. Your goal should not be to tear down others or destroy their happiness, but to raise yours without lowering theirs. Your goal should not violate the natural rights of others, hence why Rand advocated for a government whose purpose was to protect those rights. If your goal violates the rights of others, you cannot pursue that goal, even if the violation is secondary, and not the main focus. I hope I was able to answer that question. Rand's philosophy as I've interpreted it is mostly a method or algorithm, and just like computers, Garbage input = Garbage output. If you know the facts, and apply the right method to those facts, you get the right conclusion. Rand's philosophy tries to make a consistent method and apply it to correct facts. Her conclusions may not be perfect, or maybe they are, but I think we do need to be consistent.

If your pursuit of happiness is based on reason the chances of true conflict with someone also rationally pursuing their happiness should be minimal. But in those instances where it does happen, if you’re not able to negotiate compromise between you, then this what having a court system is for. Note the operative word here is “rationally” - simply pursuing happiness is essentially hedonism which is not what Ayn Rand was advocating.

​@@theotherotherjenny How is rationality determined. Reality might be subjective but perception is not. Humans are flawed and so is our perception. What might be rational to some, is lunacy to others. In the Reality / Reason / Self-interest / Capitalism model proposed by this video the conflict is built into each of those circles. Reality is perceived differently by each one of us, reason is limited by our inability to perceive reality in a subjective matter, self-interest will create friction with others whose interest oppose our own, and capitalism is competitive in its design. How, then, is conflict handled by Rand. What happens when a company who employs hundreds has to dam a river in order to produce electricity at a competitive rate to stay in business, but doing so will hurt the fishermen who live down-stream. How does Rand solve the trolley problem? There are finite resources available and infinite wants. Do we leave it to competition (Capitalism) to decide how those resources are distributed? How do we deal with externalities? How do we deal with the angst suffered by the losers?

EarlyGray Conflict is inevitable. Ayn Rand didn't say that there's a utopia, it's not possible for a human civilization to achieve that. What Ayn Rand opposes is the destruction of evil by use of an obviously greater evil.

@@ETBrooDDoes she though? All I've taken away from her approach is that we have to be true to our wants and pursue our happiness in order to achieve the greater good. But that is such a simple model that it's impossible to tackle many of the problems facing our society by following her advise. It's almost hedonistic in concept, but even hedonism hedges it's message by saying pursue pleasure as long as it's not causing problems for yourself down the line. If we follow hedonism we can achieve a balance because the pursuit of pleasure will be measured against the potential for displeasure caused by our actions. Rand does not even account for this in her message. If we follow Rand we are to pursue our greatest possible happiness, because to do anything else is to be untrue to yourself and that is seen as a great evil. But we don't exist in a vacuum. Our actions impact our surroundings. How is the greater good served by such a myopic approach to self serving actions. How do we regulate the impact caused on others by our personal pursuit of happiness. Are we to allow the invisible hand of the market regulate itself? How do we fight corruption, weakness of character, frailty of determination in ourselves and others, errors made by people who cost others their efforts. How does empathy, compassion, solidarity, even kindness fit in her model. Selfish pursuit of happiness and loving others only for what they can bring to our own lives reduces our society to a series of economic transactions. Following that path allows the individual to turn a blind eye to the suffering of the downtrodden. Because why should I worry about their suffering? If I'm busy pursuing my happiness. More than anything her approach to happiness seems so lonely to me. She seems so bent on carving out the individual and focusing on achieving the goals of the individual that acknowledging the other is almost an afterthought.

@Pessy's ASMR yea I assume way to much from fellow citizens. Pandemic showed me that. Mass Retardation lol

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith

in other words, all heil the wage-slavery society!

@@cosmozappa3573 Nope, just facing the reality of existence. If you are a wage salve you might want to find out how you can be worth more as the world is telling you what you are doing isn't worth that much.

" both make sense" ? to a peanut

Man I wish you could explain that view

BOTH make sense? Your avatar must be your self-portrait then!

Very stupid philosophy indeed.

@@georgecurly5965 Is virtue irrationality, laziness and shame then?

Amongst the virtues enumerated by Rand you are missing a few; beyond rationality, productivity and pride, there are also honesty, integrity, independence, and justice. These virtues are a shield to one's values: reason, self-esteem, and purposeful action, and ultimately, life itself.

Fabrício Santana well when you consider that the cluster b personalities only make up a very small percentage of society, this is a pretty good number of subscribers. Lol

@@niccolea2086 cluster b?

I would like to agree with you, but that would require facts to be possible so this is only an opinion 🤷

Severely underrated comment

That's deep. Like da ocean

You can give a man a fish and he will smell fishy for a day, or . . .

The prevailing 'philosophy' in the US is Leftism/ NeoLiberalism which is a cult of power and greed. If you are going to rule over sheep you must train the children at an early age to BE sheep and that is what most education in the US is about.

The schools are controlled by collectivists.

If everyone learned about Ayn Rand then everyone would grow up an asshole.

@@Schnoz42069 anything would be better nowadays kids are very soft.

@@Schnoz42069 Just because you learned about Ayn Rand and became an ahole doesn't mean all people do. others are smart, unlike you.

they gave a definition of selfishness nobody believes in and tried to tell us we're wrong lol.

it's just a shame that ayn rand is for fools who have 2iq

"yet did she really make a difference for the greater good." The point of her philosophy is to e the best rationally MORAL individual that you can be. Oddly, doing so is actually also better for the 'greater good' as you would phrase it. If people earnestly followed much of her philosophy they would become better and that would increase the 'greater good'. But it is up to the individual to do so which takes self-responsibility which is the antithesis of Modern Liberalism (Leftism.)

I agree with "making the most of your life", but I see different ways to do that. A poet sitting under a tree is having as good a time making constructive statements about life, the world, and the heavens as a middle linebacker running onto the football field for a big game. The two guys might be incomprehensible to each other, but they have both found the niche that most suits them. I have reservations about Ayn Rand's definition of altruism. About the only profession I see as altruistic is that of a soldier, and that's debatable. I've been in the U.S. Army, and they said that soldiers were supposed to be altruistic, but the way we looked at it there were some good benefits from military service. I suppose the poem "The Charge of the Light Brigade" is the quintessential example of Ayn Rand's belief about toxic altruism, but that is only one example of the term. Usually, in jobs that require altruism they account for the risks a soldier or a fireman takes, and give benefits with them that are probably the real reason a person chose this course. A guy is likely to sign up for the military in order to pay for college, and he hopes no wars get started on his watch. On the football field a player supposed to be fearless. He is expected to risk injury to win football games, but it is not altruism that makes him do this. Pro players do it for money. College players do it for acclaim. That is the benefit of most altruistic behavior - acclaim.

Try "Atlas Shrugged", it's a great place to start.

I have nothing against Ayn Rand or you, but I think Ms. Rand and I are working with somewhat different definitions of altruism. There is a lot of "altruism" as she defines it, but it is my position that if a person does something that ultimately causes harm it is not altruistic.

@@georgepalmer5497 Interesting point. Rand's take here was meant for the "good of oneself". Take for example, the statement" I love my country, but I fear my government". It centers on one's own ambitions to be free from any outside intrusive intervention. Any "elected source" by an accepted majority STILL has no right to ANY directive in any man's ambitions within his OWN life. (Sorry, I'm hurried right now, I hope that makes sense to you.) ~Best

What if a man is a war profiteer, and he wants to get rich selling the army shoddy boots? Or what if a man wants to get rich renting apartments that are fire traps? We're too interconnected to say very many people exist apart from the effect they have on others.@@tymesho

then try live alone, lets see if you can handle that for long.

Cringe

@@nescius2 You do not understand Objectivism.

You're only choosing one extreme over the over. You don't have to be completely selfish or selfless. Also, you fail to realize that you rely heavily on other. Humans are a social species.

@@austinhernandez2716 Being selfish or selfless are more about being moral and are not extremes of behaviour or civic response. I'd want to be moral and naturally it is selfishness. So then being always moral is not an extreme stand, but just striving never to be immoral. In that sense, I am a very responsible human in society. Hence society too can reliably trust me.

@silicone unicorn to reply comprehensively to your several points above, the fundamental learning for all is the reality, laws of nature. These are true, whether u or I accept or not. That makes it objective, not subjective. The process is reason & logic. It is only correct to grasp & accept the truths given by others, the truth to be understood & not accepted in faith. R u with me? Use these to check if I am a blind follower of Rand.

Yes.

MMMM, no, I don't think so. Making decision based on reason instead of emotions will give you a much better shot at guiding your life well, with direction, but I don't see a correlation with ethics. I guess, if one's "reason" was used to commit crimes with out being caught, than that person would have a problem with ethics. But thinking rationally to help advance your life---is human.

well, she justified colonizing the 'savages', so maybe her ethics are not something to follow

@@vgcamara So educating primitive humans is a bad thing?

Hope you enjoy the game

@@fishels3895 Loved it. Brought me to tears

@Venandi Netero The entire game is about it, what?

@Quæsitor修行 it describes the aftermath of Atlas Shrugged, what more objectivism thing could you wish for?

@@tockloxx2644 doesn't really, it missunderstood what objectivism is about, but I'm still glad they tried make such game, it got a lot of people interested in philosophy and also the game itself is pretty good

People with ambition and want to live off their own efforts like her. People on the dole with no personal ambition, (or handing out the dole), do not like her. If you liked a vid, you will love her non-fiction books. The books by her shown in this vid----are eye opening to say the least. They will help fill in the voids between the peeks of truth that you do know, and it will all come together.

Do so and spread the word.

@@EarthSurferUSA people don't live off their own efforts - we don't photosynthesise. our society is based on specialisation - its more efficient than making everything you need yourself, but then you are relying on other peoples work.

...and those many are wrong.

Oh, and it overlooks how development works. It's actually myriad teams and systems, not a few billionaire geniuses creating scorched earth, and governments helping to ensure they are educated, housed and well. .

@@siliconeunicorn1909 It's from the book. Hence, the quotation marks.

I's a quote from the book called "The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concepy of Egoism". And I just came across this video bc of the views she has on public administration which reflected on the books Understanding Global Poverty- Causes, Solutions and Capabilities by Serena Cosgrove and Benjamin Curtis (2nd edition) and Public Administration (9th edition) by Jay M. Shafritz, et al.

Currently re-reading Lord of the Rings. Believe it has the orcs😅

Ahegao pfp

American here who's family came from Poland around 1904. "We are alike, you and I." (a John Galt quote in the 1st part of "Atlas Shrugged" movie). Even though you are brown, and I am white, we are alike,---because we choose to think. :)

I wouldn't say it's controversial, but rather easily misinterpreted by the simple minded.

Shame on you Danish Ali did the prophet Muhammad p.b.u.h advocate selfishness as a way of life? Is this the only life that we have if you believe this then you are not a believer. Change your name or change your mind but you cannot have your cake and eat it. This so called piece of drivel philistine philosophy is absolutely opposite to faith. So wake up before it is too late.

So having no conscience is a good thing?

Maudie Icrochet sure it is. But having reason is even better

Why?

@Humanity Galatica zero sum game

@Humanity Galatica not true all the time

I hope things were this simple. Can you point me one multimillionaire who didn't injure many?

@@aniksamiurrahman6365 Can you elaborate on what you mean by injured? How about lottery winners? People willingly buy tickets (they are a want, not a need) and the winnings weren't achieved through the backs of others. Sure, you can make an argument the winner didn't "deserve" the winnings because it's a matter of chance, but I cannot consider that injuring others.

@@Numbers_Game By injured I mean cutthroat marketing, lobbying and doing everything required to chock one's competitors. I don't think even any medium business can survive without those.

@@Numbers_Game Imagine changing the goal posts from CEOs and the usual suspects of multimillionaires to...lottery winners. Jesus tap dancing Christ

@@N1r0ak He asked for one multimillionare and I gave him one. Not my fault that in your commie mind every notion of profit is not possible without exploitation.

When you hold rational values there are no contractions between emotions and your reason. This is based on both a misunderstanding of just what emotions are, and incorrect philosophies which separate morality from reality.

The planets not going anywhere, WE ARE!

I agree. I've thought faith is necessary. I'm grounded in what we 'know', but also, I can't help but wonder about what we 'don't know'.

Objectivism is the pseudo-intellectual man’s philosophy. Any rational being knows that. A society of unbridled, unregulated capitalism would be the equivalent of hell.

Basically. And dont hurt anyone or coerce or explot them. If everyone followed these simple things life would be much better. Call it utopian but what ideal isnt? At least this doesent have a commanding heirarchy and it cant really, especially when u get into the economic side, laisse faire capitalism is all about living and let live, that comes with responsibility not to be a lazy fuck or youll starve. Charity can still exist independant of welfare states

Yeah, but most people are unfortunately too retarded to get that. Bunch of pathetic low-life commies.

Actually it's more of people interacting with each other in the manner of: I agree to do this for you, if you agree to do this for me.

Its WAY more than that. If what you’re both doing makes no sense, you’re both fucked. First you need two things. 1. You need to see and accept reality, an you do this through 2. reason. When these two ideas are realized and or put into practice, then you can each live for yourselves.

Juan McCoy the Sears Ceo that just cost 250,000 employees there jobs and is not giving them severance paid, that was promised to them and was paid in one hour more then his employees got in a year believes in this philosophy? Is this the utopia Ayn Rand was talking about? Capitalistic slavery where employees are paid dismal wages? It is almost slavery. How has pure capitalism benefited most? It works great for commodities the consumer can choose and pick from like shoes, but how does it work in healthcare, for example, where the product is not really available for shopping by the consumer the ways shoes are? Her philosophy is the embodiment of all that is wrong with our current government. Greed and fend for yourselves and let the rest die if they have to. I come from a science and medical background. The deeper you study biology and the human body the more you realize that Nothing in nature functions autonomously and alone. From conception an embryo depends on the health of its mother. The chemical reactions in the body all depend on each other. The organelles inside a cell all work together. Inside your body, your organs do not selfishly work alone. The heart doesn’t work without oxygen obtained by blood that passes the lungs and the lungs don’t work without the heart pumping blood to them. We can’t breath oxygen if plants don’t produce it and plants cannot use carbon dioxide if we don’t produce it. Nothing in this planet survives by being completely selfish and autonomous. That’s why this philosophy is such a failure and results in pure greed and disregard for even the lives of the most vulnerable in the population. In Ayn Rand’s world, a baby born with serious health problems, to a drug addict mother or from parents with low income, should be left to die if it cannot be taken care of. Ayn Rand’s philosophy is evil in its purest form. It explains a lot about the current administration in the White House. Thank God Ayn Rand never reproduced.

Like what? It´s just 2 minutes so obviously they cannot go over everything

@@danielkraus5560 It's a bit like saying: "Fascism is a great idea because it eliminates social unequality and allows to achieve big projects without annoying social debate due to strong centralized leadership". It's not completly wrong but just misses the point of it.

@@TheFeanor74 Burh this video was made by the Ayn Rand Institute. Obviously, they will be promoting her philosophy. If you want a critique of it, go somewhere else. That like watching a video by the Soviet Union and expecting a critique of Marx.

Rand's thought is totally incompatible with Christianity. The only thing that is really valuable in Christianity is its emphasis on compassion, which is totally rejected by Rand. Her thought are more akin the value system of the Nazis. Besides, she was a shameless hypocrite. While in theory she rejects all forms of welfare, in her life, after she got cancer of the lungs (due to her being a chain-smoker), she was secretly reciving medicare under the name of her husband.

just to tell you but rand’s philosophy is the scientific antithesis to christianity “Christ, in terms of the Christian philosophy, is the human ideal. He personifies that which men should strive to emulate. Yet, according to the Christian mythology, he died on the cross not for his own sins but for the sins of the nonideal people. In other words, a man of perfect virtue was sacrificed for men who are vicious and who are expected or supposed to accept that sacrifice. If I were a Christian, nothing could make me more indignant than that: the notion of sacrificing the ideal to the nonideal, or virtue to vice. And it is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used.” -Playboy Interview: Ayn Rand Playboy, March 1964

Yet you have to come here and complain about her influence. 😅🤣😂

Of course most modern philosophy professors try to avoid Ayn Rand's work. She totally dismantles everything they pretend they know, and she proves they are merely mystical whim-worshippers. Why would they introduce students to information that would likely lead to those professors being unemployed?

Just spend money and time investing yourself into a process to understand and gain enlightenment.... wait how is sold as an alternative to religion?

@@dudere Strawman harder

@@Nomans_Nomen who cares?

You mean from the pigs selling those $5,000 courses? Lol you do you.

egoism on its own would not be able to came with morality nor egoism.. not even language in its most elementary form, except maybe for threatening noises :)

fereydun harifi 😂😂😂

Bioshock is what Rands Utopia will turn into

Andrew Ryan = Ayn Rand

@@Alex-cw3rz Hey Andrew died with the courage of his own convictions, remaining true to himself. Rand died a hypocrite, taking out state medical care when she called others who did that "looters"

@@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676 I suppose, he still wasn't a good guy. But don't worry I completely agree Rand is a hypocrite with damaging ideas all she cared about was herself. And it's obvious that they were invoking her in Ryan

If you ever find out, let me know, I've been searching for it for a while now :)

I think they made it for the sake of the video

not for its own sake? oh man :(

mgrlb what music?

I think that it's called The Objectivism Blues

True!

so true it hurts.

Jeffrey Van Dyke Ehhhhhhhhhhh

Was mother Theresa happy? If so, why don't you live like her? Isn't it your priority to have a happy life?

@@danielkraus5560 I hope she was with all that _help_ she advertised herself doing kzfaq.info/get/bejne/er2DiJyKl6zFaHk.html

As an individual in a group we are more likely to achieve better success of we cooperate than act completely in self-interest and ignoring the interest of others -Game theory But I don't believe altruism is the goal, self interest is also vital to success of the whole

Explain precisely how letting myself be stolen from will make me happy?

@ uhhh sick burn

WHY? It sounds like a commercial.