AWESOME... thanks for sharing that.

Good point!

You said u had deep feelings, but as per her philosophy an ideal man is not governed by his feelings

Because you're dumb

We can only hope for a third act-once you’ve been mercifully deprogrammed.

@@herbertwells8757 I hope you dont like This cow

Exactly

@@fredred8029 but I do, for her intelligence.

That is gross to even think of. I am so glad that I don't know you.

She would not appreciate that sentiment. Where is her god? She refuses to accept anything that is not real.

lol

She said she understands when people say "God bless you," they are offering her their highest regards, so she still appreciates it.

She is insane and you are a cult member

Beautiful. She also saved me from my depression.

@Ok I am religious and believe the parable of the Good Samaritan by Jesus makes logical sense (example of helping others in need not out of selfishness) and so does the existence of God. If God wants us to care for one another (based on the teachings of Jesus) then Ayn Rand's philosophy is invalid. I am not a big "My brother's keeper" type of person being generally against a bloated welfare state but some basic safeguards for the poor and disabled as a public service makes logical sense not about feelings. I believe we all are given a conscience which prevents us from doing harm to others and turning your back on suffering people also triggers my conscience to help rather than a selfish motive. Lots of her ideas make sense but it assumes you are only doing it for your own benefit which is pure individualism which I like somewhat but it is also impractical since we do have public needs that cannot be privately provided such as military protection which requires a great deal of collective funding. Nevertheless, I am a big believer in what she promotes "pro-capitalist, laissiez-faire, economic freedom and individualism". I am a conservative and Christian so those four ideas are actually very rational and reasonable. Limited government seems to be her goal which is what I agree with. Eliminating God and what God commands: Love thy neighbor as thy self" is contrary to her philosophy and is what I can't and most people can't buy.

@@tntstorms7969 grew up in the church and preached since 17. Practicing sacrificial love almost took my life. First time I heard Ayn was like hearing the gospel, a breath of fresh air to my soul. The idea that I could actually put myself and my needs first has given me hope. I believe in God and the Christian Gospel at its core makes sense. However, the Christian philosophy and the its practical application today is quite destructive to a good hearted person.

Ayn Rand would say she did not save you, you saved yourself using her writing and your own rational process.

Religions were not made by God. They are man made rules and rituals deceiving us into believing we know God. Cut out the middleman. There is one God, his son Jesus ( God incarnate) and you. A relationship not religion.

I don’t see that in this late interview. Here, to me, she just looks fatigued. I have noticed it in earlier interviews, however, and there was a particular chemical cause: Ayn Rand for most of her life was a regular daily user of amphetamines, an addict, in fact.

@@herbertwells8757 Just as CoCo Chanel was alife long heroin user.

Her eyes are darting at an abnormal rate. Something is off.

@@WintersWar She was a drug addict.

@@chrisc1257 If you can call someone who smoked 2 packs of cigarettes a day for 4 decades and quit cold turkey one day on the advice of her doctor an 'addict', your program is running on a broken OS. Just consider the average AA gathering as a point of reference.

Agree 100%.

In a Nathanial Branden essay, he wrote, "If you want to know what someone thinks of themself, find out who they sleep with." Heroes sleep with heroines; degenerates sleep with degenerates.

you poor deluded bastard. :-)

She is a disgusting human being. I believe that she was addicted to amphetamines. A hate filled woman that pushed a philosophy of being self centered.

@@samuellane8691 If you allow, I disagree slightly. Michael slept with Barack and she seemed pure and kind-hearted and invested in the well-being of others.

so she's against art?

@@Daniela-pr7rz That's an argument against religion actually.

@@mattf2545Damn it, i always forget to put that "/s" in there. But... ......"inventing fantasies" IS consistent with art too.

@@Daniela-pr7rz So hard to tell where people are coming from sometimes, especially when having to constantly fight straw- men arguments against Rand. So it can be hard to tell friend from foe. If you're interested in her take on art, I would recommend her non - fiction book, The Romantic Manifesto, if you haven't read it already. I would surmise her take on good art vs bad art would come down to the nature of the fantasy. Glad to discuss further if ya like. ☺️

More like spin.

Reason is such a basic thing to human and yet there are those force other not to use reason. IE... "Follow the science"

@@johnmicheal3547 Political 'science'

@@charlesangell_bulmtl no, "Political science" is the study of politic and how it works. "Follow the science" is be a sheeple and get use at the detrimental cost to the sheep.

Sure, Rand was bright, but I would challenge the "challenging mind" bit--depending what you mean by it. By the time of this interview Rand had long been intellectually stultified, reduced to repeating the same well-rehearsed formulas over and over again. If this were the first you time you encountered her, I suppose you might be challenged (depending on your age and philosophical literacy) by her, but if you had already read her--pretty much at all--, you couldn't reasonably be challenged by much of anything she said, wrote, or did in the last three decades of her life--or so.

It’s not a formula…….you must not understand the concepts by which she lived. She is asked to explain things and she does……..interview after interview. If you read, and understand, and think about the concepts you will, reasonably, be not only challenged but be changed.

​@@dd911yup. the original poster is just naive.

Why do you think her critics hate her!

@@beth-rg8bm For exposing them.

Exactly my thought on every page!!! The spiritual descendants of the looters never ceased to exist...

I especially like the rape scene. A man should take what he needs, no matter whose it is.

@@ToxicTorgo It's not a literal rape, Dominique gave consent (sure, in a peculiar way, by whipping Roark's face). But symbolically - yes, it's a rape, because Roark forces out a contradiction in Dominique's soul. Read the passage more carefully.

@@michaelsvoboda1024 In fairness, he did clarify sarcasm. I suspect he understands the context. Just sayin'; but yes, I think you're correct in interpretation.

It would be more illuminating for her to have been interviewed by someone like Bryan Magee in the manner that Noam Chomsky was in 1978 (look for the KZfaq video-or any other in the series), although I’m afraid she may have been flailing, lost at sea, in this more heady milieu. Her knowledge of philosophy in general was too superficial and spotty and her own “philosophy” too threadbare and derivative.

Interesting that she called it "the passion of Ayn Rand" and not "the reason of Ayn Rand" LoL.

And that was probably the best thing Barbara Branden ever said. PAR is basically another Mommie Dearest.

Thanks for your unabashed honesty Barbara

Re: "How many critics would dare honestly state these ideas & say. '...and that's what I reject'?" That's a list of platitudes, not "ideas". Anyone can CLAIM he stands for "reason", etc.--or, for that matter "truth, justice, and the American way" (as the old fifties "Superman" TV show used to put it). That means nothing. Calling yourself "rational" doesn't make you rational. Calling yourself an advocate of rationality doesn't make you an advocate of rationality.

@@herbertwells8757 Individual rights is an idea, duh.

Oh the state of America and the West was plainly evident during Rand's time, she saw plenty of it. Today's state of society would be no surprise to her, in fact what's happening now is exactly what she predicted. People say that Atlas Shrugged being published in 1957 was prophetic. It wasn't as much so as people think. The signs and root of our current societal degradation, at least in hindsight, have been visible for over 100 years. Rand was just one of the first to call our attention to it.

That's what I'm gathering. I think I disagree with her a lot but I still really like her.

You need to study

I bet if you guys thought it out all the way through, you wouldn't disagree with her quite as much. Not that I agree with 100% of what she had to say when she was alive, but... *most* of it makes sense. The main hold up in admitting as much for a lot of people, is that it grates against virtually everything they've been taught (from external sources) is "right" their whole lives. Once you get past that though, imo it's pretty easy to see she didn't get much wrong.

Totally. 99% of her critics only know what her through what other critics have said. Yes read Aristotle first then Rand all of their works then tell me how horrible you think she is, until then who really cares what your irrational conclusions amount to.

Jack Sutter what do you disagree with?

Cult leaders have that ability, that magical, mystical charm. Even Donald Trump has it. (Obviously the spell doesn’t bewitch everyone.)

@@herbertwells8757 A cult is a religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. I don't think Rand's saying to live realistically is a religion. She doesn't tell you how to live, you are free to choose between reality and imagination not what you must do, she is only saying that to be an individualist you must live within realty of what's going on around you in the present time.

agree, except about religion... she was spot on about religion as well... surprised that you do not see that

I don't know of a single individual in my life that I have agreed with 100% of the time on 100% of the issues. Not my parents, not my wife, not my kids, not my friends...nobody. I agree with Ayn Rand over 90% of the time. That's pretty amazing. And the small number of issues I disagree with her on...I'm not positive I'm right and she's wrong.

I'm still working on wrapping my head around her definition of selfishness. I believe she's been heavily misinterpreted in that vein, but I need to focus there exclusively until I understand her pov. It's the only aspect of her philosophy I have trouble grasping after reading her most popular books multiple times and the others at least once. They were gifted to me by a sweet man who after we conversed a few months assumed I'd read them. Reading them was like meeting a wise old grandmother whom I never knew.

Out of work unemployed and can't pay your house payment, think again

Finished yet?

It's funny how even under this video not many people understand that!

@Skip White I am not trying to bash her, but some of the things she said seemed to me not feasible. She speaks here about how a man should be rational with self esteem. If nothing else would motivate a man, she and other old women, would all be alone in old age, as no rational man would choose an old, bitter woman to a young , beautiful one. I heard her say how monopolies cannot form under unregulated economic environment, where the government stays away from it. How would she know? there's no example of a government that completely stayed away. Just because monopolies formed under economies where government is active , is no proof that monopolies would not form in free economies. Also, she said no taxes, private roads, private everything. So poor men should stay on house arrest, because they cannot afford to use the roads and a s a consequence they would never have a chance to prosper? What about valuable minds that would not have a chance to shine without a scholarship, or some sort of help to get started? i like personal freedom and not forcing people to sacrifice for others, but she is a little too extreme in a way that would make her ideas not work in real life.

@@Daniela-pr7rz Well- no rational man with self esteem would choose to be with an old woman, unless she was rich or had other features, like intelligence to make her interesting. I think she is mostly right about the claim that monopolies cannot form in unregulated economies. Because if very big corporations did not have the option to bribe politicans, they would have to keep createting value to the custumers, to keep competision at bay. Noting is wrong with a big corporation that creates more value than the competion.

@@Daniela-pr7rz She is a genuine pipe dream with a philosophy that will never be tested, just trying to set it up goes against it's own grain... But she is brilliant.

As a case study...

A mind trapped within the narrow confines of its overbearing, claustrophobic, and insufficiently informed and insufficiently imaginative ideology.

@@herbertwells8757 She simply stated facts.

She stated a philosophy, which helps interpret facts. Nice try guys 👍

You don’t “agree with her”; she has dictated to you what you should think, and you have submitted. She has dictated to you what you should love, and you have submitted.

I do not agree that what she did was react through feelings. Brandon lied to her. He pretended to agree with certain aspects of her value system and received her endorsement and cooperation as a result. When she discovered that he had been misrepresenting himself to her she reacted by cutting him off from her support and exposing his hypocrisy. There are a few areas where I disagree with Rand. Had I been in Nathaniel Brandon's position I would have brought up those differences in discussion. That would have been the honest thing to do. I would have risked losing her support, of course, but that is a risk I would be willing to accept in order to remain an honest person. He was unwilling to do that and chose to lie instead. She reacted rationally.

the RR was a great justice lol

Have you ever had a job? Thats fair.

No she’s saying that someone from whom you seek a job will pay you for the value of your labor.. not necessarily fair in the sense of a comfortable wage.

Ford did.

Lol hell yeah I'm willing to try it. Too bad that is a thing of the past and for books that no one has ever read. I'm 41, I don't know anyone else who has read Atlas shrugged, not one..... I've encouraged everyone I know to read it but I don't think anyone cares, one way or the other. So I say that they will get what they deserve, fuck them they will be fine slaves

The "fair" wage is the market wage, whatever a person can get through voluntary, non-sacrificial dealings with others. But a "living" wage (a meaningless concept), as the altruists demand, is still based on the ethics of sacrifice.

Its always hilarious to me when someone explains that they disagree with someone without stating why. Its like waiting to state an opinion until everyone else has already agreed with it.

I see no reason to disagree with her.

@@drstrangelove09 Your post is four words too long.

@@primategaberocco huh? ... nope... it was correct as is... maybe you can elaborate... how is her views against mysticism wrong? are you saying that mysticism makes sense? this is 2022... and you think there is no such thing as reason...? seriously? you cannot be serious

She was often inconsistent, but was an excellent self-promoter.

Is there a difference between expressing your opinion and intending to instruct?

​@@jscottfischer I would say yes. Opinions are what they are and can be quite free of any factual basis or knowledge of a subject under discussion. Instruction, however, assumes (or so it seems to me) a body of knowledge to be conveyed. Intending to instruct would be grounded in that. I can't imagine Rand seeking to instruct on the basis of mere opinion, as she detested "opinions." Her weak characters exercise and state their "opinions." Ironically she claimed that she did not offer opinions while maintaining throughout her life her decision at the age of 12 or so that there was no God. This was nothing other than an immature opinion formed in youth. But it's a question she seems never to have studied. For an alleged philosopher, she seemed very uninformed about religion and theology, other than to ridicule it by repeating popular, conventional bromides.

@@richardterrell1946 Nothing is more adorable than going to all the old greats interviews and noticing the First year Philosophy students spewing their newly purchased vocabulary words

I would say her art more-so portrayed her philosophy rather than preached it. In which case, it is just an honest expression of herself rather than an exercise in didacticism.

jeep23862. I think you have it backwards. One cannot prove a negative.

jeep23862. When a person wishes to challenge a concept/philosophy/evidence THEY must bring a counter-positive argument to challenge it, provided the original concept has evidence. Example: If I were to say that drinking water kept my brain alive AND I have personal and observed evidence to back my claim, You have every right to not pay any attention to me. If you wish to call it non-sense though, you must bring some kind of explanation/theory/evidence to suggest why. Example 2: if I were to say that ghost exist because I like the idea, but have NO evidence. Then all you can really say is that I have no Reason for such a claim, but you are not called to provide any evidence that they do NOT exist. (Proving a negative) The main thing really is.... what issue do you have with Objectivism specifically?

@jeep23862 Finally someone discussing what she is saying in theís interview. Help me with this one: She denounces religion, was Atheist, yet she often comes back to the notion of being moral and good? How does that work when you dont have responsibility for others, is it a purely utilitarian motivation not to hurt others because they or society will sanction you and you will have done yourself a disservice?

@jeep23862 Sorry, this was not the "Atheists are not moral, because they don't believe" question. Literally I'm asking: How do you define good or moral behaviour? Do you define it by law? Who is to decide who is living up to these standards and who's not? When she says that people, presumably most, are inclined to act morally by themself, if they are free to act solely on their own impulses, she has never considered how corruption or price fixing works? I do understand her background, and in that context, moving to America was a liberation as well as a shock when she learned that the same communist mentality existed there too to some extent, but how did she conclude that society can work without oversight? How would environmental protection work?: Successful farmers around a lake prosper, but the fishermen on the lake have their business destroyed, because of excessive Nitrates, so does the Farmers say "Sorry" we are going to reduce our yield by using less fertilizer by themself? Are these farmers guilty of using "force against another free man" are they guilty of a crime? What one think is reasonable and fair, is often highly offensive and damaging to someones else freedom. How would this ever be manageable in a government free society? The "zero tax" argument with volunteer charity for the disabled should work in principle, But it would also have people dying in the street, because some elderly or sick wouldn't have any close family to support them.

@jeep23862 I think it does, and this is where my sense of balance lies too. I don't know enough about Ayn, to know if she suggested this as a societal model, or her philosophy was intended as a personal compass, she was a filosofer, not a politician. I do think still such a "Randtopia" is more difficult in praxis than it sounds: Let's take tax again because everybody knows it and feel somewhat ambivalent about it: How much is too much before it becomes exploitation? Is 4-6% reasonable, like in tax havens around the world, which is just enough for buying new bulbs for the streetlights when they go out? Or 13-25% in the US or the 55-75% in Scandinavia? I think humans are inclined by evolution to take responsibility in maintaining and protecting the social group they are part of for personal survival reasons, i.e. you don't have to feel others suffering, you simply have an advantage when spending some of your personal food, hunting capability or grooming on your neighbours, for your own benefit. But can a human society agree on what is reasonable? The way things work now in countries with parliamentarism, very few think the amount of tax they pay personably is fair and reasonable, though most people agree that taxes in principle are beneficial. With highway speed limits, we are all glad they are there, but personally I drive above it some of the time. So I think that however free a society is organised, everybody still will feel that they are compromising up to their neck. We do agree on property rights and right to privacy etc. and Communism that doesn't respect that is appalling, but you'll always have an element of "Communism" in such a country, as individuals will be violated still, by either pulling a greater share than the next guy, or having his rights violated when their property is expropriated for a new road. About the last part, I know Ayn would answer that if the state want your property, they'll just have to offer a price you can agree with, and no one will be violated, but this will only work if the homeowner is governed by reason which she says is an admirable trait to strive for, and nobody will just sit on their porch with a shotgun and yell "no", So roads will be longer with more bends in such a society!

Hey look, it's another theory to go with Ayn's theories.

Interesting idea...

@shuroom57 Stephen Bonser 1 month ago Let's not forget that Ayn Rand, a life long chain smoker, lived her last days on public assistance and under free medical care for her lung cancer courtesy of the American Medicare system. Turns out it's just a lot of words brilliantly put together. Reply

27:22 - says at the very end, 1974

Moi aussi

oh, very much so & a refreshing woman because of that

Or very much matter of theory if you will.

Is it? Wallace even emphasised that she said "faith," because in that 1959 interview, her accent made it sound like she was saying "face."

I see!

I appreciate your points. I have been doing a great deal of research. Positive psychology, philospphy, Ayn Rand and The Bible. Modern positive psycology embraces spirituality because it is proven scientifically. Ergo, Rand would be forced to notice, Jesus was a great philosopher too. Of course, those who can't be bothered to understand the Bible are judging on "feeling", not concept. Rands concepts of good and evil are modern, but the concept, not by any means is original. Truly rational, except her hope of mankind (John Galt) makes us all into saviours, if we want to be. Hmmm.

the promotion of the daffodil by humans helps that flower to evolve and flourish...so that is a relationship and not works of any creator god, but good and bad are a matter of use, so whatever floats your boat

Ayn Rand used the term “selfish” equivocally. This is rhetorical sleight of hand for rhetorical effect. “Selfishness” is a quality, not a thing, and thus its pejorative aspect is part and parcel of its denotative meaning. The word cannot reasonably be denuded of its pejorative intent. If you object to its premise, you’re certainly welcome to avoid it altogether or to complain about it, but Rand, rather, twists its meaning to be provocative and still seem virtuous (by her own lights), to have her cake and eat it too. That’s not arguing in good faith. The term “selfish” does not mean “self-reliant”, “”self-confident”, “self-sufficient”, or anything of the sort, just as “childish” doesn’t mean “child-like.” If I were to conflate the latter two terms, I could argue that because it’s admirable to be innocent, playful, and open, it’s also admirable to be petulant and unruly. Clearly there’s a breach of logic here, and it’s the same breach Rand commits every time she extols what she calls “selfishness”.

Someone in her position has not benefit in claiming they believe in God. It just mixes things up and the sheep go crazy with opinions.

I’ve read Atlas Shrugged several times, enjoying it each time (except for John Galt’s tedious and plodding peroration, which I skipped on subsequent readings), much as I enjoyed twice reading Robert Heinlein’s “Stranger in a Strange Land”, for example: that is, in the way that I enjoy engaging genre fiction. While reading Atlas I projected myself into the protagonist, as one is wont to do, but I wonder why you should take her as your heroine otherwise. Because she flits capriciously from lover to lover? Because she inherited her wealth and position from her father? Because she resists any decision involving her company that might not serve to maximize profit, even if it-rather, particularly if it-cuts off railroad service to those who desperately need it? Because she rails against rejection of the gold standard even though gold obviously has no intrinsic value? (It happens to be shiny, hence its appeal to primitives.)

I wanted to be a writer at the age of nine too-and an astronomer at the age of eleven, a classical composer at the age of twelve, a rock guitarist at the age of sixteen. I wanted to be a Beatle at the age of eight and James Bond at the age of ten. At the age of five I wanted to be a grocery-store clerk. It doesn’t matter when you WANTED to do something; it only matters when you actually did it-and whether you did it continuously from then on. (As it happens, I did, in fact, write stories at the age of nine and music from the age of eleven and so on, but I did lots of things back then. I didn’t have to earn a living.)

"Reality is the final arbiter."

Bingo

You can still meet her serious heirs (Peikoff and Binswanger)

yet a derogatory epithet.

Well said. I agree

Yours seems rather unpunctuated.

@@herbertwells8757 like it matters lol

If you reason through it and decide that kindness is a trait that you admire then i guess Rand would probably suggest that you pursue socialising with kind people. She would want those people to be kind through choice rather than obligation though.

@@tribalisnt Kindness is communicating that you enjoy interacting with others, it is a shell in which the message is contained, a la McLuhan if you want, in that sense it is neither a choice nor an obligation, it is a state of mind that flows without conscious intervention. Wouldn't it be a natural way of being human, wouldn't cold efficiency be a choice instead? Her way of being herself makes me very uncomfortable, I cannot say why.

@@rosesprog1722 I would say that both are a choice and most people can be both cold and kind, there is no kind default so to speak. She would want you to be yourself (as long as you are thinking through your decisions in a rationale way) and if you do that and don't like her she'd probably like you. Her delivery and mannerisms aren't everyones cup of tea but she's cool.

Define kindness. if you mean giving the poor money, I believe you're not being kind. Your being altruistic and it causes more damage to that person's life than it helps. If you mean helping that person by giving them advice, becoming their friend, etc. I'm all for it.

@@scottm8579 Oh no, kindness is a state of mind, like smiling, saying a nice word, listening well, softness, not being rude, etc... it is caring about what you say but also about how you say it.