first trans activist! No wonder Jordan Peterson doesn't like her

wow kind of based

That’s cute

She was famously male centered. She disliked what I believe she called 'Female passive-aggressive anti-intellectualism or somesuch. Gotta put it in the context of her times, but yeah, she was not a favorite at any Tupperware parties. She liked intellectual things, and didn't consider most women intellectually gifted.

@@Beyondflix she does kinda look that way, to be honest.

He did 5 sets

That is the same reason why JP is not taken seriously by most researchers.

@@burgerbob7324 e.g., his take on atheism is one strawman after the other. As for the academic community, this is quite true. People claim that it is because his position about pronouns or his overall criticism on the academia, but in reality researchers stopped taking him seriously long before his controversies.

That’s exactly my problem with Rand. Her writing is a thinly veiled manifesto with no sense of compelling characters or narrative. She obviously doesn’t care about the reader, she only wants to propagate her ideas. Contrast Atlas Shrugged with The Stranger by Camus and it’s not even close. Camus writes these utterly compelling, emotionally powerful stories about people you care about and believe in, and reveals his philosophy indirectly by inspiring you to self-reflect. His philosophy is rooted in being human, hers can easily be taken as diminutive towards humanity and emotion, given how little of it she displays in her writing. Also, it doesn’t help that she died penniless and alone, abandoned by family and loved ones. Seems like she might have missed a few ideas…

@totallyUnimodular You have to admit Peterson is extremely influential. He’s absolutely ruthless towards modern university academics, so of course they dismiss him, he leaves them no choice. But that doesn’t make him wrong. I’ve listened to his lectures and courses, and found his teaching compelling, personally helpful in a practical way, impeccably well researched, and backed by valid data. He almost always points out when he’s stating opinions, or when he’s not sure but conjecturing, or when his arguments are weak. He can come off as a bit paranoid, and he’s extremely emotional, which makes some people uncomfortable.

@@totallyUnimodular but he is tho... he's a top 0.1% of researchers when talking about publication and citations

Yeah, Sean was like 'I like having a job, the cool kids don't like her so I don't bother...also, collectivism is kinda cool innit?'

No serious academic cares about Ayn Rand

@@alexcipriani6003 does that say something about her or them?

@@rvc121 her

@@alexcipriani6003 well, i guess we disagree. Have a nice day.

I’ve read it 100 times. Pure gold!

Yes, her ethical philosophy mostly, while touching on the rest of her philosophy. She has many other writings that can explain her entire philosophy in more depth. Her philosophy is airtight in my opinion, which is partly why I think most philosophers ignore her. They don't like that she's solved the Is-Ought problem.

Why is altruism a good thing? Give me one good reason, just one!!!!

@@thememaster7 What you call altruism, other people call investing. Think about it. A woman goes on welfare as she has a child to feed. Living off other people allows her to write. Ayn Rand would have demanded she quit mooching off others and support herself. Thus J. K. Rowling would never have written Harry Potter, and give gainful employment to the people making the movies, or merchandising her characters.

She did in no way solve the problem, but decided that it did not exist. The best arguments that bring down the whole philosophy are real life examples, from psychopaths over groups like ISIS.

That is a mistake, obviously

please, she was an idiot

Objectivism has a university. You can't create a university without intelligent people.

Jerry Falwell’s family has a university. The Scientologists have a University. Even Trump claimed to have a University. I cannot find any listing of an Objectivist university. There is an Institute, but it is not a University.

100% agree with this. Fragments of Rand’s thinking are somewhat useful but more often than not her apologists and defenders don’t appear to be that bright. Amusingly, they think they’re very bright and it’s everyone around them that isn’t. In my 20 year career, I’ve found Rand-style thinking to be a hallmark of driven people lacking in intelligence. That’s conservatism in general though. Even as a conservative philosopher, Roger Scruton acknowledged this.

Ooooo, fascinating! The criticism that she should have loved the libertarian party?

People who critisize her sound like broken records lol. If you know of better ones, please fill me in; would actually be refreshing in a way.

I think her critics can be summarized as: - Read her fiction and use that a summary of her philosophy (90%) - Read her non-fiction and did not think about it (9%) - Read her non-fiction and understood it (1%)

Dan Brown is trash! But so, too, is poetry!

THANK YOU. I was trying to find a good analogy

Very good analogy.

@@toddsmith5715 how is that a good analogy? She was a philosopher. The reason they ignore ger is because she belive in reason and selfishness and they don't like that.

.Way to miss the point entirely. @@rvc121

Yes. With a lil spice?

@@OtakuRicky All Praise Shai-hulud! :P

and a little bit of sandra in the sun

And that's an instult to the witch doctors. Because witch doctors at least provided placebo and sense of meaning.

Not sure what she means there, when did she say that?

Ayn said that numerous times including on national tv with Mike Wallace. She meant existentialist philosophers create a sense of confusion vs objective rationality

Lmao, read Plato or Heraclitus. Those are actual philosophers. Rand is a political writer, and not even good at that.

totally. coming from the soviet rule she was a genius. yes she had problems, but her explanation, the russian explanation of struggle and why, reducing it the way she did was pure genius.

Right. I see her as anti-socialist propaganda. It gets repetitive and has limited applicability.

Solzhenitsyn hated communism too, but he could actually write a compelling story.

@@brianphilippoi349 so everyone should give away their rights to the government ? And why do you owe capital earned by me?

Butt hurt Rand fan

But its a fact that humans are effected by nature and biology?

@@avokado9444 Yes. Absolutley.

@@DeeperWithDiego then why should you not ignore her if she discount that fact?

@@avokado9444 She didn't.

I like the way Camus said it: “The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”

To philosophically teach how to think is to teach epistemology. Each philosop[hy has its own epistemology. If the "philosophy professors" are correctly teaching studenta how to think, they are teaching the right epistemology. So, the students should then discard any epistemology the "philosophy professor" is teaching about another's philosophy. This is insane.

as you take in more and more information from your enviroment, logic would suggest you need to adjust your philosophy accordingly, if you were starting from scratch and building your own philosophy as the vast majority of people do in reality, religion or no religion, its an operating system, most are flawed as most things are.

We can admire her and also not think highly of her philosophy at the same time

Maybe the fact that she is pro reason is the real problem they have with her. The only pro reason philosophers that are being taught today, to my knowledge are the greeks.

This.

When I search: "Friedrich Hayek individualism" and "Robert Nozick individualism" the word individualism doesn't come up. Can you send me anything they said about it?

Nope, because since you know your subjective values best, you can optimise to them best.

@@KimOyhus how does this differ from simply being called " my life" and not a philosophy. If in "my life" I would do X and in "my life" another would do Y. Which part of that of that is objective. Especially when there is an ideal, of her own choosing. If the ideal is for instance John Galt. And not say Christ or Muhammad or Buddha or whoever. Best to call your own philosophy randism or galtism. But there's nothing objective about Objectivism

@@Undone545 - The difference is that some people try to optimise for other people, to the detriment of themselves. And since they do not properly know the values of other people, they fail with them too.

this.

@@Undone545 the objective part on Rands philosophy is reality. People are subjective, they choose different values they want different things and it’s ok, it’s perfectly compatible.

Did you not understand where that idea comes from? It's not his idea.

Well someone told him ayn rand was cool in the conservative circles so whenever he talks to someone not in that echo chamber, he wants to know why they dont want to be in that echo chamber with the other people he likes...

​@@coachgoody421 She ain't cool in conservative circles. Her philosophy leads to atheism.

Exactly.

The irony is you're a trump supporter.

@@BebehCookieIcecream based on what, you ignoramus?

Yes because I'm sure you've fully read Ayn Rand's full works. Care to educate us instead of just dropping a useless comment?

@@kiandinyari3740 I've got all of her collective works on display on the bookshelf in my living room, but I still wouldn't make a KZfaq video trying to dissect her philosophical views for the public, not without doing a lot of preparation to make sure I got all the details right. And I don't even have a huge platform of viewers. If neither person in a conversation has a genuine understanding or even serious interest in a complex subject, why even bring it up, much less stumble through explaining it? There are plently of subjects I have little to no interest or knowledge of- so I don't talk about them. Especially in a public forum with lots of viewers.

@@BebehCookieIcecream how long will Trump haunt your every thought?

there is nothing legitimate about NFTs

@@kurokamei this is the legacy of the Frankfurt school and postmodernism. It wasn't always like that

Yes, her whole ideology boils down to being a selfish piece of shit, which is inherently destructive. Secondly, she is also universally hated for preaching against government and in favor of individual responsibility while living off social programs - it makes her a hypocrite that doesn’t even lead her own life according to her philosophy.

Or they could do something more productive, like...literally anything else!

@@ComradeYinkai boo hoo boo hoo

Ugh, if you slogged through that once, why subject yourself to it again?

Ayn rand critics: “Trust my senses to show me reality, and use my mind to integrate that information and determine what’s best for me? BOOO I want to think that I’m a pathetic worm!”

There's hilarious irony in her being considered 'dismissed', for sure. She's a damn philosophical meme at this point and little else. She's the epitome of shallow strawman-ridden and half-thought political positions and this had made her works smashingly popular.

@@jacobunderwood4957 My two biggest gripes with her are the assumption she makes that the most brilliant minds in society must be laissez faire capitalists and her complete ignorance of economics and American economic history.

The hilarious irony is in her collecting Social Security and her foundation taking Paycheck Protection Program loans from the government. A bunch clowns that don't practice what they preach. And people wonder why are not taken seriously.

@@RaulGarcia-ps9ri nope she did have to pay the taxes for it although unwilling that alone makes it justifiable that she was on welfare

@@t.a6159 that's a wierd comment on a philosopher who claimed that your purpose in life is your own life and happiness.

@@t.a6159 She objected to the initiation of force and claimed that any relationship between two or more individuals should Be based on consent and not coorcion. Sounds like her political ideas of the rights to life, property, liberty and the prasuit of happiness flow naturally from her belive that each human being should prasuit he's own well being and happiness. Maybe you should check your premises.

It is a fact; you just cannot admit it. You are a product of your culture.

@@edstrandberg2448 well, i am also vert suspicious when people say that there are facts that only they can see and that see. But i guess it's also my culture fault. I will still believe the facts i can actually see that human beings are effected by their culture only of they choose to. And you can believe whatever you want to believe.

@@rvc121 yes, it is. I’m glad you agree, because cultural bias effects everyone. Unless you’re some kind of ubermensch, that is.

@@rvc121 i lead my life my own way, according to the dictates of conscience. Nevertheless, culture is omnipresent and inescapable. Even going against the grain, or “rebelling”, is a part of the cultural dynamic, just another thread in the fabric.

​@@edstrandberg2448 Where did culture come from?

She was a narcissistic zionist hedonite

@@mattthelearner2797 So, I'm really *not* keen to fan a flame here, but I really do want to ask *you* something, then. Not about her. I want to know about *you*. How would *you* describe *yourself*, in relation to *her* given what you've just said. Really now, I'm not trying to hurt you; I'm just curious. Dare you speak?

@@lashropa I'm against extreme individualism, hedonism and zionism

@Germán Diago I know what individualism is. And I know that there are different levels of it. You could even say that the good thing about the west (with respect to other cultures) is that it gives more importance to the individual. The problem is when a certain kind of individualism leads to consumerism, which in turn corrodes a nation, its identity and the individual himself. Collectivism as in absence of private property or free trade is evil, but again there are different levels of it. You have to exist in a society, a nation and the requirements for it are not merely being nice to others. You have to contribute with labour, having children (if you can) and defending the soil (if necessary). If you think about it, if you are not down to this, then you are only taking and never giving.

Not to get emotional but f that type of mentality.

I would say ignorance more-so than corruption. But still, like.

@@smoothinvestigator Her ideas correspond to reality. The fact that that has not been recognized in academia is an indication of an ailment. Read her for yourself.

@@smoothinvestigator Perhaps she likes this person *for a reason* .

A statement made by LOSERS

Because her ideas are correct.

With that logic the same argument could be made for altruism-based philsophies as caused by neurosis.

That might need some explanation. I’ll admit that while I’ve read most of her novels, I’m unaware of her hatred for libertarians.

@@derekmcaleer2386 check out the book Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A. In the table of content check out the section on libertarians. She does not hold back

@@lamalamalex thanks! I’ll check that out.

It was the dumbest thing to come out of his mouth, It was the other way round Rand had massive influence on Libertarians. And in turn Aristotle had a massive influence on Rand, it is the height of ignorance not understand Ayn wasn't in her own vacuum, her philosophy is tried to classical enlightenment philosophy and very little with the German school. Maybe there is an element of sexism with people like Sean Kelly. If Rand was a man, maybe they would have listened.

@@kalidesu The minute he said, maybe his faulty grasp is because he misunderstood her was very telling. Clearly he’s wrong. And what does he do? Go back to see where he went wrong? Correct his errors? No. The convo should’ve ended right there. He’s not fit to speak adequately about the topic, he has no knowledge of it.

Your argument doesn't even make sense. ''I don't know you, so you're opinion can immediately be disregarded.'' is not a valid argument.

Most singularly evil character in all of literature. For you to feel confident enough to bestow that honor on her is a testament why no likes Ayn Rand and her fan base.

Because she argued that acting on this principle ultimately contributes to your own wellbeing, like the principle of integrity and the principle of honesty.

Scary thought. An Artificial intelligence based on the personality of Ayn Rand? I keep wondering who will win between Siri and Lexi.

@@richardlecomte6839 Rand would shrug those basic b*tches

What u sayin'?

@@neththom999 Rand collected welfare

@@neththom999 Rand was a basic bitch. Hehe

If it's easy to see it riddled with logical fallacies as a teen, it's not going to get any better as you age. When you're young is when you're most susceptible to poorly thought out ideas.

@@HandSolitude and what about the possibility that you didn't read it carefully enough? Also my point is that those two works of fiction are a good starting point but it's pretty difficult to put together a coherent framework out of it. Not going to happen if you just read them as novels. That's why Peikoff is such a brilliant teacher. If nothing else, you'll learn how to teach better. I took his entire intro to logic course on audio and wrote notes for every lecture. I didn't think it was possible to follow along a course on logic with audio alone. I was pleasantly surprised!

Bingo. Its obvious a majority of the people in these comments know not what they speak of in regards to Rand or Objectivism.

@@HandSolitude Hello mcc4m1sh. Could you please describe some of those "logical fallacies" that you truly located within one or more of Rand's books? You said it's easy to see. Also, could you please describe "poorly thought out ideas" that you truly located within one or more of Rand's books? Were you making serious remarks after thinking about Rand's actual statements and her actual ideas as presented by her, or were you just repeating subjective criticisms that someone else superficially stated to you? I ask these questions because Rand invested quite a few years authoring each of her books while doing thorough editing and rewriting and testing of her premises and propositions. Additionally, she regularly opened up herself and her writings to so-called experts in the field of philosophy to please come forward and debate with her seriously, rationally, and intellectually ... and none of them would come forward to accept her invitations and none of them offered any real challenge to what she wrote. Thanks.

In the opening paragraphs of her “ Virtue of Selfishness” She makes a obvious mistake, of straw-manning. She compares and contrasts her version of selfishness with “Altruism” And she defines ( without giving a source) Altruism to hold that anything done for others is good, and anything done for oneself is bad. This is a absurd notion of altruism, which, I’m not surprised she doesn’t provide a source for, because essentially nobody believes such a thing. And this barely 5 paragraphs in. She claims that her notion of altruism is reasonable, by pointing readers to her own novel, “Atlas Shrugged”, which is frankly, not a credible source in ascertaining If her use of altruism is reasonable. Which, she uses to justify her definition of selfishness. Later on, in the segment “ The Cult on moral Greyness” She claims that if asked “ Surely you don’t think in black and white” The answer should be “ Damn right I do” the segment is about how morality cannot be made of shades of grey, because of the slippery slope of from grey to black ( arguing that grey lead to black) , and because grey is a mix of white and black, and so grey requires white and black to exist. You need good and bad to define neutral. She claims that morality is black and white, due to such reasons. However this is blatantly false. You dont need good/bad to define neutral. You just need extreme Vs extreme, without making value judgements of either side to define neutral. You don’t need to know which side is good or and you define grey, you just need to know grey is in the middle of the two. Her argument is also weak, because it assumes a binary, outlook. Things are either good/bad, moral or immoral. However, such a binary notion is not proven to be true. It could be the case that actions exist on multitudes of levels, and are good and bad at the same time. She hasn’t showcased why morality has the property of being binary. She claims believing in the “grey” leads to bad morality. But doesn’t prove it at all. She just makes claims with no evidence.

No one ignores Philosophers. Its like saying why you are not a historian and take interest in that stuff? Because its not your field of work. And in modern fields like AI people do consult philosophers. Sow what are you on about?

@@episteme8650 You're complaining about a strawman which isn't me or what I typed.... so re-read what I typed or go off and attack your imaginary argument you had with yourself.

Hello Laertes Indeed. I like your question, I think your observation is good, and I'll offer a view about it. I'm an engineer, and in engineering we usually cannot get our work done without resolving the contradictions that are often a natural part of customer desires and a natural part of solving invention puzzles. We often use physics principles, financial models, conceptual debate, and prototyping to help us sort it out. We have to mentally test, adjust, and refine our concepts before committing significant money and time, and we must try our best to ensure that our suggestions and designs will pass challenges and evaluations from other accountable scientists and business people. We're required to research and evaluate how our ideas will interface with objective material realities and operator handling. Many of us in scientific fields can become upset and frustrated when we must partner with another person who is being evasive about details, or tries to make politics more important than product integrity, or tries to insert irrelevant variables. I have read primary perspectives and claims of many philosophers, both modern and not so modern. Not only did I discover that their ideas are fairly easy to defeat by using basic logic and basic questions, but often they defeat themselves within their own materials, thus saving us the time and effort. An example of this can be found in Kant's writings. Kant contends that the distorting mechanism is man’s conceptual faculty itself. Kant said that in order for knowledge to be valid it must not be processed in any way by a human consciousness. He said that only when knowledge is independent of human perception can it be considered valid. He said that real truth is unknowable because to know it a person would have to relate to reality directly without depending upon their own conceptual mechanism. Any ten year old child could tell Kant that his primary thesis is self-defeating, corrupt, and nonsensical. Kant must certainly have known that he’s being bogus, because as a man he necessarily must include himself in the human population, and this necessarily would make his own ideas meaningless because he said that a human cannot know anything. He must surely have realized that he cannot assume an ability for himself which he himself has already stated cannot exist for any human. He wants to get away with making claims of his own, while simultaneously claiming that no human may make any valid claims. It's my opinion that, if he was being honest with his readers, Kant would have ensured that every one of his own published books must include a first page which warns the reader: "Dear reader, in this book of mine that you are about to read I will continually try to persuade you that no human can know anything, and therefore my own ideas require you to consider my own ideas to be invalid because I am a human just like you. Therefore, it is a waste of your time to read my book, and probably it will be a net-negative to you because it will twist your thinking into knots and cause you to lose general confidence in the integrity and intelligence of academics and authors". But Kant did not include this introductory warning to his readers as he probably should have. And Kant is still currently one of the most influential trusted sources of philosophical training within our system of modern college campuses. My opinion is that Rand was perhaps the first philosopher who went to extraordinary efforts to ensure that her proposals and premises were logical, that her ideas ought to always be tested against reality, that her presentations were free of contradictions, and that any philosophy ought to be intended for guiding real people to handle real life conditions, opportunities, and challenges. I have not been able to locate any other philosophy authors who bothered with making this combination of normal reasonable efforts to support their own models and frameworks. Rand outlined an important series of six stages for properly creating and maintaining a philosophy: metaphysics is first (before doing anything else start with naming the realities of existence without self-conflict), then epistemology is second (name the reliable method for a human to learn and know about those realities of existence named in step one), then ethics is third (name what is right/good and what is wrong/bad in alignment with the first two prior steps), then politics is fourth (non-contradictory community governance), then economics is fifth (non-contradictory community environment for building, trading, and property ownership), then aesthetics is sixth (artistic modeling of ideals). Each step must remain consistent with the claims, conditions, and conclusions of all the prior steps. As an example, one should not present their ideas about ethics or politics until and unless one has first defined and tested a realistic and accurate metaphysics and epistemology at prior steps. And those ideas about ethics or politics cannot conflict with the what is said about metaphysics and epistemology at prior steps. This approach helps prevent contradictions and helps preserve rationality in the philosophy. Philosophers other than Rand do not follow these obvious important rules, and Rand follows them. I believe that this is why many engineers and scientists and intelligent business people often feel comfortable and respectful regarding Rand, and they enjoy reading and discussing Rand's ideas and views. Rand used a rational approach and Rand held herself to a standard of rationality that is similar to the standard that is required of engineers, scientists, and intelligent business people. While the other philosophers never bothered with using a rational approach of this nature to self-edit and self-filter and self-test their own ideas prior to publishing those ideas. (for example, see my notes about Kant in my previous paragraphs). Therefore, it should not surprise any of us when engineers, scientists, or intelligent business people consider most of the available philosophy presentations to be incoherent, nonsensical, and not worthwhile. Cheers, Mike.

It depends on what you mean by 'feminist'. Rand certainly was all about equal rights. In this sense she certainly could be considered a feminist and I think Lex meant to use the term in this sense as well.

She also had a great mind, and perhaps it takes a great mind to receive her message.

@@peteMickeal33 Ah yes the Marxist's who dominate academia and who also seems to have zero influence on economic policies of western countries.

@@peteMickeal33 lmao or maybe And Rand is a terrible model for objectivism

@@peteMickeal33 Ayn Rand didn't live up to her own views. She lost all credibility when she took money from the government.

@@kris3451 no, cuz Rand didn't have to take money from the government.

Yeah, respectful, kind, open, and tolerant people don't usually like the obtuse and myopic ramblings of Ayn Rand.

Yes, true selfishness means long-range rational egoism. It means coming to know how much of a value other people can be and extolling effort in order to start and build friendships, because it ultimately contributes to your own wellbeing over the entire span of your life.

​@@luukzwart115 lol how bout no... you think it was selfishness that got us to dominate the planet or thousands of years of curbing primitive behaviors incongruent with the development and spreading of complex civil society?

​@@chad872 I give you that rational egoism didn't have much to do with the development of civilization. That's because rational egoism hasn't been consistently practiced by any civilization throughout history. That's why even the most individualistic cultures of today still regard it as a vice, rather than a virtue.

​@@luukzwart115 "That's because....That's why...." Got any evidence or just conjecture? What if these principles/behaviors already existed before they were given a label and were so significantly disadvantagous it was weeded out through the course of human history.

@@chad872 What if. . . what if. . . It's ironic that you're accusing me of not coming up with any evidence when you don't have any evidene for your 'what if's'. Every culture known to man placed more emphasis on altruism than on rational-egoism/selfishness. If you've got any civilization in mind which didn't, let me know👍

Appeals to the masses is fallacious

is not irrelevant. It is a weird anomaly worth analizing. It leads to understanding how the Frankfurt school operates

@@samanthaqiu3416 the only thing a decent man with common sense can do, is to debate all evil, demonstrating the power of truth in every sphere of life. There is no other options to fight bad philosophy back.

@@TyyylerDurden you cannot fight effectively what you don't want to understand

Hahaahahhahahahah. Your username is so telling. You must be a 14-18 year old who thinks they are enlightened. No one is appealing to authority, her ideas and argumentation is just pure shit, constantly uses strawmans and poor rhetoric. She's like Kayne, makes good/amazing art, buts whose philosophy is motivated by ego and a false sense of self-importance and enlightenment.

@@wildbeast99t I give you only one question, just like I give it to all clowns, pretending to diminish her thoughts: give me at least some of her ideas with a detailed exposal provided with decent arguments. If you can't do it, then everybody will see that you are merely a cheap junkie.

@@nofurtherwest3474 no.

@nofurtherwest No, the amateur pseudo-intellectual that was sitting across from Lex. It reminds me of one of the idiosyncrasies that differ between British and American institutes of higher education. Most often, if you ask an american about their educational history they will say "I received a degree in bla bla from such and such institution" and if you ask the same question of a british person they will very frequently say "I read bla bla subject at such and such institution" ...where the literal interpretation of the latter in any american mind would be to mutter under our breath we don't care what they read, we want to know if they understood it and can apply it and add to it in some novel or original or creative way. This guy sitting across from Lex is not british.....but the entire interview was just him spewing out what some other people said; and not judging or evaluating what they said compared to our current knowledge. Moreover, quoting from somebody who was wrong but famous doesn't make it less wrong.

She did?

She disliked taxes and that is where her taxes went to so of course she did

My opinion ofc, but the difference for me is Camus wrote haunting, beautiful stories with characters that could rip your heart out, and his philosophy was omnipresent and obviously well-formed, but mysterious, a constant discovery through your own reflection. Rand, on the other hand, wrote dry, ball-achingly boring, thinly veiled manifestos with a focus on telling you her ideas, not revealing them with a compelling story. I don’t necessarily disagree with her philosophy, I just think she’s a terrible, God-awful writer.

1. Try to tell that to scholars of Heidegger, Hegel or Kant. You can literally believe that babies born out of wedlock should be murdered and be studied in academia. You only need to be an important and influential thinker. 2. Neither did Nietzsche, Camus, or even the Poststructuralists. Marx is primarily called a philosopher, what the fuck are you talking about? And The Capital is a very systematic work. 3. Yeah, neither do actual philosophers.

She s an awfull awfull thinker and writer. She has litterally NO academic following because she litterally dont have a academic work. As for libertarians and people reflecting on the tyranny of the state , people like Robert Nozick are great US thinker that we re studying here in France in political science schools. Ayn Rand to him is what 50 Shades of grey is to our Sade

@@ElieSanhDucos0 Well, you don't need to write academic works order to be studied academicaly. And novels can absolutely be studied interdisciplinarily by political scientist and philosophers, hers are just garbage.

Because despite her words, what is evident in Atlas Shrugged is that the allegedly selfish people who just try to mind their own business and build stuff by effort and merit are actually the ones benefiting society by their efforts, AND they are not NEARLY as selfish as the people doing the accusing. The latter use accusations of selfishness to guilt and manipulate the hard working, or as an excuse to use government force to steal from and sabotage them for personal gain and/or out of envy and resentment of their accomplishments. Regardless of the poor labels used by adopting the slander of the disingenuous, she paints an accurate picture of the evils of socialism and the goodness of what used to be called the protestant work ethic. All of that is profoundly Christian despite the admittedly poor labels and her own lack of faith. I seriously doubt people who say stuff like you just did have actually read her work, but just accepted the demonizing rhetoric that comes from the religious fervor of people dedicated to preserving the blood soaked vanity project of equality of outcome. That is not to say I'd defend her person life, just that she has some spot on understanding of the allegedly "greater good" folks underneath her mediocre novel writing skills, and they hate her for it with a passion. The rest talk like you, apparently not actually knowing what she was writing but just accept the misframing that she was advocating ruthless and destructive short term self interest over any common good for society, which isn't what is depicted or championed in the novel at all. It's not hard really. Try reading the book instead of judging by the cover.

@@TheJeremyKentBGross well I did but I also read the Bible. Jesus said Ayn didn't know what the fuck she was talking about. I'm paraphrasing but yeah, that's what he said

@@seanfaherty I read the Bible as well, in it's entirety, more than once cover to cover. I'm now an agnostic atheist, but I don't see how you reach that conclusion at all whatsoever. The folks running around screaming how everything isn't fair or equal and that the successful are greedy and should give them everything in Atlas Shrugged don't remotely resemble any morality presented in the Bible. They look like Cain who killed his brother for being hard working and successful, just like real life Socialists do.

@@TheJeremyKentBGross "cover to cover" X

@@havelyntherockelyn1576 I don't care if you believe me or not, it's true. I was raised in a young earth creationist and abstinence only environment, and home schooled for most of grade school where I was frequently encouraged to read it myself from a young age. I read tons of parts randomly even as a kid including stuff that they never put in sermons, but when I was 19 I was going through a lot of personal stuff and read it all the way through 2x in one year, once in only 4 months. Although to steelman your criticism, it was with a "read through the Bible in a year" plan which divided reading into some Old Testament, some New Testament, some Psalms and some Proverbs per "session." The content of each session was sequential from each section and together it was comprehensive. So you could argue that was in it's entirety but not proper "cover to cover", EXCEPT: the Bible I had was reorganized for reading through in a year with this method, so I still technically read it cover to cover, multiple times, even though admitted in the normal ordering it would have been harder because of some long boring stretches in especially the OT.

that's pretty solid

And it was the most superficial, lazy, strawmanned and catered to emotion critique of Objectivism I've ever come across. Other academics at least try to get to know the ideas Rand stood for.

@@luukzwart115 Would you be willing to provide a more in-depth critique of Ayn Rands philosophy? Thank you!

@@520LUNNY On the Randian argument - Robert Nozick A Critique of Ayn Rand's Epistemology - Scott Ryan

They don't think it, they just want other people to think it.

Could you provide some statements of Rand which prove your words regarding "ignoring" of all the philosophers? She didn't ignore any of philosopher; she CRITISIZED and EXAMINED them carefully, instead of those like you, who simply accept every equivocation without any doubts.

@@TyyylerDurden Shey actually says she was only influenced by Aristotle. I have heard her say that in interviews a few times. And she does say that she ignored everyone else. She didnt need to regard the work of other basically

@@scottgascoyne I haven't heard her saying that she had ignored everyone except Aristotle. Aristotle inspired her because he applied reason to existence on Earth in order to achieve a decent and harmonic life. Other philosophers were also explored very carefully, otherwise how could she disagree with them?

@@scottgascoyne That's not true. She rejected (not ignored) most philosophers, and was positively influenced by Aristotle, and to some degree Thomas Aquinas. Leonard Peikoff (Ayn Rand's intellectual heir) has two courses on History of Philosophy, the first one is available for free and is amazing! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hs-dpdqX0NTWd30.html

@@markv785 I believe it refers to this remark by Ayn Rand: Recorded live before New York City audiences in 1976, this course was endorsed by Rand in print as “the only authorized presentation of the entire theoretical structure of Objectivism, i.e., the only one that I know of my own knowledge to be fully accurate.” Rand attended the entire course and participated in eight of the twelve question-and-answer sessions. kzfaq.info/sun/PLqsoWxJ-qmMvgfp2mg-AAFnCROvtu9NVR

Yea this guy drank the “woke” kool-aid. Anyone who considers privilege a thing to be discussed in philosophy loses credibility

@@dirtymeatball6315 Yes.... as if men born today have no expectations or limitations on them because they are men...... this guy sitting across from Lex was a buffoon.

If one is right, how are they amoral? Do you discard justice?

There are conservative and libertarian philosophers who are influential. Burke and Nozick being two prominent examples. Your hypothesis is thereby disproved. Ayn Rand is not influential simply because her philosophy is so bad. I don't mean evil. I mean poorly thought through: easily debunked. Her claims are grandiose and her products are mediocre.

@@paulprescod6150 You're very abysmal at logic if you think anything you typed disproves the original commenter.

She was not a conservative. She was a staunch atheist.

@@Weirdomanification those are not mutually exclusive terms

Back-pedaled, even. But yes, I agree..... the rolling of my eyes could have competed in a drag race when he answered by spitting out a stupid lie about how only a woman figures out there are expectations and limitations on them.... as if men aren't also born into a world that has expectations on them and limitations on them.

@@laertesindeed "I think it was easier for her to recognise that than Sartre because she was women." People hear what they wanna hear...

his backpeddled fart of an answer (awesome description) actually answers the question: philosophy schools don't acknowledge their existence and hope everyone plays along pretending it doesn't exist. Which is what meant a 150% redpill for me about what the Frankfurt school is really about (not intellectual honesty, to begin with)

@@mchlnhs You heard wrong, as did he.

@@samanthaqiu3416 Agree with your latter comment.... but just fyi... "peddling" is a synonym for selling things... "back-pedaling" is the word for what the guy sitting across from Lex was doing. Pedaling is not peddling.

Or because she offered a philosophy that allow man to understand the world around him. Or because her ethics are about achieving a long and happy life wich i for one want to achieve.