PDA

View Full Version : [VIDEO] Ayn Rand interviewed by Johnny Carson




f r e e s t y l e
07-31-2013, 04:14 PM
This interview is almost more relevant now than it was in 1967. (46 years ago! damn.)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBmViYDlrjU


...some foreign policy stuff in around the 17:15 minute mark as well.

Legend1104
07-31-2013, 08:02 PM
As a believer in a higher power I see objectivism as in error. I would definitely understand how an atheist could support the idea because without a belief in a higher power then the best creator of a moral standard would be rational human reason developed by philosophy over many years, but since I believe in a higher power and believe that the moral standard is derived from God I cannot support the ideals of objectivism.

The Free Hornet
07-31-2013, 10:35 PM
As a believer in a higher power I see objectivism as in error. I would definitely understand how an atheist could support the idea because without a belief in a higher power then the best creator of a moral standard would be rational human reason developed by philosophy over many years, but since I believe in a higher power and believe that the moral standard is derived from God I cannot support the ideals of objectivism.

You really ought to learn what Objectivism is.


Objectivism regards reason as an absolute. It holds that all knowledge is based on the evidence of the senses. It holds that all beliefs, conclusions, and convictions must be established by logical methods of inquiry and tested by logical methods of verification. In short, it holds that the scientific approach applies to all areas of knowledge.

http://www.atlassociety.org/religion_objectivism

It is [B]you who are excluding "God"/"higher power" from the evidentiary world, not vice versa. Bring your facts to the table, don't bitch about not having a seat there.

Legend1104
07-31-2013, 11:24 PM
You really ought to learn what Objectivism is.



It is [B]you who are excluding "God"/"higher power" from the evidentiary world, not vice versa. Bring your facts to the table, don't bitch about not having a seat there.

Man I love you! The way you instantly see my comments as some kind of an attack on objectivism or what not is so funny. I am not attacking objectivism, Ayn Rand, or atheists. I was simply stating that objectivism makes perfect sense if you don't believe in God and if I was an atheist then I would probably support something very close to objectivism, but since I believe in God as the ultimate creator of moral law, then the need for the system of objectivism for me is moot.

There is absolutely no need to get angry or defensive since my statement wasn't any kind of attack but merely an expression of my belief. I guess from now on I will put some kind of disclaimer before my posts to set up my intention.

P.S. I full well understand what objectivism is. Nothing in my statement stated objectivism incorrectly. I guess you could argue peanuts over the word "error" but I guess I could edit it here to say, "As a believer in a higher power I see the need of objectivism, for me, to be moot."

Greet to talk too ya.

fr33
07-31-2013, 11:40 PM
My main objection to Ayn Rand is because of my own personal analysis. I give to charities because I feel bad for them. It doesn't make me feel good afterwards. I still feel bad for them.

The Free Hornet
08-01-2013, 12:02 AM
I was simply stating that objectivism makes perfect sense if you don't believe in God and if I was an atheist then I would probably support something very close to objectivism, but since I believe in God as the ultimate creator of moral law, then the need for the system of objectivism for me is moot.

But it doesn't. BTW, it is "Objectivism" (big O) because it is a proper noun. Strictly, Objectivism is defined as the philosophy of Ayn Rand. If you want to generalize it - a cause I might support - then the small "o" is acceptable. Since the context of the OP makes the subject clear, some respect is due and it is clear which is correct.

Back to why Objectivism doesn't follow from atheism. Mainly, atheism is not a premise and it is hardly a conclusion. At best it is a judgement of those who refuse to bring facts to the table.


Nothing in my statement stated objectivism incorrectly.

You put the cart before the horse. I actually admired and read several of Ayn Rands fiction and non-fiction books before becoming an atheist (or acknowledging that is what I became, in effect). It was while reading some Nathaniel Branden stuff, not Ayn Rand. Honestly, the "is there" question never really interested me all that much and I've gone to church more than most believers likely ever will (you could say I went religously every week for 20 years plus a few years as a server, so extra helpings).

Objectivism doesn't attempt to answer the question "Is there a god?". It is a negative atheism, and - from that perspective - unimportant.

BTW, per the definition - the Philosophy of Ayn Rand - I do not consider myself an Objectivist any more. I part ways on the IP issue, coercive taxation [edit - my bad - this isn't true] (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?422934-VIDEO-Ayn-Rand-interviewed-by-Johnny-Carson&p=5155284&viewfull=1#post5155284), and - somewhat - on the pre-emptive use of force (arguably, the Soviet born Jew was a little too anti-Soviet at times). Anyway, the foreign policy banner waved by ARI folks is what I've found more offensive so that issue is very debatable.

paulbot24
08-01-2013, 12:34 AM
"Objectivism regards reason as an absolute. It holds that all knowledge is based on the evidence of the senses. It holds that all beliefs, conclusions, and convictions must be established by logical methods of inquiry and tested by logical methods of verification. In short, it holds that the scientific approach applies to all areas of knowledge."

Damn that sounds boring. Isn't the fact that not everything fits into a test tube a good thing? What about the fact that our senses reveal only that which passes through the filters we have created for ourselves? Our senses aren't always right and we humans are always wrong.

f r e e s t y l e
08-01-2013, 01:09 PM
...but since I believe in a higher power and believe that the moral standard is derived from God I cannot support the ideals of objectivism.
What you hold faith in is yours to hold. The philosophy of Objectivism requires that you make your case with logic and reason, as opposed to resting it on personal faith. Rand argues the "morals standard" for man's life is, man's life (inalienable right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness -- as TJ put it). Whether inalienable rights are derived from nature or a Creator is, at least, outside the realm of politics.


Some of the Declaration's journalistic allusions are not relevant today, but its principles still are: above all, the concept of individual rights. There is, however, one minor fault on the level of fundamentals: the idea that men are endowed with rights by their Creator rather than by Nature. This is an issue of the choice of language. Philosophically, it doesn't change the Declaration's meaning.

Also, see: Textbook on Americanism, http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/textbook.htm




Religious conservatives / Faith


Question: We are told that religion is our best protection against communism. Why do you say we should keep religion out of politics?

Ayn Rand: For the same reason the Founding Fathers gave. Religion is a private matter. There are many different religions. The difference between religion and philosophy is that religion is a matter of faith. You either have faith or you don't. You cannot argue about it. But when you deal with philosophy, you deal with reason and logic. That is an objective element of language common to all men. You can try to persuade others that you are right, or you are free to disagree with them. In a free country, you need not deal with them. But religion is an issue of faith. By definition, if one doesn't accept faith, or if different people believe different faiths, no common action, agreement, or persuasion is possible among them if religion is made a condition of political agreement. ...
...
Persuasion, reason, argument are not the province of religion. Religion rests on faith - on an acceptance of certain beliefs apart from reason. This is why it must be private. When it's a private matter, it's fine, it can even be a kind of inspiration to people. Faith is what each man may choose for himself, if he wishes. I don't. [emphasis added ]



Question: If religion is instrumental in spreading altruism, can we fight altruism in America without fighting religion?


Ayn Rand: In America, religion is relatively non-mystical. Religious teachers here are predominantly good, healthy materialists. They follow common sense. They would not stand in our way. The majority of religious people in this country do not accept on faith the idea of jumping into a cannibal’s pot and giving away their last shirt to the backward people of the world. Many religious leaders preach this today, because of their own leftist politics; it’s not inherent in being religious. There are many historical and philosophical connections between altruism and religion, but the function of religion in this country is not altruism. You would not find too much opposition to Objectivism among religious Americans. There are rational religious people. In fact I was pleased and astonished to discover that some religious people support Objectivism. If you want to be a full Objectivist, you cannot reconcile that with religion; but that doesn’t mean religious people cannot be individualists and fight for freedom. They can, and this country is the best proof of it. [emphasis added]

...
In America, you would not find it difficult to divorce religion from altruism. After all, Christ said: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” So you must love yourself. After that, you can argue about your neighbors.




My main objection to Ayn Rand is because of my own personal analysis. I give to charities because I feel bad for them. It doesn't make me feel good afterwards. I still feel bad for them.
There is nothing wrong with benevolence. (Sacrifice, as a duty, is the evil.)


Isn't the fact that not everything fits into a test tube a good thing? What about the fact that our senses reveal only that which passes through the filters we have created for ourselves? Our senses aren't always right and we humans are always wrong.
Lack of knowledge about something doesn't require that the knowledge be replaced by faith.

Our senses don't think. They only alert us to the fact that there is something to be thought about.


"[Man’s] senses do not provide him with automatic knowledge in separate snatches independent of context, but only with the material of knowledge, which his mind must learn to integrate. . . . His senses cannot deceive him, . . . physical objects cannot act without causes, . . . his organs of perception are physical and have no volition, no power to invent or to distort . . . the evidence they give him is an absolute, but his mind must learn to understand it, his mind must discover the nature, the causes, the full context of his sensory material, his mind must identify the things that he perceives."
Here's a good overview of senses and perception: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/perception.html

Schifference
08-01-2013, 02:37 PM
I thought Johnny Carson was an excellent host.

f r e e s t y l e
08-01-2013, 03:25 PM
I thought Johnny Carson was an excellent host. I agree. He's awesome.

f r e e s t y l e
08-02-2013, 12:07 PM
I part ways on the IP issue, coercive taxation, and - somewhat - on the pre-emptive use of force (arguably, the Soviet born Jew was a little too anti-Soviet at times). Anyway, the foreign policy banner waved by ARI folks is what I've found more offensive so that issue is very debatable.
Not sure what you mean here. Ayn Rand believed that we could "de-control" from our current form of government to lead to a proper voluntary tax system. One where the government would run on voluntary payments/direct fees for specific services provided. (i.e. Voluntarily paying a fee or "insurance" for enforcement of private contracts between individuals). She was certainly against coercive taxation.

see: Government Financing in a Free Society (http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/ayn-rand-government-financing-in-a-free-society/)
or
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/taxation.html
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdz8fHXR9ec
and
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ar_politics

The Free Hornet
08-02-2013, 12:27 PM
Not sure what you mean here. Ayn Rand believed that we could "de-control" from our current form of government to lead to a proper voluntary tax system. One where the government would run on voluntary payments/direct fees for specific services provided. (i.e. Voluntarily paying a fee or "insurance" for enforcement of private contracts between individuals). She was certainly against coercive taxation.

My bad. Consider this a retraction. Thanks.

RCA
08-02-2013, 12:56 PM
There are two main criticism's of Rand's ideals that have been highly distorted over the years most likely on purpose. The first is that she supports rich people. The antagonists in Atlas Shrugged were all rich people so this criticism is not correct. She supports men who have ideas that spawn innovation or those who have talent that adds value to the world. Becoming rich as result of this is one possible result of the original idea or talent. Becoming rich via "knowing the right person in power" or "coercion" is something she did not support. The other main criticism of Rand's philosophy has to do with charity. She is against FORCED charity or charity by guilt. If one WANTS and ENJOYS helping others then this is still considered doing what you want to do. Even in Atlas Shrugged, Dagny helps (gives charity) to a bum and helped him board the train and gave him free food because she could tell he was of good moral standing.