Monday, April 25, 2011
Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959 part 1
I'm headed out the door to see the movie "Atlas Shrugged - Part I." I am no subscriber to Ayn Rand or libertarianism or objectivism, but I do applaud her for her intellectual honesty and moral integrity. You can see both qualities on ample display in this 1959 interview with Mike Wallace. You can search out Parts II and III of the interview for yourself
I look forward to at least two or three blogs on the Ayn Ran and her legacy, and to lively discussions. Enjoy ...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
People must earn love, and for those who cannot meet the standard, they do not deserve love. Seems to be the gist of it.
Hey, Gina. Heaven help in her society if your the parent of a kid with autism.
Ms Rand makes it sound more comlicated but it it is really just the far right economic conservative myth----all
capitalists are good and therefore no regulations or laws regarding the exercise of capitalism are needed.
She gets her economic and political systems mixed up. Capitalism and Socialism are economic systems, not political ones, it is possible have a facisit capitalistic state and a democratic socialist one. And what are those of us who cannot "make it" in an absolute free market supposed to do----lie down and die I suppose. Is it even ok to love your family?
It has taken humanity centuries to start thinking that each individual has value---she is a giant step backwards only her mighty hunter goes after the dollar instead of the mastadon. But then she believes only in what she can see. What of those of us who feel called to the helping professions ie healthcare workers, lawyers who do pro bono work or even someone like Bill Gates---who should meet her idealist capitalist criteria except that he is now giving money away hand over fist for medical and educational research.
Her first sentence explaining her philosophy indicates how wrong and impossible it is..."reality exists as an objective absolute".
That's obviously not true. If it were true, then all humans would have no arguments and everyone would agree on everything. But of course that will never happen because every human has filters based on their upbringing, experiences, and probably genetics.
So when the foundation of your premise is so misguided, all thoughts that spring from it will likely be misguided too...as hers are.
Regarding her eerie nature and her constantly shifting eyes...reminds me of those monkeys they experimented on that were not held as infants. For all practical purposes they were completely antisocial and maladjusted...much like Ayn Rand
Hey, Lizabeth. Yep. In Ayn Rand's and Fox New's fantasy world there are only hero capitalists. Rat bag capitalists don't exist. Therefore no need to regulate. Ayn Rand claims to view reality objectively, but she only sees a reality she wants to see.
I do separate her out from the other right-wing nut jobs, as at least she has the brutal honesty to acknowledge her belief in naked self-interest.
Hey, Brad. That's why these right-wing nut jobs are so sure of themselves. They cannot possibly conceive that they are viewing the world through warped prisms.
There is no room for an alternative interpretation. As for nuance, forget it.
As for the eye movements - they struck me as strange, too. Then someone on FaceBook said she must be bipolar on account of this. No - I hate it when people are so quick to judge and pin labels.
But yes, the eyes are a tip-off to investigate further. Is it merely a manneristic quirk or is something seriously amiss?
The eyes are very off-putting. We don't have to judge, but we have reason to be on guard. A person showing up for a job interview with those kind of eyes would probably not get hired. On and on.
She did harbor delusions that the Soviets were targeting her. So maybe the eyes have it, but who knows?
"reality exists as an objective absolute " is a true statement. She's talking about physical reality. physical events take place and there is no doubting the physical causes and physical affects of these events. Ms. Rand agrees that the rest is up to mans interpretation, which he develops through things like upbringing, experiences and probably genetics. (see what I did there?) the point is that man ultimately holds the power within himself to interpret this physical, absolute, objective reality for what it is... And the only method a man should ever use to interpret reality is his own reason, his own verdict.
"reality exists as an objective absolute " is a true statement. She's talking about physical reality. physical events take place and there is no doubting the physical causes and physical affects of these events. Ms. Rand agrees that the rest is up to mans interpretation, which he develops through things like upbringing, experiences and probably genetics. (see what I did there?) the point is that man ultimately holds the power within himself to interpret this physical, absolute, objective reality for what it is... And the only method a man should ever use to interpret reality is his own reason, his own verdict.
Hey, William. I agree. But I think where Ayn Rand falls down is she claims that her view of objective reality IS the objective reality. My view is that Socrates would have made mincemeat of her. Over to you. :)
Everyone's view of reality is a view of objective reality. Their interpretation of it is what differs. I've read and heard a lot of what ayn had to say, and Ive never heard her say her interpretation of reality is the absolute, merely that its is absolute for herself and only herself, which is all it could ever be. man as his own end. My own verdict is all I have to live by
Post a Comment