A Gift: Ayn Rand on Johnny Carson 1967

I enjoyed Atlas Shrugged. But I like science fiction and read it as such skipping over the polemic. I've always thought the premises of her 'philosophy' were eroneous but science fiction is all about exploring other worlds and societies and economics, etc; I just kept an open mind.

I found out yesterday that Ayn Rand is a pseudonym. Her name is actually Alisa Zinov’yevna Rosenbaum from an upper Middle Class Russian family that ran afoul of the 1917 revoltuions. Her story is not unlike untold Middle Class US families that lost their life savings to the Financial Collapse of 2008 and beyond.

The article can be found at: www.alternet.org...

I'd comment on the article but just want to pass the video on to those who have an interest:


Well, as a gift to all you objectivists: Ayn Rand herself talking with Johnny Carson:

a reply to: FyreByrd

I have it but I still haven't read it. I am told that Fountainhead is better but, I will check out the JC episode presently.

Cheers

a reply to: FyreByrd

I am going to hit it so, here are my unedited notes, thanks for the link

She shares my acumen for shock value for sure and I agree that the idea of self sacrifice as a conscious choice is evil though, as a spontaneous impulse, righteous.

“Religion is the infancy of mankind”

The science of ethics, not the personal subjective personal preference.

Someone who places the interests of others above oneself first, he is an “emotional parasite”.

The fly protests her , defensive humor

The uneducated young accept unwarranted guilt set by moral standards

No conscription, immoral.

Each man is the owner of his own life and nobody else’s

She rends me tremendously of Ron Paul for the right and wrong reasons (mostly to do with foreign policy which I might be wrong about)

She is 100% right to not subsidize self destructive behavior.

truly free country can coexist with unfree countries and lead by example.

The 19th century was the most peaceful century which was predominantly Laissez-faire capitalistic.

America will never become statist.

What an awesome interviewer Johnny Carson really was.

She touches on an interesting topic at the very end which relates to this:

Private Truths, Public Lies - The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification - Timur Kuran

a reply to: greencmp

As I said, her premises are wrong and not in keeping with reality or science.

Gotta love she was a science denier claiming that her cigarette smoking didn't lead to her lung cancer, and her cancer lead to her getting medicare and social security. She is such a hero to so many, and I have no idea why.

Oh and you might want to look up wars between 1800 and 1899 to see if her claim of less war in the 19th century is true.

originally posted by: LDragonFire
Gotta love she was a science denier claiming that her cigarette smoking didn't lead to her lung cancer, and her cancer lead to her getting medicare and social security. She is such a hero to so many, and I have no idea why.

Oh and you might want to look up wars between 1800 and 1899 to see if here claim of less war in the 19th century is true.

So there is the proof she didn't do so well in the self preservation that she preached, and took the handouts from society.
With those two big strikes against her, I am going to believe she professed her sins on her deathbed to some God she claimed was infantile to believe in also.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Ayn Rand and her work and followers remind me of L Ron Hubbard and his work and his followers. Neither authors work ever enlightened me or inspired me, they just made me go hmmm.

a reply to: FyreByrd

This is worth my time. Thank You for posting it. If Ayn gets flamed just remember that they are only describing themselves. So people, now feel free to flame away. (hope you have fun) LOLS Im sorry but she holds a special part in my life because of the album 2112.

And , oh yeah, I think that she was right on in that interview.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Atlas Shrugged.. the holy bible for the 1%. Greed is good, right?

originally posted by: bluemooone2
a reply to: FyreByrd

This is worth my time. Thank You for posting it. If Ayn gets flamed just remember that they are only describing themselves. So people, now feel free to flame away. (hope you have fun)

LOLS Im sorry but she holds a special part in my life because of the album 2112.

And , oh yeah, I think that she was right on in that interview.

I agree, I thought that was a fantastic interview with a lot of credit going to Johnny, he really was a consummate professional.

I can see now why she is so deeply hated by socialists. Most libertarians are hopeful to convert statists through logic and reason but, Rand doesn't stop there and continues on to use beratement and insults (subtle as they are) to great effect.

"Emotional parasites" was a term I wasn't expecting, I guess I am going to have to read her works now.

a reply to: FyreByrd

I liked Atlas shrugged. It poses a fictional reality to real sentiment many hold. Why build up a world so others can usurp it in the name of morality when the end result is theft and injustice?

Who is John galt? LOL What a great concept for passive resistance to immoral theft based on false morality.

This concept of Atlas shrugging when given more weight to carry led me to the next possible response. Sisyphus Smiled. That is he enjoys his chosen torment every time he goes back down the hill chasing his stone to make it rise one more time, every time.

So while I think the points made were well founded, I dont agree with the surrender of anything. The eternal struggle is what makes the efforts noble, not the appreciation or respect of others for your efforts.

You dont do for others, you choose your task and press your face to the stone for your own joy and dignity in defiance....you can smile though. Its your stone that ennobles you and your torment that gives power over your absurd mortality in struggle by your act of defiance, you CAN just go back down the hill again....and you CAN smile....dont shrug.


Also, why not also make rise anothers stone? If your strength is plentiful, add its weight to your own. MAKE it your own struggle. Defy it all for the purpose the task serves. Just keep adding weight to your struggle, not for the morality that changes as time goes on, but for the will it strengthens to make the world you wish to create.

Its not just your hill and your stone, I say its about all hills and all stones. All worlds and all shoulders. That is the greater measure to aspire to be judged by and the more noble judge is yourself.

a reply to: greencmp

Interesting how I don't see the 'logic' and 'reason' in her arguments. After learning a little bit of her background, I can understand her 'anger' and 'fear' but it goes unacknowledged and she 'justifies' her position with non-reality based suppositions.

Her premise that 'we are all greedy and selfish and looking out only for number 1' and that idea is a sound basis for the ordering of society is a fallacy.

Most 'progress', in fact any society whatsoever, has been made possible by people working together for the 'common' good which ultimately benefits everyone in the long term.

Another premise of hers, that of the 'self-made man' is absurd. If you exist in this world it is only because of society and the beneficence of her members.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: greencmp

Interesting how I don't see the 'logic' and 'reason' in her arguments. After learning a little bit of her background, I can understand her 'anger' and 'fear' but it goes unacknowledged and she 'justifies' her position with non-reality based suppositions.

Her premise that 'we are all greedy and selfish and looking out only for number 1' and that idea is a sound basis for the ordering of society is a fallacy.

Most 'progress', in fact any society whatsoever, has been made possible by people working together for the 'common' good which ultimately benefits everyone in the long term.

Another premise of hers, that of the 'self-made man' is absurd. If you exist in this world it is only because of society and the beneficence of her members.

You can certainly be forgiven for deriving that somewhat disingenuous paraphrase. As I said, she chose a wholly confrontational and derisive method of communicating her opposition to socialism. Much more than even I have.

Does this woman have any conception of the concept of LOVE?

She talks funny..

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: greencmp

Interesting how I don't see the 'logic' and 'reason' in her arguments. After learning a little bit of her background, I can understand her 'anger' and 'fear' but it goes unacknowledged and she 'justifies' her position with non-reality based suppositions.

Her premise that 'we are all greedy and selfish and looking out only for number 1' and that idea is a sound basis for the ordering of society is a fallacy.

Most 'progress', in fact any society whatsoever, has been made possible by people working together for the 'common' good which ultimately benefits everyone in the long term.

Another premise of hers, that of the 'self-made man' is absurd. If you exist in this world it is only because of society and the beneficence of her members.

You can certainly be forgiven for deriving that somewhat disingenuous paraphrase. As I said, she chose a wholly confrontational and derisive method of communicating her opposition to socialism. Much more than even I have.

(IBAPIRTT)

Do you deny that her basic philosophy is one of 'looking out for number 1, regardless of damage done to others'?

Do you find her arguments sound?

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: greencmp

Interesting how I don't see the 'logic' and 'reason' in her arguments. After learning a little bit of her background, I can understand her 'anger' and 'fear' but it goes unacknowledged and she 'justifies' her position with non-reality based suppositions.

Her premise that 'we are all greedy and selfish and looking out only for number 1' and that idea is a sound basis for the ordering of society is a fallacy.

Most 'progress', in fact any society whatsoever, has been made possible by people working together for the 'common' good which ultimately benefits everyone in the long term.

Another premise of hers, that of the 'self-made man' is absurd. If you exist in this world it is only because of society and the beneficence of her members.

You can certainly be forgiven for deriving that somewhat disingenuous paraphrase. As I said, she chose a wholly confrontational and derisive method of communicating her opposition to socialism. Much more than even I have.

(IBAPIRTT)

Do you deny that her basic philosophy is one of 'looking out for number 1, regardless of damage done to others'?

Do you find her arguments sound?

Philosophy should have true axioms as its starting point.

Self interest is true, Altruism is false. Reference Evolution.

Feeling good by helping other people is not altruism.

Altruism is saying that your life belongs to all of humanity and that the individual has no right to what he produces or to his own life.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: greencmp

Interesting how I don't see the 'logic' and 'reason' in her arguments. After learning a little bit of her background, I can understand her 'anger' and 'fear' but it goes unacknowledged and she 'justifies' her position with non-reality based suppositions.

Her premise that 'we are all greedy and selfish and looking out only for number 1' and that idea is a sound basis for the ordering of society is a fallacy.

Most 'progress', in fact any society whatsoever, has been made possible by people working together for the 'common' good which ultimately benefits everyone in the long term.

Another premise of hers, that of the 'self-made man' is absurd. If you exist in this world it is only because of society and the beneficence of her members.

You can certainly be forgiven for deriving that somewhat disingenuous paraphrase. As I said, she chose a wholly confrontational and derisive method of communicating her opposition to socialism. Much more than even I have.

Ayn Rand has two different Phil Donahue interviews on you tube from the late 1970's. That audience generally has an attitude like, "I read you high school but now that I've grown up ..., or now that I've graduated college ...".

Rand's attitude is in part a fight to assert her ideas clearly inside of the collectivistic background atmosphere of society made by the media and the educational system. The MSM and Ed have redefined a lot of words like "liberal" and "conservative" and the left/right comparison. She has a lot of ground to cover just to communicate past those stentorian censors.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Do you deny that her basic philosophy is one of 'looking out for number 1, regardless of damage done to others'?

Do you find her arguments sound?

Her arguments for rational self-interest are laid out in more length and detail in her collection of essays "The Virtue of Selfishness". It would be impossible to lay out these arguments in an interview.

Her philosophy is a throwback to Aristotle. She named the chapters of Atlas Shrugged after Aristotle's laws.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: greencmp

Interesting how I don't see the 'logic' and 'reason' in her arguments. After learning a little bit of her background, I can understand her 'anger' and 'fear' but it goes unacknowledged and she 'justifies' her position with non-reality based suppositions.

Her premise that 'we are all greedy and selfish and looking out only for number 1' and that idea is a sound basis for the ordering of society is a fallacy.

Most 'progress', in fact any society whatsoever, has been made possible by people working together for the 'common' good which ultimately benefits everyone in the long term.

Another premise of hers, that of the 'self-made man' is absurd. If you exist in this world it is only because of society and the beneficence of her members.

You can certainly be forgiven for deriving that somewhat disingenuous paraphrase. As I said, she chose a wholly confrontational and derisive method of communicating her opposition to socialism. Much more than even I have.

(IBAPIRTT)

Do you deny that her basic philosophy is one of 'looking out for number 1, regardless of damage done to others'?

Do you find her arguments sound?

I honestly still haven't read her but, I will.

So far as I understand it, yes.

The "emotional parasite" thing is leaving a bad taste in my mouth (honey, flies and such) but, she isn't wrong.

It is a lot easier for me to be confident in the free market over anybody's plan.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."

-Murray N. Rothbard