PragerU produces video on "Atlas Shrugged"
This is a big deal. PragerU videos have a huge audience of open-minded people.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Me dino is a dictionary definition mystic (so no one can call me one to make me feel bad) but I highly value Ayn Rand's general philosophy.
Had not a staunch conservative and Christian brother of mine made Christmas gifts out of AS DVDs, I never would have for research stumbled into this version of The Gulch.
Since then I've read the book. It's a keeper and on a shelf behind my right shoulder.
As a devout Christian, I admire Ayn Rand for her hatred of Communism and her love of freedom and Capitalism. So she was an atheist. I give her a pass on that as I would hope that my fellow Gulchers would give me a pass on being religious. As Ronald Reagan said, “If you agree with someone eighty percent of the time, he is not your enemy.”
Now that what Reagan said has me dino thinking it over, do believe I'll give Rand 90% or an A-minus for not being perfect.
She was surprisingly willing however, at her Ford Hall Forum lectures, to listen to hostile questions. Judge Lurie, the Forum's moderator, would always try to dissuade the questioner from making a hostile speech, when Rand or any other controversial speaker was there. He would remind the audience, "The questioner is in the audience; the speaker is on the platform." Rand sometimes told the Judge, "No, let him speak! This is an interesting question." She dismissed rapidly, though, any questions that tried to recruit her into some political belief or religious cult. Sometime she would say that the answer to the question was too long or complicated, and that she had written about it in Atlas Shrugged.
I've not watched Prager's video, and probably shall not. I do not need any further discussions of, "Rand would have been better if only she had not rejected God."
Those interested in thinking about Atlas Shrugged might ask why, right at the beginning of the book, Eddie Willers told himself lies.
I'd really recommend you watch this one. Its 30 minutes of an honest and open conversation with a Rand advocate about Rand's philosophy as told through the book Atlas Shrugged. It wasn't critical or condescending in any way. It went into great depth on the moral failings of several characters in the book including James Taggart and the moral conundrum of Hank Reardon's marriage. It did highlight the fact that Rand thought of selfishness very differently than Christianity, but just as a reminder Prager himself is an Orthodox Jew - not a Christian.
It still pisses me off to here their pronouncements that selfishness is egotistical.
If we told them it's actually Cellfishness and the values created ultimately get passed on...maybe they'd get it.
The real question is whether or not egotism/selfishness is a positive rather than a negative value. That was the question that I thought Knowles did a good job of bringing up as novel and different and the guest's analysis not only of that but of the various characters in the book was impressive.
Conscious Humans merely have an Identity,.. Comes with having a Mind. Not to be confused with pride of accomplishment.
Rand distinguished between egoist and egotist in her ethics. (almost tried to get away with contemporary 'their' there. I saw that 'they' is used by some for 'it' as in " The pig got excited and they oinked".
Not that I pay much attention to Freudian psychology anyway. That guy had a wierd obsession with Oedipal complexes, IMHO. Much of his psychology has been (rightly) superceded by more modern psychoanalysis like Carl Jung. I share Jordan Peterson's loathing of Freudian psychology.
Should we center on the fact that decision-making is at its root an egocentric process? YES, because it is. The choices we make SHOULD center on whether or not we anticipate that the results of a decision will culminate in our personal advancement. (I go into great detail on this in my book.) I hold that one can not assist others to our own detriment without enslaving ourselves. (If I am not mistaken, this holds very closely to Galt's Oath.) Why? Because enlightenment and progression should be viewed as a joint endeavor rather than a competitive one. It is the mentally-confined and detrimentally self-absorbed psyche (aka the non-Objectivist "selfish" person) who thinks that all scenarios necessitate a winner and loser.
This is why I choose the "I", Identity or just the Mind and Cel-fishness to describe the virtues of Conscious Beings, Humans but not Humanoids which only have a dysfunctional Brain inside a physical body.
So where Consciously introspective Humans are concerned: We can both agree to the "I" and I hope that Celfishness as describing the acts of each cell of the body and therefore the whole of the body, person, conscious human will catch on in my past and again in my present book in the works.
I would hope that even a dummy would understand Celfishness to be a righteous virtue.
That's why I invented the word in the first place.
Good conversation, Blar...
Love the conversations here! They require some of the little gray cells, as the famed detective puts it!
I hear this often in English, where there are two words, one from Germanic roots and one from Latin roots. The Latin-based words are more scholarly and removed, like cadaver instead of corpse or perspire instead of sweat, whereas the Germanic word sounds more down-and-dirty.
You know yourself, that you can't help anyone else, even if you chose, unless your own life conditions were in order.
I think the culture would grasp what Ayn meant a little better using that concept.
Just for the hell of it, I looked it up too, knowing full well that the lamestream could not have read my book: The Fight for Conscious Human Life. Cell Fishness was defined as Cell-(phone) fishness! Laughing my ass off...and still comes around with their misconception of "Selfishness".
"I swear by my life and love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."
I thought the interviewer asked good questions from the point of view of not agreeing with 100% of the content of the book, always questions that encourage Daniels to talk about the book, not antagonistic at all.
I really liked the way he explained the philosophy of selfishness starting at 21:00.
I also liked how he said Dagny becomes that antagonist by working to prop up the corrupt system. She sort of her own antagonist because even when she resolves to just relax at her cabin, she can't help but think of ways the local store could expand to serve more customers and make more money. "Just stop!" she tells herself.
On a tangential note, I thought about this part of the book today when I read a quote from Taliban leaders warning foreign powers not to incite Afghans to leave the country because they need their professionals to rebuild the country, apparently whether they want to or not. It's just like in AS or pretty much any communist country; failing to work is considered a crime of desertion.
Let's face it, the philosophy which really embraces atheism is socialism. The self-appointed elitists which glom onto socialism love the thought of proclaiming themselves emperor-god-king-pharoah of the universe with no thought for an eventual reckoning. If your approach to evangelicals and others of faith is to push atheism, they're going to lump you in with the communists and socialists as just trying to destroy something which brings them hope and happiness. Strategically, it's a dead end. If Objectivism really supports the theatre of ideas and let the best ones win, then let those of faith enter and have a good debate with them. Both parties may learn something.
In my opinion, it was no coincidence that the Renaissance took place when regular Christians were given access to the English translation of the Bible and found out just how far things had degenerated. Rand was 100% correct in looking at the religious hierarchies of the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox/Russian Orthodox churches and their wealth and hypocrisy and concluding that they were looters: altruists. I would share that view. But its a fallacy of inclusion to put the 99% of other Christians in that same boat.
I don't have a single friend with which I agree 100% - even my wife. But what I've found is that it is the differences in life that provide flavor and interest. Every now and then I even learn something (when I'm willing to). My wife frequently points out areas in which I need some work and I'd be a fool to ignore her advice. Especially because the making up part is kind of fun. ;)
Don't make the critical mistake of confusing the messenger with the content.
I generally agree with Prager U Videos. A singular exception is the one urging marriage, which I disliked and which had (has?) more Dislikes than Likes on YouTube.