Ayn Rand: The Playboy Interview 1964
You will find some basic answers to questions you may have and some answers might surprise you
SOURCE URL: http://ellensplace.net/ar_pboy.html
- 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...
PLAYBOY: Do you have any personal political aspirations yourself? Have you ever considered running for office?
RAND: Certainly not. And I trust that you don't hate me enough to wish such a thing on me.
PLAYBOY: In your opinion, is a woman immoral who chooses to devote herself to home and family instead of a career?
RAND: Not immoral -- I would say she is impractical, because a home cannot be a full-time occupation, except when her children are young. However, if she wants a family and wants to make that her career, at least for a while, it would be proper -- if she approaches it as a career, that is, if she studies the subject, if she defines the rules and principles by which she wants to bring up her children, if she approaches her task in an intellectual manner. It is a very responsible task and a very important one, but only when treated as a science, not as a mere emotional indulgence.
:) Good times.
Are holding something back? I mean how do you know there was a new camera angle.
I'd rather not discuss my past, but, I have many times stood on principle and often became least liked in the unit (during my Active Duty days). It was ALWAYS reflected in my Annual Performance Report. Oh well, despite the best efforts of those morons who out ranked me to keep me from getting promoted, I still retired as a Master Sergeant. (E-7) Do you know what it's called when your best just isn't good enough?
FAILURE. =)
I succeeded in achieving my goals. They never stopped me. But I digress....
Edmund Pevensie: D.L.F.?
Lucy Pevensie: Dear Little Friend.
Trumpkin: Oh... that's not at all patronizing, is it? "
- Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
I was only teasing.
Is there any difference between the old boy ruling class gop and the democrats? Did anyone else smell the stink of political winds when Breitbart died? And the reporter whose name escapes me, his car went out of control, to name only 2 of many deaths. Are there not extreme controls over private property and more and more eminent domain seizures? And can we even pretend to have free speech or lack of censorship within the msm?
Thank-you for a great re-post and my true sympathies on your loss. I have been through the same.
PLAYBOY: Would you create any new government departments or agencies?
RAND: No, and I truly cannot discuss things that way. I am not a government planner nor do I spend my time inventing Utopias. I'm talking about principles whose practical applications are clear. If I have said that I am opposed to the initiation of force, what else has to be discussed?
Is preventative force accepted? Say, if your nose is in the flight path of my fist, if you kick my legs out from under me, was that acceptable? You had been under imminent threat of force, but not actually been subjected to it, but had used force pro-actively to ensure that you were not subjected to that force.
Here's the Mises wiki entry on the term if you need a reminder of what it entails:
http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Principle_of_...
PLAYBOY: You mean original sin?
RAND: Exactly. It is the concept of original sin that my heroine, or I, or any Objectivist, is incapable of accepting or of ever experiencing emotionally. It is the concept of original sin that negates morality. If man is guilty by nature, he has no choice about it.
AR misconstrues original sin as being a stain on every human that cannot be removed. This is incorrect (although has been taught that way, and misconstrued in that way by many). It is merely a realization that there is no human that is perfect and can live their life without fault. Thus, original sin is merely a recognition that you will make mistakes. The important aspect of that is what you do about it. Do you accept responsibility for your failing, make amends to any who were wronged, and seek to improve yourself so that you don't continue to have that failing. I think that Ms. Rand would accept those aspects quite readily.
If, as she declares, original sin meant what she says it means, then what would be the point in living one's life? If you were damned from the start, how does one redeem oneself? That is not the teaching of Christianity, with which Ms. Rand seems to hold the most strident opposition.
http://www.atlassociety.org/ayn-rand-pla...
Give it a look see!
Ha ha ha!!! Most of that 2.5MM never even saw the interview.
Playboy was also known for interviewing some of the most influential people of our times; Martin Luther King, Jr., John Lennon, Eldridge Cleaver, Miles Davis, others.
Poor little thing died of distemper :(
ha-ha-ha <-- feigned laughter.
§ 304 . Duration of copyright: Subsisting copyrights
(a) Copyrights in Their First Term on January 1, 1978. —
(1)(A) Any copyright, in the first term of which is subsisting on January 1, 1978, shall endure for 28 years from the date it was originally secured.
(B) In the case of —
(i) any posthumous work or of any periodical, cyclopedic, or other composite work upon which the copyright was originally secured by the proprietor thereof, or
(ii) any work copyrighted by a corporate body (otherwise than as assignee or licensee of the individual author) or by an employer for whom such work is made for hire, the proprietor of such copyright shall be entitled to a renewal and extension of the copyright in such work for the further term of 67 years.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3...
Duration under 1909 Act
Federal standards for copyright duration differ substantially under the 1909 act compared with the 1976 act because of the renewal term contained in the 1909 act. Under the 1909 act, federal copyright was secured on the date a work was published or, for unpublished works, on the date of registration. A copyright lasted for a first term of 28 years from the date it was secured. The copyright was eligible for renewal during the final, that is, 28th year, of the first term. If renewed, the copyright was extended for a second, or renewal, term of 28 years. If it was not renewed, the copyright expired at the end of the first 28-year term, and the work is no longer protected by copyright. The term of copyright for works published with a year date in the notice that is earlier than the actual date of publication is computed from the year date in the copyright notice.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.p...
"As part of their celebration of the 50th anniversary of the first Playboy Interview, the editors of Playboy have republished their interview with Ayn Rand, from the March 1964 issue. (Kindle Edition)" --
https://estore.aynrand.org/p/569/ayn-ran...
I am at this moment printing it to first of all read at my leisure and make copies for others and otherwise put will all of her other writings or interviews that I have. thanks again.
Oh, and I respectfully ask that you do not provide a link to some section of Ms. Rand's philosophical writings....please answer with your own understanding, whether that be from Ms. Rand or a space alien.
This applies to rational thought, because humans have the tendency once they form an opinion - whether they think it is rationally based or not - to irrationally cling to that initial decision even in the face of contrary evidence to an astounding degree. A true scientist is one who has the personal integrity and humility to at all points question their assumptions, conclusions, and thought processes when testing a hypothesis. It is a truly rare person that can do that.
Pride: a satisfied sense of attachment toward one's own or another's choices and actions
I see that as a natural emotion experienced by gaining knowledge. There is such a thing as false pride-but that is not innate in humans
I do not see the definition of pride interfering with rational thinking
English is such an imprecise language. The idea of a word meaning two (or more) different things is anathema to rational thought, IMO.
While there is the use in English vernacular to attribute a sense of accomplishment in achievement (either personal or vicarious) and label that "pride", I would propose for the context of this discussion the definition thus: pride is the idea or attitude that one's own view of something is correct and authoritative and therefore is not subject to adjustment or correction. Pride causes an unconscious bias (usually but not limited to confirmation bias) in any observations or conclusions.
It is pride that leads to ad hominem attacks in political discourse. One can not bear the thought of having their predilection shown to be false or irrational and so in order to protect themselves, they justify their own worldview and false preconceptions by challenging the veracity of the "opponent" rather than the data or assumptions. Pride is what turns a joint search for truth into a competition. Pride is less concerned about _what_ is right and more concerned about _who_ is right.
Honesty is useful in combating pride, but honesty is actually a comparison to a standard: it is a measure of compliance, not an attribute.
Humility, however, is the active acknowledgement of the potential for bias in observation, judgement, or conclusion and is a commitment to minimize or (ideally) eliminate bias regardless of the effects to one's own ego, prestige, etc. It contributes to an objective search for truth on a fundamental level. Humility is getting back to _what_ is important rather than _who_ is important.
No, I'll stand with my original definition.
Objectivist live for their own interest, using reason. They do not think of themselves as inferior or less than others, nor do they think themselves better. They think what best a person can be, and hope that person, and they themselves can achieve that.
Political attacks occur when the one who wishes to control for power's sake, feels thwarted and attacks the person - a logical error. You will find few in politics who search for truth, rather for power.
Rand's characters do not condemn, but they do ask for the right to pursue their own interests and not live for the sake of another. Humility would not describe that approach, as they would soon cave to the manipulations of others, assuming they knew best.
Pride can be either arrogance or unreasonable subservience - both are the product of someone being unwilling to look at the world objectively, are they not? The objective person - the humble person - does not invalidate their own view just because someone else says differently (subservience) nor do they project their views onto others as authoritative because of their position (arrogance). A humble or objective person is concerned with _what_ is right - both subservience and arrogance are concerned with _who_ is right.
Also, because a person must have conviction born of knowledge to take a principled stand, ignorance is in no way synonymous with humility. In point of fact (especially in the case of subservience), ignorance contributes to Pride. All one has to do is look at political discourse to see this principle on grand display!
I'll pass
Making the truth known forces people to confront their own biases, but HOW you make it known makes all the difference. Humility is the key to that. When your goal is to prop yourself up as a guru, master, professor in the proverbial ivory tower, etc., then you are seeking dominance - an aspect of pride. Truth gets left in the dust. When you don't care who gets the props for something and take satisfaction that the truth is out there for people to accept as they choose - that is humility.
Confronting your own biases is part of being honest. To "prop yourself up" in an Unearned position is being dishonest. Not caring who gets "props" or credit for a brilliant explanation of reality or an insightful analysis of complex concepts is an equivalence of value with non-value. I take no satisfaction in seeing that and I'm proud of it.
You seem very self confidence of this. I'll still pass.
If I didn't respect the people here in the Gulch for being interested in the truth, I'd almost suspect you were intentionally trying to twist my words.
Pride itself is not bad. I see a world without any pride being very bad, if not outright unsurvivable.
But like all emotions, pride can mutate into something awful if respect for individual rights are tossed aside. But, that is also true with humility.
You don't need humility to know you don't know it all. It does however seem that the more humble people are, the more susceptible they are to become willing servants to those many conflicting “greater goods.” And that is a very slippery slope indeed.
In actuality, you are exhibiting exactly the type of pride and the results I warned of by refusing to continue the conversation based on the definitions I established as the foundation of such. By refusing to even consider an alternate view of the world but your own, you are exemplifying the exact attributes and behavior I specifically cited. I would thank you for proving my point so effectively, but it wasn't at all the desired outcome.
"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."
-Eleanor Roosevelt
Howard Roarke, Hank Rearden, and John Galt fit your description of "pride" to a T. Imagine the arrogance and faith in one's own superior judgement it takes to bring down an entire society just because the company you work for went communist.
Epitome = typical.
Perhaps you meant "Acme"?
I used to say (back when I had an open mind) that I'm never wrong; because when I discover I'm wrong, I change my mind.
But even then I took a lot of convincing.
In my philosophy, "Pride goeth before a fall" is quite true; you lose your pride, and therefore you fall. You become base, vulgar, animal.
Btw, plz send me a pm so I can reply to it. I have something to say to you and I cannot send a pm.