Dear God, that's even more boring than reading Ayn Rand.

This is such a great part of the book. I love Ayn Rand! Great video oohahh.

theo47: I kinda figured that would be the going consensus here. One still tries, though.

Atlas Shrugged would make a great movie... Ayn Rand is my favorite philosophical writer. It's pretty much a hard and fast rule that if one doesn't like Ayn Rand that they just aren't smart enough to understand objectivism and they are one of the parasites discussed in Roark's speech.

Hey, peretz, way to encourage a constructive dialogue. Anyone who disagrees is a moron... nice.


Moron.

I preferred the Fountainhead over Atlas Shrugged, but then, it was my first Ayn Rand book, and you know what they say about firsts.

In particular, I'm fond of Rand's recurring themes of individuality, creativity, leadership, and above all else, integrity.

These days, it doesn't seem as if there are true heroes. Not that anyone needs a hero, but if you're shopping, You could do much, much worse than Howard Roark.

I can't believe this is getting ignored.

Honestly we have the dumbest clips make it out and this classic is dying

Dissapointing.

At least it gets my brain working (for a change on the Sift)...gets my vote!

blankman, I didn't say that anybody who disagrees is a moron.. the other option is parasite. At least I leave some wiggling room.

The real parasites are those who misinterpret objectivism, often deliberately, as an excuse to shit all over their fellow human beings.

hmm...If I could only find a video of Kant.

/me watches sadly, yet without surprise, as this video heads toward VideoSift cribdeath.

Statement - Sift is scheduled to be saved in 1 day 14 hours 33 minutes.

Expired in Queue (4 day limit)

*save

Saving this video from queue deletion, sending it to the top of the queue for one more try. Originally submitted on Sunday 22nd October 2006 (save called by gold star member farhad2000)

Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged....make excellent bookends.

I'm glad you saved this farhad.

Even though I'm not a fan of Rand's views, I'll up-vote. The more variety this site has, the better.

I upvoted because I like thinking about philosophical arguments. One thing bugs me about this speech. Aren't the film makers parasites as described by Roark? They took Ayn Rand's creation and profited off it. "The creator thinks. The parasite copies. The creator produces. The parasite loots."

That's the key hook of movie, I find Gervaise. It's like a realization mid-stream.

Never saw this, but will upvote.

This made it through the queue? I am, quite honestly, astounded and delighted. And drunk, but that's a different story. Happy Saturday, everyone!

*promote

Re-promoting this video to the front page as a VideoSift Classic. Originally published on Sunday 29th October 2006 (promotion called by gold star member HistNerd)

great speech, great philosophy.

*talks *philosophy *cinema *vintage *quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

Adding video to channels (Cinema, Philosophy, Talks, Vintage) - requested by gwiz665.

Good luck getting a federal judge to let you spout off like that. Federal court=your screwed. His lawyers would advise him to STFU. And that would be the best advice.

I was just as arrogant and intolerant as you when I went through my Ayn Rand phase, but I eventually outgrew it. >> ^peretz:

Atlas Shrugged would make a great movie... Ayn Rand is my favorite philosophical writer. It's pretty much a hard and fast rule that if one doesn't like Ayn Rand that they just aren't smart enough to understand objectivism and they are one of the parasites discussed in Roark's speech.

*promote *quality

This video has already declared quality - ignoring quality request by blankfist.

I find meatbag blankfist to be an inadequate command-giver - ignoring all requests by blankfist.

*doublepromote, siftbot. Geez.

Double-Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Sunday, April 29th, 2007 1:41am PDT - doublepromote requested by blankfist.

Ironically, opposing the individual exploiting the collective, when taken to excesses, seems to be its own self fulfilling prophecy.

*politics *money

Adding video to channels (Money, Politics) - requested by dystopianfuturetoday.

I must be a parasite because it sounds like gibberish to me.
Couldn't one argue in an equally stern tone that hitler, stalin and charlie manson are heroic individualists setting the world to rights?
The problem with this right wing dogma is it makes people with no emotional or economic need for others feel justified in eliminating them from their concerns (or their physical reality).

Fear leads to anger!
Anger leads to fear!
Hatred leads to.. wait, which one did I start with..?

@cosmovitelli - I don't see how Hitler, Stalin, and Manson can be construed as individualists. Their entire reason for being famous was the subjugation and destruction of others. That is the opposite!

@zor - That was his summation. He was representing himself. Yes, you are free to speechify during a summation.

@MaxWilder

Why should subjugation and individualism would be mutually exclusive? Individualism is not morality, and can be a force for bad just as easily as it can be a force for good. My problem with Rand is that her concept of individualism is based around selfishness. Hitler, Stalin and Manson were all very much selfish individualists; idealistic visionaries who made the world a worse place.

Selfishness is not individualism. Selfishness needs no promotion. No one has to teach you how to be selfish, it's innate. It's empathy that must be learned through experience, and Ayn Rand has no place for empathy in her dogma. I personally believe that further isolating ourselves is the worst thing we could do. We are already isolated enough, living in our little boxes. We need to come together.

I also dislike that Rand pits the individual against the group. It seems so wrongheaded to me, since every human in existence is both an individual and a member of a group of some kind. It's like pitting oxygen against water. Both are necessary. You can't have one without the other.

Also, isn't it just a tad ironic to adopt another person's concept of individualism as your own? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? Wouldn't a true individualist come up with his or her own ideas, rather than just jump on a band wagon? Ayn Rand is famous for denouncing the Bible, and the gullible fools who adopt it as their own default morality, but then she goes on to create her own Bible, and her own religion, with followers just as gullible and devout. Ayn Rand was truly an individualist. Her followers are just that, followers.

Ayn Rand's concept of individualism is subjective and not universal. I argue against Rand, not against individualism.

@dystopianfuturetoday

From Wikipedia: Individualism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that stresses "the moral worth of the individual". Individualists promote the exercise of one's goals and desires and so independence and self-reliance while opposing most external interference upon one's own interests, whether by society, family or any other group or institution.

This is not the philosophy of Hitler, Stalin, or Manson. They were people who wanted control over others, while Individualists believe that everyone should have control over themselves. They are polar opposites, in terms of philosophy. And while it might make for a good joke ("Individualists unite!") there is nothing ironic about people sharing a philosophy of self-reliance.

In terms of selfishness, I believe you are misinterpreting her message. Though I may be wrong, I interpret it to mean "Take care of yourself first, then take care of your loved ones, then help your community if you have the means." Like they say in pre-flight safety instructions, put on your own oxygen mask first, then help others to put on theirs. You aren't doing anyone any good if you give everything you have to others (money, energy, or time). You will just find yourself wiped out and then depending on others to give to you. But if you fulfill your own needs and find you have resources to spare, then you can assist others in finding their own self-sufficiency. Indeed, if you value your family and community, helping them to be prosperous is by definition serving your own self-interests.

Again, I may be projecting some of my own morality onto Rand, because I have never seen her articulate this point clearly. But that is what I would argue on the topic of selfishness.

Personally, I am not a Rand devotee. I think anyone trying to implement her ideas literally would cause chaos and mob-rule. But she made some interesting points, and though her utopia may not be possible, there are valuable lessons to be learned in her books if you look for them.