13

Prager Advertising Ayn

Posted by $ Thoritsu 3 weeks, 6 days ago to News
52 comments | Share | Flag

Good to see her name, works and philosophy coming up more and more.
SOURCE URL: https://www.prageru.com/video/understanding-ayn-rand/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ jbrenner 3 weeks, 5 days ago
    Prager and Rand agree on many things, but on one thing, they differ. Prager sees what he considers to a preponderance of evidence for a creator; Rand does not.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 3 weeks, 5 days ago
      Yep, that is my issue with Prager too. They do crisp, clear messages though. Unfortunately, here the messages are like Listerine...”go read pages 1154-1173 of the letters of Objectivism from 1973”
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jbrenner 3 weeks, 5 days ago
        To be fair, while you have paid the owner of Galt's Gulch Online, you haven't paid the other Gulchers for their messages, so you have gotten more than you paid for.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 3 weeks, 5 days ago
          The complaint is not personal. It is that we do not influence others well, for example, as well as PragerU.

          Libertarians and Objectivists seem to be unable to develop concise, clear messages to illustrate the virtue in the philosophies. For example:
          "Libertarians seeking to take over the world and leave you alone."
          Just clearly explaining the virtue of selfishness in the long game (vs each separate decision) lacks clarity.

          If the end game is to Gulch, let's work on that. If the end game is a more realistic and challenging "change people's minds", we have much room for improvement. If the plan is to gather and bitch (or pontificate), I should drop my membership.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jbrenner 3 weeks, 5 days ago
            Rand sought to challenge people's minds, but not change them. She could control the challenging process, but every individual must come to their own philosophy for themselves. Part of the problem is that many people never do.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 3 weeks, 5 days ago
              Most men are born unique, but sadly die a copy. Not at all amazing how many Muslims come from Muslim parents, Christians come from Christian parents and Liberal/Conservatives come from...

              I really don't care what Ayn's objective was. Mine is to reduce infringement on my own freedoms. One means to do this is to challenge people to think objectively, and overcome the barriers of cognitive dissonance. To accomplish this, one must grasp another's attention briefly.

              You are a professor, teaching as a profession. I can't believe we are at odds on this subject.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 3 weeks, 4 days ago
            Changing a lertist's mind is indeed a challenging and notably worthless task, in my opinion. Given their minds operate on emotion only, reason utterly fails to have an effect
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 3 weeks, 4 days ago
              Those are one group. The misguided, lost and middle are others. The left has figured out how to appeal to these people with altruism and natural reactions, just like the Harri Krishnas. They can similarly be swayed with logic.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 3 weeks, 5 days ago
    This is cool, and something to share with those I've talked with about Atlas Shrugged. I have heard of Prager Institute and should look into it. In my semi-retirement I want to become more involved in a pro-Objectivist organization.

    And, the young lady in the video is incredible. LOL
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 3 weeks, 5 days ago
      Prager is a little too religious for me, but other than that aspect, we are largely in alignment. They have some clear messages. Good for discussion.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ gharkness 3 weeks, 5 days ago
        Yep, me too. Another place to gather some solace is the Mises Institute. They are Libertarian, though without the emphasis on drug use, as far as I can tell. While I have no desire to throw drug users in prison, I just don't care for it and I see the harm it can do, so I am not in favor of encouraging it. Mises.org
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 3 weeks, 5 days ago
          Yes. No idea why the Libertarian party has to continuously harp on marijuana. However, it does seem to be consistent with a freedom people's interest in exercising.

          Trump should have pressed for eliminating the federal prohibition and taxed it. Would have swayed a lot of middle people.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by rhfinle 3 weeks, 5 days ago
            Thoritsu,
            I think, honestly, the Libertarian party pushes drug legalization as its one of the few things that distinguish them from most Republicans. I do not care if people want to do drugs on their own time, although I think they should keep or increase the penalties for anyone found supplying drugs to minors. You'll never see drugs completely decriminalized, because there's too much profit motive in keeping them illegal. DEA and the Mafia and cartels are making too much money to allow that.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 3 weeks, 5 days ago
              The problem we have here is that people are already not held responsible for their own actions (exercising freedoms). Therefore, providing additional freedoms is fundamentally hanging a burden on others.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by rhfinle 3 weeks, 4 days ago
                Quite true. "Don't worry; you are not responsible for your own actions" is one of the two mantras of Liberalism. We don't have a chance as long as that, and "Don't worry; the Government will take care of you" are taught in our schools.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ 3 weeks, 4 days ago
                  The key is that freedom can only be had with responsibility for ones own actions. Any other approach is slavery.

                  This is tangible and understandable, except to some idiots here that jumped all over me for “freedom = responsibility”. Maybe if I did the math for them: Freedom is only possible if people are responsible for the consequences of their own free choices. Thus, freedom must be accompanied by an equal measure of responsibility. Freedom / Responsibility = 1. Rearranging terms, freedom = responsibility.

                  This may precipitate thought, but it is a powerful thought experiment. Of course, since Ayn didn’t say it, it can’t penetrate some people’s heads.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by bradchieko 3 weeks, 5 days ago
              Perhaps drug decriminalization is a better term. This is a concept in Portugal. There are pluses and minuses. In the end, we spend billions/year fighting the drug war. Since they are illegal the street value is many times more than a "decriminalized product". The supply would level off due to the lower prices and demand would level off making our market less desirable and not worth smuggling in the product. The criminal element would reduce and would save lives.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ mwolff 3 weeks, 4 days ago
                I believe "fighting" the drug war was more for the alphabet agencies to fund their operation beyond what is authorized by their "Black Budgets". Also since when has any government solution to end something been successful
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ 3 weeks, 4 days ago
                  That is an interested thought. Doubt it began that way, but the self licking ice cream cone called “government” has to maintain itself. The three letter agencies have to live on, year after year, with ever incrementally increasing budgets.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Katrina41 3 weeks, 5 days ago
    I am reading AS to my husband. As we reach the end of each part, we watch that part's dvd. We just started reading part III. He has Alzheimer's and is enjoying the whole process, asking questions and commenting on my comments. Reading out loud has added something special to my enjoyment and appreciation as well. I listen to PragerU regularly and was delighted to see the Ayn Rand production. Shared it with my groups immediately.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Rex_Little 3 weeks, 5 days ago
      In part 3 of the movie, the Taggart Bridge is destroyed even though Project X (which destroyed it in the book) never happens. Also, Cheryl Brooks' suicide makes no sense. I wonder if your husband will notice these things and comment on them.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Lucky 3 weeks, 4 days ago
        The fate of Cheryl Brookes, and Eddie, are important elements of the story. Bad things happen to good people. It is not justice, it was not their fault, but nature does not play by our rules. Under a bad system even good people suffer.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Rex_Little 3 weeks, 4 days ago
          That's my point. They are important elements of the story which the movie completely misses. If they weren't going to show the suicide--and the conversation with Jim Taggart which triggers it--they should have cut the whole Cheryl Brooks storyline out to make room for something else.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 3 weeks, 5 days ago
      Good on you! Good luck with your reading!

      Also happy to see Prager advertise for Ayn. They do a good job on production. Some of the other Objectivist materials are too dry for mainstream audience.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by bubah1mau 3 weeks, 5 days ago
    Great presentation, and thanks for posting. Will pass this along to a few friends who may not be well aware of AR's philosophy and its implications for an economic-political system.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Stormi 3 weeks, 5 days ago
    I am urging everyone to read Rand, from "Anthem" to "Atlas", before Amazon bans them. I feel every child should read age appropriated Rand in school, what a different world we would have. Sometimes I read the court speech from "Fountainhead", just because I need the boost to keep fighting. This is life as it should be, but instead, we are getting life as Rand predicted we were heading toward, she knew.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by tdechaine 3 weeks, 4 days ago
    ARI/Objectivism should not use a religious site to advertise. However, Prager doing that on his own does not necessarily hurt Obj.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 3 weeks, 4 days ago
      Suspect there are many people (like me) who watch PragerU due to majority alignment, or those who are only semi-religious. Having Ayn's ideas presented can offer some of these people alternative reasons to take similar positions, rather than clinging to religious basis.

      A key problem is people abandoning religion due to its obvious flaws falling prey to altruism, rather than a more well-founded philosophy. Letting semi religious people see that their values need not be variously dictated; that they can be derived naturally, is an excellent approach.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by amhunt 3 weeks, 4 days ago
    I enjoy hearing what Dennis has to say. You will find that he values "clarity" very very highly (as do I). To get a better insight into his thinking take a look at this Fire Side Chat episode:
    https://open.spotify.com/episode/16fe...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by coaldigger 3 weeks, 4 days ago
      I just listened to this chat in its entirety. Dennis doesn't believe that there are enough people who can reason their way into a rational morality. The same conclusion is shared by religious leaders throughout history. It is why they always result to coercion.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 3 weeks, 4 days ago
        Yep, agree.

        Exposing some of the Prager community to this discussion has value. There are likely others for whom religion is losing hold that would happily latch on to logically-grounded basis for their previous "beliefs".
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by coaldigger 3 weeks, 4 days ago
          I believe the key to acceptance of Objectivism is self esteem. If you have it and value your own life above all else it is easy. Craig Bittle posted something the other day that made me realize that I was born to be an Objectivist. I don't have a link but I copied and saved it.

          " The most important resource for understanding Objectivism is your own reasoning mind.
          In a certain respect, this point is too obvious to warrant mentioning. In another respect, it can’t be emphasized enough. So I’ll say a few words about it upfront.
          Objectivism is often misrepresented by those who fear its actual nature. One of the most widespread and destructive misrepresentations of the philosophy is the claim that it is a set of dogmas issued by Ayn Rand that you must accept and follow in order to be a “good Objectivist.” In other words, this assertion goes, the absolutism of Objectivism is like the dogmatism of religion: doctrinaire, authoritarian, confining.
          But it is not. And understanding the difference is essential to understanding Objectivism.
          Objectivism is indeed a philosophy of absolutes. It’s a system of black-and-white principles. It is also utterly non-dogmatic and profoundly liberating. And its reality-based, life-serving nature lies in the integration of these facts.
          Objectivism identifies absolutes about the nature of reality, man’s means of knowledge, the requirements of human life, the source and nature of rights, the moral purpose of government. Its principles are black and white because reality is black and white: Things are what they are; they’re not what they’re not. An idea is either supported by evidence and logic, or it is not. An action either advances human life, or it does not. A law or policy either initiates physical force and thus violates individual rights, or it does not. And so on.
          Objectivism recognizes and upholds such absolutes, but it does not call for you to accept them on faith or because some authority said so. Rather, Objectivism calls for you to look at reality for yourself, to use your own mind, and to draw first-hand conclusions on the basis of your own observations and logic. If an idea doesn’t make sense to you, if you don’t see how it is supported by facts, then, according to Objectivism, you should not accept it as true. And this applies emphatically to the principles of Objectivism.
          This is the Objectivist principle of independence. And it too is an absolute: If you want to understand some aspect of reality, you must perceive the world with your own senses and integrate your observations with your own reasoning mind. Of course, you can learn from other people by listening to what they say, considering their arguments, observing their actions, and relating what they say or do to what you know. But the fact remains that in order genuinely to understand an idea, theory, or subject, you must rely ultimately on your own observations and logic. You must establish and maintain a primary orientation toward the facts as you see them, not toward the views or opinions of other people.
          Because of this absolutism, Objectivism is profoundly liberating. It does not issue commandments or “categorical imperatives” from on high for you to obey. Rather, the philosophy identifies observation-based principles of the if-then variety—such as: If you want to understand reality, then you must observe reality and think. If you want to live and flourish, then you must think and act accordingly. If you want to live in a social system that enables human flourishing, then you must specify the nature of such a system and work to establish and maintain it.
          Such principles are not dogmas. They are recognitions of the law of cause and effect. And they do not confine or constrict you. They free you.
          Specifically, they free you from the subjectivist nonsense that “reality is whatever the social consensus says it is”—and from the religious nonsense that “reality is whatever the divine consciousness wills it to be.” Reality, Objectivism acknowledges, exists independently of any consensus or consciousness. The function of the mind is not to create reality, but to comprehend it.
          And the mind is an attribute of the individual.
          Applied to the aim at hand, this particular absolute means that if you want to understand Objectivism, you must activate your mind and consider the philosophy as it actually is—not as those who fear the philosophy falsely portray it to be.
          If you approach Objectivism with a commitment to seeing for yourself what it actually says and means, then whatever your assessment—whether positive, negative, or mixed—it will be your assessment. And that, of course, is what matters . . ."
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ 3 weeks, 3 days ago
            I agree with all of this. There needs to be a few simpler introductory portions to compel the reader/listener to continued thought and opening their mind.

            For example, "because of this absolutism" is much more likely to precipitate cynicism than curiosity.
            However, noting Objectivism is based on observation with one's own senses and the fundamentals of cause and effect, is more likely to cause interest.

            I seek these nuggets to open people's minds. One open mind precipitates others... and a chain reaction. Prager is good at this, even with a poorer footing.

            The enemy, Satan himself_, altruism (individual and institutional (socialism)) has developed prevalent viruses preying on natural tendencies, and is very good at this, even though their message is false and unfair. People here are smart. We should be able to prepare more compelling messages and understanding.

            _ for illustration only; I am an atheist.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo