Love this woman's ability to communicate clearly to anyone willingness to listen and internalize.
@science212
Жыл бұрын
Tara is a good scholar.
@YashikaDabur
Жыл бұрын
Tysm, I'll ponder over it.
@2Oldcoots
Жыл бұрын
Having practiced what is preached here (rational egoism) for a lifetime I can bear witness to the truth and wisdom of this Philosophy. Out.
@Shozb0t
Жыл бұрын
Tara Smith is always giving handouts. It’s like being in school again, in a good way.
@kphaxx
Жыл бұрын
She's giving handouts that are earned by virtue of understanding them 😁
@thememaster7
Жыл бұрын
Much of Objectivism underestimates the importance of sound quality. It's a fallacy to say "The argument is more important therefore it shouldn't be prioritized that much." The best businesses prioritize everything highly so that everyhing is as good as it can be.
@wildcat189
Жыл бұрын
How in the year 2023 can a lecture have worse sound than in 1990?
@Pioneer_DE
Жыл бұрын
When the *libertarian* foundation doesn't spend proper money on a good camera/microphone to safe money, that's how.
@maurices5954
Жыл бұрын
@@Pioneer_DE Ouch! The economical calculation problem strikes again!
@kphaxx
Жыл бұрын
EGOISM
@periteu
Жыл бұрын
HONESTY
@ericjames7819
Жыл бұрын
Egoism isn't natural or inborn?? Apparently she has never had small children.
@sergiyavorski9977
Жыл бұрын
Fire your audio people. They have no idea how to mic a speaker for a lecture.
@ericjames7819
Жыл бұрын
Man cannot have a good life without considering what we evolved to do. An animal that is a predator cannot have a good, happy life because it cannot hunt and kill. That is it's evolved purpose. Human beings also have evolved purposes that we must live according to in order to have satisfying lives.
@Ferdinand208
Жыл бұрын
What is with the terrible audio? It is clear that the microphone you choose requires you to keep your mouth in one place. But she is moving because she is presenting. So the audio constantly goes from quiet to loud as she moves. If you can't hear it; put on headphones and listen again. At the same time you hear an echo. Either give her a clip-on microphone or a headset. But you can still make this audio listenable. Put it through a normalizer so you get equal loudness (you don't need dynamic range). You might even be able to filter out a bit of the echo.
@thememaster7
Жыл бұрын
pure negligence
@Pioneer_DE
Жыл бұрын
Why would they, they'd need to pay for it but why pay for something that educates the masses when you can fulfill your own *ahem* "Rational self-interest" by saving money.
@thememaster7
Жыл бұрын
@@Pioneer_DE htf is that rational?
@jonathanbauer2988
Жыл бұрын
@@Pioneer_DE if you are trying to reach people its in your rational self interest to have good audio, what a ridiculous statement you made lol
@mwesigeJoramfreedom
Жыл бұрын
Great thanks
@sergiyavorski9977
Жыл бұрын
"Selfishnes" and "egoism" should be dropped out of the objectivist vocabulary if we want to reach out to the broader public. Those words will always have a bad connotation. " Rational self-interest" should be used instead.
@Pioneer_DE
Жыл бұрын
The fact you need to hide central keywords of an ideology should open your eyes. No offense though, you are an american.
@thememaster7
Жыл бұрын
They hate self interest as well. Rewording it won't change their ethics. It's the concept they hate, not just the word.
@thememaster7
Жыл бұрын
*An Objectivist may prefer self-interest if they have a built in rejection to the word selfishness, but the altruist doesn't care.
@KRGruner
Жыл бұрын
Exactly why Ayn Rand has had little impact in society at large. Re-defining common words away from their normally accepted usage is a recipe for failure. Egoism (as normally understood) and selfishness (as normally understood) are unethical, although not immoral (they are amoral). Sure, Ayn Rand's re-definition of these words changes this interpretation, but so what? In the mind of the average person, she does appears as either a moron or a perverse person. But hey, have fun in your cult...
@mwesigeJoramfreedom
Жыл бұрын
I follow Ayn Rand, what do you mean?
@KRGruner
Жыл бұрын
@@mwesigeJoramfreedom Uh... I guess I mean what I wrote. Arbitrarily re-defining words in a way that is sure to confuse people is NOT a good way to do philosophy, if you really want to get your point across. Just saying...
@ingevankeirsbilck9601
Жыл бұрын
@@KRGruner It's a few decades ago since I took the obligatory introduction to Western philosophy at University, but if memory serves most philosophers use certain terms in very specific ways, and the same term can mean different things in different philosophical schools. Learning the definitions of the terms as they are used in specific philosophies is therefore elemental to understanding the philosophy in question. This isn't limited to philosophy; a "swing" with a golf club isn't the same as a "swing" with a tennis racket, yet nobody would think of making the same movement in tennis and golf. The alternative would be to make up new words entirely, which I'm sure would be off-putting to some people. Sometimes there is no "ideal" solution.
@KRGruner
Жыл бұрын
@@ingevankeirsbilck9601 Not the point! There may be some differences in interpretation of terms between philosophies, but as soon as they go contrary to common usage, they become either useless or misleading. And one thing we want in GOOD philosophy (and yes, there are lot of bad ones, including Objectivism) is at the very least CLARITY. This is unfortunately not heeded by a lot of philosophers who pretend that obscure language is the sign of profundity. NO SO! If you cannot express your thought clearly, you are a waste of time,. In Rand's case, she wrote clearly in general, and it is all the more disappointing that she chose to confuse people by being needlessly provocative in her use of the concept of "selfishness." This is NOT good philosophy. And indeed, the proof is in the pudding: Rand is almost completely irrelevant in philosophical circles.
Пікірлер: 30