True Sacrifice VS Ayn Rand: Jordan Peterson & Stefan Molyneux

Views:1917|Rating:3.92|View Time:4:18Minutes|Likes:40|Dislikes:11

You may also like...

14 Responses

  1. mike girdwood says:

    But that sacrifice, thought out, Is rational thought; this is in total compliance with Rands work.

  2. David Hartwig says:

    Jordan your super intelligent and I l Ike you but you have obviously not read objectivists literature. If you had you wouldn’t sound so uneducated

  3. E Alter says:

    I think the point that is being missed is "rational" self-interest.

  4. M Prager says:

    As some already mentioned, thats not the kind of sacrifice Ayn Rand was talking about. Thats just moving the value you get in return to the future, something everybody understands and acts out (even though some better than others for sure). Rand was talking about the need to sacrifice without any benefit, or at least while believing to be doing just that. In reality you always get something back (otherwise you simply had no reason to go and do it), its just a question of the form this benefit comes in. It might be a good feeling you helped, it might be just the fact that you harmed yourself (self-distructive people with low self-esteem) and so on.
    That's what Rand was talking about and Peterson misses the point completely on this one.

  5. Robert Lee says:

    It is clear to me Petersen is not talking about the same thing Rand is when she discusses sacrifice in her code of ethics.

    See her discussion on the dynamics of compromise.

  6. James Polley says:

    Typical. Two people who don't fully grasp her ideas think their "adding" to them by presenting a less constructed (and therefore flawed) version of them.

  7. Zach Moore says:

    Hank Reardon’s court room speech shows the Ayn Rand saw no conflict between selfishness and the public good. The real difficulty in interpreting Rand is all the abuse of language we have in the world.

  8. TimeWarp66 says:

    There's a difference between sacrifice and investment. You don't sacrifice for your kids, you invest in them. Sacrifice is you harming yourself for someone else benefit. it's altruism, and it is evil according to Ayn Rand.

  9. Intellectual Trumpster says:

    Is Molyneux sniffing Jordan's butt with his misrepresentation of sacrifice and Rand's philosophy?

  10. ViChenec says:

    Got to objectively define term "SACRIFICE" in Ayn Rand's words sacrifice is exchange of value for negative/zero value. If one give his/her life away to save the loved one, because life without loved one will loose meaning is NOT a sacrifice. If one gives his/her life to anyone who demands it, that's sacrifice. If one gives a cup of freshly made coffee to the person freezing on streets believing that it will make the world slightly better place is NOT a sacrifice. If one does not hold such a believe and is forced to give coffee away to the person freezing on the streets is sacrifice.

  11. rand says:

    I don’t think Ayn Rand would object to Jordan Peterson’s point, I think she would say “exactly “ . What is truly and completely “right “for the “ individual “ is ultimately right for the whole. Knowing what is truly right must include the future, any separation of present, future and past is an intellectual illusion that is very difficult to avoid with the limits of language. The now is very big and mushy stretching in all directions, our constant preoccupation with the tic tic tic of the clock gives us the feeling that the now or present is very quick, short and hard to grasp.The clock is a very helpful tool but causes us problems with perception on this subject. In a very relaxed or meditative mood, perhaps in your hot tub or on a hillside on a beautiful day you often experience the nice big mushy now stretching off as far as you are able to perceive. Looking at your clock will stop this dead. Staying in this state will at the very least relax and recharge you and sometimes even let needed realizations bubble up for your benefit. Note my handle has nothing to do with Ayn Rand.

  12. Forest Star says:

    Giving up a value now for a greater value in the future is not a sacrifice it is integrity, it's someone who tries to extend his happiness beyond the present for a greater or extended happiness in the future, its the a sign of a thinker who through abstraction can see the larger long term benefit, it's not a sacrifice. Its not a sacrifice if the long term benefit is greater than the momentary benefit, it's just a rational choice between two values. Christmas' celebration of productiveness and integrity are what make it great not sacrifice. The benefit to others of and individual self interested work are not simultaneously they are a secondary result, after the primary benefit of rational self interested person, yeah it's good but it's not the reason you should be good and do the right thing or pursue your happiness. Your happiness is an end in itself, the fact that it may benefit others is great but not the most important.

  13. Trout Mask says:

    If stefan is considered an objectivist then I am jesus

  14. mughat says:

    “Sacrifice” does not mean the rejection of the worthless, but of the precious. “Sacrifice” does not mean the rejection of the evil for the sake of the good, but of the good for the sake of the evil. “Sacrifice” is the surrender of that which you value in favor of that which you don’t.

    If you exchange a penny for a dollar, it is not a sacrifice; if you exchange a dollar for a penny, it is. If you achieve the career you wanted, after years of struggle, it is not a sacrifice; if you then renounce it for the sake of a rival, it is. If you own a bottle of milk and give it to your starving child, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to your neighbor’s child and let your own die, it is.

    If you give money to help a friend, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to a worthless stranger, it is. If you give your friend a sum you can afford, it is not a sacrifice; if you give him money at the cost of your own discomfort, it is only a partial virtue, according to this sort of moral standard; if you give him money at the cost of disaster to yourself—that is the virtue of sacrifice in full.

    If you renounce all personal desires and dedicate your life to those you love, you do not achieve full virtue: you still retain a value of your own, which is your love. If you devote your life to random strangers, it is an act of greater virtue. If you devote your life to serving men you hate—that is the greatest of the virtues you can practice.

    A sacrifice is the surrender of a value. Full sacrifice is full surrender of all values. If you wish to achieve full virtue, you must seek no gratitude in return for your sacrifice, no praise, no love, no admiration, no self-esteem, not even the pride of being virtuous; the faintest trace of any gain dilutes your virtue. If you pursue a course of action that does not taint your life by any joy, that brings you no value in matter, no value in spirit, no gain, no profit, no reward—if you achieve this state of total zero, you have achieved the ideal of moral perfection.

    You are told that moral perfection is impossible to man—and, by this standard, it is. You cannot achieve it so long as you live, but the value of your life and of your person is gauged by how closely you succeed in approaching that ideal zero which is death.

    If you start, however, as a passionless blank, as a vegetable seeking to be eaten, with no values to reject and no wishes to renounce, you will not win the crown of sacrifice. It is not a sacrifice to renounce the unwanted. It is not a sacrifice to give your life for others, if death is your personal desire. To achieve the virtue of sacrifice, you must want to live, you must love it, you must burn with passion for this earth and for all the splendor it can give you—you must feel the twist of every knife as it slashes your desires away from your reach and drains your love out of your body. It is not mere death that the morality of sacrifice holds out to you as an ideal, but death by slow torture.

    Do not remind me that it pertains only to this life on earth. I am concerned with no other. Neither are you.

    If you wish to save the last of your dignity, do not call your best actions a “sacrifice”: that term brands you as immoral. If a mother buys food for her hungry child rather than a hat for herself, it is not a sacrifice: she values the child higher than the hat; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of mother whose higher value is the hat, who would prefer her child to starve and feeds him only from a sense of duty. If a man dies fighting for his own freedom, it is not a sacrifice: he is not willing to live as a slave; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of man who’s willing. If a man refuses to sell his convictions, it is not a sacrifice, unless he is the sort of man who has no convictions.

    Sacrifice could be proper only for those who have nothing to sacrifice—no values, no standards, no judgment—those whose desires are irrational whims, blindly conceived and lightly surrendered. For a man of moral stature, whose desires are born of rational values, sacrifice is the surrender of the right to the wrong, of the good to the evil.

    The creed of sacrifice is a morality for the immoral—a morality that declares its own bankruptcy by confessing that it can’t impart to men any personal stake in virtues or values, and that their souls are sewers of depravity, which they must be taught to sacrifice. By its own confession, it is impotent to teach men to be good and can only subject them to constant punishment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *