6 ms·

Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959

36 points by martian 17y ago

tokenadult 17y ago
Archive of early Mike Wallace interviews from 1957 and 1958. http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/collections/film/holdings/wallace/ http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/collections/film/holdings/wallace/ Wallace has had an amazingly long career.
blhack 17y ago
One of the most amazing thing about this interview is just how well composed Mike Wallace is. Wow...I wish there were still people like this on television.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
  - adamzap 17y ago
    Isn't that his microphone? Or are you referring to something else? http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/4941/screenshot20100303at755.png http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/4941/screenshot20100303at755....
    - travisjeffery 17y ago
      Yeah that's his microphone the guy just took it took to be a cross.
  - jrmurad 17y ago
    His "cross"? Mike Wallace is Jewish.
_lc1i 17y ago
Despite Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead being amongst my favorite books, Ayn Rand always has me so polarized. Her moral philosophies and ability to write characters earns my unmatched admiration. But her blinding hatred for socialism (as conveyed from her very first book) keep her economic views from ever being realistic or even interesting. For the same reason communism fails, her free market would fail, because it only takes one (inevitable) company to ruin the party for everybody. Man is too easily corrupted to live at the economic extremes of communism or completely free markets. I always like to think Ayn Rand's selfish desires and socialism could work together. Just think of taxes going to reasonable causes (such as infrastructure or health care) as forced self-interest :)
- tokenadult 17y ago
  "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/03/ephemera-2009-7.html http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/03/ephemera-2009-7.html
  - _lc1i 17y ago
    Those kinds of condescending and trite dismissals are just not interesting. Rand draws more than her fair share of them and I don't think an honest debate can be held over her (good) philosophies because of their prevalence.
    - Estragon 17y ago
      Ayn Rand (and in my experience, most Objectivists) didn't want an honest debate "I am not looking for intelligent disagreement any longer.... What I am looking for is intelligent agreement."[1] (I recommend the whole essay.) [1] http://www.mclemee.com/id39.html http://www.mclemee.com/id39.html
      - _lc1i 17y ago
        Thanks for the essay. It's unfortunate Rand and Objectivism are so uncompromising. I guess that leaves the debating and exploration of ideas to us laymen, and we all know that won't go anywhere productive or intelligent :)
    - jbooth 17y ago
      Actually, her points are so black-and-white, oversimplified, childish, naive, take your pick.. that, yeah. What do you think America was built by? A bunch of man-babies who took their toys and went home when someone else wanted help?
- idlewords 17y ago
greenlblue 17y ago
I stopped watching after she said something about the existence of objective reality.
- _lc1i 17y ago
  It is completely unfair to dismiss Rand for any one thing she says or believes. Like any philosophy, the good come with the bad, and Rand has some very thought provoking, if not indisputable, good. And objective reality is not so unintelligent or undebatable to be dismissed at the whim of one sentance.
  - nandemo 17y ago
    On HN of all places, I expect that most people would agree that there's an objective reality. I wonder if greenlblue stopped watching because she was talking about something so darned obvious.
    - greenlblue 17y ago
      No, I stopped watching because she was talking about something so obviously wrong. The amount of processing your brains does to fill in details and recreate memories from sparse details is quite amazing and this is enough evidence for me to throw out objective reality. Also, I don't understand how HN influences people's philosophical views or why anyone with an HN account would be pro objective reality.
      - tokenadult 17y ago
        I used to have occasion to read transcripts of first degree murder trials when the convicted murderers appealed their convictions to my states's Supreme Court, where I was a judicial clerk. It is a fact that when people are put on oath to testify at trial, and subject to cross-examination, their memories will be both faulty and internally contradictory. But that doesn't mean that nothing they report happened. The jury's job at trial is to figure out which partial, or biased, or mistaken recollections best correspond to what happened, but something happened. What do you say is what to hold on to after you "throw out objective reality"?
maxharris 17y ago
Don't be distracted by political arguments - the most important parts of Objectivism are is its metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. Objectivists do have political views, but they are merely conclusions drawn from more fundamental elements of the philosophy. As things stand now, we expect no great change by political means; it is our more fundamental ideas that we want to see adopted in the culture.
jsz0 17y ago
I never understood why people were so keen on Ayn Rand. Seems like a philosophy built to justify being a jerk.
- pw0ncakes 17y ago
  In New York, objectivism is sort of a support group for fucked-up rich people of mediocre intelligence. They have meetings and shit.
- _lc1i 17y ago
  As written in her books, following her moral can often lead to the unfair perception of being a jerk. Many people briefly exposed or misunderstanding Rand choose to remember (and spread) the jerk self interest part without laying out her moral framework.
  - jbooth 17y ago
    Meh, John Galt went out and convinced all the rich people who were allegedly being preyed on by unions and special interests to.. go on strike? And become a special interest? Wow, that's great. First off, if my boss left to go do that I'd say "Thanks for the promotion" and take the payraise. Second off -- and much more importantly -- you should live your life for something more than your own crappy temporary luxuries.
    - dantheman 17y ago
      I think you misunderstand the story. 1. John Galt convinces the "rich", though quite a few weren't, that continuing their work would lead to their destruction so in order to survive they would need to go on strike. Perhaps the better analogy is the man who invents a new weapon and then is killed by someone else using it. 2. The problem was that as the bosses left others with corrupt ideologies were taking their place. 3. Nothing in the book has to do with the rich needing luxuries, in fact they all move out to Galt's gulch and do manual labor and leave the life of luxury behind. In fact her stories are all about being true to yourself and living your life the way that you want to. I'm not a fan of everything she's written, but I think you really missed the point of the book.
Tycho 17y ago
a remarkable thing about Objectivism is the overlap between Rand's epistemology and the paradigm of Object-Oriented Programming. It's uncanny. (if you want to know more, you might be able to find her 70 page essay 'An Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology', also there was an academic paper about the OOP link written recently)
- shaddi 17y ago
  That would be an interesting overlap. It begs the question, however, if our society should be modeled after an object-oriented program, or if people should be treated like objects within it. My problem with objectivism is that it fails to account for the complexity that exists in our world. It might work better if we were truly rational beings, or if people were only constrained by their own decisions or a set of fair, logical rules. We don't live in a computer. I wonder if this similarity has anything to do with the reason why so many objectivists I know have a technical background? (I hope I didn't just open up a bad can of worms here... I do appreciate your contribution.)
  - maxharris 17y ago
    Objectivism says a lot more about what individuals need (and need to do) to flourish than about how to organize society. The political stuff is important, but it's not the central point of the philosophy. America isn't ready for a political system that's acceptable to Objectivists (Americans would reject it.) What it really needs is to discover Objectivism's deep, practical and consistent moral message.
  - Tycho 17y ago
    Not sure I catch your drift... the similarity to OOP pertains to Rand's description of concept formation within the human mind. A concept is like a sub-class, and a unit is like an object; a concept inherits all the properties of its parent-concept but adds some differentiating properties of its own; an instance encapsulates ALL of these properties, not just the differentiating/essential ones (which is what other philosophies fail to acknowledge). The good thing about Objectivist epistemology is that it provides means to extrapolate all the way up/down the conceptual hierarchy, from the simplest data on which microbes can operate, to the most complex abstractions of politics and economics and science. One could argue that O'ism is the one philosophy which DOES account for the complexity of existence, in a comprehensive manner (instead of making unjustified leaps of logic/intuition). Bottom-line on Objectivism in the social context is identify men for what they are - rational creatures - and treat them accordingly (ie. by trade, not by force). Interesting that you know 'so many' Objectivists... I've never actually met any myself (I live in the UK).

36 points by martian 17y ago

Archive of early Mike Wallace interviews from 1957 and 1958. http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/collections/film/holdings/wallace/ http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/collections/film/holdings/wallace/ Wallace has had an amazingly long career.

blhack 17y ago

One of the most amazing thing about this interview is just how well composed Mike Wallace is. Wow...I wish there were still people like this on television.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
- adamzap 17y ago
  Isn't that his microphone? Or are you referring to something else? http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/4941/screenshot20100303at755.png http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/4941/screenshot20100303at755....
  - travisjeffery 17y ago
    Yeah that's his microphone the guy just took it took to be a cross.
- jrmurad 17y ago
  His "cross"? Mike Wallace is Jewish.

_lc1i 17y ago

Despite Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead being amongst my favorite books, Ayn Rand always has me so polarized. Her moral philosophies and ability to write characters earns my unmatched admiration. But her blinding hatred for socialism (as conveyed from her very first book) keep her economic views from ever being realistic or even interesting. For the same reason communism fails, her free market would fail, because it only takes one (inevitable) company to ruin the party for everybody. Man is too easily corrupted to live at the economic extremes of communism or completely free markets. I always like to think Ayn Rand's selfish desires and socialism could work together. Just think of taxes going to reasonable causes (such as infrastructure or health care) as forced self-interest :)

tokenadult 17y ago
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/03/ephemera-2009-7.html http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/03/ephemera-2009-7.html
- _lc1i 17y ago
  Those kinds of condescending and trite dismissals are just not interesting. Rand draws more than her fair share of them and I don't think an honest debate can be held over her (good) philosophies because of their prevalence.
  - Estragon 17y ago
    Ayn Rand (and in my experience, most Objectivists) didn't want an honest debate "I am not looking for intelligent disagreement any longer.... What I am looking for is intelligent agreement."[1] (I recommend the whole essay.) [1] http://www.mclemee.com/id39.html http://www.mclemee.com/id39.html
    - _lc1i 17y ago
      Thanks for the essay. It's unfortunate Rand and Objectivism are so uncompromising. I guess that leaves the debating and exploration of ideas to us laymen, and we all know that won't go anywhere productive or intelligent :)
  - jbooth 17y ago
    Actually, her points are so black-and-white, oversimplified, childish, naive, take your pick.. that, yeah. What do you think America was built by? A bunch of man-babies who took their toys and went home when someone else wanted help?
idlewords 17y ago

greenlblue 17y ago

I stopped watching after she said something about the existence of objective reality.

_lc1i 17y ago
It is completely unfair to dismiss Rand for any one thing she says or believes. Like any philosophy, the good come with the bad, and Rand has some very thought provoking, if not indisputable, good. And objective reality is not so unintelligent or undebatable to be dismissed at the whim of one sentance.
- nandemo 17y ago
  On HN of all places, I expect that most people would agree that there's an objective reality. I wonder if greenlblue stopped watching because she was talking about something so darned obvious.
  - greenlblue 17y ago
    No, I stopped watching because she was talking about something so obviously wrong. The amount of processing your brains does to fill in details and recreate memories from sparse details is quite amazing and this is enough evidence for me to throw out objective reality. Also, I don't understand how HN influences people's philosophical views or why anyone with an HN account would be pro objective reality.
    - tokenadult 17y ago
      I used to have occasion to read transcripts of first degree murder trials when the convicted murderers appealed their convictions to my states's Supreme Court, where I was a judicial clerk. It is a fact that when people are put on oath to testify at trial, and subject to cross-examination, their memories will be both faulty and internally contradictory. But that doesn't mean that nothing they report happened. The jury's job at trial is to figure out which partial, or biased, or mistaken recollections best correspond to what happened, but something happened. What do you say is what to hold on to after you "throw out objective reality"?

maxharris 17y ago

Don't be distracted by political arguments - the most important parts of Objectivism are is its metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. Objectivists do have political views, but they are merely conclusions drawn from more fundamental elements of the philosophy. As things stand now, we expect no great change by political means; it is our more fundamental ideas that we want to see adopted in the culture.

jsz0 17y ago

I never understood why people were so keen on Ayn Rand. Seems like a philosophy built to justify being a jerk.

pw0ncakes 17y ago
In New York, objectivism is sort of a support group for fucked-up rich people of mediocre intelligence. They have meetings and shit.
_lc1i 17y ago
As written in her books, following her moral can often lead to the unfair perception of being a jerk. Many people briefly exposed or misunderstanding Rand choose to remember (and spread) the jerk self interest part without laying out her moral framework.
- jbooth 17y ago
  Meh, John Galt went out and convinced all the rich people who were allegedly being preyed on by unions and special interests to.. go on strike? And become a special interest? Wow, that's great. First off, if my boss left to go do that I'd say "Thanks for the promotion" and take the payraise. Second off -- and much more importantly -- you should live your life for something more than your own crappy temporary luxuries.
  - dantheman 17y ago
    I think you misunderstand the story. 1. John Galt convinces the "rich", though quite a few weren't, that continuing their work would lead to their destruction so in order to survive they would need to go on strike. Perhaps the better analogy is the man who invents a new weapon and then is killed by someone else using it. 2. The problem was that as the bosses left others with corrupt ideologies were taking their place. 3. Nothing in the book has to do with the rich needing luxuries, in fact they all move out to Galt's gulch and do manual labor and leave the life of luxury behind. In fact her stories are all about being true to yourself and living your life the way that you want to. I'm not a fan of everything she's written, but I think you really missed the point of the book.

Tycho 17y ago

a remarkable thing about Objectivism is the overlap between Rand's epistemology and the paradigm of Object-Oriented Programming. It's uncanny. (if you want to know more, you might be able to find her 70 page essay 'An Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology', also there was an academic paper about the OOP link written recently)

shaddi 17y ago
That would be an interesting overlap. It begs the question, however, if our society should be modeled after an object-oriented program, or if people should be treated like objects within it. My problem with objectivism is that it fails to account for the complexity that exists in our world. It might work better if we were truly rational beings, or if people were only constrained by their own decisions or a set of fair, logical rules. We don't live in a computer. I wonder if this similarity has anything to do with the reason why so many objectivists I know have a technical background? (I hope I didn't just open up a bad can of worms here... I do appreciate your contribution.)
- maxharris 17y ago
  Objectivism says a lot more about what individuals need (and need to do) to flourish than about how to organize society. The political stuff is important, but it's not the central point of the philosophy. America isn't ready for a political system that's acceptable to Objectivists (Americans would reject it.) What it really needs is to discover Objectivism's deep, practical and consistent moral message.
- Tycho 17y ago
  Not sure I catch your drift... the similarity to OOP pertains to Rand's description of concept formation within the human mind. A concept is like a sub-class, and a unit is like an object; a concept inherits all the properties of its parent-concept but adds some differentiating properties of its own; an instance encapsulates ALL of these properties, not just the differentiating/essential ones (which is what other philosophies fail to acknowledge). The good thing about Objectivist epistemology is that it provides means to extrapolate all the way up/down the conceptual hierarchy, from the simplest data on which microbes can operate, to the most complex abstractions of politics and economics and science. One could argue that O'ism is the one philosophy which DOES account for the complexity of existence, in a comprehensive manner (instead of making unjustified leaps of logic/intuition). Bottom-line on Objectivism in the social context is identify men for what they are - rational creatures - and treat them accordingly (ie. by trade, not by force). Interesting that you know 'so many' Objectivists... I've never actually met any myself (I live in the UK).