Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959 part 1

Author: Ayn Rand

94 likes · like  8950 views


Comments (showing 1-24 of 24)

dateDown_arrow    newest »

message 1: by Jan

Jan Clarified her views - don't agree with her though.


message 2: by Jen

Jen I think it is very possible to hold this philosophy without being considered too much of a revolutionary today...not that I agree with Objectivism fully, but I do think there were better words for Ayn to choose to represent her ideas that didn't tear so much at the fabric of other constructs.


Denise What an interesting woman. I wonder what events or experiences in her life took her down this road. She certainly has the courage of her convictions.


message 4: by David

David Sours Fascinating interview. Anyone who forces us to stand back and re-examine our fundamental assumptions about the world deserves to be taken seriously. No wonder Ayn Rand has been so influential among her readers.


message 5: by Karen

Karen Williams Denise wrote: "What an interesting woman. I wonder what events or experiences in her life took her down this road. She certainly has the courage of her convictions."

Well if you look on her small biography on this site, she grew up during the times of the Russian Revolution. Her father, I think, was a pharmacist, and her family suffered a great deal during these times. If you read her book "Capitalism", it is obvious what lead her down this rout. Although, being a capitalist herself, she points out in the introduction of the book that she is not a conservative, because often it is mistaken that if you are a capitalist you are a conservative; so she stresses the key differences too. She is quiet interesting I'm an avid reader of her work, despite the many pitfalls of her philosophy, I tend to agree with her 85% of the time.



message 6: by Chaz

Chaz Her ethos is lost because she ended up giving up names during the McCarthy era. There is altruism on one end, and she has the individual right to eschew it altogether, but to collaborate with evil?

No, I'm sorry, her philosophy leads to a dangerous end-game which was played out with Keynesian economics, with social darwinism to borrow a 19th century term. This legitimizes egotism.


Yngvild None of the questions in this interview elicited more than a brief, superficial answer. Ayn Rand was not invited, or even allowed, to expand on the details of her philosophy of objectivism. But Mike Wallace presumably knew his audience.


Jacqueline Arcuri Ayn Rand was far ahead of her time and her books, while some controversial, still seek top dollar today and can be a challenge to find copies of her work. Considering herself an "objective" thinker, she has basically outlined a new way of life,a government if you will. Her work is very thought provoking to say the least and I think Mike Wallace did an good job with what many could say " a difficult guest speaker".


Jamshid Faryar Not a very revolutionary way of thinking by today's standards, eh?


message 10: by Deb

Deb Jen wrote: "I think it is very possible to hold this philosophy without being considered too much of a revolutionary today...not that I agree with Objectivism fully, but I do think there were better words for ..."

Jen, she escaped from Russia/USSR after the experiencing the beginning of the communist revolution where every one was expected to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of the whole society.


message 11: by Sarah (last edited Feb 21, 2010 07:37PM)

Sarah This isn't new, or that is to say, it wasn't new when she thought it. She mixes classical liberalism with Nietzsche. I don't care for either of those philosophies, and I certainly don't care for her.


message 12: by Aaron

Aaron What's up with the tags on this video?


message 13: by Abby

Abby I agree with Mary that this video is fascinating as an artifact of early television. Rand is formidable; Wallace struck me as weak but is probably typical of the times (it was the McCarthy era, after all). I wish the complete interview were included. As for learning something about what Rand stood for and how she lived her life, I found helpful the Times Book Review of Anne C. Heller's biography of Rand (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/boo...).


message 14: by Paul (last edited Apr 25, 2010 07:58PM)

Paul Pellicci I never heard of this person or her pilosophy. I know why I never heard of her, flaky.


message 15: by Lori

Lori I find it interesting that 50 years later, her comments are still relevant. Am I complete follower of hers? No. Do I agree that it's only up to me? Sure do.


message 16: by Kevin

Kevin Riel what a crock


message 17: by Krnewman (last edited Aug 29, 2010 03:41PM)

Krnewman The bad thing about Rand is that she inspired some truly cheese-oid lyrics by the band Rush. The good thing is that the desire to expose and refute her bogus pseudo-philosophy led to the creation of two very fine video games, Bio-Shock and Bio-Shock 2. Oh, I almost forgot, one more bad thing is that she inspired Alan Greenspan to destroy the global economy and bring untold death and suffering on the heads of millions of people and crush the US into dust. Aside from that, she was just a little old lady with bad teeth and some curious psycho-social "personal issues."


message 18: by Radha

Radha Admire her confidence....Very inspiring


message 19: by Ben

Ben Chaz wrote: "Her ethos is lost because she ended up giving up names during the McCarthy era. There is altruism on one end, and she has the individual right to eschew it altogether, but to collaborate with evil?..."

Ayn Rand's philosophy is violently opposed to Keynesian economics.


message 20: by Ben

Ben Wow in part II, Mike Wallace starts to smoke. Hilarious.


message 21: by F.

F. Carmen "Ben" is 100% correct, Re: "Ayn Rand's philosophy is violently opposed to Keynesian economics. "

Anyone who thinks or feels that Rand is equal to or compatible with "Keynesian economics" is, simply, incorrect. In fact, they are 180ยบ different!


Alexander Herrera Krnewman wrote: "The bad thing about Rand is that she inspired some truly cheese-oid lyrics by the band Rush. The good thing is that the desire to expose and refute her bogus pseudo-philosophy led to the creation o..."

Thats funny lol...


Alexander Herrera I'm currently reading Atlas Shrugged. So far she has some very compelling arguments against moochers of our society. No matter what era we are in...free loaders are always going to leech off the value producers of society.


message 24: by Jim

Jim Bouchard Rand's struggle with her arguments always centered on the emotion of love. Altruism, defined by Rand, is problematic because not everyone deserves to be loved.

At the same time, if a person is to be loved based on his or her virtues, and another person considers altruism to be a virtue, there's no barrier to love to be found in Objectivism in this case.

Rand's greatest contribution is to cause us to carefully analyze the validity of true altruism. Does it ever really exist? Do we not all act out of self-interest to some degree?

When we don't, there's trouble. Consider the example of a battered women who clings to a destructive relationship "for the sake of the children" or a religious obligation. In this case, acting with self-interest would dictate that the woman remove herself from a violent or destructive partner- an action that would actually benefit not only herself, but her children and in a sense, even the abusive partner.

Rand never resolved her issue with love; her own personal life was a confusing dichotomy of self-interest versus emotional needs. She could not, unfortunately, allow her closest friends and lovers to operate by the same rules she held so precious.

To really appreciate her ideas, we've got to "forgive" Rand her inability to reconcile her personal life with her own philosophy- and forgiveness, as we know, is by nature an altruistic expression.

Or are we forgiving her because it is in our own self-interest to do so?

Food for thought!

Best thoughts to all!


back to top