Plato v. Aristotle: The Ideas That Shaped Rand, Kant and the World

In this video, Jon Hersey, managing editor of The Objective Standard, argues that four thinkers, Aristotle, Rand, Plato, and Kant, are the key to understanding some of history’s most brilliant eras — and its darkest — as well as the modern-day culture war that seemingly divides us so profoundly.

Whose ideas, for example, dominated during the Middle Ages, when humanity advanced very little? What about during the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and Industrial Revolution? And what might that tell us about whose philosophy is more likely to lead to human prosperity moving forward?

Hersey answers those questions and more by summarizing Plato’s and Aristotle’s worldviews and that of their most essential exponents: Kant and Rand.

Comment below if you agree or disagree with his analysis, and be sure to tell us why!

#Objectivism #Rand #Aristotle #Renaissance #Enlightenment

Chapters:
0:00: Plato’s and Aristotle’s Most Important Exponents
0:24: Plato’s World of Forms and the Basis for Dictatorships
1:41: Aristotle’s Obsession with the Real World
2:08: History’s Brightest and Darkest Eras
5:12: Kant’s “Moral Duty” to Accept Rulers — and Rand’s Takedown of It
7:24: Rand’s Precondition of Values
8:20: Rand on Reason
9:15: Rand’s Revival of the Enlightenment

LEARN LIBERTY:

[thereganmedition]

Plato's favorite words of wisdom are

"We become what we contemplate"

[JamesAndrewMacGlashanTaylor]

This is how you shoehorn Kant into a box he doesn't actually fit into. And how you make useful idiots by telling them "useful lies". How Platonic. Kant is a synthesizer, like Aristotle. Yet, where Aristotle claims knowledge, Kant stops short and says, "I don't know, maybe." He sets the stage for pragmatism. But Kant doesn't do what Plato does either. The third man argument would not apply to Kant. And that is significant. That is the subtlety. Remember, Aristotle gave us the celestial spheres theory. Kant would say, "Hey Ari, do you think that maybe you are imposing categories onto the world that are not actually there? Just a thought."

All this ignores that While Francis Bacon would fall into the Aristotelian camp, Aristotle, unlike Bacon, nonetheless clings to the idea of general principles or hylomorphism which, as I understand it, he inherits and adapts/exapts from his mentor, Plato.

So, while the Austrians are clearly Aristotelian given their adherence to general principles, Mises is nonetheless a Kantian because he is willing to entertain the idea that, in the end, humans may not actually "act" at all. That "action" may itself be an imposition of the mind. I call it the "Misesian Proviso." However, until such time as action is proven/demonstrated as false, Mises uses the Aristotelian framework.

[SDscrch]

every american should watch this video
three times- minimum

[settembrini]

I am not convinced that Kant's philosophy is adequately represented here - one of the formulations of his categorical imperative says: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law". This doesn't match with simply accepting the dictates of political rulers. In "Perpetual peace" he argues in favour of a representative republican government, in which the legislature is separated from the executive. The three principles of this republican government are: freedom, subordination to the law (not to the political leaders!), and equality under the law.

[hyperontic]

This is actually not true, Kant has nothing to do with Plato. For Kant, BOTH Platonic Forms and Atomic Content are "Phenomenal", while the "Noumenal" is simply what is not yet within human experience. Nothing wrong with positing an unknown realm, being humble about how little you know is a mark of a good scientist.

Also riddle me this, who persecuted Bruno, Galileo, and Copernicus? (surely it couldn't have been the Aristotelians right??)

[whatsup]

Why do private colleges encourage quality? Please explore that topic in economical manner comparing with private and public college.

[richardbethencourt]

Ayn Rand advocated for an objectivism without an absolute cause. That dissolves Aristotelian thought. I’m sure you’ll find a true Aristotelian development (and beyond) with Thomas Aquinas. I trust you don’t miss that out.

[freesk]

Wow, this was really good! I was a Philosophy major at Cornell in the late '80's and have been interested in this very thing for decades. You did a great job of accurately representing these views in a very short time! Thanks! :)

[mizukarate]

Seems like we need both concepts. Also we must also remember to ask questions like Socrates.

[quentinvalentingualberrena]

I agree with Aristotle, and therefore with Ayn Rand. Idealism may seem beautiful: but only in appearance, which is quite ironic, idealism asserting that we have to go beyond appearances. Nietzsche, when talking about Plato, said that he made a transvaluation of values. The same observation can be made for Kant and Hegel. And also for Marx. Georges-Arthur Goldschmidt says that, for our time, we have the choice between Marx and Nietzsche. Let us hope we will choose Nietzsche.

[jason_samosa]

It’s disappointing to see you forging criticism by comparison.

I’d rather see you critique each philosopher’s arguments as they are.

[seanyardley]

I have never been so confused as to hear that Plato was in some way not an objectivist. The entire idea behind what Plato was saying was speaking of eternal objective truths upon which everything we witness are flawed versions of. I don’t know many people who historically believed more firmly in objective eternal truths and principles than Plato

[ClassPunkOnRumbleAndSubstack]

1:25 "..until they become enlightened."

Yo! My bro ancient India pulled that shit off!

[karolgajko]

Oh, so that's why Mises and Rand hated each other...

[gobgoble]

@5:15. This is a gross misrepresentation of not only Kant's intention, but his philosophy as well. Kant DOES NOT claim that all knowledge is inherently subjective. As the video shows, those that came after (Hegel, Marx, Sartre, etc.) will make this claim instead. Kant does believe that the human mind can grasp some true (noumenal) facts. His entire project of the critique of pure reason was exactly to push back on the works of empiricists such as Hume, who claimed that human beings cannot have true knowledge of any (observable) facts. Kant is saying the opposite.

Kant is a titan of outstanding ethical, and metaphysical philosophy that champions western values, and to see his name dragged through the mud here is disheartening.

[PearComputingDevices]

I've always rejected the ideas of Karl Marx, almost instinctively. Now I know why. The ideas behind Plato are that of essentially slavery, as with Karl Marx and thus Hagel. It's also probably why every time their ideas are tried not only do they fail miserably, but always ends up in a collectivist dictatorship. Aryn Rand might not have been the greatest writter, but I think she was on to something.

[TheTektronik]

Even Friedrich Nietzsche opposed Kant.

[KamikazethecatII]

ayn rand does not belong in the same breath as aristotle 😭😭 kant is not even close to plato’s chief proponent either

[FilosSofo]

Really? You are putting Ayn Rand at the same level as Aristotle, Plato and Kant? Haha what?!

[Clyde_Frog]

Pretty bad interpretation of Marx but whatever