Uploaded September 2018 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
In this episode of Functional Philosophy, I answer the following questions:
1. "Recently listening to Ben Shapiro and Sam Harris have their debate, Ben brings up aristotles immovable mover and it reminded me that he mentions it in a few other places as well and it almost seems like he might actually think he is Aristotelian as opposed to Platonic. So I went looking but couldn't really find anything much on it from Ayn Rand aside from a brief mention in the Journals of Ayn Rand where she quite rightly dismisses it. But my question to you is: do you know of anything else/more in depth that Rand said on the subject and did Leonard Peikoff ever bring it up? Also what are your thoughts on the subject?"
2. "I would love to know your opinion on the literally concept "Death of the Author".
If you do not know, Death of the Author states that the intentions of an author/creator do not matter when reading a book (or any art) and what ever Interpretation an observer sees in a peice of art is just as valid as anybody else's.
In other words, it says you should seperate the Creator from there Creation.
I do not like this theory of Literature/Art at all, but I would like to know what you think."
3. "I have noticed that a lot of people ignore inconsistencies in their beliefs. Politically, Religiously, etc. I doubt they they don't see their contradictions, since they are so damn obvious. Steven Crowder, for example, says that one is going to be a hypocrite if they have an opinion on anything. If I notice a contradiction in anything, I dig to see where it went wrong (which would by today's standards be "autistic"). My question is, why is it that these people don't care to acknowledge and fix inconsistencies in their beliefs (like religious people who believe in contradictory things but just don't think about and question it)?"
***
Functional Philosophy is the show in which Objectivist philosopher Charles Tew helps you gain and strengthen the philosophical foundations required to achieve certainty, success, and happiness. If you're curious to see how Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism can bring revolutionary clarity to your life, give it a listen.
Website: charlestew.com
Podcast: itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/functional-philosophy/id1242722316?mt=2
Patreon: patreon.com/charlestew
In this episode of Functional Philosophy, I answer the following questions:
1. "Recently listening to Ben Shapiro and Sam Harris have their debate, Ben brings up aristotles immovable mover and it reminded me that he mentions it in a few other places as well and it almost seems like he might actually think he is Aristotelian as opposed to Platonic. So I went looking but couldn't really find anything much on it from Ayn Rand aside from a brief mention in the Journals of Ayn Rand where she quite rightly dismisses it. But my question to you is: do you know of anything else/more in depth that Rand said on the subject and did Leonard Peikoff ever bring it up? Also what are your thoughts on the subject?"
2. "I would love to know your opinion on the literally concept "Death of the Author".
If you do not know, Death of the Author states that the intentions of an author/creator do not matter when reading a book (or any art) and what ever Interpretation an observer sees in a peice of art is just as valid as anybody else's.
In other words, it says you should seperate the Creator from there Creation.
I do not like this theory of Literature/Art at all, but I would like to know what you think."
3. "I have noticed that a lot of people ignore inconsistencies in their beliefs. Politically, Religiously, etc. I doubt they they don't see their contradictions, since they are so damn obvious. Steven Crowder, for example, says that one is going to be a hypocrite if they have an opinion on anything. If I notice a contradiction in anything, I dig to see where it went wrong (which would by today's standards be "autistic"). My question is, why is it that these people don't care to acknowledge and fix inconsistencies in their beliefs (like religious people who believe in contradictory things but just don't think about and question it)?"
***
Functional Philosophy is the show in which Objectivist philosopher Charles Tew helps you gain and strengthen the philosophical foundations required to achieve certainty, success, and happiness. If you're curious to see how Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism can bring revolutionary clarity to your life, give it a listen.
Website: charlestew.com
Podcast: itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/functional-philosophy/id1242722316?mt=2
Patreon: patreon.com/charlestew
![(1) Thoughts & Feelings (2) Handling Emotions (3) Free Speech & Cultural Prospects (FP Podcast #99)
In this episode of Functional Philosophy, I answer the following questions:
00:38 - A perfect, clear understanding also means a feeling. It isn’t enough to realize a thing is true. The realization must be so clear that one feels this truth. For men act on feelings, not on thoughts. Every thought should be part of yourself, your body, your nature, and every part of your nature should be a thought. Every feeling – a thought, every thought – a feeling. [— Ayn Rand, in her journals]
What I take this to mean, is that it is a germ of Rand’s more fully developed concept that ideally man is an integrated being of thought, feeling and action – in fact, that a healthy human being experiences no contradiction between his thoughts, his emotions and his actions. Further, I take from this, that though it is one’s volitional consciousness that selects one’s goals and purposes and one’s direction, it is one’s emotions (hopefully one’s passions), that fuel the actions one takes to achieve one’s purposes. If our premises are true, then our passions drive us to our goals.
Please comment.
12:05 - What is the difference between controlling emotion vs. suppressing/repressing emotion?
20:40 - If Objectivism is inevitably going to dominate the culture, why will it take going through a dark ages before it is rediscovered? Isnt it more likely for it to happen now? When we have free speech and the internet? If Thomas Aquinas could single handedly bring man out of the dark ages through reintroducing Aristotle, why couldn’t Ayn Rand bring us out of our present philosophical Deadpool of nihilism and decay? We have complete free speech and the internet. How is it possible we are still losing? Once Objectivism takes hold, will it be irreversible? It provides too many correct answers for another Immanual Kant type to undo?
***
Functional Philosophy is the weekly Q&A podcast that helps you gain and strengthen the philosophical foundations required to achieve certainty, success, and happiness.
Subscribe to hear philosopher Charles Tew, an expert on Ayn Rands philosophy of Objectivism, answer your questions on philosophy, politics, career, romance, and more. New episodes on Mondays.
Website: https://www.charlestew.com
Podcast: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/functional-philosophy/id1242722316?mt=2
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/charlestew (1) Thoughts & Feelings (2) Handling Emotions (3) Free Speech & Cultural Prospects (FP Podcast #99)](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/YygKjm__SiQ/mqdefault.jpg)









