An Animated Ayn Rand Dispenses Terrible Love Advice to Mike Wallace (1959)

in Animation, Philosophy | June 9th, 2015

In the past, the good folks over at Blank on Blank have turned rarely-seen interviews with the likes of Ray Bradbury and John Coltrane into brilliant little animated shorts. This week, their latest installment is on Ayn Rand.

Rand, of course, is the mind behind Objectivism, the patron saint of laissez faire capitalism, and the author of such unwieldy tomes as The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Among Wall Street bankers, Washington conservatives and insufferable college sophomores, Rand is a revered figure. Former vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan and presidential candidate Rand Paul are both acknowledged followers. Former Federal Reserve head Alan Greenspan was Rand’s protégé. To a lot of other people, of course, her theories are little more than a shrill justification of sociopathy, an empathy-challenged vision of social interaction that flies in the face of basic ideas of human decency.

The interview dates back to a 1959 interview by Mike Wallace (see the original here) who grills Rand on her concept of love and happiness, which leads to this exchange:

Ayn Rand: I say that man is entitled to his own happiness. And that he must achieve it himself. But that he cannot demand that others give up their lives to make him happy. And nor should he wish to sacrifice himself for the happiness of others. I hold that man should have self-esteem.

Mike Wallace: And cannot man have self-esteem if he loves his fellow man? Christ, every important moral leader in man’s history, has taught us that we should love one another. Why then is this kind of love in your mind immoral?

Ayn Rand: It is immoral if it is a love placed above oneself. It is more than immoral, it’s impossible. Because when you are asked to love everybody indiscriminately. That is to love people without any standard. To love them regardless of whether they have any value or virtue, you are asked to love nobody.

Watching the piece, I kept hearing the title of Raymond Carver’s brilliant short story run through my mind, “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love.” (Hear Carver read that story here.) My sense is that her version of love is very different from mine. Watch the full animated video above.

Jonathan Crow is a Los Angeles-based writer and filmmaker whose work has appeared in Yahoo!, The Hollywood Reporter, and other publications. You can follow him at @jonccrow. And check out his blog Veeptopus, featuring pictures of vice presidents with octopuses on their heads. The Veeptopus store is here.

Ayn Rand Adamantly Defends Her Atheism on The Phil Donahue Show (Circa 1979)

The Outspoken Ayn Rand Interviewed by Mike Wallace (1959)

Ayn Rand Trashes C.S. Lewis in Her Marginalia: He’s an “Abysmal Bastard”

by Jonathan Crow | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 3 ) |

The Absurd Philosophy of Albert Camus Presented in a Short Animated Film by Alain De Botton

in Philosophy | May 28th, 2015

What is the meaning of life? This may sound simplistic or naïve, especially in relation to much contemporary philosophy, which assumes the question is incoherent and reserves its focus for smaller and smaller slices of experience. And, of course, prior to the rise of secular modernity, the question was answered for us—and still is for a great many people—by religion. One either believed the answer, through coercion or otherwise, or kept quiet about it. But at least since Søren Kierkegaard, philosophers in the West have taken the question very seriously, and found all of the answers wanting. By the mid-twentieth century, there seemed to thinkers like Albert Camus to be no answer. Life has no meaning. It is inherently absurd and purposeless.

This Camus concluded in challenging essays like “The Myth of Sisyphus” and novels like L’Etranger, a book most of us know as The Stranger but which Alain de Botton, in his School of Life video above on Camus’ philosophy, translates as The Outsider. Reading this book, de Botton observes, “has long been an adolescent rite of passage” since many of its themes “are first tackled at seventeen or so.” Its protagonist, Meursault, an older, more nihilistic version of Holden Caulfield, illustrates Camus’ thesis through his steadfast refusal to identify with any meaning-making institutions or emotions, and through a casual, senseless murder. But while Meursault may see through the pretensions of his society, he has failed to see the world as it is.

Colin Wilson, another author many people read during intellectually formative years—who wrote an existentialist study also called The Outsider—describes Meursault’s indifference to life as a product of “his sense of unreality.” Only the looming prospect of death awakens him from what Meursault calls “a heavy grime of unreality.” Instead of despairing at life’s emptiness, Camus determined that true freedom required engaging fully with life, in the face of futility—with the ultimate prospect of death and the option of suicide always in view. Camus, says de Botton, “writes with exceptional intensity… as a guide for the reasons to live.” De Botton somewhat superficially praises Camus’ sexual prowess, fashion sense, and good looks as more than just “stylistic quirks,” but as markers of his psychological health.

But more than just a ladies man, Camus was a “great champion of the ordinary,” as well as a champion footballer and Nobel prize-winning literary star. He was also a fully committed journalist and political activist for much of his career, who stood by his individual principles even as other leftist intellectuals got swept up in the allure of Soviet communism under Stalin. In the documentary above, we learn important details of many of these qualities, as well of Camus’ troubled early life. Given his background of impoverishment and loss, it is indeed remarkable that Camus—much more so than other, more privileged philosophers—lived such a rich, fully engaged life.

In a rare television interview above, Camus answers questions about his theatrical adaptation of Dostoevsky’s The Possessed, another novel that confronts head on the question of life’s meaning. He speaks of the novel’s “nihilism,” now “the reality that we have to face.” Camus does not mention that Dostoyevsky, like the existentialist Kierkegaard, managed to salvage a kind of religious faith in the face of emptiness; the French philosopher and writer was convinced of the impossibility of such a thing. But whether one draws Dostoevsky or Camus’ conclusions, both would suggest that to live authentically, one must seriously grapple with the problem of meaninglessness and the reality of death.

Albert Camus: Soccer Goalie

Existential Philosophy of Kierkegaard, Sartre, Camus Explained with 8‑Bit Video Games

Nietzsche, Wittgenstein & Sartre Explained with Monty Python-Style Animations by The School of Life

Download 130 Free Philosophy Courses: Tools for Thinking About Life, Death & Everything Between

Josh Jones is a writer and musician based in Durham, NC. Follow him at @jdmagness

by Josh Jones | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 4 ) |

Rare Video: Georges Bataille Talks About Literature & Evil in His Only TV Interview (1958)

in Literature, Philosophy, Television | May 26th, 2015

“Where other transgressive figures of the past have mostly been tamed,” wrote Josh Jones in a post here last year, “[Georges] Bataille, I submit, is still quite dangerous.” You can get a sense of that in the documentary featured there, À perte de vue, which introduces the transgressive French intellectual’s life and thought, which from the 1920s to the 1960s produced books like The Solar Anus, The Hatred of Poetry, and The Tears of Eros, all part of a body of work that captivated the likes of Susan Sontag, Michel Foucault, and Jacques Derrida.

At the top of this post, you can enjoy another, straighter shot of Bataille through his 1958 appearance opposite interviewer Pierre Dumayet — the only television interview he ever did. The occasion: the publication of his book Literature and Evil, a title that, Bataille says, refers to “two opposite kinds of evil: the first one is related to the necessity of human activity going well and having the desired results, and the other consists of deliberately violating some fundamental taboos — like, for example, the taboo against murder, or against some sexual possibilities.”

Bataille’s fans expect from him a certain amount of taboo violation, though executed in a specific literary form — not just prose, but the distinctive sort of prose, whether spoken or written, brought to perfection by midcentury French intellectuals. In this ten-minute clip, Bataille elaborates on his conviction that we can’t separate literature from evil: if the former stays away from the latter, “it rapidly becomes boring.” He also gets into a discussion of Baudelaire, Kafka (“both of them knew they were on the side of evil”), Shakespeare, the importance of eroticism and childishness in literature, and the inherently anti-work nature of writing. However relevant you find Bataille’s ideas today, you have to give the man this: he never gets boring.

Michel Foucault – Beyond Good and Evil: 1993 Documentary Explores the Theorist’s Controversial Life and Philosophy

Extensive Archive of Avant-Garde & Modernist Magazines (1890–1939) Now Available Online

Jacques Lacan’s Confrontation with a Young Rebel: Classic Moment, 1972

Free Online Philosophy Courses

Download 55 Free Online Literature Courses: From Dante and Milton to Kerouac and Tolkien

Colin Marshall writes on cities, language, Asia, and men’s style. He’s at work on a book about Los Angeles, A Los Angeles Primer, and the video series The City in Cinema. Follow him on Twitter at @colinmarshall or on Facebook.

by Colin Marshall | Permalink | Make a Comment ( None ) |

6 Political Theorists Introduced in Animated “School of Life” Videos: Marx, Smith, Rawls & More

in Philosophy, Politics | May 18th, 2015

“It may come as a surprise to some academics,” writes leftist political theorist Michael Parenti in his sprawling textbook Democracy for the Few, “but there is a marked relationship between economic power and political power.” Parenti exaggerates—I have never met such an academic in a humanities department, though it may be true in the worlds of political philosophy and political science.

Yet in centuries past, philosophers and scholars had no trouble drawing conclusions about the intertwining of the political and the economic. One may immediately think of Karl Marx, who—according to the above video from a new School of Life series on famous political theorists—was “capitalism’s most famous and ambitious critic.” The practical effects of Marx’s political ideas may be anathema for good reason, Alain de Botton admits, but his economic analysis deserves continued attention.

“Capitalism is going to have to be reformed,” de Botton says, “and Marx’s analyses are going to be part of any answer.” One might imagine many academics objecting to his certainty. Marx’s relevance is in question across the political spectrum, in part because the kind of capitalism he so painstakingly documented is hardly recognizable to us now.

70 years before Marx diagnosed the social and economic ills of Victorian capitalism, Scottish philosopher Adam Smith made similar observations of its 18th century precursor. Regularly cited in defense of so-called free market principles, Smith’s Wealth of Nations as often shows how little freedom actually exists in capitalist societies because of the undue influence of “the masters” and the hyper-specialization of the work force, who were unable in Smith’s time, and often in ours, to organize for their mutual interests.

Smith may not have gone as far as Marx in his conclusions, but he did advocate progressive taxation and a robust welfare state. In the 20th century, John Rawls argued for a stricter standard of political and economic equality than Smith’s appeal to sympathy. Rawls’ 1971 Theory of Justice introduced a “simple, economical, and polemical way to show people how their societies were unfair”: the “veil of ignorance.”

This thought experiment asks us to eliminate unfairness by presuming we might potentially have been born into the circumstances of any other living person on earth. Though it may not be particularly apparent, Rawls’ ideas have had some influence on policy. As de Botton points out above, he dined regularly at the Clinton White House. But his principles haven’t much changed the way we live our economic lives, in part because of his critique of the rags-to-riches story, almost a sacred myth in American society.

Like Adam Smith, Henry David Thoreau’s politics seem a little harder to pin down. A contemporary of Marx, Thoreau thought in terms of the individual, penning perhaps a founding text for both hippie homesteaders and survivalists. In Walden—written while he lived alone in a cabin on land owned by his friend and patron Ralph Waldo Emerson—Thoreau makes the case for near total self-reliance. In his Civil Disobedience, he writes, “I heartily accept the motto—‘That government is best which governs least.’”

Thoreau also believed “That government is best which governs not at all.” Yet, despite its author’s fierce libertarian bent (he refused to pay his taxes on principle), Civil Disobedience has served a founding text of progressive social and environmental movements worldwide. Speaking “practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men,” Thoreau went on, “I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government.”

De Botton’s series on political theory profiles two more Victorian-era thinkers—poet and writer on political economy William Morris, above, and art and literary critic John Ruskin, below. Both thinkers—with rarified focus on craft and aesthetics—made their own critiques of capitalism from positions of relative luxury. Though the School of Life series doesn’t say so directly, it seems as though the six philosophers it surveys—very cursorily, I should add—were chosen as historical counterexamples to the idea that political theorists don’t observe the relationship between the political and the economic. It may be the case today in certain academic departments, but it certainly was not for over the first two hundred years of capitalism’s existence.

Nietzsche, Wittgenstein & Sartre Explained with Monty Python-Style Animations by The School of Life

Alain de Botton’s School of Life Presents Animated Introductions to Heidegger, The Stoics & Epicurus

Eastern Philosophy Explained with Three Animated Videos by Alain de Botton’s School of Life

Leo Strauss: 15 Political Philosophy Courses Online

Free Online Philosophy Courses

Josh Jones is a writer and musician based in Durham, NC. Follow him at @jdmagness

by Josh Jones | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 1 ) |

Nietzsche, Wittgenstein & Sartre Explained with Monty Python-Style Animations by The School of Life

in Philosophy | May 12th, 2015

Angst. Nausea. Selbstüberwindung. All, surely, words we’ve used before, but have we paid attention to their proper philosophical contexts? The well-known and widely-read philosophers Ludwig Wittgenstein, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Friedrich Nietzsche used those words and others in very specific ways to express concepts essential to their certainly eccentric but even more certainly important philosophical writings. These brief, Alain de Botton-narrated video primers from The School of Life’s series on philosophy will get you started on coming to grips with just what these 19th- and 20th-century thinkers had to tell us about our own lives.

The new video on Wittgenstein concentrates on its subject’s lifelong grappling with the problems of linguistic communication, from his first conclusion that “language works by triggering within us pictures of how things are in the world” to his second that “language is like a kind of tool that we use to play different ‘games.’ ” The video on Sartre deals with the existentialist’s contentions that “things are weirder than we think,” that “we are free,” that “we shouldn’t live in bad faith,” and that “we are free to dismantle capitalism.” The video on Nietzsche explains just what it means to become an Übermensch — a goal achievable, for example, by using your capacity for selbstüberwindung to overcome your sklavenmoral.

Though watching these philosophic primers might well make you ever so slightly conversant in Wittgenstein, Sartre, and Nietzsche, The School of Life has clearly crafted them (using goofy cut-up visuals and a healthy rate of quips per minute) primarily as an entertaining means of whetting your intellectual appetite. If you’d like to know more about these modern philosophers, have a look at our links to other related posts below. And if you’d like to go broader before you go deeper, do watch the rest of the series, which will get you started on everyone from Aristotle and the Stoics to La Rochefoucauld and Heidegger.

Related Content:

140 Free Online Philosophy Courses

135 Free Philosophy eBooks

Human, All Too Human: 3‑Part Documentary Profiles Nietzsche, Heidegger & Sartre

A Guide to Happiness: Alain de Botton Shows How Six Great Philosophers Can Change Your Life

Download Walter Kaufmann’s Lectures on Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Sartre & Modern Thought (1960)

Bertrand Russell on His Student Ludwig Wittgenstein: Man of Genius or Merely an Eccentric?

Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Gets Adapted Into an Avant-Garde Comic Opera

Colin Marshall writes on cities, language, Asia, and men’s style. He’s at work on a book about Los Angeles, A Los Angeles Primer, and the video series The City in Cinema. Follow him on Twitter at @colinmarshall or on Facebook.

by Colin Marshall | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 2 ) |

Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Short, Strange & Brutal Stint as an Elementary School Teacher

in Education, History, Philosophy | May 6th, 2015

Ludwig Wittgenstein finished writing the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, the achievement for which most of us remember him, in 1918; three years later came its first publication in Germany. And to what problem did Wittgenstein put his luminous philosophical mind in the interim? Teaching a class of elementary schoolers in rural Austria. “Well on his way to being considered the greatest philosopher alive,” as Spencer Robins puts it in a thorough Paris Review post on Wittgenstein’s teaching stint, he also found himself “convinced he was a moral failure.” Searching for a solution, he got rid of his family fortune, left the “Palais Wittgenstein” in which he’d grown up, and out of “a romantic idea of what it would be like to work with peasants—an idea he’d gotten from reading Tolstoy,” went to teach kids in the middle of nowhere. See them all above.\

“I am to be an elementary-school teacher in a tiny village called Trattenbach,” Wittgenstein wrote to his own teacher and friend Bertrand Russell in a letter dated October 23, 1921. A month later, in another letter, he described his circumstances as those of “odiousness and baseness,” complaining that “I know human beings on the average are not worth much anywhere, but here they are much more good-for-nothing and irresponsible than elsewhere.” The great philosopher’s experiment in primary education would appear not to have gone well.

And yet Wittgenstein comes off, by many accounts, as an exemplary and almost unbelievably engaged teacher. He and his students, in Robins’ words, “designed steam engines and buildings together, and built models of them; dissected animals; examined things with a microscope Wittgenstein brought from Vienna; read literature; learned constellations lying under the night sky; and took trips to Vienna, where they stayed at a school run by his sister Hermine.” Hermine herself remembered the kids “positively climbing over each other in their eagerness” to answer their philosopher-teacher’s questions, and at least one particularly promising kid among them received Wittgenstein’s extensive extracurricular instruction — and even an offer of adoption.

We might also consider Wittgenstein a champion, in his own way, of equal treatment for the sexes: unlike other teachers in rural early 20th-century Austria, he expected the girls to solve the very same vertiginously difficult math problems he put to the boys. But by the same token, he doled out corporal punishment to them just as equally when they got the answer wrong, and even when they didn’t grasp the concepts at hand as swiftly as he might have liked. This rough treatment culminated in “the Haidbauer incident,” an occasion of child-smacking consequential enough in Wittgenstein’s life to merit its own Wikipedia page, and which effectively ended his educational involvement with youngsters. The incident reportedly left an 11-year-old schoolboy “unconscious after being hit on the head during class.”

“Ultimately, he was to alienate the villagers of Trattenbach with his tyrannical and often bullying behavior, the result of a mind unable to empathize with the stage at which some of his pupils found themselves in their learning,” writes education blogger Alex Beard in his own post on Wittgenstein-as teacher. “Today we would admire his high expectations and the purity of his intention as an educator, but look rather less kindly on the Ohrfeige (ear-boxing) and Haareziehen (hair-pulling) that his students later recalled.” We modern-day Wittgenstein fans have to ask ourselves what wonders we might we have learned had fate assigned our elementary-school selves to his classroom — and whether we would have graduated to our next year unscathed.

Wittgenstein and Hitler Attended the Same School in Austria, at the Same Time (1904)

Wittgenstein Day-by-Day: Facebook Page Tracks the Philosopher’s Wartime Experience 100 Years Ago

Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Gets Adapted Into an Avant-Garde Comic Opera

See the Homes and Studies of Wittgenstein, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche & Other Philosophers

Colin Marshall writes on cities, language, Asia, and men’s style. He’s at work on a book about Los Angeles, A Los Angeles Primer, and the video series The City in Cinema. Follow him on Twitter at @colinmarshall or on Facebook.

by Colin Marshall | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 3 ) |

How to Live a Good Life? Watch Philosophy Animations Narrated by Stephen Fry on Aristotle, Ayn Rand, Max Weber & More

in Animation, Philosophy | May 4th, 2015

We recently featured a series of animations from BBC Radio 4 scripted by philosopher Nigel Warburton, narrated by writer, performer, and all-around wit Stephen Fry, and dealing with a big question: what is the self? Those four short videos called upon the ideas of thinkers as various as Sartre, Descartes, and Shakespeare. This new follow-up draws from the intellectual wells dug by the likes of Aristotle, Max Weber, Ayn Rand, and the Buddha to address a still big, somewhat less abstract, but a perhaps even more important problem: how do I live a good life?

Rand, as her many detractors never hesitate to put it, thought the answer lay in following the highest mandate, our own selfishness. Buddhism, for its part, puts its stock into four noble truths: the inescapability of suffering, the origin of that suffering in our own minds, the possibility of changing our lives if we stop craving so many things, and the usefulness of the Buddhist “eightfold path” in doing so. Max Weber argued that the “Protestant ethic,” as defined by Calvinism, made capitalism itself into the big deal it has become today. And Aristotle recommended living virtuously as a means of attaining eudaimonia, or flourishing.

Alas, for all the important work done by these and other thinkers, the attainment of a good life can remain pretty elusive for us modern folk. Maybe we can do no better than learning what our predecessors have thought and said on the subject as best we can, and deciding for ourselves from there. But fortunately for us modern folk, we have videos like these at our fingertips which make it not just quick and easy to take a first step toward that state, but which get us laughing along the way. As with the rest of these series of animations on life’s big questions, the best jokes appear subtly, so you’ve got to stay attentive — surely one of the more important virtues anyone, ancient or modern, can cultivate.

Related Content:

140 Free Online Philosophy Courses

What is the Self? Watch Philosophy Animations Narrated by Stephen Fry on Sartre, Descartes & More

How Can I Know Right From Wrong? Watch Philosophy Animations on Ethics Narrated by Harry Shearer

Learn Right From Wrong with Oxford’s Free Course A Romp Through Ethics for Complete Beginners

How Did Everything Begin?: Animations on the Origins of the Universe Narrated by X‑Files Star Gillian Anderson

What Makes Us Human?: Chomsky, Locke & Marx Introduced by New Animated Videos from the BBC

Colin Marshall writes on cities, language, Asia, and men’s style. He’s at work on a book about Los Angeles, A Los Angeles Primer, and the video series The City in Cinema. Follow him on Twitter at @colinmarshall or on Facebook.

by Colin Marshall | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 5 ) |

Read Noam Chomsky & Sam Harris’ “Unpleasant” Email Exchange

in Current Affairs, Philosophy | May 1st, 2015

In 2013, we documented the acrimonious exchange between Noam Chomsky and Slavoj Žižek, which all started when Chomsky accused Žižek of “posturing–using fancy terms like polysyllables and pretending [to] have a theory when you have no theory whatsoever.” To which Žižek responded: “Chomsky, … always emphasizes how one has to be empirical, accurate… well I don’t think I know a guy who was so often empirically wrong in his descriptions…” And so it continued.

Two years later, Chomsky now finds himself in another fraught exchange — this time, with Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation. It’s a little hard to pin down when the dust-up first began. But, it at least goes back to January, when Harris took Chomsky to task (hear an excerpt of a longer podcast above) for drawing a moral equivalence between U.S. military action and the violence committed by some of America’s historical foes (e.g., the Nazis during WWII and later Al-Qaeda).

Over the past week, Chomsky and Harris continued the debate, trading emails back and forth. Their correspondence runs some 10,000 words, but it only amounts to what Harris ultimately calls “an unpleasant and fruitless encounter” that demonstrates the “limits of discourse.” It’s an exchange that Chomsky seemingly preferred to keep private (his permission to print the emails was grudging at best), and Harris saw some virtue in making public. The final email by Harris reads:

May 1, 2015

From: Sam Harris
To: Noam Chomsky

Noam—

I’ve now read our correspondence through and have decided to publish it (www.samharris.org). I understand your point about “exhibitionism,” but I disagree in this case.

You and I probably share a million readers who would have found a genuine conversation between us extremely useful. And I trust that they will be disappointed by our failure to produce one, as I am. However, if publishing this exchange helps anyone to better communicate about these topics in the future, our time won’t have been entirely wasted.

Sam

Whether Sam is right about that (is there something particularly instructive here?), you can decide. Here’s the entire exchange.

If you would like to sign up for Open Culture’s free email newsletter, please find it here. It’s a great way to see our new posts, all bundled in one email, each day.

If you would like to support the mission of Open Culture, consider making a donation to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your contributions will help us continue providing the best free cultural and educational materials to learners everywhere. You can contribute through PayPal, Patreon, and Venmo (@openculture). Thanks!

Slavoj Žižek Responds to Noam Chomsky: ‘I Don’t Know a Guy Who Was So Often Empirically Wrong’

Clash of the Titans: Noam Chomsky & Michel Foucault Debate Human Nature & Power on Dutch TV, 1971

Read 9 Free Books By Noam Chomsky Online

by OC | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 57 ) |

An Animated Ayn Rand Dispenses Terrible Love Advice to Mike Wallace (1959)

The Absurd Philosophy of Albert Camus Presented in a Short Animated Film by Alain De Botton

Rare Video: Georges Bataille Talks About Literature & Evil in His Only TV Interview (1958)

6 Political Theorists Introduced in Animated “School of Life” Videos: Marx, Smith, Rawls & More

Nietzsche, Wittgenstein & Sartre Explained with Monty Python-Style Animations by The School of Life

Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Short, Strange & Brutal Stint as an Elementary School Teacher

How to Live a Good Life? Watch Philosophy Animations Narrated by Stephen Fry on Aristotle, Ayn Rand, Max Weber & More

Read Noam Chomsky & Sam Harris’ “Unpleasant” Email Exchange

Essentials

Support Us

Free Courses

Receive our Daily Email

FREE UPDATES!

GET OUR DAILY EMAIL

Free Movies

Free Language Lessons

Free eBooks

Free Audio Books

Free Textbooks

K-12 Resources

Free Art & Images

Free Music

Writing Tips

Archive

Personal Finance

Categories

Great Lectures

Sign up for Newsletter

About Us

Great Recordings

Book Lists By

Syllabi

Favorite Movies

Archives

Search