Further fairytales from Yaron Brook

[Mark]

The reaction of Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate to the election, preserved on ARI Watch:

www.ARIwatch.com/TheAmericanSpirit.htm

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 11/21/2016 at 0:35 PM, Mark said:

The reaction of Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate to the election, preserved on ARI Watch:

www.ARIwatch.com/TheAmericanSpirit.htm

Mark,

It took up to now for me to get to this essay, but I just read it.

I already knew that the ARI folks supported Hillary, but the extent of the sheer lockstep behind piss-poor logic based on misidentifications and, at times, blatant blind hatred, is breathtaking.

These are not stupid people, so the only thing that makes sense to me is that Yaron Brook is a globalist who has been on a project of carving out a slice of the world organization for him and his cronies. That includes trying to turn ARI into a witch doctor think tank for that purpose.

Everything he promotes--based on the quotes you provided--goes toward what the globalists promote, and everything he rejects involves those opposed to that taking of power by an elite ruling class and dictatorship by technocrats. Well... there is a lot of Objectivist jargon boilerplate as a smokescreen. But the lack of concretes for that boilerplate is impressive and the blank-out of facts that go contrary to his claims is even more astounding. (I could give several examples from your article, but I prefer to encourage the OL public to read it.)

Your article is brutal in showing that Brook's (and, by extension, Ghate's) argument against Trump boils down to nothing but a personal hatred of the man and an even stronger hatred of average Americans. I knew he hated Trump, but I was not aware he hated average Americans as much as he does. Man is that creepy.

I would add this. Brook knows his backstage deals don't stand a chance of amplifying any power he dreams of obtaining (for him or, maybe, those he serves) once Trump starts implementing an actual free market in America based on protecting the interests of Americans who live within that market and who create it.

One of the most important things in your article is quoting him on taking money from the Koch brothers. Oil money. I used to think these Koch guys were interested in freedom since they fund so many politicians and think tanks, but over the years, I kept seeing that their businesses always seem to come out on the right side of government regulations that favor them and stifle competition. That doesn't sound like freedom to me. And I like to use a common sense principle in judging people: when there is a difference between what they say and what they do, what they do is the better indicator of their true priorities.

Anyway, Brook takes that money. I wonder what other money he takes...

Contrary to Brook's and Ghate's fears that the American public is ripe for a dictatorship, I hold the American public just demonstrated that they resoundingly reject a technocratic one-world dictatorship led by elitists. 

Here's the biggest fear I believe the ARI people have, and I also believe they have not articulated it in words to themselves. Trump's entire philosophy (which is big on practice and lean on theory) is based on self-help principles of succeeding by excellence and winning by fierce competition according to fair rules. It is a hugely motivational philosophy--talk about a "command to rise"... Just look at his family. They live by this philosophy. How many rich people have a family that happy who works as hard as they work? I never hear about any. I do, however, hear about individuals in rich families with all kinds of personal issues...

There's a movement right now (sometimes called Identitarian) where people talk a lot about white and nonwhite as if poor nonwhites are a threat to a capitalistic freedom-based culture. I agree that the flood of illegal immigrants is a huge mess with real dangers, but fear based on this white/nonwhite angle is irrelevant if you imagine what 8 years under a highly motivational president like Trump will do to the minds of poor nonwhites living in America--the legal ones and even the illegals who manage to stay. (Hell, poor folks living in other countries, too.  )

They will see Trump telling them to rise and work for themselves and become wealthy and happy--and leading by example. Not only leading, but actually doing things that result in a massive economic growth. There will be wealth all around for anyone to see and it will be available to anyone who wants to work rationally to get a slice. The result will be they will work for themselves and think for themselves and love doing it. That's exactly what will happen to a huge portion of them. That means the elitists will have an even huger setback in their social engineering plans and massive power grab than Brexit.

The elites need average people to be poor, not wealthy. They can't consolidate power otherwise. Wealthy people don't like it when someone tells them what they can and cannot do and demands compliance.

That is what the ARI folks are really afraid of. If the American public starts getting the good times rolling as individuals, what use is a philosophy (for the elites to gain power) that tells the American public the world is going to hell in a handbasket and that America is sinking into a totalitarian nightmare? 

No use. That's what. They will become irrelevant. 

Stellar article.

Congratulations.

btw - On your little literary device of froggy, I only have this to contribute:

 

Michael

[anthony]

It wasn't even a toss-up (in my humble opinion).

ARI should have been behind the electorate who crave self-responsibility, self-reliance and personal pride, against the supporters of altruistic social-engineering bureaucrats. I suggest there wasn't enough morality and too much politics/cult of personality in the argumentation.

[BaalChatzaf]

On 11/21/2016 at 1:35 PM, Mark said:

The reaction of Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate to the election, preserved on ARI Watch:

www.ARIwatch.com/TheAmericanSpirit.htm

Trump, this creature.   That is why I voted for him.  I thought the election of a manner-less lout  would do a great deal of good at killing the political abomination that has gown up in our country.

I and my brother-in-law  Gordon Z.  are the only two American Jewish males  who voted for Trump.  

[Ellen Stuttle]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I and my brother-in-law  Gordon Z.  are the only two American Jewish males  who voted for Trump.  

No, you aren't.

Ellen

[william.scherk]

Man for  America in need of some HTML-fu, maybe. There are no links to tweets or articles or podcasts.  I redact the following from Man versus ARI to include links and inline excerpts indicated by curly braces.

Quote

Back in June Harry Binswanger published on his website the article “Contra Trump,”

 

{

Contra Trump

June 6 , 2016
7:02 pm

Harry Binswanger

Here’s a guest post by John Gillis, followed by a brief additional comment by me.

...

Trump is not just, like Hillary, a despicable candidate. Trump brings to the presidential race a new kind of bad: spiteful, adolescent bullying (“Little Marco,” “Lyin’ Ted”) combined with ignorant, demagogic hostility toward scapegoats. His modus operandi, and probably his actual belief, is that every social problem is due to the actions of “them”–Mexicans, Chinese, women, etc.

Trump is the proverbial “man on a white horse,” a Führer figure, who asks us to substitute for ideas, his claims to personal shrewdness, talent at conniving, and strength. Hillary wants to turn America into France. Trump wants to turn America into . . . what? Argentina under Peron?

Trump’s campaign slogan is: “Make America Great Again.” But Trump himself has no idea of what constitutes the “greatness” that he wants to restore. Yet, he’s seeking unlimited authority to achieve that unspecified end. He has no standard, no political ideology, no principles, no consistency–not even over the course of an hour. He brandishes a new level of pragmatism: not merely opposition to principles, but unawareness of there being such a thing as principles. Even Nixon, the pragmatist’s pragmatist, is caught on tape saying about one aspect of the Watergate coverup, “No–it is wrong that’s for sure.” (Presidential Transcripts, first meeting of 3/21/73). Trump doesn’t even know about such things as right and wrong.

Having no intellectual framework, no moral framework, no abstract understanding of alternative courses of action, Trump lurches about at random. Since random actions produce destruction not improvement, a Trump presidency could only wreak havoc on this country. John Gillis is right: Trump is The Chaos Candidate.

Trump as president could damage America much more than Hillary ever could. It’s not only the practical disasters he can visit upon us, a Trump victory would carry and amplify a lethal philosophic message: Don’t think, just trust in a strongman.

Adherents of a philosophy upholding rationality as the essence of moral virtue can do nothing but shudder at the prospect.

Email the author - hb@alum.mit.edu

[WSS: Harry B has always struck me as a narrow-minded dogmatist.   With a cultish, hectoring  style of argument, fenced off from correction, often glib and sloppy. But that is just me, maybe. ]}

 

proclaiming to his followers  “I will either not vote, or vote for Hillary.” [4]  At some point he made up his mind which of the two because the evening before the election (held November 8th) he posted to his “Harry Binswanger Letter” (HBL) a last minute plea for everyone to vote for Hillary. {HBL has rules on quoting the private list, plus a loyalty pledge, of all the stupid things}
 

November 12th Yaron Brook described his reaction on his BlogTalkRadio show

Brook's BlogTalkRadio page stupidly does not format the dates other than "three weeks ago" and my distaste for his ramblings rivals that of White Man, so I just filtered this out.  In this one he yammers about Trump.  It may be painful for some at times  to listen to the Fudd accent and the rambling and the casual righteousness, while speculating how small his audience is.  Does he still get the odd fifty seconds on CNN or CNBC or even Fox Business Bulgaria? Guy can't get a gig not air-time-paid by the ARI borg?

REPLAY!! AM560 The Answer - Yaron Brook Show from November 12, 2016

 

Worth a listen if but for the first fifty seconds, actually ...  and for the shouty bits about 28:00, when Fudd and call-in both get righteous. And for all the breaks being either Traffic Center or Ayn Rand Enterprises. Intermittent closures in the Loop. Educating young intellectuals. Join the battle. Make your contribution today! Motorcycle accident at Lake and Wilson. Buy an Ayn Rand book supply for Chicago's yearning middle-school students. Protests in the Loop,

Yaron Brook: "While I rejoiced and celebrated that Hillary Clinton lost, I ain't happy. I ain't happy about the fact that Donald Trump actually won.

[...] One of the areas I think Donald Trump is dangerous to the Republic and where it's up to those of us who understand the Constitution and understand what this Republic is about,  to watch him, and to be vigilant, and to call him when he missteps, compliment him when he does good things, go after him when he does something wong. There are a few issues where we really need to be careful, really need to be vigilant." 

He does yammer haughtily and entertainingly about The Left silencing in Exeter and at Chicago Fweedom  at around 33:00, his confrontation with Trumpers "you are just ignorant" about Fwee Twade, as I paraphrase:  

Boos. I was gonna be lynched. Silence me completely. I did a book-signing, a woman came up to ask me if I was a citizen,, "We should deport you anyway. 

She has a right to say that, but it scares me. So like Trump. He doesn't like to hear people who disagree with him. He doesn't like to be criticized ,,, a president-elect who would go against Bezos WaPo by anti-trusting Amazon.  It's is the First amendment, the most important. Once you silence people, there is no debate, no discussion.

And even more yammering.

Quote

 

.  A few disconnected excerpts:

“I am horrified.”

“... that so many people in this country have voted 56, 57 million people have voted for this, this creature, right, this creature, this vulgar creature. That’s what Donald Trump is.”

“I do not know of a more anti-American president – and I used to say this about Obama, but now I say this about Donald Trump – in his ... approach to the world than Donald Trump.”

“... the electorate ... indicated a willingness to accept a dictator, a willingness to accept an authoritarian ... Trump is no hero, Trump is a villain, the villain of our time.”

“This is the first small step towards totalitarianism.”

Like Harry Binswanger, Gregory Salmieri, Jonathan Hoenig, and doubtless every other writer associated with the Ayn Rand Institute, [5]  Yaron Book voted for Hillary. We’ll analyze that BlogTalkRadio show in detail in a moment; our theme will be:  Yaron Brook makes up and believes fairytales to get you where he wants to go.

[...]

4  See “Contra Trump 1” on this website.
5  With the exception, unless he voted illegally, Onkar Ghate, who though a permanent resident is not a U.S. citizen. Yaron Brook possibly has dual citizenship (Israel first, U.S. second) but he can still legally vote in the U.S.

I was on board as far as Brook telling me that In The Know folks like him have to be vigilant and go after Trump when he is wong. The rest was not potlatch material.  Except maybe for the points about 'stolen vote' rhetoric from the Trump campaign trail. And the notes on 'thin skin' ... and the not-insane callers-in.

When was the last time the salaryman from ARI broke the bunker ceiling, and was quoted anywhere other than a blog?  He mentions getting booed at the Fweedom Summit. Did he get non-bunker/silo media attention for that? Did anybody? Froggy?

-- I am too hard on Brook and on Man with frog.  At least Man with frog writes his essays out to 7500-word length, even if no links are provided. Brook is a radio show with a range I cannot estimate and no transcript, which adheres to ARI's tedious oral tradition.  ARI may be getting more bang for the Brook buck than I imagine, of course. 

Here is a word-cloud from "The American Spirit" ... it cost me five bucks but I am giving it away for free.  It should appeal to the champion in all of us.

 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

At least Man with frog writes his essays out to 7500-word length, even if no links are provided.

William,

I didn't notice there were no links until you just now mentioned it. This is probably because I was already familiar in a general way with the positions of the different people involved.

This is called the "curse of knowledge" bias, a term coined by the Heath brothers if I am not mistaken, or at least discussed at length by them. It means being skilled and having difficulty imagining what not knowing the skill is like. The curse of knowledge involves using too much jargon, making wrong assumptions about the preliminary knowledge of another person, explaining a topic way above the head of a beginner, getting irritated easily at the lack of knowledge of a person, etc. In my case, it meant a presumption that general readers were just as familiar with the subject as I was so no links were necessary.

But even setting aside the curse of knowledge, links would be a good idea. It's always good when people can read (or hear or view) original material for themselves, especially when it is being critiqued.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

8 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

No, you aren't.

Ellen

 Yeah.  I sort of figured that.  But it was a nice fantasy...

[Brant Gaede]

Where is the rationality?

Fascism--political use of force--underlays all political systems not dedicated to individual rights. It's fascism knocking on America's door and it's from the left, not the right, as well illustrated by the post-election riots and other idiocies. So, how reacts the ARI crowd to those reactions? (We were wrong!? We were wrong!?)

Ayn Rand was against Reagan because of abortion, so I assume she'd be against Trump for the same reason. That's not having your priorities straight. She was also against conservatism while in many ways being a closet conservative. (Her position on abortion was not well thought out and seems to come from those of Jewish background being more pro-abortion than the Christians are plus the too much simplicity of ideological thinking. She did say that the essential issue was the first tri-mester.)

However, before she closed her public doors she announced that she couldn't stand observing the current political (and cultural?) scene, which then continued to get worse by her metrics to this day. She would have hated ARI and the disintegration of her philosophy represented by it and its minions, but the cause of that disintegration goes right back to the philosophy itself which was essentially a one man (two men?) job with a philosopher king on top. (And a king requires subjects.)

Well, Peikoff is the last philosopher king of Objectivism. As bad as he is (was?), Brooke can't shine his shoes.

If Objectivism was Rand's gift to Branden, she must have come to profoundly regret her post-Atlas career. But while I think there's some truth in my proposition, it's too simple even if I ever had had a direct access to her personal mental churn. Also, I don't think she lived much introspectively in her past.

--Brant 

[BaalChatzaf]

36 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Where is the rationality?

Fascism--political use of force--underlays all political systems not dedicated to individual rights. It's fascism knocking on America's door and it's from the left, not the right, as well illustrated by the post-election riots and other idiocies. So, how reacts the ARI crowd to those reactions? (We were wrong!? We were wrong!?)

Have a look at "Liberal Fascism"  by Jonah Goldberg.

https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-Goldberg-Jonah-Hardcover/dp/B008AU4Y3Q/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1480169466&sr=1-2&keywords=liberal+fascism+by+jonah+goldberg

[Brant Gaede]

Great book. One of the reasons liberals started calling themselves "progressives."

Same shit.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

(Her position on abortion was not well thought out and seems to come from those of Jewish background being more pro-abortion than the Christians are plus the too much simplicity of ideological thinking. She did say that the essential issue was the first tri-mester.)

Brant,

I suspect the abortion Rand had when she was younger helped influence her later thinking about it. And, yes, I throw in some guilt feelings. When hurt, Rand liked to slam the door--hard--on what hurt her.

Unless a woman is a sociopath or clinical narcissist who has no emotional reaction to children, abortion is serious business for her. It's painful. Just the thought messes with all kinds of neurochemicals (oxytocin and cortisol being high on the list) because an actual infant does.

I also believe Ayn Rand was no sociopath or narcissist.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Concerning Harry Binswanger's list:

According to reports of someone I know who's posted there quite a bit over the years, mostly disputing with Harry on some foundational epistemological issues, also on immigration policy, HBL isn't the lockstep place Mark seems to think it is.  (I haven't read Mark's essay.  I'm judging by the tenor and details of the wording from William's report here, especially the description "proclaiming to his [Harry's] followers").

My informant, who favored voting for Trump, says that so did a number of others who posted on HBL about the election.

Also, I don't think it's a sure thing ("doubtless") that every writer associated with the Ayn Rand Institute who voted voted for Clinton.

Ellen

[Neil Parille]

This guy was apparently banned from HBL.  (go to "recent comments")

https://curi.us/1920-objectivists-should-vote-trump

I listen to Brook's show and I don't think he said how he voted.

[Ellen Stuttle]

2 hours ago, Neil Parille said:

This guy was apparently banned from HBL.  (go to "recent comments")

https://curi.us/1920-objectivists-should-vote-trump

Elliot Temple might have been banned a lot of places.  He quickly becomes a nuisance.

He posted here for awhile.  Search for "curi" in members.

Ellen

[Neil Parille]

I think Temple said he wanted to discuss Szasz, Popper and Reisman favorably.  Apparently not three of Harry's favorite people.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Temple thinks he's the world's best interpreter of Popper, and indeed the best philosopher going.

Ellen

[Mark]

These days HBL stands for Harry Binswanger Letter.  The change from List to Letter occurred when Binswanger went from email distribution to a website forum.  It’s still subscription only, you must pay to read and post.

Ellen writes that “on immigration policy, HBL isn't the lockstep place Mark seems to think it is.”  She got “seems” from reading the post of a little viper on OL rather than my article and so she wouldn’t know what she’s talking about.

Binswanger wrote:  “I will either not vote, or vote for Hillary.” in an article titled “Contra Trump” publicly available on his website.  I did not say it was in his Letter.

I did say that in his Letter, the day before the election, Binswanger urged his subscribers to vote for Hillary.
 
I made no statement about Letter subscribers agreeing with Binswanger.  I made no statement about Binswanger not allowing them to express disagreement. 

A professional editor like Ellen must know that one sense of the word “doubtless”– despite its structure – is “presumably or very probably”  (Oxford online dictionary).

Three ARI people more than very probably voted for Hillary. Binswanger urged his readers to vote for Hillary, so assuming he was consistent he voted for Hillary. Brook said on his BTR show after the election:  “... a lot of people voted for Donald Trump ’cuz they hated Hillary Clinton more ... and I understand that.  I did not do that, but I understand that.”  He also said he was “horrified” etc. etc.  that Trump won.  In a BTR before the election he said  “I think it’s better that he [Trump] loses ...”  Again, if Brook was consistent he voted for Hillary.   As far as influence is concerned Brook and Binswanger are probably the top two people at ARI. As quoted in my article, Salmieri said outright that he voted for Hillary.

After the cataract of vitriol Simpson, Binswanger, Brook, Ghate, Salmieri, and Journo poured on Trump during the course of the campaign – not to mention Peikoff saying that he deferred to Brook (the worst of the lot) about what he thought of Trump (see “Peikoff on Donald Trump” on ARI Watch) – doubtless all these miscreants voted for Hillary.
 
I’ll replace or footnote the offending sentence with something like the above. 
 

[Ellen Stuttle]

2 hours ago, Mark said:

After the cataract of vitriol Simpson, Binswanger, Brook, Ghate, Salmieri, and Journo poured on Trump during the course of the campaign – not to mention Peikoff saying that he deferred to Brook (the worst of the lot) about what he thought of Trump (see “Peikoff on Donald Trump” on ARI Watch) – doubtless all these miscreants voted for Hillary.

According to William's quote (here) from your essay, this is what you wrote (with a footnote excepting Ghate, who isn't a US citizen):

/Quote/ [Mark] "Like Harry Binswanger, Gregory Salmieri, Jonathan Hoenig, and doubtless every other writer associated with the Ayn Rand Institute, [5]  Yaron Book voted for Hillary." /end quote/

Are the "miscreants" you name the entire roster of writers "associated with the Ayn Rand Institute"?  Aren't there a number of others?

Ellen

PS: typo, "Book" instead of "Brook"

[BaalChatzaf]

6 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Temple thinks he's the world's biggest authority on Popper, and indeed the best philosopher going.

Ellen

Karl Popper and David Hume are the only philosophers that  people in physical science mention without gagging or spitting. 

[jts]

38 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Karl Popper and David Hume are the only philosophers that  people in physical science mention without gagging or spitting. 

Berkeley said there is no such thing as matter except in the mind of God. Hume went one better; he said not only there is no such thing as matter but also no such thing as mind.

 

[BaalChatzaf]

9 minutes ago, jts said:

Berkeley said there is no such thing as matter except in the mind of God. Hume went one better; he said not only there is no such thing as matter but also no such thing as mind.

 

Hume was an empiricist. He was anti-metaphysics.  

“If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.” 
― David Hume

[Ellen Stuttle]

18 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

On November 27, 2016 at 0:27 PM, Ellen Stuttle said:

Temple thinks he's the world's biggest authority on Popper, and indeed the best philosopher going.

Ellen

Karl Popper and David Hume are the only philosophers that  people in physical science mention without gagging or spitting. 

Possibly Popper and Hume "are the only philosophers" that the occasional person in physical science whom you've encountered mentions "without gagging or spitting."  I've never myself encountered any such person, though I know a great many people in physical science.  Also, your comment has nothing to do with what I said about Elliot Temple.  (Regarding my comment, I changed "biggest authority" to "best interpreter," since the former might refer to a biographer's knowledge, whereas what I meant is interpretive correctness.)

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Possibly Popper and Hume "are the only philosophers" that the occasional person in physical science whom you've encountered mentions "without gagging or spitting."  I've never myself encountered any such person, though I know a great many people in physical science.

Ellen,

Since I read a lot, I wonder about all those prestigious scientists who are religious who wrote some of the books I have read (or seen). There are oodles of 'em.

But is the gotcha worth it? I mean, Bob makes this one too easy...

 

Bob sometimes speaks fondly of his bomb-making work, but hell, even Oppenheimer, who spearheaded the atom bomb project, didn't turn to Popper or Hume. He soaked up the Bhagavad Ghita. Not even philosophy, but the Hindu religion.

(Apropos, I wonder if Oppenheimer read the rest of the Mahabharata. I have a book on him, but I haven't read it, yet. I can't say for sure, but I can easily imagine his religiosity was a huge obstacle for Rand when she tried to make a screenplay out of the development of the bomb.)

I think Bob speaks for himself and not for very many others when he gets on a denigrate philosophy kick.

The fact is the views of Popper and Hume are good for some things along a limited intellectual spectrum (much of which does not even involve science), but they are awful for coming to any kind of conclusion about the meaning of life, the meaning of death, or the meaning of meaning...

btw - I do hope the scientists Bob knows who are ill get better soon. I refer to the ones who are gagging...

 

Michael

[william.scherk]

Not on the subject of Beige Man with froggy, or his 7500-word article, and not on the subject of immigration policy, and not on the subject of my betters, but a knock on from a side-issue.

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

4 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

23 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

On 11/27/2016 at 9:27 AM, Ellen Stuttle said:

Temple thinks he's the world's [redacted to best interpreter of] Popper, and indeed the best philosopher going.

Karl Popper and David Hume are the only philosophers that  people in physical science mention without gagging or spitting. 

Possibly Popper and Hume "are the only philosophers" that the occasional person in physical science whom you've encountered mentions "without gagging or spitting."  I've never myself encountered any such person, though I know a great many people in physical science.

I wonder about all those prestigious scientists who are religious who wrote some of the books I have read (or seen). There are oodles of 'em.

This isn't' Michael's point, I know, but maybe a subsidiary point to his larger one:  there may indeed be a lesser religious devotion among physical scientists, compared to the larger population, but there will still be found various stripes of supernatural beliefs, if only a vague Unitarian Universalism-Lite belief in a Source. Beyond that, I think we will find if not oodles, an interesting set of beliefs a Randian might call supernatural or mystical.  Snatched from the jaws of Google, via Physics.org: First worldwide survey of religion and science: No, not all scientists are atheists

My 'mystical/supernatural' tag may not map to what Michael means by "religious."  I like his mention of Oppenheimer and his quote from the ancient book of the Hindu scriptures. I don't know a lot going in about Oppenheimer's actual beliefs, let alone how to place him in terms of religiosity. It does seem evident that he was a genius, and was steeped (at least for a number of years) in studies of Sanskrit ...

Quote

But is the gotcha worth it? I mean, Bob makes this one too easy...

 

Bob sometimes speaks fondly of his bomb-making work, but hell, even Oppenheimer, who spearheaded the atom bomb project, didn't turn to Popper or Hume. He soaked up the Bhagavad Ghita. Not even philosophy, but the Hindu religion.

Wait till Bob tries out the All Great Scientists of the Atomic Age Are Atheist/Agnostic schtick on you.

More seriously, it is neat to trace the genesis and have Oppenheimer himself give a brief bit of background on his famous quote from the ancient mythology:

I include a couple of links that explore the attachment to/from Hinduism of Oppenheimer, and a set of quotes from the Internet at bottom. Do they have anything to say to the opening topic?  Perhaps only in the context of human response to destruction, to war, to necessary battle, to those folks who are fleeing some aspect of evil.  And that is a stretch.

Oppenheimer and the Gita

Quote

by Alex Wellerstein, published May 23rd, 2014

What was going through J. Robert Oppenheimer’s head when he saw the great fireball of the Trinity test looming above him? According to his brother, Frank, he only said, “it worked.” But most people know a more poetic account, one in which Oppenheimer says (or at least thinks) the following famous lines:

Wellerstein rests his review and much of his argument on a scholarly article of similar heading, written by James A Hijiya -- The Gita of J. Robert Oppenheimer

Quote

ONE OF THE MOST-CITED and least-interpreted quotations
from the history of the atomic age is what J. Robert Oppenheimer
claimed to have thought when he witnessed the world’s
first nuclear explosion: “I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.”₂
Shortly after Oppenheimer, director of the laboratory that developed
the atomic bomb, saw the fireball glowing over the New Mexico desert
at the Trinity test site on 16 July 1945, those words derived from the
Hindu scripture the Bhagavad-Gita came to his mind.
The quotation appears throughout the literature on nuclear weapons,
often in a slightly different form: “I am become Death, the shatterer
of worlds.”₃

Only 45 pages!  with 198 footnotes!  Will I discover the full religiosity of Oppenheimer in it ...?

 

Quote

(Apropos, I wonder if Oppenheimer read the rest of the Mahabharata. I have a book on him, but I haven't read it, yet. I can't say for sure, but I can easily imagine his religiosity was a huge obstacle for Rand when she tried to make a screenplay out of the development of the bomb.)

From your reading and background knowledge, just how large was Oppenheimer's religiosity?  I haven't on first look found that he identified as Hindu. Quoting from one of the masterpieces of human literature does indeed highlight a wisdom that may not be found in Hume or Popper or other non-gag-worthy philosophers of science. It is like quoting poetry, phrase or verse, because it so perfectly captures a human theme or incident recurrent in human history. No mathematics or equations, no dry recital of epistemological grounds, no technical treatises on logic or method.  

A great poetic phrase from history or epic myth can thus carry deeply in human hearts, illustrate a personal zeitgeist.  I think Oppenheimer quoted from the ancients because it was a perfect analogy to what he felt -- not as a religious person, but as a moral man and a scientist-man who understood fearsome power.

(with Charity to Bob, sometimes he just fishes up a comment we have heard before. Whether the efficiency of boxcars or the limitations of philosophy, there are currently around ten fixed classics from his repertoire. If he thinks much about what other people say to him here, there isn't much evidence lately. I remember his utter disinterest or incuriosity about his earlier nuclear-destruction faux-pas. It was not evident that he understood the disgust ... even during his 'probation' back when ...  But that is our Bob, a high-function Aspie who can sometimes pass as Norm. In between boilerplate comments, he shifts his positions by rational means opaque to you and me)

Quote

Also, your comment has nothing to do with what I said about Elliot Temple.  

Poor Elliot Temple. Another member of the amateur "Great Thinker" club.  He has a confrontational, arrogant style that tends to stymie discussion. His one foray into our midst was pretty cranky, as he thought he had demolished a teeny little LEGO brick in George H Smith's book Atheism: the Case Against God. It took him all of two days to fuck off back to his blog empire. I dislike Harry Binswanger's tight-arsedness, but  give him a pass with poor Elliot.  Does not play well with other kids.

The original linking point was about Beige Man's generalization about ARI writers mostly voting Clinton. With side-issue of the 'lockstep' quality of opinion patrolled by Binswanger. 

 I think Ellen is probably right on the larger point:  although I resist Harry's twice-yearly blandishments to pay him money, he obviously finds 'oodles' enough to pay him for some kind of discussion. I imagine there are disagreements on current events there as well, if only on subjects Rand had not proclaimed a position or signposts to correctitude. I remember the hard-assed attitude, membership and "line" at the Speicher site (THE FORUM) ... despite keeping the doors closed against the wrong sort of people and their wrong thoughts, they still had raging disputes from time to time.

Beige crusades to roll back the state of immigration to the glory days of 1922 are fun, if not funny.  I was not at all surprised that there was a firm if not hysterical "line" contra Trump among ARI-ish Objectivish intellectuals.  That a Harry Binswanger Letter entertained pro-Trump pushback on his own position is either healthy or  a sign that there were enough Trump-supporters there that HBL would not financially survive a purge. 

Last boring questions: what is Harry Binswanger's relationship to the Institute? Does he ever do public appearance on its behalf, as did Brook at the Freedom Summit?

[Added: for those who want to see the Freedom Summit through ARI goggles, visit here.  I give a tantalizing sample ... which includes schedules for the AM560 (Chicago) shows of President Brook ...]

Quote

FREEDOM SUMMIT CHICAGO 2016: THE HIGHS AND THE LOWS

In the days leading up to the historic 2016 election, six hundred conservatives, libertarians, Tea Party members and undecided voters gathered in Chicago at AM560’s Freedom Summit to discuss this year’s candidates and prepare for the road ahead. ARI was among the sponsors and participants.

ARI’s partnership with AM560, one of the most popular radio talk stations in Chicago, has been a successful one with Yaron Brook, ARI executive chairman, hosting The Yaron Brook Show every Saturday at 4 p.m. central time. The show explores news, culture and politics from the Objectivist point of view. The station also broadcasts 90-second spots during drive time, called “Moments of Objectivism,” to expose its millions of listeners to Ayn Rand’s philosophy.

Steve Simpson, ARI’s director of Legal Studies, and Brook were featured presenters at Freedom Summit, speaking on free speech and economic inequality, respectively. Both addressed a full house as they discussed the issues from Ayn Rand’s philosophical perspective. Many of those in attendance are avid listeners of The Yaron Brook Show and fans of Ayn Rand who were excited to learn that Brook would broadcast his show, live, later in the day.

Simpson’s defense of free speech was well received, as was Brook’s critique of the campaign against economic inequality. Things took a turn, however, when Brook raised criticism of Donald Trump for his position on immigration. Applause turned to boos and hostility. [...]

Awwwww

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

-- all of these quotes come from the site Today in Science History, which provides fairly complete references for a big cohort of 'prestigious' folks.

Despite the vision and the far-seeing wisdom of our wartime heads of state, the physicists felt a peculiarly intimate responsibility for suggesting, for supporting, and in the end, in large measure, for achieving the realization of atomic weapons. Nor can we forget that these weapons, as they were in fact used, dramatized so mercilessly the inhumanity and evil of modern war. In some sort of crude sense which no vulgarity, no humor, no overstatement can quite extinguish, the physicists have known sin; and this is a knowledge which they cannot lose. 
— J. Robert Oppenheimer
The Open Mind (1955), 88. 

If the radiance of a thousand suns
Were to burst at once into the sky
That would be like the splendour of the Mighty One...
I am become Death,
The shatterer of worlds.
[Quoted after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.] 
— J. Robert Oppenheimer
Sacred Hindu Epic, Bhagavad Gita. Quoted in A. Berry (ed.), Harrop's Book of Scientific Anecdotes (1989), 175. 

The open society, the unrestricted access to knowledge, the unplanned and uninhibited association of men for its furtherance—these are what may make a vast, complex, ever growing, ever changing, ever more specialized and expert technological world, nevertheless a world of human community. 
— J. Robert Oppenheimer
'Science and the Common Understanding' (1954), 95. Reprinted in John Dewey and Julius A. Sigler, Classical Selections On Great Issues, Vol. 8, Science, Technology, and Society (1997), 35. 

There is something irreversible about acquiring knowledge; and the simulation of the search for it differs in a most profound way from the reality. 
— J. Robert Oppenheimer
In Physics in the Contemporary World (1949), 20. 

 

 

Edited November 28, 2016 by william.scherk
Not Berkeley, you fool. Add niceness for Bob, in case he reads this giant splodge.