Sign in to follow this  
Jonathan

Is Yawon Bwook Consciouswy Twying to be Mowe Destwuctive to Ayn Wand's Wegacy Than Peikoff Evew Was?

Recommended Posts

 

Shwill, angwy Bwook is in cwassic Peikoff mode, demanding that "Twump apowogists" nevew use the wowd "Objectivist" to wefew to themsewves, because Bwook owns Objectivism now, and you are not an Objectivist if you disagwee with him.

 

 

Way to go, Elmer Fudd. You make Trump look calm and reasonable -- and even truly Objectivist -- in comparison.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonathan,

Re philosophy and Objectivism, I don't pay much attention to Yaron Brook, but it's not even because I disagree with him on this or that. I find it difficult to get to the issues and ideas part without being enormously turned off.

Here's a random screenshot of his face from the video you posted. I left in some YouTube garbage to show it is the same video.

image.png

A few elements from this facial expression are in the vast majority of his screen time.

The corners of his mouth are turned down in a sneer or grimace.

His nostrils are flared.

His eyebrows are bunched closer together than when relaxed, which is mostly a sign of anger.

His throat is tight and we all know what that means.

Grimace is his predominant baseline countenance, his home base so to speak. The intensity slides on a scale from less harsh to more, and he goes in and out of it, but most of the time he is in it.

We all project bad vibes at times, but the healthy way is to do it as things come up. With Brook, if you make the screenshot I posted a little less harsh (but still bad vibes), that is his chronic default countenance.

I'm not saying he never smiles, look contented, etc. He just does it far, far less than he does this bad vibes look.

This is not the face of a happy man.

So if I am looking for instruction or advice about a philosophy for living on earth, a way to improve my own human flourishing, which is the promise of Objectivism, I will not take advice from someone who looks like he's perennially pissed off with very sporadic manifestations of good vibes. I can't take him seriously.

He says he's happy, but his face sure as hell doesn't show it. And my rule of thumb is that when a person says one thing, but does another, what he does is a far better indication of his intentions and inner state. When this conflict between says and does is constant about such an important matter as my own happiness, I don't want such a person around me, much less listen to what he says about the way to happiness and the good life.

I get from Rand what I independently think through after I read her, not what someone tells me I have to get. 

I wish Brook well. He's trying to fight the good fight the best he can and I respect that. But I don't get any inspiration from him and I don't think he knows how to live well, much less teach others how to. If he can't do it for himself  (I base that on what he projects as a default, not what he says), how is he going to tell others how to do it and have that mean anything?

This state of bad vibes colors everything he thinks about, too, including philosophy, politics and so on.

For example, notice that he doesn't disagree with Trump about this or that. He loathes Trump and says so often. His face shows it when he says it, too. :) 

There are many other examples re other issues and they are easy to find since he does a lot of videos.

I don't ever want to become like Yaron Brook. I prefer to be happy.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

...The corners of his mouth are turned down in a sneer or grimace.

His nostrils are flared.

His eyebrows are bunched closer together than when relaxed, which is mostly a sign of anger.

His throat is tight and we all know what that means.

Grimace is his predominant baseline countenance...

I don't ever want to become like Yaron Brook. I prefer to be happy.

 

You'we just a wacist Twump apowogist, and a wascawwy wabbit, so I expected you to tawk twash about the hewowic Bwook.

J

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Please, never use the word Objectivist associated with yourself, because you cannot be..."

Directed at "the apologists for Donald Trump". The "sell-outs". 

First, he draws an equivalence between the Conservatives and the Left; the "nuttiness" of each. (Which is like comparing apples to - I don't know what). 

Then, he slams anyone who supports Trump over the Left.

In other words: Brook is "an apologist" for the Left. And does not see his own self-contradiction.

This is an unwarranted and heavy-handed interference in others' choices.

Besides, he's wrong.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny to be talked down to by a man who knows less about Ayn Rand and Objectivism than I do.

I can't say that about LP.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#MOGA! The Interview - Make Objectivism Great Again!

Perigno bashes Obleftivists Yaron Brook and Harry Binswanger and the Ayn Rand Institute.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

It's funny to be talked down to by a man who knows less about Ayn Rand and Objectivism than I do.

I can't say that about LP.

--Brant

I'd like to hear a 'leading' Objectivist, for once, say: "I'm not yet sure" (about some person or circumstance).

Instead they try to exude a Rand-like certainty, all the time. Like they receive intrinsic revelation.

Next, to have the grace to state: "I was wrong".

Damn, it is not an indictment of Objectivism when one makes errors of identity and judgement.

Nowhere as much as in politics the imperfect science, where you often really don't know, for absolute certainty, but must make educated observations on a whole lot of levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2019 at 1:02 PM, anthony said:

First, he draws an equivalence between the Conservatives and the Left; the "nuttiness" of each. (Which is like comparing apples to - I don't know what).

My "left-wing" cohorts hate the comparison just as much as you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rush and Cortez equivalence? Consider the HARD left and RIGHT. What would conservatives censor? Sexual scenes and communist propaganda. What would Progressives censor? Everything, but in a more intelligent, clandestine way. Who would conservatives jail? Homo's? and traitors. Who would the hard left jail? Fill in the blanks.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Samson Corwell said:

My "left-wing" cohorts hate the comparison just as much as you do.

Seriously? Are they unaware? Unsurprising really, when an Objectivist, Yaron, has lost his rational perspective so completely, why would one expect that the "left wing" hadn't lost any sense of proportion? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anthony said:

Seriously? Are they unaware? Unsurprising really, when an Objectivist, Yaron, has lost his rational perspective so completely, why would one expect that the "left wing" hadn't lost any sense of proportion? 

Unaware of what? The "centrist" drones that chant "Both sides are equally bad."? Everyone knows that they exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2019 at 3:27 PM, Samson Corwell said:

Unaware of what? The "centrist" drones that chant "Both sides are equally bad."? Everyone knows that they exist.

May be a misunderstanding. I was on about an Objectivist who in fact isn't a "centrist", but evidently pro-left, on balance. Especially considering how almost all of the craziness comes from the left, one can't morally equivocate. More and worse, when Brook disdains Objectivists who don't see politics and politicians today his way.

Notice here how Amy Peikoff rather enjoys the term "Obleftivist", if only ironically acknowledging it, she implicitly accepts it.

https://youtu.be/ePJtv8u1sHc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting that Brook's main beef with Trump is immigration - a topic that Rand never wrote a word about.

And Brook will never give a clear answer as to why he supports open immigration for every country except Israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this