RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : ARI's Yaron Brooke at GA Tech - An Incredibly Surprising Lec...

Sunday
March 20, 2005

ARI's Yaron Brook at GA Tech - An Incredibly Surprising Lecture by Tom Blackstone

As I listened to this guy answer my questions, I was shocked at how completely reasonable he seemed. He contradicted everything I had been led to believe about ARI from reading essays on their website and from seeing him on television. He wasn't some kind of cult fanatic. He was simply a reasonable person with very strong views, just like me. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (137 messages)

Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 2:17am

Yaron Brook (no e at the end) is, indeed, a reasonable person, albeit stuck with some very constipated "orthodox Objectivists" who are going to persist at ARI for a while. Most of the new generation at ARI are also, like Brook, reasonable people; Amy Peikoff, for one, has a wonderful sense of humor and a truly independent personal aesthetic. Even Leonard Peikoff is changing into something very different from the ogre that his old reputation makes him out to be - I think that Amy has turned him around. Another of the ARI old guard, John Lewis, has always been of independent and humane spirit. Reasonable men always have good reason to lose the stereotypes.

Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 3:41am

Wow! I never thought I'd see the day when I agreed with the ARI on anything! Seems like just yesterday when they wanted to nuke the whole Middle East just to get Osama.

Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 4:57am

The link points to 'http://solohq.com/Articles/Blackstone/ARIs_Yaron_Brook_at_GA_Tech_-_An_Incredibly_Surprising_Lecture.shtml' but the actual file name has 'Brooke'. This results in a 404.

Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 5:01am

Tom, I see the name "Brook" got corrected in the title but not in the body. Please click the magnifying glass icon so you can edit the body as well.

Thanks for posting this! I found it quite interesting.

Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 6:02am

I usually agree with ARI, especially on politics. Also, I never thought Brook was a departure from what I understood ARI to be. Just a very eloquent representative.

Some might find my one post on the TIA Forum of interest: Suggestion for Dr. Yaron Brook re wartime innocents.

Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 6:45am

I agree it is difficult to filter out those individuals who are not the standard-ARI types out of the whole group. It seems that this guy is very reasonable, even more in my way of reasonable, than some of the folks here ;)

Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 7:20am

I get an error message when I click on the link. What are the rest of you doing that I'm not doing?

Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 7:58am

Use this one, Barbara:

http://www.solohq.com/Articles/Blackstone/ARIs_Yaron_Brooke_at_GA_Tech_-_An_Incredibly_Surprising_Lecture.shtml

He made an error in the link. There should be an "e" behind Brook.

Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 8:13am

Thanks, Max. It worked.

Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 9:55am

About a year and a half ago I spoke with Brook rather extensively on a wide variety of issues. I was carefully respectful, polite, and non-antagonistic -- but nevertheless challenged him fairly strongly. I asked him maybe ten questions, mostly privately, but sometimes in a small group. Make no mistake: He was imminently reasonable and friendly thruout. I found him likable, decent, engaged, and candid.

Until the last question. Just before he left the building to go to dinner I politely and even delicately asked if he had any message for the SOLOists at their upcoming conference in Philadelphia. He seemed dully stunned and, for no honest reason, made me repeat the question. I did so earnestly, refusing to be either apologetic or hostile. Then, seeing he had no choice but to answer, he proceeded to pretend he didn't know anything about SOLO, had no opinion on SOLO, and no message for SOLO.

Then came the diatribe. He rambled on for quite some time in a hugely hostile manner which completely and serio-comically contradicted the atmosphere and relationship I had solidly established with him. He didn't even seem like the same person. The six or seven people around us -- mostly his friends -- all slowly but continually backed off maybe ten feet(!) as he babbled on. I think it was in sheer embarrassment for either him or me or both.

His whole sorry act was an utter attempt at intimidation. It was also, to be sure, hopeless. No-one on earth is more fearless than I am when it comes to intellectual issues. He'd have to be ten times as smart and a hundred times as virtuous to even have a chance at this. The whole time I stood stock-still as he advanced on me. I wouldn't move, and was concentrating on trying to remember every single word he said for posterity. But he didn't make it easy: the guy just wouldn't shut up.

To those of you who like and respect Yawon Bwook I say: Ask him about TOC or SOLO, David Kelley or Chris Sciabarra, the memoirs of Barbara Branden or Nathaniel Branden. I think you'll be in for a little surprise.

Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 10:22am

Well, what did he say?

Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 11:40am

1. Early this month I listened to Yaron Brook speak for more than two and a half straight hours on ARI's strategy for attracting the young to the novels, getting them into the publics school curriculum, then developing them through essay contests and courses and seminars into new intellectuals. What was impressive was the detailed, carefully-worked out plan. And the fact he and they had thought through how ideas spread and how to develop new Objectivists. I've long thought one needs to educate and systematically train Objectivists, and here I was hearing a very professionally developed plan to do that.

...And their 'funnel' or pipeline methodology...

2. > [Andre] Ask him about TOC or SOLO, David Kelley or Chris Sciabarra, the memoirs of Barbara Branden or Nathaniel Branden. I think you'll be in for a little surprise.

The problem is when people's emotions strongly kick in in the areas of their most deeply held values, they are often blinded by them...and the blind spots can be lasting. They may, for example, have bad personal histories with Ayn Rand or libertarians or Leonard Peikoff or David Kelley or Yaron Brook. And they literally can't -see- objectively.

The rage (or outrage) makes their reactions go out of balance. Balance can be a delicate thing. Or it can require holding many factors carefully in mind.

And this applies to -both sides- of the schism.

This "blinded by emotion" phenomenon is hardly an unusual human problem, Andre. Another example is Ayn Rand's tremendous anger when someone asked an innocent question which she presumed was not innocent, but an advocacy of evil. But it was understandable although regrettable.

I would cut people a certain degree of slack for being blinded by emotion...(i) whether or not you agree with them, (ii) whether or not they are on your side of a schism, and (iii) whether or not they have hurt you personally.

Another way of stating point number (iii) is don't *yourself* be blinded by emotion when assessing *them*.

Phil Coates

Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 11:17am

Even worse, when you try to teach THEM something new, they will usually be completely ungrateful and will even accuse you of trying to "push your philosophy" on them.

Have you ever tried using your 'enlightened abilities to try to learn how to explain the philosophy in an easier to understand way? Your whole first paragraph is dripping with an intrincicism that makes it easy for me to understand your new appreciation for ARI.

he explained that Iran's Islamic Fundamentalist government is harboring Al-Qaeda cells and is trying to develop nuclear weapons

Iraq was firing at our planes in the no-fly zone, tried to assassinate a former President, tried to build his own nuclear weapons (a UN inspector said this week that Saddam offered him $2 million to give him a clean report), and also harbored Al-Qaeda terrorists (i.e. Zarqawi). There was no reason to go after Iran more than Iraq, and he is also inserting himself into military strategy, a specialized science, not the area for philsophers.

Even Rand, when interviewed on the Tonight Show in the 60's, said that although she was against Vietnam, she thought it was important that we win, once the strategy was in place.

I now have a very different view of the Ayn Rand Institute, and I don't think that view is going to change anytime soon.

Yet you held the opposite view for a long time, and you're just now realizing that you were wrong. If you want to find out how open to discussion he is, try encouraging him to join the debate here.

Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 12:47pm

Rodney Rawlings writes:

Well, what did he say?

My better-than-Boswell transcript of his lengthy reply exists somewhere on 'Free Radical,' and perhaps a few other places, but I currently can't seem to locate any of them.

Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 5:16pm

Andre,

Is this what you're try to find:

http://solohq.org/Forum/NewsDiscussions/0277.shtml#10

Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 4:16pm

Phil-

I am delighted to hear that ARI has developed effective strategies for training students in Objectivist philosophy. I think that it is an encouraging sign also that people are increasingly getting past the divides of the schism and becoming more open and candid about controversial issues.

My hope is that ARI, TOC, and SOLO will concentrate on advocating and developing the philosophy each in the ways that they are expert at. I am also tremendously excited by the Summer Seminar TOC has put together. New work in philosophy of science is way overdue within Objectivism.

There is more than enough room for three groups advocating Objectivism. Some Objectivists will want a didactic approach to the philosophy, some will want cutting edge research and development of the philosophy and some will want to freewheeling exchange and to plumb emotional issues at the heart of Objectivism.

My hope is that Objectivists can focus on the positive and promote and develop the philosophy going forward.

Jim

Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 6:27pm

Sounds like Dr. Brook let off a lot of pent-up steam there, and softened a bit toward the end.

Tom Blackstone's surprise as expressed above seems to give point to Brook's advice. I myself disagree with many of the criticisms of ARI that appear here.

However, Brook goes much too far. I myself puzzled over the name "Sense of Life Objectivists" for a while also, but now I see it as referring to the fact that here one feels freer to make mistakes here, to trust one's spontaneous reactions and feelings. Also, it's very illuminating to spar with intelligent foes, even though in the end the answer is simply to truly grasp an axiomatic concept as stressed by AR.

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 3/20, 6:28pm)

Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 7:14pm

Adam, I certainly hope that you are correct and that better things are beginning at ARI. They have been in many ways a disaster for Objectivism, and nothing would be more wonderful than for them to abandon their cultism. But, frankly, I'll have to see it to believe it. I know too much about the damage they've done and continue to do

.

Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 9:11pm

Tom- ARI has done some wonderful work. Even many of the lectures written by Leonard Peikoff are flawless, logically. I think his "Principles of Grammar", for instance is a brilliant piece of work. You will notice that Barbara also mentions their good work on many, many occasions, which is amazingly generous of Barbara after some of the things they have done to her.
The problem with ARI is that being 95% right isn't good enough, when the 5% wrong that you are is viciously intolerant and blind. It is one thing to come to different conclusions about the war in Iraqi (I suspect you and I have done this; it is another to practice character assassination because someone disagrees with you.
The second problem to my mind with ARI is that they can't see ANYTHING wrong with AR and think that she has really said everything that needs to be said about truth. Sorry, but if she had tried to walk on water, she would have sunk. It is my belief that to gloss over her flaws does her a great disservice. and turns away reasonable people who are curious about her intellectual contributions. AR is big and great enough to shine through even when she is looked at realistically.

Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 11:24pm

Hi Jim!

You said, "I think that it is an encouraging sign also that people are increasingly getting past the divides of the schism ". I'm not sure what you are referring to...I haven't seen evidence of this, have you?