My reading of it is she's saying people should follow what makes sense to them after careful consideration. So she's saying don't follow atheism just b/c esteemed people follow it.

Sometimes people say in UU, you "can believe whatever you want," but that's not technically correct. People believe what makes sense to them. They only control what they say they believe.

Hi Gene, Danke schon, amigo:) I once heard Branden say that he knew exactly the limits of Objectivism, that is, what was really known, and what was not known. But he didn't elucidate on that point. When I heard Brook explaining his view of gun rights, and what he does *not* know, I felt like a piece of the puzzle had just come into place. Brook actually showed me in that video what it *means* to think about different issues from an Objectivist perspective. I've heard Peikoff lecture on different topics and, except for the lecture about fundamental philosophy which he did (with Rand looking over his shoulder:)), his work seemed overly filled with abstractions which made it hard for my mind to function. By the way, I heard that story about Rand not wanting to talk to the Randroids:) Hmm...you know, Gene, my email address is mikerael50@yahoo.com If you'd like to say Hi, please do!

Thanks k. An hour and a half well spent.

Jehosophat, this was such a pleasure for me. I loved Yaron's passion, his talking about his own deepest values. To me, that is what Objectivism was missing. I loved when he said what he did *not* know. Too many Objectivists, both I have known personally and on the Net, act like robots repeating Rand's words, rather than people who are actively trying to integrate what they do know about Rand's thinking with their own personal experiences. I also see that, to get personal, when some folks see that I have reason to back up some of my ideas, they don't admit they were mistaken and appreciate what they learned in talking with me. Nope, they just run away:( I can't envision Yaron acting that way. When he knows something, he knows it. And when he does not know something, he says so, openly and honestly. I tell you this was the most enjoyable video I have seen about Objectivism except for Rand's own TV interviews, which I also loved.

Thanks for posting this Khalling. I did not know it was available, and it is quite a good talk. Though there was only a few things that were new in it for me, it is very good to hear the principles laid out again, and Yaron is one of the best.

Mike, you hit on an important point. Good Objectivists think. They don't repeat Rand's words. In fact, when Ayn Rand found people quoting her work, she always stopped them and asked what they think, rather than what they had memorized. A complete and integrated philosophy is a very complex set of abstractions. One cannot come to an understanding of the concepts without a great deal of inductive learning, which leads to integration. Keep going down the track you are on, because it leads to exactly the right place.

Are you here then b/c there's enough overlap between Objectivism and your program?'' I'm here b/c I liked the books. I'm not sure if I agree with Objectivism.

Sorry to hear that. Thumbs down.

you as well. Beat city hall!

Somebody seems to be on your case. :(
I will give you one just for insurance and for the fine lecture.
Have a great day!

I'm going to risk losing a point...me too!

Thank you khalling,
I am a radical. :)
Good lecture.
O.A.

its one of the tells you learn in Neuro Linguistic Programming. Or NLP. According to NLP once you understand a little about how a person thinks you will be able to predict where their head is at by observing the tells. Most folks will look in totally different directions when recalling a known fact from long term memory vs constructing a narrative ( creating fiction ) ..
While some of NLP is total BS. There are some nuggets of very useful truth in it. Also, you will quickly see that you are not alone in understanding the tools of the trade. Obama was using it all over the place back in 2008 during speeches.. Just think about how many times the speeches used broken counting or asked people to imagine a light from above.

Well we know Rand was not lying when she was explaining her philosophy in those interviews. I think this theory is more about *how* people think when they're conversing or getting their thoughts across to someone else. Did you watch Dr. Brook's talk? What did you think of it?

I haven't watched any of the video yet, but if the content seems valuable but the pacing back and forth annoys you, try watching with your eyes closed (well, OK, that would be listening, not watching!). I sometimes do that if I'm being unduly distracted by something that's ultimately unimportant.

I have my own theory. People lie!. Some do it so much they can even beat the polygraph. My theory is to listen carefully and judge them by what they do. If a man says he intends to fundamentally change the country, then proceeds to highjack the banking industry, the welfare industry, project government ownership into heavy industries, and cause the collapse of the health care system; then I would say he told the truth. On the other hand, if a tenant tells me she can't pay the rent because the mail has been delayed by bad weather, I kind of believe she was lying. When I carried mail, weather was just part of the job. My Biblical friend says "Judge the Fruit!" I guess that's the same idea.
Reply Cancel

I see him more as excited rather than nervous. So much to say in such little time. Impassioned

We will all use Objectivism in our own way, since we all vary in many ways and as a result some elements of this philosophy will be given different emphasis by different people.

is this question for me? if so, the theory goes, you would not need to look to the left because you weren't analyzing your thoughts before you spoke. I have hijacked my own post!

He may be nervous, but he certainly is no jerk. Yes, his delivery could be improved.

Very good, thank you for posting the link. I wondered if I was alone with most of the the thoughts Dr. Brooks expressed so well.

Let me add an aspect most people don't consider:

Drive a car with a gas pedal and gas mechanism for a week - WITHOUT brakes.

Try it the other way around - brakes without gas.

That's what Republicans and Democrats are for.

Socialists are the monkey wrench in the engine.
Objectivists, Constitutionalists, and others are the steering wheel.

The day our government AGREES on everything, it's time to flee, fast.