Talking Brook: Rational Reflections on 'Yaron Brook Show: Hangout -- Q&A'

Consideration is the key in Dr. Yaron Brook’s exemplary ability to answer an abundance of questions in the latest installment of The Yaron Brook Show, the leading popularizer of Ayn Rand’s revolutionary philosophy, where he fields questions from his top contributors. Jim Carnicelli, Jonathan Hoenig, and Jennifer Lionberger all show up on the Zoom feature. Jim initiates the period by actually commenting to Dr. Brook how he considers the good doctor the “face of Objectivism.” Dr. Brook duly thanks Jim, before launching into the topic of how the host feels frustration at the fact that he has brought untold numbers of people to Objectivism, only to have some of these “Objectivists” be staunch supporters of President Trump.

Jim brings up the idea of how Dr. Leonard Peikoff doesn’t come off as cogent as he does in his writings. Dr. Brook makes clear that he would only have positive things to say about Dr. Peikoff. Once the air clears from this tiny disagreement between Dr. Brook and Jim, Jonathan comments that the Equal is Unfair co-author enriched his life with his dedicated commitment to the truth. Jonathan further points out that Dr. Brook needs better critics. Just like Ayn Rand, the posts that Dr. Brook garners never fully present an objective analysis of his body of work—just smears and feelings.

Dr. Yaron Brook discusses how debates “bring in the opposition.” He continues by saying that debates create cognitive dissonance within the audience. People become more attuned to new ideas that clash with their already locked-in assumptions. In another question directed at the doctor, pragmatism and practicality receive the Dr. Brook treatment. He discusses how both ideals are not the same, and how honest people can use the word “pragmatism” and not know what it really means, but that they mean what they're saying. He echoes Ayn Rand in saying that pragmatism is the philosophy of America. Also, he credits businessmen and women with the capacity for creating, building, making, and producing. This is what separates the American culture from the others to him.

The downfall to businesspeople is that they often lack the philosophical link that would sustain them in knowing that the moral is the practical, and the practical is the moral. Dr. Brook then switches to another question. In his answer to it, he says that few politicians remain consistent. He goes back, and considers that pragmatism is the du jour system in the United States. Dr. Brook illustrates how it is evil, and it is certainly not practical to talk with evil dictators like Kim Jong-un. Like dealing with a bully in the schoolyard, America is constantly tested. It would take decisive, unmitigated might to crush America’s enemies, and not present the paper tiger strategies that have failed.

Jim presents another comment about how Dr. Brook’s debates remain principled. Dr. Brook acknowledges Jim, and pushes forward by saying that “freedom is the state in which you can pursue values in the absence of coercion.” Freedom is a requirement in a social context of dealing with other people. This excludes the “desert island” idea, where morals would exist without rights. It’s only in a social setting that freedom, apart from force and fraud, stays alive. Dr. Brook says that the first thing that an authoritarian does is cancel the free press. Without voices speaking up and out against oppression, rulers would hold sway over the populace. Dr. Brook clarifies that the government can shut down pieces of the press, take it all over, and be done with it.

He goes on to say that there is a system that he has in place to discover news. Dr. Brook evaluates various news sources, and tries to find the root of certain facts and quotations. After delineating that bit of information, Dr. Brook takes a question related to the philosophy of Objectivism specifically. The questioner asks whether Objectivism is too simplistic. The Free Market Revolution co-author weighs the question, and then offers that the language is simple, and that if you believe that things are much more complex, you will find it to be too simple. The striking piece of commentary that Dr. Brook presents is true. The clarity and directness of Ayn Rand’s philosophy is distinguished from other systems of thought, replete with fuzzy logic obfuscations, and ill-formed ideas.

Jennifer asks a question about entrapment. Dr. Brook essentially says that the philosophy of law ought to handle this matter. Not one to hog the spotlight, Dr. Brook permits Jonathan to promote his book, A New Textbook of Americanism: The Politics of Ayn Rand, a collection to which Dr. Brook has contributed an essay. Once Dr. Brook focuses on Super Chat, he is tasked with answering a question about incest. Without hesitation, Dr. Brook delves into the topic by saying how it could be a psychological problem for romantic relationships to exist between brother and sister who grew up together, for example. But, if they had never met each other beforehand, then this might not be an issue. He also shows how the phenomena also extends back to the Greeks with daughter and father sexual relationships, and, of course, Oedipus. This calls attention to geniuses like Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein, who married their first and second cousins, respectively. What would Dr. Brook say about these two towering figures of the mind?

In the last few moments of the show, it turns even more taboo. A Super Chat individual asks whether the In Pursuit of Wealth co-author would want to be cremated or buried. He answers that he doesn’t care what would happen, because he’ll be dead. Then, he turns a conceptual corner into the macabre, in talking about facilities that decapitate people and freeze their heads until a date in the future, where they can be cloned. Yes, it gets a little morbid towards the end, but Dr. Brook (in his classic fashion) lightens the mood with his signature wit. To another question, he spouts how happiness is “a state of consciousness,” and not just a momentary feeling.

Dr. Brook makes only one minor error, in calling the Showtime series Billions as “Billionaires.” But, this is largely insignificant and one can surmise what he meant. This is just how fast those neurons in his head fire. Now, consider that.