The Rational Basis® of Happiness Podcast

Summary

The Selfish Path to Romance. Download chapter one for free at DrKenner.com and at Amazon.com.

I have as my guest today, Dr. Yaron Brook. He's the President and Executive Director of the Ayn Rand Institute. He's worked in academia, where he's received numerous teaching awards. He's also an entrepreneur who has founded several companies. He lectures extensively in the United States and abroad on many topics, including ethics, and he served in the Israeli Army intelligence. Dr. Yaron Brook, welcome.

Thanks for having me on.

Oh, it's wonderful to have you on again. You served in Israeli Army intelligence, and you must have seen the methods that the terrorists use to destroy a person. And I want to bring it to the family first, and then you can elaborate on it in terms of what you see in politics going on now or in Israel when you were serving in Army intelligence.

If a woman is raped, there's a difference if she's kicking and punching the rapist trying to escape. We recognize the difference between the initiation of force, which is the rapist, and the retaliation, the woman trying to fight back. If she pokes out his eyes or punches him someplace that hurts a heck of a lot, he's earned it. And we sit there and say, "Yay for you," to the woman. But something different is happening now on the political scene. We can see the difference between the initiation of force and retaliation. I'm wondering what you see now that makes those two equivalent—the rapist the equivalent of the victim.

Well, you see that from universities. We see that from university professors who claim that the United States is equivalent to the terrorists who attacked us on September 11, that we're the same morally, that America is somehow a terrorist state, and in many respects worse than the terrorists. This is what they claim.

But when you say this, you know I'm rolling my eyes, raising my eyebrows. Why would anybody believe this crap?

That's a good question. I think because it appeals to a certain group of people who want to criticize America in any way that they can. Usually, it comes from people who don't believe in our system, who don't believe in capitalism, who don't believe in freedom, who don't believe in individual rights. And to them, the fact that we chose this particular system, this particular system of freedom, is the same as somebody else who chooses slavery, chooses dictatorship, chooses religious theocracies. Because to them, there is no right or wrong; there is no truth and falsehood. They believe that reality is a flux, that nothing you actually see really exists. You make it up as you go.

I don't think anybody genuinely believes this. I think that's a cover-up. I think that they're envious.

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, the psychological element that's driving them is envy. But there are hundreds of years of philosophical writings trying to justify the fact that there is no right or wrong, that everything's relative, and there is no real reality, that we just make it up as we go along. Those philosophies, for various psychological reasons—it's a great crutch to believe that you can create your own reality in your own mind, and you don't have to pay attention to the laws of gravity and the laws around you.

Okay, so there are many people—fortunately, they're not in the majority in the United States; otherwise, we would not be a civilized country—but there are people that really are envious, and they're driven by the motive to make anything look equivalent, to make anything good look like it's equivalent to something equally bad. It's like this is whitewashing the bad.

Yeah, I mean, it's one way to justify bad. The way to justify bad is to say that it's equivalent to good, or to say that there is no such thing as...

So, let me give an example. What about the priests who are pedophiles? How do they make them seem—what do the apologists for those people say?

Well, they say, "Well, we all have flaws. We all commit sins, and as long as they repent, that's okay." I mean, the real nasty ones, the real evil ones, will actually say it's good for the kids.

In some sick way, that the kids asked for it.

Exactly. But I think others try to justify it in the sense that we all have evil in us. None of us are perfect; none of us are completely pure, good people. Which I think is complete nonsense, particularly when you take it to that kind of abusive degree. Most of us are not that bad.

Here's a tough question: How can you tell the difference between good and evil?

Hey, got to interrupt this, because we've got to pay some bills. Thirty seconds, that's it. A very quick ad, and then Ellen will be back.

Romance. Oh, I wish guys knew more about what we want from a relationship. Boy, I wish I knew more about what I want. Where's that ad I saw? Here it is: "The Selfish Path to Romance," a serious romance guidebook. Download chapter one for free at SelfishRomance.com and buy it at Amazon.com. Hmm, "The Selfish Path to Romance," that is interesting.

Here's a tough question: How can you tell the difference between good and evil?

Well, good is that which supports human life. Good is that which leads to success, to prospering. Good is that which is rational, which is consistent with reality. And bad tends to be whim-worshipping. It tends to be a negation of reality, an escape from reality. And therefore, it is anti-life. It's anti-human life, and it usually involves hurting oneself and hurting other people.

Okay, so my show is called "The Rational Basis of Happiness." Most people want to be happy—I mean either that or they've just given up on their lives. But they come into therapy saying, "I feel anxious, I'm having panic attacks," or, "I just don't feel like my life is going in any direction. I don't have any focus in my life, and I'm not happy." And you're saying that there's a standard for good, that if that person is more rational, they're more likely to achieve happiness. Whereas if they think that anything goes or that the guys in the prison are the equivalent of the guys at universities—there are some cases—but the better professors, then it seems like there's no good or evil. Why bother? Why set goals? Why try to achieve anything in life if you're no good if you do it?

Now, that's absolutely true. And more than that, one of the things religion teaches us, which I think is horrific, is the notion that you can be good and not happy—that you get your happiness in some other world, after you die. And I believe that leading a good life, being good, being rational, leads to happiness. The two are not divorced from one another.

Transcript

The Selfish path to romance. Download chapter one for free at DrKenner.com and @amazon.com

I have as my guest today Dr. Yaron Brook. He's the President and Executive Director of the Ayn Rand Institute. He's worked in academia, where he's received numerous teaching awards. He's also an entrepreneur who has founded several companies. He lectures extensively in the United States and abroad on many topics, including ethics, and he served in the Israeli Army Intelligence. Dr. Yaron Brook, welcome.

Thanks for having me on.

Oh, it's wonderful to have you on again. You served in the Israeli Army Intelligence, and you must have seen the methods that the terrorists use to destroy a person. And I want to bring it to the family first, and then you can elaborate on it in terms of what you see in politics going on now, or in Israel when you were serving in the Army Intelligence.

If a woman is raped, there's a difference if she's kicking and punching the rapist trying to escape. We recognize the difference between the initiation of force, which is the rapist, and the retaliation—the woman trying to fight back. If she pokes out his eyes or punches him in some place that hurts a heck of a lot, he's earned it, and we sit there and say, “Yay for you,” to the woman.

But something different is happening now on the political scene. You know, we can see the difference between the initiation of force and retaliation. I’m wondering what you see now that makes those two equivalent—the rapist the equivalent of the victim.

Well, you see that from our universities. We see that from university professors who claim that the United States is equivalent to the terrorists who attacked us on September 11, that we're the same morally, that America is somehow a terrorist state and, in many respects, worse than the terrorists—that is what they claim.

But when you say this, you know I'm rolling my eyes, raising my eyebrows, like, why would anybody believe this crap?

That's a good question. I think because it appeals to a certain group of people who want to criticize America in any way that they can. It usually comes out from people who don't believe in our system, who don't believe in capitalism, who don't believe in freedom, who don't believe in individual rights. And to them, the fact that we choose this particular system—this particular system of freedom—is the same as somebody else who chooses slavery, chooses dictatorship, chooses religious theocracies, because to them, there is no right or wrong. There is no truth and falsehood. They believe that reality is a flux—that nothing you actually see really exists. You make it up as you go along.

I don't think anybody genuinely believes this. I think that's a cover-up. I think that they're envious.

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, the psychological element that's driving them is envy. But, you know, there are hundreds of years of philosophical writings trying to justify the fact that there is no right or wrong, that everything's relative, and there is no real reality—that we just make it up as we go along. Those philosophies, for various psychological reasons, are a great crutch: to believe that you can create your own reality in your own mind, and you don't have to pay attention to the laws of gravity and the laws around you.

Okay, so there are many people—fortunately they're not in the majority in the United States, otherwise we would not be a civilized country—but there are people that really are envious, and they're driven by the motive to make anything look equivalent, to make anything good look like it's the equivalent to something equally bad. It's like this is whitewashing the bad.

Yeah. I mean, one way to justify bad is to say that it's equivalent to good. You know, to say that there is no such thing as—

So, let me give an example. What about the priests who are pedophiles? How do they make them seem—what do the apologists for those people say?

Well, I mean, they say, “Well, we all have flaws. We all commit sins. And as long as they repent, that's okay.” I mean, the real nasty ones, the real evil ones, will actually say it's good for the kids, in some sick way—that the kids ask for it.

Or that the kids ask for it, exactly.

But I think others try to justify it in the sense that we all have evil in us. None of us are perfect. None of us are completely pure, good people—which I think is complete nonsense, particularly when you take it to that kind of abusive degree.

Well, how can you tell—most of us are not that bad. Here's a tough question: how can you tell the difference between good and evil?

Hey. Gotta interrupt this, because we've got to pay some bills. Thirty seconds, that's it. A very quick ad, and then Ellen will be back.

Romance. Oh, I wish guys knew more about what we want from a relationship. Boy, I wish I knew more about what I want. Where's that ad I saw? Ah, here it is—The Selfish Path to Romance, a serious romance guidebook. Download chapter one for free at selfishromance.com and buy it at amazon.com. Hmm, The Selfish Path to Romance—that is interesting.

Here's a tough question: how can you tell the difference between good and evil?

Well, good is that which supports human life. Good is that which leads to success, to prospering. Good is that which is rational, which is consistent with reality. And bad tends to be whim-worshiping; it tends to be a negation of reality, an escape from reality. And therefore it is anti-life; it's anti human life, and it usually involves hurting oneself and hurting other people.

Okay, so my show is called The Rational Basis of Happiness. If most people want to be happy—I mean, either that or they've just given up on their lives—but they come into therapy saying, “I feel anxious, I'm having panic attacks,” or “I just don't feel like my life is going in any direction. I don't have any focus in my life, and I'm not happy.”

And you're saying that there's a standard for good—that if that person is more rational, they're more likely to achieve happiness. Whereas, if they think that anything goes, or that the guys in the prison are the equivalent of the guys in the universities—they are in some cases, but of the better professors—then it seems like there's no good or evil. And why bother? Why set goals? Why try to achieve anything in life? If you're no good if you do it?

That's absolutely true. And more than that, one of the things religion teaches us, which I think is horrific, is the notion that you can be good and not happy—that is, that you get your happiness in some other world after you die. And I believe that leading a good life, being good, being rational, leads to happiness. The two are not divorced from one another. And that doing good things in this life does lead to good—it's a good outcome—to happiness. And doing bad things leads to misery. And that good is achievable, and it's the rational. It's not an escape from reality; it's embracing reality.

So the kid in a family who sets goals, who goes out and achieves them—or if you're an individual in your early 20s and you really want a career, you want to achieve good things in your life, you want to have a wonderful romantic relationship and wonderful hobbies—and you achieve them, you will be acting rationally. That'll be good, and that's not the equivalent of—what would be the alternative? Robbing people? Backstabbing them?

Absolutely. I mean, you deserve that happiness. And the people who are backstabbing and so on—they are bad, and they don't deserve to be happy. And indeed, they won't be happy. And hopefully they'll get caught and go to jail. But there is reward and punishment—for good and bad behavior—psychological rewards and punishments, and existential rewards and punishments in reality.

Okay, so if a guy has an affair, when he has a very wonderful wife—not an awful, god-awful one where you'd say “Good for you”—then he would feel very guilty. But he earned that guilt. He can't go to a therapist and say, “Take away my guilt,” because he created that for himself.

Absolutely. He'll suffer the consequence of his bad action.

Okay, well, I want to thank you so much for joining us today. With me today has been Dr. Yaron Brook, the President and Executive Director of the Ayn Rand Institute, and we've been talking about the fact that you need standards for good and bad in life, and you need them for your own personal happiness. Thank you so much for joining us today.

Thank you.

And the good you can take from that is: think of your own life and ask yourself the question, Am I leading a life that brings me rewards, that brings me happiness? Or am I building up resentments? Every day I'm feeling more bitter towards my kids, my husband, my wife, my parents, my coworkers. And if you're building up resentments, you want to look and say, Am I living a duty-bound life? Like I'm not living my own life—I'm living for everybody else. I'm living in the shadow of everybody else. That's not going to bring you happiness. And you want to be able to reverse that—to adopt the ideas that bring you much, much more self-fulfillment.

For more Dr. Kenner podcasts, go to DrKenner.com and please listen to this ad.

Here's an excerpt from The Selfish Path to Romance by clinical psychologist Dr. Ellen Kenner.

Four. Here are a few assertiveness tips that may help you express yourself more effectively:

Ask your partner to verify that he or she has heard what you said. This will avoid misunderstandings. For example, ask in a genuine tone of caring, “Have I expressed myself clearly?”

If you did something wrong, be honest about your mistakes. When you own up to the truth, you do not engage in endless battles starting with “I'm sorry, but…” The “buts” may put your partner back on the attack again, and they do not work toward resolving the conflict. Furthermore, when you are honest, your partner has more respect for you. Admitting mistakes is not a sign of weakness but of moral integrity. This strengthens your self-esteem.

You can download chapter one for free by going to DrKenner.com and you can buy the book at amazon.com.