The Psychology of Happiness (Dave Rubin Interview with Gregory Salmieri and Gena Gorlin)

******
Dave Rubin
Host of The Rubin report

Gregory Salmieri
Editor, A Companion to Ayn Rand

Gena Gorlin
Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology, Yeshiva University

******

******

[hajiabdessalam]

Thank you. It feels like an intellectual dessert here in Morocco, Ayn Rand Institute and Ayn Rand books gives me the company that i need, otherwise i'm alone.

[georgestacey]

I just want to say this philosophy (though I am not settled on it...not yet at least) has helped me to achieve more happiness. I have great respect for it's respect toward human sanity and happiness.

[brinham]

Two of my favorite people, both brilliant. Thank you for posting.

[georgestacey]

Great talk, interesting points all around.

[NowisEvollovetion]

By far the best way to be happy, is to quite simply give up being unhappy. Stop telling everyone your sad, sad story. You know, those sad stories about what so and so did to you, or said to you. Stop living in the past in other words. In the pain of your emotions. Now, your troublesome emotions certainly won’t like this change. But hey, who gives a shit about them? Certainly not you when simply being happy is your main priority.

[FranciscodAnconia-GG-Recruiter]

To Mr. Salmieri and Miss Gorlin:

Very interesting and telling that the one line that would sum this entire interview and peaks in the last ten minutes - the telling part is Mr. Rubin asks directly @44:00 with obvious hopes of getting the definitive answer to summarize the entire series:
"So, at the most existential level what is the meaning of life?" - what follows is a hilarious dance-around that really only serves to confuse any potential student(telling because it reveals an incertitude where there should be none - even though they both do mention and give vague references to specfic works of Ayn Rand. What is interesting to me is the contrast in the way Rand's directness works better than any discussion that can be organized around her.
The scene is in The Fountainhead, Roark and Wynand are walking in the woods and this exact question arises. Roark answers by tearing a branch off a nearby tree and bends it.
"This is the meaning of life." (period; no run around, no qualification, no evasion ... pow! like an awakening slap in the face!). Despite this Wynand gives the wrong response: "Your strength?" to which Roark's reply is:


"Your work."


So, everyone|anyone: even Gena or Greg: Why the academia-dance-around? Is it psycological incertitude? Nervous blathering to impress? Maybe it just didn't come to mind or felt inappropriate. You understand, that this had to be pointed-out precicely because it is obscurred by the nature of the interview process. Thank Galt for the comments section !D
On second thought - let it go - its that Quantity - Quality thing; economy of line, words and the different effects. Just posting here so new students of Objectivism see that its not at all about how much you can say but the way you express it : ten minutes versus two words.
And I mean it.


Francisco Carlos Domingo Andres Sebastian d'Anconia

[yandarn]

Salmieri makes good, cogent points, but I was expecting more clarity, eloquence and concise points from Gorlin.

[joannajohnston]

Trying to combine a morality of self-interest with a duty premise is the psychological equivalent of a mixed economy. The idea that the purpose of morality is to restrain the self is identical to the claim that government regulation is necessary to restrain capitalism.