I tried to read Atlas Shrugged and quit less than 100 pages in. Same for Introduction To Objectivism. Years later I read Philosophy: Who Needs It? and it changed my understanding of life and existence by exposing my own ignorance to myself. When I finally returned to Atlas Shrugged I felt overwhelmed by it's beauty and simplicity. Ms. Rand's existence was validated by the example she set and I am eternally grateful for what she chose to share. To this day it brings a tear to my eye when I think of the personal potential I have become in touch with thanks to the exposure to her work.
Thoughtful post.. I'm wondering how I've never come across Any Rand philosophies throughout my college education, working years and independent studies up until now. Seems it would have been beneficial.
@@izi.z2384 When were you in college? Because critical theory has been infecting colleges with its fascist sentiments since the 70s. There was push back in the 80s and 90s, and now it's rearing its ugly head again with all this talk of racism and anti-capitalism
Nicely said.. I'm wondering how I've never come across Any Rand philosophies throughout my college education, working years and independent studies up until now. Seems it would have been beneficial.
@@izi.z2384 People who earn their living working for the government, or subsidized by the government, do not find it in their interest to promote a philosophy that says the government should not be subsidizing education.
@@tragickingdom15 LOL, Tom Hank's voice matched when I read the comment, but Norm McDonald made me laugh of how true it is. They are identical at times! 😆
Funny, because "individual responsibility" comes from religion. The greeks didnt have this until aristole, and the chinese blamed the whole family as a source of morality(if youre bad is because they thought you to be bad) @hyperreal
@@user-yo6um3jn5k who cares about your corrupted philosophy departments?! You must use your own reason, not having idols and authorities without any rational analysis of their possible garbage.
He confuse mind with consioussness. Mind is not consioussness. Consioussness beyond mind. But if you reject it you can't have access to it, to suoerconsioussness
@@donragnar8430 Bold move, making an assumption about my politics because I don't like the guy's voice. Since you're here, is your username a reference to Ragnar Danneskjold from "Atlas Shrugged"?
That was so simple, yet revolutionary and so revealing of the stories we have been told in order to not question government intervention that I wonder how they have not canceled Rand, Peikoff & objectivism already!
this is fabulous! so glad it's on CZcams! If you are familiar with Ayn Rand 's Objectivism make sure you listen to how Leonard Peikoff handles the Questions at end! Brilliant! Masterful example of how deal with basic questions.
+Ann Ciccolella I was enthralled with the lecture and I didnt think the question part would be as good as it was, because I enjoyed that part even more!
I'm wondering how I've never come across Any Rand philosophies throughout my college education, working years and independent studies up until now. Seems it would have been beneficial.
@@izi.z2384 yes. 5 years in college I never heard nor saw Rand nor Objectivism mentioned anywhere. Tbh I think it might never change, if professors insist on government funding
It is helpful to use a word like "reciprocation" beside "trade" when speaking of value for value. In this way, the thinking individual is clearly connected to others in the full gamut of ways. Otherwise, the relationship existing between "value for value" individuals is easily lost. Those unable to provide any value whatsoever continue to live only at the mercy of others. Facts of life and love.
*If I correctlyunderstand the point he is making here* "Reciprocation" should be used as it always conveys that there is a mutual benefit (value for value). Where as trade, particularly in some modern interpretations of how capitalism works, people infer it as a zero sum interaction. Hopefully that makes sense
Consider Socrates was first and said, in essence, "Let's examine our lives to bring value." Plato was next, like a child of the one who questions and said, in essence, "Life is hard to understand, I can't see clearly. I am like a man seeing shadows on the wall and not reality." Then the questioner and the answerer became mature in the next philospher, Aristotle. "The world is real and we can know it. Go and learn to create value toward life and happiness." These are philosphers 1,Socrates, 2 Plato and 3 Aristotle.
The real quote is ‘Capitalism is a ne essaye, but not sufficient, condition to freedom’. But note Objectivist disagree. Capitalism without freedom is a contradiction in terms.
"Human beings are absolutely subject to cause and effect, but. . ." By definition "absolutely" leaves no room for "but". The self is a product of a bio-mechanical process, cut and dried, three truckloads.
You are correct technically speaking. If he had put his communication in writing I doubt he would have used "but." A sapient organism has the option to classify what is given in sense perception by differentiation, integration, and measurement omission (among things that are commensurable) by a process of abstraction or conceptualization. Unlike our respiratory or other automated systems, this process is volitional and requires deliberation. This is a specific instance of causality that differs in important ways from, say, one billiard ball striking a second billiard ball, or winning the lottery. The comment you just posted, for example, didn't write and post itself. So the "but" was not intended as an exception to what is absolute. It was intended as an elaboration and clarification that what a thing can cause is determined by its characteristics and (if applicable) its abilities. I don't think he said anywhere that the "self" is anything other than a bio-mechanical process. Further is the "self" equivalent to reason? There are automated/non-volitional processes of consciousness, such as sense-perception, and subconscious processes that serve as an object of study for psychiatrists and psychologists. One element of reason, sense-perception, is an automated process. The other two, conceptualization and logic, are volitional. These distinct instances of causality are not equivalent.
Doug Pridgen "this process is volitional and requires deliberation." This process is is all done by the brain, we merely experience the process first hand. " I don't think he said anywhere that the "self" is anything other than a bio-mechanical process. " When you speak of volition, you are saying that you are in control. You are not. The bio-mechanical process is doing it all. We cause nothing, we are an effect.
You are conflating sense perception with conceptual thinking. Do the comments you post write themselves via an automated process that you just experience firsthand? I suppose these computers and the internet we are communicating through are the result of automated processes? Of course the process doesn't occur apart from a brain. I'm don't believe in a soul. But it is not automatic like your breathing.
Doug Pridgen I am not conflating the two, but I am saying they have the same source, i.e., the brain. The comments I post do not write themselves, but the thoughts preceding them are created automatically by the brain in my skull. If you could explain in simple terms how "you" create a thought, it would go a long way to changing my mind.
I question the statement that Ethics is "central" since Rand said "Most of Philosophy is about Epistemology" and beyond that, the nature of Ethics is pre-set by the answer gotten from Metaphysics and Epistemology. In fact, the only branch of Philosophy that has any real choice is Epistemology. The world works as it does beyond our choice to know it correctly or not. Good is Good and Evil is Evil no matter what we think. The choice is to think or not to think, then to think rationally or not to think rationally then to focus the intellect on the subject at hand or not to. That is covered in Epistemology. By adopting a better Epistemology, we make our thinking more efficient, effective and just plain better. The only consideration of Ethics is "have I done it correctly". The proper ethical doctrines and moral code are not open to choice, only honest and correct understanding. I coclude that Epistemology is the "technology" of Philosophy since that is where you adjust the instrument(s) you use to deal with the world and that is a kind of "software" science
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that given a particular view of metaphysics and epistemology, an ethical code is merely a matter of deduction, that the proper code just flows logically from them and it’s up to you to recognize it or not- thus, there is ‘choice’ in the two earlier branches, but, once those are set, there is no ‘choice’ in the later branches? If ethics is that “deterministic”, how aren’t the earlier two branches as well? If reality imposes such strict obligations of logical sequence on ethics, doesn’t reality impose a similar demand on the other two branches too, such that only one particular system of metaphy/epist/ethics is possible?
The others are not "deterministic" because they interact with things outside the realm of philosophy. Metaphysics links the mind and intellect to the external world. Epistemology latches philosophy to the psychological identity of the philosopher. Ethiics follows from the result of these two. Beyond that all philosophy ins "normative" that is there are right and wrong (correct and incorrect) answers to these tow areas of thought. From the answers you get from these two areas of thought comes your Ethics. Try and generate Altruism from the Primacy of Existence in Metaphysics and Reason in Epistemology by wan of valid reasoning. Metaphysiccs is not open to "logic" since an Objective reality is necessary for logic to work. It generates the factual premises in "factual premises and valid reasoning yield true conclusions. Epistemology is not open to "logic" since one must accept Reason to value logic. It is the subject that framoes the valid reasoning in "factual premises and valid reasoning yield true conclusions". Ethics os a conclusion based on Metaphysics and Epistemology or The World and Man as a Knowing Animal. There is no extra-philosophical area for Ethics to interface since the two irreducible primaries have used both of them up. Ethics does not need to interface with Physics or biology, Those are subsumed in Metaphysics. Ethics does not interface with Psychology. that is done via Epistemology
Is that mean, when arguing with someone, and we are both on the premise of using logic to argue, that we both implicit accepted an Objective reality and Reason?
There is one choice in ethics which is not a matter of focusing your mind and identifying reality, while you make a good argument that the latter is epistemological rather than ethical. That choice is the choice to live. It does not follow from the premises of epistemology that you must live. It only follows that in order to live, you have to act in accordance with reality. That evil which is a threat to the men who want to live which is usually meant by nihilism is a logical contradiction. It is only because such an evil person partly accepts the life premise that he can linger around and act effectively to become a threat. If he fully and consistently embraced the death premise, he would simply refrain from all action until he died, and that is not a threat to anyone, nor is it logically inconsistent, or the failure to follow some obligation. You are not obligated to live. If you do choose to live, then morality is open to you as the means.
46:10 The comedian Bill Hicks had a funny bit about this topic. He said that people who take LSD and then try to fly from the roof of a building are assholes. Bill suggested that they should try flying from the ground first. Give it a little test.
In an Objective society, would the people have to form a new organization to maintain infrastructure and if so, how would this organization be funded to maintain public structures without taxes? Would every structure have to be privately owned?
All infrastructure would be private. You would pay for the service you need like you pay for anything. You can build roads for profit or you can go together as a community to build roads to attract people to your area or business. There is always incentives to build roads if that is the best option for your area.
48 laws of power Law 1 never outshine the master the Dr is now the legal and intellectual heir to Ayn Rand's philosophy rational self interest at it's finest.
I disagreed with Ayn Rand on one subject and that is abortion. It is the one example where the rights of two individuals conflict. The mother has a right to her body, but the baby has a right to life. And nobody has the right to kill a baby or steal one's right to life.
I preferred the one in the blue top sat next to the Asian girl. She has got a girl next door look about her. She'll be about my age too, given this video is 24 years old.
How do you objectively and through logical epistemology, deduce animals are "programmed" while man has "free will?" The arrival at this conclusion is an act of faith Mr. Peikoff has made. And he has made it contrary to the rules of his own philosophy.
As it's a fact that animals are driven by instinct, not rational thought. This is a conclusion of logical deduction; it would only be an act of faith if you were told to accept this fact without use of your own concept formation and thought processes, which you are free to do now to present a different hypotheses regarding man's volition and animal instinct.
No, that's a loaded question. Man can be both instinctual and irrational because he has free will. Man can also choose to be polite or not, when asking a question.
@@boilerhousegarage How do you know you actually make the choice in any way that differs from the way other animals do or don't make choices? It seems you're assuming free will and that it's uniquely inherent to man. I'm saying, show me how this is can logically be arrived at minus faith.
Sure, I'll get straight to work on that! A complete psychological analysis that compares man's advanced volitional mind, with the primative sentience and instinct-driven animal mind, to show how one has the mental capacity to rationally think to choose multiple actions and the other does not--at least to the extent you could call it "free will." I'll have the write up on your desk by the morning! 🙄
This course has also been published with subtitles in Spanish -- Este curso también ha sido publicado con subtítulos en español -- czcams.com/video/9hsBV7saFg4/video.html
At 12:30 If the man's volition is the first cause for a certain event and all of its subsequent effects, what is the cause for that man thoughts to express as free will to cause the initial event? If it all starts on the thought level (before one has even decided to choose for a certain chain of events to be sequentially unraveled) and since the thought realm is not part of the objective Somethingness then those consequential-chains that have their origin in the thought-realm and eventually spill over into objective Somethingness realm are in fact subject to the thought (non-objective Nothingness) processes. If I am sitting on a chair and suddenly think of standing up to walk through the grass, I haven't changed objective world around me, but instead of standing up I begin thinking of the consequences of me walking through grass, destroying certain number of insects. That thinking changes me. I will never walk through grass in the future, to avoid unnecessary insect destruction. So while still sitting on that chair deciding on changing my future behavior that future has already been changed, yet no one is aware of the chains of consequences that have to happen, just because I, sitting on that chair, have been changed. So if there are to be 100 more ants roaming this planet tomorrow will not be a consequence of my physical action today, but my physical inaction and thinking action. Therefore objective world tomorrow will be as will be, changed by my thought processes today and my inaction until tomorrow. Objectivity of the world tomorrow is defined by my subjectivity today. So the objectivity of today is defined by consciousness of yesterday, which means that with time consciousness and subconsciousness are changing objective world around us. And valid question presents: is this moment's objectivity really a full insight of what objectively is and true record as it is or is the objective world right now unfinished work (or lack of it) in progress by all the consciousnesses of the Cosmos? And what is the source of my initial thought (what is the chain-train of thoughts) when I decided not to take a stroll. This notion that consciousness has no impact on objective world is a fallacy by those thinkers who frame-freeze the objective reality as a static moment and observe it as if this frozen moment is self-sufficient, self-standing quantum (box) of reality. But quantizing time and space is just a tell of fallacious approach towards thinking of reality and objectiveness. Freezing reality as a moment of objectivity is the only way to get rid of consciousness (and god), since this approach offers a cheat to get rid of all meaning and qualia. If you are sincere in objectifying a certain moment of your choosing then that moment should be observed from the past point(s) of view forward and from the future point(s) of view back. In other words your model of chain-reaction has no explanation for the cause of the first cause 14:30 and therefore can't predict rouge waves despite the amount of observation involved.
This was a little too deep for me. I don't know where this lecture took place or who the audience is, but I like the questions - some of them are a sign of the naivete of young people in college, particularly during the 90s.
I truly wish Mr. Peikoff would soften his lecture style, it's so distracting from delivering the information and the lessons he's trying to teach. Being loud and direct is great for making certain points, but having the volume and intensity at a 10 the entire time is just tiring for the audience. Does he feel like his students in this group will fall asleep on him if he isn't in their faces the whole time? The Q&A session is handled poorly too, cutting off a questioner before they've had a chance to fully ask a question is not only rude but it hampers your ability to correctly answer the question.
@@Pimping9167 No, I'm not the problem and don't need to adjust, thank you. If you don't mind, great, but no one I've ever heard other than street preachers speak like this and wanted to comment. I'm entitled to my own opinion.
What is the difference between "reason" as a source of epistemology and "rationality" as a virtue in ethics? is reason the general human ability and rationality the ability to reason as applied to achieving a goal?
Interesting. An embryo is not an individual. Where does an objectivist draw the line for what is an individual human life? Birth? What’s the difference between a 7 month old fetus and a 2 month old baby? Neither has the ability to reason. I ask this as someone who believes Ayn Rand is just right. But I just think there seem to be some small gaps in objectivism.
+Todor Nikolov I realize this is an old thread but from my understanding, when objectivists use the phrase "free will" they aren't talking about determinism or "do I raise my hand or not raise my hand" type scenarios. "Free will" to an objectivist means you have the capacity to choose to think (pursue things that rationally improve your life) or not to think (pursue things that rationally harm your life or pursue nothing).
+Todor Nikolov I have learned a little more on the subject since I made this last comment and I think there is another point that should be brought up here. Part of this confusion comes from a equivocation of causality with mechanism. The law of causality is a corollary of the law of identity. It is formulated as "every entity acts in accordance with its nature". That says nothing about what particular types of entities can exist, only that if they exist THEN they must act according to their nature, and everything has a nature because of the law of identity. Given that, there is no "law" of reality that states that there cannot be an entity that can act this way or that way on a non-determined basis, since the law of causality doesn't prescribe what kinds of entities can exist. This doesn't resolve whether there is a special kind of entity in man that allows for this capability, or whether it is an emergent property of a particular type of consciousness, but that is irrelevant from the perspective of it existing. You don't need to know how it exists to know that it exists.
Another way to put it is that man's nature is such that he has free will. Given that is his nature, he can act according to his nature, of which the action in question is choosing.
The absolutism stems from the axiom that existence exists. If you don't accept this axiom then you would consider absolutes to be null and void. But reality will not conform to your premise. An apple is an apple and will not become a pie just because you wish it.
The law of identity does not preclude the existence of a God that then manifests the reality we inhabit. The argument given here is circular: our experience of existence is material, therefore only the material exists because of the law of identity, but we only know the identity of existence is material because we defined it as such by assuming what we experience (the material) is the whole show. To apply the law of identity in this way, you must assume the mind is capable of grasping every aspect of an object in order to identify it correctly and completely. If the mind cannot do this, then we cannot assume our perception of an object's identity is equal to the totality of its true metaphysical identity. We have no reason to assume the mind is capable of perceiving an object's complete identity, therefore, we cannot apply the law of identity in the way given in this lecture and Peikoff's book on Objectivism.
It most certainly does. If a god is the reason things are the way they are, then he can make them not the way they are, and therefore the law of identity would be invalid. "our experience of existence is material" Objectivism doesn't subscribe to materialism. Not sure which philosophy you are arguing against but it isn't Objectivism here. "To apply the law of identity in this way, you must assume the mind is capable of grasping every aspect of an object in order to identify it correctly and completely." No, you don't need to assume that. Let's say that I see the Earth from a long distance away. Do I need to know that you ate a hamburger for lunch in your kitchen to say "there is a planet there"? Do I need to know that the atoms in a leaf vibrate in such a way as to release green light to know that the leaf is green? If I didn't know about atoms, could I still tell the leaf was green? If I put the leaf up so that it covers my whole vision, so I can't see its shape, does that mean I can't tell that it is green? I don't see the shape and therefore I can't determine it is green? Basically, your premise "you must assume the mind is capable of grasping every aspect of an object in order to identify it correctly and completely" is arbitrary.
Damon Hage you cannot apply the law of identity in the way Objectivism does unless you know the entirety of an object's identity, this is obvious. I cannot claim that aspect a is not identical to Object A unless I know Object A in its entirety and that it does not include aspect a in its identity. This is basic logic.
@@CScott-wh5yk You can keep saying that, but that doesn't make it true. It is just as arbitrary now when you say it as when you said it the first time. Also, they aren't "applying the law of identity". The law of identity is true because of the facts of reality. The law of causality is true because of the law of identity. They aren't trying to slap the law of identity onto reality, like you would apply an ointment to a wound. That is rationalism and invalid. "I cannot claim that aspect a is not identical to Object A unless I know Object A in its entirety and that it does not include aspect a in its identity." Aspect a is not identical to Object A? This literally makes no sense. Somethings aspects (its characteristics if that is what you mean) cannot be "identical" to an object. That doesn't make sense. That is like saying red is identical to wine. No, wine has the characteristic of being red. There is no "red" without the thing that is red. Is English your primary language? I'm not asking to demean you if it isn't, but you don't seem to know what an aspect is if you think that even hypothetically it can be "identical" to an object.
Damon Hage just because you say it is arbitrary does not mean you can negate the laws of logic by simply saying it’s so. You must know something in its entirety to be able to make universal claims about its identity. You cannot claim the universe is all there is unless you know all there is, for example. This is obvious. If you want to say this is arbitrary, please explain why rather than just saying so.
"Reality, it being what it is, is independent of consciousness," Peikoff applies the law of identity in this way at 11:50. But this claim can only be made if we understand reality in its entirety and that it is independent of consciousness. This has not been established, at least not within the philosophy of objectivism (it is just assumed by begging the question and calling it the law of identity).
How is that altruism? Altruism meaning is not not interacting with others or helping them. Altruism, which is the literal meaning is other-ism, means putting others before yourself. Other people's life takes priority above your own. Its antagonist is egoism.
Thats not entirely true at all. Theres reason to believe that consciousness itself might not even originate in the brain, but might be a natural phenomenon of the universe itself, in its own field.
@@razzberry6180 Yes, the jury is out isn't it? But I would say it is entirely true that there are respected scientists out there (among others) who hold this view.
No she wouldn't have. The scientists who claim people don't have free will, didn't reach that conclusion because of any scientific evidence. They claim that because it conflicts with their philosophical positions. Namely, mechanistic materialism, which says everything in the universe operates like billiard balls on a table. There is no way to logically infer that premise, but they all take it as an axiom.
@@damonhage7451 Yes, undoubtedly scientists, just like anyone else, might be persuaded by philosophical conflicts . Others explain it as logic based laws of physics. It's all up for grabs and depends how you interpret things. Are we saying Ms Rand would not reconsider in light of all the things we know now that we did not know then? From what little I know of her, she comes across as very smart.
@@ken4975 The issue that what people mean by the "laws of physics" are influenced by their philosophy. I like I said before, most scientists accept mechanistic materialism and nobody has ever presented a valid argument for it to my knowledge. Would Rand reconsider free will? Absolutely not. Nothing has been learned. Like I said before, there hasn't been any argument for mechanistic materialism presented in the last 40 years that isn't as flawed as the arguments made by the determinists in ancient Greece.
I disagree that animals do not have free will. Perhaps they not as advanced as humans, but they do have many traits that are similar to humans, animals can definitely love and be motivated by anger, sadness, happiness, fear, etc.. I have seen evidence of it.
Okay Mr.JamesMerrit, I'll bite you on this one ... You'll find your answer if you project theory into practice. All of those men of history that you mention proposed theories that you have to analyse for yourself prior to putting into practice. QM is a theory, a lot of the theories put forward these days are based of statistics to get a desired result. Be careful, the majority of 'scientists' ... no, people out there have an evil-mystic agenda. Objectivism defines what is factually good for man - Miss Rand designed it as a sort of filter for anyone that seeks the truth. ... now go forth into the world young man and multiply - but filter first. Francisco Carlos Domingo Andres Sebastién d'Anconia
Yes, that would be the only reason for tax in this sort of system i believe. Police systems, military, judiciary and probably fire services too but that could be privatised i guess through property and land insurance as an example.
@@AnudeepNallapareddy This is John Galt speaking. I am the man who loves his life. I am the man who does not sacrifice his love and his values, and if you want to know why you are perishing--you who dread knowledge--I am the man who will tell you. Actually, my name's Rick, but yes I'm using the character name from Atlas Shrugged.
@@damonhage7451 yep - I forgot I ordered it in physical and I showed up the next day - very interesting thoughts. For anyone watching, it’s chapter 8: virtue
I don't know about his view on art. It's seems very limiting to only cover what would or could happen. Basically all fantasy art goes out the window. Overall I like that philosophy for individuals. I'm not sure if it's practical enough to encompass all of politics. He seems to be waaay overselling how great a world run on objectivist principles would be. Charity always being able to reliably deal with the poor, and everyone living to 150 years old sounds too good to be true. I also find it odd that he does not support a competing market place for the military, courts, and police. If the is perverse incentives, then those aren't the only industries that have that problem.
+xenoblad Sounds like you should do some reading up on free market economics and the inherent problems with central planning. As for the competing military, courts, and police, you cannot have a market in force. Force is the one thing that must be extracted from society to exist. You can't have a market in the one thing that makes markets impossible.
And a YEAR later... the answer is............government totally bungled the pandemic. Between the mandated lockdowns that crippled our economy and brought financial devastation, to the poisonous jab that they mandated for huge segments of our population, they could not have handled it any worse. Government has NO business telling us what to do.
Externalities apparently don't exist...? I really don't understand, can someone explain why more or less completely unregulated capitalism is so good? There are certain things a market doesn't account for, like pollution.
I don't understand your question. Capitalism is so good because human beings produce values by using their minds. Force prevents you from using your mind. A government that simply prevents people from using force on each other, promotes maximum use of the mind, produces maximum value. It's fairly simple. Your example of pollution is a weird one. You are implying that unregulated capitalism is anarchy, when he clearly said that the government exists to prevent infringements of rights. Pollution is clearly a violation of your rights and therefore you wouldn't expect a market to "account for" it. That's the government's job. If I dump my garbage in your back yard, that is an initiation of force and a violation of rights. The government steps in, not some market. You spray me in the face with chlorine. The government steps in, not some market. I hope I didn't fundamentally misunderstand you because I don't think your comment made sense.
An example of a necessary regulation in my opinion is the FDA that makes sure there is no rat poison in your food. They may not be perfect, but they prevent a lot of needless death. Edit: I guess his answer that people can't be allowed by government to harm others covers this.
FDA regulates medical drugs, not food. Either way, regulatory agencies violate individual rights. Only the individual has the right to decide for himself which standard of safety he wants in drugs or food.
'novels with heros and logical plots' are mandatory in 'Romantic Realism' LOL against Modern Art 'smears and dots etc' Music 'melody not atonalism' The Nazi and Stalinist echoes are inescapable - tiny minded ideologically driven philistines trying to tell artists what to do
One of the tiny problems with ' objectivism ' is that its proponents cannot avoid making subjective judgements which they strive heroically ( and amusingly ) to dress up as objective ... viz your little rant above, which is expressed in the same Nazi lite prose deployed by Mr Peikoff. PS Mr Peikoff had the meaningful glint in his eye which leaves no doubt that a society he and his ilk dominated would gleefully burn books, paintinggs etc in a festival of objectivist joy
39:27 "Aristotle was much much closer to the objectivist viewpoint." I personally don't think Aristotle would've taken Randian objectivism seriously frankly speaking, and it's quite interesting that Peikoff kind of rushes through it to 'nature,' 'reason' etc. In fact it is well known in the study of ethics and politics that the Ancient Greek philosophic tradition, especially in Plato's and Aristotle's reading, put the common good of the State (city-state back then), collective above the individual's. They're very explicit in doing it and it's not an obscure fact about Greek philosophy so Peikoff should#ve known better. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_good#Ancient_Greeks "Aristotle is clear that there is greater value in the common good than in the individual good, noting in his Nicomachean Ethics that "even if the end is the same for a single man and for a state, that of the state seems at all events something greater and more complete; … though it is worthwhile to attain the end merely for one man, it is finer and more godlike to attain it for a nation or for city-states."" Aristotle also mentions multiple times in his Politics that the state should be providing for its poor citizens - food, education, paying for their participation in politics, etc. (and indeed that was the case in Athens with some variations). And last but not least, the idea of the separation of State and economy would've been so foreign to them, it's just worth mentioning that there was no notion of economy separate from State until maybe a 150 years ago. It was always called political economy until relatively recently. Not even close to Ayn Rand.
59:49 "All the things which people blame on capitalism are actually not the fault of capitalism but of the element of government that it is mixed with which is corrupting..." The only way this may differ from a Marxist-Leninist scholar back in the USSR days blaming all the faults of the Soviet Union on the state/government/party rather than the ideology as well is that Peikoff can more freely express his ideas. But in essence it seems to be the same to be blind to see any, any pitfalls whatsoever in any particular system of ideas. I'd be afraid of people rejecting any criticism of the ideology of their choice - be it "Soviet communism" or "laissez-faire capitalism".
Peikoff was well aware of all of that - he taught a lengthy course on the history of philosophy (available free on the Ayn Rand University app) which explicitly covers the massive differences between Aristotle and Rand. He wasn’t claiming they were identical, but identified the essentials that they shared.
@@armanmkhitaryan27 On capitalism: Peikoff is not doing the same hand-wave as the Marxists you describe. He has mountains of evidence on his side, they do not. But you find it sufficient to point out a superficial similarity in the form of their respective claims to justify equating he and they. Absurd - all your work is still ahead of you. For instance, if one student who wrote 2+2=4 on his quiz said “My answer is correct!” would you diminish him on the grounds that another student (who happened to have put 2+2=5) said the same thing? “He’s not right! After all, the guy who said 5 also said he was correct! QED!” Oof. You might find this hard to believe, but the Marxist apologists are wrong, and Peikoff is right. I’m aware that this sort of “absolutism” can make some fragile folks squeamish. But the problems of socialism/communism are direct, causal results of the system; the “problems” of capitalism are either not problems specific to capitalism, or are not caused by capitalism at all. I’m happy to hear some examples. (Please don’t say “monopolies!!!1.” Please.)
@@sybo59 Thanks for the reply. I was citing Piekoff himslef, at 39:27 "Aristotle was much much closer to the objectivist viewpoint." Then showed explicitly that Aristotle wasn't close to the "objectivist viewpoint," I think he might've even had a hard time trying to understand the political and economic concepts of what Rand put behind her definition of "objectivism" for the reasons I mentioned in my first comments. You can try to make a good impression in class indeed by drawing such parallels but I don't think it bears any serious philosophical scrutiny. I just find things where I strongly disagree with Piekoff and I try to back my points with specific examples and references, unlike Piekoff on these particular topics in this particular clip. The second point. Systemic issues of capitalism. There's an entire field in the political spectrum dedicated to the study of capitalism basically, the Left. It's not homogenous of course, there's no one Left, but it's done a lot in pointing out and challenging the destructive systemic issues of capitalism. I can understand though that Piekoff and probably some of his followers may dismiss it altogether, but it's just not serous if so. I don't have to turn to people like Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, Shoshana Zuboff, Thomas Piketty and so on to learn about the dangers of capitalist systems, I can just cite my own history: Armenia, where I come from, was completely impoverished and devastated by what some refer to as crony capitalism after the fall of the USSR. I was a kid back then and I don't "miss" it or something, but the "crony (or call it USSR, doesn't matter) socialism" did in many aspects and with many respects a better job in Armenia then the kind of crony capitalism that ensued in the 90s. Both systems are quite vague to begin with on their own without a specific framework in place, both have advantages and both disadvantages. If you need further proof without reading the authors I mentioned above (even though a person approaching these topics seriously has to), just look at Europe and the US actually. There's a tremendous amount of socialist ideas and policies implemented in these areas to hold the system together, because as time has proven, it just collapses under the kind of capitalism that I believe Rand had in mind: no state interference, etc. It's just non-existent. The State is everywhere. There's in fact no example of this Randian picture of capitalism anywhere in the world.
I tried to read Atlas Shrugged and quit less than 100 pages in. Same for Introduction To Objectivism. Years later I read Philosophy: Who Needs It? and it changed my understanding of life and existence by exposing my own ignorance to myself. When I finally returned to Atlas Shrugged I felt overwhelmed by it's beauty and simplicity. Ms. Rand's existence was validated by the example she set and I am eternally grateful for what she chose to share. To this day it brings a tear to my eye when I think of the personal potential I have become in touch with thanks to the exposure to her work.
Thoughtful post.. I'm wondering how I've never come across Any Rand philosophies throughout my college education, working years and independent studies up until now. Seems it would have been beneficial.
@@izi.z2384 When were you in college? Because critical theory has been infecting colleges with its fascist sentiments since the 70s. There was push back in the 80s and 90s, and now it's rearing its ugly head again with all this talk of racism and anti-capitalism
@@izi.z2384You didn't hear about her, because her philosophy is not benefitial for the establishment.
Yes
@@izi.z2384because it’s the Neo liberal order
My life has improved drastically with objectivism. Ayn Rand is an amazing philosopher
Yes
It is. Life is objective, with evolutionary psychology. That's it
objectivism is the most human way to the men live , is just human being a human .
I found this when I was 20, what's everyone else's excuse?
In what ways, can you give examples? Just curious.
Ayn gave me my life's blood. Her philosophy gives joy.
Nicely said.. I'm wondering how I've never come across Any Rand philosophies throughout my college education, working years and independent studies up until now. Seems it would have been beneficial.
@@izi.z2384 People who earn their living working for the government, or subsidized by the government, do not find it in their interest to promote a philosophy that says the government should not be subsidizing education.
My wife overheard me listening to this and said “why are you listening to Tom Hanks scream at people?”
And that is relevant to exactly what ?
@@robertruge2916 rip
I heard Tom Hanks voice too.
My boyfriend said Norm McDonald.
@@tragickingdom15 LOL, Tom Hank's voice matched when I read the comment, but Norm McDonald made me laugh of how true it is. They are identical at times! 😆
Just a phenomenal teacher. The very best.
I was drawn to objectivism because it was based on the fundamental laws of Nature. The basic truth of life and man’s responsibility to himself.
I would say to your point that its based on nature, its really the ability to derive morality from objective reality.
Funny, because "individual responsibility" comes from religion. The greeks didnt have this until aristole, and the chinese blamed the whole family as a source of morality(if youre bad is because they thought you to be bad) @hyperreal
I love the use of the word "Firebrand" when describing both Rand and Peikoff. Straight to the meat and potatoes no fluff.
Thank you. This was my personal introduction to Objectivism about 4 year ago. Now I would call myself an Objectivist.
@@user-yo6um3jn5k why is it silly?
@@user-yo6um3jn5k Most philosophy departments likely teach the same new age marxist subjective reality garbage that is the opposite of objectivism.
@@user-yo6um3jn5k who cares about your corrupted philosophy departments?! You must use your own reason, not having idols and authorities without any rational analysis of their possible garbage.
He confuse mind with consioussness. Mind is not consioussness. Consioussness beyond mind. But if you reject it you can't have access to it, to suoerconsioussness
This is very simple and straightforward, but somehow we’d rather turn everything upside down
Here's my favorite teacher. Ever.
Love his voice.
It sounds like he's constantly shouting at me. Very unpleasant.
Ernst Friedrich Eckhoff here is some soy milk 🥛 for you
@@donragnar8430 Bold move, making an assumption about my politics because I don't like the guy's voice. Since you're here, is your username a reference to Ragnar Danneskjold from "Atlas Shrugged"?
He sounds exactly like sound like Stephen King.
That was so simple, yet revolutionary and so revealing of the stories we have been told in order to not question government intervention that I wonder how they have not canceled Rand, Peikoff & objectivism already!
this is fabulous! so glad it's on CZcams! If you are familiar with Ayn Rand 's Objectivism make sure you listen to how Leonard Peikoff handles the Questions at end! Brilliant! Masterful example of how deal with basic questions.
+Ann Ciccolella I was enthralled with the lecture and I didnt think the question part would be as good as it was, because I enjoyed that part even more!
I'm wondering how I've never come across Any Rand philosophies throughout my college education, working years and independent studies up until now. Seems it would have been beneficial.
@@izi.z2384 yes. 5 years in college I never heard nor saw Rand nor Objectivism mentioned anywhere. Tbh I think it might never change, if professors insist on government funding
this was some powerful stuff..
Great introduction to Objectivism and a beautifully produced video.
Are there two realities? As far as I can tell philosophers can't even stomach one reality. Peikoff is really pushing the boundaries here.
Excellent introduction!
Beautiful
He is so intense. Although I don't agree with all his views, I love his delivery.
You are to be strapped -down and made to listen to him! Punishment for NOT obeying me ? Sentenced to listen to Joe Biden for five hours!
It is helpful to use a word like "reciprocation" beside "trade" when speaking of value for value. In this way, the thinking individual is clearly connected to others in the full gamut of ways. Otherwise, the relationship existing between "value for value" individuals is easily lost. Those unable to provide any value whatsoever continue to live only at the mercy of others. Facts of life and love.
Why is it better to use the word reciprocation? I don't understand what is the distinction you are making.
*If I correctlyunderstand the point he is making here*
"Reciprocation" should be used as it always conveys that there is a mutual benefit (value for value). Where as trade, particularly in some modern interpretations of how capitalism works, people infer it as a zero sum interaction. Hopefully that makes sense
Consider Socrates was first and said, in essence, "Let's examine our lives to bring value." Plato was next, like a child of the one who questions and said, in essence, "Life is hard to understand, I can't see clearly. I am like a man seeing shadows on the wall and not reality." Then the questioner and the answerer became mature in the next philospher, Aristotle. "The world is real and we can know it. Go and learn to create value toward life and happiness." These are philosphers 1,Socrates, 2 Plato and 3 Aristotle.
Peikoff é um excelente defensor da razão e da liberdade. Um notável seguidor de Ayn Rand. Assim como eu próprio.
"There are no contradictions in reality"
...until you meet a psychopath.
@@g.m.backus5219
Psychopaths aren't supervillains. They cannot alter reality.
@@Shozb0t Yeah... only supervillains can alter reality. Duh. XP
But there are paradoxes.
@@stephenhogg6154 no, there aren't. just contradictions.
"Not all capitalism is free, but all free societies must have capitalism." - paraphrase Milton Friedman.
The real quote is ‘Capitalism is a ne essaye, but not sufficient, condition to freedom’. But note Objectivist disagree. Capitalism without freedom is a contradiction in terms.
"Human beings are absolutely subject to cause and effect, but. . ."
By definition "absolutely" leaves no room for "but". The self is a product of a bio-mechanical process, cut and dried, three truckloads.
You are correct technically speaking. If he had put his communication in writing I doubt he would have used "but." A sapient organism has the option to classify what is given in sense perception by differentiation, integration, and measurement omission (among things that are commensurable) by a process of abstraction or conceptualization. Unlike our respiratory or other automated systems, this process is volitional and requires deliberation. This is a specific instance of causality that differs in important ways from, say, one billiard ball striking a second billiard ball, or winning the lottery.
The comment you just posted, for example, didn't write and post itself. So the "but" was not intended as an exception to what is absolute. It was intended as an elaboration and clarification that what a thing can cause is determined by its characteristics and (if applicable) its abilities. I don't think he said anywhere that the "self" is anything other than a bio-mechanical process. Further is the "self" equivalent to reason? There are automated/non-volitional processes of consciousness, such as sense-perception, and subconscious processes that serve as an object of study for psychiatrists and psychologists.
One element of reason, sense-perception, is an automated process. The other two, conceptualization and logic, are volitional. These distinct instances of causality are not equivalent.
Doug Pridgen "this process is volitional and requires deliberation."
This process is is all done by the brain, we merely experience the process first hand.
" I don't think he said anywhere that the "self" is anything other than a bio-mechanical process. "
When you speak of volition, you are saying that you are in control. You are not. The bio-mechanical process is doing it all.
We cause nothing, we are an effect.
You are conflating sense perception with conceptual thinking. Do the comments you post write themselves via an automated process that you just experience firsthand? I suppose these computers and the internet we are communicating through are the result of automated processes? Of course the process doesn't occur apart from a brain. I'm don't believe in a soul. But it is not automatic like your breathing.
Doug Pridgen I am not conflating the two, but I am saying they have the same source, i.e., the brain. The comments I post do not write themselves, but the thoughts preceding them are created automatically by the brain in my skull. If you could explain in simple terms how "you" create a thought, it would go a long way to changing my mind.
A captivating introduction.
Linda Belcher sure is a woman of many talents.
It was a great lecture .
I love it.
Thank You.
I need to show this to the world
Awareness is the only constant of all experience what could be more fundamental to reality than that? Awareness is known by awareness alone.
Every time he takes a drink it makes me feel like my throat is dry and that I need a drink! Stop! Lmao Great lecture by the way.
Thank you. Dr leonard peikoff
Skepticism isn’t relativism. There’s a big difference.
Thank you
I question the statement that Ethics is "central" since Rand said "Most of Philosophy is about Epistemology" and beyond that, the nature of Ethics is pre-set by the answer gotten from Metaphysics and Epistemology. In fact, the only branch of Philosophy that has any real choice is Epistemology. The world works as it does beyond our choice to know it correctly or not. Good is Good and Evil is Evil no matter what we think. The choice is to think or not to think, then to think rationally or not to think rationally then to focus the intellect on the subject at hand or not to. That is covered in Epistemology. By adopting a better Epistemology, we make our thinking more efficient, effective and just plain better. The only consideration of Ethics is "have I done it correctly". The proper ethical doctrines and moral code are not open to choice, only honest and correct understanding. I coclude that Epistemology is the "technology" of Philosophy since that is where you adjust the instrument(s) you use to deal with the world and that is a kind of "software" science
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that given a particular view of metaphysics and epistemology, an ethical code is merely a matter of deduction, that the proper code just flows logically from them and it’s up to you to recognize it or not- thus, there is ‘choice’ in the two earlier branches, but, once those are set, there is no ‘choice’ in the later branches? If ethics is that “deterministic”, how aren’t the earlier two branches as well? If reality imposes such strict obligations of logical sequence on ethics, doesn’t reality impose a similar demand on the other two branches too, such that only one particular system of metaphy/epist/ethics is possible?
The others are not "deterministic" because they interact with things outside the realm of philosophy. Metaphysics links the mind and intellect to the external world. Epistemology latches philosophy to the psychological identity of the philosopher. Ethiics follows from the result of these two. Beyond that all philosophy ins "normative" that is there are right and wrong (correct and incorrect) answers to these tow areas of thought. From the answers you get from these two areas of thought comes your Ethics. Try and generate Altruism from the Primacy of Existence in Metaphysics and Reason in Epistemology by wan of valid reasoning. Metaphysiccs is not open to "logic" since an Objective reality is necessary for logic to work. It generates the factual premises in "factual premises and valid reasoning yield true conclusions. Epistemology is not open to "logic" since one must accept Reason to value logic. It is the subject that framoes the valid reasoning in "factual premises and valid reasoning yield true conclusions". Ethics os a conclusion based on Metaphysics and Epistemology or The World and Man as a Knowing Animal. There is no extra-philosophical area for Ethics to interface since the two irreducible primaries have used both of them up. Ethics does not need to interface with Physics or biology, Those are subsumed in Metaphysics. Ethics does not interface with Psychology. that is done via Epistemology
Is that mean, when arguing with someone, and we are both on the premise of using logic to argue, that we both implicit accepted an Objective reality and Reason?
There is one choice in ethics which is not a matter of focusing your mind and identifying reality, while you make a good argument that the latter is epistemological rather than ethical. That choice is the choice to live. It does not follow from the premises of epistemology that you must live. It only follows that in order to live, you have to act in accordance with reality. That evil which is a threat to the men who want to live which is usually meant by nihilism is a logical contradiction. It is only because such an evil person partly accepts the life premise that he can linger around and act effectively to become a threat. If he fully and consistently embraced the death premise, he would simply refrain from all action until he died, and that is not a threat to anyone, nor is it logically inconsistent, or the failure to follow some obligation. You are not obligated to live. If you do choose to live, then morality is open to you as the means.
Lmao
Reality is not two there can be no primacy. "Awareness is known by awareness alone," is the sole irreducible axiom of reality.
Good lesson
This looks like it was done quite some years back, maybe early-mid 90s. Where do you find students and classes like that today?
Well, it's all pretty much justification for socialism and intersectional "justice" these day, so probably not many places.
@@GlenfinnanForge LMAO CORRECT and its fucking terrifying. jesus how i cant wait for the counter to that culture to be more prominent.
46:10
The comedian Bill Hicks had a funny bit about this topic. He said that people who take LSD and then try to fly from the roof of a building are assholes. Bill suggested that they should try flying from the ground first. Give it a little test.
Like testing one’s philosophy...?
Any compromise between food and poison, poison wins
Thanks!
My table is my work board, is my shelf, is my storage space, is my chopping board, is my bed ... It is what it is.
Great talk!
In an Objective society, would the people have to form a new organization to maintain infrastructure and if so, how would this organization be funded to maintain public structures without taxes? Would every structure have to be privately owned?
All infrastructure would be private. You would pay for the service you need like you pay for anything. You can build roads for profit or you can go together as a community to build roads to attract people to your area or business. There is always incentives to build roads if that is the best option for your area.
@jeff jones Well said!
Chalk and talk. The classroom before IT took over.
I love this lecture.
I love you.
48 laws of power Law 1 never outshine the master the Dr is now the legal and intellectual heir to Ayn Rand's philosophy rational self interest at it's finest.
Congratulations on a profoundly pseudointellectual comment devoid of insight.
Anthem is still one of my favs.
I disagreed with Ayn Rand on one subject and that is abortion. It is the one example where the rights of two individuals conflict. The mother has a right to her body, but the baby has a right to life. And nobody has the right to kill a baby or steal one's right to life.
There’s two of us!
The woman with the short black hair sitting next to the guy who asked the first question was smokin hot. There’s my scholarly critique.
Nicholas Campbell at least you’re being objective
I preferred the one in the blue top sat next to the Asian girl. She has got a girl next door look about her. She'll be about my age too, given this video is 24 years old.
😂 🥵🌶🌶
@@boilerhousegarage 24 years old.. wow. I wish I heard of Any Rand back then.
Fantastic!
How do you objectively and through logical epistemology, deduce animals are "programmed" while man has "free will?" The arrival at this conclusion is an act of faith Mr. Peikoff has made. And he has made it contrary to the rules of his own philosophy.
As it's a fact that animals are driven by instinct, not rational thought. This is a conclusion of logical deduction; it would only be an act of faith if you were told to accept this fact without use of your own concept formation and thought processes, which you are free to do now to present a different hypotheses regarding man's volition and animal instinct.
@@boilerhousegarage So tell me how you logically deduce that man has free will and is neither instinctual nor irrational.
No, that's a loaded question. Man can be both instinctual and irrational because he has free will. Man can also choose to be polite or not, when asking a question.
@@boilerhousegarage How do you know you actually make the choice in any way that differs from the way other animals do or don't make choices? It seems you're assuming free will and that it's uniquely inherent to man. I'm saying, show me how this is can logically be arrived at minus faith.
Sure, I'll get straight to work on that! A complete psychological analysis that compares man's advanced volitional mind, with the primative sentience and instinct-driven animal mind, to show how one has the mental capacity to rationally think to choose multiple actions and the other does not--at least to the extent you could call it "free will." I'll have the write up on your desk by the morning! 🙄
This course has also been published with subtitles in Spanish --
Este curso también ha sido publicado con subtítulos en español --
czcams.com/video/9hsBV7saFg4/video.html
Amazing!
The best philosophy class.
The battle is just beginning. It will get ugly
This guy gives Richard Wolf a run for his money.
Well the audience seems pretty smart too
At 12:30
If the man's volition is the first cause for a certain event and all of its subsequent effects, what is the cause for that man thoughts to express as free will to cause the initial event? If it all starts on the thought level (before one has even decided to choose for a certain chain of events to be sequentially unraveled) and since the thought realm is not part of the objective Somethingness then those consequential-chains that have their origin in the thought-realm and eventually spill over into objective Somethingness realm are in fact subject to the thought (non-objective Nothingness) processes. If I am sitting on a chair and suddenly think of standing up to walk through the grass, I haven't changed objective world around me, but instead of standing up I begin thinking of the consequences of me walking through grass, destroying certain number of insects. That thinking changes me. I will never walk through grass in the future, to avoid unnecessary insect destruction. So while still sitting on that chair deciding on changing my future behavior that future has already been changed, yet no one is aware of the chains of consequences that have to happen, just because I, sitting on that chair, have been changed. So if there are to be 100 more ants roaming this planet tomorrow will not be a consequence of my physical action today, but my physical inaction and thinking action. Therefore objective world tomorrow will be as will be, changed by my thought processes today and my inaction until tomorrow. Objectivity of the world tomorrow is defined by my subjectivity today. So the objectivity of today is defined by consciousness of yesterday, which means that with time consciousness and subconsciousness are changing objective world around us. And valid question presents: is this moment's objectivity really a full insight of what objectively is and true record as it is or is the objective world right now unfinished work (or lack of it) in progress by all the consciousnesses of the Cosmos? And what is the source of my initial thought (what is the chain-train of thoughts) when I decided not to take a stroll. This notion that consciousness has no impact on objective world is a fallacy by those thinkers who frame-freeze the objective reality as a static moment and observe it as if this frozen moment is self-sufficient, self-standing quantum (box) of reality. But quantizing time and space is just a tell of fallacious approach towards thinking of reality and objectiveness. Freezing reality as a moment of objectivity is the only way to get rid of consciousness (and god), since this approach offers a cheat to get rid of all meaning and qualia. If you are sincere in objectifying a certain moment of your choosing then that moment should be observed from the past point(s) of view forward and from the future point(s) of view back. In other words your model of chain-reaction has no explanation for the cause of the first cause 14:30 and therefore can't predict rouge waves despite the amount of observation involved.
After listening to this man I almost feel like yelling at my neighbors kids for having fun
No..your woke friends are the ones doing that because the kids are thinking for themselves
Thanks
This was a little too deep for me. I don't know where this lecture took place or who the audience is, but I like the questions - some of them are a sign of the naivete of young people in college, particularly during the 90s.
«Aristotle. I thought everybody in this room knew nothing, but that's correct» damn-it! He didn't hold back lmao
Good video!
I truly wish Mr. Peikoff would soften his lecture style, it's so distracting from delivering the information and the lessons he's trying to teach. Being loud and direct is great for making certain points, but having the volume and intensity at a 10 the entire time is just tiring for the audience. Does he feel like his students in this group will fall asleep on him if he isn't in their faces the whole time? The Q&A session is handled poorly too, cutting off a questioner before they've had a chance to fully ask a question is not only rude but it hampers your ability to correctly answer the question.
Maybe there was a fan blowing in the ceiling or some thing that he was hearing and he had to speak or thought that he had to speak loudly
I have no problem with his lectures
Perhaps you could lower the volume on your device and take breaks as well 😂
@@Pimping9167 No, I'm not the problem and don't need to adjust, thank you. If you don't mind, great, but no one I've ever heard other than street preachers speak like this and wanted to comment. I'm entitled to my own opinion.
What is the difference between "reason" as a source of epistemology and "rationality" as a virtue in ethics? is reason the general human ability and rationality the ability to reason as applied to achieving a goal?
Awareness is the ONLY constant of ALL experience what could be more fundamental to reality than that?
We the living, anthem, the fountainhead, atlas shrugged.
Interesting. An embryo is not an individual. Where does an objectivist draw the line for what is an individual human life? Birth? What’s the difference between a 7 month old fetus and a 2 month old baby? Neither has the ability to reason. I ask this as someone who believes Ayn Rand is just right. But I just think there seem to be some small gaps in objectivism.
I wonder what is "free will" if the natural world is the only objective reality? How can non-determined consciousness exist in the Ayn Rand universe?
+Todor Nikolov
I realize this is an old thread but from my understanding, when objectivists use the phrase "free will" they aren't talking about determinism or "do I raise my hand or not raise my hand" type scenarios. "Free will" to an objectivist means you have the capacity to choose to think (pursue things that rationally improve your life) or not to think (pursue things that rationally harm your life or pursue nothing).
Why can't it?
+Todor Nikolov
I have learned a little more on the subject since I made this last comment and I think there is another point that should be brought up here. Part of this confusion comes from a equivocation of causality with mechanism. The law of causality is a corollary of the law of identity. It is formulated as "every entity acts in accordance with its nature". That says nothing about what particular types of entities can exist, only that if they exist THEN they must act according to their nature, and everything has a nature because of the law of identity. Given that, there is no "law" of reality that states that there cannot be an entity that can act this way or that way on a non-determined basis, since the law of causality doesn't prescribe what kinds of entities can exist. This doesn't resolve whether there is a special kind of entity in man that allows for this capability, or whether it is an emergent property of a particular type of consciousness, but that is irrelevant from the perspective of it existing. You don't need to know how it exists to know that it exists.
Another way to put it is that man's nature is such that he has free will. Given that is his nature, he can act according to his nature, of which the action in question is choosing.
I agree with you. You may enjoy Sam Harris' short book "Free Will". It shed a great deal of light on this subject.
This just seems like Wittgenstein’s early philosophy, which he later repudiated.
So objectivism is absolutist. Aren't there sweeping assumptions contained in that?
Simnikiwe Hlatshaneni
What do you mean by absolutist?
Yes, reason and objective knowledge is absolute.
The absolutism stems from the axiom that existence exists. If you don't accept this axiom then you would consider absolutes to be null and void. But reality will not conform to your premise. An apple is an apple and will not become a pie just because you wish it.
If you want to understand how Nazi Germany came to pass, read Leonard Peikoff's book: The Cause of Hitler's Germany.
20:10 Against subjectivism: the truth lies in a proper relation between your mind and reality
Yes, objectivism is a denial of subjectivism.
@@YamiAi No it isn't. He never said that subjective perception doesn't exist. He actually acknowledged it in the video.
@@FerreusDeus thanks for the necrobump mate.
6:41 best cue to walk out.
Was the ending where he dropped the Buddhism and collected his bonus?
The law of identity does not preclude the existence of a God that then manifests the reality we inhabit. The argument given here is circular: our experience of existence is material, therefore only the material exists because of the law of identity, but we only know the identity of existence is material because we defined it as such by assuming what we experience (the material) is the whole show. To apply the law of identity in this way, you must assume the mind is capable of grasping every aspect of an object in order to identify it correctly and completely. If the mind cannot do this, then we cannot assume our perception of an object's identity is equal to the totality of its true metaphysical identity. We have no reason to assume the mind is capable of perceiving an object's complete identity, therefore, we cannot apply the law of identity in the way given in this lecture and Peikoff's book on Objectivism.
It most certainly does. If a god is the reason things are the way they are, then he can make them not the way they are, and therefore the law of identity would be invalid.
"our experience of existence is material"
Objectivism doesn't subscribe to materialism. Not sure which philosophy you are arguing against but it isn't Objectivism here.
"To apply the law of identity in this way, you must assume the mind is capable of grasping every aspect of an object in order to identify it correctly and completely."
No, you don't need to assume that. Let's say that I see the Earth from a long distance away. Do I need to know that you ate a hamburger for lunch in your kitchen to say "there is a planet there"? Do I need to know that the atoms in a leaf vibrate in such a way as to release green light to know that the leaf is green? If I didn't know about atoms, could I still tell the leaf was green? If I put the leaf up so that it covers my whole vision, so I can't see its shape, does that mean I can't tell that it is green? I don't see the shape and therefore I can't determine it is green?
Basically, your premise "you must assume the mind is capable of grasping every aspect of an object in order to identify it correctly and completely" is arbitrary.
Damon Hage you cannot apply the law of identity in the way Objectivism does unless you know the entirety of an object's identity, this is obvious. I cannot claim that aspect a is not identical to Object A unless I know Object A in its entirety and that it does not include aspect a in its identity. This is basic logic.
@@CScott-wh5yk You can keep saying that, but that doesn't make it true. It is just as arbitrary now when you say it as when you said it the first time. Also, they aren't "applying the law of identity". The law of identity is true because of the facts of reality. The law of causality is true because of the law of identity. They aren't trying to slap the law of identity onto reality, like you would apply an ointment to a wound. That is rationalism and invalid.
"I cannot claim that aspect a is not identical to Object A unless I know Object A in its entirety and that it does not include aspect a in its identity."
Aspect a is not identical to Object A? This literally makes no sense. Somethings aspects (its characteristics if that is what you mean) cannot be "identical" to an object. That doesn't make sense. That is like saying red is identical to wine. No, wine has the characteristic of being red. There is no "red" without the thing that is red.
Is English your primary language? I'm not asking to demean you if it isn't, but you don't seem to know what an aspect is if you think that even hypothetically it can be "identical" to an object.
Damon Hage just because you say it is arbitrary does not mean you can negate the laws of logic by simply saying it’s so. You must know something in its entirety to be able to make universal claims about its identity. You cannot claim the universe is all there is unless you know all there is, for example. This is obvious. If you want to say this is arbitrary, please explain why rather than just saying so.
"Reality, it being what it is, is independent of consciousness," Peikoff applies the law of identity in this way at 11:50. But this claim can only be made if we understand reality in its entirety and that it is independent of consciousness. This has not been established, at least not within the philosophy of objectivism (it is just assumed by begging the question and calling it the law of identity).
If existence exist as something what is that something, and if existence exist as all things what knows all things?
My question is if objectivism is true why preach it? Isn't that practicing altruism? Going out of your way to help a stranger by preaching egoism?
How is that altruism? Altruism meaning is not not interacting with others or helping them. Altruism, which is the literal meaning is other-ism, means putting others before yourself. Other people's life takes priority above your own. Its antagonist is egoism.
That glass of water remained at the same level the whole video
And now, her followers are a collective of individuals. That is still a collective. There is no way around it.
And? Did anyone say that any form of association between humans was invalid?
@@ominousparallel3854"it" doesn't know because nobody that criticise objectivism has ever read anything about objectivism
I wonder if Ayn Rand would have changed her ethics in light of new research in physics and neuroscience which tend to suggest we have no free will?
Thats not entirely true at all. Theres reason to believe that consciousness itself might not even originate in the brain, but might be a natural phenomenon of the universe itself, in its own field.
@@razzberry6180 Yes, the jury is out isn't it? But I would say it is entirely true that there are respected scientists out there (among others) who hold this view.
No she wouldn't have. The scientists who claim people don't have free will, didn't reach that conclusion because of any scientific evidence. They claim that because it conflicts with their philosophical positions. Namely, mechanistic materialism, which says everything in the universe operates like billiard balls on a table. There is no way to logically infer that premise, but they all take it as an axiom.
@@damonhage7451 Yes, undoubtedly scientists, just like anyone else, might be persuaded by philosophical conflicts . Others explain it as logic based laws of physics. It's all up for grabs and depends how you interpret things. Are we saying Ms Rand would not reconsider in light of all the things we know now that we did not know then? From what little I know of her, she comes across as very smart.
@@ken4975 The issue that what people mean by the "laws of physics" are influenced by their philosophy. I like I said before, most scientists accept mechanistic materialism and nobody has ever presented a valid argument for it to my knowledge.
Would Rand reconsider free will? Absolutely not. Nothing has been learned. Like I said before, there hasn't been any argument for mechanistic materialism presented in the last 40 years that isn't as flawed as the arguments made by the determinists in ancient Greece.
I disagree that animals do not have free will. Perhaps they not as advanced as humans, but they do have many traits that are similar to humans, animals can definitely love and be motivated by anger, sadness, happiness, fear, etc.. I have seen evidence of it.
You’re confusing emotions with free will. No one ever said animals do not have emotions. That’s actually pretty much all they have.
That's an objectively hideous mullet.
+TMM "In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
+TMM : I thought, a lady named Leonard, with such an old-fashioned hair style...
+TMM Frivolous and irrelevant. Did you come here to grace us all with your expertise as a hair dresser or to engage with the topic of philosophy?
Lou Reed's brother took a different walk on the wild side.
why are Objectivists so pompous ?
What was Ayn Rand's opinion on Actuality ???
Am I incorrect in concluding that Objectivism is intensely Aristotelian, Newtonian, Euclidian. And very NOT QM.
Okay Mr.JamesMerrit, I'll bite you on this one ...
You'll find your answer if you project theory into practice.
All of those men of history that you mention proposed theories that you have to analyse for yourself prior to putting into practice. QM is a theory, a lot of the theories put forward these days are based of statistics to get a desired result.
Be careful, the majority of 'scientists' ... no, people out there have an evil-mystic agenda. Objectivism defines what is factually good for man - Miss Rand designed it as a sort of filter for anyone that seeks the truth.
... now go forth into the world young man and multiply - but filter first.
Francisco Carlos Domingo Andres Sebastién d'Anconia
How do we pay for the police and fire services etc? If we leave it to the government wouldn't they need to levy taxes to pay for it?
Yes, that would be the only reason for tax in this sort of system i believe. Police systems, military, judiciary and probably fire services too but that could be privatised i guess through property and land insurance as an example.
You fund it voluntarily, which would be easy. If you need a further elaboration I can do so.
Will no one observe that mullets had played out in 1995?
Lol! That should zero in on approx time of this lecture.
Reason seems to go against quantam mechanics since A is both A and not A simultaneously
The interpretations of QM that hold that stance are wrong.
How do you propose to understand anything at all, let alone quantum mechanics, if you claim reason is invalid?
hardcore moderation
is this lecture from the '80s? Or just the guy? :))
1995. Most academics in their 60s are behind the times. In '95 I had long hair like Kid Rock and Axel Rose, I looked totally rad..
..iculous!
John Galt are u the John Galt from atlas shrugged?? Just wondering
Those kids seem pretty dumb...I don’t think it’s the eighties lol.
@@AnudeepNallapareddy This is John Galt speaking. I am the man who loves his life. I am the man who does not sacrifice his love and his values, and if you want to know why you are perishing--you who dread knowledge--I am the man who will tell you.
Actually, my name's Rick, but yes I'm using the character name from Atlas Shrugged.
This may sound ignorant, but - who is John Galt?
But what if I think McDonald's tastes good and my friend doesn't? Does the Majority win?
No, one of you is correct. And it's not your friend.
47:15 - his chapter on honesty. Is this from “objectivism: the philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff” or from another of his books?
Yes. The students in this lecture were all given OPAR. Very good chapter.
@@damonhage7451 yep - I forgot I ordered it in physical and I showed up the next day - very interesting thoughts.
For anyone watching, it’s chapter 8: virtue
I don't know about his view on art. It's seems very limiting to only cover what would or could happen. Basically all fantasy art goes out the window.
Overall I like that philosophy for individuals. I'm not sure if it's practical enough to encompass all of politics. He seems to be waaay overselling how great a world run on objectivist principles would be. Charity always being able to reliably deal with the poor, and everyone living to 150 years old sounds too good to be true.
I also find it odd that he does not support a competing market place for the military, courts, and police. If the is perverse incentives, then those aren't the only industries that have that problem.
+xenoblad
Sounds like you should do some reading up on free market economics and the inherent problems with central planning.
As for the competing military, courts, and police, you cannot have a market in force. Force is the one thing that must be extracted from society to exist. You can't have a market in the one thing that makes markets impossible.
"Does government have a role in disease control and education?" - Man - how prescient this question is in this time.
And a YEAR later... the answer is............government totally bungled the pandemic. Between the mandated lockdowns that crippled our economy and brought financial devastation, to the poisonous jab that they mandated for huge segments of our population, they could not have handled it any worse.
Government has NO business telling us what to do.
Externalities apparently don't exist...? I really don't understand, can someone explain why more or less completely unregulated capitalism is so good? There are certain things a market doesn't account for, like pollution.
I don't understand your question. Capitalism is so good because human beings produce values by using their minds. Force prevents you from using your mind. A government that simply prevents people from using force on each other, promotes maximum use of the mind, produces maximum value. It's fairly simple.
Your example of pollution is a weird one. You are implying that unregulated capitalism is anarchy, when he clearly said that the government exists to prevent infringements of rights. Pollution is clearly a violation of your rights and therefore you wouldn't expect a market to "account for" it. That's the government's job.
If I dump my garbage in your back yard, that is an initiation of force and a violation of rights. The government steps in, not some market. You spray me in the face with chlorine. The government steps in, not some market. I hope I didn't fundamentally misunderstand you because I don't think your comment made sense.
Wasn't the Manhattan project a government project?
Anybody from India?
An example of a necessary regulation in my opinion is the FDA that makes sure there is no rat poison in your food. They may not be perfect, but they prevent a lot of needless death.
Edit: I guess his answer that people can't be allowed by government to harm others covers this.
Why would anybody do that? I don’t know one company that makes money by killing its customers
FDA regulates medical drugs, not food. Either way, regulatory agencies violate individual rights. Only the individual has the right to decide for himself which standard of safety he wants in drugs or food.
@@freetrade8830 It does regulate most food. It's literally in the name of the agency. I even looked it up just to make sure.
The remarks about art are beyond laughable. This man managed to make these absurd statements with a straight face, which is remarkable.
'novels with heros and logical plots' are mandatory in 'Romantic Realism' LOL against Modern Art 'smears and dots etc' Music 'melody not atonalism' The Nazi and Stalinist echoes are inescapable - tiny minded ideologically driven philistines trying to tell artists what to do
One of the tiny problems with ' objectivism ' is that its proponents cannot avoid making subjective judgements which they strive heroically ( and amusingly ) to dress up as objective ... viz your little rant above, which is expressed in the same Nazi lite prose deployed by Mr Peikoff. PS Mr Peikoff had the meaningful glint in his eye which leaves no doubt that a society he and his ilk dominated would gleefully burn books, paintinggs etc in a festival of objectivist joy
actually he makes sense. Art should be an ideal representation of reality to serve as an inspiration.
39:27 "Aristotle was much much closer to the objectivist viewpoint." I personally don't think Aristotle would've taken Randian objectivism seriously frankly speaking, and it's quite interesting that Peikoff kind of rushes through it to 'nature,' 'reason' etc. In fact it is well known in the study of ethics and politics that the Ancient Greek philosophic tradition, especially in Plato's and Aristotle's reading, put the common good of the State (city-state back then), collective above the individual's. They're very explicit in doing it and it's not an obscure fact about Greek philosophy so Peikoff should#ve known better.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_good#Ancient_Greeks
"Aristotle is clear that there is greater value in the common good than in the individual good, noting in his Nicomachean Ethics that "even if the end is the same for a single man and for a state, that of the state seems at all events something greater and more complete; … though it is worthwhile to attain the end merely for one man, it is finer and more godlike to attain it for a nation or for city-states.""
Aristotle also mentions multiple times in his Politics that the state should be providing for its poor citizens - food, education, paying for their participation in politics, etc. (and indeed that was the case in Athens with some variations).
And last but not least, the idea of the separation of State and economy would've been so foreign to them, it's just worth mentioning that there was no notion of economy separate from State until maybe a 150 years ago. It was always called political economy until relatively recently.
Not even close to Ayn Rand.
59:49 "All the things which people blame on capitalism are actually not the fault of capitalism but of the element of government that it is mixed with which is corrupting..." The only way this may differ from a Marxist-Leninist scholar back in the USSR days blaming all the faults of the Soviet Union on the state/government/party rather than the ideology as well is that Peikoff can more freely express his ideas. But in essence it seems to be the same to be blind to see any, any pitfalls whatsoever in any particular system of ideas.
I'd be afraid of people rejecting any criticism of the ideology of their choice - be it "Soviet communism" or "laissez-faire capitalism".
Not true. All the Greeks were egoists. They weren’t advocates of the common good through the government.
Peikoff was well aware of all of that - he taught a lengthy course on the history of philosophy (available free on the Ayn Rand University app) which explicitly covers the massive differences between Aristotle and Rand. He wasn’t claiming they were identical, but identified the essentials that they shared.
@@armanmkhitaryan27 On capitalism: Peikoff is not doing the same hand-wave as the Marxists you describe. He has mountains of evidence on his side, they do not. But you find it sufficient to point out a superficial similarity in the form of their respective claims to justify equating he and they. Absurd - all your work is still ahead of you.
For instance, if one student who wrote 2+2=4 on his quiz said “My answer is correct!” would you diminish him on the grounds that another student (who happened to have put 2+2=5) said the same thing? “He’s not right! After all, the guy who said 5 also said he was correct! QED!” Oof.
You might find this hard to believe, but the Marxist apologists are wrong, and Peikoff is right. I’m aware that this sort of “absolutism” can make some fragile folks squeamish. But the problems of socialism/communism are direct, causal results of the system; the “problems” of capitalism are either not problems specific to capitalism, or are not caused by capitalism at all.
I’m happy to hear some examples. (Please don’t say “monopolies!!!1.” Please.)
@@sybo59 Thanks for the reply. I was citing Piekoff himslef, at 39:27 "Aristotle was much much closer to the objectivist viewpoint." Then showed explicitly that Aristotle wasn't close to the "objectivist viewpoint," I think he might've even had a hard time trying to understand the political and economic concepts of what Rand put behind her definition of "objectivism" for the reasons I mentioned in my first comments. You can try to make a good impression in class indeed by drawing such parallels but I don't think it bears any serious philosophical scrutiny.
I just find things where I strongly disagree with Piekoff and I try to back my points with specific examples and references, unlike Piekoff on these particular topics in this particular clip.
The second point. Systemic issues of capitalism. There's an entire field in the political spectrum dedicated to the study of capitalism basically, the Left. It's not homogenous of course, there's no one Left, but it's done a lot in pointing out and challenging the destructive systemic issues of capitalism. I can understand though that Piekoff and probably some of his followers may dismiss it altogether, but it's just not serous if so. I don't have to turn to people like Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, Shoshana Zuboff, Thomas Piketty and so on to learn about the dangers of capitalist systems, I can just cite my own history: Armenia, where I come from, was completely impoverished and devastated by what some refer to as crony capitalism after the fall of the USSR. I was a kid back then and I don't "miss" it or something, but the "crony (or call it USSR, doesn't matter) socialism" did in many aspects and with many respects a better job in Armenia then the kind of crony capitalism that ensued in the 90s. Both systems are quite vague to begin with on their own without a specific framework in place, both have advantages and both disadvantages.
If you need further proof without reading the authors I mentioned above (even though a person approaching these topics seriously has to), just look at Europe and the US actually. There's a tremendous amount of socialist ideas and policies implemented in these areas to hold the system together, because as time has proven, it just collapses under the kind of capitalism that I believe Rand had in mind: no state interference, etc. It's just non-existent. The State is everywhere. There's in fact no example of this Randian picture of capitalism anywhere in the world.