[Lecture Twelve] Modern Philosophy: Kant to the Present

by Dr. Leonard Peikoff

Total Time: 2 hours, 44 minutes

Course summary: Presented as two complementary twelve-lecture courses—Founders of Western Philosophy: Thales to Hume and Modern Philosophy: Kant to the Present—The History of Philosophy covers the whole of western philosophy from its discovery in Ancient Greece to the twentieth century, including Objectivism. Dr. Peikoff argues that philosophy is the means by which we can understand any human culture and, more broadly, the history and changing course of a civilization. Read more »

In this lecture: Dr. Peikoff concludes his presentation of Objectivism’s answers to the major questions in the history of philosophy. He explains the theory of concept formation and contrasts it with previous theories, especially in relation to the theory of universals. He explains the metaphysical basis of concepts and how Objectivism understands the concept of certainty. Peikoff then derives and validates the principles of ethics in contrast to previous approaches. He concludes with a brief discussion of politics.

Questions about this audio? Click here.

Study Guide

This material is designed to help you digest the lecture content. You can also download below a PDF study guide for the entire course.

What is the role of concepts in human knowledge?

What does it mean to say knowledge is contextual?

Explain the role of definitions.

Using examples, derive the steps to form a first-level and second-level concept.

How does the Objectivist theory of concepts differ from previous theories?

Explain how the Objectivist ethics bridges the supposed is-ought gap.

How does the Objectivist view of egoism differ from previous versions?

What is the connection between rationality and the other virtues?

What is the connection between Objectivism’s view of reason and its support for capitalism?

Q&A Guide

Below is a list of questions from the audience taken from this lecture, along with (approximate) time stamps.

2:08:02	What is certainty? Is certainty an emotion or an intellectual judgment?
2:15:11	Since you define the category of “objective” as the perception of reality via the mechanism of a particular sense organ and you exclude from the category the awareness of a pink rat, I would like to know for what reason you exclude this awareness from the category of objective? If it is not a perception of reality, of what is it a perception? Or if it’s not a perception, what is it?
2:17:09	Does the proposition “existence is identity” require further derivation and, if so, would the following statement be a valid derivation of it? “The concept ‘one man’ and the concept ‘existent man’ is the same thing and therefore existence is identity.”
2:19:37	There are many ways to survive, even for long periods of time. How on principle can one rationally choose among them? In other words, what more specifically is man’s life?
2:21:45	Are there any types of knowledge that are certain, not only contextually, but absolutely? How about the laws of logic?
2:24:05	Please contrast the Objectivist view that man must use his built-in conceptual faculty as a means to knowledge with the Kantian view of built-in perceptual filters.
2:26:53	Is there any sense whatsoever in which one may in Objectivist terminology say that attributes qua attributes do exist out there, or must one say that only concretes exist and therefore attributes cannot be said to exist out there qua attributes?
2:28:33	In the metaphysical sense, what is the meaning of the concept “nothing”?
2:30:36	Would you please distinguish between “void” and “space” (or “absolute space”)?
2:32:30	The light rays given off by that table fall in a certain range of the spectrum. Isn’t the color-blind man wrong when he says “it’s gray” in the sense that he is unable to distinguish between that range of light rays from others?
2:37:11	What is the next course and when are you giving it?
2:38:22	When is your book coming out?
2:39:33	Since the good is man’s life, why wouldn’t it be proper to stop a man from acting self-destructively? Since it can be objectively shown that he isn’t acting correctly, why can’t he be made to act correctly?