[Lecture Three] Objective Communication

by Dr. Leonard Peikoff

Total Time: 2 hours, 36 minutes

Course summary: In this course, Dr. Leonard Peikoff explores the nature of intellectual communication. The course blends student work and examples with Peikoff’s own commentary to elicit the principles of effective communication in writing, speaking, and arguing. In these lectures, he identifies the essential issues unique to the nature of each method of presenting ideas and offers guidance about how to craft one’s thinking around the specific way one will deliver it to an audience. Read more »

In this lecture: This lecture uses two pieces on the draft to explore how to achieve a self-contained presentation of an idea through the use of proper delimitation. Dr. Peikoff combines his points on this issue with those he made on the topic of rationalism to explain the question of objectivity in regard to communication. He works through examples provided in class to illustrate these points.

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.

Students should read the two pieces on the draft (selections from Ayn Rand’s “The Wreckage of the Consensus” and “The Draft”) as well as the indicated exercises prior to listening to this lecture.

Why does Ayn Rand begin with the political level in her argument against the draft?

Explain the importance in Miss Rand’s article of addressing both liberal and conservative perspectives. Does this not stretch the context too far?

Why is it necessary to bring in the issue of a volunteer military?

Why is it important to establish the impracticality of the draft and its lack of justification before discussing the motives of those who advocate it?

Explain three instances of when the second essay on the draft fails to delimit the subject and opens wider questions.

How do the metaphysical and epistemological senses of objectivity both apply to the issue of communication?

Is it strictly necessary to avoid all misinterpretation for some communication to be completely objective?

Using original examples, give examples of non-objective formulations in the following categories discussed in the lecture: arbitrary statements, poor formulations, poor placement.

Students should work through the provided examples before Dr. Peikoff provides his analysis of each during the lecture.

Q&A Guide

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

2:05:02	Could Miss Rand’s article properly have been limited to the draft?
2:05:43	How does your definition of “objective communication” differ from “communication with full context”? For example: “war is unimportant, only principles count.” This would be clear if the full context were provided.
2:07:22	Doesn’t the last sentence in the Kennedy piece also imply that relying on the memories of his brothers for prestige successfully saves his image? Couldn’t it be taken that way if not clarified?
2:09:56	How would you refute a statement on the draft, such as Senator Hayakawa’s stating that the handicapped should be registered?
2:11:32	“Whatever country such a principle could apply to, it is not the United States. It’s not even Soviet Russia, where they do destroy the minds of their youth, but not in so mockingly, wantonly, senseless a manner.” Is this an example of bringing up a point there’s no time to defend? If not, why not?
2:15:54	Why does subjectivism lead to the mind-body dichotomy and why, if you accept the primacy of existence over consciousness, must you reject the mind-body dichotomy?
2:19:15	How would you go about determining the context of the audience that you’re writing for?
2:22:02	Would you repeat your definition of rationalism as it applies to non-objective formulations?
2:23:53	If I heard you correctly, you stated that the universe is not eternal, since eternity would apply to an infinity of time, which is impossible.
2:25:12	I went to a play and, before it started, one of the characters came onstage and told the audience what they were going to feel when they watched the play and then proceeded to enact it. Is that an example of non-objectivity, in the sense that the author is still needed?
2:26:59	Does Shakespeare do that in some of his plays?
2:27:29	Do you think Miss Rand repeatedly uses as a technique words such as “the single,” “the worst,” “the fundamental,” “the main,” “the real,” “the only” as a method of self-containment to keep the reader focused on primary issues and arguments.
2:28:46	Suppose I were asked to give a talk on the draft to an uninitiated audience. Since Miss Rand has done such an excellent job, would it be legitimate to read her article to the audience after identifying it as hers?
2:30:20	Miss Rand has stated that she would like to solve the problem of induction. What is the essence of this problem? Why is it a problem?
2:31:43	What is the Objectivist position with respect to the concepts of motion and change? Are they eternal, i.e., metaphysical primaries? If they are not regarded as given, would that lead to an infinite regress of antecedent changes or motions?
2:33:09	How would the rules of journalism apply to objective communication? In a piece of reporting, a reporter must include the following: who, what, where, when, why, and how.
2:34:28	You mentioned that if one followed all the FDA rules and regulations, you would only drink orange juice in a darkened room. On a similar line of questioning, how can one fight to and exist in business against the increasing number of rules that are regulating business out of existence?