[Lecture Eight] Objective Communication
by Dr. Leonard Peikoff
Total Time: 2 hours, 34 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 session features Dr. Peikoff and students doing spontaneous arguments followed by analysis from Dr. Peikoff.
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.
| During this lecture, students should pause the recording after the mock arguments and make observations, based on the course material, as to the qualities of the participants. Students should then compare their observations to those of Dr. Peikoff. |
Q&A Guide
Below is a list of questions from the audience taken from this lecture, along with (approximate) time stamps.
| 2:03:47 | On the assumption that we will not always be arguing with irrational people, wouldn’t it make sense to stage a practice argument on a matter where it is possible that two rational people might disagree? Examples: How should government be financed? Is euthanasia ever moral? |
| 2:05:48 | Does the concept “religion” necessarily imply faith or a belief in the supernatural? Please define and differentiate it from “philosophy.” |
| 2:08:07 | How does one validate a conceptual theory? In regards to Miss Rand’s definition of art: I realize in principle that you can’t go into it, but how do you arrive at and validate definitions? |
| 2:09:39 | The Founding Fathers believed that knowledge is objective, but that reason—the ability to grasp and form knowledge—is given to man by God. How do you defend the origin of reason without basing it on God? |
| 2:12:45 | What is wrong with having a natural God who created human beings the same way a scientist creates a robot? Wouldn’t Mr. Thomas’s definition of “God” apply in such a case? If not, why not? |
| 2:16:20 | In reference to judging intellectual dishonesty on the part of an opponent, if he engages in extreme anger, hostility, and insults, what does this imply about his psychology? |
| 2:17:14 | Last week, when you were asked what makes man think, you answered “human nature.” I cannot conceive of what it means when you say “man can choose to not think” because even to make that choice involves a thought process. Man is always thinking. Is there any part of this that you disagree with? |
| 2:20:20 | I didn’t understand what you said about dismissing studies someone is quoting in an argument. If someone quotes studies in an argument, how can you just dismiss them out of hand? Isn’t that person justified then in dismissing facts that I present? Would you clarify your position regarding your attitude toward facts offered by opponents on an argument? If you can arbitrarily reject your opponent’s facts, he should have the same privilege. Suppose you want to use Soviet Russia as an example of the failure of Socialism, but your opponent says he refuses to accept those studies as facts. How can you argue without facts? |
| 2:26:13 | How did you ever get a job teaching philosophy? |
| 2:26:42 | Are you going to offer an advanced class? If so, would you please announce it before the last class for those of us who won’t be here then? |
| 2:27:01 | What is a formal definition of “principle”? |
| 2:28:24 | Did I get the correct definition of “subjectivity”? “A departure of facts when coming to a conclusion.” |
| 2:31:44 | Why did Miss Rand agree to appear on Donahue? |