[Lecture Seven] Objectivism: The State of the Art
by Dr. Leonard Peikoff
Total Time: 1 hour, 27 minutes
Course summary: In preparing the material for his treatise, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, Dr. Leonard Peikoff confronted unique problems and challenges in how properly to systematize the material. Based on his earlier comprehensive course on Objectivism in 1976, Dr. Peikoff had to question whether he had developed the content to the most precise and accurate formulations. In completing this process, he arrived at new insights that allowed him to present the material more clearly and to demonstrate the proofs for them. He reviews this material in this course. Read more »
In this lecture: A dedicated question and answer session with Dr. Peikoff.
Q&A Guide
Below is a list of questions from the audience taken from this lecture, along with (approximate) time stamps.
| 3:02 | What terms other than “Objectivism” might have been used if they hadn’t been preempted, and what are the deficiencies of these terms relative to “Objectivism”? |
| 4:35 | What is the difference between proving the impossibility of something and proving a negative? |
| 6:30 | Please distinguish between “consciousness” and “awareness.” |
| 7:09 | Basic axioms must be defined ostensibly. I can point to instances of existence, but how can I point to instances of awareness? What are the instances, and how do I show them to other people who have no access to my consciousness? |
| 8:24 | Not all the links in your list on the blackboard are axiomatic. Hence, which of them are axioms and not merely metaphysical principles? How to you distinguish between the two? |
| 13:38 | In your lectures, you claim that new knowledge can never contradict previous knowledge, and you give the example of blood types. This makes sense, etc., but take the example from the same lecture: “I am not certain you are Leonard Peikoff”? If the mask suddenly falls off, wouldn’t this have contradicted my previous knowledge? Therefore, doesn’t this refute your claim that new knowledge can’t contradict old knowledge? |
| 16:33 | In regards to a biography of Miss Rand that would be written with your approval and support, what, other than honesty, are the qualities of the biographer that you are looking for? For example, would you require that they’ve already written biographies, that they’re a certain age, that they have schooling, and that they have a mind capable of understanding and appreciating a mind like Miss Rand’s? |
| 19:01 | When will there be a biography of Miss Rand? |
| 19:17 | What remedial action must be taken to regain moral perfection after a conscious breach of morality is committed? Suppose one deliberately carried out your embezzlement example and changed their mind and atoned? What would you have to do to regain moral perfection? |
| 22:21 | Are you still planning a book on logic? |
| 22:29 | Are you planning a new course sometime soon? |
| 22:35 | Did you really give your permission for the use of the photos on the cover of James Baker’s very odd book on Ayn Rand? |
| 24:20 | How would your current lectures have been different if your daughter had not been born? Should all philosophers have children? |
| 28:39 | I’ve always regarded it to be within the realm of rational selfish action to be casually friendly to and spend time talking with people who share some, but not all, of my values. For example, I have a delimited friendship with a colleague whose work is excellent, although her politics are fairly leftist. It has been argued to me that such social interactions are unselfish because an individual’s time is precious and should only be diverted from productive work to spend time with people who are a perfect reflection of his own value. |
| 31:32 | Another side of the argument is whether integrity demands that one does not sanction those who are not consistently moral. My opponent contends that Roark’s friendship with Wynand was unselfish because Wynand was not consistently moral and therefore didn’t have integrity. |
| 35:15 | You say that if we were indestructible and didn’t have to act to support ourselves, there would be no values possible, such as the robot in your example. But I don’t see what enjoyment of music or playing games has to do with sustaining my life. If I became immortal, why would I stop enjoying these things? |
| 38:15 | If Gail Wynand and Andrei Taganov were exceptionally intelligent, why did they choose not to change? Why didn’t Wynand choose to close down his paper during that crucial meeting? |
| 40:40 | As I understand the primacy of existence, one aspect of it is that consciousness cannot change a material object. But what about when I get an ulcer? Isn’t that a change brought about merely by an act of consciousness? How can a baby move his hand directly toward a ball? How do you explain this if existence is independent? |
| 44:52 | Ayn Rand obviously mastered the English language, yet she always retained a Russian accent. Why? Did her husband ask her to keep her accent? |
| 46:14 | Was this afternoon’s photo session an example of the mind-body dichotomy split, namely separation of the rational faculty and the student body? |
| 46:46 | How could Oliver North be a man of principle as Peter Schwartz says if he trades weapons to Iran, etc.? |
| 49:55 | Please explain how philosophy can validate facts prior to the formation of logic and the scientific method? |
| 51:44 | If emotions are not tools of cognition, should they be utterly ignored when forming conclusions? |
| 54:51 | When someone takes the Devil’s advocate approach with you during a discussion, how do you know whether he is sincere or just deliberately being a pain in the neck? |
| 56:18 | Is the confiscation of kiddie porn and snuff films a form of censorship? |
| 1:00:24 | Is emotional repression a form of evasion and, if so, is it immoral? |
| 1:02:29 | If nobody in a free society would help orphans, would you let them starve? |
| 1:03:38 | Ayn Rand wrote that all that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good. Isn’t this circular since “proper” means “good”? |
| 1:04:54 | What are things you did wrong in the past that you’re right about now? |
| 1:06:28 | Ayn Rand mentioned that morality ends at the point of a gun. Does this mean a criminal loses his rights? |
| 1:07:02 | According to Objectivism, are there any morally neutral acts? |
| 1:08:35 | How does one sort out the intrinsicists from the pragmatists? I would have placed Reagan with the religionists without Mr. Schwartz’s guidance. How do you explain this? |
| 1:10:22 | Why doesn’t the view that knowledge is contextual apply to the fundamental metaphysical ideas you presented, such as causality or the primacy of existence? Why shouldn’t you say “A is A, within the context of my present knowledge”? How do I know what scientists will discover tomorrow that will make me amend my knowledge? |
| 1:11:30 | Did Ayn Rand intend the character of Dominique Francon to be an ideal woman, in other words a model to be admired and emulated, or as a warning of what a fundamental error can do to an only potentially ideal woman? |
| 1:12:23 | What are the next posthumous books by Ayn Rand to be published, and when? |
| 1:14:04 | If Kant wrote so poorly as you say, why were his ideas so easily spread? |
| 1:14:42 | I am a human being. Certain cultural requirement must be met in order for me to survive, such as a free capitalistic economic system, a non-religious environment (no churches, etc.)… those conditions outlined by the Objectivist philosophy. The cultural requirements for my survival have not been met, do not currently exist. Therefore, I cannot survive. What is keeping me alive? |
| 1:18:35 | What should the government do about AIDS? |
| 1:22:23 | It seems to me that not only the promiscuous today are in jeopardy. Before AIDS the past life of a mate, lover, etc. was none of my business. But now what? I get the feeling that there are attractive time bombs walking around. Please comment in terms of the conduct becoming a single heterosexual person who now finds AIDS added to life. |