[Lecture Twelve] Objectivism Through Induction

by Dr. Leonard Peikoff

Total Time: 1 hour, 31 minutes

Course summary: In this course, Dr. Peikoff demonstrates how to grasp philosophic ideas and principles in the same way that they were discovered—through induction from the facts of reality. Working through a process of generalizing from observed facts, Peikoff shows how a student can come to grasp and validate key ideas in Objectivist philosophy. Key concepts covered in the course include the idea of objectivity in both knowledge and values, egoism, reason as man’s means of survival, and the metaphysical status of sex. Read more »

In this lecture: In this lecture, Dr. Peikoff reviews the answers to the course final exam and live and written questions from the audience.

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.

You should review and complete the answers to the provided final exam before listening to this session.

Q&A Guide

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

15:20	Should every narrower conclusion always be reached via induction, even when deducible from some broader principle? It seems that it should. For example, the lengthy induction you went through to reach justice is far more real and more convincing than the syllogistic deduction “egoism is good, justice is a form of egoism, therefore justice is good.” This deduction is too floating even if egoism is completely clear to you.
17:22	Is this a spiraling combination of induction and deduction? Is pure deduction only appropriate in the most concrete applications?
17:50	How does one distinguish between what can be taken for granted and what needs to be induced when you’re starting from scratch? For example, I took for granted volition, the link between ideas and actions, and sex as an end in itself. Where do you draw the line, and how do you start?
22:08	How can one formulate from observation the steps that need to be followed in the induction of a principle? For example, you used definite steps in the derivation of egoism, justice, objectivity, etc.
23:45	What reading material can help us develop a deeper understanding of the inductive method?
26:07	What is the relation between induction and reduction?
27:43	You said that the induction that forms a positive concept is nine times out of ten the same induction that validates the principle endorsing it. Under what conditions is this not so?
29:22	Why did we have to induce Aristotle’s concept of objectivity instead of taking it as part of the context in which we operate in today’s world, in much the same way as we accept common definitions of reason and virtue? You stated that in epistemology you can’t get very far with common sense. Yet part of our context as Westerners is that we have historically accepted the principle of logic and non-contradiction. So explain further why it was necessary to induce Aristotle’s view on objectivity rather than taking it as part of our given context.
43:04	By “metaphysical,” do you mean man’s fundamental relationship to reality?
43:54	How do you relate your concept of the metaphysical to the Objectivist distinction between the metaphysical and the man-made? You contrast the man-made with the metaphysical, and yet all the examples you give—self-esteem and relating to reality as such—pertain to your ability to deal with the man-made. Aren’t you in a contradiction?
49:41	Bad definitions of “metaphysical” submitted by the audience that Peikoff is going to run through and say “no” to.
1:08:43	Given what you now know, when you want to teach Kira [Peikoff’s daughter] Objectivism, are you going to have her read a stripped down version of OPAR [Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand] first and then throw her over to OTI [Objectivism Through Induction], or would you have her read all the books by Ayn Rand? Or a student, someone who knows nothing?
1:14:26	During one of the lectures, you said something about “inducing induction.” Could you elaborate?
1:15:34	At the end of your course on Eight Great Plays you said you were going to write a book on the history of the world. Will you integrate that with your new book on induction?
1:16:12	Would you say something about the study of history and how it should be done?
1:17:06	You’ve mentioned many times that you’re going to talk about how to think in principle. Will you integrate that with your new book?
1:17:50	I think you said in the last half-hour question period that Objectivism is not completely validated. When and how will it be validated, and who will validate it?
1:18:42	Can one make the distinction between “objectivity with regard to concepts” vs. “objectivity with regard to principle,” for example the laws of physics from a historical perspective? Can one say that objectivity with regard to concepts came first implicitly, but objectivity with regard to principles came first explicitly?
1:19:39	With regard to inducing consciousness, I have heard that it was Augustine who first identified the concept of consciousness explicitly. Is there any reason why Aristotle could not?
1:21:21	With regard to sex, you said that if a person says “I’m great at x, y, or z” that’s not sufficient to reach “I’m great as such.” What more is needed?
1:22:07	At what age roughly can a child feel “I am great as such”?
1:22:23	When most people think of justice, the thing they primarily think about is punishing criminals, not evaluating men. Is this natural of is it a consequence of a bad culture?
1:23:00	If a male was raised among boys and never heard of girls, what would be his response to the first girl he saw?
1:24:12	Is the inductive approach always the best method of communicating a philosophical idea to someone? Can this be taken as a hard principle of communication when communicating abstract ideas?
1:25:44	What should you do if you can’t be with your highest value… she doesn’t want to be with you, or you haven’t found her? Should you be celibate?
1:26:22	If you can’t be with your highest value, what’s wrong with having sex with people you admire even if you don’t want to spend the rest of your life with them? As the old joke goes, “She’s not Ms. Right, she’s Ms. Right Now.” Of course, sex with your highest value would be more enjoyable, but does that mean that sex with high values wouldn’t be enjoyable at all? Why can’t there be a continuum of pleasure? For instance, Atlas Shrugged is the greatest novel I’ve ever read, but that doesn’t mean I’ll never read anything else again, etc., etc. Now you get the idea of the “continuum theory.”
1:29:04	Unrequited love: How can someone be your highest value if you’re not their highest value? Because Dagny, for instance, is Reardon’s while Galt is hers. Should someone with self-esteem take unrequited love as an insult? When you learn that your love is not returned, is it improper to say: “You don’t love me? Fine, then I don’t love you. Goodbye.”