[Lecture One] The Philosophy of Objectivism
by Dr. Leonard Peikoff
Total Time: 2 hours, 26 minutes
Course summary: This twelve lecture course presents the entire theoretical structure and key ideas of Objectivism. It covers all the major branches of philosophy and how Objectivism answers the essential questions in those areas. Ayn Rand attended the lectures and participated in a majority of the question and answer sessions after the lectures. Peikoff later used this material as the basis of his definitive book on Objectivism. Read more »
In this lecture: In this opening lecture, Leonard Peikoff examines the centrality of one’s view of man’s nature on a philosophy as a whole. He demonstrates that the more fundamental branches contribute to what we understand about man’s metaphysical nature and that the later, normative branches follow from our observations of man. This lecture answers crucial questions about the nature of reason, the relation between mind and body, and the question of man being in control of his life.
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.
| Why is the metaphysical view of man so central to any philosophy? What kinds of issues does it bring together? |
| How do the more fundamental branches of philosophy lead into the view of man? |
| How does the non-normative view of man lead into the normative branches of philosophy? |
| What is it that enables man to provide the things he needs to achieve values and survive? |
| How can man be called the rational animal if men do not always act rationally? |
| What metaphysical fact applies when LP says that some creatures are required to live in a group versus those who are not? What does this say about their means of survival? |
| Describe the Objectivist view of the mind/body problem and indicate the importance of this question. |
| What is the proper perspective on the proper relationship between theory and practice? How is it related to the ideas of the mind and body? |
| Can you find in today’s culture additional examples of dichotomies that result from the mind/body dichotomy that Dr. Peikoff mentions? |
| What does it mean to say that emotions have definable intellectual causes? Describe how emotions link intellectual and perceptual causes. |
| What accounts for the fact that many people experience a conflict between their reason and emotions? |
Q&A Guide
Below is a list of questions from the audience taken from this lecture, along with (approximate) time stamps.
| 2:05:18 | If identification and validation occur automatically and subconsciously in reacting emotionally to a perception, how do you know this is so? |
| 2:06:26 | Could you re-explain what is meant by “the center of philosophy”? |
| 2:08:18 | Are there not many complex creative ideas that are integrated subconsciously and seem to spring full-grown into conscious awareness? Emotions are not the only automatic responses, are they? |
| 2:08:56 | You observed in an earlier course that the philosophic errors of the early Greeks were innocent. [Here Peikoff makes an extended clarification.] Does the pardon apply to Plato’s theory of emotions? |
| 2:11:32 | Babies will cry if dropped suddenly, apparently experiencing fear. What would be the cognitive aspect of this emotion in a baby too young to know the danger of falling? |
| 2:13:27 | Why does the belief in God create a view of man which necessarily implies a mind-body dichotomy? |
| 2:15:28 | If man’s state of mind is a fact of reality, should one man, in being rational, take into account that other men behave irrationally? If “yes,” does taking others’ irrationality into account in determining one’s own actions contaminate one’s own rationality? |
| 2:19:16 | You stated that Aristotle’s philosophy supports the mind-body split. If so, briefly support this, please. |
| 2:22:03 | Define “solipsism” and place it within the context of the main subject of tonight’s lecture. |
| 2:24:07 | Is the issue of the moral propriety of abortion solved by observing that no one, not even a child, is entitled to sustenance by another, even its parent? |