[Lecture Two] The Philosophy of Objectivism
by Dr. Leonard Peikoff
Total Time: 2 hours, 43 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: This lecture explores the basic axioms of Objectivism. Dr. Peikoff reviews why the philosophy begins by stating its fundamentals and builds from that base. He explains the Objectivist understanding of the nature of existence and consciousness and their relationship to each other, especially the primacy of existence. The lecture also explores the nature of identity and how that gives rise to the field of causality.
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.
| What is the fundamental starting point of all philosophy? |
| How does the philosophical concept of existence differ from the more conventional usage of the term? What does it include or not include? |
| What does it mean to say that consciousness is a fundamental starting point? What if you know nothing about the process of consciousness? |
| What does it mean to say Existence is Identity? |
| What does it mean for some piece of knowledge to be considered self-evident? |
| Explain the difference between proving the axioms of philosophy and demonstrating that they are axioms. |
| What are the variety of forms of the primacy of consciousness? |
| How is the primary of existence a corollary of the axioms of philosophy? What is the cognitive status of a corollary? |
| What does it mean for something to be objective, metaphysically? What would be an example of this? |
| What is an entity in its primary sense? Give some examples and contrast them with the extended use of the term. |
| Why is the concept of entity so central to thinking about reality? |
| What is a general statement of the law of causality? |
| What does it mean to say that only entities cause actions? |
| Why does every entity not necessarily have a cause? |
Q&A Guide
Below is a list of questions from the audience taken from this lecture, along with (approximate) time stamps.
| 1:55:49 | Please augment your view as to why the mind-body dichotomy gained such widespread and persisting adherence. |
| 1:58:32 | Would you define “character” as it pertains to man (i.e., not to literature)? |
| 2:01:00 | Objectivism holds that man is a being of self-made soul. Does this mean that Objectivism views the individual as entirely responsible for every aspect of his character—personality, emotional reactions, etc.—regardless of environment and upbringing? If not, could you discuss what distinguishes the things man is responsible for from those for which he is not responsible? What exactly is the soul that he makes himself? |
| 2:05:27 | Although Objectivism holds that man is born without innate ideas and that man has control over his actions, does not one’s physiological genetic makeup predetermine to a certain extent one’s psychological emotional makeup? |
| 2:08:19 | Can a Walter Mitty ever become a Francisco? |
| 2:09:13 | If most people will not decide to learn the subject of philosophy, wouldn’t it be better to try to spread Objectivist ideas by faith than to let bad ideas be spread by faith? |
| 2:12:34 | In precisely what way are mind and body combined to produce man? Should science have been seeking an answer to this question for which no good answer can now be given? Or can you give a satisfactory metaphysical answer? |
| 2:14:58 | Each man must have an integrated philosophy. Does this mean that each man must be a philosopher? |
| 2:15:28 | You stated in your Founders of Western Civilization course that Aristotle failed to appreciate the full practicality of reason because he did not see the Industrial Revolution. Have you changed your view? |
| 2:16:50 | Is it really possible to tell the truth, to say something that is true, to a person who doesn’t understand the reasons for it? |
| 2:17:28 | Heisenberg’s Principle of Indeterminacy |
| 2:18:54 | — Point #1: Infinity is an invalid concept. |
| 2:20:07 | — Point #2: Equivocation between prediction and causality |
| 2:21:40 | Worse interpretations of Heisenberg |
| 2:23:00 | The Copenhagen Interpretation of Heisenberg: There are no entities. |
| 2:25:09 | If nothing can be infinite by the law of identity, then how can the universe be eternal? |
| 2:27:23 | What is the Objectivist definition of space? |
| 2:29:20 | What then is outside the universe if it’s finite? |
| 2:29:54 | What principle does an omniscient consciousness contradict? |
| 2:30:53 | Could you respond to the following? There is the argument that you can’t validate the separateness of existence. In other words, instead of “existence exists” you can only assert that the content of consciousness exist. |
| 2:33:19 | Since metaphysics is the science of being qua being, how can the proposition “consciousness is conscious” be a metaphysical axiom, since consciousness is an attribute of only living entities, not of all of existence? |
| 2:34:30 | The existence of nothing: If two objects are placed in a vacuum and rest two inches apart, and two more objects are placed in a vacuum and touch each other, two inches of nothing separate the first two, but nothing separates the second two. Isn’t two inches of nothing therefore something? |
| 2:37:18 | Why isn’t psychology included as a branch of philosophy since it studies the nature of man’s consciousness? |
| 2:39:14 | Given the fact that matter is independent of consciousness, in what manner does one account for the teleological or systematic order of the universe? |
| 2:40:16 | Does Objectivism assert that the fundamental nature of reality—the axioms—are a priori truths that all men know? |
| 2:42:22 | If reason is the only means of survival, then how do irrational people survive? |
| 2:43:03 | Define “self-evidence” positively, in other words, not that “x” is self-evident when it cannot be denied. |