[Lecture Five] The Philosophy of Objectivism
by Dr. Leonard Peikoff
Total Time: 2 hours, 44 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: Continuing the discussion of concept formation from the previous lecture, Dr. Peikoff examines the way that concepts work in thinking. This lecture focuses on the two crucial perspectives on concepts and human knowledge more broadly, naming that they are contextual and hierarchical. Peikoff describes a variety of errors in concept formation that lead to distinctive logical fallacies. Ayn Rand participates in this lecture’s question and answer session.
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 does it mean that human consciousness is limited in its unit economy? What implications does that have for concept formation? |
| What is the role of a word in forming a concept? |
| Contrast the intrinsic, subjective, and objective view of concepts by using an original example for each. |
| How is knowledge dependent on context, on its relations? |
| Describe the process of checking a new idea’s logical context and integrating it using an original example. |
| What is the spiral method, and how does it work? |
| What does it mean to reduce a higher level concept? Using some higher-level abstraction, demonstrate the process. |
| What is the fallacy of the stolen concept? Give at least two examples. |
| What is an invalid concept? How is it different from a mis-integrated concept? |
| What is an anti-concept? How is it different from an invalid concept? |
| Explain what Dr. Peikoff calls “Rand’s Razor.” |
Q&A Guide
Below is a list of questions from the audience taken from this lecture, along with (approximate) time stamps.
| 1:52:33 | In what sense is conceptual knowledge implicit on the perceptual level? |
| 1:58:32 | If you recognize that there are gradations of intensity of mental focus, then what happens to your argument that one can’t be motivated to change the focus because motivation requires one to be in focus? Can’t one be at an intermediary level of mental focus, and be motivated by one’s knowledge and values to increase or decrease one’s level of focus? |
| 2:01:15 | Please clarify the relationship between the primary choice to focus and the higher level choices? For instance, what to think about, what to do if you’re stymied? Are the primary and higher level choices separate in any sense? |
| 2:03:30 | Is the choice to focus your only choice or not? |
| 2:04:42 | What is the difference between the CCD and the genus of a concept? |
| 2:06:12 | Can you distinguish between the essential characteristic of a concept and the distinguishing characteristic? |
| 2:06:35 | Our argument over definitions, especially at the more abstract level, seems often to be about what units the word will subsume rather than what are the essential or defining characteristics of the units. How are such disputes to be resolved? |
| 2:09:11 | I don’t understand what is the metaphysical status of a concept. On the one hand, since it results from mental processing, it would seem to be something in each individual’s mind. On the other hand you talk about the concept of man, etc., including attributes which any specific individual might not know. |
| 2:12:50 | If elected, Mr. Moynihan will vote for national health insurance, the federalization of welfare, and national economic planning in the Humphrey-Hawkins bill, etc. Mr Buckley will vote against this. Granted that Mr. Buckley’s philosophic base is odious and destructive, I do not understand what practical real-world impact that philosophy could have or has had by Senator Buckley what would justify giving practical real world support of national health insurance, the federalization of welfare, and national economic planning by voting for Mr. Moynihan. Could you comment on this please? |
| 2:27:09 | Can you make the point that interest in philosophy can begin with ethics and politics as against beginning with philosophy in general? |
| 2:29:57 | In regards to the concept “friend,” “personal affection” seems less abstract than “value.” How is “value” closer to perception? |
| 2:30:48 | If all knowledge is dependent on previous knowledge, how could one be born tabula rasa and get to know the first thing? |
| 2:33:19 | How can you form the concept “table” directly from perceptual evidence? You need a knowledge of human purposes and actions to grasp “table”; it’s not just an issue shape. |
| 2:35:51 | How would you answer the following argument against the objectivity of concepts? “If man did not exist, metaphysical entities would still have something in common even without a human consciousness to identity it as such. Therefore, there must be some basis for a Platonic or intrinsic status for concepts. The problem of universals is not solved by an objective approach.” |
| 2:38:07 | What is the validation or proof of the crow epistemology? |
| 2:38:42 | Can a concept as such be right or wrong? If not, then if a person thinks a man is a conditioned animal, does that mean he doesn’t have a concept of man or that he has an invalid concept of man? |
| 2:41:12 | Couldn’t someone have a concept of “friend” who doesn’t have an explicit understanding of the dependence of his affection on the friend’s possession of certain character traits? |
| 2:43:08 | Do nominalists have general rules so that it is not a free-for-all, and how do they attempt to validate those rules? Where do you draw the line when you’re a nominalist? |