[Lecture Seven] 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: In this lecture, Dr. Peikoff introduces the Objectivist ethics. He explores the reality-based foundations for all ethical thinking, rooted in the idea of life as a specific type of value that gives rise to moral questions. The lecture begins the discussion of the Objectivist virtues by exploring the central virtue of rationality and its relationship to the question of the primary beneficiary of ethical action, and thus the topic of egoism. 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 life is goal directed? |
| Why is the fundamental alternative of life and death the only source of values? |
| Why is it wrong to say that life is a value as a means to an end? |
| What is the difference between values generally and moral values? |
| Where do intrinsicists and subjectivists say values come from? |
| What is the factual basis for virtue according to Objectivism? |
| How are the main virtues encompassed by the fundamental virtue of rationality? Explain at least two examples. |
| What is the main vice according to Objectivism? |
| Why is it impossible to have a self-contained evasion? |
| What is the proper relationship between rationality and emotions? What implications does this have when they are in conflict? |
| What does Objectivism consider to be the purpose of ethics? |
| What philosophic question applies to the issue of egoism? What are the alternatives? What is left out of the question of egoism? |
| What is the validation of egoism? |
Q&A Guide
Below is a list of questions from the audience taken from this lecture, along with (approximate) time stamps.
| 1:46:48 | Please discuss the implications of the contextual nature of knowledge on asking questions. |
| 1:50:24 | What are empiricism and rationalism, and how are they related to the intrinsic-subjective dichotomy? |
| 1:52:10 | What is the difference between skepticism and agnosticism? |
| 1:53:36 | You stated that Aristotle believed that universals existed only in things, although they could be recognized by our consciousness. Is this use of the term “universals” the same as Aristotle’s use of the term “essence”? How does Aristotle’s use of the term “essence” differ from Objectivism’s view? Does not Objectivism believe that each entity possesses a form or essence that gives that entity its characteristic nature? Could you please clarify these terms? |
| 1:58:03 | How to you reply to this sort of statement? “Granted that your ethics describes what man must do to live up to his full potential. Still, can you give me a reason why I should care to live up to mine? I don’t do anything without good reason, so you must give me a reason why I should adopt your code of ethics.” |
| 2:00:40 | What is the Objectivist view of the appropriate mental activity when one is pursuing a physical activity that does not require one’s full mental attention? For example: walking to a store, shaving, or driving a car. Is it ever appropriate to daydream and let you mind drift passively by random association? |
| 2:05:08 | Would an elaboration of how to combat rationalism depend heavily on the individual psychology of the rationalist? Or can you give principles, as you did in regard to how to combat the tendency to rewrite reality? |
| 2:08:49 | Does your statement “every man rebelling against reason and reality does it ultimately because of an emotion reality doesn’t permit him” mean that such policies as rationalism and rewriting reality are never solely errors of knowledge that are morally blameless? |
| 2:10:15 | Once the process of evasion is initiated by an individual, can it be stopped? Is there a point of no return? What is it? |
| 2:12:19 | Must a man, if he is to choose to live, choose to be heroic explicitly or does he accept this implicitly? |
| 2:13:43 | How can man have no instincts given that the concept of life precedes the concept of value and that life is the standard of value? Life itself can only be a value if man innately feels it. Why is life a value? Define “instinct.” |
| 2:17:38 | What is the difference between “illegal” and “immoral”? Can a person live outside the law and still be moral? |
| 2:19:12 | The brilliant, noble criminal is an appealing character in fiction. What would be the proper, moral reaction to a real-life version of this character? Can such a person be happy? |
| 2:20:20 | Please clarify when we say that “evasion constitutes the rejection of reason.” Do we mean that it is not possible for one to consciously, knowingly, deliberately reject reason with full awareness of the implications and consequences? Comment if you care to on the Aristotelian claim that no man knowingly commits evil. I have in mind of course, someone like Ellsworth Toohey or Kant, perhaps. Can a man knowingly commit evil? |
| 2:23:50 | Please differentiate between “egoist” and “egotist.” |
| 2:24:28 | Is the only cause of evasion the desire to avoid effort? |
| 2:25:21 | In your description of Miss Rand’s achievements, why do you make the qualification “the first thinker in the Western World”? |
| 2:25:56 | Miss Rand’s comments on the 1976 presidential election |
| 2:26:58 | Do you have any comment to make on the result of the presidential election? Why did Ford lose? |
| 2:30:03 | Can it be that the sense of life reactions of the voters have changed so much over four years, or is it mostly or 100% the fault of Gerald Ford for evading the basic issues? Would the Republican Party have any role to play in defending capitalism, or must the issue be fought entirely on the campuses, in the newspapers, and in the professions? Is Ronald Reagan worse than Senator James L. Buckley? |
| 2:42:27 | What signs should we watch for in the Carter Administration in terms of the more dangerous policies he might adopt, and what do we do now? |