[Lecture Eleven] The Philosophy of Objectivism

by Dr. Leonard Peikoff

Total Time: 2 hours, 50 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 introduces the Objectivist esthetics. Dr. Peikoff explains the nature of art and its role in human life. He discusses what is meant by a sense of life and what the artistic approach that is called romanticism is. Using fiction as a case study, he explains the different means by which art can accomplish its central goal and how it functions for a cognitive consciousness. He concludes with a discussion about how to judge a work of art objectively. Ayn Rand participates in this lecture’s question and answer session.

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.

What is the purpose of art in human survival?

What about the nature of humans makes art necessary?

What conceptual problem gives rise to the specific need for art?

What steps does the artist take in translating metaphysical judgments into a concrete object?

Why must art necessarily be selective?

Explain why didactic art is contrary to the proper view of art.

What is the idea of a sense of life according to Objectivism?

How does the sense of life develop? Concretize by using some examples.

How is explicit philosophy related to sense of life?

Define what romanticism is, properly understood.

What two elements of a work of art does the artist use to project his sense of life?

What is the nature of a plot and its three key elements?

Why is romanticism not synonymous with good art?

Describe some of the generalized principles by which one can judge art.

Why is one’s philosophic judgment different from one’s esthetic judgment?

Q&A Guide

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

1:48:04	If public ownership or public property are invalid concepts, what would be the status of defense facilities, etc.? In a fully free society, would they be private property?
1:50:22	Is there validity to a government public health service devoted exclusively to matters such as control of infectious diseases by means of quarantine, compulsory border vaccinations, etc.?
1:52:17	Miss Rand has advocated or suggested that a proper course of action toward the Soviet Union would be a boycott or blockade. How could this be properly implemented in a free society if there’s complete separation of the economy and the state?
1:53:28	What is the motive of and evasion involved with those who claim that under capitalism companies have created needs which have made people dependent? For example: “Men didn’t really need cars, they got along without them. But car companies created a need for cars to sell their product. Now someone really can’t exist without a car. Therefore, the car companies owe a duty to those who are caught by that need.”
1:56:03	Ayn Rand said “Bad art is the product of intimidation.” Please explain.
1:56:26	Would you explain the saying “you can’t cheat an honest man”?
1:57:26	Are the seven Objectivist virtues values as well?
1:58:15	What is the esthetic status of photography?
1:59:10	What is the esthetic status of an actor or actress?
1:59:25	Please discuss the following relationships: “efficient causation to materalism” and “final causality to romanticism”?
2:00:51	When questioned about a piece of music that a student finds strange or incomprehensible or noisy, a music professor will often respond in this manner: “When Mozart was alive, his music was not fully appreciated. Tchaikovsky’s concerto was rejected at first because it was too dissonant. Contemporary composers are more musically advanced than you. Their ear is accustomed to more dissonances and they hear more than you. You dislike the music because you don’t understand it.” Please comment. How can a student of music defend himself against this argument and separate complicated music that requires concentrated listening and understanding from noise?
2:03:34	Please comment on the Expressionist School of art in music, which I think tries to express feelings too intense to be repressed and understood, e.g., Schoenberg.
2:06:26	Concerning Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina, you have stated that this is the most evil novel ever written, arguing that as a “novel on the grand scale, a classic, with a serious theme, it is the most evil novel morally, which does not necessarily detract from its literary quality.” You define the theme as “it is evil and futile to be motivated by the pursuit of happiness.” You further argue that “practically every line, every characterization, everything is a unity: that does constitute a great work of art. Only it is a unity employed in a very evil purpose.” It appears that there are two criteria involved in calling this the most evil novel ever written: 1) the theme is fundamentally evil and 2) that such an evil theme is expressed by so great a unity of plot, theme, and characterization. [Ayn Rand: “Incidentally, Anna Karenina has no plot. Don’t give it an honor it doesn’t deserve. It has a story of sorts.”] In effect, it is not simply the evilness of the theme, but the extreme technical competence of the author in expressing the theme that accounts for evil on so grand a scale. Is this a correct understanding of your position?
2:09:30	Considered in this context, there are any number of modern novels with extremely evil themes, but which are so technically incompetent as to hardly be persuasive. Does all this not lead to the seeming paradox that, for a novel to be monumentally evil, it must first be great from a technical point of view?
2:13:51	What plays, film, or novels in recent years have you encountered that exemplify romantic values?
2:17:11	Are there any writers today whose work could be properly classified as romantic?
2:17:22	Do you care to comment on the current status of literature?
2:17:41	Besides Hugo, Spillane, Christie, and Ian Fleming, is there any other author you admire?
2:18:16	Do you think that the Bible has at least some literary worth? Are there any parts of it that you have read and consider worth reading?
2:19:03	Who are your favorite poets?
2:21:23	Humor does not appear to play a major role in the lives of your fictional heroes. What is the role of humor in human life? Do comedians have a value to an Objectivist? What does an Objectivist find humorous?
2:27:59	Would you state the Objectivist evaluation of “free verse”?
2:28:29	Please apply the principle that subject is the fundamental aspect of art to music and architecture?
2:29:00	In The Romantic Manifesto introduction you state that “it is impossible for young people today to grasp the reality of man’s higher potential and what scale of achievement it had reached in a rational or semi-rational culture.” Is this true for all young people? Can reading about the past or reading novels such as Atlas Shrugged provide that sort of grasp of reality?
2:30:38	Can you have good art with a bad sense of life? For example, is Rembrandt’s exquisitely rendered side of beef, which you alluded to, bad art because it is an unworthy subject or is it good art with a bad sense of life?
2:32:13	I believe that you stated that, in order for a work of art to be regarded as great, it is necessary for it to make its view of the universe real, i.e., convincingly realizable in its essence. To the extent that an artist’s philosophy is invalid, his view of the universe must contain some contradiction. Doesn’t this fact limit the artist’s capacity to make his view of the universe convincing and thereby limit his capacity to create great art?
2:33:24	You said that a work of art is judged according to the nature of art, that is, a projection of the artist’s sense of life. For evaluating the greatness of a work of art, doesn’t the particular sense of life portrayal hold any esthetic weight? For example, isn’t a work of art that inspires a rational man to achieve rational values greater than a work of art that brilliantly illustrates an improper sense of life?
2:34:44	Many people claim to like all kinds of music, art, etc. How is this possible if art reveals their implicit sense of life?
2:38:31	Does the primacy of existence and the law of identity apply as clearly to things we consider beautiful, or is beauty, as they say, in the eye of the beholder? Are things beautiful in themselves? Can we have universal standards of beauty?
2:42:38	Would you elaborate on your statement that it would be anachronistic to classify Greek sculpture as Romantic art?
2:45:12	On page 123 of The Romantic Manifesto, you state that artistic creation and rational cognition are two different methods of using one’s consciousness that need not clash, but are not the same. Would you explain the difference? For example, is artistic creation a subconscious pictorial process, while rational cognition is conscious and verbal?
2:48:34	Since an artwork is created fundamentally for the artist’s own purposes and enjoyment, would the artist be justified in recreating reality via a code of dramatic symbols intelligible only to himself and those possess the code?
2:49:50	In her nonfiction writing course, Ayn Rand said that she regards We the Living as having her best plot. Could you or she explain why this is so?