[Lecture One] Understanding Objectivism
by Dr. Leonard Peikoff
Total Time: 2 hours, 10 minutes
Course summary: In this course, Dr. Peikoff explores the proper methodology for understanding Objectivism, and philosophy more generally. The end goal in grasping any complex set of ideas, he notes, is to keep them tied to reality. This course features lecture material by Dr. Peikoff as well as exercises and demonstrations from the live audience. The main methodological topics covered are the need for concretization, the role of definitions in concept formation, the understanding of hierarchy, reduction of concepts to the perceptual level, and the role of context in epistemology. Peikoff also presents essential material on the main cognitive and methodological mistakes that can be made in attempting to understand Objectivism, namely empiricism and rationalism. The course concludes with a discussion of the importance of moral judgment. Read more »
In this lecture: Dr. Leonard Peikoff introduces some crucial errors in thinking about the role of philosophy in human life. In discussing how people come to learn a philosophy, he explains the crucial errors made in the process of learning new ideas and in dealing with the supposed mind/body dichotomy that contribute to an incorrect understanding of Objectivism.
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 are the three mistaken views of philosophy that Peikoff names? Give original examples of how each view plays out in a person’s life. |
| What conclusion emerges from all three views? What is the basic cause of all three views? |
| What value does someone derive from holding an explicit philosophy? |
| Why is it so important to grasp abstractions with the same clarity as perceptions? |
| What makes Objectivism both the easiest and most difficult philosophy to grasp? |
| Describe the mistaken views of the means by which one can learn a philosophy? |
| What does the metaphor “conceptual chewing” mean in regard to ideas? |
| Name and explain the three dichotomies that contribute to the rationalist/empiricist split. |
Q&A Guide
Below is a list of questions from the audience taken from this lecture, along with (approximate) time stamps.
| 1:49:27 | There’s a term that was used in an earlier lecture called “Objectivitis.” Is this what you were referring to? |
| 1:50:26 | When you asked about the common denominator of the three dichotomies, I would answer the same way that that gentleman has, which is “philosophy vs. life.” You came back with the answer “external vs. internal.” I do not understand the difference. |
| 1:52:17 | Harmony inside and outside. Now you pay good money to rent this room and the equipment has broken down several times tonight. How do you resolve that in reference to the ideal vs. the real? |
| 1:53:58 | What aspect did you present to the world and, more particularly, in your lectures when you experienced the mind-body dichotomy? Did you voice doubt about your understanding of Objectivism to Miss Rand and, more importantly, to your audience? And, if not, why not? |
| 1:57:22 | There’s a problem that’s been disturbing me for many years ever since I began my study of Objectivism and that concerns the issue that knowledge is essentially contextual and that one should not need a great deal of specialized knowledge or be particularly highly educated in order to be able to think about philosophical terms and to integrate them into one’s life. This in particular usually takes the form of the example of the truck driver who wasn’t particularly highly educated but, nevertheless, is thoughtful about the knowledge he does possess. Is it true that Objectivism holds that this individual should be able to integrate Objectivism into his life, and how does that jibe with the issue you raised tonight of the difficulty of even grasping the methodology? |
| 2:01:52 | Are you saying that a truck driver or someone who is very non-intellectual by profession cannot grasp philosophy? |
| 2:03:44 | I purchased the tape of Ayn Rand’s last lecture, an economic lecture, and someone asked her what events shaped her life. She said, “that’s a good question because my life, my philosophy, was shaped by observation, not events.” I thought about that for a long time and I looked up the street and realized that most people don’t confront the world they live in. I see people walking around New York City and they see bums on the street, and they can’t look at it, it’s too evil to confront or something. Or they hear about Nazi Germany and they right away just can’t confront the whole idea. And I realized that Ayn Rand grew up in Russia during the time of the Russian Revolution. And what she had to confront, it struck me, was obviously a lot of evil that she was in the midst of, and she took it head on. And it occurred to me that the fundamental problem with integrating it (Objectivism) to life is the ability to not shirk away from life but to confront it. |
| 2:06:50 | With your comment on the moral vs. the practical, you imply that someone who is applying Objectivism the right way in life wouldn’t constantly get lost in the world or even in today’s world. Yet in many of Ayn Rand’s lectures on collectivist societies or even through observation growing up in certain types of families and certain types of schooling, it seems almost impossible that somebody who was an Objectivist and applying it correctly could survive. At what point would you say the environment or the society in which one lives makes it impossible for a rational person to survive? |