[Lecture Four] Understanding Objectivism
by Dr. Leonard Peikoff
Total Time: 2 hours, 30 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: Using the idea that the initiation of force is evil and the foundation of rights, Dr. Peikoff offers more analysis of the process of chewing and digesting key ideas of Objectivism. He focuses on the use of examples and how to structure a process of understanding an idea in detail. Peikoff also explains how to connect an understanding of principles to how we connect points in 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 guidance should one follow when picking examples to illustrate an issue? |
| What is the difference between an argument in principle and one that is fully concretized? |
| How can the use of examples sometimes get in the way of understanding? |
| When setting the context for understanding a point in one branch of philosophy, how can one set the context of hierarchically prior material? |
| Explain using three original examples how force stops the mind. |
| Why is it necessary to specify the nature of individual rights? |
| What facts about morality inform the political question of rights? |
Before listening to lecture five, complete the exercise of placing the items in this list in order from most fundamental to most derivative:
|
Q&A Guide
Below is a list of questions from the audience taken from this lecture, along with (approximate) time stamps.
| 2:04:46 | In regard to the first presentation, wouldn’t it have been better if he had said “consciousness is volitional” rather than “rationality is not automatic”? Thus, he would have made it easier to see that force is anti-volitional, and therefore anti-consciousness, and therefore anti-life. |
| 2:05:14 | In discussing the topic of force, isn’t free will a necessary part of the context? Your explanation stressed that the mind does not work by force. Isn’t volition a good one-word summary of this? Shouldn’t this have already been chewed before the chewing of the evil of force? |
| 2:11:00 | Could you please distinguish between “hierarchy” and “stages” as you mean these concepts in terms of 2 and 6 of your checklist? |
| 2:12:42 | All of the examples of the use of force involve either taking a person’s values against his will, or forcing him to act a certain way against his will in order to gain some undeserved value. What is not explicitly covered is the equally coercive action of forcing a person to take an action that you believe to be good for the victim. For example, giving someone a blood transfusion against his will. What about this? |
| 2:13:09 | Regarding force, is the argument that one should at times force a person to act a certain way for their own good the same issue as what was covered in the presentation? Would a complete argument on the issue of force cover such devil’s advocate questions? For example, “why not ban heroin?” as part of the concretization of this issue. |
| 2:19:44 | I sell to a buyer at a major mass merchandiser who seems to benefit from dishonesty. When I tried to break into this account, he made an unreasonable demand and insisted he had to have it. The demand was unreasonable and I made a counteroffer, fully expecting it to be rejected. He accepted the counteroffer. In a sense, he is bluffing. If his bluff isn’t called, he benefits. Of course, I always suspect he may be bluffing based on experience. Doesn’t this show that dishonesty can pay off? |
| 2:24:15 | I got a job by lying about my birthplace. I did not want the interviewer to consider it as my qualification. I did not lie about my education or experience. I think it would have been irrational for him to consider it (my birthplace). Was I dishonest in the sense prohibited by morality? |