[Lecture Five] Understanding Objectivism
by Dr. Leonard Peikoff
Total Time: 2 hours, 21 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: This lecture focuses on the question of the hierarchical structure of Objectivism and the logic behind it. The material revolves around the exercise of putting a list of philosophic points in order hierarchically.
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 a grasp of the hierarchical position of some particular idea contribute to your knowledge of that point? |
| Why is hierarchy specifically an epistemological point? |
| What is one area where the strict logical hierarchy of Objectivist points actually contains some options? |
| What is the difference between the order of acquiring knowledge and the hierarchical structure of knowledge? |
Q&A Guide
Below is a list of questions from the audience taken from this lecture, along with (approximate) time stamps.
| 1:26:26 | There are several questions along the lines of: “I can see why the victim of dishonesty or force is harmed, but I can’t see why the perpetrator is harmed by it.” Peikoff considers this the same question as: “Why does man have to live by principles?” |
| 1:27:57 | Excerpt from a question that puts the issue clearly: “I agree with the need to live by principles, to act and think long range, etc. etc., but I do not see how it applies to dishonesty. You agree that in any given instance, the existential harm to the dishonest person may be negligible, and the reward enormous. Why can’t I make a distinction in principle, between those dishonest acts that are likely to be harmful to me, and those that are not? In other words, why can’t someone say: ‘I accept the absolute need for principles and long-range thinking, but since not all dishonest acts are very harmful, I will adopt the principle that I will act honestly when and only when I judge that it will benefit me.’ After all, values obtained by fraud are nonetheless values. Why can’t I therefore on the question of honesty rationally weigh one value against another—what I gain by being dishonest vs. what I lose—and decide which course of action is preferable?” |
| 1:45:27 | “I can have a principle of ‘I don’t go out in the rain without raincoat, rubbers, and umbrella, because I might catch cold or even pneumonia.’ Still, there are situations in which I could rationally choose to go out in the rain without proper protection, say if I have an urgent appointment and going back for an umbrella would make me late, etc. So it’s not that I’m abandoning principle for expediency, I’m just applying a different principle and weighing relative risks: the chance of getting sick against the benefits, the chance of getting a new job. Why can’t we do the same thing with regard to honesty?” |
| 1:49:26 | “I see that force is anti-mind for the victim, but I completely missed your argument that the principle applies to the initiator. Would you please repeat it?” |
| 1:50:10 | Could you give one concrete example of the loss of mind of the perpetrator of force? Very concrete, like, for instance, “I rob $500 from a little old lady who I believe doesn’t deserve the money anyway and will probably die soon,” etc., etc. |
| 2:09:28 | Grenada: the recent U.S. military invasion. Was this an initiation of force? |
| 2:11:16 | I have frequently heard the term ‘ritualistic’ applied to an erroneous way of using Objectivism. Is this a synonym for ‘rationalistic,’ or is there something else implied? |
| 2:12:09 | In considering “why be honest,” I did not start by reminding myself consciously to first set the context. Subconsciously I sensed that that would have led be nowhere: It’s too abstract for me. I jumped immediately to thinking about myself, what I would be like if I lived dishonestly. It led me to think about a romantic relationship I had had and specifically how it would have been different if we hadn’t been honest. Please comment on the appropriateness of this starting point. |
| 2:13:21 | Would you like to say something about the difference between a serious Objectivist and a professional philosopher Objectivist? |
| 2:16:33 | If you tie your concretes to emotions, aren’t you substituting your emotions for concretes? Isn’t that wrong, since emotions aren’t tools of cognition? |
| 2:18:26 | Ayn Rand in addition to being a leading advocate of reason was in my opinion the finest craftsperson ever to work in the fictional arena. Since 1957 there has been no additional fiction published by Ayn Rand. Are there any plans to release unpublished works? |
| 2:20:00 | Are there any plans being made to publish a new biography of Ayn Rand? |
| 2:20:34 | Are there any writers that you know of writing Objectivist fiction today who can remotely compare with the majesty of Ayn Rand’s works? |