[Lecture Seven] Understanding Objectivism

by Dr. Leonard Peikoff

Total Time: 2 hours, 19 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: In this lecture, Dr. Peikoff turns to a comprehensive description and analysis of the approach of rationalism to philosophic thinking. He provides a “syndrome” analysis of the main indicators or rationalism and how to recognize it in one’s own thinking.

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 main difference between rationalism as a methodology and as a philosophic school? What are the similarities?

Why does the rationalist take ideas and abstractions above reality? What might be an honest but mistaken motivation for this?

What means of logical analysis is favored by the rationalist?

Describe how rationalism leads to determinism.

What role do self-evidencies play for a rationalist? How does this tend toward monism?

How does rationalism interpret the question of certainty?

How does the rationalist end up stuck in concretes despite his preference for abstractions?

How does compartmentalization play a role in rationalism?

Describe some of the ways that a concern for order and system affects rationalism’s approach to ideas.

How do emotions function for a rationalist?

Why do rationalists feel compelled to engage in polemics?

Q&A Guide

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

1:50:26	Is there really no proof for induction? Then how do we use it? I do feel comfortable using it, but I feel though maybe I should not be if this isn’t proved. Is this rationalist thinking?
1:51:23	Can you give an example of a philosopher giving up abstractions and focusing on concrete-bound points? Isn’t this anti-philosophy?
1:52:50	You discussed three views: the intrinsic, the subjective, and the objective. One holds with reality, but not consciousness; one holds with consciousness, but not reality; and one advocates both. What view objects to both consciousness and reality? Would it be nihilism?
1:53:45	Does intrinsicism always exhibit the belief that knowledge is acquired independently of the senses without offering a rational explanation of this process? Does it always imply mysticism?
1:54:44	Can 20th-century philosophy be characterized as empiricist in content and rationalist in method?
1:55:29	On the basis of the material presented tonight, would you say that an empiricist is a rationalist at the terminal stage of intellectual helplessness? In other words, his floating abstractions have simply sailed into the sky and now he turns with vindictive vengeance upon abstractions as such.
1:56:46	After reading Atlas Shrugged, I went on a quest to defend business because business was not differentiating whether it was ethical or not. Was this a symptom of rationalism on my part?
1:57:49	When you referred to your earlier idea that everything can be reduced to the law of identity, were you referring to your doctrinal dissertation? I have heard that some prefer your dissertation to your recent book, The Ominous Parallels. The book, however, is more comprehensible. Is this due to your earlier rationalism?
1:59:33	Isn’t the reason why the rationalist feels the need to deal with each concrete example precisely because he believes that the concept only refers to its definition, but he sees that the definition does not specifically refer to or subsume any concrete particular, this definition never leads them to concretes?
2:00:29	What can’t the rationalist integrate across various compartments by simply deriving some definitions that subsume them all?
2:01:30	You said last week that all of parapsychology is based on the intrinsic approach. You also said that the question of the objective vs. the subjective and the intrinsic arises with the issue of concepts. How then can E.S.P., which is a theoretical way of perceiving, be based on the intrinsic method, which only arises with the issue of conceptual knowledge?
2:03:34	A father witnesses the brutal murder of his daughter, but is unable to prevent the crime. He then goes to the police in accordance with the law. The criminal is brought to trial and is clearly guilty. However, on a technicality, he is set free. This man, who has adhered to the principles of justice and never committed an unlawful act in his entire life, cannot bear to see this murderer walk away, free to perhaps kill other innocent children. He kills the criminal. Has he abandoned his principle?
2:07:57	You said that consciousness has identity as against intrinsicism. As I understand it, intrinsicism merely says that consciousness is irrelevant. I don’t see how this prohibits it having an identity.
2:08:45	You spoke of the intrinsic nature of the Bible. Isn’t it true that within the same religious text (the Bible) are the words “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”? I have two questions: Is this not the opposite of intrinsicism? Does this then represent religious hypocrisy? Since one seems to be at least in certain cases an alternative principle, then the pure intrinsic nature doesn’t apply.
2:12:12	Does man’s form of consciousness contribute categories to his conceptual forms of awareness, like Aristotle’s categories? Is there a specific set of categories, for example: substance, state, action, place, time, relation, etc.?
2:13:08	Can you explain the difference between truth and fact? What is more fundamental?
2:13:47	Would you say that a rationalist’s certainty in his idea increases with the number of people he convinces?
2:15:10	In ethics, is the so-called deontology vs. teleology debate in ethics an example of the false dichotomy between intrinsicism and subjectivism?
2:16:54	You stated the context for honesty is “life,” “principles,” and “rationality.” Do the other virtues have different contexts or is the application of the context different for each virtue?