[Lecture Eight] 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 empiricism to philosophic thinking. He provides a “syndrome” analysis of the main indicators or rationalism and how to recognize it in one’s own thinking.
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.
| How does the empiricist focus on reality apart from abstractions? |
| What does the empiricist characteristically take as the best process for thinking about an issue? |
| When the empiricist rejects principles, why does he nevertheless end up dealing with floating abstractions in addition to concretes? |
| What role do definitions play for an empiricist? |
| Explain the pluralist approach to fundamental ideas. |
| How does the empiricist regard certainty? |
| What kind of “system” of thinking do empiricists allow? |
| Explain how emotions fit into the empiricist approach? |
| Contrast empiricist approaches to argument and disagreement to that of rationalist ones. |
| Why do intrinsicism and subjectivism naturally correspond to rationalism and empiricism? |
| Why are rationalism and empiricism not the only possible mistaken alternatives? What are the others aside from eclectic ones? |
Q&A Guide
Below is a list of questions from the audience taken from this lecture, along with (approximate) time stamps.
| 1:34:06 | When I come across an abstraction that seems unclear, I try to think of an appropriate example in reality. Is this approach empiricist? Can you suggest the best steps to follow in concretizing? |
| 2:05:31 | Would the selection of examples precede the definition normally? |
| 2:07:07 | Where does the process of identifying different aspects or views or perspectives come in as contrasted with examples or instances or attributes when trying to understand a concept? |
| 2:08:26 | The need to have characteristics that are not referred to in the definition implies that the definition is not precise. |
| 2:09:57 | Isn’t the empiricist concern with reality usually from the outset a concern with emotions, so that it is subjectivist from the start? |
| 2:10:52 | Was the professor quoted about shooting down the jet really dishonest? In addition to his insistence on concretes, isn’t his letter also an example of someone who is simply not wanting to accept the conclusion and, lacking good refutation, asks for examples to represent proof? |
| 2:15:08 | In Ludwig von Mises’s Human Action, a principle of polemics is enunciated. In essence, he states that one shouldn’t argue with a person’s premises or theory, just look at the results of his argument. If you can show the person that his theory leads to disaster in reality or to the opposite of what he seeks, he is refuted. Von Mises then goes on to examine socialism and many variants of statism, rejecting them all as disastrous and concluding that a free market is the best system, the only one leading to desirable results. Does this approach smack of empiricism? Is it flawed? |