[Lecture Three] Unity in Epistemology and Ethics
by Dr. Leonard Peikoff
Total Time: 1 hour, 48 minutes
Course summary: In these four lectures, Dr. Peikoff explores the role of unity in the Objectivist philosophy. He explores how the perspective of unity helps to further illuminate different elements in the philosophy that might otherwise seem unconnected. He considers the connections between history and philosophy, the role of simultaneous differing definitions, and the virtue of integrity as an illustration of unity in human character. Read more »
In this lecture: This lecture presents Dr. Peikoff’s understanding of why certain philosophic concepts require two definitions to achieve the unity of knowledge about different perspectives on the proper use of those concepts. He works through key examples of concepts that have simultaneous but dual definitions, and he then shows the unity that brings these together.
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 typical process when we subdivide a concept? |
| Provide an original example of how expanding contexts of knowledge lead to the refining of the definition of a single concept. |
| What is the paradox behind the definition of value as that which one acts to gain and/or keep? |
| Why does the refined, narrower definition of value not supplant the earlier definition? |
| What is the difference between an added factual context and an added philosophic context in understanding a concept? |
| Since the concept of value gives rise to the idea of life as the standard of value, why do we retain the concept of value in ordinary goal-directed action? |
| Why is it necessary to keep the two definitions of value? |
| Explain the role of unity in the reduction to reality and integration to more philosophic conclusions in understanding value. |
| How do the two definitions unify the descriptive and normative integrations? |
| Work through the same dual perspective that Dr. Peikoff uses with original contrasting virtues. |
| Explain how altruism is both an example of morality and the destruction of it. |
| What unifies all the concepts that Dr. Peikoff addresses that have these dual definitions? |
Q&A Guide
Below is a list of questions from the audience taken from this lecture, along with (approximate) time stamps.
| 1:36:40 | I can think of at least two other cases, one of which I’ll mention, where you have a broader concept and use the same word for a narrower concept that is not normative. The concept of “man” is used sometimes to include both males and females… |
| 1:38:15 | Is it okay to refer to the incorrect use of such concepts as an irrational epistemology or irrational value as a “pseudo value” or “pseudo epistemology”? |
| 1:39:18 | I understand the idea of having two different definitions and even why you need the same word for both of them, but what I’m confused about is how many concepts we actually have here. I think you said a couple of times that both definitions refer to the same concept and I don’t understand how that could be possible. It seems to me that they’re just two closely related concepts… |
| 1:41:22 | Could the distinction between the two definitions be described as follows: a “value” (to use that as an example) by the narrow definition is a normative abstraction identifying what the person making the abstraction “acts to gain or keep,” whereas “value” by the broad definition is a cognitive abstraction in identifying a category of normative abstractions. |
| 1:43:25 | Building on that question, I thought that the distinction might be more broad than just philosophical terms because, for example, one could have a legitimate use of “physics” in those two senses, one to mean, for example, the view of nature and how it was studied in certain periods (e.g., medieval times), and the “physics,” the correct study of inanimate matter… |
| 1:41:05 | To take a concrete example, when Ayn Rand entitled her book Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, would that be a recognition of the need to add a modifier to indicate when you are using this type of term in its narrow second sense? |