[Lecture Four] Unity in Epistemology and Ethics
by Dr. Leonard Peikoff
Total Time: 1 hour, 56 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: Dr. Peikoff explores the question of whether practicing morality is easy or difficult.
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.
| Why is it true that Objectivism considers morality primarily a question of mental processes? |
| Explain how it is both easy and incredibly difficult to remain in contact with reality. |
| Why is it impossible for it to become automatic to stay in focus? |
| Is staying in focus the same as unceasing active mental effort on specific cognitive problems? |
| Does full focus guarantee objectivity? |
| Why can the process of staying in focus not be unremitting work that is exhausting? |
| What is the nature of the difficulty in dealing with a truth that you have automated an action that doesn’t fit with it? |
| What does it mean that Rearden appears to act against his moral judgment? |
| How does one deal with the problem holding an idea that would bring existential ruin or profound unhappiness? |
Q&A Guide
Below is a list of questions from the audience taken from this lecture, along with (approximate) time stamps.
| 1:20:18 | Is focusing a continuum or a switch? Sometimes you hear the phrase “full focus” and sometimes you hear it as an on/off switch. |
| 1:23:18 | If you forget, doesn’t that mean you went out of focus? |
| 1:23:48 | Taking Henry Rearden’s situation as you outlined in the lecture as kind of an archetype, how would you apply that to the case of a gay person with regard to heterosexuality vs. homosexuality? |
| 1:26:18 | You included “self-esteem” in your list of terms that would have this dual definition, and I was wondering if you could explain that in more detail. I was confused because I thought she formed that concept more from introspection than observing, say, Peter Keating’s bravado, so it would be possible for a normal person to form a proper concept without an Objectivist context. |
| 1:29:56 | I do understand why there’s the need for the general and the more specific, but at the end of it was left with the question: what is the principle there that we have to have the concept of two definitions as opposed to the normal way of viewing information contextually? |
| 1:31:25 | You mentioned earlier that being in focus does not necessitate being objective. Is it possible for someone to be objective without knowing what objectivity is? |
| 1:33:44 | When Wynand turns the banner back against Roark, is he in full focus? And can you say something about his old context, why specifically he can’t disintegrate it, and, finally could Galt have saved him? |
| 1:40:24 | Regarding the unity of knowledge, is there a relevant distinction between abstract, scientific, theoretical knowledge and principles and specific concrete items of knowledge. “The plane would be two hours late” and “there are human footprints on the moon” both depend on all the scientific and philosophical knowledge up to this point, but I can’t see how these two concrete ideas imply of depend on each other. |
| 1:42:58 | So, an understanding of Newtonian physics is essential to an understanding of causality? This is news to many of us. |
| 1:44:02 | Do we ourselves need to have some understanding of physics to really grasp causality? |
| 1:45:26 | Can you say something about what we need to know in order to understand Objectivism vs. what Ayn Rand needed to know? You allude to this by saying that your knowledge of history was shaky in areas where presumably she could not afford to be. |
| 1:49:07 | Why is history so important? Wouldn’t you say that math is essential, physics is essential, etc.? |
| 1:50:04 | A standard of measurement must be “immutable” and “absolute.” Why does Ayn Rand include both terms? |
| 1:52:51 | What is the practical value of your lectures? Why is it important to think in these terms, that all knowledge is interconnected, etc.? |