I tried to read Atlas Shrugged and quit less than 100 pages in. Same for Introduction To Objectivism. Years later I read Philosophy: Who Needs It? and it changed my understanding of life and existence by exposing my own ignorance to myself. When I finally returned to Atlas Shrugged I felt overwhelmed by it's beauty and simplicity. Ms. Rand's existence was validated by the example she set and I am eternally grateful for what she chose to share. To this day it brings a tear to my eye when I think of the personal potential I have become in touch with thanks to the exposure to her work.

@izi.z2384

2 жыл бұрын

Thoughtful post.. I'm wondering how I've never come across Any Rand philosophies throughout my college education, working years and independent studies up until now. Seems it would have been beneficial.

@FerreusDeus

2 жыл бұрын

@@izi.z2384 When were you in college? Because critical theory has been infecting colleges with its fascist sentiments since the 70s. There was push back in the 80s and 90s, and now it's rearing its ugly head again with all this talk of racism and anti-capitalism

@Toorek100

6 ай бұрын

​@@izi.z2384You didn't hear about her, because her philosophy is not benefitial for the establishment.

@TheMightyWalk

3 ай бұрын

Yes

@TheMightyWalk

3 ай бұрын

@@izi.z2384because it’s the Neo liberal order

My life has improved drastically with objectivism. Ayn Rand is an amazing philosopher

@denismijatovic1239

2 жыл бұрын

Yes

@satoshinakamoto7253

2 жыл бұрын

It is. Life is objective, with evolutionary psychology. That's it

@filosofiadevida7820

2 жыл бұрын

objectivism is the most human way to the men live , is just human being a human .

@Floatacious

Жыл бұрын

I found this when I was 20, what's everyone else's excuse?

@tomservo75

Жыл бұрын

In what ways, can you give examples? Just curious.

Ayn gave me my life's blood. Her philosophy gives joy.

@izi.z2384

2 жыл бұрын

Nicely said.. I'm wondering how I've never come across Any Rand philosophies throughout my college education, working years and independent studies up until now. Seems it would have been beneficial.

@johnnynick6179

Жыл бұрын

@@izi.z2384 People who earn their living working for the government, or subsidized by the government, do not find it in their interest to promote a philosophy that says the government should not be subsidizing education.

My wife overheard me listening to this and said “why are you listening to Tom Hanks scream at people?”

@rogercarroll2551

3 жыл бұрын

And that is relevant to exactly what ?

@ABCDuwachui

2 жыл бұрын

@@robertruge2916 rip

@laurahale9309

2 ай бұрын

I heard Tom Hanks voice too.

@tragickingdom15

16 күн бұрын

My boyfriend said Norm McDonald.

Just a phenomenal teacher. The very best.

I was drawn to objectivism because it was based on the fundamental laws of Nature. The basic truth of life and man’s responsibility to himself.

@hyperreal

10 ай бұрын

I would say to your point that its based on nature, its really the ability to derive morality from objective reality.

@AbsbsjdbZhahebsjs

Ай бұрын

Funny, because "individual responsibility" comes from religion. The greeks didnt have this until aristole, and the chinese blamed the whole family as a source of morality(if youre bad is because they thought you to be bad) ​@hyperreal

This is very simple and straightforward, but somehow we’d rather turn everything upside down

I love the use of the word "Firebrand" when describing both Rand and Peikoff. Straight to the meat and potatoes no fluff.

Thank you. This was my personal introduction to Objectivism about 4 year ago. Now I would call myself an Objectivist.

@bigdilf314

3 жыл бұрын

@@user-yo6um3jn5k why is it silly?

@readtherealanthonyfaucibyr6444

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-yo6um3jn5k Most philosophy departments likely teach the same new age marxist subjective reality garbage that is the opposite of objectivism.

@TyyylerDurden

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-yo6um3jn5k who cares about your corrupted philosophy departments?! You must use your own reason, not having idols and authorities without any rational analysis of their possible garbage.

@galinakondratenko5400

3 ай бұрын

He confuse mind with consioussness. Mind is not consioussness. Consioussness beyond mind. But if you reject it you can't have access to it, to suoerconsioussness

this was some powerful stuff..

this is fabulous! so glad it's on KZread! If you are familiar with Ayn Rand 's Objectivism make sure you listen to how Leonard Peikoff handles the Questions at end! Brilliant! Masterful example of how deal with basic questions.

@irlshrek

8 жыл бұрын

+Ann Ciccolella I was enthralled with the lecture and I didnt think the question part would be as good as it was, because I enjoyed that part even more!

@izi.z2384

2 жыл бұрын

I'm wondering how I've never come across Any Rand philosophies throughout my college education, working years and independent studies up until now. Seems it would have been beneficial.

@MrRemorseless

Жыл бұрын

@@izi.z2384 yes. 5 years in college I never heard nor saw Rand nor Objectivism mentioned anywhere. Tbh I think it might never change, if professors insist on government funding

Here's my favorite teacher. Ever. Love his voice.

@ernstfriedricheckhoff4652

4 жыл бұрын

It sounds like he's constantly shouting at me. Very unpleasant.

@donragnar8430

4 жыл бұрын

Ernst Friedrich Eckhoff here is some soy milk 🥛 for you

@ernstfriedricheckhoff4652

3 жыл бұрын

@@donragnar8430 Bold move, making an assumption about my politics because I don't like the guy's voice. Since you're here, is your username a reference to Ragnar Danneskjold from "Atlas Shrugged"?

@FerreusDeus

2 жыл бұрын

He sounds exactly like sound like Stephen King.

Great introduction to Objectivism and a beautifully produced video.

Excellent introduction!

Beautiful

He is so intense. Although I don't agree with all his views, I love his delivery.

@bobpeckham7637

3 жыл бұрын

You are to be strapped -down and made to listen to him! Punishment for NOT obeying me ? Sentenced to listen to Joe Biden for five hours!

A captivating introduction.

Consider Socrates was first and said, in essence, "Let's examine our lives to bring value." Plato was next, like a child of the one who questions and said, in essence, "Life is hard to understand, I can't see clearly. I am like a man seeing shadows on the wall and not reality." Then the questioner and the answerer became mature in the next philospher, Aristotle. "The world is real and we can know it. Go and learn to create value toward life and happiness." These are philosphers 1,Socrates, 2 Plato and 3 Aristotle.

It was a great lecture . I love it. Thank You.

Thank you

Peikoff é um excelente defensor da razão e da liberdade. Um notável seguidor de Ayn Rand. Assim como eu próprio.

Thank you. Dr leonard peikoff

"There are no contradictions in reality"

@g.m.backus5219

3 жыл бұрын

...until you meet a psychopath.

@Shozb0t

3 жыл бұрын

@@g.m.backus5219 Psychopaths aren't supervillains. They cannot alter reality.

@marius6086

3 жыл бұрын

@@Shozb0t Yeah... only supervillains can alter reality. Duh. XP

@stephenhogg6154

3 жыл бұрын

But there are paradoxes.

@legalfictionnaturalfact3969

3 жыл бұрын

@@stephenhogg6154 no, there aren't. just contradictions.

Are there two realities? As far as I can tell philosophers can't even stomach one reality. Peikoff is really pushing the boundaries here.

Great talk!

Good lesson

Fantastic!

I love this lecture.

@ABCDuwachui

2 жыл бұрын

I love you.

"Human beings are absolutely subject to cause and effect, but. . ." By definition "absolutely" leaves no room for "but". The self is a product of a bio-mechanical process, cut and dried, three truckloads.

@dougpridgen9682

7 жыл бұрын

You are correct technically speaking. If he had put his communication in writing I doubt he would have used "but." A sapient organism has the option to classify what is given in sense perception by differentiation, integration, and measurement omission (among things that are commensurable) by a process of abstraction or conceptualization. Unlike our respiratory or other automated systems, this process is volitional and requires deliberation. This is a specific instance of causality that differs in important ways from, say, one billiard ball striking a second billiard ball, or winning the lottery. The comment you just posted, for example, didn't write and post itself. So the "but" was not intended as an exception to what is absolute. It was intended as an elaboration and clarification that what a thing can cause is determined by its characteristics and (if applicable) its abilities. I don't think he said anywhere that the "self" is anything other than a bio-mechanical process. Further is the "self" equivalent to reason? There are automated/non-volitional processes of consciousness, such as sense-perception, and subconscious processes that serve as an object of study for psychiatrists and psychologists. One element of reason, sense-perception, is an automated process. The other two, conceptualization and logic, are volitional. These distinct instances of causality are not equivalent.

@DeterministicOne

7 жыл бұрын

Doug Pridgen "this process is volitional and requires deliberation." This process is is all done by the brain, we merely experience the process first hand. " I don't think he said anywhere that the "self" is anything other than a bio-mechanical process. " When you speak of volition, you are saying that you are in control. You are not. The bio-mechanical process is doing it all. We cause nothing, we are an effect.

@dougpridgen9682

7 жыл бұрын

You are conflating sense perception with conceptual thinking. Do the comments you post write themselves via an automated process that you just experience firsthand? I suppose these computers and the internet we are communicating through are the result of automated processes? Of course the process doesn't occur apart from a brain. I'm don't believe in a soul. But it is not automatic like your breathing.

@DeterministicOne

7 жыл бұрын

Doug Pridgen I am not conflating the two, but I am saying they have the same source, i.e., the brain. The comments I post do not write themselves, but the thoughts preceding them are created automatically by the brain in my skull. If you could explain in simple terms how "you" create a thought, it would go a long way to changing my mind.

Awareness is the only constant of all experience what could be more fundamental to reality than that? Awareness is known by awareness alone.

Amazing!

I need to show this to the world

It is helpful to use a word like "reciprocation" beside "trade" when speaking of value for value. In this way, the thinking individual is clearly connected to others in the full gamut of ways. Otherwise, the relationship existing between "value for value" individuals is easily lost. Those unable to provide any value whatsoever continue to live only at the mercy of others. Facts of life and love.

@damonhage7451

5 жыл бұрын

Why is it better to use the word reciprocation? I don't understand what is the distinction you are making.

@josephquadri7423

Жыл бұрын

*If I correctlyunderstand the point he is making here* "Reciprocation" should be used as it always conveys that there is a mutual benefit (value for value). Where as trade, particularly in some modern interpretations of how capitalism works, people infer it as a zero sum interaction. Hopefully that makes sense

How do you objectively and through logical epistemology, deduce animals are "programmed" while man has "free will?" The arrival at this conclusion is an act of faith Mr. Peikoff has made. And he has made it contrary to the rules of his own philosophy.

Linda Belcher sure is a woman of many talents.

Good video!

Thanks

Every time he takes a drink it makes me feel like my throat is dry and that I need a drink! Stop! Lmao Great lecture by the way.

Skepticism isn’t relativism. There’s a big difference.

My table is my work board, is my shelf, is my storage space, is my chopping board, is my bed ... It is what it is.

This course has also been published with subtitles in Spanish -- Este curso también ha sido publicado con subtítulos en español -- kzread.info/dash/bejne/a5ynpLhwo8Ssl5c.html

Reality is not two there can be no primacy. "Awareness is known by awareness alone," is the sole irreducible axiom of reality.

I question the statement that Ethics is "central" since Rand said "Most of Philosophy is about Epistemology" and beyond that, the nature of Ethics is pre-set by the answer gotten from Metaphysics and Epistemology. In fact, the only branch of Philosophy that has any real choice is Epistemology. The world works as it does beyond our choice to know it correctly or not. Good is Good and Evil is Evil no matter what we think. The choice is to think or not to think, then to think rationally or not to think rationally then to focus the intellect on the subject at hand or not to. That is covered in Epistemology. By adopting a better Epistemology, we make our thinking more efficient, effective and just plain better. The only consideration of Ethics is "have I done it correctly". The proper ethical doctrines and moral code are not open to choice, only honest and correct understanding. I coclude that Epistemology is the "technology" of Philosophy since that is where you adjust the instrument(s) you use to deal with the world and that is a kind of "software" science

@joeandrews8927

9 жыл бұрын

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that given a particular view of metaphysics and epistemology, an ethical code is merely a matter of deduction, that the proper code just flows logically from them and it’s up to you to recognize it or not- thus, there is ‘choice’ in the two earlier branches, but, once those are set, there is no ‘choice’ in the later branches? If ethics is that “deterministic”, how aren’t the earlier two branches as well? If reality imposes such strict obligations of logical sequence on ethics, doesn’t reality impose a similar demand on the other two branches too, such that only one particular system of metaphy/epist/ethics is possible?

@SpacePatrollerLaser

9 жыл бұрын

The others are not "deterministic" because they interact with things outside the realm of philosophy. Metaphysics links the mind and intellect to the external world. Epistemology latches philosophy to the psychological identity of the philosopher. Ethiics follows from the result of these two. Beyond that all philosophy ins "normative" that is there are right and wrong (correct and incorrect) answers to these tow areas of thought. From the answers you get from these two areas of thought comes your Ethics. Try and generate Altruism from the Primacy of Existence in Metaphysics and Reason in Epistemology by wan of valid reasoning. Metaphysiccs is not open to "logic" since an Objective reality is necessary for logic to work. It generates the factual premises in "factual premises and valid reasoning yield true conclusions. Epistemology is not open to "logic" since one must accept Reason to value logic. It is the subject that framoes the valid reasoning in "factual premises and valid reasoning yield true conclusions". Ethics os a conclusion based on Metaphysics and Epistemology or The World and Man as a Knowing Animal. There is no extra-philosophical area for Ethics to interface since the two irreducible primaries have used both of them up. Ethics does not need to interface with Physics or biology, Those are subsumed in Metaphysics. Ethics does not interface with Psychology. that is done via Epistemology

@hondinatos

5 жыл бұрын

Is that mean, when arguing with someone, and we are both on the premise of using logic to argue, that we both implicit accepted an Objective reality and Reason?

@eggory

5 жыл бұрын

There is one choice in ethics which is not a matter of focusing your mind and identifying reality, while you make a good argument that the latter is epistemological rather than ethical. That choice is the choice to live. It does not follow from the premises of epistemology that you must live. It only follows that in order to live, you have to act in accordance with reality. That evil which is a threat to the men who want to live which is usually meant by nihilism is a logical contradiction. It is only because such an evil person partly accepts the life premise that he can linger around and act effectively to become a threat. If he fully and consistently embraced the death premise, he would simply refrain from all action until he died, and that is not a threat to anyone, nor is it logically inconsistent, or the failure to follow some obligation. You are not obligated to live. If you do choose to live, then morality is open to you as the means.

@crazysk8ta123

3 жыл бұрын

Lmao

What is the difference between "reason" as a source of epistemology and "rationality" as a virtue in ethics? is reason the general human ability and rationality the ability to reason as applied to achieving a goal?

Chalk and talk. The classroom before IT took over.

The woman with the short black hair sitting next to the guy who asked the first question was smokin hot. There’s my scholarly critique.

@MLouah-gp9ef

5 жыл бұрын

Nicholas Campbell at least you’re being objective

@boilerhousegarage

4 жыл бұрын

I preferred the one in the blue top sat next to the Asian girl. She has got a girl next door look about her. She'll be about my age too, given this video is 24 years old.

@joyfulsavage9905

3 жыл бұрын

😂 🥵🌶🌶

@izi.z2384

2 жыл бұрын

@@boilerhousegarage 24 years old.. wow. I wish I heard of Any Rand back then.

"Not all capitalism is free, but all free societies must have capitalism." - paraphrase Milton Friedman.

@ominousparallel3854

2 ай бұрын

The real quote is ‘Capitalism is a ne essaye, but not sufficient, condition to freedom’. But note Objectivist disagree. Capitalism without freedom is a contradiction in terms.

This looks like it was done quite some years back, maybe early-mid 90s. Where do you find students and classes like that today?

@GlenfinnanForge

3 жыл бұрын

Well, it's all pretty much justification for socialism and intersectional "justice" these day, so probably not many places.

@lawrencelord9777

2 жыл бұрын

@@GlenfinnanForge LMAO CORRECT and its fucking terrifying. jesus how i cant wait for the counter to that culture to be more prominent.

46:10 The comedian Bill Hicks had a funny bit about this topic. He said that people who take LSD and then try to fly from the roof of a building are assholes. Bill suggested that they should try flying from the ground first. Give it a little test.

@kenzeier2943

3 жыл бұрын

Like testing one’s philosophy...?

Would someone please help me understand what the speaker is referring to in the beginning regarding mystical doctrines taught be the USSR?

@mughat

8 жыл бұрын

+Deleuzeshammerflow : Dialectical materialism aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/mystics_of_spirit_and_of_muscle.html

@Deleuzeshammerflow

8 жыл бұрын

thanks

The battle is just beginning. It will get ugly

Any compromise between food and poison, poison wins

In an Objective society, would the people have to form a new organization to maintain infrastructure and if so, how would this organization be funded to maintain public structures without taxes? Would every structure have to be privately owned?

@mughat

9 жыл бұрын

All infrastructure would be private. You would pay for the service you need like you pay for anything. You can build roads for profit or you can go together as a community to build roads to attract people to your area or business. There is always incentives to build roads if that is the best option for your area.

@sweetpeabrown261

5 жыл бұрын

@jeff jones Well said!

After listening to this man I almost feel like yelling at my neighbors kids for having fun

@tomjoad9447

3 жыл бұрын

No..your woke friends are the ones doing that because the kids are thinking for themselves

20:10 Against subjectivism: the truth lies in a proper relation between your mind and reality

@YamiAi

5 жыл бұрын

Yes, objectivism is a denial of subjectivism.

@FerreusDeus

2 жыл бұрын

@@YamiAi No it isn't. He never said that subjective perception doesn't exist. He actually acknowledged it in the video.

@YamiAi

2 жыл бұрын

@@FerreusDeus thanks for the necrobump mate.

47:15 - his chapter on honesty. Is this from “objectivism: the philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff” or from another of his books?

@damonhage7451

3 жыл бұрын

Yes. The students in this lecture were all given OPAR. Very good chapter.

@haydenwilsonx

3 жыл бұрын

@@damonhage7451 yep - I forgot I ordered it in physical and I showed up the next day - very interesting thoughts. For anyone watching, it’s chapter 8: virtue

«Aristotle. I thought everybody in this room knew nothing, but that's correct» damn-it! He didn't hold back lmao

Anthem is still one of my favs.

At 12:30 If the man's volition is the first cause for a certain event and all of its subsequent effects, what is the cause for that man thoughts to express as free will to cause the initial event? If it all starts on the thought level (before one has even decided to choose for a certain chain of events to be sequentially unraveled) and since the thought realm is not part of the objective Somethingness then those consequential-chains that have their origin in the thought-realm and eventually spill over into objective Somethingness realm are in fact subject to the thought (non-objective Nothingness) processes. If I am sitting on a chair and suddenly think of standing up to walk through the grass, I haven't changed objective world around me, but instead of standing up I begin thinking of the consequences of me walking through grass, destroying certain number of insects. That thinking changes me. I will never walk through grass in the future, to avoid unnecessary insect destruction. So while still sitting on that chair deciding on changing my future behavior that future has already been changed, yet no one is aware of the chains of consequences that have to happen, just because I, sitting on that chair, have been changed. So if there are to be 100 more ants roaming this planet tomorrow will not be a consequence of my physical action today, but my physical inaction and thinking action. Therefore objective world tomorrow will be as will be, changed by my thought processes today and my inaction until tomorrow. Objectivity of the world tomorrow is defined by my subjectivity today. So the objectivity of today is defined by consciousness of yesterday, which means that with time consciousness and subconsciousness are changing objective world around us. And valid question presents: is this moment's objectivity really a full insight of what objectively is and true record as it is or is the objective world right now unfinished work (or lack of it) in progress by all the consciousnesses of the Cosmos? And what is the source of my initial thought (what is the chain-train of thoughts) when I decided not to take a stroll. This notion that consciousness has no impact on objective world is a fallacy by those thinkers who frame-freeze the objective reality as a static moment and observe it as if this frozen moment is self-sufficient, self-standing quantum (box) of reality. But quantizing time and space is just a tell of fallacious approach towards thinking of reality and objectiveness. Freezing reality as a moment of objectivity is the only way to get rid of consciousness (and god), since this approach offers a cheat to get rid of all meaning and qualia. If you are sincere in objectifying a certain moment of your choosing then that moment should be observed from the past point(s) of view forward and from the future point(s) of view back. In other words your model of chain-reaction has no explanation for the cause of the first cause 14:30 and therefore can't predict rouge waves despite the amount of observation involved.

6:41 best cue to walk out.

The best philosophy class.

Was the ending where he dropped the Buddhism and collected his bonus?

This guy gives Richard Wolf a run for his money.

48 laws of power Law 1 never outshine the master the Dr is now the legal and intellectual heir to Ayn Rand's philosophy rational self interest at it's finest.

@theone6189

Ай бұрын

Congratulations on a profoundly pseudointellectual comment devoid of insight.

What was Ayn Rand's opinion on Actuality ???

This was a little too deep for me. I don't know where this lecture took place or who the audience is, but I like the questions - some of them are a sign of the naivete of young people in college, particularly during the 90s.

Awareness is the ONLY constant of ALL experience what could be more fundamental to reality than that?

Reason seems to go against quantam mechanics since A is both A and not A simultaneously

@damonhage7451

4 жыл бұрын

The interpretations of QM that hold that stance are wrong.

@AbtinForouzandeh

4 жыл бұрын

How do you propose to understand anything at all, let alone quantum mechanics, if you claim reason is invalid?

Well the audience seems pretty smart too

1:03:00 Objectivism and quarantine.

@boilerhousegarage

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, but you can only morally quarantine a person who's not only sick, but with a disease that's lethal; not "incase they're asymptomatic" with what is a basically a cold.

If you want to understand how Nazi Germany came to pass, read Leonard Peikoff's book: The Cause of Hitler's Germany.

That glass of water remained at the same level the whole video

I disagreed with Ayn Rand on one subject and that is abortion. It is the one example where the rights of two individuals conflict. The mother has a right to her body, but the baby has a right to life. And nobody has the right to kill a baby or steal one's right to life.

@IdeologieUK

4 ай бұрын

There’s two of us!

What is the Objectivist basis for the belief in human freewill?

@keving1376

6 жыл бұрын

You saying there's a shortage of free will in western societies these days? The basis for human reasoning and intelligence to understand the concepts of objectivism though, that i don't think there's basis for.

@galacticambitions1277

6 жыл бұрын

I don't mean historically or geographically, I mean inherently and metaphysically.

@keving1376

6 жыл бұрын

I dont know the answer to your question but i dont see how it is relevant, as people obviously have free will but many still arent smart enough to do what's in their best interest. If that's what you're trying to point out here i agree.

@galacticambitions1277

6 жыл бұрын

How's it obvious people have freewill? Your subjective feeling or observation that human freewill exists could just be an illusion. I think it's important to be able to prove a foundational principle logically or thru observation in order to have a complete and rigorous philosophy. Or else to openly state that despite there being no evidence for freewill, it is asserted as a principle for whatever reasons. Without a treatment of freewill Objectivism is not a complete philosophy.

@mughat

5 жыл бұрын

@@galacticambitions1277 Free will is self evident and axiomatic. If you don't see it nothing can convince you. You will be stuck in determinism. Safe bet is to live as if free will is true as there is no downside if you are wrong.

We the living, anthem, the fountainhead, atlas shrugged.

Am I incorrect in concluding that Objectivism is intensely Aristotelian, Newtonian, Euclidian. And very NOT QM.

@franciscodanconia8965

7 жыл бұрын

Okay Mr.JamesMerrit, I'll bite you on this one ... You'll find your answer if you project theory into practice. All of those men of history that you mention proposed theories that you have to analyse for yourself prior to putting into practice. QM is a theory, a lot of the theories put forward these days are based of statistics to get a desired result. Be careful, the majority of 'scientists' ... no, people out there have an evil-mystic agenda. Objectivism defines what is factually good for man - Miss Rand designed it as a sort of filter for anyone that seeks the truth. ... now go forth into the world young man and multiply - but filter first. Francisco Carlos Domingo Andres Sebastién d'Anconia

The law of identity does not preclude the existence of a God that then manifests the reality we inhabit. The argument given here is circular: our experience of existence is material, therefore only the material exists because of the law of identity, but we only know the identity of existence is material because we defined it as such by assuming what we experience (the material) is the whole show. To apply the law of identity in this way, you must assume the mind is capable of grasping every aspect of an object in order to identify it correctly and completely. If the mind cannot do this, then we cannot assume our perception of an object's identity is equal to the totality of its true metaphysical identity. We have no reason to assume the mind is capable of perceiving an object's complete identity, therefore, we cannot apply the law of identity in the way given in this lecture and Peikoff's book on Objectivism.

@damonhage7451

5 жыл бұрын

It most certainly does. If a god is the reason things are the way they are, then he can make them not the way they are, and therefore the law of identity would be invalid. "our experience of existence is material" Objectivism doesn't subscribe to materialism. Not sure which philosophy you are arguing against but it isn't Objectivism here. "To apply the law of identity in this way, you must assume the mind is capable of grasping every aspect of an object in order to identify it correctly and completely." No, you don't need to assume that. Let's say that I see the Earth from a long distance away. Do I need to know that you ate a hamburger for lunch in your kitchen to say "there is a planet there"? Do I need to know that the atoms in a leaf vibrate in such a way as to release green light to know that the leaf is green? If I didn't know about atoms, could I still tell the leaf was green? If I put the leaf up so that it covers my whole vision, so I can't see its shape, does that mean I can't tell that it is green? I don't see the shape and therefore I can't determine it is green? Basically, your premise "you must assume the mind is capable of grasping every aspect of an object in order to identify it correctly and completely" is arbitrary.

@CScott-wh5yk

5 жыл бұрын

Damon Hage you cannot apply the law of identity in the way Objectivism does unless you know the entirety of an object's identity, this is obvious. I cannot claim that aspect a is not identical to Object A unless I know Object A in its entirety and that it does not include aspect a in its identity. This is basic logic.

@damonhage7451

5 жыл бұрын

@@CScott-wh5yk You can keep saying that, but that doesn't make it true. It is just as arbitrary now when you say it as when you said it the first time. Also, they aren't "applying the law of identity". The law of identity is true because of the facts of reality. The law of causality is true because of the law of identity. They aren't trying to slap the law of identity onto reality, like you would apply an ointment to a wound. That is rationalism and invalid. "I cannot claim that aspect a is not identical to Object A unless I know Object A in its entirety and that it does not include aspect a in its identity." Aspect a is not identical to Object A? This literally makes no sense. Somethings aspects (its characteristics if that is what you mean) cannot be "identical" to an object. That doesn't make sense. That is like saying red is identical to wine. No, wine has the characteristic of being red. There is no "red" without the thing that is red. Is English your primary language? I'm not asking to demean you if it isn't, but you don't seem to know what an aspect is if you think that even hypothetically it can be "identical" to an object.

@CScott-wh5yk

5 жыл бұрын

Damon Hage just because you say it is arbitrary does not mean you can negate the laws of logic by simply saying it’s so. You must know something in its entirety to be able to make universal claims about its identity. You cannot claim the universe is all there is unless you know all there is, for example. This is obvious. If you want to say this is arbitrary, please explain why rather than just saying so.

@CScott-wh5yk

5 жыл бұрын

"Reality, it being what it is, is independent of consciousness," Peikoff applies the law of identity in this way at 11:50. But this claim can only be made if we understand reality in its entirety and that it is independent of consciousness. This has not been established, at least not within the philosophy of objectivism (it is just assumed by begging the question and calling it the law of identity).

hardcore moderation

And now, her followers are a collective of individuals. That is still a collective. There is no way around it.

@ominousparallel3854

2 ай бұрын

And? Did anyone say that any form of association between humans was invalid?

@xiiir838

25 күн бұрын

​@@ominousparallel3854"it" doesn't know because nobody that criticise objectivism has ever read anything about objectivism

This just seems like Wittgenstein’s early philosophy, which he later repudiated.

39:27 "Aristotle was much much closer to the objectivist viewpoint." I personally don't think Aristotle would've taken Randian objectivism seriously frankly speaking, and it's quite interesting that Peikoff kind of rushes through it to 'nature,' 'reason' etc. In fact it is well known in the study of ethics and politics that the Ancient Greek philosophic tradition, especially in Plato's and Aristotle's reading, put the common good of the State (city-state back then), collective above the individual's. They're very explicit in doing it and it's not an obscure fact about Greek philosophy so Peikoff should#ve known better. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_good#Ancient_Greeks "Aristotle is clear that there is greater value in the common good than in the individual good, noting in his Nicomachean Ethics that "even if the end is the same for a single man and for a state, that of the state seems at all events something greater and more complete; … though it is worthwhile to attain the end merely for one man, it is finer and more godlike to attain it for a nation or for city-states."" Aristotle also mentions multiple times in his Politics that the state should be providing for its poor citizens - food, education, paying for their participation in politics, etc. (and indeed that was the case in Athens with some variations). And last but not least, the idea of the separation of State and economy would've been so foreign to them, it's just worth mentioning that there was no notion of economy separate from State until maybe a 150 years ago. It was always called political economy until relatively recently. Not even close to Ayn Rand.

@armanmkhitaryan27

4 жыл бұрын

59:49 "All the things which people blame on capitalism are actually not the fault of capitalism but of the element of government that it is mixed with which is corrupting..." The only way this may differ from a Marxist-Leninist scholar back in the USSR days blaming all the faults of the Soviet Union on the state/government/party rather than the ideology as well is that Peikoff can more freely express his ideas. But in essence it seems to be the same to be blind to see any, any pitfalls whatsoever in any particular system of ideas. I'd be afraid of people rejecting any criticism of the ideology of their choice - be it "Soviet communism" or "laissez-faire capitalism".

@damonhage7451

3 жыл бұрын

Not true. All the Greeks were egoists. They weren’t advocates of the common good through the government.

@sybo59

3 жыл бұрын

Peikoff was well aware of all of that - he taught a lengthy course on the history of philosophy (available free on the Ayn Rand University app) which explicitly covers the massive differences between Aristotle and Rand. He wasn’t claiming they were identical, but identified the essentials that they shared.

@sybo59

3 жыл бұрын

@@armanmkhitaryan27 On capitalism: Peikoff is not doing the same hand-wave as the Marxists you describe. He has mountains of evidence on his side, they do not. But you find it sufficient to point out a superficial similarity in the form of their respective claims to justify equating he and they. Absurd - all your work is still ahead of you. For instance, if one student who wrote 2+2=4 on his quiz said “My answer is correct!” would you diminish him on the grounds that another student (who happened to have put 2+2=5) said the same thing? “He’s not right! After all, the guy who said 5 also said he was correct! QED!” Oof. You might find this hard to believe, but the Marxist apologists are wrong, and Peikoff is right. I’m aware that this sort of “absolutism” can make some fragile folks squeamish. But the problems of socialism/communism are direct, causal results of the system; the “problems” of capitalism are either not problems specific to capitalism, or are not caused by capitalism at all. I’m happy to hear some examples. (Please don’t say “monopolies!!!1.” Please.)

@armanmkhitaryan27

3 жыл бұрын

@@sybo59 Thanks for the reply. I was citing Piekoff himslef, at 39:27 "Aristotle was much much closer to the objectivist viewpoint." Then showed explicitly that Aristotle wasn't close to the "objectivist viewpoint," I think he might've even had a hard time trying to understand the political and economic concepts of what Rand put behind her definition of "objectivism" for the reasons I mentioned in my first comments. You can try to make a good impression in class indeed by drawing such parallels but I don't think it bears any serious philosophical scrutiny. I just find things where I strongly disagree with Piekoff and I try to back my points with specific examples and references, unlike Piekoff on these particular topics in this particular clip. The second point. Systemic issues of capitalism. There's an entire field in the political spectrum dedicated to the study of capitalism basically, the Left. It's not homogenous of course, there's no one Left, but it's done a lot in pointing out and challenging the destructive systemic issues of capitalism. I can understand though that Piekoff and probably some of his followers may dismiss it altogether, but it's just not serous if so. I don't have to turn to people like Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, Shoshana Zuboff, Thomas Piketty and so on to learn about the dangers of capitalist systems, I can just cite my own history: Armenia, where I come from, was completely impoverished and devastated by what some refer to as crony capitalism after the fall of the USSR. I was a kid back then and I don't "miss" it or something, but the "crony (or call it USSR, doesn't matter) socialism" did in many aspects and with many respects a better job in Armenia then the kind of crony capitalism that ensued in the 90s. Both systems are quite vague to begin with on their own without a specific framework in place, both have advantages and both disadvantages. If you need further proof without reading the authors I mentioned above (even though a person approaching these topics seriously has to), just look at Europe and the US actually. There's a tremendous amount of socialist ideas and policies implemented in these areas to hold the system together, because as time has proven, it just collapses under the kind of capitalism that I believe Rand had in mind: no state interference, etc. It's just non-existent. The State is everywhere. There's in fact no example of this Randian picture of capitalism anywhere in the world.

I truly wish Mr. Peikoff would soften his lecture style, it's so distracting from delivering the information and the lessons he's trying to teach. Being loud and direct is great for making certain points, but having the volume and intensity at a 10 the entire time is just tiring for the audience. Does he feel like his students in this group will fall asleep on him if he isn't in their faces the whole time? The Q&A session is handled poorly too, cutting off a questioner before they've had a chance to fully ask a question is not only rude but it hampers your ability to correctly answer the question.

@kenzeier2943

3 жыл бұрын

Maybe there was a fan blowing in the ceiling or some thing that he was hearing and he had to speak or thought that he had to speak loudly

21:50 Against ethics by god, as well by society

How do we pay for the police and fire services etc? If we leave it to the government wouldn't they need to levy taxes to pay for it?

@keving1376

6 жыл бұрын

Yes, that would be the only reason for tax in this sort of system i believe. Police systems, military, judiciary and probably fire services too but that could be privatised i guess through property and land insurance as an example.

@damonhage7451

3 жыл бұрын

You fund it voluntarily, which would be easy. If you need a further elaboration I can do so.

If existence exist as something what is that something, and if existence exist as all things what knows all things?

what about ontology I always though that was branch.

@alexleibovici4834

4 жыл бұрын

Ontology is Metaphysics; M. it is the term used by Aristotle.

So objectivism is absolutist. Aren't there sweeping assumptions contained in that?

@damonhage7451

5 жыл бұрын

Simnikiwe Hlatshaneni What do you mean by absolutist?

@boilerhousegarage

4 жыл бұрын

Yes, reason and objective knowledge is absolute.

@Shozb0t

3 жыл бұрын

The absolutism stems from the axiom that existence exists. If you don't accept this axiom then you would consider absolutes to be null and void. But reality will not conform to your premise. An apple is an apple and will not become a pie just because you wish it.

I wonder what is "free will" if the natural world is the only objective reality? How can non-determined consciousness exist in the Ayn Rand universe?

@damonhage7451

6 жыл бұрын

+Todor Nikolov I realize this is an old thread but from my understanding, when objectivists use the phrase "free will" they aren't talking about determinism or "do I raise my hand or not raise my hand" type scenarios. "Free will" to an objectivist means you have the capacity to choose to think (pursue things that rationally improve your life) or not to think (pursue things that rationally harm your life or pursue nothing).

@kyleserrecchia5300

5 жыл бұрын

Why can't it?

@damonhage7451

5 жыл бұрын

+Todor Nikolov I have learned a little more on the subject since I made this last comment and I think there is another point that should be brought up here. Part of this confusion comes from a equivocation of causality with mechanism. The law of causality is a corollary of the law of identity. It is formulated as "every entity acts in accordance with its nature". That says nothing about what particular types of entities can exist, only that if they exist THEN they must act according to their nature, and everything has a nature because of the law of identity. Given that, there is no "law" of reality that states that there cannot be an entity that can act this way or that way on a non-determined basis, since the law of causality doesn't prescribe what kinds of entities can exist. This doesn't resolve whether there is a special kind of entity in man that allows for this capability, or whether it is an emergent property of a particular type of consciousness, but that is irrelevant from the perspective of it existing. You don't need to know how it exists to know that it exists.

@damonhage7451

5 жыл бұрын

Another way to put it is that man's nature is such that he has free will. Given that is his nature, he can act according to his nature, of which the action in question is choosing.

@sweetpeabrown261

5 жыл бұрын

I agree with you. You may enjoy Sam Harris' short book "Free Will". It shed a great deal of light on this subject.

The remarks about art are beyond laughable. This man managed to make these absurd statements with a straight face, which is remarkable.

@mauriceneville860

7 жыл бұрын

'novels with heros and logical plots' are mandatory in 'Romantic Realism' LOL against Modern Art 'smears and dots etc' Music 'melody not atonalism' The Nazi and Stalinist echoes are inescapable - tiny minded ideologically driven philistines trying to tell artists what to do

@mauriceneville860

7 жыл бұрын

One of the tiny problems with ' objectivism ' is that its proponents cannot avoid making subjective judgements which they strive heroically ( and amusingly ) to dress up as objective ... viz your little rant above, which is expressed in the same Nazi lite prose deployed by Mr Peikoff. PS Mr Peikoff had the meaningful glint in his eye which leaves no doubt that a society he and his ilk dominated would gleefully burn books, paintinggs etc in a festival of objectivist joy

@xblackcatx1312

5 жыл бұрын

actually he makes sense. Art should be an ideal representation of reality to serve as an inspiration.

Wasn't the Manhattan project a government project?

I disagree that animals do not have free will. Perhaps they not as advanced as humans, but they do have many traits that are similar to humans, animals can definitely love and be motivated by anger, sadness, happiness, fear, etc.. I have seen evidence of it.

@ominousparallel3854

2 ай бұрын

You’re confusing emotions with free will. No one ever said animals do not have emotions. That’s actually pretty much all they have.

COVID response, 1:03. Take that, Krugman

@boilerhousegarage

3 жыл бұрын

I think you've quoted the wrong time. The COVID response was immoral. A government can only quarantine a person who is not only sick, but it must be an objectively deadly disease, like germs spraying as bullets. 99.87% IFR is comparable to all natural and unavoidable colds and flus, especially when you consider the demographics.

I wonder if Ayn Rand would have changed her ethics in light of new research in physics and neuroscience which tend to suggest we have no free will?

@razzberry6180

3 жыл бұрын

Thats not entirely true at all. Theres reason to believe that consciousness itself might not even originate in the brain, but might be a natural phenomenon of the universe itself, in its own field.

@ken4975

3 жыл бұрын

@@razzberry6180 Yes, the jury is out isn't it? But I would say it is entirely true that there are respected scientists out there (among others) who hold this view.

@damonhage7451

3 жыл бұрын

No she wouldn't have. The scientists who claim people don't have free will, didn't reach that conclusion because of any scientific evidence. They claim that because it conflicts with their philosophical positions. Namely, mechanistic materialism, which says everything in the universe operates like billiard balls on a table. There is no way to logically infer that premise, but they all take it as an axiom.

@ken4975

3 жыл бұрын

@@damonhage7451 Yes, undoubtedly scientists, just like anyone else, might be persuaded by philosophical conflicts . Others explain it as logic based laws of physics. It's all up for grabs and depends how you interpret things. Are we saying Ms Rand would not reconsider in light of all the things we know now that we did not know then? From what little I know of her, she comes across as very smart.

@damonhage7451

3 жыл бұрын

@@ken4975 The issue that what people mean by the "laws of physics" are influenced by their philosophy. I like I said before, most scientists accept mechanistic materialism and nobody has ever presented a valid argument for it to my knowledge. Would Rand reconsider free will? Absolutely not. Nothing has been learned. Like I said before, there hasn't been any argument for mechanistic materialism presented in the last 40 years that isn't as flawed as the arguments made by the determinists in ancient Greece.

Did you say that people can't have hallucinations?

@johnpbickford6735

4 жыл бұрын

I took it more as these hallucinations are not divine intervention or illogical, but a reflection of the very real and logical subconscious or else non sensical.

Reality is not two, there can be no primacy. Awareness is known by awareness alone.

@damonhage7451

3 жыл бұрын

Awareness of what?

@damonhage7451

3 жыл бұрын

@@bretnetherton9273 Awareness of what?

@damonhage7451

3 жыл бұрын

@@bretnetherton9273 Does awareness exist? How can you have awareness before existence?

@damonhage7451

3 жыл бұрын

@@bretnetherton9273 You actually believe that junk? Yikes.

@damonhage7451

3 жыл бұрын

@@bretnetherton9273 Um... that is literally what consciousness is. You even agreed with that when you called consciousness awareness a few comments ago. How could consciousness be awareness without it being the faculty of perceiving.

Is that Amy Peikoff at 31:05?

@GuysUTubeAccoountt

5 жыл бұрын

Close resemblance

His books are very good. Read dangerous parallels

@boilerhousegarage

3 жыл бұрын

The Ominous Parallels.

@kewlbeone5949

3 жыл бұрын

@@boilerhousegarage So on the money. It is scary. The dual state is THE problem among many. BTW written in 1983.

54:55 Absolutely!

Externalities apparently don't exist...? I really don't understand, can someone explain why more or less completely unregulated capitalism is so good? There are certain things a market doesn't account for, like pollution.

@damonhage7451

3 жыл бұрын

I don't understand your question. Capitalism is so good because human beings produce values by using their minds. Force prevents you from using your mind. A government that simply prevents people from using force on each other, promotes maximum use of the mind, produces maximum value. It's fairly simple. Your example of pollution is a weird one. You are implying that unregulated capitalism is anarchy, when he clearly said that the government exists to prevent infringements of rights. Pollution is clearly a violation of your rights and therefore you wouldn't expect a market to "account for" it. That's the government's job. If I dump my garbage in your back yard, that is an initiation of force and a violation of rights. The government steps in, not some market. You spray me in the face with chlorine. The government steps in, not some market. I hope I didn't fundamentally misunderstand you because I don't think your comment made sense.

"Does government have a role in disease control and education?" - Man - how prescient this question is in this time.

@johnnynick6179

Жыл бұрын

And a YEAR later... the answer is............government totally bungled the pandemic. Between the mandated lockdowns that crippled our economy and brought financial devastation, to the poisonous jab that they mandated for huge segments of our population, they could not have handled it any worse. Government has NO business telling us what to do.