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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

That was so simple, yet revolutionary and so revealing of the stories we have been told in order to not question government intervention that I wonder how they have not canceled Rand, Peikoff & objectivism already!

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

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

this is fabulous! so glad it's on KZfaq! 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.

Great introduction to Objectivism and a beautifully produced video.

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

Excellent introduction!

this was some powerful stuff..

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

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

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.

Beautiful

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

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.

"There are no contradictions in reality"

"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.

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

Linda Belcher sure is a woman of many talents.

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

A captivating introduction.

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

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.

Any compromise between food and poison, poison wins

I need to show this to the world

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.

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.

Thank you. Dr leonard peikoff

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

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.

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

Thank you

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.

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

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?

Good lesson

Chalk and talk. The classroom before IT took over.

Thanks!

Great talk!

This course has also been published with subtitles in Spanish -- Este curso también ha sido publicado con subtítulos en español -- kzfaq.info/get/bejne/b86jdblo2Meql2g.html

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.

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

This guy gives Richard Wolf a run for his money.

I love this lecture.

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.

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.

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?

Fantastic!

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

Well the audience seems pretty smart too

The battle is just beginning. It will get ugly

Amazing!

Anthem is still one of my favs.

Interesting. An embryo is not an individual. Where does an objectivist draw the line for what is an individual human life? Birth? What’s the difference between a 7 month old fetus and a 2 month old baby? Neither has the ability to reason. I ask this as someone who believes Ayn Rand is just right. But I just think there seem to be some small gaps in objectivism.

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

The best philosophy class.

That's an objectively hideous mullet.

Thanks

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.

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

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.

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

My question is if objectivism is true why preach it? Isn't that practicing altruism? Going out of your way to help a stranger by preaching egoism?

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

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

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

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

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

6:41 best cue to walk out.

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

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

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.

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

Good video!

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

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

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?

An example of a necessary regulation in my opinion is the FDA that makes sure there is no rat poison in your food. They may not be perfect, but they prevent a lot of needless death. Edit: I guess his answer that people can't be allowed by government to harm others covers this.

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

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?

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

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.

Wasn't the Manhattan project a government project?

Did the resurrection of Jesus Christ take place? It either did or did not. My opinion or your opinion either way does not make it true or false. You must deal with it because it happened (or did not) in space/time history. If you are going to be objective you must study the historical documents. If it did happen, then Ayn Rand is wrong

is this lecture from the '80s? Or just the guy? :))

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.

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

Will no one observe that mullets had played out in 1995?

But what if I think McDonald's tastes good and my friend doesn't? Does the Majority win?

I don't know about his view on art. It's seems very limiting to only cover what would or could happen. Basically all fantasy art goes out the window. Overall I like that philosophy for individuals. I'm not sure if it's practical enough to encompass all of politics. He seems to be waaay overselling how great a world run on objectivist principles would be. Charity always being able to reliably deal with the poor, and everyone living to 150 years old sounds too good to be true. I also find it odd that he does not support a competing market place for the military, courts, and police. If the is perverse incentives, then those aren't the only industries that have that problem.

Speak up, peikoff, I can't hear you.

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

Anybody from India?