I have listened to this lecture every few years for the last eighteen. It's value can't be overstated.

Recorded in 1988, indeed still more powerfully valuable even today 2019 (December 26th). Highly noble lecture, full of intellectual integrity and honesty. I can not thank enough ARI for posting it publicly.

It always boils down to principle. If that's not understood, one can never truly discern anything.

This is a brilliant guide to clear thinking. I have often referred back to my original copy of the essay to refresh my understanding. Well worth listening to.

Best argued speech of all time, in my opinion. It really changed my perspective on the world around me

I have this on DVD!

I can come here for sanity. It’s like an oasis.

A mathematical problem appears extremely complicated to one who has not mastered the relevant knowledge. Examples: find the area of a curved surface, figure out how to restore a Rubik cube. On first glance, the subject itself appears extremely complicated. It's, understandably, overwhelming to page through an advanced math book. I provisionally forgive those who have the perception that mathematicians make it harder and more involved than it needs to be. The truth, however, is the opposite. Their purpose is to bring it all into the scope of the human mind's capacity, by means of concepts and principles. In Mathematics, every definition and every theorem contributes tremendously to this purpose. Equations, symbols and diagrams look incomprehensible? Math books would have been a hundred times as thick, and truly incomprehensible, if it weren't for these methods. Mathematics is THE role model of conceptualization, hierarchy, context, applying principles, etc. Mathematicians have been applying the epistemological ideas of this Peikoff lecture for ages, in exemplary fashion. Alas, only to their own subject ... How sad that so many of them, even the best ones, are helpless, unthinking conventionalists in areas like politics, religion and morality.

2:50 "complex world"cliche thinking to induce helplessness. Not to solve but to assure people that there are no solution 3:30 nothing abides everything changes(heraclitian flux) once upon a time straigthforward answer was possible. 3:40 life is too complicated now for simple answers 3:45 word simple as condemnation 4:15 simplistic vs oversimplified. Tell me what i have left out 5:00 conplexity worship 5:30 today's practice of disintedration 6:10 principle of free trade vs protectionism would be considered simplistic and broad generalisation how can you make such sweeping statement in today's world. Life is too complex for that. 7:30 answer to complexity narrowing focus 10:20 pragmatism 11:50 is life complex? Pragmatism vs rational thinking

Wow!

1:15:35 - 1:16:20

ARI has the video to this. Why don't they use it? Forcing people to stare at a blank screen is a deterrent.

QA: ‘what’s the update on the movie Atlas Shrugged?’ This one did not age well.

56:48 end of talk

49:00

OMG this is better than Hopper

👏👏👏👏

57:22

38:47 On the US government’s response to Covid19.

Leonard can get us closer to the orange-haired man.

@William Fithern If we bring this to the level of principle, the problem I have with objectivism and capitalism is not that helping others is completely voluntary. But that people with lesser capabilities (physical and mental) will not have minimal decent lives without some able representation. So, any society that requires certain ability to maintain a decent life will have to establish a means for providing for that person's specific needs. If only, not to bring a moral burden to progress on oneself. Writing off the concept of altruïsm, as commonly understood, will only alienate compassionate people from the positive aspect of this 'Alt-truïsm' principle and thus reject the whole 'Objectivist' philosophy establishing the peril of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. As can be observed to date(apr2021). Altruïsm therefore should be preached collectively, but actioned upon freely by the individual, as a core principle within 'Objectivism'.

The word " complex" is a false concept in present philosophy. Any knowledge must to be rational.

I was listening and partially agreeing until about minute 33 when he recklessly way “over simplified” the matter in Iran! Can you be an objectivist without considering the entirety of the truth?! No, it’s called the “cherry picking” fallacy for a reason.

What would Peikoff do if he was one of the prisoners in the 'prisoner's dilema'?

The only point I can agree without qualification is Leonard Peikoff is that bad principles drive out good principles. Ayn Rand's Ojbectivism is a perfect example of bad principles driving out the good principles of Kant and Hegel. Tucker Carlson's version of January 6 is conceived to drive out Liz Cheney's version of January 6. The principle of Tucker Carlson is the Virtue of Selfishness and translates in his personal rational self interest is his calculation that treason is an attractive career path and a profitable business model. The principle of Liz Cheney is the social contract of the US Constitution and translates to her personal enlightened self interest to her voluntary submission to its principles superior to her personal estate. Tucker Carlson displays Ayn Rand's capacity for generating moral confusion by re-defining principles to accommodate the concrete outcome he desires. Liz Cheney displays Socrates capacity for cutting through the moral fog of Objectivism with principles uncorrupted by personal aspirations. Like Objectivism, Leonard Peikoof's treatise on principle lacks the substance of cotton candy. Tucker Carlson is a treason-monger and Liz Cheney is the soul of patriotism. Tucker Carlson's Objectivism agenda is to employ bad principles to drive out good principles, so Leonard Peikoff gets that part right.