@@richardcranium5048 It's a great talk! Accessible to non-objectivists too. With every re-listening, new recent examples of complexity worship come to mind.
@@kphaxx indeed...I concur. You mention, "non-objectivist" and I suppose that I would fall in that camp. In my granted limited exploration, it seems that the strict adherence to atheism is a must. Personally a stray from the path slightly here, and have always thought of myself as agnostic. The commonly excepted explanation for how it is that we are even here to consider these things, the so called Big Bang, seems like just more,.. we'll just say I take exception.. What exactly was it that went "Bang" It is simply not possible to have a bang withour a source for potential energy. So then it seems that clearly there was something before the Bang.. So it is very possible as I see it the this Big Bang happened but it answers nothing for me. The question still remains, where did it come from. I'm far from a religious man. I just have this one nagging question. If you have taken the time to read this whole... Rambling mess? I had to pause for a minute to think on what it was, and that's all I got, then I thank you and apologies if I killed any brain cells with it. I'd be very interested in your thoughts, on the matter, or any other truthfully. Or if you can point me in a direction that might be of use... Many thanks
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.
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.
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
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.
I generally agree, but when it comes to doing trigonometry and employing pi instead of tau, like outside of architecture... and then seeing what tau does to Euler's equation... There are definitely mathematicians that make it harder than it has to be.
The dilemma solved itself if you factor in multiple rounds of the game where the individuals involved are aware of previous game decisions and can act with their future’s in mind.
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.
@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'.
@@areez22 I meant that if no one has any compassion at all with people who are really disabled [and thus unable to provide for a decent life themselves] such morality will prove counterproductive to one's own progress, as the majority of people will condemn it as inhumain and not want to co-operate with that.
@@areez22 Glad to be of help. I hope the following is not blurring your understanding again, but since posting this my thinking on this has progressed in a hypothesis. The long term practise for training people in power to deal with this dilemma on a personal level is to desensitize them. It appears however that such top level desensitivizing training (metaforically developing a thick skin) is so destructive to their compassion it probably is a root cause for true evil too. How to evade that effect, if true, is then the new dilemma ....
@@dynamike201 I don't see how this is the case. I think people holding political office are to be trained in not letting emotion mislead them from correct principle. Therefore, they can act with compassion in their private lives if they wish.
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.
Nonsense from beginning to end. Carlson’s voluntary discarding of reality (as attested by text message he knew the election was not stolen) is a both a lie and evading reality; two sins according to Objectivism. The lier and the fraud is NOT acting in his rational self-interest. This is a blatant example of pragmatism, and I think you should listen to the talk again, with a particular focus on that part. Find me an Objectivist that agrees on any level with Tucker Carlson, then we’ll talk. In the mean time please stop confusing us with that thing.
He is a subjectivist, does he have the relevant information conceptualized so that he can reason accordingly? No but that just goes to show the state of media, he should be allowed to express his views none the less because it makes people think. He’s not an objectivist because he doesn’t reason he holds opinions and expresses his emotions. You are just straw manning both parties.
@@jacksonstone246 Really? How do you Strawman and Strawman doctrine? Of, more to the point, how do you avoid strawmanning a strawman argument? He is the perfect Objectivist. Characterizing him as a "subjectivist" is ust a Objectivist calling the Objectivist subjective.
@@Thomasw540 Ah but you forgot something very important, objectivism does specify what the end goal is, happiness. And while you can claim tucker carleson does what he THINKS will bring him the most happiness, the moral principals of objectivism say otherwise, and that lying does not bring one to the objectively happiest outcome they could have had if they did not lie. Thats just one example but im sure I could find other places where tucker carlson doesn't follow objectivist ethics lol. what an uneducated comment
I have listened to this lecture every few years for the last eighteen. It's value can't be overstated.
Do you have your own virtue system, which you use to guide your actions? In a way like Leonard Peikoff describes it in the chapter on virtue?
Today 08/18/22 is my first, but no doubt, I'll be back
@@richardcranium5048 It's a great talk! Accessible to non-objectivists too. With every re-listening, new recent examples of complexity worship come to mind.
@@kphaxx indeed...I concur. You mention, "non-objectivist" and I suppose that I would fall in that camp. In my granted limited exploration, it seems that the strict adherence to atheism is a must. Personally a stray from the path slightly here, and have always thought of myself as agnostic. The commonly excepted explanation for how it is that we are even here to consider these things, the so called
Big Bang, seems like just more,.. we'll just say I take exception.. What exactly was it that went "Bang" It is simply not possible to have a bang withour a source for potential energy. So then it seems that clearly there was something before the Bang.. So it is very possible as I see it the this Big Bang happened but it answers nothing for me. The question still remains, where did it come from. I'm far from a religious man. I just have this one nagging question. If you have taken the time to read this whole... Rambling mess? I had to pause for a minute to think on what it was, and that's all I got, then I thank you and apologies if I killed any brain cells with it. I'd be very interested in your thoughts, on the matter, or any other truthfully. Or if you can point me in a direction that might be of use... Many thanks
Thanks!
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.
I have this on DVD!
I can come here for sanity. It’s like an oasis.
I AGREE.
Indeed
(Indeed)²
Best argued speech of all time, in my opinion. It really changed my perspective on the world around me
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
QA: ‘what’s the update on the movie Atlas Shrugged?’
This one did not age well.
1:15:35 - 1:16:20
Wow!
56:48 end of talk
buddy , you seem such a fan of leonard peikoff. how can I access his history of philosophy volume 2?
I m a poor man ,and i really need this second part, and his book.
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.
I generally agree, but when it comes to doing trigonometry and employing pi instead of tau, like outside of architecture... and then seeing what tau does to Euler's equation... There are definitely mathematicians that make it harder than it has to be.
This is a cool thing to think about!
49:00
ARI has the video to this. Why don't they use it? Forcing people to stare at a blank screen is a deterrent.
57:22
OMG this is better than Hopper
Hoppe is a quack and doesn't understand what he's talking about.
👏👏👏👏
38:47 On the US government’s response to Covid19.
Leonard can get us closer to the orange-haired man.
What would Peikoff do if he was one of the prisoners in the 'prisoner's dilema'?
Absurd Hero -Peikoff isn’t a criminal. :)
The point is the dilemma. Principles apply to life, not its deliberate negation.
The dilemma solved itself if you factor in multiple rounds of the game where the individuals involved are aware of previous game decisions and can act with their future’s in mind.
I think he would uphold the virtue of honesty (i.e. confessing) unless confessing would cause a greater evil.
If you’re guilty confess, if you’re not, claim your innocence. Whatever the other guys does is irrelevant.
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.
Well, to quote him initially on what to do when facing such an accusation, what is exactly what you think that he missed?
@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'.
What do you mean by: "If only, not to bring a moral burden to progress on oneself."?
@@areez22 I meant that if no one has any compassion at all with people who are really disabled [and thus unable to provide for a decent life themselves] such morality will prove counterproductive to one's own progress, as the majority of people will condemn it as inhumain and not want to co-operate with that.
@@dynamike201 I understand now. Thank you for clarifying.
@@areez22 Glad to be of help. I hope the following is not blurring your understanding again, but since posting this my thinking on this has progressed in a hypothesis. The long term practise for training people in power to deal with this dilemma on a personal level is to desensitize them. It appears however that such top level desensitivizing training (metaforically developing a thick skin) is so destructive to their compassion it probably is a root cause for true evil too.
How to evade that effect, if true, is then the new dilemma ....
@@dynamike201 I don't see how this is the case. I think people holding political office are to be trained in not letting emotion mislead them from correct principle. Therefore, they can act with compassion in their private lives if they wish.
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.
Nonsense from beginning to end. Carlson’s voluntary discarding of reality (as attested by text message he knew the election was not stolen) is a both a lie and evading reality; two sins according to Objectivism.
The lier and the fraud is NOT acting in his rational self-interest. This is a blatant example of pragmatism, and I think you should listen to the talk again, with a particular focus on that part.
Find me an Objectivist that agrees on any level with Tucker Carlson, then we’ll talk. In the mean time please stop confusing us with that thing.
He is a subjectivist, does he have the relevant information conceptualized so that he can reason accordingly? No but that just goes to show the state of media, he should be allowed to express his views none the less because it makes people think. He’s not an objectivist because he doesn’t reason he holds opinions and expresses his emotions. You are just straw manning both parties.
@@jacksonstone246 Really? How do you Strawman and Strawman doctrine? Of, more to the point, how do you avoid strawmanning a strawman argument?
He is the perfect Objectivist. Characterizing him as a "subjectivist" is ust a Objectivist calling the Objectivist subjective.
@@Thomasw540 Ah but you forgot something very important, objectivism does specify what the end goal is, happiness. And while you can claim tucker carleson does what he THINKS will bring him the most happiness, the moral principals of objectivism say otherwise, and that lying does not bring one to the objectively happiest outcome they could have had if they did not lie. Thats just one example but im sure I could find other places where tucker carlson doesn't follow objectivist ethics lol. what an uneducated comment