Plato In his famous work The Republic, warns of the “Dangers of Art” for a very similar reason. The evolution of the art movement can be seen in Television and Cinematography, and it is fascinating to meditate upon and consider how the “war against the external world” as Mr. Peikoff put it, has come into fruition. There was an entire campaign Conducted by the Government called “Get out and Play” which was about encouraging children to turn off the television and Play outside. This highlights the successes of The arts, and the Subjectivist Ideal , which was so poignantly Expressed In Salvador Dali’s quote from the lecture. Very interesting topic.
Important differences one should not gloss over, however, include the fact that Peikoff does not include all art and is against, in contrast to Plato, censorship and government control.
@@dougpridgen9682 you should note the Republic is the ideal city in speech, not in deed, and the censorship in the republic you refer to is to be taken as a cautionary tale, it is to be read ironically. If you got to Peikoffs lectures on Plato you'll see he does not read philosophers esoterically, and as brilliant as P is, he exhibits some of the same hermeneutic faults of modern times.
@@lukajung9051 Integration requires that one be ideal in thought, word, and action. The mind/body split in Plato is the problem here. Your claim that censorship is ironic and cautionary in the Republic is dubious and debatable. It's not clear at all unless, as you say, you read it esoterically according to the appropriate hermeneutic. Only occultists and theologians appeal to those methods, since in their view reason is a mere handmaiden of faith. If you rely on evidence based thought and use logic instead of a hermeneutic you are on much firmer ground.
@@dougpridgen9682 I see. Esotercism does have a bad wrap and a rude, mystical connotion. In the sense of philosophy proper, not platonism, hermeticism, theosophy, or any sect, esotericsm means the duplicity of writing for different readers. In the case of Plato it is between writing for the everyday person and potential philosophers. What I am saying is not dubious, if you read any of the other dialogues, the are wrought with irony a d cautionary tales. Much scholarahip understands ancient philosophy through our modern lenses, terms, notions, as opposed to meeting them on their own terms and understanding them as they understood themselves.
Furthermore, this does not assume reason is a handmaiden of faith, if anything, the republic is about the abuses of reason in the name of the common good. The utopia of the republic is reason carried out to its ideal, and if understood ironically as is certainly intended, there is a tension between what we call "theory" and "practice." Reason is betrayed once it is a handmaiden for faith or some collective utopia, the problem is the same and many of the dialogue address this. Lastly, the dichotomy between mind and matter is an exoteric (in contrast to esoteric) doctrine that modern scholarship has assumed to be Plato's teaching, just like the theory of forms. If you see the duplicity in the dialogues, you would know that such dichotomies and Ideas are corrected once their illusory aspects are understood. Much of modern scholarship a d hermeneutics has betrayed the ancient philosophers of Greece. It's a hard topic to discuss bc it is so improbable to common consensus. Leo Strauss has done wonders to revive a reexamination into political philosophy as a whole. Though, just like plato, his teachings a d character is widely distorted. Best take what you see and hear from them with a grain of salt.
1:20:00 Mathematics should not be thought of as divorced from reality. This would make a great short clip. Most intellectuals today view mathematics as a field of platonic forms.
My thoughts on the frist 45 mins: I usually agree with Leonard Piekoff, but I happen to have lived with the mental illness he is "breaking down" and though he has a few points he got some things wrong and that concerns me. 1. The laughter: for me and many I know the laugh helps one to let off pressure, it is spontaneous and it is enjoyable, because it is stress relieving better even then the uncontrollable crying. The laughter is in part a response to the sensed (as in sense of life) "absurdness" of existence 2.the cryptic language: we often are afraid of expressing our thoughts and that creates a double bind, so we try to get around the blocks to self expression by being more creative. This can lead to hyperactive rambling as well in the long run, and to be fair even pleasure of revenge by being difficult, but much of the time it is a desperate attempt to explain ourselves safely, and the frustration of not being understood. 3.control of the outside world via mind control: for me philosophy did play a part but so did high alertness to coincidental events (the bad choice to use drugs heighten the alertness) these events disturbed me and lead to paranoia which lead to further breakdown and fear of my own mental activity because I began to believe my thoughts being read and reacted to by hidden agencies could then alone (without outward action) trigger external events. We people while suffering mentally illness don't nessarly think we have super powers , in fact it has made me feel very powerless to the world. (There is of course some particulars of mine which doesn't cover the nature of other people's illiness) Madness for me has been a struggle to find Rand's benevolent universe, in fact that search lead me to and fall in love with Rand's ideas, my illness in great part has been about being driven mad by a lack of mental protection (the kind given via a good orientation to reality, in this Piekoff is indeed right) protection from a power that didn't it's self follow an objective blueprint, and an attempt to move forward in life despite what can seem to be a unerverse that is a monster of supernatural connectivity (including tyrannical brain reading forces) a dark connectivity tearing the ground out of under any hierarchy that could give reasonable self-interest a chance (note: I understand this is due in part to the very real complexity of interconnective events and the limited human mind digesting it all in a anthropomorphic way). Hence a break with hierarchical knowledge is dangerous, that is the essence of piekoff's point (I think) and with that I agree, but this kind of madness is like drowning in difficult to understand features of reality, and difficult to express personal need a as one struggles to understand what appears non-logical in some sensible way and getting it all in a mess. Insanity isn't a choice even if born from bad choices, even if mended by better choices, and greater rational understanding of the hard to understand, it is a very painful and real confusion that can cost one so much. I like Piekoff but felt some anger and disillusion due to his attuide toward the mentally ill and treatment of this subject.
I've never been an objectivist, but I would say that when dealing with Peikoff and talks about psychology it's always good to remember that he's working with tools that are backwards by our standards today. What was understood about Schizophrenia back then is juvenile compared to what is used today. No one for instance, refers to "crazy" to describe mental illness anymore, not just because of sensitivity, but lack of precision. This was the same dynamic when Rand read and honored past philosophers like Aristotle. She acknowledged they got things wrong, but in the context of his philosophy and the knowledge available at his time, he was worth of praise and adoration. So I would hesitate to allow yourself be disillusioned, sometimes even the brightest minds get things wrong. You take the good and get rid of the bad and improve on it in your own life, otherwise you can get seduced into dogma, like many Randians and are not better than them.
I have noticed that distinction between the two. However, Objectivits rarely ever mention Post Modernity to which Hicks uses to denote what Objectivits denote as the Modern.
@@Lindani_Mvano It's a testament to the difference between ARI vs Atlas Society. ARI sees itself primarily as a philosophical school and thus is more committed to philosophical issues, whereas the Atlas Society is more a political organization and is more interested in political allegiances.
The mathematician at 1:19:00 is probably following the formalism of David Hilbert (among others), and guess who they followed in turn? Hint: the initials are I.K.
"There is no concern with values in a Hollywood obsessed by chase scenes, special effects, with or without dinosaurs as an end in itself" Or trans pegging scenes as an end in itself
Sanni Epstein Correct. Intellectual modernism is unrelated to the beginnings of what we call 'modern' in painting (or architecture, for that matter). These were creative responses to the development of machine-age technologies and materials. European painters began to explore the character of the picture plane, to flatten and modulate space, to separate constituent colors on their canvas, to paint the light instead of shaded edges, to record experiential qualities of reality which photography could not. Early abstraction required a starting point, a subject. Likewise, the roots of modern architecture began growing long before the Bauhaus. And then a corrupted, brain-eaten culture also sought expression in the visual and physical arts, infecting and defiling them with its suicidal psychosis.
What if a Schizophrenic views a piece of modern art and feels what the artist felt when he created it? That communication means the art served it’s intended purpose and therefore has value. Warhol had a factory, people paid thousands for his screen prints. This man’s dismissal of an art form represents purely subjective thinking. He doesn’t like modern art, therefore it has no value. Utter garbage
Modern art is meant to attack the mind of the viewer. That's it. No different than the military playing loud rock music outside an enemy camp or depriving a prisoner of sleep. It basically thrives on the good nature of the public and the reputation of previous generations of artists.
He’s a great teacher.
24:40 Great point. I see this type of primacy of consciousness even in people who are not schizophrenic.
A brilliant lecture and needless to say, as relevant now as when Dr Peikoff gave it.
what a treat, much thanks
Plato In his famous work The Republic, warns of the “Dangers of Art” for a very similar reason. The evolution of the art movement can be seen in Television and Cinematography, and it is fascinating to meditate upon and consider how the “war against the external world” as Mr. Peikoff put it, has come into fruition. There was an entire campaign Conducted by the Government called “Get out and Play” which was about encouraging children to turn off the television and Play outside. This highlights the successes of The arts, and the Subjectivist Ideal , which was so poignantly Expressed In Salvador Dali’s quote from the lecture. Very interesting topic.
Important differences one should not gloss over, however, include the fact that Peikoff does not include all art and is against, in contrast to Plato, censorship and government control.
@@dougpridgen9682 you should note the Republic is the ideal city in speech, not in deed, and the censorship in the republic you refer to is to be taken as a cautionary tale, it is to be read ironically.
If you got to Peikoffs lectures on Plato you'll see he does not read philosophers esoterically, and as brilliant as P is, he exhibits some of the same hermeneutic faults of modern times.
@@lukajung9051 Integration requires that one be ideal in thought, word, and action. The mind/body split in Plato is the problem here. Your claim that censorship is ironic and cautionary in the Republic is dubious and debatable. It's not clear at all unless, as you say, you read it esoterically according to the appropriate hermeneutic. Only occultists and theologians appeal to those methods, since in their view reason is a mere handmaiden of faith. If you rely on evidence based thought and use logic instead of a hermeneutic you are on much firmer ground.
@@dougpridgen9682 I see. Esotercism does have a bad wrap and a rude, mystical connotion. In the sense of philosophy proper, not platonism, hermeticism, theosophy, or any sect, esotericsm means the duplicity of writing for different readers. In the case of Plato it is between writing for the everyday person and potential philosophers. What I am saying is not dubious, if you read any of the other dialogues, the are wrought with irony a d cautionary tales. Much scholarahip understands ancient philosophy through our modern lenses, terms, notions, as opposed to meeting them on their own terms and understanding them as they understood themselves.
Furthermore, this does not assume reason is a handmaiden of faith, if anything, the republic is about the abuses of reason in the name of the common good. The utopia of the republic is reason carried out to its ideal, and if understood ironically as is certainly intended, there is a tension between what we call "theory" and "practice." Reason is betrayed once it is a handmaiden for faith or some collective utopia, the problem is the same and many of the dialogue address this.
Lastly, the dichotomy between mind and matter is an exoteric (in contrast to esoteric) doctrine that modern scholarship has assumed to be Plato's teaching, just like the theory of forms. If you see the duplicity in the dialogues, you would know that such dichotomies and Ideas are corrected once their illusory aspects are understood.
Much of modern scholarship a d hermeneutics has betrayed the ancient philosophers of Greece. It's a hard topic to discuss bc it is so improbable to common consensus.
Leo Strauss has done wonders to revive a reexamination into political philosophy as a whole. Though, just like plato, his teachings a d character is widely distorted. Best take what you see and hear from them with a grain of salt.
1:20:00 Mathematics should not be thought of as divorced from reality. This would make a great short clip. Most intellectuals today view mathematics as a field of platonic forms.
Awareness is the only constant of all experience what could be more fundamental to reality than that? Awareness is known by awareness alone.
My thoughts on the frist 45 mins: I usually agree with Leonard Piekoff, but I happen to have lived with the mental illness he is "breaking down" and though he has a few points he got some things wrong and that concerns me.
1. The laughter: for me and many I know the laugh helps one to let off pressure, it is spontaneous and it is enjoyable, because it is stress relieving better even then the uncontrollable crying. The laughter is in part a response to the sensed (as in sense of life) "absurdness" of existence
2.the cryptic language: we often are afraid of expressing our thoughts and that creates a double bind, so we try to get around the blocks to self expression by being more creative.
This can lead to hyperactive rambling as well in the long run, and to be fair even pleasure of revenge by being difficult, but much of the time it is a desperate attempt to explain ourselves safely, and the frustration of not being understood.
3.control of the outside world via mind control: for me philosophy did play a part but so did high alertness to coincidental events (the bad choice to use drugs heighten the alertness) these events disturbed me and lead to paranoia which lead to further breakdown and fear of my own mental activity because I began to believe my thoughts being read and reacted to by hidden agencies could then alone (without outward action) trigger external events. We people while suffering mentally illness don't nessarly think we have super powers , in fact it has made me feel very powerless to the world. (There is of course some particulars of mine which doesn't cover the nature of other people's illiness)
Madness for me has been a struggle to find Rand's benevolent universe, in fact that search lead me to and fall in love with Rand's ideas, my illness in great part has been about being driven mad by a lack of mental protection (the kind given via a good orientation to reality, in this Piekoff is indeed right) protection from a power that didn't it's self follow an objective blueprint, and an attempt to move forward in life despite what can seem to be a unerverse that is a monster of supernatural connectivity (including tyrannical brain reading forces) a dark connectivity tearing the ground out of under any hierarchy that could give reasonable self-interest a chance (note: I understand this is due in part to the very real complexity of interconnective events and the limited human mind digesting it all in a anthropomorphic way). Hence a break with hierarchical knowledge is dangerous, that is the essence of piekoff's point (I think) and with that I agree, but this kind of madness is like drowning in difficult to understand features of reality, and difficult to express personal need a as one struggles to understand what appears non-logical in some sensible way and getting it all in a mess.
Insanity isn't a choice even if born from bad choices, even if mended by better choices, and greater rational understanding of the hard to understand, it is a very painful and real confusion that can cost one so much.
I like Piekoff but felt some anger and disillusion due to his attuide toward the mentally ill and treatment of this subject.
I've never been an objectivist, but I would say that when dealing with Peikoff and talks about psychology it's always good to remember that he's working with tools that are backwards by our standards today. What was understood about Schizophrenia back then is juvenile compared to what is used today. No one for instance, refers to "crazy" to describe mental illness anymore, not just because of sensitivity, but lack of precision.
This was the same dynamic when Rand read and honored past philosophers like Aristotle. She acknowledged they got things wrong, but in the context of his philosophy and the knowledge available at his time, he was worth of praise and adoration. So I would hesitate to allow yourself be disillusioned, sometimes even the brightest minds get things wrong. You take the good and get rid of the bad and improve on it in your own life, otherwise you can get seduced into dogma, like many Randians and are not better than them.
@@j2y2k3 > What was understood about Schizophrenia back then is juvenile compared to what is used today
Materialism is juvenile.
Thank you for that, sir.
He uses the term modernism, much more correctly, than Stephen Hicks does.
I have noticed that distinction between the two. However, Objectivits rarely ever mention Post Modernity to which Hicks uses to denote what Objectivits denote as the Modern.
@@Lindani_Mvano It's a testament to the difference between ARI vs Atlas Society. ARI sees itself primarily as a philosophical school and thus is more committed to philosophical issues, whereas the Atlas Society is more a political organization and is more interested in political allegiances.
The mathematician at 1:19:00 is probably following the formalism of David Hilbert (among others), and guess who they followed in turn? Hint: the initials are I.K.
The idea that mathematics is not real makes me cringe.
Modernism is the unreson in our time.
21:00
So... what about Postmodernism?
We have the metaverse now and the lunatics run the asylum
"There is no concern with values in a Hollywood obsessed by chase scenes, special effects, with or without dinosaurs as an end in itself"
Or trans pegging scenes as an end in itself
A survey of anti-essentialism and multi-perspectivism, among others. "Our reality includes our attempts to see it"
Joyless
Modern art began with the camera, the rival that could not be matched and had to be fled. All the talk of consciousness was a cover.
Cameras are naturalistic , not romantic. Modern art began w/the hatred of mind.
Sanni Epstein Correct. Intellectual modernism is unrelated to the beginnings of what we call 'modern' in painting (or architecture, for that matter). These were creative responses to the development of machine-age technologies and materials. European painters began to explore the character of the picture plane, to flatten and modulate space, to separate constituent colors on their canvas, to paint the light instead of shaded edges, to record experiential qualities of reality which photography could not. Early abstraction required a starting point, a subject. Likewise, the roots of modern architecture began growing long before the Bauhaus. And then a corrupted, brain-eaten culture also sought expression in the visual and physical arts, infecting and defiling them with its suicidal psychosis.
He has a great weird voice.
Roasting Modern Artists by Leonard Peikoff.. booh
the more I listen, the more I think about South Park
Or modern politics.
Calvin & Hobbes.
Wow, he sure knows a lot about something he knows nothing about.
It's not what you don't know that gets you into trouble, it's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
So does he know what he’s talking about or not? Your one statement alone shows more than anything you think you know or could ever try and show.
What if a Schizophrenic views a piece of modern art and feels what the artist felt when he created it? That communication means the art served it’s intended purpose and therefore has value. Warhol had a factory, people paid thousands for his screen prints. This man’s dismissal of an art form represents purely subjective thinking. He doesn’t like modern art, therefore it has no value. Utter garbage
The purpose of modern art is to attack reality, reason, man and happiness. This has no value for man, including, perhaps especially, schizophrenics.
Man needs to contemplate values, not the lack or hatred of values.
Modern art is meant to attack the mind of the viewer. That's it. No different than the military playing loud rock music outside an enemy camp or depriving a prisoner of sleep.
It basically thrives on the good nature of the public and the reputation of previous generations of artists.
I love how insanity has so little to hold onto but holds on so tight.
@@jacksonstone246 more like people hold onto it.
27:00