The Foundations of Objectivist Epistemology by Leonard Peikoff

The Philosophy of Objectivism by Leonard Peikoff - Lesson 3 of 12
Course playlist: • The Philosophy of Obje...
Leonard Peikoff discusses the foundations of the Objectivist theory of knowledge, including the relationship between consciousness and the law of identity, the validity of all forms of sense perception, and the objectivity of knowledge.
Recorded live before New York City audiences in 1976, this course was endorsed by Rand in print as “the only authorized presentation of the entire theoretical structure of Objectivism, i.e., the only one that I know of my own knowledge to be fully accurate.” Rand attended the entire course and participated in eight of the twelve question-and-answer sessions.
SUBSCRIBE TO NEW IDEAL, ARI'S ONLINE PUBLICATION
aynrand.us12.l...
SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S KZbin CHANNEL
www.youtube.co...
SUPPORT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE WITH A DONATION
ari.aynrand.or...
EXPLORE ARI
www.AynRand.org
FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER
/ aynrandinst
LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK
/ aynrandinstitute

[@ObjectiveZoomer]

Man, I've been having nightmares that I've been having to justify my life to Leonard peikoff lol

[@truthseeker3397]

So good.

[@dougpridgen9682]

I'm always striving to improve my knowledge and application of Objectivism. Let me know if you would like someone to discuss ideas with. I'm on Facebook.

[@Mr.Witness]

@@dougpridgen9682 i would like to take you up on that

[@gagebailey8342]

@@Mr.Witness yo can I get in on that?😂

[@yosefaldo5208]

I guess im asking the wrong place but does anybody know a tool to get back into an instagram account..? I was stupid forgot my account password. I love any assistance you can offer me.

[@marshallmohammad7308]

@Yosef Aldo instablaster =)

[@HAHAHAHAHA477]

2:05:25 method of Objectivity 2:09:48 Objectivist view on logic

[@someonenotnoone]

Skeptics do not argue no knowledge is possible. But suffice it to say that objectivism does not concern itself with objective quantification, and so it's understandable that a criticism over a *matter of degree of possible knowledge* turns into "knowledge isn't possible?" when an objectivist encounters it. Propositional logic has limits. Restricting yourself to such logic actually makes you less logical than people who consider higher order questions which can include concepts like "the degree to which."

[@justifiably_stupid4998]

Necessary course for anyone who wants to claim the title of philosopher.

[@GeorgWilde]

In the entire history, there are like 3 men who are (in maisnream) called philosophers and not complete lunatics. None of them is alive today. To be considered a philosopher today, you must be as anti common sense as possible. Thus philosophers must not watch this.

[@georgepantzikis7988]

@@GeorgWilde What are you on about? There are thousands of philosophers alive today.

[@YashArya01]

@@georgepantzikis7988 did you miss the qualifier "and not complete lunatics"?

[@georgepantzikis7988]

@@YashArya01 Ah of course, everyone is crazy except the enlightenment Objectivists. How could I have overlook such a simple fact.

[@YashArya01]

@@georgepantzikis7988 LOL that's not what I was saying, but skipping that does change the meaning of his sentence. Have you studied the History of Western Philosophy?

[@The_Schizoid_Man]

If choice is caused by our reasons, beliefs, and knowledge, and we get to choose which belief to be the cause, what caused *that* choice which caused which belief to be the cause of our choice?

[@jacksonstone246]

You know how to think but you don’t know how to Think. Looking at what exists is how you find the truth.

[@amitwadhwani2153]

Got an observation and a question. If I’m sitting in a room and I’m not focusing, I don’t hear things sometimes which tells me that sensory data might be coming in as a stream but I can select parts of it by the act of focusing. My question though is if I’m not focusing on it. Can the sensory data program my subconscious and show up in a dream? Or if I’m not selecting to focus on it then that stream of sensory data is not stored and just dropped.

[@BalugaWhale37]

Sensory data takes the form of perceptions. Those can be remembered, and they can appear in dreams. Focusing is involved in concept formation. You always drop some sensations since your mind can only hold and integrate a few things at a time. If someone throws 52 cards on the floor, you can only remember 7-8 of them. If you are driving down the freeway, you won't remember the license plate of the car you passed unless you direct your gaze to the plate.

[@jacksonstone246]

With your question I would say no if you aren’t focusing, you aren’t grasping concepts completely and therefore you can never integrate it and remember it from your subconscious. To remember how to play a song from memory on the violin takes a lot of repetition and making sure you are playing the right notes every time before it becomes muscle memory

[@Shunya_Advait]

🙏

[@YashArya01]

Resume 51:00

[@HAHAHAHAHA477]

19:28 Skepticism is not possible 24:22 Mysticism

[@luukzwart115]

1:29

[@luukzwart115]

29:00

[@luukzwart115]

21:00

[@luukzwart115]

35:00

[@luukzwart115]

45:00

[@luukzwart115]

56:00

[@ILikeMilk-es5ii]

Logic: the art of non-contradictory identification.

[@someonenotnoone]

A lack of contradictions doesn't make your premises true. Valid logic isn't necessarily sound.

[@ILikeMilk-es5ii]

@@someonenotnoone explain.

[@someonenotnoone]

@@ILikeMilk-es5ii Logic is meaningful to the extent the premises are true. It is not impossible to make baseless and incorrect assumptions that do not contradict each other, then reach some conclusion you would like through them. Such logic would be absent contradictions, but not true, because the premises are not true. Valid logic is not necessarily correct. Computer programmers experience this frequently - valid code compiles, but it does not necessarily give correct answers.

[@Kimani_White]

7:00 Consciousness doesn't just _identify,_ tho: it also _chooses._

[@bretnetherton9273]

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

[@AltumNovo]

There is no awareness without something external to be aware of

[@ymwo97679]

@@luizmonad777Again, you’re taking for granted the fact that consciousness is based on sensations. There is the awareness of sensations, perceptions and concepts, but that must mean there is an extern reality to sense, perceive, and conceive of. Reality itself is not a concept. Valid concepts presuppose reality. Invalid concepts presuppose consciousness as being primary to objective reality.

[@bretnetherton9273]

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

[@bretnetherton9273]

There is no duality. Reality by definition IS a tautology and can only be expressed gramatically as such i.e. awareness is known by awareness alone.

[@bretnetherton9273]

Awareness is known by awareness alone; is the sole irreducible axiom of reality. To put forth a syllable to the contrary is but to concede.

[@brettmiller7469]

Nope. Rand just didn't have the brain power to understand first: Alan guth: Due to Entropy, there's no free lunch. Hawking: The universe is the Ultimate free lunch. Objectivism, science, space, time, history, and reality as any human knowledge is 100% constructed by human imagination. This imagination structure (a fractal infinite superset) of the Universe. Is All That Isnt.

[@bradbecker8982]

If all humans died, existence would still be here. You’re leaping to wild conclusions. Would only be a matter of time before another consciousness like ours came about, if it doesn’t exist already. Maybe you missed the part of the lecture where Leonard said knowledge means knowledge of reality. A reality that exists whether you are alive or not. Don’t take your only life for granted.

[@ExistenceUniversity]

Clearly the universe was here before we were, so your claims are dead on contact with reality.

[@TyyylerDurden]

"Objectivism, science, space, time, history, and reality as any human knowledge is 100% constructed by human imagination." Oh my... How did we get so far to be total morons?

[@RashadSaleh92]

Please state your IQ. Also please describe your visual appearance so we can examine if you have any deficiencies there we should also comment about.

[@donald1292]

If everything is imagination so that includes you yourself and your own statement, therefore I can happily dismiss your claims because they're based on nothing whichever. A classic exemple of the fallacy of self exclusion as identified by Ayn Rand