The Objectivism Seminar just wrapped up its intensive tour of Dr. Leonard Peikoff’s seminal book, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. It was great!

We got to chew on the entire system and its distinctive methodology in the course of some 53(!) sessions, going section by section from metaphysics to esthetics. Some of the participants already had a decade or three of study under their belts, while others were brand new — but we all came away with a more grounded, integrated understanding relative to where we started (that whole “spiral theory of learning” thing :^).
The recordings are available for anyone who wants to join in after the fact — just visit The Objectivism Seminar’s page at TalkShoe to listen or subscribe to the podcasts.
But it’s much better to actually be a part of the conversation, so please join in on our next adventure: Dr. Peikoff’s other book, The Ominous Parallels! It seems so fitting with our current political trajectory and speed.
Is the freest country on earth moving toward totalitarian dictatorship? What were the factors that enabled the Nazis to seize power in pre-war Germany? Do those same conditions exist in America today?

These are the questions raised — and answered, with frightening clarity — by Leonard Peikoff, Ayn Rand’s intellectual heir, in his powerful book The Ominous Parallels.

“We are drifting to the future, not moving purposefully,” Peikoff warns. “But we are drifting as Germany moved, in the same direction, for the same kind of reason.”

The first session will be in about two weeks (September 7), so you have plenty of time to order your copy and be ready to bring your knowledge and questions to the conversation! This isn’t as technical a work as Objectivism, so we’re planning on moving at the rate of about a chapter each week or two. Please visit www.ObjectivismSeminar.com for more information.

Hope you can join in!
Greg

Apr 292009
 

In anticipation of the nationwide April 15 Tea Parties, FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine) offered free copies of Dr. Leonard Peikoff’s “Health Care is Not a Right” brochures to Objectivists to distribute at their local Tea Parties. Based on feedback from around the country, these were popular items.

I’ve since received multiple requests for more brochures, but unfortunately I’ve given them all away.

However, Tod (the original designer of the brochure) has created a nicely-formatted PDF version of Dr. Peikoff’s essay. Now anyone can download and print out copies to give out at future Tea Parties, community events, etc.

The link to this version, as well as to other OpEds and essays can be found at the main FIRM webpage.

BTW, Tod is also the creator of the Objectivist greeting cards, including the popular alternative Dec 25 “Newton Cards“.

Thanks again to everyone who helped spread Dr. Peikoff’s essay last week!

Apr 082009
 

Right around the time of the CU Boulder “Think!” debate on Ayn Rand’s ethics between Onkar Ghate and Mike Huemer, I listened to a very interesting discussion of the obligation to offer minimal aid to a person in distress in one of Leonard Peikoff’s podcasts.

Kevin McAllister — of the blog Logical Disconnect — was kind enough to transcribe the question and answer for me. Here it is:

Episode 41: 10:25 – 11:37

Q: Am I morally obligated to call for help if I see someone in a car accident or experiencing a heart attack?

This is obviously from someone who does not know what the Objectivist view of selfishness is. Absolutely yes, you are morally obligated. If you have chosen to live in a society of human beings and your mode of survival depends on your trade with them then you have to value human life so far as it’s not guilty or criminal to your knowledge. In that case if you know no evil about a person and no sacrifice is involved then only a psychopath would turn away from such cases. And that would mean besides all the psychological things a direct contradiction of the value of human life. You can’t value your life and decide to live with others of your species and say, “They’re nothing to me, I don’t care if they live or die.” That’s self-contradiction.

Dr. Peikoff’s analysis is substantially Aristotelian, I think. (That’s a compliment, in this context: Aristotle’s moral psychology is superb.) It’s not a cost-benefit analysis: the point is not that the person might reward you with cash, that he might be a talented neurosurgeon who might someday save the life of your dear mother, that he might invent some widget that you’d like to buy, or whatnot. Rather, Dr. Peikoff focuses on the kinds of attitudes and dispositions toward other people required to live and live well among other men. That’s the right approach to these kinds of cases, I think.

Kevin also transcribed the relevant portion from another of Dr. Peikoff’s podcasts — one I’ve not yet heard — on the validity of “lifeboat” scenarios in ethics:

Episode 48: 12:30 – 15:48

Okay, do you know what a lifeboat question is? You know, what do you do when there [are] more people in the lifeboat then there is food and someone has to die, what does Objectivism say? And why those questions are completely illegitimate, because morality is for the circumstances when it is possible for men to coexist. If they can’t, then you can’t have any morality.

Now, this is a lifeboat question, which I normally wouldn’t answer but it’s from a high school student from another continent. So I’ll read it. This is a really… Okay I won’t comment, just listen.

He made this up, it’s not true: My wife is extremely sick she is my greatest value, but she will die in 24 hours if I do not acquire a certain medicine for her. I leave the house and go to the pharmacy and find out that the last bottle of medicine has been sold to the man in front of me. There is no other place I can get this medicine. By coincidence the man who purchased the medicine is walking home in front of me. I approach the man and explain to him my situation and request that he give me the medicine. However, he says no, as his wife is in the same situation as mine. He turns around and continues to walk away. I know that if I wanted to I could easily overpower this man and steal the medicine. Now my question is, what is the moral thing to do?

Now, I’d like to know some things about the realistic possibility of this example. For instance, she is only going to live for 24 hours. Who long did you know that? Who told you? And why did you wait? How many other pharmacies have you tried? How many websites? Did you try the manufacturer? I mean this whole thing, point after point, is a completely unreal situation. You are just setting up, two men, for no reason, with no plausibility, want the same thing desperately, should they kill each other? Without the faintest expectation… at least in the life boat, you know that they’re there you know and … but here, there is no reason at all. So, what you have to do, before you ask moral questions, is figure out are they realistic, and what should the characters in them have done, what could have done that would have eviscerated and wiped out the very possibility of the situation.

Notably, Objectivism does not oppose reasoning from lifeboat scenarios in ethics merely because a person is unlikely to ever encounter such circumstances in his lifetime. I’m very unlikely to ever be propositioned with large sums of money by a student seeking an undeserved grade, yet we can certainly say that my accepting that offer would be grossly immoral.

Rather, as can be seen from Dr. Peikoff’s remarks, the problem with “lifeboat ethics” is that the proposed scenarios are concocted so as to produce irresolvable conflicts between people. By various artificial constraints, they make life in society impossible. They preclude any rational solutions to the problem at hand. Is it then any wonder that the results are unseemly? Of course not.

The simple fact is that lifeboat scenarios do not reflect the most basic facts about human nature, namely our distinctively human methods of producing and trading the values required to sustain life. Consequently, moral principles cannot be applied to such scenarios, nor induced from them.

Asking the Right Question

 Posted by on 2 March 2009 at 12:08 am  Epistemology, Humor, Leonard Peikoff
Mar 022009
 

   


That’s great! Unfortunately, it is hilarious because what it refers to is so widespread.

The lesson to be taken from this “sign of insanity” is a key epistemological principle in Objectivism: that arbitrary notions — ideas with no basis in reality — must be rejected if you want your mind to actually be useful in pursuing life here on earth.

A familiar application can be seen in our justice system: When someone brings a baseless charge before a court, it is rightly dismissed as beneath consideration (and could even earn penalties for wasting the court’s time). Chaos would reign if this were not the standing practice, with spurious claims sapping precious resources and inviting injustice. Well, the same should hold in the fact-finding forum of your own mind: if someone brings a baseless idea before a rational mind, it ought to be dismissed as beneath consideration or argument — as “not even wrong.”

As Leonard Peikoff discussed in his lecture series presenting “The Philosophy of Objectivism”:

An arbitrary claim has no cognitive status whatever. According to Objectivism, such a claim is not to be regarded as true or as false. If it is arbitrary, it is entitled to no epistemological assessment at all; it is simply to be dismissed as though it hadn’t come up … The truth is established by reference to a body of evidence and within a context; the false is pronounced false because it contradicts the evidence. The arbitrary, however, has no relation to evidence, facts, or context. It is the human equivalent of [noises produced by] a parrot … sounds without any tie to reality, without content or significance.

In a sense, therefore, the arbitrary is even worse than the false. The false at least has a relation (albeit a negative one) to reality; it has reached the field of human cognition, although it represents an error — but in that sense it is closer to reality than the brazenly arbitrary.

It is not your responsibility to refute someone’s arbitrary assertion — to try to find or imagine arguments that will show that his assertion is false. It is a fundamental error on your part even to try to do this. The rational procedure in regard to an arbitrary assertion is to dismiss it out of hand, merely identifying it as arbitrary, and as such inadmissible and undiscussable.

This can be a subtle and tricky topic, and gaining clarity on it represents an important mental upgrade. For further exploration I recommend Peikoff’s excellent book, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, where he reorganized, systematized, and strengthened the material of those lectures.

[HT: Pharyngula]

Dr. Peikoff on iTunes

 Posted by on 28 July 2008 at 12:46 pm  Announcements, Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism
Jul 282008
 

Leonard Peikoff’s wonderful podcasts are now available via subscription from iTunes, thanks to some help from Arthur Lechtholz-Zey, a regular guest on the TalkObjectivism podcast.

 

Just a reminder that The Objectivism Seminar will be resuming its tour of Dr. Leonard Peikoff’s seminal book, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. We’re about to begin Chapter 2, so if you aren’t already participating, now is a great time to catch up and join in!

(From last time:)

Veteran or newbie, fan or critic, here’s your chance to enjoy a real upgrade to your personal understanding of Rand’s philosophy, your ability to live like ideas matter, and your facility in helping change our culture for the better!

I have to say that I’m really pleased with how our new meeting format is shaping up. Everyone seems to be growing and sharpening their understanding — newer and more experienced students of the philosophy alike. Basically, we have been discussing just one section of the book each week (maybe 5-15 pages of reading), and then working over the material from several angles in discussion. Each meeting runs for about an hour and a half, and if you want to see (hear) what it is like, just visit the Objectivism Seminar’s page at TalkShoe to listen or even subscribe to the podcasts for past sessions.

If you want to jump in, now is a great time: all you have to do is read Chapter 1, hopefully listen to the podcasts of the sessions for it, read at least the first section of Chapter 2, and show up for the next session this Sunday!

Jul 102008
 

Veteran or newbie, fan or critic, here’s your chance to enjoy a real upgrade to your personal understanding of Rand’s philosophy, your ability to live like ideas matter, and your facility in helping change our culture for the better!

The Objectivism Seminar is currently working its way through Dr. Leonard Peikoff’s seminal book, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. After wrapping up Chapter 1, we took a little break for OCON and assorted schedule interference, so now is a great time to catch up and jump in! Our next session will be Sunday July 27, 7:30pm Mountain.

I have to say that I’m really pleased with how our new meeting format is shaping up. Everyone seems to be growing and sharpening their understanding — newer and more experienced students of the philosophy alike. Basically, we have been discussing just one section of the book each week (maybe 5-15 pages of reading), and then working over the material from several angles in discussion. Each meeting runs for about an hour and a half, and if you want to see (hear) what it is like, just visit the Objectivism Seminar’s page at TalkShoe to listen or even subscribe to the podcasts for past sessions.

If you want to jump in, now is a great time: all you have to do is read Chapter 1, hopefully listen to the podcasts of the sessions for it, read at least the first section of Chapter 2, and show up for the next session in a couple of weeks!

Jul 082008
 

Leonard Peikoff is selling his used Baldwin Baby Grand Piano with bench on EBay. According to the listing, “Peikoff says he bought the piano in 1966 and it was about 10 years old at that time. It’s been tuned more or less regularly over the years, but probably will need reconditioning.” The hitch is that you’d need to pick it up in Colorado Springs by Friday — or arrange for piano movers to do so, I suppose.

Jul 032008
 

As many readers know, Dr. Leonard Peikoff gave a special Q&A session for attendees of OCON 2008 on July 2, 2008. I’ve chosen to summarize a few selected questions, not necessarily in the order that they were asked. These are paraphrases from my notes and not verbatim quotes, so any errors or inadvertent inaccuracies are purely my own, not his. He took a mixture of nearly 40 written and spoken questions. The session lasted 90 minutes, with a 5 minute intermission halfway through.

He and the ARI established a few ground rules ahead of time. In particular, he stated that he wouldn’t comment on the 2008 Presidential election. He also gave an update on the status of his forthcoming book on the DIM hypothesis as well as his podcasting activities. Overall, he was in an cheerful benevolent mood, and there were many touches of humor that I can’t easily capture in this blog post. His mind was razor sharp, and it was good to see him at his best.

I don’t know if an audio recording of this session will be subsequently released as a CD from the Ayn Rand Bookstore or on his podcast. If I learn more, I’ll post an update.

My own comments will be in square brackets (“[]“).

=====

Book update: The book is going both “badly” and well. It is going “badly” in the sense that he has completed a preliminary draft of the entire book, but now has to do a lot of heavy editing of the earlier chapters.

It is going well in the sense that he is now fully convinced of the correctness of his DIM hypothesis, based on the research he has done. And he is enjoying the writing process and is happy with the quality of the work. The book should be completed by Christmas 2010 at the very latest.

Podcast update: He enjoys doing the podcast tremendously. He is pleased with the quality of the questions and believes that the questions submitted are of better quality than in the past. He is also happy with the improved audio quality. He hopes that his answers are spurring his listeners to pursue some of these ideas in greater depth by looking for more information in the rest of the Objectivist literature. Also, he finds the podcasting to be a nice break from his book writing.

The podcasts will now be available on iTunes, which any users can subscribe to for free!

[I think this is terrific news, since this will make it easier to transfer files back and forth from my iPod, rather than having to do the downloads through the Peikoff.com website.]

Q) What philosophical or cultural trend is the most dangerous?

A) Religion.

Q) Will the rise of environmentalism and the subsequent loss of freedoms bring us to a society like that portrayed in Anthem?

A) Yes and no. Environmentalism does pose a danger to our freedoms. But the society depicted in Anthem is a fictional one which projects the idea of collectivism in its purest form. In our case, he believes that a different bad outcome would be more likely — one in which we are ruled by a Pope rather than a “Council of Scholars”.

Q) Who are the “low hanging fruit” most likely to be receptive to Objectivist ideas, i.e., the best targets to reach?

A) In his experience, young people between ages 17-29. Before age 17, they are generally too young and not ready to digest these ideas. After age 30, they are more likely to stop thinking as they will have finished deciding their basic values. With respect to specific professions, he’s noticed that engineers, computer people, and doctors seem to be disproportionately represented in Objectivist circles.

Q) What are your favorite artworks in the following specific categories — novel, play, painting, sculpture, and song?

A) His favorites are:

Novel – Atlas Shrugged
Play – Cyrano de Bergerac
Painting – The Creation of Adam (Michelangelo)
Sculpture – The Dying Slave (Michelangelo)
Song – He doesn’t know which is his favorite, but it’s not “God Save the King” (the first song title that popped into his head when he heard the question).

Q) As a gay Objectivist, there seem to be a disproportionate number of other gays in the Objectivist community relative to the population at large. Is there an explanation for this?

A) “Is that a problem?” [Lots of laughter, and the questioner said, no that wasn't a problem at all for him.] Basically, it’s hard to know if there actually is over-representation or under-representation given the small numbers. Perhaps if there were 20 million Objectivists we could ask the question and attempt an answer. But the numbers are currently too small to attempt to answer this question or even to know if the premise is true.

Q) Is there a proper role for government in environmental issues where there are collective action questions — for instance, issue of pollution where no single source causes a provable harm, but the aggregate of millions of polluters is a source of harm?

A) If a single polluter can be shown to be the cause of a provable harm to another, then this should be addressed through the courts — i.e., the polluter can be sued for damages.

On the other hand, in the cases where an industrial society inherently generates in aggregate a level of pollution that may cause harm, but no single individual’s pollution is a provable source of harm, then there is no role for government intervention. A person can’t take the benefits of living in an industrial society (such as advanced medical technology that lets people to live to age 75 rather than dying at age 25), then also complain that the government should stop the Los Angeles smog that causes his eyes to water.

If you don’t want to live in LA, then the proper response is to move away, not ask the government to impose environmental regulations.

[Obviously this opens up a number of interesting secondary issues, but he did not pursue this further.]

Q) Is the word “Shrugged” in “Atlas Shrugged” a verb or an adjective?

A) It’s a verb. “I can’t imagine a sentence in which ‘shrugged’ would be used an adjective.”

Q) Is it legitimate for a person to make a career of theoretical science, without regard to practical application? Or must there be some attempt at application for this to be a legitimate activity?

A) As an individual scientist, this can be a totally legitimate activity. This can be part of a division of labor where someone pursues advances in theory without necessarily concerning himself with how it can be applied, whereas others use their minds to develop applications.

In a free society, someone concerned purely with theory might find it difficult to obtain funding, since most businesses would want to pay for research with some eventual practical applications. But if he had his own source of private funding or if that was how the division of labor was made, then this is fine.

From the perspective of man as such, it is not a legitimate endeavour to pursue pure theory without regard for any practical application that would benefit man’s life in some way. But from the perspective of the individual scientist, a division of labor into theoreticians vs. applied scientists can be entirely legitimate.

Q) What is your favorite episode of The Twilight Zone?

A) The episode “A Nice Place to Visit“, because of the deep philosophical content presented in an engaging way accessible to all viewers. He also likes the Twilight Zone series as a whole due to the good dialogue and characterizations, as well as brilliant plot twists.

[Larry Salzman notes that the full 30-minute episode can be found here on the CBS website. Thanks, Larry!]

Q) Do you have any advice on how to achieve cultural change for the better?

A) Nothing more than Ayn Rand has already said in her essay, “What Can One Do?”. Namely, to write, speak out and advocate good ideas in the appropriate contexts.

 

The Objectivism Seminar will begin going through Leonard Peikoff’s book, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand this coming Sunday. If you are new to Ayn Rand’s ideas, I encourage you to join us!

From the original announcement:

Whether you are new to Rand or a veteran student of Objectivism, our sessions will be valuable to you: we’ll go through the entire system, with the experienced folks refining their understanding and ability to articulate and apply the ideas, while the newer folks grapple with the ideas and ask all the right questions. So please don’t be shy about jumping in — the reading and meeting load is light, and you’ll be working with a great group of people!

We’ll begin the weekly sessions for OPAR on Sunday May 18, 7:30pm Mountain time, reviewing and discussing two or three sections per meeting. I’ll almost always be moderating to keep us on track. And as we go, each section will have two volunteers at the helm of the discussion (maybe you!): one reviewing the material, and one playing Devil’s Advocate to stimulate productive engagement. Everyone else can join in as desired to flesh out our picture of important elements and connections, explanations and applications, and to bring questions and concerns for us all to grapple with.

For more information, please visit the www.ObjectivismSeminar.com site!

Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha