[OPAR Ch. 6, Ch. 7] 00:00 Disclaimer 1:31 Values and the Requirements of Life: Life as the Standard of Values Values: That which one acts to gain or keep. Virtues: The actions which lead to the achievement of values. 37:36 Rationality as the Primary Virtue 1:02:25 The Case for (Rational) Egoism 1:15:30 False Versions of Egoism (Irrational Egoism) 1. Egoism doesn't mean doing whatever you feel like doing. [Life is the standard of value; Man has a specific nature; Man requires a specific course of action to sustain life.] 2. Egoism doesn't mean acting on the range or spur of the moment, regardless of principles or consequences. [Human life is long-term, and as such actions should be good "for his life."] 3. Egoism is not Subjectivism. [Rational Values aren't at war with reality, they're based on reality. i.e Objective] 4. Egoism doesn't mean sacrificing others to oneself. ["I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." - Galt's Oath] 5. Egoism doesn't mean one can't love or care for others. [Love is a response to one's own values in the person of another. To say "I love you", one must first learn to say "I."] 6. Egoism isn't incompatible with helping others. [Find and create win-win interactions.] Read: The Ethics of Emergencies from The Virtue of Selfishness. 1:34:50 Egoism, Causality, and Duty 1:46:00 Question Period Context matters even in asking questions. 1:50:00 Relationship between Rationalists/Empiricists and Intrincists/Subjectivists 1:51:40 Difference between Skepticism and Agnosticism 1:53:07 Aristotle's usage of "essences" in regards to Universals, and comparison with the Objectivist view of universals. 1:57:20 Why should I live up to my potential? 2:00:08 Is it appropriate to day dream when working on something that doesn't require high mental focus? 2:04:40 How to combat Rationalism, from a psycho-epistemological point of view? 2:09:47 Can the process of evasion be stopped once it's initiated? Is there are point of no return? 2:11:45 Must a man, if he chooses to live, choose to live heroically explicitly? Or is this implicit? 2:13:06 How can man have no instinct? 2:17:00 Difference between illegal and immoral 2:19:42 Clarify: Evasion constitutes evasion of Reason. Comment on Socrates' claim that no man knowingly commits evil. 2:23:14 Difference between Egoist vs Egotist 2:23:50 Is the only cause of evasion the desire to avoid effort? 2:24:45 Why did you say Ayn Rand is the first thinker (in some context) in the "Western" world? 2:25:28 Ayn Rand discusses the Presidential Election
Aantekeningen: 0) 0:00 OPAR as a definitive statement of Objectivism & the justificiation for the publication of the outdated lectures 0) 1:27 Values and the Requirements of life - 1:45 Implementing one's view of man's nature and the universe - 2:18 The nature of morality/ethics - 2:41 The proper starting point of ethics: Questioning the need for values. a) (Why) does man need values at all? >>> Which values must man pursue? b) (For man) values aren't part of the given. - 3:17 The nature & metaphysical basis of' *values* ' a) *Value* : ''That which one acts to gain and/or keep.'' b) A *value* is the object of an action c) *Value* presupposes: 1. A valuer, - which is capable to: pursue a value i.e. generate action towards a goal - i.e. an organism 2. An alternative outcome (which requires action to be avoided) d) 'To value' doesn't presuppose free will e) The unaffected can never be a value - 6:41 The entities that qualify as valuers with an alternative a) Only organisms fulfill both conditions 1. Organisms embody self-generated and goal-directed/self-sustaining action. - It initiates, contrary to inanimate matter which is passive and indifferent to it's existence - Only goal-directed organisms which posess consciousness are purposive 9:19) 2. Only Organisms are confronted by a fundamental alternative in the face of which they must act - The only alternative*** pertains to organisms: Existence or nonexistence - Life is motion: Organisms must act according to their nature in order to exist - Self-preservation is acquired by using one's means of survival 11:37 b***) What is meant by fundamental alternative? - Fundamental: ''That on which everything on which everything in a given context depends.'' - No other value-generating alternatives would be possible, if life couldn't cease to exist. - Immortality would make the pursuit of values impossible (xxx) (, because there wouldn't be an alternative outcome.) 13:04 c) The example of the immortal robot - 16:26 The conclusion of meta-ethics a) ''It is only the concept 'life' that makes the concept of 'value' possible.'' b) The fact of living entities being able to perish, makes the pursuit of values possible and necessary (xxx) c) The proper standard for any code of values is life: it's the ultimate goal, end in itsself and term-setter - 17:36 Further disclaimers about Meta-ethics a) Life isn't just one amongst, or one as a means to, other values: it's the fundamental value b) The concept ''Value'' hierarchically depending on the concept ''Life'', made an objective proof for a standard of value possible. c) The use of the concept 'value', automatically implicates that life is the standard of value (xxx). - 20:39 The application of life as the standard of value a) Animals can't commit suicide. b) Man doesn't have a (preservational) instinct c) Sooooo, man needs knowledge (a moral code), in order to live - 23:26 Moral values presuppose: 1) Being accepted by choice 2) Being fundamental: Shaping the character and life course of man specialised values - 24:32 Man's need of a moral code: 1) To maintain non-contradition: Contradictions can't exist, nor be achieved 2) Using principles to remain conscious of behaviour being fundamentally pro-life 3) To act in consideration of the long-range - 27:18 Man's life (not any form of life) as the standard a) To live at any price, would be ignorant of man's nature - 28:23 Egoism as expressing the primacy of existence a) The precondition of man's survival requires a particular course of action b) A proper guide for this action is based on ethics c) Morality doesn't originate in the arbitrary content of any consciousness (personal, divine or social) - 30:42 The objectivity of values a) Intrincicism: The good exists apart from anyone's existence b) Subjectivism: The good is arbitrarily invented apart from existence c) Objectivism: The good depends both on the nature of reality and that of the valuer, as the true depends both on the nature of reality and the nature of the knower's consciousness d) Values are discovered based on the identification of reality, according to the rational standard of value - 37:16 On the is-ought problem a) Facts (of man's existence and values) lead to values
0) 37:34 Rationality as the primary virtue 0) 1:02:25 The case for egoism 0) 1:15:30 False versions of egoism 0) 1:34:52 Egoism, causality and duty 0) 1:46:00 Question Period - 1:46:59 On asking questions (summary at 1:49:14) - 1:49:54 What is the relation of empiricism and rationalism to the intrinsic-subjective dichotomy?
Evasion: Where is your proof that all phenomena in the universe are explainable by human reason? Let us reduce it if you do not like the idea of things like "amathematical" phenomena. Let us say "naked human reason" without AI tools which will be here in the near future, but are not here yet. Or even "your human reason" - that is, it is comprehensible by others, but not you, and it never will by you for some reason. This is easier, right? For these phenomena, you MUST evade, at the very least by trusting an authority but where nobody can grasp it, by just refusing to think about it. The phenomenon of God is like this and the nature of consciousness and many others.
Dr. Peikoff also states this here, most people do not EVADE on God, consciousness, etc., they REFUSE TO ACT UNTIL THE CRISIS IS RESOLVED. And it never is.
Indestructible Robot: what is this nonsense? Obviously, the Robot would then see the entire world as its playground and would act like a man playing a computer game. Children, who are not aware of their mortality that much, are like this. So would we be if the transhumanist dreams should come true. There are MANY things such a Robot would desire! Even if that Robot was merely invulnerable, and not omnipotent. Even if it was also omnipotent, the same would be true. Ayn Rand was a genius but showed lack of imagination in some fields, nontheles.
What a piece of mortalist bullshit, in other words. But luckily, Ayn Rand did NOT go to town with these types of anti-life ideas and is actually very pro-life, in the sense of "life should be long, we should prolong it if possible, we should increase our abilities" and so on. She was not a mortalist. This was just a blunder.
Explanation: Conflicts come from our dependence on our livelihoods and our actual place in the world, which others seek to take over, whether by means reasonable or otherwise, tricking us into a "voluntary" trade or by violence. No matter the means, lack is the cause of conflict and abundance, not reason, the answer. Reason can only observe the inevitable conflict and describe it or help you to defeat the other contestants.
Hours and hours and hours and hours of rambling nonsense. If I wanted to sit through nonsense like this this I could do it in a pretty church somewhere.
It is not nonsense, but it is not good philosophy either, it starts from too big assumptions. However, it is meant to be "philosophy for living in this world". And for 99 percent of situations, these broad strokes are sufficient to sufficiently comprehend it. So I am ambivalent to it. It is like 80 percent "mmm, okay", 10 percent "I don't think so but I understand" and 10 percent "CRINGE ALERT!!!!"
For instance "life is a fundamental value" and "what supports life is good, what hinders life is evil" are not bad ideas. "Man needs a code of values" is a smart idea. "Man's values must be non contradictory" and even 99 percent of the reasoning makes sense. Why plan long range: Identity! - also 99 percent acceptable in practice.
@@michalptacnik1 parasites are life, so by that idea, hindering parasites is evil. All this nonsense means whatever the person talking about it wants it to mean, it's not objective at all.
@@someonenotnoone Life is localized, so your life comes first from the premise that life is a fundamental value. You DO consider the parasite and you would support it on Mars where you would not be present. You would savagely pursue it if it pursues you. This actually makes sense and Miss Rand did understand it, as she is not against selfish behaviour. (writing it as I listen to this. If he talks about selfishness, I haven't yet heard it as this post is being written. But I heard from others that she is pro selfishness) For me, the most enlightening part of objectivism is the true notion that industry, in the broadest sense, has positive moral value. Make no mistake, objectivism is simplistic and not a great philosophy. I am saying the same as you elsewhere here. BUT it is not worthless or stupid. It is just not an academic discipline in philosophy. It is not on that level.
![Twenty One Pilots - The Line (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XCz7WUotXs8/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you for sharing this!!!
[OPAR Ch. 6, Ch. 7]
00:00 Disclaimer
1:31 Values and the Requirements of Life: Life as the Standard of Values
Values: That which one acts to gain or keep.
Virtues: The actions which lead to the achievement of values.
37:36 Rationality as the Primary Virtue
1:02:25 The Case for (Rational) Egoism
1:15:30 False Versions of Egoism (Irrational Egoism)
1. Egoism doesn't mean doing whatever you feel like doing. [Life is the standard of value; Man has a specific nature; Man requires a specific course of action to sustain life.]
2. Egoism doesn't mean acting on the range or spur of the moment, regardless of principles or consequences. [Human life is long-term, and as such actions should be good "for his life."]
3. Egoism is not Subjectivism. [Rational Values aren't at war with reality, they're based on reality. i.e Objective]
4. Egoism doesn't mean sacrificing others to oneself. ["I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." - Galt's Oath]
5. Egoism doesn't mean one can't love or care for others. [Love is a response to one's own values in the person of another. To say "I love you", one must first learn to say "I."]
6. Egoism isn't incompatible with helping others. [Find and create win-win interactions.] Read: The Ethics of Emergencies from The Virtue of Selfishness.
1:34:50 Egoism, Causality, and Duty
1:46:00 Question Period
Context matters even in asking questions.
1:50:00 Relationship between Rationalists/Empiricists and Intrincists/Subjectivists
1:51:40 Difference between Skepticism and Agnosticism
1:53:07 Aristotle's usage of "essences" in regards to Universals, and comparison with the Objectivist view of universals.
1:57:20 Why should I live up to my potential?
2:00:08 Is it appropriate to day dream when working on something that doesn't require high mental focus?
2:04:40 How to combat Rationalism, from a psycho-epistemological point of view?
2:09:47 Can the process of evasion be stopped once it's initiated? Is there are point of no return?
2:11:45 Must a man, if he chooses to live, choose to live heroically explicitly? Or is this implicit?
2:13:06 How can man have no instinct?
2:17:00 Difference between illegal and immoral
2:19:42 Clarify: Evasion constitutes evasion of Reason. Comment on Socrates' claim that no man knowingly commits evil.
2:23:14 Difference between Egoist vs Egotist
2:23:50 Is the only cause of evasion the desire to avoid effort?
2:24:45 Why did you say Ayn Rand is the first thinker (in some context) in the "Western" world?
2:25:28 Ayn Rand discusses the Presidential Election
Thank you so much Yash🙏. Can you please suggest any similar topics like objectivism ?
Thank you
Aantekeningen:
0) 0:00 OPAR as a definitive statement of Objectivism & the justificiation for the publication of the outdated lectures
0) 1:27 Values and the Requirements of life
- 1:45 Implementing one's view of man's nature and the universe
- 2:18 The nature of morality/ethics
- 2:41 The proper starting point of ethics: Questioning the need for values.
a) (Why) does man need values at all? >>> Which values must man pursue?
b) (For man) values aren't part of the given.
- 3:17 The nature & metaphysical basis of' *values* '
a) *Value* : ''That which one acts to gain and/or keep.''
b) A *value* is the object of an action
c) *Value* presupposes:
1. A valuer,
- which is capable to: pursue a value i.e. generate action towards a goal
- i.e. an organism
2. An alternative outcome (which requires action to be avoided)
d) 'To value' doesn't presuppose free will
e) The unaffected can never be a value
- 6:41 The entities that qualify as valuers with an alternative
a) Only organisms fulfill both conditions
1. Organisms embody self-generated and goal-directed/self-sustaining action.
- It initiates, contrary to inanimate matter which is passive and indifferent to it's existence
- Only goal-directed organisms which posess consciousness are purposive
9:19) 2. Only Organisms are confronted by a fundamental alternative in the face of which they must act
- The only alternative*** pertains to organisms: Existence or nonexistence
- Life is motion: Organisms must act according to their nature in order to exist
- Self-preservation is acquired by using one's means of survival
11:37 b***) What is meant by fundamental alternative?
- Fundamental: ''That on which everything on which everything in a given context depends.''
- No other value-generating alternatives would be possible, if life couldn't cease to exist.
- Immortality would make the pursuit of values impossible (xxx)
(, because there wouldn't be an alternative outcome.)
13:04 c) The example of the immortal robot
- 16:26 The conclusion of meta-ethics
a) ''It is only the concept 'life' that makes the concept of 'value' possible.''
b) The fact of living entities being able to perish, makes the pursuit of values possible and necessary (xxx)
c) The proper standard for any code of values is life: it's the ultimate goal, end in itsself and term-setter
- 17:36 Further disclaimers about Meta-ethics
a) Life isn't just one amongst, or one as a means to, other values: it's the fundamental value
b) The concept ''Value'' hierarchically depending on the concept ''Life'',
made an objective proof for a standard of value possible.
c) The use of the concept 'value', automatically implicates that life is the standard of value (xxx).
- 20:39 The application of life as the standard of value
a) Animals can't commit suicide.
b) Man doesn't have a (preservational) instinct
c) Sooooo, man needs knowledge (a moral code), in order to live
- 23:26 Moral values presuppose:
1) Being accepted by choice
2) Being fundamental: Shaping the character and life course of man specialised values
- 24:32 Man's need of a moral code:
1) To maintain non-contradition: Contradictions can't exist, nor be achieved
2) Using principles to remain conscious of behaviour being fundamentally pro-life
3) To act in consideration of the long-range
- 27:18 Man's life (not any form of life) as the standard
a) To live at any price, would be ignorant of man's nature
- 28:23 Egoism as expressing the primacy of existence
a) The precondition of man's survival requires a particular course of action
b) A proper guide for this action is based on ethics
c) Morality doesn't originate in the arbitrary content of any consciousness (personal, divine or social)
- 30:42 The objectivity of values
a) Intrincicism: The good exists apart from anyone's existence
b) Subjectivism: The good is arbitrarily invented apart from existence
c) Objectivism: The good depends both on the nature of reality and that of the valuer,
as the true depends both on the nature of reality and the nature of the knower's consciousness
d) Values are discovered based on the identification of reality, according to the rational standard of value
- 37:16 On the is-ought problem
a) Facts (of man's existence and values) lead to values
0) 37:34 Rationality as the primary virtue
0) 1:02:25 The case for egoism
0) 1:15:30 False versions of egoism
0) 1:34:52 Egoism, causality and duty
0) 1:46:00 Question Period
- 1:46:59 On asking questions (summary at 1:49:14)
- 1:49:54 What is the relation of empiricism and rationalism to the intrinsic-subjective dichotomy?
nice
Valor 3:34
Evasion: Where is your proof that all phenomena in the universe are explainable by human reason? Let us reduce it if you do not like the idea of things like "amathematical" phenomena. Let us say "naked human reason" without AI tools which will be here in the near future, but are not here yet. Or even "your human reason" - that is, it is comprehensible by others, but not you, and it never will by you for some reason. This is easier, right? For these phenomena, you MUST evade, at the very least by trusting an authority but where nobody can grasp it, by just refusing to think about it.
The phenomenon of God is like this and the nature of consciousness and many others.
Dr. Peikoff also states this here, most people do not EVADE on God, consciousness, etc., they REFUSE TO ACT UNTIL THE CRISIS IS RESOLVED. And it never is.
Indestructible Robot: what is this nonsense? Obviously, the Robot would then see the entire world as its playground and would act like a man playing a computer game. Children, who are not aware of their mortality that much, are like this. So would we be if the transhumanist dreams should come true. There are MANY things such a Robot would desire! Even if that Robot was merely invulnerable, and not omnipotent. Even if it was also omnipotent, the same would be true. Ayn Rand was a genius but showed lack of imagination in some fields, nontheles.
What a piece of mortalist bullshit, in other words. But luckily, Ayn Rand did NOT go to town with these types of anti-life ideas and is actually very pro-life, in the sense of "life should be long, we should prolong it if possible, we should increase our abilities" and so on. She was not a mortalist. This was just a blunder.
No conflicts amongst men of reason: Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Explanation: Conflicts come from our dependence on our livelihoods and our actual place in the world, which others seek to take over, whether by means reasonable or otherwise, tricking us into a "voluntary" trade or by violence. No matter the means, lack is the cause of conflict and abundance, not reason, the answer. Reason can only observe the inevitable conflict and describe it or help you to defeat the other contestants.
Hours and hours and hours and hours of rambling nonsense. If I wanted to sit through nonsense like this this I could do it in a pretty church somewhere.
It is not nonsense, but it is not good philosophy either, it starts from too big assumptions. However, it is meant to be "philosophy for living in this world". And for 99 percent of situations, these broad strokes are sufficient to sufficiently comprehend it. So I am ambivalent to it. It is like 80 percent "mmm, okay", 10 percent "I don't think so but I understand" and 10 percent "CRINGE ALERT!!!!"
For instance "life is a fundamental value" and "what supports life is good, what hinders life is evil" are not bad ideas. "Man needs a code of values" is a smart idea. "Man's values must be non contradictory" and even 99 percent of the reasoning makes sense. Why plan long range: Identity! - also 99 percent acceptable in practice.
@@michalptacnik1 parasites are alive, hindering parasites would then be evil. None of these are good ideas. They're all very confused ideas.
@@michalptacnik1 parasites are life, so by that idea, hindering parasites is evil. All this nonsense means whatever the person talking about it wants it to mean, it's not objective at all.
@@someonenotnoone Life is localized, so your life comes first from the premise that life is a fundamental value. You DO consider the parasite and you would support it on Mars where you would not be present. You would savagely pursue it if it pursues you. This actually makes sense and Miss Rand did understand it, as she is not against selfish behaviour. (writing it as I listen to this. If he talks about selfishness, I haven't yet heard it as this post is being written. But I heard from others that she is pro selfishness)
For me, the most enlightening part of objectivism is the true notion that industry, in the broadest sense, has positive moral value.
Make no mistake, objectivism is simplistic and not a great philosophy. I am saying the same as you elsewhere here. BUT it is not worthless or stupid. It is just not an academic discipline in philosophy. It is not on that level.