I was very glad to listen to this lecture back in the tape- transcription days of Peikoff's lectures. Now almost every lecture he's done is free on RUclips. Everyone should go through this course lecture for both the philosophic content and Peikoff's method of delivery.
I love how he says the primary purpose of proof is for yourself, your own certainty, not to convince others. that right there tells me I'm in the right place.
This is a clear sign of how objectivism is *NOT* like science. Objectivists want to feel correct. It doesn't matter to verify that out in the real world.
Its really interesting that after grasping certain basic things about objectivism and then thinking about things myself, I independently come to the same conclusions (although they are a bit less developed) as Peikoff and Rand.
There are QBists et al who do literally believe in the primacy of consciousness but "observation" outside of these paradigms is considered to be analogous to "interaction." Many theories that argue that gravity is not quantum in nature argue that gravity alone provides an "observation/collapse" mechanism independent of people or consciousness.
How can he say that primacy of consciousness is incompatible with the law of identity? It would just add a condition to changing the identity. Identities change even in a world with the primacy of existence. Btw. Of course you can coherently argue with the axiomes: you could have primacy of "super-existence", like, we live in a simulation. Or primacy of consciousness indeed. The most core of these axiomes would be consciousness (we know that existence of everything else is not axiomatic since Descartes), but we now have attempts to deny even "my consciousness" (because general consciousness is not axiomatic, only "my consciousness" is). Of course, for most practical purposes, these are musings of the ivory tower. However, if we are creating philosophy as opposed to "way how to interpret things which are mundane and normal", you need to deal with the ivory tower too. And this falls short or does not even attempt to do so.
Existence is the primary. Without existence, there would be nothing to be conscious of. Knowing requires a conscious entity with percepts to observe existence. Consciousness can not be the primary because consciousness must be conscious of someTHING. When saying, "it is." The fact that the thing IS is undeniable. It IS something. But the "IT" requires an understanding of the traits and characteristics of the thing or its IDENTITY. So when saying "It is," you're not determining what IT is just the fact that it IS.
I was very glad to listen to this lecture back in the tape- transcription days of Peikoff's lectures. Now almost every lecture he's done is free on RUclips. Everyone should go through this course lecture for both the philosophic content and Peikoff's method of delivery.
I love how he says the primary purpose of proof is for yourself, your own certainty, not to convince others. that right there tells me I'm in the right place.
The purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is actionable certainty for whoever's doing the learning.
Knowledge is a tool to be used for your rational self interest
@@havenbastion❤ Dredr de bf gk
This is a clear sign of how objectivism is *NOT* like science. Objectivists want to feel correct. It doesn't matter to verify that out in the real world.
Its really interesting that after grasping certain basic things about objectivism and then thinking about things myself, I independently come to the same conclusions (although they are a bit less developed) as Peikoff and Rand.
Esto debería ser enseñado a lo largo de la escuela primaria.
This is an extremely important lecture.
Thank you
This satement about not discussing with people who don't accept the basic axioms is so true. I should do that more 🤣🤣🤣
2:16:30 Questions on nature of cosmos/matter/time begin
2:22:40 Little Stuff mark
29:20
Reaffirmation through denial on the axioms
Listening to Leonard Peikoff debunk erroneous metaphysical ideas feels like what I imagine LSD must feel like.
More like coming back to reality AFTER an LSD trip, no?
@@davidste60
No I mean it stretches my mind in ways that I'm not accustomed to.
It definitely is a dopamine rush.
In quantum physics the observer comes first, does that not prove the primacy of consciousness?
There are QBists et al who do literally believe in the primacy of consciousness but "observation" outside of these paradigms is considered to be analogous to "interaction." Many theories that argue that gravity is not quantum in nature argue that gravity alone provides an "observation/collapse" mechanism independent of people or consciousness.
How can he say that primacy of consciousness is incompatible with the law of identity? It would just add a condition to changing the identity. Identities change even in a world with the primacy of existence.
Btw. Of course you can coherently argue with the axiomes: you could have primacy of "super-existence", like, we live in a simulation. Or primacy of consciousness indeed. The most core of these axiomes would be consciousness (we know that existence of everything else is not axiomatic since Descartes), but we now have attempts to deny even "my consciousness" (because general consciousness is not axiomatic, only "my consciousness" is).
Of course, for most practical purposes, these are musings of the ivory tower. However, if we are creating philosophy as opposed to "way how to interpret things which are mundane and normal", you need to deal with the ivory tower too. And this falls short or does not even attempt to do so.
Awareness is the Only constant of All experience what could be more fundamental to reality than that?
Experience requires consciousness, and consciousness requires existence. Reality/Existence does not require either.
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.
Experience isn’t fundamental to reality. Did you experience the creation of the universe?
Why do you make mistakes and why can’t we control the universe if awareness is reality like you’re saying
@@bretnetherton9273 has clearly not read the book by this speaker.
1:29
13:51
23:00
52:56
Subjectivists punching the air at this one
If existence exist as SOMETHING what is that something, and if existence exist as ALL THINGS what knows all things?
I guess as said in the video that the something is itself which is the sum of its attributes.
Existence is the primary. Without existence, there would be nothing to be conscious of. Knowing requires a conscious entity with percepts to observe existence.
Consciousness can not be the primary because consciousness must be conscious of someTHING.
When saying, "it is." The fact that the thing IS is undeniable. It IS something. But the "IT" requires an understanding of the traits and characteristics of the thing or its IDENTITY. So when saying "It is," you're not determining what IT is just the fact that it IS.
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.
Awareness appears as an existence in the form of finite perceptions.
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.
51:31 lmao objectivism rejects all of these virgins
Thank you