The Objectivist Conception of Rationality, Certainty and Free Will by Leonard Peikoff

The Philosophy of Objectivism by Leonard Peikoff - Lesson 6 of 12

Leonard Peikoff discusses the nature of rationality and certainty, and the errors of rationalism, skepticism and emotionalism. Peikoff explains why the choice to use (or misuse or ignore) one’s conceptual faculty shapes one’s values, emotions and actions, such that man is indeed “a being of self-made soul.”

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

SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL

SUPPORT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE WITH A DONATION

EXPLORE ARI

FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER

LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK

[luukzwart]

6:45 What is the essential difference between knowledge and truth or are these concepts synonymous?

'''Zekerheden'' blijven onzeker, omdat onvoorziene factoren tegengesteld kunnen zijn aan de gemaakte generalisaties. Directe observatie is daarmee wel betrouwbaar, maar extrapolatie/geralisatie zal altijd een vlaag onzekerheid met zich meebrengen.

11:30

[contemplativepursuits]

Though I don't agree with all the views expressed in the lecture but I must admit that Leonard Peikoff has remarkably presented his ideas. His power of articulation is simple and profound. There's much to learn about philosophical issues and epistemology here. Thanks for uploading this.

[quad]

Lmao, propositions that have no epistemic-basis to them have no cognitive meaning to them?
So if I do not have enough epistemic basis to conclude one way or the other, then there is no truth-value to the proposition 'there are an even number of hairs on my head'. I thought a proposition is true insofar as it corresponds with reality.
Which one is it? Is a claim true because I have the proper epistemic justification for making the claim, or because it corresponds with reality?