The Objectivist Theory of Concepts as Objective, Knowledge as Contextual, Hierarchical by L. Peikoff

The Philosophy of Objectivism by Leonard Peikoff - Lesson 5 of 12

Leonard Peikoff explains why conceptual knowledge is both contextual and hierarchical, and why it is crucially important to integrate one’s knowledge into a consistent whole. Peikoff also discusses common errors in conceptualization, including “stolen concepts,” invalid concepts and anti-concepts.

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

[YashArya]

[OPAR 3.5] 1:45 CONCEPTS AS DEVICES TO ACHIEVE UNIT-ECONOMY

[OPAR 4.1] 13:50 CONCEPTS ARE OBJECTIVE
14:20 Concepts are neither Intrinsic, nor Subjective, but rather Objective.
Here we contrast the Objectivist view with the 3 main contrasting theories on the nature of Universals: Platonic Realism, Aristotelian Realism, Nominalism

Intrinsic View
15:05 Plato - Concepts refer to floating other-worldly abstractions that exist in a separate non-material dimension, which would continue to exist even if all the particular concretes in this dimension cease to exist. In this way, universals are Intrinsic, independent of any consciousness. After you've gotten used to this material reality, the light from these universals automatically streams in on you. Plato makes Conceptualization a mystical and passive process.

16:40 Aristotle - Each entity in this world is made up of two ingredients - the universal and the particular. The particular element is what's unique to each individual. Universals are literally, metaphysically, a part of the individual entities. Again, you perceive these universals ultimately by passively gazing at the entities. While less crude than Plato, this view is also Intrinsic.

Subjective View
18:45 As against Plato/Aristotle, there is the Skeptic's view of Nominalism which states that there are no universals. There is nothing in reality that is common to all entities. A concept is simply a name to designate an arbitrary human grouping of concretes on the basis of rough similarity. Concepts are subjective.

So the historical alternatives are: Conception as a phenomena of existence independent of consciousness (Intrinsic), or of consciousness independent of existence (Subjective).

21:45 Objectivist View
Concepts are a product of a relationship between a consciousness of a certain kind AND existence. They are products of a man's form of cognition which operates on the facts of reality, and must be dictated in each step by the facts of reality. Conception is not a process of passive gazing, but requires active mental work in classifying entities based on their real characteristics.

You will see the implications of this view of concepts everywhere. As an example, in the view of whether definitions are simply subjective/arbitrary or objective.

[OPAR 4.3] 28:40 KNOWLEDGE IS CONTEXTUAL
55:45 Spiral Approach to Knowledge (Not covered in OPAR, but I found it invaluable!)

[OPAR 4.4] 1:04:20 KNOWLEDGE IS HIERARCHICAL

1:33:10 Stolen Concept and other Hierarchy Violations
Accepting a proposition while ignoring/denying one or more of the concepts it logically depends on.
E.g. Logic is Arbitrary - makes the concept of arbitrary meaningless.

1:38:20 Invalid Concept
A concept divorced by it's nature from reality. Inherently based on a falsehood. E.g. a ghost, God, etc.

Any such concept invalidates the process of thought in any proposition in which it's used. It's okay to use it in fictional descriptions.

The test of an invalid concept is one that can't be "reduced" back to sense perception.

1:41:37 An anti-concept (subtype of an invalid concept)
Deliberate equivocation for the purposes of destroying a valid concept. These anti-concepts may be widely used but be invalid concepts.

1:42:48 Rand's Razor
1. Concepts aren't to be multiplied beyond necessity (for details refer ITOE).
2. Name your starting point, and defend it as a valid starting point. (Since knowledge is hierarchical, don't begin at random with any topic that interests you without validating the concepts it depends on.)

1:46:00 E.g: How can I be sure of an external reality?

1:49:50 Rand's Razor "Name your Primaries" is the exact opposite of the General Semantics approach "start where the last generation left off." This is precisely why the history of philosophy compounds errors over errors.

1:51:30 QUESTION PERIOD
In what sense is conceptual knowledge implicit?
1:57:50 Regarding Free Will: Can your values influence your choice to focus or not?
2:0040 Free Will: Clarify the difference between primary choice (to focus or not) and subsequent higher level choices.
2:04:00 Difference between CCD and Genus (or distinguishing characteristic and differentia).
2:05:30 difference between essential and distinguishing characteristics
2:05:55 How to resolve arguments over definitions? (Argument over which units the word subsumes vs what are the essentials characteristics of those units? I.e semantic vs philosophical.)
2:08:35 Clarification on the metaphysical status of concepts?
2:10:40 Ayn Rand in the question period! :)
2:12:10 Ayn Rand discusses the philosophical implications of a question related to a American political event in 1970s.
2:26:26 (Super important!) Interest in Philosophy may start in the opposite direction (Politics/Ethics first) than the hierarchical start of philosophy (metaphysics and epistemology first).
2:29:15 Clarification regarding the reduction of the concept friend
2:30:10 If all knowledge builds on previous knowledge, how can one be born tabula rasa and get to know the first thing?
2:32:40 how can you grasp the concept of a table purely on the basis of it's structure, without being aware of the human purpose?
2:35:08 Address an argument against the objectivity of concepts
2:37:20 validation of crow epistemology
2:37:55 Can a concept as such be right or wrong? If not, then if a person thinks man is a conditioned animal, does that mean he doesn't have a concept of man or has an invalid concept of man?
2:40:30 couldn't someone have a concept of friend without understanding everything it depends on?
2:42:18 As a nominalist how do you decide the basis on which to classify units?

[someonenotnoone]

"the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences" shows how the concepts of mathematics can be applied to the real world with great utility. Why should I treat objectivism as even remotely on solid grounding if it doesn't have anything similar? Why is objectivism only good for making people justified, and not doing anything practical?

[GeorgWilde]

It is goal of mathematics to build internally consistent concepts which are divorced from any context to the reality as much as possible. So mathematics is invalid unless it is applied by your episetmology?