A:  The proper code of abstract values for man is defined by philosophical ethics. But, as you imply, an individual’s happiness requires that he choose his specific, personal variant of these values and then pursue that. And of all such choices, the most important, which is the necessary precondition of all the others, is the choice of career (which is not of value only for livelihood). If you find and pursue a career that is of great personal meaning to you, that will be the base of your happiness and the means of discovering personal values in social relationships and in all other realms. (For further discussion, see OPAR.)

There is no formula, however, by which to find the personally fulfilling career, the one which is right for you. Some people know their passion early in youth—e.g., Ayn Rand and Howard Roark. Some people need many more years, as I did. Some (honest) people search, but never do find it.

I think you have two options at this point:

1. Define as specifically as you can any aspect of life or the world in which you are interested—medicine, soccer, color, stars, gardening, whatever. If it is a real interest of yours, not yet a career passion but something that does involve and absorb you now and then; and if you have no other competing interests of similar strength, then my advice is to commit to that one as a career. Learn, continually expand your ability, start accomplishing something in the field that makes you feel efficacious, proud, happy; which will be the motor propelling you to greater heights in the field and a greater sense of fulfillment. Once a man becomes good at something, he starts to like it, and that makes him want to get even better at it, etc. This is one path: a “mere interest” can be developed across time into a highly pleasurable life.

2. If you can find no such interest and are completely at sea, but actually do want a career, then I would advise you simply to jump in anywhere; pick anything practicable, at least minimally so, on any simple grounds such as money, location, employer, etc. If you pick something you don’t mind or at least don’t hate and you work at it as above, I think your chances are reasonable, though not great, of turning it eventually into a real career.

---

 

Posted May 14, 2007

Q:  During the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech College, there was a professor, a holocaust survivor, who blocked a door against the shooter so that his students could escape safely. And although he died in the process, the students did escape. Is this an act of altruism that Objectivism classifies as immoral?

A:  No. As you present it, it was a heroic act in defense of the professor’s values.

Assuming a professor does not have reason to despise his students, then they are a value to him. He is the adult who has chosen to take these youngsters in hand, to help increase their knowledge and develop their minds, and thereby to guide and safeguard their young lives. It is virtually implicit in this task that, in any professional context, and where possible, he care about his students, and act to preserve them from physical harm. A professor passionate about the intellectual life of his students, but unconcerned with their physical survival in his classroom has a real problem.

By contrast, and assuming no special personal attachments among the students, if one student decided to risk his life to save the others, I would regard that as highly dubious morally; in fact, I would think him weird. If he has no grounds, personal or professional, to value the lives of these students so highly as to risk self-destruction, then, according to Objectivism, his action is altruistic and, as such, immoral.

As always, in these situations, the risk factor enters. No matter how dedicated the professor, he should not expose himself to what he knows is certain death to save his students. He must always remember that his life, properly, is the standard of his values, and that he can take professionally-related risks, even grave ones, only in the name of preserving his values and thus (selfishly) furthering his life.

It follows from the foregoing that there was no a priori obligation on the part of the professor to act as he did. Only he can judge instantaneously the net sum of the value and danger involved.

---

Q:  Is the use of fake identities by illegal immigrants moral? On one hand it strikes me as an initiation of force by the illegals against their employers. On the other hand, I can't condemn them for it since otherwise it might mean going back to their home country, which will be very harmful to their self-interest.

A:  Since most employers are eager to hire illegals, being unable to find equivalent American workers at so comparatively low a salary, one can hardly raise as an issue that the employer is the victim of force by the illegals. The real force in this situation is directed at the employer by the government, who forbids him to hire illegals regardless of his own judgment. If an employer does actually care about this issue, it is relatively easy for him to distinguish forged from authentic papers. Most employers make no attempt to do so, except to have the documents necessary to protect themselves from the government if and when they are raided. In most cases, it is the work that concerns an employer, not the paper issued by bureaucrats.

Having said that, I cannot carry it to the point of counseling the forging of documents by anyone. In the 60s, Ayn Rand was often asked whether it is moral to evade the draft, even when legally compelled to join the military. Her answer was that she could not answer, because a citizen of a country is not allowed to advocate disobedience to the law. Of course, this applies only to a free country, not to a dictatorship. In a free country, the proper procedure is to obey the law, even if one disagrees with it, while agitating for its repeal.

For the same reason, I cannot answer the question about the propriety of forging identities for illegals.

I grant you fully that in today’s “mixed” state, there are a great many cases in which a rational person is understandably disgusted with the laws under which he must live. But these cases must be dealt with by each individual, according to his rational hierarchy of values. A philosopher cannot say more.

---

Q:  It is hard not to associate the acronym DIM with negative things like “Dim-witted,” or something lacking light – one dictionary says: “…slow to learn or understand; lacking intellectual acuity….” The truth is that your work on this book can hardly be said to be lacking in intellectual acuity! It is not “dim” and is definitely not lacking light. I wonder if you might consider changing the word DIM to something else. I imagine potential reviewers of your upcoming book, grabbing onto that word and making non-essential negative comments about it.

A:  I agree with you that DIM has an unfortunate connotation, but the alternatives are worse: MID, which suggests "middle of the road," or IDM, etc., which are unpronounceable. I myself have been the first to use the term, humorously, against myself—by calling myself a "DIM-wit." "Wit," of course, means "intelligence." So in my mind the term means: an intelligence who thinks in terms of modes of integration—which is exactly what I am. I even tried to get a license plate with this name, but it was already taken! I will certainly beat any reviewer to it by embracing it myself in the book's preface.

---

Q:  I have listened to your DIM lectures and fully agree with your forecast. I am very active in local politics and have sort of gotten a following amongst Democrats in my area as I have written many letters to the editor in defense of abortion rights, embryonic stem cell research, teaching of evolution, etc. I often tell them I am still a registered Republican (though have voted exclusively Democrat as of late). I have been giving serious thought to changing my registration to Democrat. I wonder if you think there is any hope for the Republicans and if it is advantageous for an Objectivist to remain registered as a Republican (though vote Democrat)?

A:  By present evidence, there is no hope for the Republicans, and no advantage for an Objectivist to remain registered as one. I believe that a man can have more impact by leaving a party, and thereby fostering its public shrinkage, than by staying in to make changes from the inside, an inside which is rotten to the core. In my opinion, the best classification for one to adopt politically is Independent.

---

Q:  You label Heraclitus as the first Rationalist in the history of philosophy. Heraclitus argued that the senses were invalid because we perceive entities, when in fact only change exists. I wonder if you would change this characterization after considering Heraclitus's philosophy through the lens of the DIM Hypothesis. I have always thought of Heraclitus as the grandfather of Skepticism, just as Parminides was the grandfather of Rationalism.

A:  Now, about 40 years later, I think there is something legitimate in this question. Heraclitus is in fact a mixed case; to our knowledge, he has no system, but leaves only fragments, not to be integrated until the time of Plato and Aristotle. Within those fragments there are two conflicting elements. On the one hand, Heraclitus is still within the monistic tradition of the Milesians; but further, unlike Thales, he upholds this view not on empirical grounds, but despite the evidence of the senses. This would make him a rationalist, and therefore M in my terminology. On the other hand, as you point out, the one stuff which he recognizes is ceaseless change, which necessarily implies disintegration and therefore D. Both of these elements are present, and we do not know which way he would move if pushed. By describing him as a rationalist, I was in effect giving him, as an early Greek, the benefit of the doubt.

All that having been said, I think that in most contexts your last sentence is justified.

---

Q:  Your response to an earlier question (on sex) made me very curious. You wrote, "The above applies within the context of adults living in a free society." By "free society" here, do you mean "fully free society"? Is it ever morally proper for an adult Objectivist living in a mixed economy to have sex with someone he or she is sexually attracted to, but is not in love with?

A:  First of all, I did not mean to imply that sharing “deep values” was necessarily equal to “being in love.” “Love,” as Ayn Rand used the term, is a relationship in which the lovers not only share deep values, but are “irreplaceable” in each other’s lives. That is, no other person known or yet to be met, could ever occupy the place in one’s mind and heart of someone he has loved and lost.

I would never dream of evaluating a sexual relationship according to the economic controls in a mixed society, as though one set of standards applied in 1889, and then a more permissive set after the Sherman Act of 1890, etc. In the context of this discussion, a man is free unless he lives under a dictatorship, such as Communism, theocracy, or the like.

---

Q:  Is a factually-refuted accusation of criminal behavior protected free speech? If not, and those that accuse our government of perpetrating 9/11 are disproven (as they have been multiple times), should they face criminal charges?

A:  A provably false accusation against an innocent individual is libel or slander and, assuming some economic damage is involved as a result, its author is punished, not protected by a proper government; the author must know in such a case that his claim is false or have reckless disregard as to whether it is true or not. (A celebrity, in my judgment, has the same right to protection against libel and slander as every other individual; he should not, as he is today, be turned by the courts into a free target for envious mediocrities to hurl slime at.)

As to government, I would say that if a libelous assertion is made against some particular, named individual within the government, that individual should have the right to redress, but only like any other individual—i.e., he must be responsible himself for the suit, and for all fees and costs involved.

But any statement about the government, however arbitrary and even ludicrous, which expresses opinion and not demonstrable, economically damaging fact about a specific individual(s) is protected. If Mr. X thinks our government caused 9/11, and Mr. Y thinks it did not, this is a clash of two views; there is an objective resolution here, but it cannot be considered or reached by the courts. Because the decision involves philosophical and psychological inferences outside the province of government to judge. A government has no authority to enter the field of ideas or to take sides in an intellectual dispute.

Anyone in a free country has the legal right, as an expression of free speech, to make any accusation, right or wrong, moral or immoral, against the government; he can with impunity call the President a tool of Big Business, an agent of Satan, or a traitor to America.

Of course, if he has photographs of Mr. Bush meeting with Bin Laden and smuggling plague into the country, that is no longer opinion, but provable fact, regardless of one’s philosophy.

---

Q:  Rudy Giuliani seems to be the least disgusting Republican presidential candidate in many years. What are your thoughts of his candidacy?

A:  All I know about Mr. Giuliani as a candidate is that he has already softened his stands on abortion, immigration, and Iraq. This will hardly convince conservatives but will alienate liberals; it is the classic formula for going nowhere. The major reason, however, why I would not support Mr. Giuliani is his vicious behavior some years ago toward Michael Milken in the junk bond issue of Drexel Burnham. And even beyond this, I will not vote for any Republican until the party repudiates its affiliation with Christianity, if I live that long.

---

Q:  Why do “values” apply only to living entities? Why not say that a cloud is “goal-directed?” If the cloud does not act automatically to gain water vapor, as a plant acts automatically to gain water from the ground, then its existence will become irretrievably lost.

A:  “Goal-direction” is judged by consistency of action in regard to possessing a certain object. Within the limits of their ability, plants always act to preserve their lives. There is no such consistency of action on the part of a cloud. It is the very opposite of something which acts automatically toward an end: it acts—or more exactly reacts—solely on the basis of external forces pushing and pulling it every which way.

---

 

Posted April 12, 2007

Q:  On Copyrights:

1. Under a proper capitalist government, if you buy CDs where the only contract term is "Copyright, All Rights Reserved," would it be legal—and moral—to copy those CDs, that one has already bought and paid for, to one's own iPod?

A:  First, a caveat: I have not thought much about issues in the philosophy of law. So some of the following is only my best ideas given limited knowledge.

I agree with your earlier general statement that creators have a moral right to set whatever conditions they want, rational or otherwise, in regard to the use of their property. As you say: “copyright owners have the right to control the act of copying as such. In support of this is the idea that their property rights cannot be limited, and that the copyright owners created the value of the music in the first place.”

However, if you ask me what is the rational policy in this issue, my answer involves a distinction between form and matter—i.e., changing the medium or organization of a purchased work in order to make its content more conveniently accessible to the buyer; vs. duplicating the purchased work (which is what I myself call “copying”). E.g., scanning OPAR into your computer in order to adjust the font vs. making a copy of the purchased book, so that you have two of the very books on sale in the store. I regard the first as, in essence, a transfer of content already paid for, and thus justified; while the second is unjustified: if you buy a book, you are not and should not be authorized to become a manufacturer of it, whether of 1 or 1,000 more copies.

The same applies to CDs. I think you have a right to transfer the content to an iPod, or to transfer excerpts from different CDs onto one CD; but I do not think you have a right to “copy” them in the sense of manufacturing duplicates of the original CDs.

2. But don’t copyrights, like all rights, only apply in a social context, and therefore the only copies the copyright owners control—in the absence of an agreement to the contrary—are copies that go from one person to another?

A:  This argument equivocates on “social context.” Rights are applicable only in a “social context,” when this latter is contrasted with living on a desert island or in a state of anarchy. Once you do live in an organized society, however, there is nothing in the concept of “rights” to justify violating them under any circumstances. If rights could properly be violated when only you (“non-social”) were involved, the principle would not be restricted to copyright; you could do anything with the product of another if you can get your hands on it, so long as you keep it to yourself. If you do not intend to make copies for others, are you then entitled, since rights are dependent on a “social context,” to copy for your own personal interest their private papers, such as IRS forms, medical diagnoses, sexual histories, etc?

3. Isn’t the value that you get from receiving a new piece of music different from the value you get from making additional private copies for yourself? The former is created by the artists (who sold it to the record companies) and is therefore rightfully theirs to control as they see fit, but the latter is created, for example, by Apple who invented the iPod.

A:  By this reasoning, plagiarism, among other things, would be fully justified. The value of the original passage is created by its author; but its value in the context of the new book, the plagiarist could argue, is created by him. Apple, by the way, charges for its iPod services, and reimburses the creators in accordance with an explicit contract. And if a creator refused Apple such permission (as the Beatles did), he has every right to do so, and Apple would be required by law to respect his right.

4. Is an explicit contract, which identifies which rights go to whom, necessary for a creator to have a legal right to his product?

A:  No. It is impossible for a creator to make explicit contracts with millions of fans. In many situations, the right of ownership is objectively implied, and does not have to be put in writing. We do not have to make a contract to establish that you may not steal my car. And in any case, copyright is explicit; it is a legally defined statement of ownership, with all the rights this entails.

5. Some defenders of the above arguments claim that Ayn Rand was writing from the context of defending copyright from collectivism, that there is nothing collectivist about copying music that one has already paid for to one's own iPod, and that Miss Rand in 1964 could not have possibly anticipated the invention of the iPod.

A:  This is the “argumentum ad feminem” (it amounts to: she was too old to understand). Ayn Rand often observed that man’s rights were attacked not only by leftists, but also by self-proclaimed anti-collectivists, whom she called “hippies of the right.”

6. Some people claim that the senses and the brain are information-processing organs, that information processing (by biological or mechanical means) necessarily entails copying, and that therefore, at some level, copying for oneself is an aspect of the right to one's life. One must take notes, for example, in order to make an in-depth study of a novel or symphony, and this study should not require additional permission from the creator of the novel or symphony.

A:  Are you saying that “biological copying,” whatever that is, of other people’s property is a requirement of one’s life? In my judgment, this is self-evidently ludicrous. As to the issue of taking notes for an in-depth study, remember that notes have nothing to do with copying. Notes are essentials deliberately selected and necessarily relatively brief, taken from a whole to aid one’s processing of it. To copy the whole, by contrast, is the opposite of thinking or processing it; all it produces is superficial memorization. By the way, since memorization is entirely internal, I do not think that copyright law prohibits it.

7. Are the above types of arguments no more than attempts to rationalize thievery from copyright owners?

A:  Yes, in most cases.

8. Aren’t there bad features in our current copyright laws?

A:  Yes, but the solution is to work for their reform, not to sacrifice such protection as they still do offer creators.

---

Q:  I have been thinking about the Objectivist virtues, particularly the virtue of rationality, and have been trying to integrate the concept of self-discipline with the Objectivist virtues. I have reasoned that self-discipline is a necessary component of the virtues and is necessary for the non-initiation of physical force. In order to practice all of the virtues consistently self-discipline is a requirement. Could self-discipline be considered an objective moral virtue along with those you write about in OPAR or is it a corollary of the virtue of rationality? 

A:  "Discipline" is a term which connotes control through punishment, as in disciplining a disobedient child or dog. In any identification of the virtues proper to man, reference to punishment is out of place. Neither the nature nor the results of virtue involve pain.

What you probably mean is that sometimes, through error or evasion, a man experiences an emotion which he knows is improper, but nevertheless feels strongly. To tell such a man "Discipline yourself," however, is to imply that there is nothing he can do about his emotion but push it out of his consciousness; i.e., it tells a man to repress, grit his teeth, and bear it. This is not the way to deal with such an emotion in the Objectivist view. In essence, what one must do is not discipline or even "control" one's self, but understand one's self, i.e., analyze one's thinking, discover the premise(s) underlying the emotion, determine their truth or falsehood, and thereby restore harmony. The only control needed in this process is: not to act until one has straightened out one's thinking and resolved the contradiction.

You are right, therefore, that the valid policy is an obvious expression of rationality—not even different enough from it to be regarded as a corollary.

In the Christian-Kantian view, life is self-control, self-discipline, and in the end self-obliteration. In the Objectivist view, by contrast, life is thought, action, and the emotion of joy which greets achievement.

---

Q:  Why do you not have your lectures transcribed and made available in written form?

A:  A lecture or course delivered orally cannot simply be transcribed and published as is. Speaking and writing are virtually two different languages; what is clear and eloquent in one, is unclear or redundant in the other. This stems from the need of the ear for relative simplicity, repetition, and a slow pace, as against the need of the eye for brevity and the ability of a reader to grasp complexity, due to his ability to control the pace of the input.

I have had substantial experience overseeing the editing of Ayn Rand's lectures, and the amount of time-consuming work involved is enormous. Of course, if I knew an editor, both qualified and unemployed, who wanted to do this sort of reconstruction of my lectures, I would happily support the project. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, there is no such person.

---

Q:  Why is it proper to vote? If I don’t believe that the current state has any moral, philosophical legitimacy, why should I condone this political process by voting (in any way), thereby giving my consent and helping to legitimize political power?

A: It is often advisable not to vote. But you are not supporting a system merely by voting for one of its candidates, any more than you are supporting a government post office by mailing a letter through it. In both cases, you are given no alternative. In the voting case, however, you are sometimes given a certain alternative: to select a major killer or a minor one. It is no endorsement of killing, or of the system in general, to support the latter man. Of course, if you go out and campaign for his virtue, you are supporting the system. But if, to the extent of your ability, you denounce our “mixed” system publicly, speak the truth about both candidates, but then urge people to vote for the lesser threat, strictly as a matter of self-defense and buying time, you are obviously not defending the system.

---

Q:  What in the capitalist system prevents a number of individuals from choosing not to delegate the right of self-defense, and not participating in the state, but forming their own state or government—that is, creating a similar institution with the idea that theirs would be more effective, more just in resolving disputes, or better with regard to any other criterion valued by a free society? The ability to choose between these agencies, to leave any of these supposed governments, and decide on another, makes the system the actual absence of government. Isn’t this a good argument for “market anarchy”?

A:  A government is designed to prevent the use of force among men by giving one institution the monopoly over the use of force in a given geographical area, along with the charge that it use force only against those who have initiated it. By definition, multiple independent governments, two or more in the same area, make this purpose unachievable. Since the two governments and their supporters would be entitled to hold their own views and interpretations, they may very well disagree as to when a man's or a foreign country's action is a crime. Who is to adjudicate this dispute and prevent the competing parties' recourse to force? If there is no such authority, then there is no option but for the two governments eventually to take up arms against each other, thereby leading to civil war and most likely dictatorship—in any case, at the end, only one government. On the other hand, if there is a third body to act as the final arbiter, and it has the force to do so, then it alone is the government, to which all the citizens and other pretended governments must appeal. In sum, you cannot apply market conditions, which pertain to human thought and creativity, to governmental issues, which pertain to stamping out brutality. Competition in the former leads to greater values; in the latter, it leads to greater brutality.

In response to ineffective, mixed, or evil governments, there are a variety of rational courses available, depending on the context: peaceful efforts to reform, emigration, secession, revolution, etc. In no case, however, is the solution “competing governments.”

---

 

Posted March 12, 2007

Q:  The question is simple: a mere “Y” or “N” keystroke would suffice. Is sex proper only between two people who are deeply, passionately, romantically in love? 

A:  There is no such thing in regard to philosophic questions as a simple “yes” or “no” answer.  

The key to the question lies in the word “deeply.” If this is taken to mean “down to the root of the other person, i.e., down to the very fundamentals of his/her soul,” then proper sex does not require being “deeply in love.” Ideal sex requires it, but sex may be proper without being ideal. Proper sex in this context requires depth up to a point: i.e., not just a superficial reaction to someone’s appearance or sense of humor, but a response to serious values that one sees in the person, even if not the metaphysics of their character. Nor does Objectivism regard it as sufficient for one to perceive the Objectivist virtues in another as the sole basis of proper sex. Sex must include enough personal, individual values of the lover so that he is loving as himself and not as an Objectivist clone.  

As to the other two attributes in the question, I cannot imagine their absence in any proper sexual relationship. How can you have sex if you are not that involved emotionally? How can it be proper if you don’t feel romantic but rather Platonic or merely “physicalistic”? 

The above applies within the context of adults living in a free society. There are many other cases in which sex of a lesser order can be proper. To cite just one example, you cannot expect a teenager who is first experimenting with sex to abstain until he finds someone who shares his serious values, because for him making love may be crucial to discovering what his serious values are. 

---

Q:  My experience of Fundamentalism, while not positive, contains an apparent contradiction. Many Fundamentalist churches prominently feature positive messages that urge earthly success of the “God wants you to prosper” variety. My gut feeling is that this is a “see the miracle God can create in your poor sinful life” bait-and-switch pitch. Philosophically, what do you think is the fundamental here? 

A:  The earthly, pro-prosperity messages that you cite have no roots in religion. On the contrary, this type of message originated in its modern form in the Renaissance. With the new rational spirit in the ascendancy, religious leaders (somewhat like the pagan priests of ancient Rome) often attempted to combine the religious and the secular traditions, thereby coming up with such ideas as: God’s commandment is to enjoy life on earth. This is the mentality which I describe as M₁ in my DIM book. It is the result of an attempt to combine Plato and Aristotle. 

Obviously, it is a contradiction on its face. It is not an example of religion preaching the good, but of religion seeking a way to preach the secular, while keeping up the pretense of unbreached allegiance to the supernatural. In the end, of course, the obeisance to the latter destroys even the pretense of valuing the secular. 

---

Q:  What is the morality of working for the government in bureaucratic areas that ideally should not exist or at least should be much smaller in scope? Specifically, is it moral to work at positions in areas like the State Department or the Treasury, for example? 

A:  The size of the agency is not relevant to the morality of working within it; the issue is the propriety of the job you are doing. The two Departments you mention are legitimate branches of the Executive, and were recognized as such from the beginning of the American system; so working for them is not necessarily immoral—it depends on what you are doing for them. On the other hand, working for HEW or the Department of Energy, e.g., would be immoral, regardless of the size of these departments. 

There are circumstances in which it is proper to work for a government institution, even though the latter is not a legitimate part of government. If and when the government makes a legitimate private activity impossible to practice or nearly so, it can be proper to pursue it within a governmental context, because you have been left no choice. For example, it is proper for a professor of philosophy to work for a government university (as I once did), because private education has been all but totally destroyed. Or a scientist may do research in a government lab, because private research facilities have been made uneconomic by government action. The questions with this (and the previous) category of jobs are: can you preserve your intellectual integrity in the job, and, just as important, does it work to expand improper government? For example, if I were required to preach socialism or Fundamentalism (by Democrats or by Republicans) as part of my job, or if I were required to tour high schools in order to convince students that public colleges offer them much more than private ones—then it would be wrong for me to take the job, even if that were my profession and I had no other outlet to practice it.  

---

Q:  You once argued that “streaking” at the Oscars was an example of nihilism. The problem is: how could we know this about a person whose context we don’t know? Couldn’t this have happened to a young and enthusiastic Objectivist hating the pretentiousness of Hollywood, and then acting from a mistaken notion of being faithful to individualism? 

A:  It is often difficult to interpret the motive of others, but when their action speaks for itself, no further knowledge is necessary. For example, if Bush invades Iraq without objective provocation, forbids Americans the chance to win as a matter of policy and lets our soldiers die indefinitely, it is irrelevant what he says his purpose is, or what a psychiatrist would report after years of analysis of him. However much he would protest that he is “defending America,” his action is directly opposed to this purpose, and the proper identification of it (and of him) is self-evident, regardless of his “context”: his action is national suicide or, in legal terms, treason.

The same analysis applies to streaking. If an alleged champion of individualism and thus of private property invades the latter to disrupt the activities of its owners or renters, the action speaks for itself; he is more pretentious in the literal sense than the people he despises. Do you grant the possibility that an honest individualist, however naïve, could believe that he is defending values by destroying the values freely chosen by peaceful men simply because he dislikes them? Would you say that if someone scornful of you robs you to give the money to ARI, the problem is that he is too “young and enthusiastic”?  

That streaker destroys Hollywood values not because he dislikes them, but because others like them. And that is nihilism. 

---

Q:  What has been the highlight of your life? What has been the pinnacle, the time you were happiest? And for what reason was it that time? 

A:  Without qualification, the highlight of my life, which changed its entire direction, was my initial meeting with Ayn Rand. In a domestic context, a real highlight was the birth of my daughter. As to when I was happiest, I would say it is falling in love, because of the special intensity of the pleasure this involves. My work, of course, is of primary importance to me, but it is too difficult most of the time to describe it as pleasurable. 

---

Q:  Ayn Rand argued that values are agent-relative, and not “absolutist” in the sense that certain things are good for all humans no matter what the situation or circumstances may be. So John’s life is an end-in-itself for John, but since John’s life is not an end-in-itself for Mike, why couldn’t Mike sacrifice John’s life for Mike’s benefit? It would seem that John’s life could only have a value as a means to something else for Mike because John’s, and only John’s life, is of value for John. 

But if John’s life is an end-in-itself in an absolutist sense, and not just a value for John, then why couldn’t Mike choose to advance John’s life over his own? 

A:  This question is based on the false alternative of the subjective versus the intrinsic. “Agent-relative” as used here means dependent on one’s subjective choice and, therefore, not binding on others. “Absolutist” as used here means a fact of reality unrelated to anyone’s choice, as though a person’s life were a glob of “value” that any other person could undertake to heap up as he wishes. Objectivism rejects both of these approaches in favor of the “objective.” An “objective” value is neither arbitrary nor mystically inherent in a man’s soul or body. It is one chosen by an individual—in accordance with the facts of reality. What those facts are I have discussed in OPAR.  

If he is rational, Mike must recognize that the very facts of reality which make one human being an end-in-himself apply equally to others and make them also ends-in-themselves. No one, Mike included, can justify ignoring or acting against any fact of reality, including this one. No, John is not Mike’s ultimate end but, by the grace of reality, he is, objectively, his own end, and others must act accordingly. To give a parallel case: would you say that John has a right to private property, but since that right is not Mike’s, Mike morally can rob him blind? What then would it mean to have “a right”? 

The main purpose of ethics is to define the principles by which a rational being can sustain his life. As Ayn Rand (and OPAR) has demonstrated, any form of sacrifice is incompatible with the values required to sustain life. It is destructive both to the sacrificer and to his victim. That is the reason, an expression of the above, why Mike cannot sacrifice John to himself nor vice versa. 

It is incorrect to say that “only John’s life is a value for John.” An egoist values other people, from a pleasant acquaintance all the way up to romantic love, and may even risk his life to save a strongly valued person who is in danger; what makes him an egoist is that he does it not as an altruistic duty, but because he judges the person to be of irreplaceable value in his own life.  

Before the author of this question asks any more about the Objectivist ethics, I suggest he do some reading on the subject. 

---

Q:  I recently watched the video of your talk “Why Ancient Greece is my Favorite Civilization.” I found the Greeks’ concept of man-worship and its contrast with the Judeo-Christian view of man very inspiring. Can you recommend some books about ancient Greece that provide the information on which the talk is based? 

A:  Thank you for your comments; that talk is my personal favorite of my own talks. At a bare minimum, I recommend as embodiments of the spirit of Greece Homer’s Iliad and Sophocles’ Antigone.  

As to general commentaries, I found the following—usually in part, but sometimes as a whole—helpful:  

The Greek Experience by C.M. Bowra

The Greeks by H.D.F. Kitto

The Greek Way by Edith Hamilton

A History of Education in Antiquity by H.I. Marrou

Classical Ethics: Homer and Virgil by Richard Jenkyns

I hope that gives you a start.

---

 

Posted February 12, 2007

The following is a write-up of a conversation, held shortly after the end of Peikoff’s DIM course, between Leonard Peikoff (LP) and Jason Crawford (JRC). Crawford wrote the text based on notes he took on June 23, 2004.

JRC:  If secular M₂ politics (e.g., Communism) is dead because its  contradictions have been demonstrated, why isn’t the same true of religion after the industrial/scientific age?  

LP:  It’s not true that any time the contradictions of a philosophy are demonstrated, it is dead. If it were so, nothing would survive except Aristotle; not everybody is so rational.        

A political system survives on the basis of the values it puts forth, and specifically the promises it makes--what it holds out to its following. In this regard, the secular M₂s have an inescapable contradiction that the religious ones do not. The secular ones offer worldly success, wealth, happiness, prosperity. In fact, the whole tirade of the religious groups against Communism is the Communists’ alleged view that man can achieve the good here on earth. That promise is the banner of the Marxists against the Christians from the beginning: no “pie in the sky,” no “opiate of the masses”—real physical factors cause our plight (the economic means and forms of production) and the inevitable evolution of history will bring us to an earthly utopia. Once you say that, the dumbest mentality can see, at least after a few generations, that it’s false.  

JRC:  So the contradictions of Communism are more obvious?  

LP:  It’s not just that they are obvious: they’re obvious in direct relation to the motives of the people living under the system. Religion, by contrast, doesn’t have that kind of contradiction, because it places its promises and rewards after death. Remember that, to the really religious, life after death has reality, at least that of an intense fantasy. In a sense, therefore, both Communists and religionists defer their rewards. But only the latter state by exactly how much—by one human lifespan—after which, they say, you get it all for eternity. So the supernaturalist believers do not have the Communists’ sense of failure, no matter how poor they are. They, too, grumble and despair, but they regard this reaction as their sin. In addition, the Church tells them to expect failure in this life: this life is a trial, the opposite of the world of God—“Woe unto ye who laugh”—but if you can survive, if you can pass the test of faithful obedience, then you get infinite happiness. 

You can show religious people that religion is filled with contradictions, but that doesn't matter to them—in the next world, they reply, it will all be clarified.

JRC:  You suggested there may be a need to attack religion directly. Do you have any idea how to go about that? 

LP:  Of course, the spreading of the positive, of Objectivism, including its moral code, is a precondition of any such attack. But given that context, here are some of my ideas. 

While it’s important to continue the advocacy of reason and the denunciation of mysticism in broad philosophic terms, I think it’s time to make a more narrowly defined attack on religion as such. I wouldn’t attack a particular religion, such as Judaism or Catholicism—that’s too narrow—but “mysticism” is too broad and, by most people, unrecognizable as a target. So what and how to attack in this context? 

I think you have to single out as a target religion as such (God, faith, obedience, sacrifice)—which is neither too narrow nor too wide a concept—as the archvillain of history and of the present. You have to communicate to a broad audience the evil which religion has caused through the ages, e.g.: barbarism for millennia until the Greeks; crushing mankind back down to near-barbarism for centuries during the Middle Ages; declaring war on modern science, invention, and the happiness they bring (even wars against anesthesia, Christmas, and war in self-defense); turning sex into guilt, and so on all the way to today’s priests who force sex on altar boys, and Islamic suicide-bombers intoning the Koran. Plus debunk the alleged positive achievements of religion, such as the claim that it is the base of morality and of the United States; show that it is not the source of any good, but rather always its enemy. 

If the proper picture of all this were painted—combining objective factual detail with a philosophic explanation of why all these evils lie in the very nature of religion—I think it would have an impact. Of course, it would have to be done in an impartial way, sweeping the field—e.g., it would have to refute the idea that, say, Islam is uniquely bad, while Christianity would never do such things. The author might then conclude with a brief indication of the proper atheist philosophy. 

In short, the book would have to be a powerful polemic, supported by facts and philosophy—an assault which could be understood by all educated men, and not aimed primarily at professional intellectuals (most of whom are anti-religious, anyway, but mentally hopeless). The author, accordingly, would have to be a man with broad philosophic/historical knowledge, who can think in essentialized terms. The theme might be something like “religion vs. man.” Or: “religion vs. the good.” Or: “religion vs. morality.”

JRC:  What people should one try to reach with an anti-religious book?

LP:  I distinguish three broad types within most ideological camps, including religion. The vast majority of followers don’t know or care about the intellectual issues involved, but believe merely because that’s what the world (or their culture, tribe, etc.) believes. You can’t do anything with these people but wait for them to die out.  

Then there’s a small group motivated by the desire to gain power or status within the movement. These people are indifferent to ideas also, but in addition they have in effect made religion their means of survival.  

Then there is the younger, idealistic (though badly confused) element which, for whatever motives, infuses strength, values, passion, and purpose into religion. These people believe—wrongly but sincerely—that religion is the source of values and that God represents the moral ideal. Such people, and there are quite a number of them, are the real source of religion’s vitality and influence. Without them, you’d have an apathetic horde which would not listen for too long to some amoral power-lusters. 

Somebody has to give conviction and righteousness to a movement. If all you have is leaders in power and masses who submit, neither of whom cares about ideas, then you have the situation of Soviet Russia at its end—and then comes the collapse. So the task of the writer against religion is to find the younger (and more honest) idealists, and show them that religion is the enemy of ideals, not their source—that it is the cause of evil, not its antidote. 

Basically you have to show them what Ayn Rand discovered at age 12: that the idea of God is a rejection of the value of man, and therefore of any human values: there is the infinite, which is the locus of value—and the finite, which is the locus, in this view, of non-value. The only “idealism” religion permits, therefore, is the escape from life, best illustrated by the consistent medievals, i.e., by the pursuit of death-in-life. If a young “idealist” is willing to accept this prospect, forget about talking to him. But there are better young people who are worthy of talking to and writing for. If such a message could be got across to any significant number of them, it would have a real influence in subverting the religious movement, assuming a proper philosophy were indicated along with the polemic. You wouldn’t see the result immediately, but in due course you would start to see shortages of priests, congregations falling off, etc.  

One lecture, however brilliant, isn’t going to do it. What we need is a J’Accuse or an Uncle Tom’s Cabin—one of those famous exposes that lays bare the whole corruption and says “enough!”  

So the solution, as always, is education. And since I regard the growth of religion today as the most—and only—catastrophic force unleashed against the West, I’d like to suggest, to anyone who writes, lectures, or talks about ideas: when deciding on your hierarchy of subject matters, don’t ignore the movement that is taking us back to the Dark Ages. 

JRC:  It seems to me that an important part of this would be showing young people that there is a morality based on reason. 

LP:  Yes, that would have to be part of it. The whole effort couldn’t be just negative. If it’s religion versus idealism, you have to answer: What is idealism? How do you know? And how do you achieve it? Without that knowledge, how can you even say there’s a clash? But it’s one thing to discuss the issues as I do in OPAR: to present values, how they derive from metaphysics and epistemology, and then as a brief aside, here and there, observe that this means that religion is invalid. That is very different from what I am talking about now: a polemical book of which the essence is to smash the movement. It is true that you can smash it only within the framework of the positive, but your goal in the book is not to promulgate the positive as such, but as much as possible to take it in common-sense terms, so that people don’t have to accept a whole and to them brand new philosophy to approve your thesis. You don’t hide your deeper positive views, but you don’t feature them either—you present them, to the extent necessary, in terms any decent man can agree with.  

JRC:  OK, let’s address a bit more the question about why you’re against Bush. As I understand it you’re saying that if you take the whole of what Bush says and look at it, you see that he doesn’t really stand for freedom. 

LP:  To begin with, you can’t define any idea in terms of one statement. Even to grasp the content of what a person is saying, you need at minimum a long coherent paragraph that will give you a clue as to what kind of concretes his statement subsumes and what other ideas it’s connected to. Without that, the statement is meaningless, devoid of content, so it can mean anything.  

Virtually every one of Bush’s “valid” statements are in this way empty. Take, for example, his claim that he is a champion of American self-defense. If anyone makes only that statement, you know as much about his ideas after he says it as you did before he spoke. You know nothing until you know what he takes “self-defense” to mean and why he is for it. There is a dozen or more interpretations of “self-defense.” E.g.: “We have to defend the U.S. by converting savages to democrats while preventing our troops from fighting as they could—regardless of the American deaths this leads to and regardless of the fact that the savages were no threat to us in the first place.” And: “We have to defend ourselves by begging the rest of the world to approve our self-defense, and then boasting about the alleged ‘coalition’ behind us.” And: “We have to defend ourselves by telling the Islamic world, who cheer the terrorists, that we know their religion is great and our problem is only some fringe extremists like Bin Laden whom we vow to catch; and then, when we can’t, we dismiss the failure, saying that one man is irrelevant to our self-defense.” And: “While all this is going on, we have to defend ourselves by sucking up to North Korea.” Etc. 

Is this man a “champion of self-defense” or its worst enemy? The same goes for all his “pro-freedom” sentences. 

JRC:  But a lot of people in the country support Bush because they do want self-defense, real self-defense. If someone offered them real self-defense, they’d want that. 

LP:  If, in the light of the evidence, anyone believes that the Republicans have waged war on terrorism, then to a significant extent, he is in my opinion not fully connected to reality; at minimum, he has no idea what a war would consist of. The great tragedy here is that a great number of rational people, who would have been open in 2001 to a real war (which should have been against Iran), have had years of the Iraq fiasco now and have decided that any war, no matter what, is useless. So Bush has not rallied anyone to the cause of American self-defense. Rather, he has taken the heart out of the population and turned them into a passive, hopeless mass who have accepted terrorism as a permanent and unalterable fact of life.  

JRC:  Is there any political value or importance to the sense of life a President brings to the country? 

LP:  No. The sense of life of a President is not as such of any significance. A President is not a work of art or a citizen’s sex partner. He’s supposed to have principles and policies which he can defend in explicit language. The implicit psychological source, if any, within his soul is irrelevant, and can’t be determined by the electorate anyway.  

JRC:  OK well, HMM…now you’ve obsoleted most of my questions.

LP:  That’s always good. 

JRC:  Here’s one more along these lines. What about our Islamic enemies? Do you think they see the U.S. response as weak? Weaker than no response? 

LP:  Yes, they and everyone, aside from Republicans, certainly see it as weak. And yes, weaker than nothing. If it was nothing, their fear, at least for a while, would be: the U.S. is preparing its forces, making its plans— 

JRC:  Even if it went on that way for years? 

LP:  If it went on for five or ten years, we would be an Arab territory. But in the first years, at the height of public indignation, the most powerful nation on earth responds by a timid, apologetic, half-assed fight in two wrong countries—it’s a laughingstock everywhere, which heartens and encourages terrorists everywhere. 

JRC:  I know a co-worker who is a practicing, observant Jew, but who is also very cynical. I’ve never been able to believe that he took religion seriously, because of the cynicism. Is that not a valid inference? How can people be seriously religious and still cynical?  

LP:  Why is that inconsistent? Cynicism is the view that virtue is impossible to man, that everyone has inconsistencies, hypocrisies, evil tendencies under a phony veneer of virtue. If a man believes in religion, he must believe in some form of this attitude, since he holds that “only God is perfect.” But, as a man, he also has to believe that he is and has some value. Hence, Judaism and Christianity tell us two things: man is created in the image of God, so he is good—but man is not God, so he is not good. People can then oscillate as they wish between “optimism” and cynicism.  

JRC:  I guess I think of serious, religious people as idealistic.  

LP:  Well, often the younger ones are, as I stressed earlier, and often cynics are disappointed idealists. But why not ask the man respectfully what his view actually is? He might open up and tell you something interesting.  

JRC:  A final question. How long have you seen the trend in this country as being a turn toward religion? 

LP:  Reagan was the beginning, but I didn’t know it then. It’s gaining strength, especially in the last few decades, in a way I couldn’t have believed when I first came to the U.S. If anyone had predicted to me in 1953 that in 50 years we would see the signs of the Dark Ages sprouting all around us, and even taking over one of the two major political parties, I would have dismissed his claim as ridiculous. 

P.S. from LP:  The religion book I mentioned above doesn’t require a philosopher, just someone who understands philosophy and wants to research the history of religion and its effects. There already is a vast anti-religion library out there, much of it written by scholars who reveal all the horrors you need to know, but the material is not essentialized, and is given no connection to the philosophy preached by religion. That’s what someone needs to write.

---

 

Posted December 1, 2006

Q:  I am reading and listening to your lectures and radio shows.  I am now listening to the episode when you asked listeners to give arguments for God.  I am an atheist, and know only a few facts to why God could not exist.  For instance....not being able to exist before existence and miracles are impossible....  My girlfriend tells me that the end of the world is near.  I do not have the knowledge yet to disprove this besides what I already know, which should be enough.  But I do want to know why people believe that the coming of this so called rapture is coming only because of predictions.  Like, for instance, "x" happened and "x" is in the bible so "x" is true.  Could you elaborate for me why these predictions are making people scared and to believe that the end of the world is coming.

A:  If you have read OPAR, you already know my answers to most of your questions.  Check the index for God, faith, agnosticism, and onus of proof--especially this.  It is not proper to attempt to prove a negative; disproof is possible only if some evidence has been offered for you to consider.  So it is up to your girlfriend to prove her fantasies, not up to you to refute them.

There are several reasons why people believe in arrant mysticism.  One is that mankind is still in its early stages, so that most people have not outgrown the primitive mentality that ruled the early periods in the development of the human race.  Another is that people want a crutch to avoid the need of independence, and an escape to avoid the need of making their life in this world successful.  Still a third is that some religious people are genuinely idealistic and, looking at modern depravity, simply can't believe that there isn't something better somewhere.

You have to decide where your girlfriend belongs. 

---

Q:  How can Rand assert existence is primary when consciousness is necessary to make note of existence?  They cannot ever be said to be independent.  It seems as if existence and consciousness (and identity) are inseparable - perhaps in ways which we do not understand.  Thus one cannot be said to have priority over the other, but all three stand and fall at the same time.

I presume you disagree.  Thoughts?

A:  You are quite wrong in your view of the relationship of consciousness and existence.  Consciousness, as you say, is necessary to know existence, but that does not mean that it is necessary in order for existence to exist.  I must use my senses to know about the mountain in front of me, but that does not mean the mountain's existence depends on my knowing it.  A world without consciousness is quite conceivable--a world without existence is a contradiction in terms.

Existence is independent of consciousness; it is the first axiom, because consciousness is nothing but the faculty of being aware of it.

---

 

Posted November 1, 2006

Q:  Are rationalists (i.e., those who hold concepts as merely 'floating abstractions') D-types, M-types, or honestly erroneous I-types?  

A:  The question of honesty is not relevant to the DIM theory, which pertains only to the methods of integration which a school actually advocates and practices.  It makes no difference whether any given individual has good or bad motivation.  The only question is:  By what method does he think--assuming he has a deliberate and philosophically based method. 

Rationalists always fall within the M category.  For further details, see my book in about 3-5 years.

---

Q:  I am in college and thought that I understood Objectivism but now I'm confused.  I was talking with a bunch of Objectivists who say that smoking is immoral because it is bad for your health, and drinking is immoral because it "fakes reality" by dulling your mind.  Is that true?  I don't smoke but I never thought that smoking made someone immoral. 

A:  Unfortunately, there is a puritanical streak in many Objectivists. 

Smoking is not immoral unless, having weighed the evidence rationally, you are convinced that it is a threat to your health.  In such a case, habitual smoking would be a deliberately self-destructive action, and as such immoral.  But first you are obliged to study the facts yourself and be rationally convinced of its harmfulness; no one can demand that you take a government report seriously.  Further, the issue depends to some extent on how much you smoke.  I know of no evidence that light or occasional smoking--for pleasure say, or under stress--poses any health risk, and if this is correct, there is nothing immoral about such smoking. 

As to drinking, first of all it does not necessarily "dull your mind."  It depends on how much you drink, and the full context, including your health, the circumstances, etc.  Moderate drinking with dinner or at a party is not harmful, according to my knowledge, does not interfere with the ability to think, and can be relaxing and even enjoyable; some doctors even recommend it as a health measure.  Of course, excessive drinking is harmful and can even be fatal, but so can excessive ingestion of water. 

Even in circumstances in which improper drinking does dull your mind, that is not the same thing as "faking reality."  It is one thing to diminish one's ability to perceive reality, and a different thing to pretend that reality is something other than it is.  Both these states handicap one's action, but only the second constitutes the beginning of a war against reality. 

Please don't take this letter as a sanction for a life consisting of nothing but smoking and drinking. 

---

Q:  I'm a freshman in high school and am in honors English.  I was given the assignment for a research paper due in June on any book we had read in class.  I chose Anthem and would like to answer the question, what role does the Uncharted Forest play within the novel? I know you mainly focus on the philosophy of Ayn Rand but if you have any information or opinions on the Uncharted Forest please send them my way. 

A:  The Uncharted Forest is what remains of the former non-collectivist world.  It is, therefore, the proper home for the rebels against the state, who will turn to the task of charting it again, i.e., building a new, individualist civilization. 

---

Q:  I am writing to inquire about your sentiments on the current state of America and the world.  

A:  I now read only the front page of the New York Times, dropping each story when it is necessary to turn the page.  That way, what is happening does not become too real to me.

---

Q:  In your DIM Hypothesis lecture, you said that you were compiling a list of Colloquial Phrases that suggest either D, I, or M. You said that you had trouble finding some "M" phrases...so here is one:  Putting the cart before the horse (which is the wrong way to connect a cart to a horse). 

A:  Thank you for your suggestion.  As I use the term M, it subsumes only a methodical misconnection of things resulting from a false philosophy.  There are countless cases in real life of improper connection, therefore, which do not come under M.  The example you cite is of that nature.

---

Q:  Did Rand and Losski have a conversation about Plato during exam in 1921? 

A:  To the best of my recollection, Ayn Rand did indicate to Losski her disagreement with Plato.  He then asked her about her own ideas.  To which she replied:  My views are not yet part of the history of philosophy, but they will be.

---

Q:  What book do you recommend for every 10th-grader to read before entering college or the “real world?” 

A:  For anyone under 16, I recommend Anthem only. For those 16 and over, I recommend The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, in that order.

---

 

(October 19, 2006) Peikoff on the coming election

Q:  In view of the constant parade of jackassery which is Washington, is there any point in voting for candidates of either entrenched party? Throwing out the incumbents "for a change" is to me an idea based on the philosophy that my head will stop hurting if I bang it on the opposite wall. 

A:  How you cast your vote in the coming election is important, even if the two parties are both rotten. In essence, the Democrats stand for socialism, or at least some ambling steps in its direction; the Republicans stand for religion, particularly evangelical Christianity, and are taking ambitious strides to give it political power.  

Socialism—a fad of the last few centuries—has had its day; it has been almost universally rejected for decades. Leftists are no longer the passionate collectivists of the 30s, but usually avowed anti-ideologists, who bewail the futility of all systems. Religion, by contrast—the destroyer of man since time immemorial—is not fading; on the contrary, it is now the only philosophic movement rapidly and righteously rising to take over the government. Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer, and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer, it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because “both are bad.” 

The survival of this country will not be determined by the degree to which the government, simply by inertia, imposes taxes, entitlements, controls, etc., although such impositions will be harmful (and all of them and worse will be embraced or pioneered by conservatives, as Bush has shown). What does determine the survival of this country is not political concretes, but fundamental philosophy. And in this area the only real threat to the country now, the only political evil comparable to or even greater than the threat once posed by Soviet Communism, is religion and the Party which is its home and sponsor.  

The most urgent political task now is to topple the Republicans from power, if possible in the House and the Senate. This entails voting consistently Democratic, even if the opponent is a “good” Republican.  

In my judgment, anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man’s actual life—which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world.  

If you hate the Left so much that you feel more comfortable with the Right, you are unwittingly helping to push the U.S. toward disaster, i.e., theocracy, not in 50 years, but, frighteningly, much sooner.

The above statement may be reproduced or disseminated at will, without any requirement to consult or inform Dr. Peikoff.

 

The DIM Hypothesis

Dr. Peikoff is currently working on a book, The DIM Hypothesis. The book presents a new Hypothesis, applying it to six different cultural areas: philosophy, literature, physics, education, politics, and history.  The Hypothesis distinguishes three types of mind at work in all these areas—the mind characterized by D (disintegration), I (integration), or by M (misintegration).

The DIM theory provides a means of identifying, inductively, the cultural essence of a society, and thus a means of understanding the progression of Western societies from Greece to the present.

On the basis of the above, the book concludes by assessing the chance of the United States to survive as a free country. The book will be published in several years, probably in 2010.

 

Induction in Physics and Philosophy

Dr. Peikoff is also collaborating with David Harriman, a noted physicist, on a book entitled Induction in Physics and Philosophy.  This book is based on a course of the same name, which Dr. Peikoff gave at Objectivist conferences in 2002 and 2003.

The book offers a rational solution to the problem of induction.  It discusses in detail the role of mathematics and of experimentation in validating generalizations in physics.  It then argues that the inductive method as used in physics is in principle indistinguishable from the method used in (rational) philosophy.  Philosophy, the authors conclude, is every bit as objective and scientific as physics.