↔
Title: An Inductive Approach to Philosophy by Leonard Peikoff
Duration: 01:25:48
Total Correct Answers:
Current Caption
Correct
Learning Modes
YouTube Video Transcript Hide
Ask AI:
Export as:
Ask AI Result
The ask AI result will appear here..
(00:00:00) Your YouTube transcript will appear here
(00:00:01)
objectivism is a philosophy and this
(00:00:03)
course is called objectivism through
(00:00:05)
induction so I want to start by saying a
(00:00:08)
word about what is philosophy it's a
(00:00:11)
study of fundamentals and specifically
(00:00:14)
of principles defining man's proper
(00:00:18)
relationship to existence i defined
(00:00:21)
philosophy as the science of man's
(00:00:23)
relationship to existence metaphysics of
(00:00:27)
course as a branch of philosophy brings
(00:00:29)
in the fact of existence but every other
(00:00:31)
branch is man's relation how men should
(00:00:35)
behave so as to conform to existence and
(00:00:38)
thereby gain some crucial end
(00:00:41)
epistemology defines the principles of
(00:00:43)
proper thought so as to enable us to
(00:00:46)
achieve cognition knowledge ethics
(00:00:50)
defines the principles of proper action
(00:00:52)
so as to enable us to achieve survival
(00:00:55)
government the principles of proper
(00:01:00)
social organization so as to enable us
(00:01:02)
to protect individual rights our
(00:01:05)
principles of the creation of artworks
(00:01:09)
so as to enable them to achieve their
(00:01:12)
function of condensing philosophy in all
(00:01:15)
cases that say it's a branch that
(00:01:17)
studies how man should behave in a given
(00:01:20)
area in order to conform to existence
(00:01:25)
and thereby achieve a certain end and
(00:01:27)
the question is how would you ever know
(00:01:30)
what principles reality requires for you
(00:01:34)
to conform to it and the only
(00:01:36)
conceivable way is to discover them by
(00:01:40)
the study of existence including the
(00:01:43)
study of man and therefore the
(00:01:45)
conclusion is that philosophic ideas
(00:01:48)
have to be reached exclusively on the
(00:01:51)
basis of observation of reality they
(00:01:54)
have to be learned and proved read off
(00:01:57)
from reality and in this sense
(00:02:00)
philosophy is not unique it is like any
(00:02:03)
subject whether you're studying beetles
(00:02:06)
or stars or whatever you have to start
(00:02:10)
with observations you do not pry
(00:02:13)
in any subject start with books people
(00:02:18)
or lectures I'm saying you do not start
(00:02:22)
with books people or lectures the only
(00:02:26)
value of these things are for them to
(00:02:29)
other people to report their
(00:02:31)
observations to you and thereby save you
(00:02:34)
time or to guide you in making your own
(00:02:36)
observations and save time but the only
(00:02:40)
cognitive source the only source of
(00:02:43)
actual knowledge is the study of the
(00:02:47)
data out there so if you think of any
(00:02:51)
subject at all leaving aside
(00:02:52)
introspection the frame of reference is
(00:02:55)
always outward you your gaze when your
(00:03:03)
thinking should be your perspective your
(00:03:06)
focus out there outside it should not be
(00:03:10)
turned in on yourself it should not be a
(00:03:14)
process of memory when you're thinking
(00:03:16)
it should not be a process of trying to
(00:03:18)
recall what was once clear to you it's
(00:03:21)
not digging in your subconscious for
(00:03:24)
what was in some book or some lecture or
(00:03:26)
what some person once said once you know
(00:03:30)
a given fact and you file it in
(00:03:33)
essentials the relation between your
(00:03:37)
mind and that fact should be no longer
(00:03:40)
mediated by other people in any way
(00:03:42)
including by their books you have to be
(00:03:46)
as if you're the only man alive thinking
(00:03:48)
of this subject that's true of all
(00:03:50)
subjects and it's true equally of
(00:03:53)
philosophy a human source of your
(00:03:56)
philosophy is a bad thing unless that's
(00:04:01)
just a time saver that you drop out at a
(00:04:04)
certain point it should never be
(00:04:07)
essential to you when you think of
(00:04:09)
philosophy that I wrote a book or gave a
(00:04:11)
lecture or the iron Rand wrote a book
(00:04:15)
that's fine those things are fine as
(00:04:18)
maps to point out where to look or to
(00:04:21)
give you an advance report on what she
(00:04:25)
found but
(00:04:26)
to make the trip be focused on the road
(00:04:29)
and not on her report so the first
(00:04:31)
message is when you're stuck look out
(00:04:35)
do not look in don't try to take an
(00:04:38)
inventory of the fragments that have
(00:04:41)
come to you from within your mind forget
(00:04:44)
about that and look out now when we look
(00:04:48)
out we contact reality through
(00:04:51)
perception of concrete's we have to
(00:04:56)
reach the basic truths we're looking for
(00:04:59)
the principles by derivation from
(00:05:02)
concrete's and the name for that process
(00:05:06)
of reaching principles from concrete's
(00:05:08)
is induction and by the nature of
(00:05:12)
philosophy or in fact of all signs that
(00:05:14)
is the only way to proceed now induction
(00:05:20)
that's the I and ot I given you
(00:05:24)
objectivism and now induction and
(00:05:26)
through you can get out of the
(00:05:27)
dictionary induction is generalization
(00:05:31)
from perception that's all I mean by and
(00:05:37)
generalization I mean simply what you
(00:05:39)
mean in logic class you end up with a
(00:05:42)
statement of the form all s is P what's
(00:05:47)
called a universal truth every member of
(00:05:49)
a certain class has a certain attribute
(00:05:52)
every philosophic principle should be
(00:05:55)
reformulate able in the terms all as is
(00:05:58)
P for instance cause and effect you
(00:06:00)
could say every event has a cause what
(00:06:04)
about if I say selfishness is a virtue
(00:06:08)
every act of selfishness properly
(00:06:12)
construed is life-sustaining where an
(00:06:16)
another universal every act of
(00:06:19)
self-sacrifice is self-destructive or
(00:06:23)
one more example suppose I say to you
(00:06:27)
education is not a proper function of
(00:06:29)
government what is the universal all SSP
(00:06:33)
all government education is a violation
(00:06:37)
of Rights and you
(00:06:39)
even go on another one and say all
(00:06:41)
violations of Rights are destructive of
(00:06:44)
the mind and ultimately of life so
(00:06:48)
you've got to start thinking of
(00:06:51)
philosophy philosophic principles as a
(00:06:55)
summation of concrete's
(00:06:57)
all cases of causality all cases of
(00:07:01)
government education all cases of
(00:07:03)
selfishness do not think of them as
(00:07:06)
relations of terms selfishness by its
(00:07:10)
nature is virtue because the definition
(00:07:13)
of virtue is so-and-so think of them as
(00:07:15)
summaries of concrete's and the point is
(00:07:19)
that philosophy is an inductive subject
(00:07:23)
and the only way to reach its
(00:07:26)
conclusions by observing a number of
(00:07:28)
instances and then generalizing you do
(00:07:31)
not reach philosophic conclusions from
(00:07:34)
definitions on the contrary is we're
(00:07:37)
going to see repeatedly definitions
(00:07:39)
themselves come from induction so if you
(00:07:42)
don't use induction you can't get
(00:07:44)
started at all no I rent used to say to
(00:07:48)
me she never got to write this but she
(00:07:51)
said it repeatedly that induction is the
(00:07:53)
only way to reach new philosophic
(00:07:58)
principle deduction she said was not
(00:08:01)
important in philosophy it's important
(00:08:05)
derivative lis all the way in it has two
(00:08:10)
main uses one it enables us to apply
(00:08:13)
principles already known to new
(00:08:16)
concrete's you know once you know all
(00:08:18)
men are mortal then you can apply it to
(00:08:20)
JA ba a Bob Smith and then so he's
(00:08:24)
mortal too but that's simply an
(00:08:26)
application and the other value of
(00:08:28)
deduction is polemics if you know this
(00:08:33)
principle is true then so-and-so's
(00:08:34)
Theory must be false but in this course
(00:08:37)
we are not concerned with trivialities
(00:08:40)
and in trivialities in this context
(00:08:43)
means applications and polemics we're
(00:08:46)
concerned with how do you reach positive
(00:08:50)
broad
(00:08:51)
fundamentals and the answer is only by
(00:08:54)
induction
(00:08:56)
now philosophic induction in one sense
(00:08:59)
is easier than induction in any other
(00:09:02)
subject because it takes little or no
(00:09:05)
specialized knowledge presumably we have
(00:09:09)
to use only observations common and
(00:09:11)
easily available to all men at all times
(00:09:15)
anywhere in the world regardless of
(00:09:18)
their special jobs there are few
(00:09:21)
exceptions but on the whole that's true
(00:09:23)
it's Universal fundamentals that
(00:09:26)
confront us everywhere that's what
(00:09:28)
philosophy is it's not something
(00:09:29)
esoteric or super complex or full of
(00:09:32)
technicalities and in this regard is
(00:09:34)
infinitely easier than inducing the laws
(00:09:37)
of physics the whole goal of philosophy
(00:09:40)
is to condense all the complexities of
(00:09:44)
the universe into a few simple formula
(00:09:47)
to make the whole universe clear via a
(00:09:51)
handful a relative handful that's all
(00:09:54)
there is in philosophy of interrelated
(00:09:56)
principles that you could easily hold
(00:09:58)
consult and use as you need so it's a
(00:10:02)
pretty easy subject but unfortunately
(00:10:06)
for the same reason namely the
(00:10:09)
principles are so universal and so
(00:10:11)
abstract meaning they're so far from the
(00:10:14)
directly perceivable that they take the
(00:10:19)
whole universe or every human action in
(00:10:22)
relation to the universe and condense it
(00:10:25)
into one principle that it has its own
(00:10:29)
difficulties precisely because it it is
(00:10:31)
such an incredible condensation and the
(00:10:34)
problem is that you overload the mind
(00:10:38)
with more units than it can handle if
(00:10:41)
you don't do it correctly and then you
(00:10:43)
try to escape this problem by collapsing
(00:10:46)
into floating abstractions which are
(00:10:49)
just cut loose from concrete's
(00:10:51)
and that becomes rationalism now I'm
(00:10:54)
going to give you a very brief example
(00:10:55)
an excerpt from one of my early
(00:10:59)
conversations with on rant about
(00:11:00)
thinking in principles I've told this
(00:11:03)
story in
(00:11:04)
Oh par and also in my 30 years with Iran
(00:11:08)
that memoir and I'm gonna give you just
(00:11:11)
an excerpt from it I was talking to her
(00:11:14)
about the evil of line
(00:11:15)
and we spent the whole first part she
(00:11:18)
asked me to give lies and then she would
(00:11:22)
show why no matter what lie I gave it
(00:11:25)
was hopeless and I gave all kinds of
(00:11:26)
different lies that I could never find
(00:11:28)
one that I could get away with that she
(00:11:30)
couldn't show me was self-defeating and
(00:11:33)
she summed up at a certain point that
(00:11:35)
you see you can't get away with these
(00:11:37)
lies because they're all assaults on
(00:11:41)
reality and you can't succeed in a war
(00:11:44)
in reality I'm sure you see why and you
(00:11:48)
know it was a little tenuous to me I was
(00:11:51)
still a teenager you can't succeed in a
(00:11:54)
war on reality so I groped inward I'm
(00:11:57)
giving you a report knowing you know
(00:11:59)
we'd already had this long discussion
(00:12:01)
about why lies are an assault on reality
(00:12:04)
and then she just threw out and of
(00:12:05)
course you can't succeed in that
(00:12:06)
so I groped inwards why try to find what
(00:12:11)
could I find in my subconscious that I
(00:12:15)
could deduce from quickly why you can't
(00:12:18)
succeed in a war so that I could get
(00:12:21)
over this problem and I came up with oh
(00:12:24)
I remember now you can't affect reality
(00:12:27)
by your evasion and therefore reality if
(00:12:31)
you try to war against it you must lose
(00:12:33)
but this was completely floating in my
(00:12:36)
idea my mind at this point because it
(00:12:37)
wasn't concretize it was something I
(00:12:40)
grabbed from an earlier discussion and I
(00:12:43)
remembered and dug dug it out of my
(00:12:48)
subconscious
(00:12:49)
so I radii had a patch of fog there
(00:12:52)
where I thought I had it clear argument
(00:12:55)
I did have the courage to say to her
(00:12:58)
well why do you have to have a war on
(00:13:01)
all of really why can't you get away
(00:13:03)
with evading a few selected points of
(00:13:06)
reality or with you know warring on just
(00:13:09)
a few points and then she said to me
(00:13:11)
briefly well you know all facts are
(00:13:13)
interconnected and to evade one commits
(00:13:15)
you to evading all
(00:13:16)
that was a whole new massive generality
(00:13:20)
that I'd never heard of and that was
(00:13:22)
thrown at me and I'm not criticizing her
(00:13:25)
that's the way philosophic development
(00:13:27)
and thinking goes I was trying to digest
(00:13:30)
all the earlier stuff and now I said
(00:13:34)
sure what can you could you give me an
(00:13:36)
example how all facts are interconnected
(00:13:39)
and then she waited to as an example
(00:13:42)
well consider the issue of god and how
(00:13:44)
it has implications for biology and this
(00:13:47)
and astronomy and this and that and
(00:13:49)
suddenly I'm focusing on a completely
(00:13:53)
different range of concrete's and I have
(00:13:56)
a glimmer that everything is
(00:13:58)
interconnected but there's so many
(00:14:00)
things from the preceding discussion
(00:14:02)
that I hadn't yet clarified or
(00:14:05)
concretize that is just too much for my
(00:14:08)
mind to hold so I was either gonna just
(00:14:11)
literally tune out or go blank because I
(00:14:14)
couldn't hold it all or what I did is
(00:14:19)
drop reference to concrete's altogether
(00:14:22)
because there's just too much to cope
(00:14:24)
with and filling instead with a formula
(00:14:28)
and I just put it on my mind as ly
(00:14:30)
equals big against one fact being
(00:14:33)
against one fact equals being against
(00:14:35)
all facts therefore a lie equals being
(00:14:37)
against all facts therefore you have to
(00:14:40)
fit now if you don't know anyone at that
(00:14:42)
point had given me an another lie I
(00:14:45)
could not have run it through that
(00:14:46)
formula I would have known what the hell
(00:14:48)
is the connection between the law and
(00:14:50)
the formula but the point is all I could
(00:14:54)
do at that point was have an abstract
(00:14:56)
summary of the discussion now that
(00:14:59)
summary would be okay if every point
(00:15:02)
stood in my mind as an induction from
(00:15:05)
concretes but the point is that for me
(00:15:08)
it stood as a substitute for concrete
(00:15:10)
because I couldn't hold all those
(00:15:11)
concrete's and the point illustrated by
(00:15:14)
this example is only that the amounts of
(00:15:17)
material that come under philosophic
(00:15:19)
principles are so vast and the level of
(00:15:22)
abstraction is so high up that if you
(00:15:25)
have not assimilated every step by
(00:15:29)
induction
(00:15:30)
and automatisation before you go to the
(00:15:34)
next step the chain immediately snaps
(00:15:37)
there's a breach in your thinking
(00:15:40)
there's no way to keep your mind and
(00:15:42)
continuing with even a veneer of
(00:15:45)
coherence except by turning each point
(00:15:49)
into a floating summary and thereby you
(00:15:52)
make room for more and more cuz it's
(00:15:55)
just words now and that becomes
(00:15:58)
rationalism rationalism is a crutch now
(00:16:02)
of course you have to drop specific
(00:16:05)
concrete's to think but the idea is to
(00:16:08)
drop the measurements while retaining
(00:16:10)
steady access to the range of concrete's
(00:16:14)
that would embody these measurements if
(00:16:17)
you drop the concrete's as such
(00:16:20)
altogether and even the potential of
(00:16:22)
access back to them then that you've
(00:16:26)
dropped reality and you have finding
(00:16:29)
security in other words something finite
(00:16:32)
that you can deal with you're finding
(00:16:34)
that in the verbal formulation not in
(00:16:37)
your grasp of the range of concrete's
(00:16:39)
and then you just get two from one
(00:16:42)
verbal formulation to the next vice
(00:16:44)
pulling in or remembering or
(00:16:47)
constructing some definition here or
(00:16:48)
there and that is rationalism so I would
(00:16:52)
say rationalism psycho epistemological
(00:16:54)
is a shortcut to reduce the pressure of
(00:16:59)
the crow if you're new to objectivism
(00:17:02)
the crow is just a way of saying there's
(00:17:03)
only so much that you can hold in your
(00:17:06)
mind at any given moment and what the
(00:17:09)
pressure gets too great you either have
(00:17:11)
to reduce the number of units in your
(00:17:13)
mind or you to note and you just go
(00:17:15)
blank and rationalism is away in good
(00:17:19)
Objectivists of reducing the pressure on
(00:17:22)
the crow by substituting an empty word
(00:17:24)
for too many concrete's that they can
(00:17:27)
hold in effect it's an occupational
(00:17:31)
disease of ambitious philosophers who
(00:17:35)
want answers truths and absolutes but
(00:17:38)
cannot do it while continuously
(00:17:41)
shuttling back and forth between the
(00:17:43)
concrete
(00:17:44)
and the principal's and unfortunately
(00:17:49)
it's all that Universal in philosophy
(00:17:52)
rationalism among so-called empiricists
(00:17:55)
just as much as among rationalist and
(00:17:57)
among Objectivist and it's very
(00:18:01)
widespread in the more theoretical
(00:18:02)
branches of science and in math I'm
(00:18:04)
speaking of better people not because of
(00:18:07)
moral flaws in these people but because
(00:18:11)
of the inherent overloading of the mind
(00:18:14)
to which there seems to be no solution
(00:18:16)
but floating abstraction by the way
(00:18:19)
another reason for the widespread
(00:18:22)
rationalism is the fact of polemics by
(00:18:25)
polemics I mean the attempt to refute
(00:18:29)
your opponent's it's very hard to refute
(00:18:33)
anybody by induction because if you try
(00:18:37)
to give them an inductive argument
(00:18:39)
they'll find a thousand ways to say oh
(00:18:41)
but what about this example what about
(00:18:42)
this example you have to be honest to
(00:18:46)
learn from induction and therefore most
(00:18:49)
people in philosophy think the only way
(00:18:51)
to coerce their opponents is to create
(00:18:53)
an ironclad deductive argument a is B
(00:18:57)
and B is C therefore a is C you can't
(00:18:59)
get out there is no escape now of course
(00:19:01)
even there they can escape but it's
(00:19:03)
harder so if your motive is polemics
(00:19:06)
you're going to be drawn to rationalism
(00:19:08)
and you're going to find induction very
(00:19:10)
unsatisfying
(00:19:11)
because you got nothing really to say
(00:19:13)
when some swine brings in ten other
(00:19:16)
irrelevant examples and laughs at you
(00:19:19)
you're going to have to dish rug and say
(00:19:21)
well you figure it out for yourself
(00:19:22)
goodbye but if you're fixated on
(00:19:27)
polemics there's nothing I can do for
(00:19:30)
you but then there's nothing reality can
(00:19:32)
either you've changed into a completely
(00:19:35)
worthless life of trying to answer all
(00:19:37)
the crazy people and that is a super
(00:19:40)
lifetime occupation so give it up at the
(00:19:43)
outset when you have to reach the
(00:19:45)
maturity where you can listen to
(00:19:47)
somebody give an insane argument and
(00:19:50)
smile and say I have no comment on that
(00:19:53)
I don't agree
(00:19:54)
and I'm now I'm going to watch the
(00:19:56)
Titanic and see something happy instead
(00:19:59)
and as long as a gnaws at you that you
(00:20:02)
can't construct an argument they will
(00:20:03)
force this swine to capitulate you're
(00:20:07)
nowhere philosophically or
(00:20:08)
intellectually now this course is
(00:20:13)
designed to derive Objectivist ideas
(00:20:19)
step by step from observation put it
(00:20:23)
this way not by finding the ideas placed
(00:20:26)
within a set of other ideas no that's
(00:20:29)
what a rationalist does he locates each
(00:20:30)
idea in relation to other ideas and then
(00:20:33)
he has a whole chain starting with some
(00:20:35)
alleged self evidence II what you have
(00:20:38)
to do is relate an idea to reality not
(00:20:43)
to other ideas now obviously you can
(00:20:47)
relate a valid idea to other ideas and
(00:20:51)
it's important to connect your ideas
(00:20:53)
nobody's saying you should hold each one
(00:20:54)
disconnected but the correspondence
(00:20:58)
theory is the true theory of truth not
(00:21:00)
the coherence theory in other words
(00:21:03)
truth is the relation between an idea
(00:21:06)
and reality it's not the relation
(00:21:09)
between an idea and a system of ideas
(00:21:12)
before you can relate an idea to other
(00:21:15)
ideas before you can insert it into any
(00:21:19)
logical structure or any system you
(00:21:23)
first have to see does it correspond to
(00:21:25)
reality
(00:21:26)
is it true this applies to every idea
(00:21:30)
the first assignment has got to be can I
(00:21:34)
read it off from the data in reality can
(00:21:36)
I see it as nothing more than a summary
(00:21:39)
of endless observations can I see it as
(00:21:44)
a description of material accessible
(00:21:47)
everywhere I look outside now when you
(00:21:51)
can say yes to that that means you can
(00:21:54)
shuttle easily between the concrete's
(00:21:56)
the perceptual instances on the idea you
(00:21:59)
can see the idea in the concrete's and
(00:22:01)
the concrete's in the idea when that's
(00:22:03)
ottoman your mind so just like you hear
(00:22:06)
the word
(00:22:07)
you could see millions of tables and
(00:22:09)
instantly know their tables or walk
(00:22:11)
around seeing tables or right away say
(00:22:13)
table once you can do that then you can
(00:22:16)
relate table to chair to bed to
(00:22:18)
furniture to artefact etc and the same
(00:22:22)
thing is true or philosophic principles
(00:22:23)
once you can go back and forth in the
(00:22:26)
concrete to the principle you could then
(00:22:28)
carry your abstract formulation in your
(00:22:31)
head merely as words and related to
(00:22:33)
other principles assuming there properly
(00:22:35)
process but the relation the integration
(00:22:38)
to other knowledge comes after the
(00:22:42)
mastery of reality on the individual
(00:22:44)
level so a good self test of rationalism
(00:22:48)
is where do you start a thinking process
(00:22:52)
where does your mind begin what is the
(00:22:54)
first thing you are eager to look at or
(00:22:58)
get on your mental screen in order to
(00:23:00)
feel I've made a beginning I've made a
(00:23:03)
start now it's the first thing that you
(00:23:06)
want in front of you is a definition
(00:23:08)
that's bad not that it's bad per se to
(00:23:13)
start with the definition may be crucial
(00:23:16)
as long however as that definition is a
(00:23:20)
device pointing you to a whole field of
(00:23:24)
concrete's in reality but it's very bad
(00:23:28)
to start with the definition if that's a
(00:23:30)
way of getting you launched into a world
(00:23:33)
of words and deductive proofs and I'm
(00:23:36)
going to show you in a minute on a real
(00:23:39)
example what that would consist in the
(00:23:41)
test of whether you're a rationalist the
(00:23:43)
first test is what floods your mind at
(00:23:47)
the outset whether it has a definition
(00:23:50)
to prompt it or not a flood of
(00:23:53)
perceptual concrete's or a string of
(00:23:56)
philosophic language and if it's the
(00:24:00)
latter you have no hope in that thought
(00:24:04)
process now I say flood deliberately it
(00:24:07)
is not it is not sufficient to eke out a
(00:24:12)
few examples on the margins
(00:24:15)
well I've done my duty by reality and
(00:24:17)
now I'm going back to my deductive chain
(00:24:20)
that would be like you said table oh god
(00:24:23)
I remember there was a table somewhere
(00:24:25)
oh I vaguely remember there was a white
(00:24:27)
thing I'm not exactly sure this shape
(00:24:29)
but I think it had ashtrays on it okay
(00:24:32)
now I've concretize table now table
(00:24:35)
equals so and so that is what people do
(00:24:37)
with philosophy you've got to have as
(00:24:40)
many concrete's come right to you as
(00:24:42)
come to you with the word table if they
(00:24:44)
don't you don't know the principle so
(00:24:47)
when I say a flood of concrete's that's
(00:24:49)
what you have got to reach now all this
(00:24:53)
is pretty general by way of introduction
(00:24:55)
so I want to start by actually inducing
(00:24:58)
a simple simple example simpler than
(00:25:03)
anything we're gonna do in this course
(00:25:06)
but just as a paradigm at the outset I
(00:25:09)
want to start the law of cause and
(00:25:11)
effect I'm taking that because it's
(00:25:14)
almost an axiom it's close to an axiom
(00:25:17)
so it's available implicitly to children
(00:25:20)
and savages therefore even philosophy
(00:25:22)
students should be able to do it and
(00:25:25)
thanks to Aristotle and the Greeks the
(00:25:27)
induction is pretty easy now I said
(00:25:32)
close to an axiom just to clarify to you
(00:25:34)
a true axiom like existence exists or a
(00:25:38)
is a cannot be reached by induction you
(00:25:42)
can't reach an endure an axiom by any
(00:25:45)
reasoning by definition it's where you
(00:25:47)
start it's the basis that makes all
(00:25:49)
reasoning possible so the real axioms
(00:25:54)
are simply self-evident but there is a
(00:25:57)
certain parallel between axioms and
(00:26:01)
things which are reached by induction
(00:26:02)
namely you reach axioms by observation
(00:26:06)
and axioms are universals they're all in
(00:26:12)
the form whatever exists exists whoever
(00:26:16)
is consciousness conscious that cetera
(00:26:18)
they're all universal propositions the
(00:26:22)
law of cause and effect is not an axiom
(00:26:24)
so it can be reached by induction
(00:26:27)
it's very closely related but it's not a
(00:26:29)
pure accident now the first thing I
(00:26:32)
wanted to do is tell you what what a
(00:26:33)
rationalist do and then show you why
(00:26:37)
that's hopeless here's a rationalist and
(00:26:42)
I've had I couldn't tell you how many
(00:26:44)
students say the equivalent of this when
(00:26:48)
you ask them to prove cause and effect
(00:26:52)
well they say there's only three
(00:26:56)
theoretical possibilities a thing either
(00:26:59)
acts apart from its nature against its
(00:27:04)
nature or in accordance with its nature
(00:27:07)
who could think of another possibility
(00:27:09)
now it's impossible to act apart from
(00:27:11)
its nature because what's acting there's
(00:27:13)
nothing to act and it's impossible to
(00:27:16)
act against its nature because that
(00:27:18)
would be a contradiction which is
(00:27:20)
impossible by the law of connotation
(00:27:23)
therefore the only possibility must be a
(00:27:25)
tax in accordance with its nature and
(00:27:27)
therefore there's a law of cause and
(00:27:29)
effect as everything acts according to
(00:27:30)
its nature now see there are philosophy
(00:27:36)
students Objectivists who can do that
(00:27:38)
with everything doesn't make anyone's
(00:27:39)
watt they construct their little
(00:27:41)
deductive scheme no there's no you're
(00:27:46)
telling me didn't I say that in oh poor
(00:27:48)
because I did not say that
(00:27:51)
you know part you know part there's
(00:27:54)
something like that as a summary resting
(00:27:58)
entirely on induction from instances not
(00:28:01)
as a self-contained rationalist proof
(00:28:04)
now what is wrong with this proof so
(00:28:08)
called before we go to the proper
(00:28:12)
induction let's just say where did this
(00:28:14)
person come up with the idea that
(00:28:16)
there's only three alternatives it's
(00:28:18)
either apart from its negative thing
(00:28:21)
either act apart from its nature against
(00:28:23)
it or in accordance with it why only
(00:28:25)
three and the only answer their
(00:28:27)
rationalist has is what's the only ones
(00:28:29)
that occurred to me now what if an
(00:28:31)
opponent or somebody reasonable would
(00:28:33)
say to him well why are those guys
(00:28:36)
possibles what if a thing acts partly
(00:28:38)
through its nature which is necessary
(00:28:40)
but not sufficient condition and also
(00:28:43)
partly from an inner spontaneity
(00:28:47)
therefore there is no absolute cause and
(00:28:50)
effect now if we're going only by
(00:28:53)
language only by words that is a
(00:28:55)
completely irrefutable answer the first
(00:28:59)
guy made up three sets of words and
(00:29:01)
eliminated two in this guy out of the
(00:29:02)
fourth set of words so that finishes the
(00:29:05)
argument now I'm not gonna drag this out
(00:29:07)
but I could say even more to wipe that
(00:29:09)
whole thing out but the moral is that if
(00:29:13)
you start with some formulation out of
(00:29:16)
the blue that you didn't get from
(00:29:18)
reality and just quote occurred to you
(00:29:20)
what it seems obvious that means since
(00:29:24)
you didn't get it from reality it has no
(00:29:26)
clear application in your mind to
(00:29:28)
reality and it's therefore useless even
(00:29:31)
though if you are a rationalist it'll
(00:29:32)
seem very neat and satisfying because
(00:29:35)
it's basically like three minus two
(00:29:37)
equals one there's three possibilities I
(00:29:40)
thought of and I refuted two therefore
(00:29:41)
the one that's left is causality QED now
(00:29:45)
if you could any chill of satisfaction
(00:29:48)
that's a very bad sign from that type of
(00:29:51)
reason now what what a dictionary excuse
(00:29:55)
me an inductive approach to causality
(00:29:58)
consistent where you'd have to start off
(00:30:00)
by getting an idea what are you talking
(00:30:03)
about with causality and I have found
(00:30:05)
that it's helpful often to start with a
(00:30:09)
dictionary definition of the key word or
(00:30:13)
concepts in you the principle to be
(00:30:17)
induced there if you get a decent
(00:30:20)
dictionary the reason is your definition
(00:30:24)
will be completely uncontroversial it
(00:30:27)
won't have objectivism built into it so
(00:30:30)
there's no question of begging the
(00:30:31)
question it won't be too advanced
(00:30:34)
because dictionaries are very
(00:30:35)
unsophisticated and they give you just a
(00:30:37)
common understanding so the best thing
(00:30:40)
if you don't know where to start instead
(00:30:42)
of taking a definition that may have ten
(00:30:44)
Objectivist things packed into it get it
(00:30:47)
something from an ordinary house
(00:30:49)
decent dictionary now sometimes you
(00:30:52)
can't the dictionaries are hopeless or a
(00:30:54)
circular but in this case you can get it
(00:30:56)
very simple I looked up and I have this
(00:31:00)
old Random House dictionary that we used
(00:31:03)
to proofread atlas shrugged and that's
(00:31:05)
the one I still use it's got a lot of
(00:31:07)
flaws but I know it very well they
(00:31:11)
define causality to the effect that it's
(00:31:15)
the principle that the world is orderly
(00:31:17)
lawful or uniform and that's I think the
(00:31:20)
way most people would see it the world
(00:31:25)
is orderly the world is lawful the world
(00:31:28)
is uniform well now if we're starting
(00:31:31)
there as our first step the next thing
(00:31:36)
we have to do is see what would we have
(00:31:41)
to know to have reached them we want to
(00:31:45)
get this from observation obviously we
(00:31:48)
don't look out and see the world the
(00:31:52)
world is much too big to pursue and we
(00:31:54)
don't look out and see lawfulness so
(00:31:58)
what would we have to have known to
(00:32:03)
reach this and that's the type of
(00:32:05)
question you're always going to ask when
(00:32:07)
you induce you're starting with
(00:32:09)
something that's very broad and abstract
(00:32:11)
but you want to get it from reality so
(00:32:14)
you try to take it back to reality and
(00:32:17)
that's by the way it's called reduction
(00:32:20)
simply asking yourself what would I have
(00:32:23)
to know to get to this thing and maybe
(00:32:28)
you'll find that to get to know the
(00:32:32)
world is orderly you had to know X but
(00:32:35)
to get to know X you have to know W and
(00:32:38)
to get to know W and so on and finally
(00:32:40)
you get to something you directly
(00:32:42)
observe and I'm gonna say a little bit
(00:32:47)
more about reduction later but here it's
(00:32:48)
very simple
(00:32:49)
what would you have to know to get such
(00:32:52)
an idea as the world well by the world
(00:32:56)
we mean the sum of things all the things
(00:33:00)
they're all
(00:33:02)
so what concept did we obviously have to
(00:33:05)
reach first before we could get the sum
(00:33:08)
of things everything all of the things
(00:33:14)
all of the objects all of the what
(00:33:18)
entities that there are now I notice the
(00:33:21)
world doesn't mean the sum of quantities
(00:33:24)
it doesn't mean the sum of attributes
(00:33:27)
quantities and attributes are just
(00:33:29)
aspects of entities so the first thing
(00:33:32)
we have had to grasp is entity thing and
(00:33:36)
then at a later stage we could grasp the
(00:33:39)
world as a totality or summation of all
(00:33:43)
those things now how would we get what
(00:33:46)
would we have to grasp to get the idea
(00:33:48)
of orderly or lawful we're obviously
(00:33:52)
saying what is it that's orderly or
(00:33:55)
lawful well only entities because that's
(00:33:59)
all there is but what about them would
(00:34:00)
be orderly or lawful obviously we're
(00:34:06)
referring to and we have to know what to
(00:34:09)
get the idea of order or a law that
(00:34:12)
those entities do want that they then
(00:34:19)
act a certain way the same entity takes
(00:34:24)
the same action that's what we mean by
(00:34:27)
lawful in essence or the same kind of
(00:34:30)
entity takes the same kind of action in
(00:34:34)
other words an entity of a certain kind
(00:34:39)
with a certain nature acts a certain way
(00:34:42)
and that's all there is to the world is
(00:34:46)
uniform so what do we really reduce
(00:34:50)
uniform or lawful back to action the
(00:34:54)
concept of action but what else in
(00:34:57)
addition an entity we had to get the
(00:35:02)
idea not just an entity acts because the
(00:35:05)
same entity doesn't always do the same
(00:35:07)
thing but a entity of a certain kind
(00:35:11)
will always act in a certain kind of way
(00:35:13)
so we're talking about the
(00:35:15)
kind of entity an entity with a certain
(00:35:17)
nature an entity with an identity so
(00:35:22)
there's really three concepts at the
(00:35:25)
root here that we had to know before we
(00:35:29)
could build up world and law and order
(00:35:31)
and so on and that is entity action
(00:35:34)
identity and those of course are
(00:35:37)
axiomatic concepts according to
(00:35:40)
objectivism so we're back down now to
(00:35:45)
the kind of concept that you get from
(00:35:48)
direct observation thing action that I
(00:35:53)
think is what it is all right now assume
(00:36:01)
that our inducer has grasped has reduced
(00:36:05)
let us say has reduced causality back to
(00:36:09)
entity identity and action and he can
(00:36:12)
point to countless instances of entity
(00:36:15)
of identity and of action without any
(00:36:17)
hesitation what is he to do now to get
(00:36:23)
the conclusion that entities of a
(00:36:25)
certain kind act a certain way how is he
(00:36:28)
going to get that conclusion is there
(00:36:30)
something even earlier intellectually he
(00:36:32)
had to know well no these are primary
(00:36:34)
concepts so what is it how can he
(00:36:37)
possibly get the information now our
(00:36:41)
goal in induction is to reach a primary
(00:36:45)
level in which the answer in which all
(00:36:48)
we can say is the only way to get that
(00:36:50)
information is to look out of reality if
(00:36:52)
that's of the earlier we must have
(00:36:53)
learned yeah that's the jackpot or the
(00:36:56)
contact point the first contact with
(00:36:59)
reality and obviously this is the case
(00:37:02)
it's completely available perceptually
(00:37:06)
all you need to do is observe all sorts
(00:37:10)
of entities of different kinds acting
(00:37:15)
with you just observe without
(00:37:17)
precondition without preconception
(00:37:20)
instance after instance and if you do
(00:37:23)
that what do you observe well I gave the
(00:37:28)
two
(00:37:28)
inductive examples in Opa u-shaped a
(00:37:32)
rattle it makes a Sun you shake the
(00:37:36)
pillow that makes no Sun you push a ball
(00:37:39)
it rolls you push a book it doesn't move
(00:37:44)
you let a block go it falls you let a
(00:37:47)
balloon go and rises I mean you can do
(00:37:50)
this you know even before graduate
(00:37:52)
school so after enough instances anyone
(00:37:57)
is capable of generalizing from those
(00:38:01)
observations things act in definite ways
(00:38:04)
and only in those ways that's it now
(00:38:09)
these are childlike examples but the
(00:38:12)
inductive method for adults consists of
(00:38:15)
simply piling up instances of that same
(00:38:19)
phenomenon now why do you have to pile
(00:38:23)
up instances partly it's helpful to
(00:38:28)
automate our in cippolini psycho
(00:38:32)
epistemologically but epistemologically
(00:38:36)
cognitively it's necessary before you
(00:38:39)
induce that you have a wide range of
(00:38:42)
instances and why is that suppose all
(00:38:47)
you ever did is study rattles and you
(00:38:51)
watch them shake and they made sounds
(00:38:54)
where's your sugar pillow and it made no
(00:38:56)
Sun and that was it you had a thousand
(00:38:58)
examples of rattles and a thousand
(00:39:01)
examples of pillows you would not have a
(00:39:04)
foundation for much of a conclusion
(00:39:07)
because you don't know what is the
(00:39:10)
source of my conclusion maybe this is
(00:39:12)
something unique to rattles or rattles
(00:39:15)
and pillows maybe this holds only for
(00:39:17)
man-made objects in a home within the
(00:39:21)
size range of a child you still have no
(00:39:26)
idea what the scope of your principle is
(00:39:28)
the more instances you have especially
(00:39:32)
if you deliberately try to change the
(00:39:35)
example I have as many different
(00:39:37)
examples as you can a wide range of
(00:39:40)
examples
(00:39:41)
more you have the closer you come to the
(00:39:45)
conclusion there's nothing there's no
(00:39:47)
accidental factor in common here except
(00:39:49)
the thing which keeps popping up in
(00:39:51)
every single context it's like for
(00:39:53)
instance you tried to generalize all men
(00:39:55)
are mortal and you only observed white
(00:39:58)
male Californians and you watched you
(00:40:03)
know time after time they died you would
(00:40:06)
be I'm very shaky ground to say all men
(00:40:08)
are mortal but as soon as you cast the
(00:40:11)
net to include Americans and then the
(00:40:13)
rest of the world and then females and
(00:40:15)
then all the different races and then
(00:40:18)
throughout the different centuries etc
(00:40:20)
pretty soon there's nothing left in
(00:40:22)
common except that they're human and
(00:40:24)
then if you cast the net even wider and
(00:40:26)
you see that the that includes animals
(00:40:29)
and plants and so on you get that
(00:40:30)
they're living and there's nothing left
(00:40:33)
in common so you're justified in
(00:40:35)
generalizing so what you have to do now
(00:40:38)
is go through the universe in your mind
(00:40:42)
or in from your reading whatever you
(00:40:45)
know and see whether it's true that
(00:40:50)
engine ease of a certain kind act in a
(00:40:53)
certain way and only that way now Iran
(00:40:57)
sent me to perform this experiment on a
(00:41:00)
causality walk and she said just try to
(00:41:03)
find it find it everywhere keep looking
(00:41:06)
around work ever you see it make a note
(00:41:09)
and keep going so I as I remember I went
(00:41:12)
on this walk and the Sun I took the
(00:41:16)
action of the Sun the Sun melted the
(00:41:18)
snow but it warmed the roofs of the cars
(00:41:22)
but it blinded my eyes but it moistened
(00:41:26)
my forehead every entity in conjunction
(00:41:30)
acted in accordance with its particular
(00:41:32)
nature and then there was a breeze and
(00:41:35)
it bended the trees but it made a match
(00:41:39)
go out and made a pass a passerby bundle
(00:41:43)
his coat and it was just simply examples
(00:41:46)
like that over and over it's
(00:41:49)
man hanging a picture in a window using
(00:41:53)
as hammering a small nail and the nail
(00:41:57)
was going in and then I imagined him
(00:41:59)
hammering a piece of crystal instead of
(00:42:03)
the nail with just the same force and
(00:42:05)
then hammering and icicle and all the
(00:42:08)
differences according to my experience
(00:42:11)
and the knowledge of what is doing now
(00:42:13)
you what you have to do before you can
(00:42:19)
induce causality is add as many as you
(00:42:23)
can until you literally see it
(00:42:28)
everywhere no I am NOT going to do that
(00:42:32)
for you in this course because I can't I
(00:42:38)
mean I would have to then spend hour
(00:42:41)
after hour after hour which is what Iran
(00:42:44)
had to do originally or whoever induces
(00:42:47)
the principal digesting dozens of
(00:42:50)
concrete's across dozens of fields
(00:42:53)
before you could induce what I want to
(00:42:57)
do is show you where to look for
(00:42:59)
examples what kinds of examples to look
(00:43:03)
for and how to get from those examples
(00:43:06)
to the principles that we're inducing
(00:43:08)
any given class I can't give you the
(00:43:11)
number or detail of examples that would
(00:43:13)
be required to recreate a real process
(00:43:16)
of induction because then the class
(00:43:18)
consists basically of only chewing
(00:43:21)
examples which takes a tremendous amount
(00:43:23)
of time so there's a certain paradox
(00:43:26)
we're of course on using concrete's to
(00:43:30)
get to abstractions we don't have much
(00:43:32)
time to discuss concrete but I don't
(00:43:35)
think that this is an inherently
(00:43:37)
contradictory assignment because I'm
(00:43:41)
indicating to you every time in pattern
(00:43:44)
what kind of thing would serve as
(00:43:47)
examples and well you can find countless
(00:43:49)
other example and it's then your
(00:43:52)
assignment if you feel a need for a
(00:43:55)
greater number or a greater range of
(00:43:57)
examples to go home and find them to
(00:43:59)
your heart's content
(00:44:02)
you can multiply the examples endlessly
(00:44:06)
so I don't actually induce the
(00:44:09)
principal's in the lectures in the sense
(00:44:11)
of fully validating them by the proper
(00:44:13)
range and quantity of exam I just give
(00:44:17)
you enough material so you can go back
(00:44:19)
at your leisure and know exactly what to
(00:44:22)
do now you're gonna say to you but how
(00:44:25)
do I know how many examples or how many
(00:44:28)
much of a range is enough and the answer
(00:44:33)
is it's enough when you have sampled
(00:44:37)
whatever your context tells you is
(00:44:41)
relevant take that dunker that's really
(00:44:46)
the solution to the problem of induction
(00:44:49)
it's enough to generalize when you've
(00:44:53)
sampled whatever your context tells you
(00:44:56)
is relevant for instance if you are
(00:45:00)
living at a time when you think there's
(00:45:01)
a huge difference between the things on
(00:45:04)
earth and the things in the heavens then
(00:45:07)
it would be utterly unjustified no
(00:45:09)
matter if you had ten million examples
(00:45:11)
from this earth of causality to
(00:45:15)
generalize you'd have to seek and i find
(00:45:17)
causality in the movements of the stars
(00:45:19)
in the movement of the planets etc in
(00:45:23)
the movement of the Sun if you think
(00:45:26)
there's an essential distinction between
(00:45:27)
men and animals then it's not enough I
(00:45:31)
mean you know or they're living things
(00:45:33)
on the inanimate it's not enough to get
(00:45:36)
all your examples of causality from one
(00:45:37)
or from the other wherever you think
(00:45:41)
there's a really big difference here
(00:45:44)
you've got to be sure you've sampled on
(00:45:47)
both sides of the difference until
(00:45:50)
wherever you look inside outside left
(00:45:54)
right up down it doesn't make any
(00:45:56)
difference there is a connection between
(00:45:59)
what a thing is and what it does given
(00:46:02)
what it is that is what it doesn't you
(00:46:04)
can't make it do anything else under the
(00:46:06)
circumstances but that and then you've
(00:46:09)
got causality and that is the sole proof
(00:46:12)
that you're ever going to have
(00:46:13)
simply the complex of observations that
(00:46:17)
a thing acts in definite ways in only
(00:46:20)
these ways now I want you to observe
(00:46:24)
here therefore that in a sense Hume is
(00:46:26)
correct you simply do observe regularity
(00:46:33)
or uniformity that an entity acts in
(00:46:35)
certain ways there is no little flag
(00:46:38)
that comes out and says this has to
(00:46:41)
happen you just observe it now here
(00:46:45)
wasn't satisfied with that that's his
(00:46:48)
problem I'll comment about that more in
(00:46:52)
a moment
(00:46:52)
but then I want to answer this question
(00:46:55)
you might say to me well what is the
(00:46:58)
point or the value of giving a quote
(00:47:01)
proof of causality such as I seem to
(00:47:04)
have done in OPA
(00:47:06)
then you'll say me didn't you argue in
(00:47:08)
OPA an action has to be the action of an
(00:47:13)
entity and an entity is finite and
(00:47:16)
limited because it has identity and
(00:47:19)
therefore only one action is possible to
(00:47:22)
the entity and therefore that's what it
(00:47:25)
has to do and therefore that's cause and
(00:47:28)
effect wasn't that a proof that you gave
(00:47:32)
in OPA and I say to you it was not a
(00:47:38)
proof and I want to read you a paragraph
(00:47:41)
in which I say that explicitly on page
(00:47:46)
15 of the paper but the above what I've
(00:47:50)
just said is not to be taken as a proof
(00:47:53)
of the law of cause and effect I have
(00:47:56)
merely made explicit what is known
(00:47:59)
implicitly in the perceptual grasp of
(00:48:02)
reality I'm reading given the facts that
(00:48:04)
action is action of entities and that
(00:48:07)
every entity has a nature both of which
(00:48:10)
facts are known simply by observation
(00:48:12)
that's the only way you know that
(00:48:16)
actions are actions advantage it is you
(00:48:18)
look at swimming and you see somebody
(00:48:19)
swimming you look at somebody and he
(00:48:23)
isn't what he is I say given those
(00:48:26)
it's self-evident that an entity must
(00:48:29)
act in accordance with its nature and I
(00:48:32)
quote from all around the law of
(00:48:33)
causality is the law of identity applied
(00:48:36)
to action all actions are caused by
(00:48:39)
entities the nature of an action is
(00:48:42)
caused and determined by the nature of
(00:48:44)
the entities that act a thing cannot act
(00:48:47)
in contradiction to its nature unquote
(00:48:49)
now is she arguing well since it can't
(00:48:52)
act in contradiction to its nature and
(00:48:54)
must act accordingly and therefore just
(00:48:56)
proved it no there's no content to those
(00:48:59)
words as such you have to say what do
(00:49:01)
you mean by acting according to your
(00:49:04)
nature and if you ask what that means it
(00:49:07)
means a thing of a certain kind acts in
(00:49:10)
a certain way and what would it mean to
(00:49:12)
act contrary to its nature it would mean
(00:49:15)
the thing of a kind which acts a certain
(00:49:16)
way doesn't act that way so this is not
(00:49:20)
a deductive proof the proof is simply a
(00:49:25)
restatement of the observations that led
(00:49:28)
us to generalize that's all so now let
(00:49:31)
me ask you iran says causality is
(00:49:33)
identity applied to action that was her
(00:49:37)
formula does that mean then we have a
(00:49:39)
proof of causality by deducing it from
(00:49:42)
the law of identity I say to you you
(00:49:45)
cannot deduce causality from identity if
(00:49:48)
you think you can try the law of
(00:49:52)
identity tells you a thing is what it is
(00:49:55)
but it doesn't tell you what anything is
(00:49:58)
it doesn't even tell you that there are
(00:50:00)
actions let alone that actions are
(00:50:04)
actions of things as an abstract
(00:50:08)
formulation it precedes such issues as
(00:50:14)
entity and action so if your idea and
(00:50:19)
unknown I wish I could see their faces
(00:50:21)
around the country now if your idea is
(00:50:24)
well when you just induce you just
(00:50:27)
generalize you know from feathers and
(00:50:29)
balls and so on it's pretty shaky but
(00:50:32)
after I reach the generalization I can
(00:50:35)
then turn around
(00:50:36)
Doosan from some self-evident foundation
(00:50:38)
like the law of identity and that makes
(00:50:41)
it you know secure and reliable wrong
(00:50:44)
that is Platonism that is the idea that
(00:50:48)
deduction is the only reliable knowledge
(00:50:51)
and that induction is only suggestive
(00:50:54)
now if you believe in induction then you
(00:50:58)
have to believe that induction is a
(00:51:01)
means of validating principles not
(00:51:03)
simply a means of thinking of them it's
(00:51:08)
not simply to suggest it actually
(00:51:11)
confirms the principles that suggest if
(00:51:14)
you do it properly induction and this is
(00:51:19)
what you have to write down is a valid
(00:51:21)
form of cognition without requiring any
(00:51:25)
deduction to supplement it on its own
(00:51:31)
and if you think it requires deduction
(00:51:34)
to validate it where did you get your
(00:51:37)
deduction from it's gonna have one
(00:51:38)
general premise which itself is
(00:51:41)
inductive so you're still gonna find
(00:51:43)
that the induction is irreducible so you
(00:51:45)
may as well make up your mind to the
(00:51:47)
painful and bitter fact I mean too many
(00:51:50)
Objectivist that you cannot get away
(00:51:53)
from induction well now then let's ask
(00:51:58)
this question what was the point of
(00:52:02)
bringing in the law of identity then if
(00:52:04)
all you can do is summarized you know
(00:52:06)
all the things you observed acting what
(00:52:10)
is the point of having brought in the
(00:52:12)
law by dendy and say it's the law of
(00:52:14)
identity applied to action and why did I
(00:52:16)
go through all of this has to act in
(00:52:18)
accordance of this nature and so on well
(00:52:22)
I want to tell you this point now we did
(00:52:24)
add something beyond generalization from
(00:52:30)
instances but we did not add a deductive
(00:52:34)
proof what did we add by going through
(00:52:39)
the law of identity and its tie-in to
(00:52:42)
causality what did we add we added a
(00:52:46)
connection and engine
(00:52:50)
we took a widespread observation namely
(00:52:55)
what led us to causality and tied it in
(00:52:58)
to principles established by earlier
(00:53:01)
observation so this was really the
(00:53:06)
process we have an unlimited set of
(00:53:09)
observations condensed into identity and
(00:53:12)
a distinct set of observations condensed
(00:53:17)
into causality
(00:53:18)
now most people the best people today
(00:53:21)
see no connection between those two they
(00:53:25)
hear that the world is uniform and they
(00:53:26)
said yeah I can see that and they hear
(00:53:29)
that a is a and this oh yes sure I see I
(00:53:32)
agree with that I agree with logic and
(00:53:34)
they would never dream that there's a
(00:53:35)
connection between those two now
(00:53:39)
Aristotle saw the connection and iron
(00:53:41)
landed she saw what that those two
(00:53:45)
identity and causality fit together into
(00:53:48)
one unit that causality is an aspect of
(00:53:52)
identity I'll put it another way that
(00:53:54)
all the concrete's have come under
(00:53:56)
causality also come under identity along
(00:54:00)
with lots of things that don't pertain
(00:54:02)
to causality
(00:54:04)
this is a process of integration
(00:54:07)
integration by definition is making a
(00:54:10)
single whole out of parts it's not the
(00:54:15)
same as deduction it's merely seeing the
(00:54:19)
two things together belong and make one
(00:54:25)
now you should could ask me this
(00:54:28)
question well is little causality
(00:54:30)
stronger or more convincing after you
(00:54:33)
bring in its relationship to the law of
(00:54:35)
identity and I say yes and no it depends
(00:54:41)
on what you mean
(00:54:42)
in a sense it's stronger because it's
(00:54:45)
not isolated anymore you've now tied it
(00:54:48)
into the rest of your knowledge to all
(00:54:50)
of data that comes under the law of
(00:54:52)
identity
(00:54:53)
you've made your knowledge of unity
(00:54:57)
integration of your knowledge into a
(00:54:59)
single Hall if you remember all pars in
(00:55:02)
the same
(00:55:02)
fact oh the human method of cognition
(00:55:06)
and the essence of integration is to
(00:55:09)
bind together more and more data to
(00:55:13)
reduce to unity greater and greater
(00:55:16)
stretches of data if you can't do this
(00:55:19)
you have no check on whether your
(00:55:22)
information that you're just into
(00:55:24)
reaching is consistent or not with the
(00:55:27)
rest of what you know if you don't
(00:55:33)
reduce it your knowledge back to a
(00:55:36)
single whole basically it's not that
(00:55:40)
you're doing something wrong it's like
(00:55:42)
you're leaving cognition in the middle
(00:55:44)
without actually performing it would be
(00:55:47)
like you're in the middle of adding up
(00:55:48)
of some and then the phone rings and you
(00:55:51)
talk on the phone and leave the room
(00:55:53)
well what you did is not wrong but you
(00:55:56)
never add it you never got to addition
(00:55:59)
you just quit in the middle and the same
(00:56:02)
is true with integration once your
(00:56:04)
generalized
(00:56:05)
you have to tie it in to whatever you
(00:56:08)
know that's relevant and that process of
(00:56:12)
integration is the process that finishes
(00:56:15)
the cognitive activity and makes it
(00:56:18)
knowledge now the fact that you have to
(00:56:23)
do this doesn't mean that you are now
(00:56:26)
therefore proving or validating what was
(00:56:29)
earlier only a hypothesis in other words
(00:56:38)
identity is simply causality in a wider
(00:56:42)
formulation so if you might say to me
(00:56:46)
well which is more convincing a broad
(00:56:48)
abstraction or a narrower one identity
(00:56:52)
is broader because that all is narrower
(00:56:55)
well that's another way of saying which
(00:56:57)
is more convincing all the concrete's
(00:56:59)
that are instances of identity or all
(00:57:01)
the concrete's are instances of Cazale
(00:57:04)
neither is more convincing you can't say
(00:57:08)
that one or the other is more convincing
(00:57:10)
in fact the truth is not that one proves
(00:57:14)
the other
(00:57:15)
but that the process is what what am I
(00:57:18)
going to say
(00:57:19)
a spiral each redounds on the other
(00:57:27)
that's what enables you to injured it as
(00:57:31)
soon as you see that causality comes
(00:57:33)
under identity you begin to appreciate
(00:57:37)
more fully what is meant by identity so
(00:57:42)
causality actually strengthens or
(00:57:46)
illuminates clarifies heightens for you
(00:57:50)
the law of identity and vice-versa when
(00:57:55)
you tie causality to identity all the
(00:57:59)
power of logic of the law of identity
(00:58:02)
comes to causality and you now see it's
(00:58:06)
not just the things act a certain way
(00:58:07)
that's part of the very way I think when
(00:58:11)
I think logically identity becomes more
(00:58:16)
convincing you see it everywhere and
(00:58:19)
that in turn leads you to see causality
(00:58:22)
everywhere the goal in your thinking is
(00:58:26)
a series of abstraction each to ride
(00:58:30)
separately from observation and then
(00:58:32)
integrated with the others so that you
(00:58:35)
have an increasing amount of concrete's
(00:58:38)
all united in one whole and that is the
(00:58:43)
the point of integration what it really
(00:58:46)
does is reciprocally strengthen each
(00:58:50)
element like combining them into a unit
(00:58:53)
that's the value of integration if you
(00:58:55)
want to write that down that's gonna be
(00:58:57)
for my next book what integration does
(00:58:59)
is reciprocally strengthen each element
(00:59:03)
by combining them into a unit and you're
(00:59:07)
gonna find this time and again will
(00:59:10)
induce something you'll see oh that
(00:59:12)
connects to this and that the other and
(00:59:15)
that connection will make what we
(00:59:17)
induced clear and at the same token what
(00:59:21)
we induced is going to make the earlier
(00:59:22)
things renew clearer and more convincing
(00:59:25)
they're going to read down back and
(00:59:26)
forth and that's the spiral
(00:59:28)
keep coming back we'll keep seeing
(00:59:30)
causality a thousand times or at least
(00:59:33)
in this course five more times six more
(00:59:35)
and each time they'll say oh I see cuz
(00:59:38)
I'll be much better than I did when I
(00:59:40)
even when I tie into identity and I see
(00:59:43)
identity better now each one is gonna
(00:59:45)
make each one better know the temptation
(00:59:49)
that you have to overcome is the human
(00:59:53)
one which is well when I accumulate
(00:59:57)
examples I see that causality of so but
(01:00:01)
I don't see why that's what human
(01:00:05)
concept and therefore what you need is a
(01:00:08)
proof to give you the necessity of the
(01:00:10)
principle and then they said there is no
(01:00:12)
such proof now that is wrong a summary
(01:00:17)
of the facts can't you cannot expect
(01:00:23)
over and above that some entity called
(01:00:26)
necessity you have to throw out the
(01:00:30)
whole idea of the necessary versus the
(01:00:32)
contingent just throw it out if you have
(01:00:35)
doubts read my article on the analytic
(01:00:38)
synthetic but if you say to me well but
(01:00:42)
why does causality have to be true just
(01:00:46)
because it is there is no answer to that
(01:00:49)
question cuz Olli is true and you learn
(01:00:53)
that by observing reality just as a is a
(01:00:58)
you just as reasonably a suitable wyeth
(01:01:00)
a half to be a and if you have the
(01:01:04)
illusion well that I understand but I
(01:01:05)
don't understand causality it's an
(01:01:07)
illusion if you don't allow arbitrary
(01:01:12)
what-ifs such as well what if a ball did
(01:01:16)
turn into an ice-cream cone when you
(01:01:18)
pushed it or what if we came across a
(01:01:20)
type of radiation that was a wave and
(01:01:23)
wasn't at the same time which is what
(01:01:25)
physicists say if you don't allow those
(01:01:28)
arbitrary projections you have no need
(01:01:31)
for I need and necessity over and above
(01:01:34)
the facts so the real argument against
(01:01:39)
Humes is not that he is attacking
(01:01:42)
quote necessary truth the real thing is
(01:01:45)
that he is blasting the total of our
(01:01:48)
integrations because all of our
(01:01:50)
knowledge is integrated into one total
(01:01:52)
so if you attack one element of it
(01:01:55)
you're wiping it all out if it's truly
(01:01:56)
integrated and that's why he's a total
(01:01:59)
skeptic at least he was consistent now I
(01:02:03)
want to give you a thinking assignment
(01:02:05)
for the next class I have 20 minutes as
(01:02:08)
I time it and I lost some time remember
(01:02:11)
because of Allah it finally ended up
(01:02:14)
working if anybody's still there who
(01:02:16)
couldn't hear me I don't know I wanted
(01:02:19)
to give you a thinking assignment for
(01:02:20)
the next class along with a lot of tips
(01:02:22)
on how to start it how to try to do it
(01:02:26)
the next week we're going to take a
(01:02:29)
simple a principle of Objectivism as you
(01:02:31)
can get from the fountain air but it's
(01:02:34)
crucial to objectivism it's a lot more
(01:02:36)
complicated than cause-and-effect it's
(01:02:39)
not almost an axiom but it's not too
(01:02:43)
complicated it's not nearly as hard as
(01:02:45)
some later ones are going to be the
(01:02:48)
principle is that man's basic means of
(01:02:50)
survival is reason now I want you to
(01:02:56)
write down this assignment
(01:03:00)
how would you learn this principle
(01:03:02)
strictly from observation of reality the
(01:03:07)
principle that man's basic means of
(01:03:09)
survival is reason how would you learn
(01:03:16)
it inductively so you're going to have
(01:03:21)
to answer these sub questions a not
(01:03:26)
necessarily in this order but I'm just
(01:03:27)
giving you sub questions that you'd have
(01:03:30)
to grow put where would you start
(01:03:32)
what kind of perceptual observations
(01:03:35)
would begin this whole thing to what
(01:03:43)
stages if any what you have to go
(01:03:45)
through can you go directly from
(01:03:46)
observation to a conclusion or do you go
(01:03:49)
from observation to a preliminary
(01:03:51)
conclusion and then from map to another
(01:03:53)
and then from that to another
(01:03:54)
and finally to get through there for my
(01:03:57)
ultimate conclusion is man's means
(01:04:00)
survive those reason and three you will
(01:04:03)
have to consider this question what
(01:04:07)
other ideas of Objectivism if any do you
(01:04:12)
need to rely on to come to this
(01:04:14)
conclusion for example this is part
(01:04:20)
still of C do you have to know that
(01:04:23)
reason is man's only means of knowledge
(01:04:25)
that mysticism is invalid do you have to
(01:04:29)
know that to grasp that man's means of
(01:04:31)
survival is reason or do you have to
(01:04:36)
know what a concept is to grasp the idea
(01:04:40)
of reason now have you ever come across
(01:04:48)
something that you really have to know
(01:04:50)
that's a whole big mess and not in
(01:04:53)
itself just write down you have to know
(01:04:56)
a B and C and I'm not trying to do them
(01:04:59)
to them taking them for granted but I'm
(01:05:02)
choosing them in such a way that there's
(01:05:03)
not very much you have to know now it
(01:05:09)
may help you to if you have difficulty
(01:05:12)
knowing how to approach this assignment
(01:05:15)
to try to imagine you're explaining this
(01:05:17)
idea to a young adult high school
(01:05:20)
graduate in Atlanta say in other words
(01:05:24)
you can assume a great deal of knowledge
(01:05:26)
already you're not you are not trying to
(01:05:29)
explain this principle to a baby which
(01:05:31)
is out of the question you can assume a
(01:05:34)
full conceptual vocabulary with all the
(01:05:37)
appropriate definitions except you
(01:05:39)
cannot assume any philosophic definition
(01:05:41)
you can't assume the definition of
(01:05:44)
reason you're subject to the your
(01:05:48)
student is literate he has all the data
(01:05:51)
accumulated by the human race relevant
(01:05:54)
to this principle he's thoroughly
(01:05:56)
conversing with science history
(01:05:58)
literature so you're not starting from
(01:06:02)
scratch in the sense of bringing up an
(01:06:04)
idiot and I often will use my daughter
(01:06:08)
because
(01:06:08)
but Claire says what she wouldn't
(01:06:09)
wouldn't know and thereby avoid assuming
(01:06:12)
whole chunks of Objectivism in my answer
(01:06:15)
now I say that because you must not try
(01:06:20)
to establish this by looking for other
(01:06:22)
ideas of Objectivism from which you can
(01:06:25)
derive that is not what we're doing is
(01:06:27)
the opposite of what we're doing it's
(01:06:31)
completely pointless reasons to say oh I
(01:06:33)
know how to prove that man's means of
(01:06:37)
survival is reason I know that man is a
(01:06:40)
creature who survives by changing his
(01:06:42)
background rather than just adapting to
(01:06:45)
it and of course you couldn't change
(01:06:46)
your background without the Faculty of
(01:06:48)
reason and therefore man's means the
(01:06:51)
survival must be reason how do you know
(01:06:55)
that he survives by changing his
(01:06:57)
background oh that's cuz Iran said that
(01:07:00)
that doesn't come what did you see that
(01:07:04)
led you to that conclusion you say well
(01:07:06)
I remember a lecture that is not
(01:07:09)
induction you so don't scrounge around
(01:07:15)
for any other Objectivist idea in fact
(01:07:19)
if one occurs to just throw it out you
(01:07:21)
want to go right to reality even if you
(01:07:25)
have to go back to get if it's
(01:07:27)
complicated to find your way back to it
(01:07:29)
now it may not be helpful for you to
(01:07:32)
think of teaching someone because the
(01:07:36)
problem is that you may get involved
(01:07:39)
with your projection of his confusions
(01:07:42)
or polemics
(01:07:45)
you'll start safeguarding against
(01:07:47)
objections that a professor would make
(01:07:49)
and then you're lost totally if you try
(01:07:52)
to project your professors mind first of
(01:07:55)
all you get sick to your stomach but
(01:07:57)
secondly you confuse yourself
(01:07:58)
intellectually to such a point that you
(01:08:00)
can't perform the homework so use
(01:08:07)
another person a young person only as a
(01:08:10)
pedagogical and you don't have to if
(01:08:13)
it's confusing the real issue is what
(01:08:16)
perceptions of reality are necessary for
(01:08:20)
you to see
(01:08:21)
yourself that man's means a survival is
(01:08:25)
reason now here's some more advice as to
(01:08:32)
what to do your goal is to get down to
(01:08:39)
perceptual concrete's we said and the
(01:08:43)
broader the range and the more than the
(01:08:45)
better now I don't mean surely
(01:08:50)
perceptual the way a baby wouldn't see
(01:08:52)
them or even a year old one we're
(01:08:56)
talking about concrete's the way a high
(01:08:58)
school student would describe so you
(01:09:01)
don't literally start with shapes and
(01:09:03)
colors
(01:09:04)
you start from perceived objects already
(01:09:07)
known understood the way an adult will
(01:09:10)
describe them the point is however they
(01:09:13)
must be directly available to human
(01:09:15)
observation and you have to dredge up
(01:09:17)
write it down again a flood of these
(01:09:21)
concrete's not only one or two it has to
(01:09:26)
be like the causality walk everywhere
(01:09:28)
you look you see that man's means of
(01:09:31)
survival as reason you can't turn around
(01:09:33)
and there it is again
(01:09:34)
at minimum you must have six to eight
(01:09:37)
widely different examples that convey to
(01:09:40)
you the whole range of reality relevant
(01:09:43)
to this principle now you don't have to
(01:09:45)
write anything out obviously these are
(01:09:47)
notes for yourself we're gonna be taking
(01:09:50)
that up next week now let me also
(01:09:55)
pulling out this to you another kind of
(01:09:58)
advance warning we are going out of our
(01:10:04)
way to focus simply on the relation
(01:10:07)
between a principle and reality not a
(01:10:09)
principle in its relation to other
(01:10:11)
principles now of course because
(01:10:13)
knowledge is hierarchical you strictly
(01:10:17)
can't ignore everything else that you
(01:10:20)
know there's very few principles that
(01:10:23)
you can go like causality directly from
(01:10:25)
the observation to the generalization
(01:10:28)
usually we've built principles on
(01:10:30)
earlier principles and so on but what we
(01:10:33)
can do
(01:10:34)
what I want you to do is streamline the
(01:10:37)
process were ever possible in other
(01:10:40)
words wherever it's possible to get the
(01:10:43)
nucleus of the idea even if in primitive
(01:10:46)
form while omitting some step or some
(01:10:50)
point or some aspect then omit it if you
(01:10:53)
can get it without a given gimmick or
(01:10:55)
twist or qualification do it in a
(01:10:58)
primitive way think up the barest
(01:11:00)
minimum in terms of the steps necessary
(01:11:04)
to get from observation to the principle
(01:11:09)
the point here is to learn to start
(01:11:12)
somewhere and to reach an early version
(01:11:17)
of the principle you can then make note
(01:11:21)
of what you haven't haven't established
(01:11:23)
how it differs let us say from the full
(01:11:26)
statement of that principle in my book
(01:11:29)
or in you know and on ran and then you
(01:11:32)
could project what would be necessary
(01:11:34)
later
(01:11:35)
what other inductions would be necessary
(01:11:37)
to fill the whole thing out
(01:11:39)
it won't only be the same process of
(01:11:42)
induction over and over again but the
(01:11:46)
assignment here is to reach the
(01:11:47)
principle that I gave you in the
(01:11:49)
earliest form that a literate adult
(01:11:52)
could take it in or if you use the term
(01:11:58)
context the earliest context which would
(01:12:02)
qualify as a grasp of that principle
(01:12:04)
must be a grasp of that principle if all
(01:12:07)
you've grasped for instance is
(01:12:09)
consciousness is necessary for man that
(01:12:12)
survived that's not yet reason but
(01:12:15)
obviously you don't have to grasp that
(01:12:18)
it's a type of consciousness that all
(01:12:22)
mixed measurements and that's what
(01:12:24)
enables them to survive so it's
(01:12:25)
something in between those two
(01:12:27)
formulations whatever is the earliest
(01:12:31)
now I I think with regard to every
(01:12:34)
principle there's the earliest point at
(01:12:37)
which the mind grasps it at all and the
(01:12:40)
rest is then enriching elaborating
(01:12:43)
seeing new applications qualifications
(01:12:46)
integrating
(01:12:47)
by rolling it Center what I want you to
(01:12:49)
do is capture on this principle the
(01:12:52)
first truly philosophic formulation and
(01:12:55)
then later when you go on to get more
(01:12:59)
complicated we want the connection
(01:13:02)
between the idea and its roots to be
(01:13:04)
unmistakable once you grasp this method
(01:13:08)
on a handful of issues you can use the
(01:13:12)
same basic methodology to guide you
(01:13:14)
through all of the complexities still to
(01:13:17)
come
(01:13:18)
now a couple of other warnings here your
(01:13:22)
purpose here is logic and not history in
(01:13:27)
other words I'm asking you to
(01:13:28)
reconstruct your knowledge in order to
(01:13:34)
demonstrate its objective validity in
(01:13:37)
other words its basis in reality to
(01:13:40)
reconstruct your knowledge that's the
(01:13:42)
term and that's not the same thing
(01:13:45)
necessarily as tracing the actual
(01:13:47)
historical steps that any given child
(01:13:50)
went through to gain the note what
(01:13:54)
you're doing is starting as an adult
(01:13:56)
with a piece of information and then
(01:14:00)
sing how would we know possi in order to
(01:14:07)
acquire this principle if we had to
(01:14:10)
start from observation it's not how did
(01:14:15)
I as a child actually learn to say my
(01:14:17)
aunt may have told me all right they
(01:14:19)
have discovered it from on rent it's not
(01:14:23)
even how would anyone other than a
(01:14:25)
genius ever come up with this because
(01:14:27)
maybe only a genius could come up with
(01:14:29)
this but the point is she already has
(01:14:31)
and the question we're asking is do we
(01:14:34)
really get it do we know how as adults
(01:14:38)
to construct a path step by step from
(01:14:42)
observation to the principle that iran
(01:14:45)
has already told us about we may take a
(01:14:49)
genius to construct or created but it's
(01:14:53)
only infinite patience an effort to
(01:14:55)
recreate or reconstruct it
(01:15:00)
all right and now I want to give you a
(01:15:05)
clue if it helps you there seem to be
(01:15:10)
some methods that you can use I say
(01:15:14)
there seemed to be to help you here
(01:15:18)
actually two methods that could help you
(01:15:22)
some of them are more useful one of
(01:15:24)
these methods is more useful in certain
(01:15:26)
cases and one another and sometimes both
(01:15:29)
together are helpful
(01:15:31)
they will these methods will help you
(01:15:33)
figure out where to start and what
(01:15:36)
stages occur and I call these two
(01:15:39)
methods the reduction method and the
(01:15:42)
genus method the first was originally
(01:15:44)
suggested to me by my wife Amy and the
(01:15:47)
second by Harry Binswanger we're gonna
(01:15:49)
be restating them over and over during
(01:15:51)
of course no we run out of Tamil I just
(01:15:54)
want to give you a clue to the two of
(01:15:56)
them in our last five minutes
(01:15:59)
if it helps you at all if this is too
(01:16:01)
fast don't worry cuz we'll be back over
(01:16:03)
it every week reduction is very much
(01:16:08)
like the reduction that I did in all par
(01:16:11)
on the term friend and it's consists of
(01:16:18)
asking this question whether you do it
(01:16:20)
on a concept or on a whole principle
(01:16:22)
what would you have to have known to
(01:16:26)
reach this what would you have to have
(01:16:29)
known to reach this and then if you say
(01:16:34)
I have to know X to get to this the X if
(01:16:37)
I knew X that would get me to the
(01:16:39)
principal and after then is X something
(01:16:42)
you could have got directly from
(01:16:43)
perception yes okay you're home free no
(01:16:46)
well what would you have to have known
(01:16:49)
to get to X say t okay how about t if I
(01:16:54)
knew T I could get to X if I knew X I
(01:16:56)
could get to the principle how would I
(01:16:57)
know T at some point in this reduction
(01:17:00)
if you get it correctly you're gonna say
(01:17:03)
the only way to know that is direct
(01:17:05)
observation and then you've hit the
(01:17:07)
jackpot that is one method and of course
(01:17:12)
then
(01:17:13)
the stages of the induction will just
(01:17:15)
consist of traversing the same ground
(01:17:17)
backwards you go from observation to T
(01:17:19)
and then to X and then to your principle
(01:17:22)
and that'll be your final induction
(01:17:24)
that's the reduction method now how it
(01:17:29)
applies here you've got a week to figure
(01:17:31)
now the genus method was suggested to me
(01:17:34)
by a hare and he's said in essence we
(01:17:38)
form concepts by differentiating certain
(01:17:43)
entities from others within a broader
(01:17:46)
category or genus we form the concept of
(01:17:50)
table by differentiating it from chairs
(01:17:52)
safe within the broader category of
(01:17:54)
furniture this broader category sets the
(01:17:58)
aspect of reality we're talking about
(01:18:00)
and then when we differentiate within it
(01:18:03)
we have a concept of a specific identity
(01:18:06)
so the concept of table is a type of the
(01:18:11)
genus furniture as it gains
(01:18:13)
such-and-such which is chair or bed both
(01:18:17)
elements the genus and the differential
(01:18:19)
are essential to our grasp of what the
(01:18:22)
table is now Harry said to me in effect
(01:18:25)
one day when I was floundering why don't
(01:18:27)
we apply this two propositions doesn't
(01:18:30)
every proposition that we induce
(01:18:33)
represent an identification with in a
(01:18:36)
broader genus and doesn't it then
(01:18:39)
contrast with other propositions within
(01:18:42)
that genus so in this case our genus
(01:18:47)
would be a super broad principle and our
(01:18:50)
induction would be a narrower
(01:18:53)
generalization within that super broad
(01:18:55)
principle a generalization
(01:18:58)
differentiated from other
(01:19:00)
generalizations under that principle now
(01:19:04)
this it turns out has a really great
(01:19:07)
value if you can figure out what is the
(01:19:10)
genus of the principle you're trying to
(01:19:12)
induce so here to get a clue you go to a
(01:19:17)
broader principle than the one you're
(01:19:18)
trying to and then you try to subdivide
(01:19:21)
your genus into subcategories until you
(01:19:26)
come directly to observable concrete's
(01:19:29)
and then again just just like on your
(01:19:31)
reduction you turn around and go back up
(01:19:33)
but this time instead of going what
(01:19:36)
would I have to have known you start
(01:19:38)
from the most general and break it down
(01:19:41)
now that's very vague I grant you but if
(01:19:45)
you want to clue to a genus that might
(01:19:49)
be helpful in connection with this
(01:19:51)
induction you might think that every
(01:19:54)
living species has a means of survival
(01:19:56)
I'm giving you that as a clue now at the
(01:20:00)
relation of these two methods they're
(01:20:02)
really two ways of doing the same thing
(01:20:04)
but the reduction method infers
(01:20:08)
logically a string or line of
(01:20:11)
connections the genus method lays out
(01:20:14)
the whole field before you would like
(01:20:16)
and gives you a map or survey of the
(01:20:19)
whole territory and then you can locate
(01:20:22)
your specific induction within a total
(01:20:25)
field and it's since it's the same
(01:20:29)
material they're both going to come up
(01:20:31)
with the same principle as to how to
(01:20:32)
start and what stages to go through and
(01:20:38)
now just well one other quick thing I
(01:20:42)
want to tell you whenever you make
(01:20:44)
inductions involving human behavior it
(01:20:51)
is essential to look to world history as
(01:20:54)
a final confirmation that is as part of
(01:20:58)
the range of what you're doing do not
(01:21:00)
confine yourself only to the 20th
(01:21:03)
century as nietzsche pointed out we have
(01:21:07)
to be sure we're describing human nature
(01:21:09)
and not just a mood of this century so
(01:21:13)
if you have found that X is crucial to
(01:21:16)
man you should be able to find
(01:21:18)
historical periods where X was present
(01:21:21)
and good consequences took place and
(01:21:24)
historical periods where X was absent
(01:21:26)
and bad consequences took place and that
(01:21:29)
is going to be essential to showing your
(01:21:34)
final induction so don't forget about
(01:21:37)
history now I want to give you
(01:21:40)
just really I won't even take four
(01:21:42)
minutes the one last thought that may
(01:21:45)
help to motivate you in this whole
(01:21:49)
course and that is what the problem is
(01:21:53)
really with precocious Objectivists and
(01:21:56)
I to myself in that description as of
(01:21:59)
some decades ago I'm too old to be
(01:22:02)
precocious now but years ago and the
(01:22:05)
problem that precocious objective has
(01:22:07)
had is that we get too much too soon
(01:22:11)
in other words we learn powerful ideas
(01:22:15)
before we see the need of all of those
(01:22:19)
ideas we get answers from our end before
(01:22:24)
the questions even assert themselves
(01:22:26)
clearly in our mind we get a lifetime of
(01:22:30)
answers and we barely have a few
(01:22:32)
questions we get massive integrations
(01:22:36)
before we know while we're integrating
(01:22:38)
what happens is you hear a powerful case
(01:22:41)
from a historic genius either through
(01:22:46)
Atlas Shrugged or whatever you get a
(01:22:48)
tremendous sense of conviction because
(01:22:50)
all iran's power of presentation sweeps
(01:22:54)
you into her whole way of looking at
(01:22:56)
reality and then you come out from the
(01:22:58)
book but you don't really know what had
(01:23:01)
to go into it to get that perspective
(01:23:03)
and then you spend years trying to fully
(01:23:05)
understand or recreate your hold on to
(01:23:09)
it or worst of all trying to validate it
(01:23:12)
against professors or bosses who are
(01:23:14)
spend their time trying to batter it
(01:23:16)
down and you're in this struggle but you
(01:23:19)
don't realize what it actually depends
(01:23:22)
on which is the mass of observations
(01:23:25)
that are ran grassed originally from age
(01:23:27)
four and five and so on the perceptual
(01:23:32)
experiences that she saw one by one
(01:23:35)
principle by principle as crying out for
(01:23:40)
induction condensation and integration
(01:23:44)
so what you have to do at this point now
(01:23:48)
if you really want a master this
(01:23:49)
material is forget about all books
(01:23:52)
whether mine are
(01:23:53)
Rann forget about lectures don't try to
(01:23:57)
remember any set of words and once made
(01:24:00)
it all seem clarity and of course forget
(01:24:05)
all about professors and bosses or wives
(01:24:08)
whoever it is that would inspire
(01:24:11)
polemics in you let go of all of these
(01:24:15)
artificers now what and simply concern
(01:24:18)
yourself with one question what do you
(01:24:21)
what does your mind and the stillness of
(01:24:24)
your own mind what do you need to grasp
(01:24:28)
such and such a principle from rail that
(01:24:31)
is the only question and it's not easy
(01:24:34)
but it can be done and it gets it gets
(01:24:38)
easier and sometimes harder but it's a
(01:24:40)
I'm now convinced that this is a
(01:24:42)
learning skill that it's not just hit or
(01:24:45)
miss and that you know after I don't say
(01:24:48)
after this course but after some time
(01:24:50)
you will be able actually to recreate
(01:24:53)
the whole of Objectivism and have a a
(01:24:58)
confidence in your philosophy that is
(01:25:00)
impossible for merely having lectures on
(01:25:04)
it and we're going to start on one of
(01:25:08)
the easier principles of the Manns means
(01:25:12)
to survival this reason next week I'm
(01:25:14)
going to plunge right into how would you
(01:25:16)
reach this by induction and devote the
(01:25:18)
whole class to it trying to make use of
(01:25:20)
all the tips and methods and define them
(01:25:23)
all further each week we'll try to get
(01:25:25)
even clearer on the methods as we apply
(01:25:28)
them to new content so I think just
(01:25:31)
exactly use my time up so thank you very
(01:25:34)
much and I look forward to whatever
(01:25:38)
questions you have and I will meet you
(01:25:40)
again in one week good night or good
(01:25:45)
morning or good afternoon
