I love these lectures. Probably the best philosophy lectures I've ever heard. But some of his judgements do annoy me. Describing Epicurus as at best a second-rate philosopher and without merit is so absurd that it's laughable. It's also disrespectful towards a great and original thinker. Did he come up with own metaphysical system? No. But then most most philosophers in history haven't either. He still had bucket loads of original and influential ideas. And it's not like these are ideas without merit either. His take on death is unarguable and beautiful in its simplicity. His notion of acausal swerves has grounds in modern quantum mechanics. Admittedly, it's not a solution to the issue of freewill, as Leonard explains. Epicurus's pleasure/pain principle is precursor of Benthamite utilitarianism. So, in short, Leonard does Epicurus an unbelievable and appalling disservice.
Second-rate doesn't mean without merit or influence. The presenter even praised his take on death and remarked on his influence on philosophy as well... To be second-rate compared to giants like Plato and Aristotle is not much of a downgrade.
@@PraniGopu Indeed, it is no real downgrade at all, for as Peikoff himself stated, Epicurus, etc. were second-rate because they were "derivative." In so doing, Peikoff was admirable in his clarity, but this criterion fails to make his case, for Aristotle and Plato were also, to a large extent, derivative. Aristotle was largely a critic of Plato (in so doing borrowing largely from Plato's self-critique in the Parmenides while reaffirming the overall Greek ethos of "nothing to excess"). Plato in turn was largely a critic of Heraclitus (borrowing largely from Pythagoras and Parmenides). Perhaps Heraclitus was only truly "first rate" philosopher, for he seemed to derive his philosophy from no one, except that he sounded a lot like the Buddha (and was largely just generalizing the attention to process in physics inaugurated by Thales).
@@Primitarian I would say that Plato and Aristotle both put forth original _foundational_ ideas (new axioms, approaches and standards) to all the core areas of philosophy, i.e. metaphysics, epistemology and ethics (even if much of their work was derived from past thinkers), which is why they would be "first-rate". Each of their philosophical systems as a whole was _fundamentally_ original (i.e. with respect to the core areas of philosophy), even if many aspects of it were derived from the ideas of others. But yeah, Dr. Peikoff was not very clear about his criterion here.
@@PraniGopu I would actually concur, though it tends to be easier to be foundational when one arrives for work early in the day. Also, much of that foundation has eroded or been replaced, in large part due to later thinkers, particularly in the modern period, e.g., Galileo, Descartes, Locke, Hume, Kant.
@@Primitarian Yeah, early birds get the worms 😄 I'm not so familiar with the ideas of the later thinkers, but I'll look out for how the foundations of Plato and Aristotle (and those who came before) changed with the later thinkers (whenever I get more into their ideas!).
Possibly but he could also be a determinist. It depends on whether the knife went in because of an Epicurean swerve or because everything is determined.
@@zardozcys2912 Everything is determined more than its advocates know. Determination ie, cause, is the thing-action relation, not the event-event relation. The three types of things (matter, life, mind) each act in a specific way (mechanical, teleological, volitional. Mind determinism starts from within mind, independently of what the brain, re its nature as matter and life, do. Volitional action is not material or teleological action.
@@TeaParty1776 Can you properly say that mind is volitional? Do you consider animals to have mind? Then only humans have volitional mind and animals have non-volitional mind. So you need something else to categorise the way they act. And I think that would be through sensation and consciousness.
LISTEN, I can not survive as an entity unto myself by the laws of nature without 3 key lime pies a day, to do so should be against nature......go make me a keylime pie.
I missed the part in this lecture where Mr. Piekof explained how free will and material determinim can co-exist. Who the laws of physics, are.....transcended!😉
Peikoff is a superb lecturer, the best I've ever heard.
Absolutely! He's up there with Milton Friedman and Richard Dawkins, and IMO even better.
Addicted to Prof Peikoff's remarkable style.
Wonderful to backtrack and see how the socio-economic conditions gave rise to the philosophy of the age!
"how to escape from being too badly hurt", wow, that hits it on the head
Fantastic insight
The best ethical lecture out there
Thank you for your keen insights
And allowing me to grasp a new perception ....
13:00
"...To die, to sleep;
To sleep, perchance to dream-ay, there's the rub..."
- Hamlet
I love these lectures. Probably the best philosophy lectures I've ever heard. But some of his judgements do annoy me. Describing Epicurus as at best a second-rate philosopher and without merit is so absurd that it's laughable. It's also disrespectful towards a great and original thinker. Did he come up with own metaphysical system? No. But then most most philosophers in history haven't either. He still had bucket loads of original and influential ideas. And it's not like these are ideas without merit either. His take on death is unarguable and beautiful in its simplicity. His notion of acausal swerves has grounds in modern quantum mechanics. Admittedly, it's not a solution to the issue of freewill, as Leonard explains. Epicurus's pleasure/pain principle is precursor of Benthamite utilitarianism. So, in short, Leonard does Epicurus an unbelievable and appalling disservice.
Second-rate doesn't mean without merit or influence. The presenter even praised his take on death and remarked on his influence on philosophy as well... To be second-rate compared to giants like Plato and Aristotle is not much of a downgrade.
@@PraniGopu Indeed, it is no real downgrade at all, for as Peikoff himself stated, Epicurus, etc. were second-rate because they were "derivative." In so doing, Peikoff was admirable in his clarity, but this criterion fails to make his case, for Aristotle and Plato were also, to a large extent, derivative. Aristotle was largely a critic of Plato (in so doing borrowing largely from Plato's self-critique in the Parmenides while reaffirming the overall Greek ethos of "nothing to excess"). Plato in turn was largely a critic of Heraclitus (borrowing largely from Pythagoras and Parmenides). Perhaps Heraclitus was only truly "first rate" philosopher, for he seemed to derive his philosophy from no one, except that he sounded a lot like the Buddha (and was largely just generalizing the attention to process in physics inaugurated by Thales).
@@Primitarian I would say that Plato and Aristotle both put forth original _foundational_ ideas (new axioms, approaches and standards) to all the core areas of philosophy, i.e. metaphysics, epistemology and ethics (even if much of their work was derived from past thinkers), which is why they would be "first-rate". Each of their philosophical systems as a whole was _fundamentally_ original (i.e. with respect to the core areas of philosophy), even if many aspects of it were derived from the ideas of others. But yeah, Dr. Peikoff was not very clear about his criterion here.
@@PraniGopu I would actually concur, though it tends to be easier to be foundational when one arrives for work early in the day. Also, much of that foundation has eroded or been replaced, in large part due to later thinkers, particularly in the modern period, e.g., Galileo, Descartes, Locke, Hume, Kant.
@@Primitarian Yeah, early birds get the worms 😄 I'm not so familiar with the ideas of the later thinkers, but I'll look out for how the foundations of Plato and Aristotle (and those who came before) changed with the later thinkers (whenever I get more into their ideas!).
Thank you
A convicted murderer in a British jail told a psychiatrist that "the knife went in." Did he study Epicurus?
Possibly but he could also be a determinist. It depends on whether the knife went in because of an Epicurean swerve or because everything is determined.
@@zardozcys2912 Everything is determined more than its advocates know. Determination ie, cause, is the thing-action relation, not the event-event relation. The three types of things (matter, life, mind) each act in a specific way (mechanical, teleological, volitional. Mind determinism starts from within mind, independently of what the brain, re its nature as matter and life, do. Volitional action is not material or teleological action.
@@TeaParty1776 Can you properly say that mind is volitional? Do you consider animals to have mind? Then only humans have volitional mind and animals have non-volitional mind. So you need something else to categorise the way they act. And I think that would be through sensation and consciousness.
@@zardozcys2912 Animals have perception, not mind. Consciousness includes mind, perception and (possibly) sensation).
Psy. Of Self-Esteem-N. Branden
This "self help" stage of lesser philosophy is just what we see in our chaotic world today.
Epicurus' philosophy can only possibly come from someone who never had children.
LISTEN, I can not survive as an entity unto myself by the laws of nature without 3 key lime pies a day, to do so should be against nature......go make me a keylime pie.
Who is John Galt? Answer, the opposite of Robin Hood!
Epicurius was not an "orthodox" polytheism like Aristotle?🤔😉
Be temperant in what you eat and drink. Be temperant in what you desire. Sex can get you into a lot of problems.
Ayn Rand, unlike Aristotle or any other philosopher has a complete, inerrant ethical theory. The perfect ethical standard! 😉😉😉
I missed the part in this lecture where Mr. Piekof explained how free will and material determinim can co-exist. Who the laws of physics, are.....transcended!😉
What absolut biast bullshit.
I agree. Everybody spins! 😉
It appears to me that the moderator is a "cafeteria" Epicurian-Aristotilian.