Manhattan Lectures & Conversations

Universal Basic Income (UBI) proposes giving every citizen a guaranteed minimum income—no strings attached. Some argue it could end poverty and prepare us for an automated future. Others warn it could discourage work and bankrupt governments.
In this session, we’ll explore:

• What real-world experiments in UBI (like in Finland or Alaska) have shown.
• Whether UBI could replace—or complement—existing welfare programs.
• The economic, ethical, and political arguments on both sides.

Whether you see UBI as a bold solution or a dangerous gamble, join us for a balanced discussion where conservatives, liberals, libertarians, and independents alike can explore the facts and debate what’s best for society.

Format: Lecture and discussion

Note: social time for our community 15 minutes before the presentation.

Methods for comprehending the world can be classified generally into

• (1) inferring from universal principles--rationalism,
• (2) gathering reports from sense-data--empiricism, or
• (3) inducing ever-higher generalizations from perception--objectivism.

This classification on methodology contextualizes the epistemology of Objectivism, the philosophy as outlined by 20th-century novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand.

Yet intellectual leaders of organized Objectivism--i.e., those institutions setup after her death, such as the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI)--don't practice what they preach in the sphere of politics.

We argue that, specifically, on the question of whether or not to endorse the Trump 45/47 administrations, Objectivists of organized Objectivism fall back on the method of rationalism to answer the political question.

Meeting Outline:

1. Reviewing Objectivism as Ayn Rand's philosophy
2. Reviewing the MDI methodological hypothesis: misintegration, disintegration, and integration, mapping them to rationalism, empiricism, and objectivism
3. Presenting organized Objectivism's position about the current federal administration and the leaders' reasoning
4. Presenting the facts about the administration
5. On why the leadership's position is a case of rationalism
6. Replying to objections and counterarguments against our view
7. Q & A

Speakers' Briefs:

• Sherwin Newman: Objectivist and intellectual activist with a mission to advance truth in the American culture war; addressing the current state of the Objectivist community; writing actively on Facebook, Substack, and Instagram. Sherwin is a graduate from the University of South Africa and currently lives in New Hampshire.
• Ed Mazlish: Objectivist since 1993 and podcaster of late, Ed has been a practicing attorney for 30 years, with a practice that has primarily focused on business and constitutional litigation. You can connect with him on Facebook.

Join in for a discussion on applied philosophy.

The “God of the Gaps” argument—claiming that God explains what science cannot—has long been criticized for shrinking as human knowledge expands. But what if there’s a more nuanced version of this argument? One not rooted in ignorance, but in the fundamental limits of human understanding itself.

Enter Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, which mathematically prove that within any consistent system of logic, there will always be true statements that cannot be proven within that system. Does this open the door to a rational acknowledgment of mysteries that may remain permanently beyond human explanation—whether those mysteries point to God, the transcendent, or simply the limits of reason?

In this session, we’ll explore:

What Gödel’s theorems actually say—and don’t say—about the limits of human knowledge.

Whether the “God of the Gaps” argument, when reframed as an acknowledgment of intrinsic limits rather than temporary ignorance, holds any philosophical merit.

Alternative secular explanations for the unknown, such as human cognitive limits, multiverse theories, or epistemological humility.

How this question intersects with science, philosophy, and personal belief systems across the spectrum.

This conversation is for skeptics, believers, and anyone intrigued by the boundaries of what we can know. It’s less about proving or disproving God, and more about asking: When we reach the edges of knowledge, what—if anything—should we place there?

Format: Lecture and discussion

Note: social time for our community 15 minutes before the presentation.