*** Mod's note: Merged with a similar topic. -sN ***
First some facts:
1. To date (10.35pm GMT+1 on 25th November 2009) I have never described myself as an objectivist. I still consider myself to be in disagreement with many objectivists I have spoken to on a great deal of issues.
2. I am still working through the vast body of objectivist thought and writing, and am willing to accept that my knowledge might be incomplete to make certain judgements yet.
3. I have witnessed some quite worrying disagreements in philosophical discussions between people who both (or all) claimed to be objectivists.
Now my questions-
Do objectivists consider that there are basic tenets which, if one accepts, then one is an objectivist, but that there are other areas of thought which are still open to discussion, within which objectivists are striving towards the truth.
A different question, or perhaps a different way of phrasing this is "Can one disagree with Ayn Rand on a given issue and still be an objectivist? And if so, which issues?"
I feel I should also say that I write this message because although I would not call myself an objectivist (yet?) I feel that I might one day do so, and I would value any input from objectivists who can sympathise with my thoughts and help answer some of my questions.
I feel I should ALSO say that I while I disagree, as I have said, with some objectivists on some issues, I agree with a great deal of objectivists on a great deal of issues also.
I feel I should ALSO say that I am increasingly finding that non-objectivists are making less and less sense to me.
Your input would be much appreciated.