New Categories For Describing O-ists?

[ZSorenson]

As far as I understand, the traditional definition of an Objectivist is: a philosopher that understands and subscribes to the tenets of the philosophy discovered and articulated by Ayn Rand. Those who hoped to learn about this philosophy and/or agreed with or admired it were 'Students of Objectivism'.

Nowadays, it seems commone to use the label 'O-ist' to describe people who are generally knowledgeable concerning, and who agree primarily with, Objectivism. Unfortunately, even the most knowledgeable person can entirely fail to live according to their knowledge. I would like to articulate a few categories of persons that I've identified, and then have a discussion about what they would be called. I also would like to discuss how this might apply to the future of Objectivism as a movement. Finally, if there is already a way of describing different categories of people that I have failed to observe, please mention it.

(I have put my 'name' for these categories in parentheses)

For 'Objectivism' meaning explicitly Ayn Rand's philosophy:

1) - The man who fully grasps the tenets and implications of Objectivism, and therefore lives according to them consistently and completely. The man of complete focus and self-awareness. (John Galt)

2) - The man who more or less grasps the the tenets and implications of Objectivism, and in most to all of his decisions, relies on reason, focus, and the consistent life view of Objectivism. (Objectivist)

3) - The man who grasps the tenets and principles of Objectivism in the context of human life, and the humanities, history, philosophy, academia, etc., and can teach and discuss them. (Objectivist Philosopher)

4) - The man who would be an Objectivist, but through the fault of ignorance or inability - not volitional failure - cannot properly abide its tenets. (Aspiring Objectivist)

5) - The man who more or less grasps the tenets and implications of Objectivism, is enthusiastic about them, but fails in many areas of his life to exercise his volition according to those tenets. He is considered, by others and himself, to be an Objectivist, but hardly demonstrates an understanding of the coherence between the philosophy and human life. The cause is the acceptance of false primaries - for example, egoism, or liberty, or atheism. (Objectivist Enthusiast)

6) - The man who learns of Objectivism, but readily - and properly - admits an insufficient understanding of the philosophy to properly represent it, or live by its tenets completely. (Student of Objectivism)

For philosophies not explicitly articulated by Ayn Rand, but similar in premises or conclusions:

1) - The man who holds reason as his sole epistemology, reality as metaphysics. (Rational Man)

2) - The man who believes in the use of retaliatory force alone. (?)

3) - The man who holds his life as his highest value (?)

These last categories could go on, mostly you can conclude that these incomplete worldviews would fail (why is your life your highest value, so what if you don't use force if you sacrifice yourself to zero). I guess I'm trying to allude to possible worldviews that are consistent with Objectivism, but different, or qualified somehow - if that's possible.

[TLD]

'ZSorenson'

As far as I understand, the traditional definition of an Objectivist is: a philosopher that understands and subscribes to the tenets of the philosophy discovered and articulated by Ayn Rand.  Those who hoped to learn about this philosophy and/or agreed with or admired it were 'Students of Objectivism'.[/code]




There is no such thing as "traditional" def; an Oist is simply one who adheres to the principles of Oism.



[code]Nowadays, it seems commone to use the label 'O-ist' to describe people who are generally knowledgeable concerning, and who agree primarily with, Objectivism.

"Generally knowledgeable" and agree "primarily..." is not enough.

Your lists sound like rationalization for some who are not ready to be considered Oists.