What percentage of Objectivists stay Objectivist?

[TLD]

First of all, no you didn't, I just scanned your posts on the thread to check. Second, what does that mean, and what's the difference? By "accept" do you mean something like a Christian accepting Jesus in his heart, or some such piffle? Or are you, again, trying to say that anyone who comes to disagree with Objectivism never understood it (er, accepted it)?

In my original post: "If someone truly understands Obj.ism and can call himself an Obj.ist, there should be no reason - and he certainly would be applying reason - to change."

Does that not sound like "understand and accept" to you?

No, accepting in one's "heart" is certainly not accepting mentally.

Yes, anyone who disagrees with Objectivist principles never fully understood and accepted (lived by) them.

That is not to say that such a person might have once thought he U&A.

What a non-Obj.ist needs to understand is that Obj.ism is a complete philosophy based on reason and rationality.

Once understood, one would have to reject R&R to some extent to reject its principles.

[Ninth Doctor]

Does that not sound like "understand and accept" to you?

At least you’ve downshifted from claiming you said something you didn’t say, to claiming you said something that “sounds like” what you didn’t say. Progress.

Now, please explain the distinction between understand and accept. I think the Pope can understand Objectivism, and carry on being just as irrational as ever. Just as he can understand Islamic theology, Humean epistemology, Chomskian politics, you name it. He certainly has a serious case of God-on-the-Brain, but he can compartmentalize. Objectivism really isn't that hard to understand.

Yes, anyone who disagrees with Objectivist principles never fully understood and accepted (lived by) them.

That is not to say that such a person might have once thought he U&A.

Then this author doesn’t understand Objectivism, and never did?

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10364&view=findpost&p=131082

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10705&view=findpost&p=136065

Sounds to me like he knows what he’s talking about, has a disagreement, and therefore doesn’t call himself an Objectivist. Anymore.

[SapereAude]

You are making the definition of education subjective.

Conceptually, I think we agree - this is a linguistic disagreement, and I'm sorry but I reject your re-definition of the meaning of the term.

It isn't mydefinition of education. It is not an uncommon one either.

You say I am making the definition of education subjective. I have never claimed that the definition of education is subjective. I do strongly assert however that how one acquires an education is wide open.

From Etymonline.com

"Education in the largest sense is any act or experience that has a formative effect on the mind, character, or physical ability of an individual. In its technical sense, education is the process by which society deliberately transmits its accumulated knowledge, skills, and values from one generation to another.

Etymologically, the word education is derived from educare (Latin) "bring up", which is related to educere "bring out", "bring forth what is within", "bring out potential" and ducere, "to lead".[1]

Or:

"Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school. ~Albert Einstein

Or:

It is a thousand times better to have common sense without education than to have education without common sense. ~Robert G. Ingersoll

Or:

Education... has produced a vast population able to read but unable to distinguish what is worth reading. ~G.M. Trevelyan

Or:

Real education must ultimately be limited to men who insist on knowing, the rest is mere sheep-herding. ~Ezra Pound

Or:

The object of education is to prepare the young to educate themselves throughout their lives. ~Robert Maynard Hutchins (emphasis mine)

Or:

Children have to be educated, but they have also to be left to educate themselves. ~Abbé Dimnet, Art of Thinking, 1928

Or:

There is only one Education, and it has only one goal: the freedom of the mind. Anything that needs an adjective, be it civics education, or socialist education, or Christian education, or whatever-you-like education, is not education, and it has some different goal. The very existence of modified "educations" is testimony to the fact that their proponents cannot bring about what they want in a mind that is free. An "education" that cannot do its work in a free mind, and so must "teach" by homily and precept in the service of these feelings and attitudes and beliefs rather than those, is pure and unmistakable tyranny. ~Richard Mitchell, The Underground Grammarian, September 1982

[Grames]

The general sense of education is still contemporary usage. The movie "An Education" (2009)is "A coming-of-age story about a teenage girl in 1960s suburban London, and how her life changes with the arrival of a playboy nearly twice her age." (IMDB) The heroine in this story learns things both in school and out of school, but the broader education (i.e. the moral education, the real education) is out of school.

[bluecherry]

Could somebody please give some examples of what kinds of things they would consider to be rational reasons for one who has thoroughly understood and lived by Oism to later ditch it? I'm asking about rational reasons because at least once or twice this has been implied it seems and that we're not just talking about people who at any given moment just stopped choosing to be in focus and to drift and evade instead, or got a brain injury which leaves them incapable of such complex philosophizing anymore, or know they have days before they will inevitably die anyway. This is not meant to be an argument to the contrary from me but instead an actual inquiry for information. I'm also asking for examples from the pro side and not the con side not out of any kind of favoritism, just the fact that, as we all know, you can't prove a negative and the burden is on proving the positive.

[Ninth Doctor]

Could somebody please give some examples of what kinds of things they would consider to be rational reasons for one who has thoroughly understood and lived by Oism to later ditch it?

I linked to an example earlier, that of George H. Smith. He decided he disagreed with Rand's position on Government qua legal (or moral) monopoly on force, and became an anarchist. Agree with him or not, he demonstrates a thorough understanding of Rand's position, says he used to agree with it, and can explain his reasons for changing.

[softwareNerd]

Could somebody please give some examples of what kinds of things they would consider to be rational reasons for one who has thoroughly understood and lived by Oism to later ditch it?

I don't see how you can get this answer from and Objectivist. Of course an Objectivist might tell you the type of reasons that others choose to leave Objectivism. He might even show why these reasons are rational within the limited (to him) context of the person making the decision (e.g. "they had the misconception that Objectivism said XYZ"). However, if the Objectivist thought that there was some actual rational reason to leave Objectivism, in the context of his own knowledge, then I reckon he would declare himself a non-Objectivist. Edited June 24, 2011 by softwareNerd

[TLD]

I linked to an example earlier, that of George H. Smith. He decided he disagreed with Rand's position on Government qua legal (or moral) monopoly on force, and became an anarchist. Agree with him or not, he demonstrates a thorough understanding of Rand's position, says he used to agree with it, and can explain his reasons for changing.

Anarchy is not a rational substitute for limited government.

Nor is that a fundamental principle of Obj.ism on which Smith refuted and changed.

[Ninth Doctor]

Anarchy is not a rational substitute for limited government.

Nor is that a fundamental principle of Obj.ism on which Smith refuted and changed.

Well you’ve sure convinced me! Nothing to see there, folks, so don’t click those links!

You don't regard the idea that government has a moral monopoly on force a fundamental principle of Objectivism? Hmm.

I wonder, TLD, can you summarize GHS's argument? Indulge me, answer his logic. But before you start, let me point out that Ayn Rand’s essay collection on politics is called Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Just keep that in mind as you present your refutation.

[CptnChan]

I am apparently gonna be pissing off by taking humor seriously, but the truth must be told:

I'm pretty sure he was supposed to be making contradictory statements taken from different philosophies. That's the joke. It's not primarily representing objectivism. It's supposed to illustrate the average college student who stereotypically absorbs every ideaology he is introduced to.

[TLD]

Well you’ve sure convinced me! Nothing to see there, folks, so don’t click those links!

You don't regard the idea that government has a moral monopoly on force a fundamental principle of Objectivism? Hmm.

I wonder, TLD, can you summarize GHS's argument? Indulge me, answer his logic. But before you start, let me point out that Ayn Rand’s essay collection on politics is called Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Just keep that in mind as you present your refutation.

You don't need to preach.

To refute the Smith example, I only needed to make the first point re anarachy; and that should not require an analysis of Smith's argument.

Re the 2nd point: Capitalism is a long way down the chain of concepts; and it is defined as a system with govt. monopoly of force. What is fundamental are the moral principles that lead to the conclusion that Capitalism is the proper system in a free society.

It is a common error to accept Obj.ism but to assume that force should be eliminated altogether, thus anarchy.

Smith called himself an Obj.ist in error.

[Dante]

If one agrees and then disagrees, yes - he did not fully understand and agree with it. We're talking a complete philosophy here, not a simple idea that one can easily change his mind on.

You're not just claiming it's hard to change your mind about it. You're saying it's impossible.

I guess I won't know whether I was ever truly an Objectivist until I die as one.

[TLD]

You're not just claiming it's hard to change your mind about it. You're saying it's impossible.

Virtually yes - for a true Obj.ist.

Clearly, this is a very principled point. Sure people change their mind, and I have seen professed Obj.ists do so.

I can't see myself or any Obj.ist I currently know make such a change with today's context of knowledge.

[Greebo]

Just to throw this out there, someone could be a true O'ist, suffer a brain injury, and lose some of their ability to reason, and then reject O'ism...

[TLD]

Just to throw this out there, someone could be a true O'ist, suffer a brain injury, and lose some of their ability to reason, and then reject O'ism...

Is that presented as an actual refutation of the premise being discussed?

[Greebo]

Is that presented as an actual refutation of the premise being discussed?

If the premise is that it is *impossible* for a real O'ist to stop being one, yes.

[TLD]

If the premise is that it is *impossible* for a real O'ist to stop being one, yes.

I did not want to believe that you could conclude such.

In your example, Person A became person B. Logic does not allow you to change the mental makeup of someone in order to refute an argument. Hypotheticals have to be rational to be meaningful.

[Greebo]

I did not want to believe that you could conclude such.

In your example, Person A became person B. Logic does not allow you to change the mental makeup of someone in order to refute an argument. Hypotheticals have to be rational to be meaningful.

I'm sorry, what hypothetical are you talking about? Mental damage is a real and all too common occurrence.

My paternal grandmother suffered from severe Alzheimer disease. Over the last years of her life she underwent significant personality and cognitive changes as a result. Despite those changes, she was STILL the woman who gave birth to my father.

If the premise is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a genuine O'ist to ever stop being one, then this example is just about as valid as the premise itself.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Greebo

[Dante]

This discussion is bordering on the absurd. Of course it's possible for an Objectivist to change his mind about some fundamental principle of Objectivism and no longer be an Objectivist, and it doesn't take brain damage to do it. Knowledge is not automatic, and the truth isn't just absorbed passively. No one is infallible.

[TLD]

If the premise is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a genuine O'ist to ever stop being one, then this example is just about as valid as the premise itself.

No it is not! She is not the same person after the mental change.

You can't drop the context of who she was and who she became.

The Obj.ist became incapable of thinking rationally; she did not consciously change to be a non-Obj.ist.

[Greebo]

No it is not! She is not the same person after the mental change.

Really? She isn't the living being who gave birth to my father anymore? Yes, she's become a "Broken Unit", but she's still Rachael Louise MyLastNameHere from birth to death.

You can't drop the context of who she was and who she became.

The Obj.ist became incapable of thinking rationally; she did not consciously change to be a non-Obj.ist.

I don't think I'm the one dropping the context here. The premise appears to have suddenly changed from:

"it is IMPOSSIBLE for a genuine O'ist to ever stop being one"

to

"it is IMPOSSIBLE for a genuine O'ist to ever CHOOSE to stop being one"

Edited June 24, 2011 by Greebo

[TLD]

I don't think I'm the one dropping the context here. The premise appears to have suddenly changed from:

"it is IMPOSSIBLE for a genuine O'ist to ever stop being one"

to

"it is IMPOSSIBLE for a genuine O'ist to ever CHOOSE to stop being one"

That is my point: to "stop being" is to "choose to stop being."

If something outside your control "stops" you, that is outside this discussion.

If circumstances make a person incapable of choosing, then he is "stopped from being."

This discussion was never dealing with such situations.

Remember the original question: "what % of Obj.s stay Obj.s...."

Do you really think that was to count those who became disfunctional?!!!!!

[Eiuol]

I don't see how you can get this answer from and Objectivist. Of course an Objectivist might tell you the type of reasons that others choose to leave Objectivism. He might even show why these reasons are rational within the limited (to him) context of the person making the decision (e.g. "they had the misconception that Objectivism said XYZ"). However, if the Objectivist thought that there was some actual rational reason to leave Objectivism, in the context of his own knowledge, then I reckon he would declare himself a non-Objectivist.

TLD, I call to your attention this reply again.

Implicit in your statements is that ANY person who abandons Objectivism is being irrational. I'm sure A LOT of people abandon Objectivism before thinking critically about it, but there are likely a small portion of people who have abandoned Objectivism for rational reasons, and likely due to a different context of knowledge. In a way, I'm not sure if anyone that I've ever heard of who has abandoned Objectivism actually even abandons it, they just have a context of knowledge that does not integrate well at all with Objectivism, thus they choose not to use the *label* Objectivist. Are those people "True" Objectivists? If so, this is a kind of "True Scotsmen Fallacy" as has been mentioned, where anyone who "leaves" automatically never understood or really agreed with Objectivism (save for unchosen circumstances like brain injury). If not, well, there's your answer as to how some can understand AND agree with Objectivism yet later loose an attachment to the label Objectivist.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Eiuol

[TLD]

TLD, I call to your attention this reply again.

Implicit in your statements is that ANY person who abandons Objectivism is being irrational. I'm sure A LOT of people abandon Objectivism before thinking critically about it, but there are likely a small portion of people who have abandoned Objectivism for rational reasons, and likely due to a different context of knowledge. In a way, I'm not sure if anyone that I've ever heard of who has abandoned Objectivism actually even abandons it, they just have a context of knowledge that does not integrate well at all with Objectivism, thus they choose not to use the *label* Objectivist. Are those people "True" Objectivists? If so, this is a kind of "True Scotsmen Fallacy" as has been mentioned, where anyone who "leaves" automatically never understood or really agreed with Objectivism (save for unchosen circumstances like brain injury). If not, well, there's your answer as to how some can understand AND agree with Objectivism yet later loose an attachment to the label Objectivist.

I did not say they are irrational for abandoning it, just never actually understood it well andaccepted it - lived by it. I agree to your point of context of knowledge; and you prove my point when saying that they did not integrate it well before abandoning it.

BTW, I do not recall seeing anyone providing a rational reason to abandon Obj.ism once a true Obj.ist.

No, Smith is not an example.

[Eiuol]

I agree to your point of context of knowledge; and you prove my point when saying that they did not integrate it well before abandoning it.

I didn't say "didn't integrate well," I said "does not integrate well at all with Objectivism." That doesn't mean a failure to integrate.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Eiuol