What percentage of Objectivists stay Objectivist?

[2046]

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

Umm what? You do realize that "Objectivism" is not synonymous with "all truth in reality"? A good reason to disagree with Objectivism would be that you judge it to be wrong upon further investigation. It is irrational, and un-Objectivist, to demand someone believe something they don't see. You may say "well they are wrong, they don't really get it, or else they wouldn't disagree!" But there are two options. Either you are wrong and they are right, in which case it is a "rational reason" to learn and grow in a different direction from past knowledge. Or they may actually be wrong, but even if it is the result of an error of knowledge, it is still rational to disagree with Objectivism.

[TLD]

Umm what? You do realize that "Objectivism" is not synonymous with "all truth in reality"? A good reason to disagree with Objectivism would be that you judge it to be wrong upon further investigation. It is irrational, and un-Objectivist, to demand someone believe something they don't see. You may say "well they are wrong, they don't really get it, or else they wouldn't disagree!" But there are two options. Either you are wrong and they are right, in which case it is a "rational reason" to learn and grow in a different direction from past knowledge. Or they may actually be wrong, but even if it is the result of an error of knowledge, it is still rational to disagree with Objectivism.

Still no rational reason to abandon. If wrong after "further investigation", then not understood in the first place.

We were not talking about mere disagreement.

[Greebo]

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?!!!!!

The original question was what % of o's stay o's, not what % of o's CHOOSE to stay o's.

If you want to narrow the scope, by all means, lets, but in the context of the OP, YES, those who stop involuntarily would count.

[Ninth Doctor]

You don't need to preach.

Preach? Mock, maybe, especially someone as close minded as you show yourself to be, but not preach. I’m not an anarchist, BTW.

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.

No “following the truth wherever it leads” for you. Fine, you’ve clearly got it all figured out.

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.

I guess then that "Art is a selective recreation of reality..." isn't fundamental in Objectivism either. It's good thing you're not the one defining it.

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.

Congratulations, you’ve refuted an argument no one ever made.

[whYNOT]

Umm what? You do realize that "Objectivism" is not synonymous with "all truth in reality"? A good reason to disagree with Objectivism would be that you judge it to be wrong upon further investigation. It is irrational, and un-Objectivist, to demand someone believe something they don't see. You may say "well they are wrong, they don't really get it, or else they wouldn't disagree!" But there are two options. Either you are wrong and they are right, in which case it is a "rational reason" to learn and grow in a different direction from past knowledge. Or they may actually be wrong, but even if it is the result of an error of knowledge, it is still rational to disagree with Objectivism.

Very well put.

We all here start from the premise that once exposed to Objectivism, and having put in the effort to comprehensively grasp it, there must be unusual circumstances to relinquish it.

That's fair enough.

However, I try to be continually aware of the broader reality as 2046 expressed it.

As someone wrote, rationality is only possible where irrationality is possible. (Relevance? I'm not sure...)

What I can state with certainty is that, to the best of my knowledge, and right now, Objectivism offers the truest and most comprehensive system and methodology.

[TLD]

The original question was what % of o's stay o's, not what % of o's CHOOSE to stay o's.

If you want to narrow the scope, by all means, lets, but in the context of the OP, YES, those who stop involuntarily would count.

In all due respect, you are rationalizing to hold to your point.

How can one stay an Obj.ist without choosing to stay? Your distinction is invalid.

Sure, I could be run over by a car and become a vegetable instead of an Obj.ist too!

Still no rational reason presented to refute my premise. And I'm called closed-minded (ND) for not yielding to arguments like this.

[Dante]

Still no rational reason presented to refute my premise. And I'm called closed-minded (ND) for not yielding to arguments like this.

You're being called closed-minded for the positive position you're taking, not this odd brain damage discussion. You simply refuse to recognize the possibility that someone who is a knowledgeable Objectivist might later come to reject some part of the philosophical system; as if once someone accepts Objectivism at a sufficiently deep level to be called a 'true' Objectivist by you, suddenly their reason isn't fallible anymore, and integrating new knowledge becomes automatic for them.

I would certainly agree that the majority of people who call themselves 'Objectivists' for a few months after reading Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and then later reject O'ism never really understood the philosophical system in the first place. However, there are plenty of people out there who do understand it and come to reject parts of it.

Edited June 25, 2011 by Dante

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Or to put it another way, it's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. As soon as some Scotsman deviates from the ideal by doing X, one claims that they weren't _really_ a Scotsman anyway because no true Scotsman would do X.

Christians do it too sometimes. "Oh, so-and-so (in some other denomination, probably) isn't really a Christian!"

If some Objectivist who actually understands Objectivism then changes their mind and, well, hell, they were never really Objectivist in the first place.

By that standard then by definition no Objectivist gives it up because giving it up is prima facie evidence that he was not ever Objectivist.

What a load of crap.

--Steve

[PS--there are obviously cases of people who did not understand Objectivism rejecting it on the basis of their misunderstanding (many examples of such misunderstandings are given in the dishonestly-titled "Benefits and Hazards of Objectivism" which should have been titled "Benefits and Hazards of Misunderstanding Objectivism"), but that's not what this is about.]

[TLD]

You're being called closed-minded for the positive position you're taking, not this odd brain damage discussion. You simply refuse to recognize the possibility that someone who is a knowledgeable Objectivist might later come to reject some part of the philosophical system; as if once someone accepts Objectivism at a sufficiently deep level to be called a 'true' Objectivist by you, suddenly their reason isn't fallible anymore, and integrating new knowledge becomes automatic for them.

Talk about changing the context. There has been nothing presented for me to refuse to recognize; no ex. of a rational reason to reject Obj.ism.

It is not about my judgment of someone being an Obj.ist. We are talking about someone who truly understands it, properly - by definition - calls himself an Obj.ist and lives by it; and then finds a rational explanation for rejecting (part or all of) it (thus becoming a non-Obj.ist).

If the discussion is Brain Damage, why participate? Or why not provide some evidence that my premise is wrong?

SapereAude at least recognized early on that my premise was essentially correct.

[TLD]

If some Objectivist who actually understands Objectivism then changes their mind and, well, hell, they were never really Objectivist in the first place.

By that standard then by definition no Objectivist gives it up because giving it up is prima facie evidence that he was not ever Objectivist.

What a load of crap.

Do you really think that one abandoning Obj.ism "gives a crap" about whether he was once an Obj.ist?

Still no example....

It is sure easy denouncing a premise without having to present contrary evidence.

I thought only non-Obj.ists do that. Maybe that is what I am dealing with here.

Without an example I have requested, there is no need to further this discussion.

Edited June 26, 2011 by TLD

[JASKN]

Without an example I have requested, there is no need to further this discussion.

Here's one: Rand's views on masculinity and femininity.

But, there is also "no need to further this discussion" unless you define, for your part, exactly what you think it is to be an "Objectivist." Can someone reject any part of anything Rand ever said and still properly call himself an Objectivist?

Edited June 26, 2011 by JASKN

[TLD]

Here's one: Rand's views on masculinity and femininity.

But, there is also "no need to further this discussion" unless you define, for your part, exactly what you think it is to be an "Objectivist." Can someone reject any part of anything Rand ever said and still properly call himself an Objectivist?

Consistent adherence to the fundamental principles of Obj.ism. All Obj.ist should agree with that; ditto for the adherants of any other philsophy.

Your ex. does not qualify, but good try.

[JayR]

Here's one: Rand's views on masculinity and femininity.

Just to point to one of Rands more philosophical points, what about her assertion that man is born tabula rasa? This point is absolutely fundamental to the philosophy of Objectivism. Would a person be deemed irrational if he agreed that man survives by the use of reason, but disagreed with this particular assertion? Could you say that he never understood the philosophy if he agreed with every aspect of Oism, but disagreed with this one fundamental point after reading neurological studies and being presented with scientific evidence that contradicts it? Lets not be dogmatic.

[JASKN]

Consistent adherence to the fundamental principles of Obj.ism.

What are those principles?

[Grames]

Just to point to one of Rands more philosophical points, what about her assertion that man is born tabula rasa? This point is absolutely fundamental to the philosophy of Objectivism. Would a person be deemed irrational if he agreed that man survives by the use of reason, but disagreed with this particular assertion? Could you say that he never understood the philosophy if he agreed with every aspect of Oism, but disagreed with this one fundamental point after reading neurological studies and being presented with scientific evidence that contradicts it? Lets not be dogmatic.

There are no such neurological studies or other scientific evidence, there is no such thing as innate knowledge. Everything the body and the nervous system does automatically and reflexively is not knowledge. The idea of tabula rasa is that the slate is blank, but not denying there is a slate and chalk still there.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Do you really think that one abandoning Obj.ism "gives a crap" about whether he was once an Obj.ist?

You obviously missed my point. The "load of crap" I was referring to is NOT the former Objectivist's perception of Objectivism, but rather YOUR logical fallacy. Yes, I am calling your argument a load of crap.

Still no example....

On the contrary. George H. Smith is an example of a former Objectivist. All you had to counter it was the assertion that, well, he must not REALLY have been an Objectivist. Not a REAL Scotsman.

Now he may be WRONG in his reasons for being a former Objectivist, I think so, at any rate. But to simply claim that he cannot have been an Objectivist in the first place is patently absurd.

It is sure easy denouncing a premise without having to present contrary evidence.

I thought only non-Obj.ists do that. Maybe that is what I am dealing with here.

Wow so daring to disagree with you (and providing evidence which of course you simply dismiss out of hand) makes you not really an Objectivist? Holy Crap! (Well there's that "crap" word again!)

Who the hell died and made you pope?

Without an example I have requested, there is no need to further this discussion.

Example given and dismissed by you. Yeah, you are right. No need to continue this in the face of rationalism.

Edited June 26, 2011 by Steve D'Ippolito

[Steve D'Ippolito]

There are no such neurological studies or other scientific evidence, there is no such thing as innate knowledge. Everything the body and the nervous system does automatically and reflexively is not knowledge. The idea of tabula rasa is that the slate is blank, but not denying there is a slate and chalk still there.

This is a big, thorny issue (not the least of the reasons being misunderstanding of the meaning of tabula rasa). It deserves its own thread.

Remember the topic of THIS thread is how many Objectivists end up leaving Objectivism. Let's not let it degenerate into people bringing up possible errors in Objectivism--whether Objectivisim is in fact in error is different from the issue of whether people leave Objectivism for whatever reason, good or bad.

[TLD]

You obviously missed my point.

No I didn't, just a play on words. Lighten up a little Steve.

George H. Smith is an example of a former Objectivist.

He is a Libertarian through and through; he never fully accepted Obj.ism and simply does not qualify.

For the purpose of this thread, just focus on whether a complete Obj.ist can abandon it for a rational reason; and Smith is not rational in his counters to Obj.ism. That's a fact.

I have known many "Obj.ists" who became Libertarians, and they all made the same errors and all could not properly hold the Obj.ist label.

Therefore, no "example given and dismissed by you."

This is for those who are not playing devils advocate and want to truly get my point.

Unfortunately, the point has become less important than the realization here that many Obj.ists are too quick to rationalize to defend their positions because they have not fully grasped the principles. And that is not the "Pope" talking, thank you very much.

Let's not let it degenerate into people bringing up possible errors in Objectivism--whether Objectivisim is in fact in error is different from the issue of whether people leave Objectivism for whatever reason, good or bad.

Actually, it isn't completely different: abandoning Obj.ism due to such an error would be the 1 rational reason to so abandon. I excluded that due to lack of evidence.

Edited June 26, 2011 by TLD

[Eiuol]

I don't think you'll find an answer to here about what rational reasons there are to abandon Objectivism. It's literally wondering "what's a rational reason to abandon something that I've deemed to be rational in the context of my knowledge?" You won't be able to come up with a reason, because any reason would be irrational in the context of your knowledge (but you may very well acquire new knowledge a year from now). Since no idea is inherently irrational, there is no reason to suppose that any reason to abandon Objectivism *has* to be irrational. sNerd's post addressed this sufficiently already.

Edited June 26, 2011 by Eiuol

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Let's go back to the beginning here:

What percentage of Objectivists stay Objectivist after high school and college, do you figure? Is there any way to determine this?

There was no indication that the reason for leaving had to be rational. Just that it had to be an O-ist who left.

Your response was this:

Just to answer this question - which has come up in conversation many times:

I believe the proper answer is 100%. 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.

I have never known a true Obj.ist to stop being one.

Re those who only flirt with Obj.ism but get converted away in college, it doesn't matter.

So basically, according to you, no one who ACTUALLY UNDERSTOOD Objectivism could ever decide to leave.

There are certainly plenty of people who don't understand it, think they did, then decide that what they believed (which isn't actually Objectivism) was bologna, so they left. This is not in dispute; we see it happen all the time.

But your claim is that no one who ever understood it can possibly decide to leave. You didn't exclude the possibility that someone formerly rightly supporting Objectivism could make a wrong decision and leave. Mind you, as an Objectivist myself, I believe any decision to leave would be wrong. But the OP's question was not: How many people leave Objectivism for correct reasons? but rather, just simply "how many people leave Objectivism?"

You claim that the answer must be zero, because only people who don't understand it could possibly leave it. When called on this "No True Scotsman" fallacy, you challenged people to provide an example of someone who understood O-ism but disagreed with it.

An example was readily produced: George H. Smith.

Your response was that he must not have understood Objectivism or he would never have left. Which is simply you begging the question.

OK, TLD. Find me proof that George H. Smith had a misunderstanding of Objectivism before he denounced it. Or find me a case where he misrepresents it now--I don't mean a case where he says "I disagree with it because..." but rather a case where he asserts that Objectivism says X, where in fact Objectivism does NOT say X. That would be an indication that he does not understand what Objectivism says.

Remember that the issue here is not whether George H. Smith is correct now or more to the point is Objectivist now. He isn't. It's whether he was an Objectivist in the past, and whether he ever understood it and whether he understands it today. You are holding to the position that no one who understands Objectivism can possibly oppose it, and as TheEgoist said:

People like you are why people like myself get called cultists.

It is not about my judgment of someone being an Obj.ist. We are talking about someone who truly understands it, properly - by definition - calls himself an Obj.ist and lives by it; and then finds a rational explanation for rejecting (part or all of) it (thus becoming a non-Obj.ist).

OK, come up with your proof that George H. Smith NEVER understood Objectivism. Find something in his writings where he makes a false claim about the tenets of Objectivism. Not a false claim about their correctness, but about their content. I don't want a refutation of George H. Smith's current position, which you (unnecessarily) provided since both of us disagree with "anarchocapitalism". I want proof from you that he misunderstands its tenets.

To top off your evading of this point by trying to make this an argument over whether people who leave O-ism are right to do so, you then implied that all the people arguing with you here must not be Objectivists, because we are disagreeing with you.

It is sure easy denouncing a premise without having to present contrary evidence.

I thought only non-Obj.ists do that. Maybe that is what I am dealing with here.

Without an example I have requested, there is no need to further this discussion.

(emphasis mine)

The only person entitled to call someone a non-Objectivist simply for disagreeing with her is dead. That's where I came up with my "who the hell died and made you pope?" line.

Dante said it well:

You're being called closed-minded for the positive position you're taking, not this odd brain damage discussion. You simply refuse to recognize the possibility that someone who is a knowledgeable Objectivist might later come to reject some part of the philosophical system; as if once someone accepts Objectivism at a sufficiently deep level to be called a 'true' Objectivist by you, suddenly their reason isn't fallible anymore, and integrating new knowledge becomes automatic for them.

I would certainly agree that the majority of people who call themselves 'Objectivists' for a few months after reading Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and then later reject O'ism never really understood the philosophical system in the first place. However, there are plenty of people out there who do understand it and come to reject parts of it.

Because when presented with an example of such you simply _asserted_ without proof that that person must not have understood it. Well, I am calling you on it--at the risk of again being labeled non-Objectivist by you (like you would know). PROVE using his own words that George H. Smith never understood Objectivism.

[JayR]

There are no such neurological studies or other scientific evidence, there is no such thing as innate knowledge. Everything the body and the nervous system does automatically and reflexively is not knowledge. The idea of tabula rasa is that the slate is blank, but not denying there is a slate and chalk still there.

Im sure there arent any studies that prove innate knowledge. I was just trying to give an example of a potential rational reason to disagree with a fundamental principle of Oism. If Rand had written more on the subject than it probably wouldnt be an issue. The problem is: reading what Rand wrote, taking it at face value, and disagreeing is more rational than reading what other people said about what Rand meant when she wrote about certain topics. It sometimes requires a leap of faith that some people are not willing to take.

Some people even take their rationalizations so far as to argue for her positions on homosexuality. People sometimes take what she said as a primary, and think of any disagreements they have as faults in their own cognitive abilities, to be rationalized away with the help of other dogmatists. Thats way further from what Oism is about than a person who understands, and disagrees. People are different.

[whYNOT]

As a possible scenario:

Not naming names, or referring to any person, but an Objectivist of high profile in academia who came to disagree on one aspect of the philosophy - but not the fundamentals - would of course have the integrity to state his or her difference openly, and publicly stop calling himself "Objectivist".

It may be on Rand's theory of art and aesthetics - or on limited government.

(Both of these are, after all, central to O'ism, but are derived from the fundamentals.)

I wouldn't be surprised if, privately, this person still considered himself an Objectivist, and had not 'left' it.

Is this honest?

And who could censure him or her for that?

[Dante]

He is a Libertarian through and through; he never fully accepted Obj.ism and simply does not qualify.

Wow, you personally knew George Smith in the 60s and 70s and had in-depth discussions with him about Objectivism? Or wait... are you just comfortable generalizing him because you've classified him as a 'Libertarian' and you therefore just presume to know his entire belief system?

I have known many "Obj.ists" who became Libertarians, and they all made the same errors and all could not properly hold the Obj.ist label.

Oh...

[Greebo]

In all due respect, you are rationalizing to hold to your point.

No, I'm sticking to the context presented in the OP. If you're going to redefine English then do so explicitly, don't implicitly assume that everyone else is taking the question as written to mean something that the question AS WRITTEN actually means.

[Tenderlysharp]

If someone had a rational reason to leave Objectivism, then Objectivism would no longer be a philosophy based on reason or rationality. If that person could present their reason and rationality in a convincing argument, it's rationality would convince all other rational Objectivists of its truth, and Objectivism would evolve.