Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What percentage of Objectivists stay Objectivist?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I am apparently gonna be pissing off by taking humor seriously, but the truth must be told: It seems like he does not think, rather memorizes some slogans as a substitute to actual reasoning, wh

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 a

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

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

It seems like he does not think, rather memorizes some slogans as a substitute to actual reasoning, while speaking.

They probably don't even have a good source \ indication on the nature of a rational argument, since I never respond automatically, I don't think of Ayn Rand either while discussing. I think and phrase my sentences in my head before slowly putting the argument.

As well, observe that the therapist simply reacts with "Aha . . . I see . . . you are an Objectivist" (mentioned as if it were some illness) without proving what's wrong with it.

And he is the one to be considered the "common sense" in the issue. In a recent context, it reminds me a fanatic mystic who confessed that he 'just knows' that god exists.

Where exactly can a young guy get Objectivism during his freshman year? LOL, they would wish he could have so they can regard themselves underground, but just go to Google and search for Objectivism; past month. You won't find a whole lot of percentage of positive ones.

Ojectivism is the exact opposite of existentialism, being founded on the principle 'Existence Exists.' As well, it holds that everything is itself.

An Objectivist does not have to define sky---it demonstrates some fundamental misunderstanding of the epistemology of definitions.

A definition is required so long as a concept is an abstraction from abstraction, which means: it requires complex conceptualization and is not an obvious sensory given.

In such a case, a definition is required so one can know what he's talking about. But according to Objectivism, conceptualization and perception are an axiomatically valid means of knowledge.

"Private corporations cannot be trusted with the means of production."

Let alone the fact I suppose he means the vice versa, because this sounds pretty Marxist---

this altruism is not even the sort of abstract circumstances of O`ism. Plus "means of production" is a floating abstraction and an invalid terminology since it assumes that the property (=values) just exists and the rest is a matter of who luckily picks it up.

"Libertarian, why?"

:dough:

Omitting the fact that the (partial) similarity between O`ism qua philosophy and Libertarianism qua "philosophy" is exclusively technical, concrete; the libertarian party is not liberal (as a derivative of 'liberty,' the genetic roots of the concepts) even in accordance with libertarian standards.

"I'm afraid he has a severe case of logical contradiction."

A is A?

"Is he an idiot?---For the moment, yes."

Rationality as man's basic virtue?

"[A]nd I'm going to hire him. Son, I'm gonna pay you minimum wage for papers . . ."

Objectivism does find money a value, but not an ultimate value.

Personally, I cannot stand people who give up their greatest values and especially moral principles in order to get beloved by anyone and thus "earn" some bucks.

Personally, I would never agree to receive tax-paid money (unless I have already paid taxes throughout my previous life), no matter how great it is.

So, the contradiction does not exist.

Yet, I must admit that the Samus T-shirt made me laugh A LOT :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maria Montessori spoke about "sensitive periods" in the life of young children: ages when they were particularly interested in certain aspects of existence (i.e. particularly receptive to learning about that area). The high-school and college years appear to be a sensitive period for interest in philosophy. By that age, humans have had a fair number of interactions with other people, they have been taught some history of humankind, they are somewhat aware of political events, they are aware of issues like poverty, they're thinking about sex and gender, they're thinking about their upcoming life in the external world. The high-school and college years are the time humans typically start to try to make sense of all this: the time when they start to really form their own philosophy. This might be some variant of the philosophy of their parents, or that of the world around them, or the philosophy of some authors that intrigue them.

The video is comedy: so it is hyperbole. However, the underlying fact that it is ridiculing is that high-school and college kids can often have a mish-mash of opinions as they are in the process of settling on a philosophy of their own. Most humans do not become philosophers, nor do they become strongly committed to some fairly integrated formal philosophical system. Instead, they land in some philosophical place and move on with the rest of their lives. The typical adult might laugh at this video, but it is a good bet that the typical adult holds just as many contradictions as the kid, only at a deeper level and none so enthusiastically. The adult has probably resolved his own contradictions at a superficial level, so he no longer dwells on them, but there's probably a mish-mash below. For instance, the adult probably thinks altruism is good, but also thinks one needs to look out for oneself. he has probably "solved" this by arriving at some concrete mix that he will adopt in his life: so, he no longer dwells on how to resolve the underlying philosophical issue.

Given this context, to answer the OP: I'd guess that the typical high-school and college kid who is slightly enamored by Rand or Freud or Marx does not become an Objectivist or Freudian or Marxist. Instead, he incorporates some of this into his final mish-mash of philosophy and does not identify closely with any formal philosophy.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I think this is probably closest to a "correct" answer as one can get here.

Lets think about what the majority of "ex-Objectivists" people encounter are.

For example I've met, in person, dozens of people who claim they used to be Objectivists but "grew out of it" or "learned better" or whatever. Upon questioning the majority of these had never read a single piece of Rand's non-fiction. Most of them read AS and TF and declared themselves Objectivists.

To quote Aristotle "“We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.”

One is not an Objectivist because one has enjoyed some books by Rand. Or even is inspired by books by Rand. We are what we repeatedly do.

Therefore an Objectivist is someone who continues their education in philosophy and specifically in Objectivist philosopy throughout their lives.

Going through the infamous "I am Roark" phase in high school or college doesn't cut it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Therefore an Objectivist is someone who continues their education in philosophy and specifically in Objectivist philosopy throughout their lives.

One interesting correction: I think it is fair to call yourself an Obj.ist if you understand and live by all the essentials of Obj.ism but do not choose to "continue (your) education" - do not care to continually read philsophy.

Some people live it without "selling" it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary Clinton, Ted Turner, and Arianna Huffington each claim to have gone through a period of agreeing with Ayn Rand. How deep was their understanding? Impossible to say, though in Ted Turner’s case he was known to use his unrented billboards to put up the message “Who is John Galt”, this indicates a certain zeal.

http://www.thenation.com/image/35295/popup

BTW I thought the video was marginally funny (nothing great), but points to increased familiarity with Rand’s ideas, at least they expect people to get the joke.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary Clinton, Ted Turner, and Arianna Huffington each claim to have gone through a period of agreeing with Ayn Rand. How deep was their understanding? Impossible to say.

No, it is definitely possible to say they were never Obj.ists.

One's actions tell all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Therefore an Objectivist is someone who continues their education in philosophy and specifically in Objectivist philosopy throughout their lives.

Objectivism being a closed system, just how much continuation of education in O'Ism is actually possible? Having become well versed in O'ist metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and aesthetics, what more can one pursue?

I would say that an Objectivist is someone who first fully educates themselves on O'Ism, and has validated the system through study and analysis, and who then lives consistently by the principles of O'Ism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One interesting correction: I think it is fair to call yourself an Obj.ist if you understand and live by all the essentials of Obj.ism but do not choose to "continue (your) education" - do not care to continually read philsophy.

Some people live it without "selling" it.

Edit: Greebo, your statement was similar so answering you here as well.

I think you are misundestanding my post.

One does not have to "sell" Objectivism to continue their education.

If one lives by the essentials of Oism then one is continuing their education. Education is not sitting in a classroom. In fact, formal education is often antithetical to learning.

If you live by Oist principles you are constantly applying the philosophy in different ways and in new situations. Learning on the job so to speak. That is continuing one's education.

Edited by SapereAude
Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: Greebo, your statement was similar so answering you here as well.

I think you are misundestanding my post.

One does not have to "sell" Objectivism to continue their education.

If one lives by the essentials of Oism then one is continuing their education. Education is not sitting in a classroom. In fact, formal education is often antithetical to learning.

If you live by Oist principles you are constantly applying the philosophy in different ways and in new situations. Learning on the job so to speak. That is continuing one's education.

I disagree. (And I didn't think you were on about selling it btw)

With a closed topic, one learns (in a classroom or not) - one then applies what they have learned, - they do not continue learning after all has been learned. You cannot continue to learn that 2+2=4 (classroom) or continue learning to walk (not classroom).

To continue to live by Oist principles is to continuously apply one's education.

Edited by Greebo
Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. (And I didn't think you were on about selling it btw)

With a closed topic, one learns (in a classroom or not) - one then applies what they have learned, - they do not continue learning after all has been learned. You cannot continue to learn that 2+2=4 (classroom) or continue learning to walk (not classroom).

To continue to live by Oist principles is to continuously apply one's education.

I also accept Oism as a closed system but still disagree with you.

You learn things when you apply the same principles in different applications.

If you could never learn anything new about the application of Oism this forum would be nothing but a social networking site.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: Greebo, your statement was similar so answering you here as well.

I think you are misundestanding my post.

One does not have to "sell" Objectivism to continue their education.

If one lives by the essentials of Oism then one is continuing their education. Education is not sitting in a classroom. In fact, formal education is often antithetical to learning.

If you live by Oist principles you are constantly applying the philosophy in different ways and in new situations. Learning on the job so to speak. That is continuing one's education.

Sorry; what I meant was that one does not need to be so clear on the principles that he is able to "sell" or speak fluently on Obj.ism. I see a huge gap between some who live by Obj.ism well but cannot easily explain the principles to others, and those who continue to study (not just "on the job") to become more proficient.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry; what I meant was that one does not need to be so clear on the principles that he is able to "sell" or speak fluently on Obj.ism. I see a huge gap between some who live by Obj.ism well but cannot easily explain the principles to others, and those who continue to study (not just "on the job") to become more proficient.

I think being able to explain or speak or "sell" is a different matter altogether.

Many people are masterful at something they may not be able to teach others.

To clarify, having no formal education myself past jr.high, I don't believe that education is a matter of formalities, organized activities, certifications or specific reading materials.

Education to me is doing and looking critically at what is done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bold mine:

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.

I completely disagree with you guys on this. What you are saying is essentially the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Obviously people can agree with Objectivism and then change their minds. To say that they never truly agreed with it because they changed their minds is clearly a logical fallacy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it is definitely possible to say they were never Obj.ists.

One's actions tell all.

Which actions? Subsequent ones? Or are you saying that anyone who comes to disagree with Objectivism doesn’t understand it, and never understood it?

Now I'm curious, do you believe Objectivism can be taught by a non-Objectivist? Like how certain Objectivist philosophy professors I know teach Kant: Dispassionately and accurately, to the best of their ability. "Teach, don't preach", one of them said to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which actions? Subsequent ones? Or are you saying that anyone who comes to disagree with Objectivism doesn’t understand it, and never understood it?

Now I'm curious, do you believe Objectivism can be taught by a non-Objectivist? Like how certain Objectivist philosophy professors I know teach Kant: Dispassionately and accurately, to the best of their ability. "Teach, don't preach", one of them said to me.

Does one really need to explain how the actions of Hillary Clinton, Ted Turner, and Arianna Huffington are non-Obj.ist?

Yes, if one truly understands Obj.ism but does not agree with it, he could teach it. Have you seen one of those people?

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously people can agree with Objectivism and then change their minds. To say that they never truly agreed with it because they changed their minds is clearly a logical fallacy.

True - but that's not what I or anyone else said.

Agreeing and fully understanding are 2 different things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

People like you are why people like myself get called cultists. Realize there are rational alternatives to your viewpoint out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think being able to explain or speak or "sell" is a different matter altogether.

Many people are masterful at something they may not be able to teach others.

To clarify, having no formal education myself past jr.high, I don't believe that education is a matter of formalities, organized activities, certifications or specific reading materials.

Education to me is doing and looking critically at what is done.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does one really need to explain how the actions of Hillary Clinton, Ted Turner, and Arianna Huffington are non-Obj.ist?

It’s wearisome to have to repeat oneself:

Which actions? Subsequent ones?

Hillary Clinton, as a teenager, worked on the Goldwater campaign, and describes this as her Ayn Rand phase. Can a teenager understand Objectivism, and if they later reject it, does this automatically mean they didn’t understand it?

Arianna Huffington was a conservative talking head, then her husband (a Republican politician) left her for another man, and within a few years she’d switched to liberal talking head. I don’t recall her being an Objectivist talking head, but let’s say she was, would her subsequent conversion mean she never understood Objectivism? Here's maybe a better example: did Alan Greenspan ever understand Objectivism?

I feel like I’m talking to a Donatist.

Yes, if one truly understands Obj.ism but does not agree with it, he could teach it. Have you seen one of those people?

Yes.

People like you are why people like myself get called cultists. Realize there are rational alternatives to your viewpoint out there.

Amen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also accept Oism as a closed system but still disagree with you.

You learn things when you apply the same principles in different applications.

If you could never learn anything new about the application of Oism this forum would be nothing but a social networking site.

Above all, Objectivism is practical; it can make absolute sense on paper, but - and this is taking into account Rand's anything but dry presentation of her philosophy - you've got to add water to see it truly come alive. I mean adding one's life, of course.

(To be less metaphorical, and more accurate, O'ism should be integrated into one's life, critically - not the other way round.)

The principles ( I believe) are self-reinforcing as you go along, increasing one's understanding of them, the more you see them work.

So, yes: education never stops - the bulk done in 'class', and the further refinements through application.

My feeling is that both of you are disputing a fine point, but both are right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s wearisome to have to repeat oneself:

Hillary Clinton, as a teenager, worked on the Goldwater campaign, and describes this as her Ayn Rand phase. Can a teenager understand Objectivism, and if they later reject it, does this automatically mean they didn’t understand it?

Arianna Huffington was a conservative talking head, then her husband (a Republican politician) left her for another man, and within a few years she’d switched to liberal talking head. I don’t recall her being an Objectivist talking head, but let’s say she was, would her subsequent conversion mean she never understood Objectivism? Here's maybe a better example: did Alan Greenspan ever understand Objectivism?

I feel like I’m talking to a Donatist.

You are missing part of the message.

I said fully understand and accept. None of those did that!

People like you are why people like myself get called cultists. Realize there are rational alternatives to your viewpoint out there.{/quote]

Why? Because I said such a person would not change?

And do you care if someone irrationally calls you a cultist? By the way, no one has ever considered me such - in 40 years of talking philosophy.

I don't expect you can name a "rational alternative" to a principle of Obj.ism.

Edited by TLD
Link to post
Share on other sites

I said fully understand and accept. None of those did that!

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)?

And do you care if someone irrationally calls you a cultist?

I care that people can find genuine evidence of cultist behavior with just a few keystrokes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...