Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Do you reject Objectivism?

Rate this topic


To what extent do you reject Objectivism?  

116 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you completely agree with the following statement: "There exists some aspect of Ayn Rand's philosophy which I both grasp and reject"

    • No
      71
    • Yes
      20


Recommended Posts

I am introducing this poll, which I believe gets at the same fundamental question as Burgess's poll, but I have phrased the question differently since I believe that the form of the question may have had an unintended influence on the outcome (not to imply that I know Burgess's intent).

(Crud: can a moderator insert a carriage return in the question, so that the quoted statement is on a separate line?)

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, you might also ask the moderators to fix the typos: "to" instead of "do" in the title, and "philosophty" in the question itself.

I hope I voted correctly. I voted "No," because I agree with every element of Ayn Rand's philosophy that I understand. In other words, a "No" vote is a vote in favor of total agreement with every element of Ayn Rand's philosophy that I understand. Right?

At first I was confused by the use of "completely agree" in conjunction with "reject."

Edited by BurgessLau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would be an example of someone who didn't "completely agree" with the question of the poll and yet did not completely agree with the statement "I agree with every element of Ayn Rand's philosophy that I understand." (as Burgess put it)

Because if there is no such category, it would have made a lot more sense to phrase it, "Do you completely agree with the statement: 'Do you agree with every element of Ayn Rand's philosophy that you understand?'"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since there are three people in this thread, and you are saying at least two of them are nitpicking the inessential, I'll take odds you might mean me? There are rules against your post, EC. You have to name someone if you accuse them of something.

That said, I don't think anyone in this thread is being "nitpicky." Please do tell why the distinctions being made here aren't necessary.

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since there are three people in this thread, and you are saying at least two of them are nitpicking the inessential, I'll take odds you might mean me? There are rules against your post, EC. You have to name someone if you accuse them of something.

That said, I don't think anyone in this thread is being "nitpicky." Please do tell why the distinctions being made here aren't necessary.

Well being that besides the original poster, there was only two other posters having posted already in this thread I would have thought that it is reasonable to deduce that I meant you and Burgess.

You think that the exceptions that you and him made about David's poll were essential to his polls meaning?

Edited by EC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I wanted to know is how many people here are Objectivists, and I'm happy to see that the percentage is so high. You can ask the question lots of ways, and I picked the way that I judged would yield the best relationship between the answer and whether or not a person is actually an Objectivist. Because one of the things that this forum does is provide a place to discuss aspects of Objectivism and learn about the philosophy, that means that there are a number of participants who are not at the Binswanger / Peikoff level of understanding. What I especially wanted to avoid is the situation where a person votes "not an Objectivist" because there is some part of the philosophy which they have not fully integrated. I think this is especially relevant for the "testing" period, when you understand what the argument is (say, some aspect of the theory of concepts) but have not integrated that abstract knowledge of what the philosophy says, with reality as you know it. The wording of my question is designed to identify the people who say of some part of Objectivism "No, that's just wrong" -- they aren't Objectivists. The larger point, that it matters how you ask the question, I think has been established.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

Thank you for posting your poll. The difference in results, compared to mine, is thought-provoking. I will continue chewing on it.

I remain puzzled about the poll question. The aspect that bothers me is one that I have seen before: A person says, "I don't reject anything in her philosophy that I understand ('grasp'), I just don't understand the metaphysics and epistemology," and then proceeds to hold a religious view in those areas (Two Worlds, in metaphysics, and faith-and-reason, in epistemology) -- all while still claiming to be an Objectivist. (I saw this sort of behavior in an advocate of "The Church of Ayn Rand.")

How does your poll question preclude such a person from answering "No"?

Of course, one thing I hope we can agree on is that no poll can account for people who have poor reading skills or are evaders. A pollster has to assume strong reading skills and a commitment to focus.

As an aside, one of the benefits I have gained from comparing our polls is a concretization of my -- previously floating -- suspicions about polls. Your point about wording affecting results is well taken. I suspect, too, that even the order of the questions or options would affect results -- for example, if you or I had reversed the list of options.

Edited by BurgessLau
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well being that besides the original poster, there was only two other posters having posted already in this thread I would have thought that it is reasonable to deduce that I meant you and Burgess.

You could have meant David and Burgess, David and myself, or Burgess and myself.

You think that the exceptions that you and him made about David's poll were essential to his polls meaning?

I don't understand your question. What do you mean by "exceptions?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remain puzzled about the poll question. The aspect that bothers me is one that I have seen before: A person says, "I don't reject anything in her philosophy that I understand ('grasp'), I just don't understand the metaphysics and epistemology," and then proceeds to hold a religious view in those areas (Two Worlds, in metaphysics, and faith-and-reason, in epistemology) -- all while still claiming to be an Objectivist. (I saw this sort of behavior in an advocate of "The Church of Ayn Rand.")

How does your poll question preclude such a person from answering "No"?

It can't, and this is why I am skeptical about polling in the first place. My prefered mode of getting this kind of information would be to have two short paragraphs that clearly lay out the issue in dichotomous terms, one which requires careful thinking. I thought about ways to force thought -- the order "No" then "Yes" is contrary to the standard pattern, and was intended to slow down reactions time (as you seem to have correctly seen). The wording was intended to force people to read carefully and think about what the question asks. {Professional secret time: my son does some poll-related things professionally, so I get to find out all sorts of horrifying things about how polling is often (mis-)conducted}. Your statement "A pollster has to assume strong reading skills and a commitment to focus" is on the one hand correct and on the other hand wrong: a pollster should determine if the subjects have strong reading skills and a commitment to focus.

Let's suppose the goal is to determine how many people here are Objectivists. Then we need to carefully determine what that entails. I agree that someone who has simply heard of Objectivism and has not strongly accepted any part of it cannot be called an Objectivist. Nor can a person who has simply heard that self-interest is good. I would be hard-pressed to define in detail what the minimal knowledge requirement for "being an Objectivist" is, but clearly that's an important issue that needs to be resolved..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the best way to have done it would have been to ask people to respond in the thread with a justification/explanation of their answer. There's only so much you can do with the multiple choice format, which is why I dont trust polls in general.

I found the question hard to answer as currently phrased. There are (fundamental) parts of the philosophy which I dont 'reject' (in the sense of believing they are false), yet think that ARs specific arguments for them are either incomplete, inconclusive, or wrong (ie I agree with the conclusion but not with the reasoning). Therefore, I thought that voting 'yes' was the best option.

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope I voted correctly. I voted "No," because I agree with every element of Ayn Rand's philosophy that I understand. In other words, a "No" vote is a vote in favor of total agreement with every element of Ayn Rand's philosophy that I understand. Right?

Right.

It may be easier to think of David's question this way:

There is Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism.

There is a (proper?) subset of Objectivism which you understand.

There is another (proper?) subset of Objectivism which you reject.

If the intersection of these subsets contains at least one element, THEN you completely agree with the statement, i.e. your answer to David's question is 'Yes.' Otherwise, your answer is 'No.'

I found the question hard to answer as currently phrased. There are (fundamental) parts of the philosophy which I dont 'reject' (in the sense of believing they are false), yet think that ARs specific arguments for them are either incomplete, inconclusive, or wrong (ie I agree with the conclusion but not with the reasoning). Therefore, I thought that voting 'yes' was the best option.

And a correct answer too, because her reasoning is part of her philosophy as well.

EDIT: That is, only if you both understand AND reject her reasoning.

Edited by source
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's possible to insert a carriage return into a field like that, but I can shorten the question if you like, David. Or I can try getting a second opinion from one of the admins. Up to you.
Nah, we can leave it. It goes off the screen at the magnification I use to see things, but it's probably not a problem for people with decent eyesight.
Link to comment
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...