Who here was "Objectivist" before finding Objectivism?

[Cogito]

When I read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, it was more of a completion of myself than a revelation. I had essentially lived my whole life as an Objectivist without having the explicitness provided by Objectivism, and after the extensive introspection that I went through after finding an explicit philosophy, I found I had held very few contradictions. Who else here was like that? Who here was the opposite?

[Bold Standard]

When I read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, it was more of a completion of myself than a revelation. I had essentially lived my whole life as an Objectivist without having the explicitness provided by Objectivism, and after the extensive introspection that I went through after finding an explicit philosophy, I found I had held very few contradictions. Who else here was like that? Who here was the opposite?

For me, it was like reading my own thoughts.. Except, much more eloquent! Reading Ayn Rand did help me identify some major contradictions that I had been holding though--before her, I had been holding on to a very fragile and bruised, but very serious belief in Christianity, for example (as I understood it, which was incorrectly). After reading ITOE and Atlas Shrugged, it was clear to me how much in opposition that was to everything else I believed in (i.e. reality), and happily dropped it. But then when I read The Fountainhead, which was the next one I read, it was like she was writing it specifically to me. Howard Roark is as close as I've ever seen in art to the embodiment of everything I'm passionate about. So reading a novel based on that, I experienced the things I alone had valued, that nobody else mentioned, transform into objective values that people should and some do value, before my eyes.

All that was my last year and first year after high school (I graduated in 2000). Since then, when I read something new from her, she never ceases to surprise me, or reveal new insights I'd never considered. But it does give me an eerie feeling sometimes, like I'm having my private thoughts repeated back to me, only stated much better. I can't claim to have been a natural Objectivist, because my religion created a whole host of false premises and regrettable moral decisions for me, but I had a deep feeling of recognition and connection with her philosophy and sense of life, and I was never hostile to anything in her works, including her treatment of the idea of God, when I was still a theist.

[Olex]

... I found I had held very few contradictions. Who else here was like that?

I was like that. At first, I thought: "Wow, someone actually says these correct things out loud in a book?" Later, it became, "Wow, it is actually intergrated," and "Now, I can intergrate my own thoughts and ideas under one cohesive system."

[Chops]

My girlfriend read Atlas Shrugged for a scholarship essay contest, and while reading it, kept saying "This book IS YOU, you MUST read it." I knew nothing of Rand before this. Afterword, she read the Fountainhead, Anthem, and We the Living, all the while pestering me to read Atlas Shrugged. After a year or two of pestering, I finally picked it up, and sure enough, it described my philosophy using words I've never been able to form myself.

[mrocktor]

I was like that. At first, I thought: "Wow, someone actually says these correct things out loud in a book?" Later, it became, "Wow, it is actually intergrated," and "Now, I can intergrate my own thoughts and ideas under one cohesive system."

Same thing for me.

[Cogito]

Was anyone here the opposite?

[KendallJ]

I was a pacifist Christian in my teen years. Light years from Objectivism. I had to get there the hard way.

[Chops]

Was anyone here the opposite?

Well, I started as a catholic (childhood and early teen years), but after several years of thinking, I slowly abandoned it, and a few years after I abandoned religion altogether, was when my girlfriend recommended Atlas Shrugged to me. So I wasn't ALWAYS of these principles. Or maybe my philosophy was what lead me to abandon religion to begin with. So I wasn't ALWAYS "objectivist", but I was so at least before being formally introducted to Objectivism.

[Cogito]

How is it that some people, e.g. Kendall, manage to "see the light" so to speak of Objectivism while most seem completely unable, even when presented with a logical argument that they admit they cannot refute? (By the way, I'm not sure I actually expect an answer to this... I've been looking for it for a long time)

[Edit below]

Actually, I have heard one possible explanation... But I find it really tough to bring myself to say that those who deny the validity of Objectivism actually hate life. I know that their philosophies lead to the destruction of life and that some people really do hate life, but I really can't seem to accept the idea that the majority of people really embrace death. Maybe I'm too forgiving. Perhaps that's why I'm still outside the Gulch

[second edit to change "there philosophies" to "their philosophies"]

Edited November 7, 2006 by Cogito

[Inspector]

How is it that some people, e.g. Kendall, manage to "see the light" so to speak of Objectivism while most seem completely unable, even when presented with a logical argument that they admit they cannot refute? (By the way, I'm not sure I actually expect an answer to this... I've been looking for it for a long time)

I think one factor is that other philosophies have muddied the waters so much that many people distrust a conclusion no matter how logical it is. Plato made all sorts of wild, insane claims and was, as far as most people know, supposedly logical in getting there. I think some people are just wary, thinking "okay, there has to be a trick in there somewhere."

I mean, so many people claim to have "the answers" and yet clearly have nothing of the sort. After being bombarded with a deluge of cults, postmodernists, new-age gurus, etc, most people just tune it out.

Obviously this does not, and is not meant to, explain all people who reject Objectivism.

[Bold Standard]

How is it that some people, e.g. Kendall, manage to "see the light" so to speak of Objectivism while most seem completely unable, even when presented with a logical argument that they admit they cannot refute?

I think it might be an issue of honesty, in a lot of cases. When I was a Christian, one thing that really bothered me was that, even though most people around me claimed also to be Christians, and really believed in a lot of the Christian philosophy, very few of them really seemed to take it seriously and try to apply it consistently to their lives. I tried very hard to apply it consistently, and the result was, of course, disaster for my life. I expect anyone who is consistent on a religious philosophy will have a similar experience, and anyone who is honest will notice a causal relationship between the two. After that point, the ones who choose to damn reality and keep their religion are the ones who hate life, and the ones who choose to reject the religion and keep reality are the ones who want to live. But most people are perfectly content to hold religious convictions (or other mistaken premises) as an abstract concept detached from most of their day to day lives and decisions.

[skap35]

I was taught about Objectivism long before I actually knew what "Objectivism" was. My parents and grandparents taught me certain Objectivist concepts in a somewhat informal way. My first direct encounter with Rand was in high school. We had to read Anthem and The Giver and write about which one we agreed with. Of course, my semi-Objectivist upbringing led me to agree with Anthem. The next Rand encounter I had was in college when I decided to read The Fountainhead. The only reason I read it was because I knew her philosophy was the basis of my upbringing and I was curious.

Needless to say, reading that book was like looking into a mirror. I already felt strongly about everything she addressed, and after reading that I went on to read a few of her other books.

I guess I had a somewhat unique introduction to Objectivism. My grandfather had a talk show (mainly in Detroit) where he advocated Objectivism. As a result, my parents taught it to me since a very young age. The only problem with that is my parents are also Catholic. So I was raised with many Objectivist ideas mixed with Christianity. I didn't "filter out" all the religious teachings until I decided to start reading Rand and making decisions for myself.

Basically my parents believed in Objectivism except when it came to believing in God. I think I had an advantage that other kids didn't have in this case...but at the same time I was also taught things that I had to eventually reject.

[bobsponge]

I was raised in a catholic family (grandfather attended seminary and would have been a priest had he not met my grandmother) but I kept running into contradictions in catholicism that led me to abandon it. I then became one of those guys who brings the Mormons to tears on my doorstep by arguing logic against religion. Throughout that time I played with the Cyberpunk movement but found that it was too hard to blame 'the man' and 'the corporations' for all the woe and suffering in life. I used to write my own little games on the TI99/4a, and put together a little sim sort of like a cross between Utopia and Populous-- and when I set up a communist or socialist economy in the game, no matter what I did, the little civilizations collapsed into abject poverty. Kind of a strange and extremely geeky way to spend my teenage years, writing economic game simulations, but it worked. The biggest point I remember from that stuff was that when every single person has a million dollars, those million dollars are worth absolutely nothing. Amazing what you can get out of a TI99/4a

As an adult I experimented with yuppie consumer culture but was unhappy- not because of the success but because I was still working for someone else. I didn't really break out of my funk until I was about 27, self-employed, and in direct control over my own destiny.

Didn't read Rand until I was 29, but I had been an Objectivist before then-- just didn't know what one was and hadn't had someone sum it all up as nicely as Rand did.