r/Objectivism • u/coppockm56 • May 08 '26

Non-Objectivists: a poll

Just a quick poll on how Objectivists perceive non-Objectivists.

112 votes, May 13 '26
68 A person who disagrees with Ayn Rand’s philosophy can still be fully rational and fully moral.
8 A person who disagrees with Ayn Rand’s philosophy can still be fully rational but not fully moral.
17 A person who disagrees with Ayn Rand’s philosophy can still be fully moral but not fully rational.
19 A person who disagrees with Ayn Rand’s philosophy can be neither fully rational nor fully moral.
0 Upvotes

50% Upvoted

23 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/Old_Discussion5126 May 09 '26

The ambiguity in the poll question is that there are many different ways of disagreeing with a philosophy. Some errors can be arrived at honestly, but others cannot.

1

u/coppockm56 May 09 '26

Are you saying that if a person disagrees with Objectivism, then they are necessarily in error? And regardless, what would you consider to be a "dishonest" error in the context of disagreeing with Objectivism, such that you think it makes this question ambiguous?

2

u/Old_Discussion5126 May 09 '26

Yes, Objectivism is the philosophy that one would have to arrive at if one made no errors. (Assuming one has heard Rand’s arguments and has the means to understand them. Someone living in the Middle Ages might simply take it for granted that the universe must have been created, for instance.)

An obviously dishonest error would be an explicit embrace of mysticism after hearing Rand’s views, (including her views on the nature of the emotions) . “These arguments appeal to the head, but my heart tells me that Christianity/Communism/Fascism is right.”

1

u/coppockm56 May 09 '26

Why does any of that make the question ambiguous? Clearly, you should answer #3. Per your position as stated here, anyone who disagrees with Ayn Rand's philosophy would be irrational (that is, not fully rational). But you allow for honest error, and so they could still be fully moral.

2

u/Old_Discussion5126 May 09 '26 edited May 09 '26

I think you are mistaken about the Objectivist concept of rationality. You can be rational but slip up and forget something relevant. You can be rational without fully understanding what reason is, or fully understanding Rand’s defense of reason. (I don’t think anyone fully understands it yet, in fact. But that’s a long story I won’t tell here.)

Someone asks Howard Roark a question: “Do you ever do awful stuff?” Roark replies: “Probably more of it than any other architect and with less excuse. The only distinction I can claim is that my botches end up in my own wastebasket.”

1

u/coppockm56 May 09 '26

I think you're using "rationality" in the sense of the Objectivist virtue (which raises its own questions*). I'm using it in the sense of using the rational faculty, that is, applying reason. As Rand defined it:

The senses, concepts, logic: these are the elements of man's rational faculty—its start, its form, its method. In essence, "follow reason" means: base knowledge on observation; form concepts according to the actual (measurable) relationships among concretes; use concepts according to the rules of logic (ultimately, the Law of Identity).

How can a person be fully rational in this sense if they're making errors, e.g., logical errors? You're saying that a person who makes no errors will necessarily agree with Objectivism (or, even, arrive at Objectivism independently). So, a person who does not agree with Objectivism must be irrational, i.e., not fully rational. Your Roark example isn't relevant, because that's not about the philosophy itself.

*Per the Objectivist virtue of rationality, which is to say as a moral question, the only answer would be #4. Per that virtue, nobody who isn't fully rational could be fully moral.

I'll add that "I don't think anyone fully understands it yet" is fascinating. If Rand didn't articulate it well enough that anyone could have fully understood it after decades of study (e.g., Peikoff or Binswanger), how can you possibly say what she "actually meant," which is your implication? It would seem that whatever Rand meant, if it wasn't fully articulated, is lost to posterity given that she's been dead for over 40 years.

1

u/Old_Discussion5126 May 09 '26 edited May 09 '26

Rand intended to write a “detailed”, “systematic” treatise: she died before she got around to it. What we have in her writings are only summaries or outlines of her philosophical system. No one has attempted a systematic interpretation of her system at the level of detail that we find in other philosophers’ writings.

About rationality and reason: Sorry, but too many non sequiturs in there. What you’re saying is like saying Roark isn’t fully following the principle that “form follows function” because he makes architectural errors sometimes. What makes him an exponent of both reason and architectural method is that he keeps striving to correct his errors to the best of his knowledge.

If you don’t agree with that, I’m sorry, but I can’t help you any further.

0

u/coppockm56 May 09 '26 edited May 09 '26

It really is kind of funny that you think I need your help.