The word Objectivist is not one to throw around lightly. As an Objectivist, myself, I am unable to accept that you were once in total agreement with Ayn Rand’s philosophy, which reduces your post to something less than honest.
” The word Objectivist is not one to throw around lightly. As an Objectivist, myself, I am unable to accept that you were once in total agreement with Ayn Rand’s philosophy, which reduces your post to something less than honest.”
Then you must know me better than I know myself. Believe it or not, some people grow up and figure out that all ethics and the nature of reality cannot be deduced from A=A without a lot of hand-waving.
As to my honesty, I certainly thought I was an Objectivist. I read every book she published multiple times—”Objectivist Epistemology” (I think that was the name) was badly dog-eared and underlined. I gobbled up copies of old newsletters I could get. Wrote essays based on her epistemology and annoyed people with them. But perhaps I wasn’t pure enough.
On the other hand, Rand maintained that there is an objective reality (correctly imo). You might consider that I followed the evidence of that very reality to a probability (high imo) that there is a God, he made some rules, and sent His Son to die for us on the cross. And that there will be hell to pay for those who don’t get on board with that objective reality. The is a God and He makes the rules and will mete out the consequences. The sacrifice of his Son lifted the punishment due for those who submit to Him. There’s a good deal of pretty good evidence that is true.
Do I know that’s true? No. But that’s where the evidence took a pretty skeptical scientist. And my life is much better for it.
When you follow the evidence and you end up in a place that Ms. Rand would object is impossible because she deduced it was impossible from her first principles, are you not being more consistent with “objective reality” than Ms. Rand who rules out the possibility of any knowledge of God. Such evidence says there is either an error in first principles or the deductions she made therefrom were wrong.
But all that aside, do you really believe that once one is an Objectivist, even a very pure one, it is impossible for them honestly to change their mind? And what if they are confronted with inconsistent evidence from reality?