|
A test to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of Rand's arguments and perhaps that of her opponents, and a live test of adequate response to attacks on Rand's argument. Why not? BUT, NOT the kind of test where the person simply agrees; JUST that they know Rand's argument and know her opponents and can defend Rand's argument at least as far Objectivism can. And if they want to be an Objectivist they can, it then their choice, after qualify that they are well-versed on Objectivism, to either support Rand's argument or to challenge it. Both are good; makes arguers strengthen arguments; no strawmen, just the best go against the best to become THE best. Clarification: In this situation, there is a certification centre where people can gain a certification in Objectivism. Once a person qualifies they gain credibility. It is the decision of the individual whether they apply to the certification centre, it is their choice. It is however an advantage to choose it; and the centre offers the opportunity. The choice not to apply will not confer an advantage. The unqualified Objectivist has nothing but the mutual agreement of peers to test his/her competency; and individuals are not unknown to overemstimate or underemstimate themselves. The certification centre forces nobody; it is completely voluntary; it is offering an advantageous opportunity though. Would it be Objectivist to decline? For example, nobody forces one to go to college, but it is in one's best interest; nobody forces one to take a driving test, but it is in one's best interest not crash and get into trouble with the authorities. |
|
Voluntary examination or legally mandated? The expression, "be made to...", suggests the latter, which would be a contradiction, since it would imply suppression of the right of free speech by governmental force. If that's not what the questioner has in mind, let him clarify. It's a contradiction because Objectivism strongly opposes the initiation of physical force against anyone. As a condition of acceptance by a voluntary enterprise of some kind, such as a school striving to teach Objectivism, far more than an exam would be appropriate. Some kind of proven track record would normally be called for, as with any consideration by a school of whom to hire as its teachers and researchers. I wonder if the questioner is implicitly envisioning a de facto collective in which the "collective" seeks to promote Objectivism (what for?) and decides to adopt mandatory (legally enforced) preconditions for anyone speaking about Objectivism, as if Objectivism has somehow become the "sacred dogma" of the collective. That's preposterous, of course, since Objectivism opposes collectivism and upholds individualism, including reason, including rejection of dogmatism. |
