This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The metaphysics article now re-directs here -- Karbinski ( talk) 12:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
From the article:
Rand is not found in the comprehensive academic reference texts The Oxford Companion to Philosophy or The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. A lengthy article on Rand appears in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy; [1] she has an entry forthcoming in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, [2] as well as a brief entry in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy which features the following passage:
The influence of Rand’s ideas was strongest among college students in the USA but attracted little attention from academic philosophers. … Rand’s political theory is of little interest. Its unremitting hostility towards the state and taxation sits inconsistently with a rejection of anarchism, and her attempts to resolve the difficulty are ill-thought out and unsystematic.
Allan Gotthelf (chairman of the Ayn Rand Society) [3] responded unfavorably to this entry and came to her defense. [4] He and other scholars have argued for more academic study of Objectivism, viewing Rand's philosophy as a unique and intellectually interesting defense of classical liberalism that is worth debating. [5]
(end of excerpt) Why is Allan Gotthelf's rebuke necessary to include in the text? Why is it noteworthy that an Ayn Rand Society chairmen opposed the description of a philosophy he is attempting to promote as "of little interest"? Please provide a source showing why this is noteworthy. This isn't supposed to be a debate whether Objectivism is interesting or not, it's an encyclopedic article. Every point of criticism doesn't have to be answered by one of the philosophy's preachers - unless it is actually notable. An article built on a "right of respond" to criticism will end up farcical. 81.170.235.35 ( talk) 14:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
If Karlin is a reliable source, then it doesn't need to say "according to Rick Karlin". Indeed it would actually constitute the use of weasel words. TallNapoleon ( talk) 06:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Is there any point in having separate criticism and intelectual impact sections? Shouldn't criticism be distributed throughout the article as per recommended practice?
1Z ( talk) 16:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
24.147.48.94 ( talk) 17:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I cut down some of the bloated writing in the ethics section. A lot more needs to be done on the epistemology section. How exactly did Rand disprove scepticism? Why has her proof not been mentioned in any of the books in my large library devoted to scepticism, include a great deal of recent work? Surely such a proof should have brought its author into great fame and renown and honour, given the problem is more than 2,000 years old, and reckoned to be of great difficulty and subtlety. Oh well. Peter Damian ( talk) 17:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
While reporting that rand maintained that only one's own life is an end in itself, there is no need to add POV statement that rand assumed only one's own life is an end in itself, and that she took this assumption for granted. But of course, some people are so biased they can't even believe Rand for what Rand said, they need to hear it from some other source. As well, this is exposition, not argument, so the second POV statement in parenthesis is also nothing more than POV. -- Karbinski ( talk) 17:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted back until you can clarify your statements above. The point I was making was simple. Rand believes that we can get from
(A) Every living thing maintains its life for its own sake
to
(B) for any living thing, nothing apart from its own life is valuable for its own sake
It logically follows from this that she was assuming that there is nothing else that any living thing gets or maintains for its own sake. I say 'she took this assumption for granted' because, as well as making it, it is not documented that she said it. Does that explanation help? As I said before, you have considerable intelligence but you need to organise your thinking. I am trying to help you. Please don't interpret every slight criticism as a 'personal attack'. Thanks Peter Damian ( talk) 07:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Karbinski, you are presumably happy that we say Rand claimed
(A) Every living thing maintains its life for its own sake
because Rand says this. And pari ratione you would be happy if it says that Rand claimed
(B) for any living thing, nothing apart from its own life is valuable for its own sake
But what you are not happy with is the statement that this requires the assumption that there is nothing else that any living thing gets or maintains for its own sake, even though this statement is logically implied by (A) and (B). Can you please at least confirm what you are objecting to. Thanks Peter Damian ( talk) 15:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Post the claim, identify specifically which references support which clauses, and let's see if it can be verified. Skomorokh 16:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Karbinski (thats me!) is sayingThe edit [Karbinski is] objecting to reads "Since every living thing maintains its life for its own sake (and assuming, which Rand takes for granted, that there is nothing else it gets or maintains for its own sake) it follows that for any living thing, nothing apart from its own life is valuable for its own sake". You see the words 'it follows'. If (B) is to follow from (A), then the assumption has to be made.
user Skomorokh has askedIn wiki terms, the (A) thus (B) presentation isn't verified by the cited source (The Virtue of Selfishness)
Post the claim, identify specifically which references support which clauses, and let's see if it can be verified.
I thinks this summarizes the discussion so far... -- Karbinski ( talk) 21:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to remind both of you that, per the latest Arbcom ruling, you should not be edit-warring--by which I mean, reverting each other's edits. Settle down and try and get a consensus... I would help with that but right now I'm in major academic crunch time, so vOv... TallNapoleon ( talk) 18:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - I have corrected the problem with the references. I think your objection was due to a misunderstanding - see above. There was a lot of research involved in the latest rewrite, please can we have some serious and informed discussion if there are to be any further reversions. Thanks again. Peter Damian ( talk) 21:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Unless there is consensus that a section on the academic reception of Rand belongs in this article, I will move it to the talkpage of the Rand article to discuss how it could be used there. Skomorokh 21:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Karbinski's edit here fails to spot that the section he tries to replace was simply moved. Please stop this foolishness. Peter Damian ( talk) 21:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
As a minor logistical point, the guideline for citing a website should be properly followed. -- Karbinski ( talk) 22:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Currently the section on "Ethics: rational self-interest" is somewhat disjointed.
I am happy to fix these problems but can I do so, please? Peter Damian ( talk) 07:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Generally, while agreeing that Rand's ethics is largely incoherent, I think we need to find a source which says so (I thought we had one) rather than try to demonstrate it ourselves. The real problem is providing a summary of her views which is both accurate and makes sense. I am not familiar with the secondary literature - would we be better off relying on Peikoff just for the sake of a clear exposition? KD Tries Again ( talk) 14:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
I drafted (and put into the section) a paragraph that attempts to make Rand's argument coherent. See below. Karbinski objected on the grounds of the parts I have put in bold, which identify the hidden assumptions in her argument, which he regards as original research. Would it be acceptable to omit these parts and leave the Wikipedia reader to work out the flaw in the argument themselves? (It is of course obvious how she attempts to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'). I have
"Rand's ethical egoism, her advocacy of "rational selfishness," is perhaps her most well-known position. In The Virtue of Selfishness she attempted to derive this from first principles, as follows. Value is relative: something can only be valuable for a particular being, and it can only be valuable if that being has a choice. Only living things are able to choose, therefore values only exist for living things, and whatever a living thing acts to gain or keep is a value for that thing[16]. Since every living thing maintains its life for its own sake (and assuming, which Rand takes for granted, that there is nothing else it gets or maintains for its own sake) it follows that for any living thing, nothing apart from its own life is valuable for its own sake[17]. On the assumption (which Rand also did not make explicit, and which begs the question, because it is equivalent to the conclusion of her argument) that every living thing should do or ought to do whatever is valuable for itself, it follows that it ought to do whatever promotes its own life. But people can only live if they are rational[18]. Since reason is man's means of knowledge, it is also his greatest value, and its exercise his greatest virtue. "Man's mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive he must act and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch––or build a cyclotron––without a knowledge of his aim and the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think."[19]. Therefore everyone ought to be rational." Peter Damian ( talk) 15:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
This is not as hard to follow as the Ethics section, although I wish there was a source which pointed out that the axioms are trivial, in the sense that (with the exception of identity, which is somewhat controversial) nobody really denies them. I can't puzzle out the last para though:
Objectivist philosophy regards the Law of Causality, which states that things act in accordance with their natures,[citation needed] as "the law of identity applied to action."[5] Rand rejected the popular notion that the causal link relates action to action. According to Rand, an "action" is not an entity, rather, it is entities that act, and every action is the action of an entity. The way entities interact is caused by the specific nature (or "identity") of those entities; if they were different there would be a different result.[4]
I can't see that the "popular notion" (whatever that is) denies that it is entities which act and are acted upon, or that the actions of entities somehow relate to the nature or properties of the entity, so I can't see what Rand is trying to say here. Again, I hope someone might be able to take a look at Peikoff. KD Tries Again ( talk) 14:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
By the way, I don't think these 'axioms' are clear at all. Vallicella has already pointed out that 'Existence exists' can be understood in several ways.
(1) That in virtue of which existing things exist itself exists. For example, if one thought of existence as a property of existing things, and one were a realist about properties, then it would make sense for that person to say that existence exists.
(2) Existing things exist. Instead of taking 'existence' as denoting that in virtue of which existing things exist, one could take it as a term that applies to whatever exists.
(3) That the things that exist exist and have the attributes they have independently of us. Rand: "The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity."
The other two axioms (as she formulates them) are no less confusing. For example, she justifies the so-called Axiom of Identity saying "A leaf cannot be all red and green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. But that is of course the Law of contraries. Peter Damian ( talk) 19:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Sometime during the past several months, the informative Criticisms of Objectivism or as it was formerly known Criticisms of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) was redirected to the main Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article; however, the text of the criticisms does not seem to have been merged into the main article. (And I would recommend against doing so, since it obscures the exposition of the philosophy.) Please put back the Criticisms article, which served a useful function. — DAGwyn ( talk) 14:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Although it's been pointed out that Objectivism is not just the philosophy of Ayn Rand, it's striking that the article seems to deal only with her views - Peikoff being cited for purposes of exposition. KD Tries Again ( talk) 14:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
I have rewritten the ethics section. I rearranged the paragraphs so they have a more logical order, and trimmed where necessary to maintain the sense. I did add the section that Karbinski deleted the other day, but I have removed the two offending parenthetic sentences. I hope this is acceptable. It is as true as I can get to Rand's position, and it exposes the main fallacy in her argument without spelling it out. Peter Damian ( talk) 18:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The article refers to "the names of three axioms used in Aristotelian logic: "A is A," "Non-Contradiction," and "Either/Or". Aristotle barely mentions "A is A". Nor (I am sure - I will check) do the other two occur in his logic, i.e. the Organon. The second famously is discussed at length in a famous chapter in the Metaphysics. I will check on the third. Peter Damian ( talk) 19:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Here we are. From the SEP:
And of course he discusses the Law of Excluded middle at length in De Interpretatione 9. But there of course (on one interpretation) he denies it, since on that interpretation he holds that statements about the future may be neither true nor false. (For the statement that a sea-battle will occur today is true now, then it is true for all time, thus necessarily true, thus there is no choice and free-will. For the same reason, it cannot be false now. Ergo &c). Thus in summary
Great guns, eh. Peter Damian ( talk) 19:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I took the rash step of looking to see what Rand actually said in the relevant afterword to Atlas. She praises Aristotle's "definition of the laws of logic and of the means of human knowledge..." and then states "You will find my tribute to him in the titles of the three parts of ATLAS SHRUGGED." So in fact Peter has been put to some unnecessary trouble showing that the summary in the article is wrong based on third-party sources. It's wrong anyway:
Karbinski, I am genuinely perplexed by your objection to the new material in the ethics section. Your objections above seemed entirely about the bracketed sections, which have been removed. For the sake of clarity, can you please identify which of the 5 sentences below you object to, and more importantly, why. Thanks
Peter Damian ( talk) 17:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
User Peter Damian has noted
The edit [Karbinski is] objecting to reads "Since every living thing maintains its life for its own sake (and assuming, which Rand takes for granted, that there is nothing else it gets or maintains for its own sake) it follows that for any living thing, nothing apart from its own life is valuable for its own sake". You see the words 'it follows'. If (B) is to follow from (A), then the assumption has to be made.
Karbinski (thats me!) is saying
In wiki terms, the (A) thus (B) presentation isn't verified by the cited source (The Virtue of Selfishness)
user Skomorokh has asked
Post the claim, identify specifically which references support which clauses, and let's see if it can be verified.
That sentence is the worst, but the entire content of the paragraph does not come from the cited source. So my problem with it is that it is WP:OR-- Karbinski ( talk) 19:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
But you're objecting to an earlier version. It was changed in response to comments here. The most recent version, which you reverted, read:
"On the assumption that every living thing should do or ought to do whatever is valuable for itself, it follows that it should do whatever promotes its own life."
Are you claiming Rand doesn't say this? It's important that we are all discussing the same edit. KD Tries Again ( talk) 19:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Peter has provided precise, page-numbered sources for the summary. I don't have the book, and the full text isn't available online. He can hard;y be expected to copy type the pages here for everyone's review. Karbinski, if you have a copy to hand, could you just take one of Peter's sentences and show that Rand says something different? I think the burden is on you to show that the cites don't support what the article says. KD Tries Again ( talk) 21:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Given I have reverted again and there is now danger of blocking or banning, here are the exact citations:
I am happy to rewrite the paragraph so that it is more or less in Rand's words, but why? Peter Damian ( talk) 21:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
On the assumption that every living thing should do or ought to do whatever is valuable for itself, it follows that it should do whatever promotes its own life.
[implicit premiss, conclusion] To recall my objection, the (A) thus (B) presentation is OR. As well, why is it referred to as a conclusion here, but in the article its presented as a structural component of Ayn Rands argument? To be clear, 'it follows' is OR. Its gaming the wiki process to structure the paragraph one way and then discuss it as if it is structured otherwise. -- Karbinski ( talk) 16:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Here are my three reverts revert 1, revert 2, revert 3 which are prompted by a fundamentally unreasonable editor. I want to test this principle that someone with a reasonable expert grasp of the subject will be blocked or banned for 3RR, in preference to someone who simply cannot grasp the basic principles of reasonable discourse. (I have left this message on Connelly's page (who likes to block me for this sort of thing, in Wales page, and on ANI. This is fundamental. ) Peter Damian ( talk) 21:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The difficulty, of course, is that some editors are disappointed that a fairly clear and accurate summary (it appears - I don't have the book) of what Rand says leaves her argument looking weak. The solution is not to revert to a previous summary which was certainly not clear, and much less well-supported by citation than Peter's. If there's a solution, it's for those editors to propose (or make) revisions to Peter's version where they feel his summary is tendentious, but only in so far as those revisions can be supported by the kind of close reading of the text he has been willing to undertake. KD Tries Again ( talk) 15:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
OK first of all thanks to Karbinski for now specifying what he feels is wrong with the paragraph. Rather than saying 'I hate the whole paragraph', it tremendously helps so say exactly which statements in the paragraph are the issue and also to say why. Karbinski has now specified that it is the 'it follows' part he dislikes, i.e. he objects to my imputing the logical implication on Rand's part. Some points, then.
Peter Damian ( talk) 18:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
“ | Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. | ” |
User Peter Damian has noted
The edit [Karbinski is] objecting to reads "Since every living thing maintains its life for its own sake (and assuming, which Rand takes for granted, that there is nothing else it gets or maintains for its own sake) it follows that for any living thing, nothing apart from its own life is valuable for its own sake". You see the words 'it follows'. If (B) is to follow from (A), then the assumption has to be made.
Karbinski (thats me!) is saying
In wiki terms, the (A) thus (B) presentation isn't verified by the cited source (The Virtue of Selfishness)
user Skomorokh has asked
Post the claim, identify specifically which references support which clauses, and let's see if it can be verified.
What I've done (if I was successful) is revert the article to the version before IP 160 made dozens of undiscussed edits. I did not do this to endorse Peter's version in complete disregard of Karbinski's objections. I am happy to continue discussing K.'s concerns here. KD Tries Again ( talk) 14:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
As there has been no further discussion, I restored the article's last stable version. I'm sad to see user Snowded is here attacking me despite his obligation to be contructive as per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ayn_Rand#Final_decision. -- Karbinski ( talk) 14:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
To return to discussion of the paragraph, user Peter Damian tells us what the real OR is in his paragraph. As well, he reports things like you have to be rational to live or everyone ought to be rational in short sentences devoid of the context Rand supplied to support them. My objection to OR in the paragraph plus user Peter Damian's claim to OR in the paragraph is more than enough to establish it makes things worse for the article, not better. The short, contextless, sentences is poor prose, and works towards user Peter Damian's POV. The structure of the paragraph itself is user Peter Damians POV, and is definitely not a summarized report on what is found on pages 15 and 16 of the cited source The Virtue of Selfishness. Everything the paragraph purports to cover, is already covered without these problems in the stable version.-- Karbinski ( talk) 22:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks to the user above for pointing out that wp:syn is a concern. Yet another problem with user Peter Damian's paragraph is its structured not as a summary of the source(s), but as his own personal WP:OR take on it. His insistence that any intelligent reader will realize such and such, means we can let the facts stand as they are, and let intelligent readers think of them as they may, without the guidance of user Peter Damian's POV. -- Karbinski ( talk) 22:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Rand's ethical egoism, her advocacy of "rational selfishness," is perhaps her most well-known position. In The Virtue of Selfishness she gave an original validation of her moral code, claiming to have bridged the infamous gap between "Is" and "Ought"—or between facts and values. Beginning by asking "What are values?" and "Why does man need them?", she argues that the concept of "value" implies an answer to the questions, "Of value to whom and for what?" Thus, the existence of values depends upon the existence of an alternative in the face of which a being must act. "Where no alternatives exist, no goals and no values are possible."(emphases added)
This does Rand no credit. It's a series of unconnected claims. That she "gave a validation" - i.e. validated? - her moral code is pure opinion, overwhelmingly unsupported by independent readers of her work. She might have claimed to show how an ought can be derived from an is, but there is no explanation here (as there was in Peter's version) of how she might have gone about it (I am going to delete "infamous" which is extraordinary and quite unsupported). The sentence in italics - meaningless to anyone who hasn't already mastered the material. The existence of a value depends on alternatives? Why do you want to make Rand sound so trite? At least Peter extracted an argument from the pages. KD Tries Again ( talk) 23:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
I filed a detailed analytical complaint against anon IP 160 at WP:ANI. You can view it here. J Readings ( talk) 00:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Skomorokh said that: "The philosophy of Objectivism is almost always referred to in capitalised form, as the lower case form refers to an entirely distinct position. An online search for "ayn rand" "objectivism" will show this very clearly."
However, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) states that we only capitalize proper nouns, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) has "Philosophies, theories, doctrines, and systems of thought do not begin with a capital letter, unless the name derives from a proper noun..."
So, I am inclined to stick to my guns in my initial feeling that "objectivism" ought not to be capitalized (unless, obviously it is the first word in a sentence). What do others think? -- John ( talk) 15:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Many points of usage, such as the treatment of proper names, can be decided by seeing what other writers do about the problem. Unless there is some clear reason to do otherwise, it is generally a good idea to follow the usage of reliable secondary sources in English on the subject; the sources for the article itself should be reliable. If the sources for the article can be shown to be unrepresentative of current English usage as a whole, follow current English usage instead — and consult more sources.
Why is that picture here? What does it add to the article, except a bit of free advertising for the owner of the place? TallNapoleon ( talk) 00:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I do think that Objectivism's extreme admiration of Western civilization is notable and should be mentioned. The quote from Rand at West Point about the colonization of the Americas is also relevant here. However, it should be dealt with in a more systematic way than just quoting Berliner. TallNapoleon ( talk) 02:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
-- Karbinski ( talk) 17:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Does anyone have a suggestion for weaving these facts into the article, or are you content that we just pile in the edits. How long should an article on Objectivism give prominence to a fringe position on the history of the writing of the US Constitution before its removed?
(outdent) You know, I could have sworn I entered a reply here, but it appears it never sent. Anyway, Karbinski makes two good points. One, Iroquois have nothing to do with Objectivism (although tangentially the Iroquois federation may well have had some impact on the Founding Fathers)--although including criticism within the body of the article is what we are supposed to do. Two, this does not appear to be fundamental to the philosophy or politics of Objectivism, even though deeply held admiration for Western culture (and typically contempt for non-Western cultures) are almost universal within the Objectivist movement. But I don't think this really fits into the Objectivist movement article either. So, this leaves us with valid, sourced, interesting information, and no real good place to put it. It sounds like we need an article like "Objectivist social, cultural and political views," but that also sounds clunky. Thoughts? TallNapoleon ( talk) 17:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
In a number of places, you'll be reading the article and suddenly be accosted by a sentence of the form "Mr. X said|argued|... Y." Most often X = Peikoff. Such blurt-outs need to be integrated into the prose, and not stuck in the article as if its a conversation between Objectivists. I think they should all be snipped. Any comments? Karbinski ( talk) 19:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Is doesn't make sense to have 3 articles overlapping each other. An article about the person and life on Ayn Rand and an article about objectivism should be enough. Spreading this subject over 3 pages, seems an artificial separation. This separation has a tendency to hide the cult-like aspects of this philosophy (it's not general acceptated as a philosophy). Linking objectivism directly to Ayn Rand, confirms the cult-like aspects of objectivism. Complicating is the fact the articles seem to be edited by objectivists themselves, which is in violation of Wiki policies. 05:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Placelimit ( talk • contribs) (Was signed by me, as is viewable by time stamp, seems to be a bug in the beta? Placelimit ( talk) 05:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
including the full section as it once stood ...
Rejection of indigenous primitivism
Objectivism rejects primitivism, tribalism and collectivism, while arguing that they are symptomatic of an "anti-industrial" mentality. [6] As a consequence, Rand believed that the indigenous Native Americans, who in her estimation exhibited these "savage" traits, thus forfeited their property rights in doing so. [7] [8] When Rand addressed West Point Military Academy cadets in 1974 and was asked about the dispossession and "cultural genocide" [7] of Native Americans which occurred en route to forming the United States, she replied that indigenous people "had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages .... Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights - they didn't have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal "cultures" - they didn't have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using." [7] Rand went on to opine that "in opposing the white man" Native Americans wished to "continue a primitive existence" and "live like animals or cavemen", surmising that "any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent." [7]
Rand is the antithesis of a primitivist. Her characters are not refreshed by interaction with nature. For them, nature is there to be harnessed.
Mimi Reisel Gladstein,
The New Ayn Rand Companion [9]On Columbus Day of 1992, Michael Berliner executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute reiterated this philosophical position and hailed the European conquest of North America, describing the indigenous culture as "a way of life dominated by fatalism, passivity, and magic." [10] Western civilization, Berliner claimed, brought "reason, science, self-reliance, individualism, ambition, and productive achievement" to a people who were based in "primitivism, mysticism, and collectivism", and to a land that was "sparsely inhabited, unused, and underdeveloped." [10] In a 1999 follow up editorial for Capitalism magazine, Berliner, who was also senior advisor to the Ayn Rand Archives, expressed objectivism's "reverance" for Western Civilization which he referred to as an "objectively superior culture" that "stands for man at his best." [11]
Additionally, in 2005, the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights rejected a proposal by the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to formally apologize to Native Americans, stating that the proper response from "Indians" instead should be "gratitude." [12] The Ayn Rand Center's remarks went on to decree the transfer of Western civilization to the Americas as "one of the great cultural gifts in recorded history, affording Indians almost effortless access to centuries of European accomplishments in philosophy, science, technology, and government", remarking that "before Europeans arrived, the scattered tribes occupying North America lived in abject poverty, ignorance, and superstition." [12]
Rand's rejection of what she deemed to be "primitivism" also extended to the Middle East peace process. [13] [8] Following the Arab-Israeli War of 1973, Rand denounced Arabs as "primitive" and "one of the least developed cultures" who "are typically nomads." [13] Consequently, Arab resentment for Israel Rand went on to contend, was a result of the Jewish state being "the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their (Arabs) continent", while decreeing that "when you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are." [13] When asked about the topic during a May 1979 episode of the The Phil Donahue Show, Ayn Rand reprised her support for Israel against the Arabs under the reasoning that they were "the advanced, technological, civilized country amidst a group of almost totally primitive savages [...] who resent Israel because it’s bringing industry, intelligence, and modern technology into their stagnation." [14]
References
- ^ "Ayn Rand at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy". 2006. Retrieved 2007-07-20.
- ^ "Table of Contents". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2008-06-15.
- ^ Ayn Rand Society
- ^ "The Entry on Ayn Rand in the new Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy". Retrieved 2007-07-20., Archive index at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Uyl, Douglas J. Den (1998). "On Rand as philosopher" (PDF). Reason Papers. 23: 70–71. Retrieved 2007-07-20.
- ^ Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, by Ayn Rand and Peter Schwartz, Meridian, 1999, ISBN 0452011841
- ^ a b c d Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A, edited by Robert Mayhew, 2005, NAL Trade, ISBN 0451216652, pg 102-104
- ^ a b Burns 2009, pp. 266 harvnb error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFBurns2009 ( help)
- ^ The New Ayn Rand Companion 2nd Ed, by Mimi Reisel Gladstein, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999, ISBN 0313303215, pg 35
- ^ a b Blackfoot Physics: A Journey Into The Native American Universe, by F. David Peat, Weiser, 2005, ISBN 1578633710, pg 310
- ^ The Christopher Columbus Controversy: Western Civilization vs. Primitivism by Michael Berliner, Capitalism Magazine, October 14, 1999
- ^ a b No Apology to Indians by Thomas A. Bowden, The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, July 2, 2005
- ^ a b c Ayn Rand Ford Hall Forum Lecture, 1974, text published on the website of The Ayn Rand Institute
- ^ May 16, 1979 Video Clip of The Phil Donahue Show, Featuring Ayn Rand
- Burns, Jennifer (2009). Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-532487-7. OCLC 313665028.
{{ cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
( help)
What reason is there to expand so heavily on anti-primitivism and anti-tribalism? If any position within Objectivism is to be given such luxurious weight within the article it would have to be one of: reason, egoism, or capitalism (qua Objectivism). Anything else is just being given undue-weight. - Karbinski ( talk) 22:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It is significant, but its worth a paragraph at the most -- Snowded TALK 22:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
After this paragraph:
Objectivism views government as legitimate, but only "a government of a definite kind."[71] Rand understood government as the institution with a monopoly on the use of physical force in a given geographical area, so the issue is whether that force is used to protect or to violate individual rights. The government should use force only to protect individual rights.[72] Therefore, the "proper functions of a government" are "the police, to protect men from criminals—the armed services, to protect men from foreign invaders—the law courts, to settle disputes among men according to objectively defined laws."[73] In protecting individual rights, the government is acting as an agent of its citizens and "has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens."[74] It is also important that the government act in an impartial manner according to specific, objectively defined laws.[75]
A paragraph that flows something like:
Consequently Objectivism holds that governments that do not respect individual rights do not have the right to exist - as they don't have the right to enslave men. <insert Iran or Muslim culture example>. Nor does a tribal culture that doesn't even conceive the idea of individual rights have the right to exist. <insert the cherished native american example>. This doesn't mean any semi-free nation is fair game for invasion. <insert direct quote of Ayn Rand on that exact idea here>.
Would be unnecessary, but possibly satiate a certain editor's need (what has it been now, two or three years?) to list this denunciation within this article. And best of all, it would be, potentially, NPOV. -- Karbinski ( talk) 22:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- 1. Claim that there needs to be more info to merit inclusion
- 2. Once section is expanded per request, claim that it now gives Wp:Undue weight to the topic.
- 3. Ask that the topic then be trimmed to a bare minimum which it deserves.
- 4. Then claim that it is such a minor issue as not to merit mention and remove it.
- 5. Cycle and repeat if needed.
(Outdent) Karbinski, the count as I see it is (4) "for inclusion" (Myself, Philo, Snowded, and RL) and (3) against (You, Ink Falls, & Vobo). Since when did 4-3 in favor of something become "
WP:Consensus" against it? In addition, the only Point Of View being pushed here is Ayn Rand's POV on Native Americans and Arabs along with the Ayn Rand Institute, Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, and Michael Berliner (senior advisor to the Ayn Rand Archives). If you find their content "unflattering" then maybe you should re-evaluate whether Rand deserves your unconditional admiration (like all theorists her ideas had both strong points and fundamental flaws). Not having mention of this material is a = [glaring omission].
An analogy ~ Can you imagine if philosopher John Doe publicly decreed that Eskimos were "savages" and deserved to have their land confiscated because they were nearly sub-humans and then the John Doe Institute backed up this view, along with the John Doe Center for Arctic Property Rights and the senior advisor to the John Doe library - but yet there was NO mention of the matter on John Doe's Wikipedia pages (including "Doeism") because it was erased by non-Eskimo posters who found John Doe to be their philosophical hero and wanted the matter brushed under the rug? This matter will not just simply go away and cease to exist because it is not included in Rand's articles. Moreover, I could understand if her views on the matter were nuanced or disputed, but there is NO contradicting evidence present to challenge that this was Rand's view at all; the other side of the scale is literally empty with evidence. It is not a matter of debate if Rand or her institutes feel this way.
Redthoreau
-- (
talk) 19:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
How the hell should I know? None was given. I've taken it upon myself to add context by moving the section into the Politics section, so that it contrasts what government ought to be. The first part works well enough, but the second part about Arabs reads like a journalist report. That needs to be re-written to emphasize *why* Rand held the views she held. @Snowded, the general answer to your question is to provide the why someone held the views being reported. @Red, the criteria for inclusion is notability - primary sources do not establish notability (if they do, please show me the community consensus on that). -- Karbinski ( talk) 21:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
provided here in full ...
In arguing that only societies seeking to establish freedom (or free nations) have a right to self-determination Rand noted that "a nation ruled by brute physical force is not a nation, but a horde—whether it is led by Attila, Genghis Khan, Hitler, Khrushchev or Castro." [1] Ayn Rand counted Indigenous Native Americans society [2] [3] [4], the Arab nations involved in the Arab-Israeli War of 1973, [5] [4] [6] [7] Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union [8] amonsgt those societies based on primitivism, tribalism and collectivism. Objectivism holds that such nations are slave and outlaw societies. [9]
References
- ^ Rand 1964, p. 103 .
- ^ Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, by Ayn Rand and Peter Schwartz, Meridian, 1999, ISBN 0452011841
- ^ Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A, edited by Robert Mayhew, 2005, NAL Trade, ISBN 0451216652, pg 102-104
- ^ a b Burns 2009, pp. 266 harvnb error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFBurns2009 ( help)
- ^ Ayn Rand Ford Hall Forum Lecture, 1974, text published on the website of The Ayn Rand Institute
- ^ Ayn Rand Ford Hall Forum Lecture, 1974, text published on the website of The Ayn Rand Institute
- ^ May 16, 1979 Video Clip of The Phil Donahue Show, Featuring Ayn Rand
- ^ Rand 1964, p. 104
- ^ Rand 1964, p. 104
- Burns, Jennifer (2009). Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-532487-7. OCLC 313665028.
{{ cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
( help)
I must say that this is an almost Orwellian rewriting/scrubbing of the section which completely alters and obfuscates Rand's own words. The WP:Synth in the section which connects Rand's beliefs towards the "primitive" and "savage" Native Americans/Arabs, is now somehow connected to Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and the hordes of Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan. Where does Rand ever tie these altogether? What I would contend Karbinski has done here, is take Rand's own words on Native Americans & Arabs and tried to neatly tie it ( Wp:OR) to her rejection of other industrialized statist societies, when she never branched the two. By slowly WP:TENDentiously deleting the remarks (by philo, collector, myself etc) and trying to Wp:Own the article, I believe that Karbinski has severely mischaracterized the material, doing a disservice both to potential readers and the accuracy of the article. The current wording was not agreed upon by ANY of the above editors, and Karbinski has completely chopped away at the version that several of us even did agree on. Redthoreau -- ( talk) 18:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The metaphysics article now re-directs here -- Karbinski ( talk) 12:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
From the article:
Rand is not found in the comprehensive academic reference texts The Oxford Companion to Philosophy or The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. A lengthy article on Rand appears in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy; [1] she has an entry forthcoming in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, [2] as well as a brief entry in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy which features the following passage:
The influence of Rand’s ideas was strongest among college students in the USA but attracted little attention from academic philosophers. … Rand’s political theory is of little interest. Its unremitting hostility towards the state and taxation sits inconsistently with a rejection of anarchism, and her attempts to resolve the difficulty are ill-thought out and unsystematic.
Allan Gotthelf (chairman of the Ayn Rand Society) [3] responded unfavorably to this entry and came to her defense. [4] He and other scholars have argued for more academic study of Objectivism, viewing Rand's philosophy as a unique and intellectually interesting defense of classical liberalism that is worth debating. [5]
(end of excerpt) Why is Allan Gotthelf's rebuke necessary to include in the text? Why is it noteworthy that an Ayn Rand Society chairmen opposed the description of a philosophy he is attempting to promote as "of little interest"? Please provide a source showing why this is noteworthy. This isn't supposed to be a debate whether Objectivism is interesting or not, it's an encyclopedic article. Every point of criticism doesn't have to be answered by one of the philosophy's preachers - unless it is actually notable. An article built on a "right of respond" to criticism will end up farcical. 81.170.235.35 ( talk) 14:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
If Karlin is a reliable source, then it doesn't need to say "according to Rick Karlin". Indeed it would actually constitute the use of weasel words. TallNapoleon ( talk) 06:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Is there any point in having separate criticism and intelectual impact sections? Shouldn't criticism be distributed throughout the article as per recommended practice?
1Z ( talk) 16:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
24.147.48.94 ( talk) 17:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I cut down some of the bloated writing in the ethics section. A lot more needs to be done on the epistemology section. How exactly did Rand disprove scepticism? Why has her proof not been mentioned in any of the books in my large library devoted to scepticism, include a great deal of recent work? Surely such a proof should have brought its author into great fame and renown and honour, given the problem is more than 2,000 years old, and reckoned to be of great difficulty and subtlety. Oh well. Peter Damian ( talk) 17:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
While reporting that rand maintained that only one's own life is an end in itself, there is no need to add POV statement that rand assumed only one's own life is an end in itself, and that she took this assumption for granted. But of course, some people are so biased they can't even believe Rand for what Rand said, they need to hear it from some other source. As well, this is exposition, not argument, so the second POV statement in parenthesis is also nothing more than POV. -- Karbinski ( talk) 17:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted back until you can clarify your statements above. The point I was making was simple. Rand believes that we can get from
(A) Every living thing maintains its life for its own sake
to
(B) for any living thing, nothing apart from its own life is valuable for its own sake
It logically follows from this that she was assuming that there is nothing else that any living thing gets or maintains for its own sake. I say 'she took this assumption for granted' because, as well as making it, it is not documented that she said it. Does that explanation help? As I said before, you have considerable intelligence but you need to organise your thinking. I am trying to help you. Please don't interpret every slight criticism as a 'personal attack'. Thanks Peter Damian ( talk) 07:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Karbinski, you are presumably happy that we say Rand claimed
(A) Every living thing maintains its life for its own sake
because Rand says this. And pari ratione you would be happy if it says that Rand claimed
(B) for any living thing, nothing apart from its own life is valuable for its own sake
But what you are not happy with is the statement that this requires the assumption that there is nothing else that any living thing gets or maintains for its own sake, even though this statement is logically implied by (A) and (B). Can you please at least confirm what you are objecting to. Thanks Peter Damian ( talk) 15:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Post the claim, identify specifically which references support which clauses, and let's see if it can be verified. Skomorokh 16:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Karbinski (thats me!) is sayingThe edit [Karbinski is] objecting to reads "Since every living thing maintains its life for its own sake (and assuming, which Rand takes for granted, that there is nothing else it gets or maintains for its own sake) it follows that for any living thing, nothing apart from its own life is valuable for its own sake". You see the words 'it follows'. If (B) is to follow from (A), then the assumption has to be made.
user Skomorokh has askedIn wiki terms, the (A) thus (B) presentation isn't verified by the cited source (The Virtue of Selfishness)
Post the claim, identify specifically which references support which clauses, and let's see if it can be verified.
I thinks this summarizes the discussion so far... -- Karbinski ( talk) 21:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to remind both of you that, per the latest Arbcom ruling, you should not be edit-warring--by which I mean, reverting each other's edits. Settle down and try and get a consensus... I would help with that but right now I'm in major academic crunch time, so vOv... TallNapoleon ( talk) 18:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - I have corrected the problem with the references. I think your objection was due to a misunderstanding - see above. There was a lot of research involved in the latest rewrite, please can we have some serious and informed discussion if there are to be any further reversions. Thanks again. Peter Damian ( talk) 21:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Unless there is consensus that a section on the academic reception of Rand belongs in this article, I will move it to the talkpage of the Rand article to discuss how it could be used there. Skomorokh 21:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Karbinski's edit here fails to spot that the section he tries to replace was simply moved. Please stop this foolishness. Peter Damian ( talk) 21:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
As a minor logistical point, the guideline for citing a website should be properly followed. -- Karbinski ( talk) 22:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Currently the section on "Ethics: rational self-interest" is somewhat disjointed.
I am happy to fix these problems but can I do so, please? Peter Damian ( talk) 07:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Generally, while agreeing that Rand's ethics is largely incoherent, I think we need to find a source which says so (I thought we had one) rather than try to demonstrate it ourselves. The real problem is providing a summary of her views which is both accurate and makes sense. I am not familiar with the secondary literature - would we be better off relying on Peikoff just for the sake of a clear exposition? KD Tries Again ( talk) 14:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
I drafted (and put into the section) a paragraph that attempts to make Rand's argument coherent. See below. Karbinski objected on the grounds of the parts I have put in bold, which identify the hidden assumptions in her argument, which he regards as original research. Would it be acceptable to omit these parts and leave the Wikipedia reader to work out the flaw in the argument themselves? (It is of course obvious how she attempts to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'). I have
"Rand's ethical egoism, her advocacy of "rational selfishness," is perhaps her most well-known position. In The Virtue of Selfishness she attempted to derive this from first principles, as follows. Value is relative: something can only be valuable for a particular being, and it can only be valuable if that being has a choice. Only living things are able to choose, therefore values only exist for living things, and whatever a living thing acts to gain or keep is a value for that thing[16]. Since every living thing maintains its life for its own sake (and assuming, which Rand takes for granted, that there is nothing else it gets or maintains for its own sake) it follows that for any living thing, nothing apart from its own life is valuable for its own sake[17]. On the assumption (which Rand also did not make explicit, and which begs the question, because it is equivalent to the conclusion of her argument) that every living thing should do or ought to do whatever is valuable for itself, it follows that it ought to do whatever promotes its own life. But people can only live if they are rational[18]. Since reason is man's means of knowledge, it is also his greatest value, and its exercise his greatest virtue. "Man's mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive he must act and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch––or build a cyclotron––without a knowledge of his aim and the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think."[19]. Therefore everyone ought to be rational." Peter Damian ( talk) 15:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
This is not as hard to follow as the Ethics section, although I wish there was a source which pointed out that the axioms are trivial, in the sense that (with the exception of identity, which is somewhat controversial) nobody really denies them. I can't puzzle out the last para though:
Objectivist philosophy regards the Law of Causality, which states that things act in accordance with their natures,[citation needed] as "the law of identity applied to action."[5] Rand rejected the popular notion that the causal link relates action to action. According to Rand, an "action" is not an entity, rather, it is entities that act, and every action is the action of an entity. The way entities interact is caused by the specific nature (or "identity") of those entities; if they were different there would be a different result.[4]
I can't see that the "popular notion" (whatever that is) denies that it is entities which act and are acted upon, or that the actions of entities somehow relate to the nature or properties of the entity, so I can't see what Rand is trying to say here. Again, I hope someone might be able to take a look at Peikoff. KD Tries Again ( talk) 14:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
By the way, I don't think these 'axioms' are clear at all. Vallicella has already pointed out that 'Existence exists' can be understood in several ways.
(1) That in virtue of which existing things exist itself exists. For example, if one thought of existence as a property of existing things, and one were a realist about properties, then it would make sense for that person to say that existence exists.
(2) Existing things exist. Instead of taking 'existence' as denoting that in virtue of which existing things exist, one could take it as a term that applies to whatever exists.
(3) That the things that exist exist and have the attributes they have independently of us. Rand: "The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity."
The other two axioms (as she formulates them) are no less confusing. For example, she justifies the so-called Axiom of Identity saying "A leaf cannot be all red and green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. But that is of course the Law of contraries. Peter Damian ( talk) 19:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Sometime during the past several months, the informative Criticisms of Objectivism or as it was formerly known Criticisms of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) was redirected to the main Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article; however, the text of the criticisms does not seem to have been merged into the main article. (And I would recommend against doing so, since it obscures the exposition of the philosophy.) Please put back the Criticisms article, which served a useful function. — DAGwyn ( talk) 14:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Although it's been pointed out that Objectivism is not just the philosophy of Ayn Rand, it's striking that the article seems to deal only with her views - Peikoff being cited for purposes of exposition. KD Tries Again ( talk) 14:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
I have rewritten the ethics section. I rearranged the paragraphs so they have a more logical order, and trimmed where necessary to maintain the sense. I did add the section that Karbinski deleted the other day, but I have removed the two offending parenthetic sentences. I hope this is acceptable. It is as true as I can get to Rand's position, and it exposes the main fallacy in her argument without spelling it out. Peter Damian ( talk) 18:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The article refers to "the names of three axioms used in Aristotelian logic: "A is A," "Non-Contradiction," and "Either/Or". Aristotle barely mentions "A is A". Nor (I am sure - I will check) do the other two occur in his logic, i.e. the Organon. The second famously is discussed at length in a famous chapter in the Metaphysics. I will check on the third. Peter Damian ( talk) 19:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Here we are. From the SEP:
And of course he discusses the Law of Excluded middle at length in De Interpretatione 9. But there of course (on one interpretation) he denies it, since on that interpretation he holds that statements about the future may be neither true nor false. (For the statement that a sea-battle will occur today is true now, then it is true for all time, thus necessarily true, thus there is no choice and free-will. For the same reason, it cannot be false now. Ergo &c). Thus in summary
Great guns, eh. Peter Damian ( talk) 19:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I took the rash step of looking to see what Rand actually said in the relevant afterword to Atlas. She praises Aristotle's "definition of the laws of logic and of the means of human knowledge..." and then states "You will find my tribute to him in the titles of the three parts of ATLAS SHRUGGED." So in fact Peter has been put to some unnecessary trouble showing that the summary in the article is wrong based on third-party sources. It's wrong anyway:
Karbinski, I am genuinely perplexed by your objection to the new material in the ethics section. Your objections above seemed entirely about the bracketed sections, which have been removed. For the sake of clarity, can you please identify which of the 5 sentences below you object to, and more importantly, why. Thanks
Peter Damian ( talk) 17:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
User Peter Damian has noted
The edit [Karbinski is] objecting to reads "Since every living thing maintains its life for its own sake (and assuming, which Rand takes for granted, that there is nothing else it gets or maintains for its own sake) it follows that for any living thing, nothing apart from its own life is valuable for its own sake". You see the words 'it follows'. If (B) is to follow from (A), then the assumption has to be made.
Karbinski (thats me!) is saying
In wiki terms, the (A) thus (B) presentation isn't verified by the cited source (The Virtue of Selfishness)
user Skomorokh has asked
Post the claim, identify specifically which references support which clauses, and let's see if it can be verified.
That sentence is the worst, but the entire content of the paragraph does not come from the cited source. So my problem with it is that it is WP:OR-- Karbinski ( talk) 19:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
But you're objecting to an earlier version. It was changed in response to comments here. The most recent version, which you reverted, read:
"On the assumption that every living thing should do or ought to do whatever is valuable for itself, it follows that it should do whatever promotes its own life."
Are you claiming Rand doesn't say this? It's important that we are all discussing the same edit. KD Tries Again ( talk) 19:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Peter has provided precise, page-numbered sources for the summary. I don't have the book, and the full text isn't available online. He can hard;y be expected to copy type the pages here for everyone's review. Karbinski, if you have a copy to hand, could you just take one of Peter's sentences and show that Rand says something different? I think the burden is on you to show that the cites don't support what the article says. KD Tries Again ( talk) 21:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Given I have reverted again and there is now danger of blocking or banning, here are the exact citations:
I am happy to rewrite the paragraph so that it is more or less in Rand's words, but why? Peter Damian ( talk) 21:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
On the assumption that every living thing should do or ought to do whatever is valuable for itself, it follows that it should do whatever promotes its own life.
[implicit premiss, conclusion] To recall my objection, the (A) thus (B) presentation is OR. As well, why is it referred to as a conclusion here, but in the article its presented as a structural component of Ayn Rands argument? To be clear, 'it follows' is OR. Its gaming the wiki process to structure the paragraph one way and then discuss it as if it is structured otherwise. -- Karbinski ( talk) 16:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Here are my three reverts revert 1, revert 2, revert 3 which are prompted by a fundamentally unreasonable editor. I want to test this principle that someone with a reasonable expert grasp of the subject will be blocked or banned for 3RR, in preference to someone who simply cannot grasp the basic principles of reasonable discourse. (I have left this message on Connelly's page (who likes to block me for this sort of thing, in Wales page, and on ANI. This is fundamental. ) Peter Damian ( talk) 21:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The difficulty, of course, is that some editors are disappointed that a fairly clear and accurate summary (it appears - I don't have the book) of what Rand says leaves her argument looking weak. The solution is not to revert to a previous summary which was certainly not clear, and much less well-supported by citation than Peter's. If there's a solution, it's for those editors to propose (or make) revisions to Peter's version where they feel his summary is tendentious, but only in so far as those revisions can be supported by the kind of close reading of the text he has been willing to undertake. KD Tries Again ( talk) 15:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
OK first of all thanks to Karbinski for now specifying what he feels is wrong with the paragraph. Rather than saying 'I hate the whole paragraph', it tremendously helps so say exactly which statements in the paragraph are the issue and also to say why. Karbinski has now specified that it is the 'it follows' part he dislikes, i.e. he objects to my imputing the logical implication on Rand's part. Some points, then.
Peter Damian ( talk) 18:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
“ | Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. | ” |
User Peter Damian has noted
The edit [Karbinski is] objecting to reads "Since every living thing maintains its life for its own sake (and assuming, which Rand takes for granted, that there is nothing else it gets or maintains for its own sake) it follows that for any living thing, nothing apart from its own life is valuable for its own sake". You see the words 'it follows'. If (B) is to follow from (A), then the assumption has to be made.
Karbinski (thats me!) is saying
In wiki terms, the (A) thus (B) presentation isn't verified by the cited source (The Virtue of Selfishness)
user Skomorokh has asked
Post the claim, identify specifically which references support which clauses, and let's see if it can be verified.
What I've done (if I was successful) is revert the article to the version before IP 160 made dozens of undiscussed edits. I did not do this to endorse Peter's version in complete disregard of Karbinski's objections. I am happy to continue discussing K.'s concerns here. KD Tries Again ( talk) 14:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
As there has been no further discussion, I restored the article's last stable version. I'm sad to see user Snowded is here attacking me despite his obligation to be contructive as per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ayn_Rand#Final_decision. -- Karbinski ( talk) 14:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
To return to discussion of the paragraph, user Peter Damian tells us what the real OR is in his paragraph. As well, he reports things like you have to be rational to live or everyone ought to be rational in short sentences devoid of the context Rand supplied to support them. My objection to OR in the paragraph plus user Peter Damian's claim to OR in the paragraph is more than enough to establish it makes things worse for the article, not better. The short, contextless, sentences is poor prose, and works towards user Peter Damian's POV. The structure of the paragraph itself is user Peter Damians POV, and is definitely not a summarized report on what is found on pages 15 and 16 of the cited source The Virtue of Selfishness. Everything the paragraph purports to cover, is already covered without these problems in the stable version.-- Karbinski ( talk) 22:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks to the user above for pointing out that wp:syn is a concern. Yet another problem with user Peter Damian's paragraph is its structured not as a summary of the source(s), but as his own personal WP:OR take on it. His insistence that any intelligent reader will realize such and such, means we can let the facts stand as they are, and let intelligent readers think of them as they may, without the guidance of user Peter Damian's POV. -- Karbinski ( talk) 22:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Rand's ethical egoism, her advocacy of "rational selfishness," is perhaps her most well-known position. In The Virtue of Selfishness she gave an original validation of her moral code, claiming to have bridged the infamous gap between "Is" and "Ought"—or between facts and values. Beginning by asking "What are values?" and "Why does man need them?", she argues that the concept of "value" implies an answer to the questions, "Of value to whom and for what?" Thus, the existence of values depends upon the existence of an alternative in the face of which a being must act. "Where no alternatives exist, no goals and no values are possible."(emphases added)
This does Rand no credit. It's a series of unconnected claims. That she "gave a validation" - i.e. validated? - her moral code is pure opinion, overwhelmingly unsupported by independent readers of her work. She might have claimed to show how an ought can be derived from an is, but there is no explanation here (as there was in Peter's version) of how she might have gone about it (I am going to delete "infamous" which is extraordinary and quite unsupported). The sentence in italics - meaningless to anyone who hasn't already mastered the material. The existence of a value depends on alternatives? Why do you want to make Rand sound so trite? At least Peter extracted an argument from the pages. KD Tries Again ( talk) 23:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
I filed a detailed analytical complaint against anon IP 160 at WP:ANI. You can view it here. J Readings ( talk) 00:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Skomorokh said that: "The philosophy of Objectivism is almost always referred to in capitalised form, as the lower case form refers to an entirely distinct position. An online search for "ayn rand" "objectivism" will show this very clearly."
However, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) states that we only capitalize proper nouns, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) has "Philosophies, theories, doctrines, and systems of thought do not begin with a capital letter, unless the name derives from a proper noun..."
So, I am inclined to stick to my guns in my initial feeling that "objectivism" ought not to be capitalized (unless, obviously it is the first word in a sentence). What do others think? -- John ( talk) 15:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Many points of usage, such as the treatment of proper names, can be decided by seeing what other writers do about the problem. Unless there is some clear reason to do otherwise, it is generally a good idea to follow the usage of reliable secondary sources in English on the subject; the sources for the article itself should be reliable. If the sources for the article can be shown to be unrepresentative of current English usage as a whole, follow current English usage instead — and consult more sources.
Why is that picture here? What does it add to the article, except a bit of free advertising for the owner of the place? TallNapoleon ( talk) 00:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I do think that Objectivism's extreme admiration of Western civilization is notable and should be mentioned. The quote from Rand at West Point about the colonization of the Americas is also relevant here. However, it should be dealt with in a more systematic way than just quoting Berliner. TallNapoleon ( talk) 02:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
-- Karbinski ( talk) 17:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Does anyone have a suggestion for weaving these facts into the article, or are you content that we just pile in the edits. How long should an article on Objectivism give prominence to a fringe position on the history of the writing of the US Constitution before its removed?
(outdent) You know, I could have sworn I entered a reply here, but it appears it never sent. Anyway, Karbinski makes two good points. One, Iroquois have nothing to do with Objectivism (although tangentially the Iroquois federation may well have had some impact on the Founding Fathers)--although including criticism within the body of the article is what we are supposed to do. Two, this does not appear to be fundamental to the philosophy or politics of Objectivism, even though deeply held admiration for Western culture (and typically contempt for non-Western cultures) are almost universal within the Objectivist movement. But I don't think this really fits into the Objectivist movement article either. So, this leaves us with valid, sourced, interesting information, and no real good place to put it. It sounds like we need an article like "Objectivist social, cultural and political views," but that also sounds clunky. Thoughts? TallNapoleon ( talk) 17:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
In a number of places, you'll be reading the article and suddenly be accosted by a sentence of the form "Mr. X said|argued|... Y." Most often X = Peikoff. Such blurt-outs need to be integrated into the prose, and not stuck in the article as if its a conversation between Objectivists. I think they should all be snipped. Any comments? Karbinski ( talk) 19:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Is doesn't make sense to have 3 articles overlapping each other. An article about the person and life on Ayn Rand and an article about objectivism should be enough. Spreading this subject over 3 pages, seems an artificial separation. This separation has a tendency to hide the cult-like aspects of this philosophy (it's not general acceptated as a philosophy). Linking objectivism directly to Ayn Rand, confirms the cult-like aspects of objectivism. Complicating is the fact the articles seem to be edited by objectivists themselves, which is in violation of Wiki policies. 05:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Placelimit ( talk • contribs) (Was signed by me, as is viewable by time stamp, seems to be a bug in the beta? Placelimit ( talk) 05:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
including the full section as it once stood ...
Rejection of indigenous primitivism
Objectivism rejects primitivism, tribalism and collectivism, while arguing that they are symptomatic of an "anti-industrial" mentality. [6] As a consequence, Rand believed that the indigenous Native Americans, who in her estimation exhibited these "savage" traits, thus forfeited their property rights in doing so. [7] [8] When Rand addressed West Point Military Academy cadets in 1974 and was asked about the dispossession and "cultural genocide" [7] of Native Americans which occurred en route to forming the United States, she replied that indigenous people "had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages .... Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights - they didn't have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal "cultures" - they didn't have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using." [7] Rand went on to opine that "in opposing the white man" Native Americans wished to "continue a primitive existence" and "live like animals or cavemen", surmising that "any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent." [7]
Rand is the antithesis of a primitivist. Her characters are not refreshed by interaction with nature. For them, nature is there to be harnessed.
Mimi Reisel Gladstein,
The New Ayn Rand Companion [9]On Columbus Day of 1992, Michael Berliner executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute reiterated this philosophical position and hailed the European conquest of North America, describing the indigenous culture as "a way of life dominated by fatalism, passivity, and magic." [10] Western civilization, Berliner claimed, brought "reason, science, self-reliance, individualism, ambition, and productive achievement" to a people who were based in "primitivism, mysticism, and collectivism", and to a land that was "sparsely inhabited, unused, and underdeveloped." [10] In a 1999 follow up editorial for Capitalism magazine, Berliner, who was also senior advisor to the Ayn Rand Archives, expressed objectivism's "reverance" for Western Civilization which he referred to as an "objectively superior culture" that "stands for man at his best." [11]
Additionally, in 2005, the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights rejected a proposal by the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to formally apologize to Native Americans, stating that the proper response from "Indians" instead should be "gratitude." [12] The Ayn Rand Center's remarks went on to decree the transfer of Western civilization to the Americas as "one of the great cultural gifts in recorded history, affording Indians almost effortless access to centuries of European accomplishments in philosophy, science, technology, and government", remarking that "before Europeans arrived, the scattered tribes occupying North America lived in abject poverty, ignorance, and superstition." [12]
Rand's rejection of what she deemed to be "primitivism" also extended to the Middle East peace process. [13] [8] Following the Arab-Israeli War of 1973, Rand denounced Arabs as "primitive" and "one of the least developed cultures" who "are typically nomads." [13] Consequently, Arab resentment for Israel Rand went on to contend, was a result of the Jewish state being "the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their (Arabs) continent", while decreeing that "when you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are." [13] When asked about the topic during a May 1979 episode of the The Phil Donahue Show, Ayn Rand reprised her support for Israel against the Arabs under the reasoning that they were "the advanced, technological, civilized country amidst a group of almost totally primitive savages [...] who resent Israel because it’s bringing industry, intelligence, and modern technology into their stagnation." [14]
References
- ^ "Ayn Rand at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy". 2006. Retrieved 2007-07-20.
- ^ "Table of Contents". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2008-06-15.
- ^ Ayn Rand Society
- ^ "The Entry on Ayn Rand in the new Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy". Retrieved 2007-07-20., Archive index at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Uyl, Douglas J. Den (1998). "On Rand as philosopher" (PDF). Reason Papers. 23: 70–71. Retrieved 2007-07-20.
- ^ Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, by Ayn Rand and Peter Schwartz, Meridian, 1999, ISBN 0452011841
- ^ a b c d Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A, edited by Robert Mayhew, 2005, NAL Trade, ISBN 0451216652, pg 102-104
- ^ a b Burns 2009, pp. 266 harvnb error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFBurns2009 ( help)
- ^ The New Ayn Rand Companion 2nd Ed, by Mimi Reisel Gladstein, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999, ISBN 0313303215, pg 35
- ^ a b Blackfoot Physics: A Journey Into The Native American Universe, by F. David Peat, Weiser, 2005, ISBN 1578633710, pg 310
- ^ The Christopher Columbus Controversy: Western Civilization vs. Primitivism by Michael Berliner, Capitalism Magazine, October 14, 1999
- ^ a b No Apology to Indians by Thomas A. Bowden, The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, July 2, 2005
- ^ a b c Ayn Rand Ford Hall Forum Lecture, 1974, text published on the website of The Ayn Rand Institute
- ^ May 16, 1979 Video Clip of The Phil Donahue Show, Featuring Ayn Rand
- Burns, Jennifer (2009). Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-532487-7. OCLC 313665028.
{{ cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
( help)
What reason is there to expand so heavily on anti-primitivism and anti-tribalism? If any position within Objectivism is to be given such luxurious weight within the article it would have to be one of: reason, egoism, or capitalism (qua Objectivism). Anything else is just being given undue-weight. - Karbinski ( talk) 22:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It is significant, but its worth a paragraph at the most -- Snowded TALK 22:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
After this paragraph:
Objectivism views government as legitimate, but only "a government of a definite kind."[71] Rand understood government as the institution with a monopoly on the use of physical force in a given geographical area, so the issue is whether that force is used to protect or to violate individual rights. The government should use force only to protect individual rights.[72] Therefore, the "proper functions of a government" are "the police, to protect men from criminals—the armed services, to protect men from foreign invaders—the law courts, to settle disputes among men according to objectively defined laws."[73] In protecting individual rights, the government is acting as an agent of its citizens and "has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens."[74] It is also important that the government act in an impartial manner according to specific, objectively defined laws.[75]
A paragraph that flows something like:
Consequently Objectivism holds that governments that do not respect individual rights do not have the right to exist - as they don't have the right to enslave men. <insert Iran or Muslim culture example>. Nor does a tribal culture that doesn't even conceive the idea of individual rights have the right to exist. <insert the cherished native american example>. This doesn't mean any semi-free nation is fair game for invasion. <insert direct quote of Ayn Rand on that exact idea here>.
Would be unnecessary, but possibly satiate a certain editor's need (what has it been now, two or three years?) to list this denunciation within this article. And best of all, it would be, potentially, NPOV. -- Karbinski ( talk) 22:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- 1. Claim that there needs to be more info to merit inclusion
- 2. Once section is expanded per request, claim that it now gives Wp:Undue weight to the topic.
- 3. Ask that the topic then be trimmed to a bare minimum which it deserves.
- 4. Then claim that it is such a minor issue as not to merit mention and remove it.
- 5. Cycle and repeat if needed.
(Outdent) Karbinski, the count as I see it is (4) "for inclusion" (Myself, Philo, Snowded, and RL) and (3) against (You, Ink Falls, & Vobo). Since when did 4-3 in favor of something become "
WP:Consensus" against it? In addition, the only Point Of View being pushed here is Ayn Rand's POV on Native Americans and Arabs along with the Ayn Rand Institute, Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, and Michael Berliner (senior advisor to the Ayn Rand Archives). If you find their content "unflattering" then maybe you should re-evaluate whether Rand deserves your unconditional admiration (like all theorists her ideas had both strong points and fundamental flaws). Not having mention of this material is a = [glaring omission].
An analogy ~ Can you imagine if philosopher John Doe publicly decreed that Eskimos were "savages" and deserved to have their land confiscated because they were nearly sub-humans and then the John Doe Institute backed up this view, along with the John Doe Center for Arctic Property Rights and the senior advisor to the John Doe library - but yet there was NO mention of the matter on John Doe's Wikipedia pages (including "Doeism") because it was erased by non-Eskimo posters who found John Doe to be their philosophical hero and wanted the matter brushed under the rug? This matter will not just simply go away and cease to exist because it is not included in Rand's articles. Moreover, I could understand if her views on the matter were nuanced or disputed, but there is NO contradicting evidence present to challenge that this was Rand's view at all; the other side of the scale is literally empty with evidence. It is not a matter of debate if Rand or her institutes feel this way.
Redthoreau
-- (
talk) 19:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
How the hell should I know? None was given. I've taken it upon myself to add context by moving the section into the Politics section, so that it contrasts what government ought to be. The first part works well enough, but the second part about Arabs reads like a journalist report. That needs to be re-written to emphasize *why* Rand held the views she held. @Snowded, the general answer to your question is to provide the why someone held the views being reported. @Red, the criteria for inclusion is notability - primary sources do not establish notability (if they do, please show me the community consensus on that). -- Karbinski ( talk) 21:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
provided here in full ...
In arguing that only societies seeking to establish freedom (or free nations) have a right to self-determination Rand noted that "a nation ruled by brute physical force is not a nation, but a horde—whether it is led by Attila, Genghis Khan, Hitler, Khrushchev or Castro." [1] Ayn Rand counted Indigenous Native Americans society [2] [3] [4], the Arab nations involved in the Arab-Israeli War of 1973, [5] [4] [6] [7] Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union [8] amonsgt those societies based on primitivism, tribalism and collectivism. Objectivism holds that such nations are slave and outlaw societies. [9]
References
- ^ Rand 1964, p. 103 .
- ^ Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, by Ayn Rand and Peter Schwartz, Meridian, 1999, ISBN 0452011841
- ^ Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A, edited by Robert Mayhew, 2005, NAL Trade, ISBN 0451216652, pg 102-104
- ^ a b Burns 2009, pp. 266 harvnb error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFBurns2009 ( help)
- ^ Ayn Rand Ford Hall Forum Lecture, 1974, text published on the website of The Ayn Rand Institute
- ^ Ayn Rand Ford Hall Forum Lecture, 1974, text published on the website of The Ayn Rand Institute
- ^ May 16, 1979 Video Clip of The Phil Donahue Show, Featuring Ayn Rand
- ^ Rand 1964, p. 104
- ^ Rand 1964, p. 104
- Burns, Jennifer (2009). Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-532487-7. OCLC 313665028.
{{ cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
( help)
I must say that this is an almost Orwellian rewriting/scrubbing of the section which completely alters and obfuscates Rand's own words. The WP:Synth in the section which connects Rand's beliefs towards the "primitive" and "savage" Native Americans/Arabs, is now somehow connected to Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and the hordes of Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan. Where does Rand ever tie these altogether? What I would contend Karbinski has done here, is take Rand's own words on Native Americans & Arabs and tried to neatly tie it ( Wp:OR) to her rejection of other industrialized statist societies, when she never branched the two. By slowly WP:TENDentiously deleting the remarks (by philo, collector, myself etc) and trying to Wp:Own the article, I believe that Karbinski has severely mischaracterized the material, doing a disservice both to potential readers and the accuracy of the article. The current wording was not agreed upon by ANY of the above editors, and Karbinski has completely chopped away at the version that several of us even did agree on. Redthoreau -- ( talk) 18:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)