This 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. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Ayn Rand Answers is a collection of statements made by Rand in response to questions, compiled by Robert Mayhew. It is not a book that Rand herself planned or designed. Mayhew states in the introduction that, "I believe I have done a good job in editing this material. Nevertheless, no one can guarantee that Ayn Rand would have approved of editing she herself did not see. For this reason, however fascinating and useful, these Q&A should not be considered part of Objectivism." Using Ayn Rand Answers as a source for Objectivism's view of primitivism is presenting material that is not part of Objectivism as part of Objectivism. I believe that this is wrong, and that this source should be removed. UserVOBO ( talk) 23:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
"encompasses Q&As from lectures and several media interviews, spanning the years 1958 to 1981"
"Ayn Rand’s responses flowed from her philosophic framework, Objectivism, and her personal values. By reading this book one can gain not only new insights, but also a fuller appreciation of her thought and a sense of what she was like as a person."
"Note that she considered her extemporaneous answers as, at their best, almost publishable or perhaps first drafts, invariably requiring editing. She did not see this edited compilation of her answers and its content, therefore, should not be considered part of her stated philosophy."
Redthoreau's argument is irrelevant, since the subject of this article is Objectivism, Ayn Rand's philosophy, not her opinions on any and every subject. Both Rand and subsequent Objectivists have made it clear that she had many opinions that she did not consider to be part of her philosophy; this would be known to anyone reasonably familiar with Objectivism, though I can find the sources if required. UserVOBO ( talk) 05:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Prompted by her fans, Rand offered a number of controversial stances [during Q&A sessions] that particularly outraged libertarians. ... In other appearances she attacked Native Americans as savages, arguing that European colonists had a right to seize their land because native tribes did not recognize individual rights. She extended this reasoning to the Israel-Palestine conflict, arguing that Palestinians had no rights and that it was moral to support Israel, the sole outpost of civilization in a region ruled by barbarism.
I'm reading through this article for the first time, and making a few minor changes for grammar's sake. I'll summarize my changes here:
That's it for now. I'll add more explanation here if I find any more minor changes to make. — BRIAN 0918 • 2010-02-13 22:20Z
Changes made by MechHead:
Section 1.6 "Denial of indigenous land rights" seems like it is in the wrong place.
The philosophical position is undoubtedly interesting and relevant, but it doesn't seem like a core part of the philosophy and lacks the same type of categorical heading as those above (Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics, Aesthetics).
Without adjusting the rest of the Article too much, this section might fit under 2.0 "View of other philosophies" since much of the content isn't really about Objectivism per se, but about how Ayn Rand rejects indigenous land-claims as "primitivism, mysticism, and collectivism" - ie: the "land rights" section is an objectivist criticism of other points-of-view/philosophies.
Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akiracee ( talk • contribs) 20:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I added a smaller sub-section title, as I believe there is enough material to merit Objectivism's stance on the issue - which I renamed "rejection of indigenous primitivism". Afterall, there is an entire compilation of essays by Rand (i.e. Return of the Primitive) on the matter. Redthoreau -- ( talk) 03:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Primitivism isn't a philosophy so much as a cultural pattern. I was present at Rand's Q&A sessions where this came up. Her opinion was certainly not "racist" since it was not a prejudgement of any individual on the basis of inessential characteristics, but applied to the essential characteristcs of a whole culture; judging by other conversations, she would have agreed that there could be exceptional, worthy individuals within those cultures (who would have a hard time). It is easy to understand Rand's condemnation of primitive cultures when you consider how much she valued rational thought, productive work, etc. (essentially Renaissance values). — DAGwyn ( talk) 21:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Since when are all people who follow Ayn Rand's philosophy "atheists"? Rand may have been one herself, but atheism isn't an essential tenant of her philosophy as far as I know. Many conservatives who claim to be Christian admire her philosophies, right? I think calling Objectivism "a type of atheism" is misleading. Recently I saw a blog article on another site that claimed Alan Greenspan is an atheist because he follows Ayn Rand's teachings. I'm not sure if they got this from the Wiki article or not.-- 206.255.18.74 ( talk) 16:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The quote from the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (under Intellectual_impact) is taken out of context and seems bias as a result. The paragraph the quote comes from reads
To me, choosing that one sentence amounts to nothing more than cherry-picking. Why should it be shown any prominence when it is no more important than the other sentences surrounding it?
The best options are: include the sentence that immediately follows the quoted sentence (to provide context), or remove the quote altogether. I've chosen the former. -- MechHead ( talk) 17:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
As I understand it, this statue (being constructed in 1937, the time Rand was publishing her first works and long before Objectivism had even been conceived) has nothing to do with Objectivism, besides the image of Atlas and its symbolism.
Having the picture as the lead image of the article creates a false association of the Rockefeller Center with Objectivism. I will therefore replace this image with one genuinely associated with the movement unless anyone has a good reason why I shouldn't.
RN - 14 October 2010
I don't know what the original poster had in mind, but certainly a gold dollar sign with two bars is a well known symbol of Objectivism and is mentioned at the end of Atlas Shrugged. That Ms Rand wore such a brooch is I think well known. Certainly when I wear such a pin, those in the know realize I am an Objectivist immediately. 86.15.46.53 ( talk) 20:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
The presentation of the philosophy is straight forward in the article and is NPOV. However, there is an editor who insists that, contra a highlighted point in the
WP:NPOV policy ("Avoid stating opinions as facts"), the ethics section be structured as: Rand's foundation for ethics is X, but authorities say its no good. Whereas stating that Rand's foundation for ethics is X is NPOV, having a clause about some authority or authorities saying its no good is EXACTLY HALF of a back-and-forth between proponents and opponents; it constitutes a POV push.
1. The opinions of scholars a,b, & c should not be construed to settle as a matter of fact that Rand's foundation for ethics is true and indisputably the only proper foundation for ethics (or vice-versa).
2. The structure of the ethics section should not be corrupted by adding one half of a back-and-forth between proponents and opponents (Reference to
WP:Structure is not what is needed, deference to
WP:Structure is what is needed).
It is a combination of both 1 & 2. If it was written neutrally as the content is presented in the criticism section and not so immediate in the ethics section as to preempt fleshing out of the argument being reported - then it wouldn't be such a blatant POV push. The article without this bit added into the ethics section already satisfies such criteria as per NPOV. Karbinski ( talk) 13:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I note that the IP has gutted the criticism section here. Personally I believe it should be restored to the way it was. Thoughts? TallNapoleon ( talk) 21:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I think it is about time for talk page discussion about the inclusion of the comment about Objectivism appealing to "those in a post-adolescent stage" (quoting Andrew Corsello in a GQ article), which has been added and removed multiple times by various parties as far back as late October. Things to consider:
My own opinion is that the answer to (1) is no, GQ is not the sort of source we would typically expect to find in a philosophy article, particularly when the article is tagged as "humor" on the magazine's own website. I doubt that Corsello's opinion on Pragmatism or Predicate logic would be considered appropriate article content. But for (2), I'm quite sure that others have expressed similar opinions, so there should be more appropriate sources to use for documenting this general viewpoint. -- RL0919 ( talk) 16:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
In scholarship, a secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. A secondary source contrasts with a primary source, which is an original source of the information being discussed; a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document created by such a person. Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information
I know Objectivism is a little off the beaten track as far as proper academic secondary research goes, but I agree with the perspective above which holds that we can do better than humour columns in men's magazines. Skomorokh 15:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I was the original poster of this sentence. I think that Corsello's article while being tagged as "humour" and "books" on the webpage, was actually written in the books section of the magazine. The fact that a columnist is funny, doesn't detract from serious points made. I agree that this view of Rand's ideas holds wide currency, so I've posted another columnist who holds a similar view. There must be countless more sources from people who hold this view of Objectivism. - Not sure how to sign this off - RichG1985 —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichG1985 ( talk • contribs) 00:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
OK fair enough Skomorokh, I just think that it's a very widespread opinion (shown by Onkar Ghate's rebuttal of it) - http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=4115 so should have some mention on here with some kind of source. RichG1985 ( talk) 12:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
It's really kind of dumb anyway—"post-adolescent" might have been meant as perjorative, but actually those are the years when people often start seriously searching for the answer's to life's big questions, i.e. philosophy to live by. Since Objectivism provides the broadest, most coherent, and most accessible system of that kind, of course it appeals to many. If there was meant to be an implication that it appeals only to adolescents, that's demonstrably wrong: at one time the article contained a long list of successful, professional, well known adults who said they were influenced by Objectivism. (It seems that since then somebody decided that only academics matter.) — DAGwyn ( talk) 07:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
We've got another dispute brewing over the inclusion of a list of scholars influenced by Rand, most recently removed here. In the diff, BigK HeX ( talk · contribs) asks for sources, but I'm not sure that's the most important issue here. I expect most of these could be sourced. But do we really need/want such a lengthy list of names in the article? I think it would be better to source the general statement, and then either omit the list entirely or include only the most prominent names. A list of 60 names, many of them not particularly notable, doesn't seem like a helpful thing to have in the article. Succinctly put: WP:NOTDIRECTORY. -- RL0919 ( talk) 19:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I would like to change the introduction of Ayn Rand (currently "the Russian-American philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand") to also include the Rand's gender, as this is far from obvious from reading the name and is of a similar (or greater) importance as the geographical origin.
Proposal: "the female Russian-American philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand"
I bring this to the discussion page, as there is a vocal utterance against boldness in a comment near my proposed change. Eroen ( talk) 19:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
What happened to the good article status we had a few months ago? I don't see any explanation for why it was demoted. TallNapoleon ( talk) 02:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
When did this article get tagged for OR? And Why? The tag goes away - I think if it is warranted then the reason or reasons can be articulated here on the talk page. If this is because of the citation needed tag on the NB stuff, it is overkill - plus there is no need for NB biography on a discussion of Objectivism so we can just snip that content. -- Karbinski ( talk) 22:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Why is this not categorized as Pseudophilosophy? Ayn Rand is rejected by just about each and every philosopher and scholar in academia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.8.149 ( talk) 03:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough..
But the criticism section should definitely outweigh the "intellectual impact", which is an absolute piece of nonsense:
"Rand's philosophy has had a significant impact on the work of a range of notable academics and scholars, including: Martin Anderson,[128] Petr Beckmann,[129] Andrew Bernstein,[130] Harry Binswanger,[131] Nathaniel Branden,[132] Edith Efron,[133] Allan Gotthelf,[134] Robert Hessen,[135] Erika Holzer,[136] John Hospers,[137] David Kelley,[138] James G. Lennox,[139] Liu Junning,[140] Edwin A. Locke,[141] Tibor Machan,[142] Charles Murray,[143] Leonard Peikoff,[144] Douglas B. Rasmussen,[145] George Reisman,[146] John Ridpath,[147] Murray Rothbard,[148] Peter Schwartz,[149] Chris Matthew Sciabarra,[150] George H. Smith,[151] Tara Smith,[152] and Walter E. Williams.[153] In recent decades, annual conferences have been conducted featuring lectures by such academics and scholars, highlighting their recent work.[154]"
These are the notable academics and scholars? Lets go through the first ten, shall we?
Martin Anderson - Acquaintance of Ayn Rand
Petr Beckmann - Acquaintance of Ayn Rand
Andrew Bernstein - Author of "conservative manifesto"
Harry Binswanger - long time associate of Ayn Rand
Nathaniel Branden - Former romantic partner of Ayn Rand
Edith Efron - Part of Ayn Rand's circle, and contributor to her magazine
Allan Gotthelf - Heavy involvement inwith Ayn Rand and the Objectivist movement
Robert Hessen - A stub of an article, from the author of something called "In Defense of the Corporation"
Erika Holzer - Member of Ayn Rand's inner circle
John Hospers - Personal friend of Ayn Rand
Comes off pretty desperate, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.8.149 ( talk) 18:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
--
Atlas Shrugged was, according to a poll, the second most influential book to the American people after the Bible. I'm super serial! Also, say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism; at least it's an ethos!
Also, Bob Barr, Steve Ditko, Terry Goodkind, Alan Greenspan, Anton LaVey, Stefan Molyneux, Ron Paul, Neil Peart, Murray Rothbard, Paul Ryan, Kay Nolte Smith, L. Neil Smith, John Stossel, Clarence Thomas, and Jimmy Wales.
So the first ten "notable academics and scholars" are just a bunch of acquaintances of Ayn Rand.
Lets go through the next batch of 10:
Bob Barr - Libertarian Republican
Steve Ditko - Comic Book Artist
Terry Goodkind - Fantasy writer
Alan Greenspan - The FIRST person listed that actually has any merit!
Anton LaVey - Founder of "Church of Satan" and notable occultist (excellent inclusion!)
Stefan Molyneux - Libertarian blogger
Ron Paul - Libertarian promoter (who hates the government, yet has been IN government since the 70's), holds the most conservative voting record of any member of Congress since 1937.
Neil Peart - A drummer (from a GREAT band, I'll give him that) but who *actually* identifies as a LEFT leaning libertarian (Ayn Rand is far right libertarian) .. this shouldn't even be here.
Murray Rothbard - Free Market advocate who argued that taxation represents coercive theft on a grand scale .. also a student of Ludwig von Mises - interesting how Rand disciples dismiss academics for being trained by their "leftist" professors.. but when you study under a RIGHT-wing professor, all of the sudden, they become notable scholars!
and then we stop at Paul Ryan.. the somewhat-far (I wouldn't say extreme, although some would) right-wing economist who plans to end medicare (our most popular social program, even when you poll conservatives) as we know it, while of course lowering taxes on the wealthiest.. without even balancing the budget for decades anyway
This IS influence, but its not influence on "notable" scholars and academics in any way shape or form. That part of the description should be taken down, not these list of names itself.. it is a clearly pathetic attempt to "puff up" her impact and is way outside what should be considered a neutral POV.
I mean look at the list.. these are ALL people who were *already* predisposed to her style of thinking.. and used her work as a stepping stone towards right-wing political and economic positions.
Also, what kind of measure of influence is a list that the Bible is listed #1 on? Even Ayn Rand condemned organized religion.. so I don't understand how you thought that would strengthen your argument. I remember that the Modern Library did a user top 100 and besides two books and the entire top 10 was full of Ayn Rand and L Ron Hubbard books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.8.149 ( talk) 22:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
reply:
Your (unsigned) response is so bad, it's difficult to know where to begin. I'll give this my best shot.
"This IS influence, but its not influence on "notable" scholars and academics in any way shape or form."
Notable by what standard?
"I mean look at the list.. these are ALL people who were *already* predisposed to her style of thinking."
Are you sure? Or, is it possible they changed their beliefs because of her writing?
"Also, what kind of measure of influence is a list that the Bible is listed #1 on?"
It was a poll that asked Americans what book had the biggest impact on their way of thinking.
"Even Ayn Rand condemned organized religion.. so I don't understand how you thought that would strengthen your argument."
Well, it's the second-most influential book according to the American people. So, clearly, her writings are influential (The Fountainhead also got a respectable showing, making her combined total about the same as the Bible. Do you think the Bible is influential?).
Also, how is it relevant that Rand condemned religion? Let me see if I understand you. I think you're saying:
(a) Ayn Rand condemned religion
(b) A poll that asked Americans what book had the biggest impact on their way of thinking had the Bible at the #1 spot.
(c) The same poll showed that Rand's book Atlas Shrugged was #2.
(d) Therefore, Rand's works aren't substantially influential to the American people.
Huh?
"I remember that the Modern Library did a user top 100 and besides two books and the entire top 10 was full of Ayn Rand and L Ron Hubbard books."
What the hell does that have to do with anything?
By the way, the poll I'm talking about was conducted by the Library of Congress, not "the modern library," whatever that is.
> The point is, you have both failed to explain how personal friends, comic book writers, drummers, and libertarian bloggers qualify as "notable scholars and academics".
Sure you are doing the Rand movement a great service here, but its shit like this why people think Wikipedia is pure garbage compared to real encyclopedias like Britannica.. especially when you come to these pages and see that the people who defend these articles are so deprived, they have never even heard of the modern library! I mean seriously, have you never read a book in your life? Even upon graduating high school, I must have read a dozen different books with their logo on it..
Britannica will always be the trusted choice in encyclopedias because unlike Wikipedia you will NEVER find the head of a "Church of Satan" cult being passed off as a notable scholar.. The amount of intellectual dishonesty on Wikipedia is getting frightening.. I've got my eye on the Islamic Golden Age as well, which is unrepairable because of a similar problem. The people editing the articles are nothing but apologists who show no concern for academic integrity.
reply:
" The point is, you have both failed to explain how personal friends, comic book writers, drummers, and libertarian bloggers qualify as "notable scholars and academics". "
I don't care about that. Rand's books are influential to about 15% of the US population. Enough said.
So you DONT care about academic integrity. I get it. Thanks for the confirmation though.
Your argument comes down to majority rules? The more mainstream the appeal = the *BETTER* the influence to you? Has it never occurred to you that some types of influence could be BAD, not good?
About a billion and a half Muslims find the Quran to be influential. According to your logic, if your work is influential to 15% of a population, you have achieved great influence.
Well, 97% of those in Iraq are Muslim. Does that mean Iraq is the scholarly capital of the world just because a particular book had such tremendous mainstream influence? Welll.. according to your perverted twist on logic, yes.. it would! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.3.70 ( talk) 17:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
-- 24.228.3.70 ( talk) 17:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
reply:
"So you DONT care about academic integrity. I get it. Thanks for the confirmation though."
No, I simply don't care how influential Rand was to scholars with respect to this article, just the general public.
"Your argument comes down to majority rules? The more mainstream the appeal = the *BETTER* the influence to you? Has it never occurred to you that some types of influence could be BAD, not good?"
No, I'm arguing that it's influential, whether good or bad. I never said that which is influential is good.
"Well, 97% of those in Iraq are Muslim. Does that mean Iraq is the scholarly capital of the world just because a particular book had such tremendous mainstream influence? Welll.. according to your perverted twist on logic, yes.. it would!"
This assessment of my views doesn't make any sense. Christianity is popular in America, so by your (incorrect) assessment of my views on influence, America must be the scholarly capital of the world as well, but, then, Islam is popular in Iraq, too. They can't both be the "scholarly capital of the world"...
>>>>>>>
"No, I simply don't care how influential Rand was to scholars with respect to this article, just the general public."
Well that's you. My whole point is that average joes do not have the authority that rhode scholars do.
"No, I'm arguing that it's influential, whether good or bad. I never said that which is influential is good."
Which I already stated myself, several times in fact. Ayn Rand had tremendous influence, but only in the libertarian scene.. this is not the same influence that, say Aristotle had which continues to influence multiple fields in academia to this day. Guys like John Locke.. these are examples of tremendously influential philosophers.. Guys like Immanuel Kant (despite Ayn Rands inability to grasp his ideas) synthesized two competing schools of philosophical thought and opened up doors for virtually every philosopher to come. Yet Rand basically asked 20th century philosophers to abandon all that progress, resulting in her becoming an outcast in the philosophy community.. quite similar to the way a creationist would be an outcast in today's scientific community.
But you argued that since 15% of Americans found Rand's work influential, that is "all that maters". NO, that is not all that matters. I can point out multiple countries that have much higher rates of adherence to a certain book.
in Iraq, 97% of people consider the Quran the most influential book. Iran, 98%. Turkey, 97%. Yemen, 98%..
I could go on.. point being your method (percent of adherence / total population = influence) fails to measure the QUALITY of the influence and only measures quantity. So what good is it? One could argue these people were "influenced" but I would argue were simply "manipulated" and cleverly persuaded into believing something.
But I see that the list I initially brought into question has already been tidied up in the article, so that is much appreciated.
>>>>>>>>> -- 24.187.8.149 ( talk) 00:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Lets discuss this paragraph, if it needs modification or removal... -- Karbinski ( talk) 09:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
If any of the given citations are direct evidence that the individual was influenced, we need to improve the citation or drop the entry. High quality original research is still OR. To claim any particular individual's entry is *properly* sourced, we need a reliable secondary source that reports how that individual is influenced, *not* evidence the OR is true. An influence being discussed in a secondary source establishes notability - and, any debates on notability should be based on the context and quality of the source. -- Karbinski ( talk) 10:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Now this delicious piece of irony. Libertarian activists threatening to resort to Wikipedia's form of government intervention.. in order to silence dissent.. the very creator of this committee doesn't consider himself a self-avowed "Objectivist to the core" does he?
How am I supposed to work with people that outright refuse to defend their positions? Especially when they already have a long history of trimming the criticism section?
I do appreciate the editing that has already made progress though.. but I fear there is no way to expand the criticism section without hurting feelings.
-- 24.187.8.149 ( talk) 00:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Lets discuss this paragraph, if it needs modification or removal... -- Karbinski ( talk) 09:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
If any of the given citations are direct evidence that the individual was influenced, we need to improve the citation or drop the entry. High quality original research is still OR. To claim any particular individual's entry is *properly* sourced, we need a reliable secondary source that reports how that individual is influenced, *not* evidence the OR is true. An influence being discussed in a secondary source establishes notability - and, any debates on notability should be based on the context and quality of the source. -- Karbinski ( talk) 09:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
It is currently bouncing around.
Did we have consensus that it should be integrated where possible? I ask as I think that change came about in the midst of other efforts. Personally I think BigK HeX's last version is the way to go (integrated where possible). -- Karbinski ( talk) 10:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
reply: Sorry about that. You put "NP:Structure" instead of "WP"
byelf2007 ( talk) 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I thought it might be a good idea to open a discussion of a recent edit by Zenomax, June 18. "Principal" was changed to "belief" and "man's mind" was changed to "human mind". I'm not certain it was improper to make these changes, but I think it's worth discussing.
First, The editor gave as a reason that "man's" was sexist, which I don't consider a proper reason as it's an opinion. Others may believe objections to "man" are just the result of trendy political correctness. Far as I know, "man" still means "human". I think the question isn't whether Wikipedia should bend to PCness... it shouldn't... but whether "man" is no longer part of the common vernacular for "humanity".
Second, changing "principal" to "belief" is a different issue. It seems like the effect of this edit is to change the meaning: belief implies "opinion", while "principal" implies a choice made as to import. Since this is an article about objectivism, it can't be up to an editor to decide between its being a "principal" or a "belief". The question in this case is whether there is a cite for Objectivism using "principal". If so, than "principal" should stay.
Opinions? BashBrannigan ( talk) 16:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The criticism of x is irrelevant without first reporting on x, and where x=patent law or taxation in a fully free society => its not important detail within an overview of Rand's politics. The article, appropriately does not elaborate on these areas of applied Objectivism. If it did, then criticism's of those areas of applied Objectivism would be relevant. -- Karbinski ( talk) 10:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
-Derived from Ethics and epistemology is the non-initiation of force (two paragraphs) -Ellaboration on Individual Rights -Necessity of Government and Objective Rule of Law -Capitalism as a moral system -Objectivism in the political landscape What you have with taxation and patents are details - and adding them to the article is too much detail. The existence of sources is meaningless here, VOS for taxation and CUI for patents if nothing else. Critics think its important? - there isn't even any criticism of the taxation bit. As for the critic - singular - of the patent bit, that critic took the effort to criticize doesn't speak to the importance of this detail. If there is criticism out there, and I'm sure there is, of what was said about numbers in ITOE, we don't rush to clutter the epistemology section with first the unecessary detail of the Objectivist view on numbers and then the unecessary detail of what a critic had to say about it. -- Karbinski ( talk) 23:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
There is of course too much material about Objectivism to read or re-read every source word-by-word, so I looked for related index terms (copyright, patent, intellectual property) and skimmed sections that seemed most likely to contain discussion of that topic. So if I say a work doesn't contain discussion of it, that doesn't preclude a passing mention or footnote that I missed. I found that the following overviews of Objectivism contain no apparent discussion of intellectual property: Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (Peikoff), The Vision of Ayn Rand (Branden), Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical (Sciabarra), On Ayn Rand (Gotthelf), Ayn Rand (Machan), Objectivism in One Lesson (Bernstein), The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand (Den Uyl and Rasmussen), and With Charity Toward None (O'Neill). I also looked at sections/essays on Rand's ideas in some more general works, none of which discuss her views on intellectual property: On Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism (Barry), Philosophers of Capitalism (Younkins), The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Only by turning to books devoted to discussing Objectivist political and ethical views was I able to find any discussion of this topic: Moral Rights and Political Freedom (Smith), A Life of One's Own (Kelley), and The Capitalist Manifesto (Bernstein) do not discuss intellectual property, but there is a section about it in Then Athena Said (Touchstone). If you were to shrink those proportions (a few pages among thousands of pages of material) to the scale of our article (currently less than 6000 words, which is reasonable for an encyclopedia article), the result is that we would not be discussing it. -- RL0919 ( talk) 13:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Should we include that? I think so, but I think it's perhaps a little too specific, so maybe we shouldn't include that.
Byelf2007's consideration here for a 3rd item, is the core question for both taxation and patent law. I propose we look to the community for guidance.
What we ought to be looking for is secondary sources, whether critical or not, that discuss these subjects. That is the standard Wikipedia approach to determining whether a topic is significant enough to include. If numerous sources discussing Objectivism treat these as important aspects, then we should discuss them here. If they are rarely mentioned, then we can ignore them -- including them would be giving undue weight to minor topics.
And there, RL0919 has pretty much covered it. Defer to the amount of coverage given by secondary sources that share the articles topic, Objectivism. Not research and/or opinion devoted to the specific in question.
Now we've just messed up the end of the section, where the sub-topic is Objectivism in the current political landscape. The taxation bit can perhaps be saved by moving it to a quote box. While something on Intellectual Property may be appropriate, the legal issue of patent law and on top of that criticism, is too much. The reader is being given an overview, and then boom - First-to-file is moral - no it isn't - her views on anti-trust are confusing. Technical concerns of undue weight left aside, its just poor quality and breaks the flow. First-to-file and antitrust are not the stuff of a philosophical overview. What has been added to the article is: Rand considered X moral, critic Y disagrees where X is extremely specific. The issue is not even should IP be protected by the state, not even if there should be patents, its the how patents should be implemented. Its not overview material. Antitrust is totally from left field, and the criticism is that its confusing - one might ask confusing how? - but then again the reader has been given no information on what Rand had to say about antitrust laws. This is all just blades of grass in the forest - no different than taking a concept, any concept discussed by Rand in detail in terms of her theory of concepts, and plugging it into the epistemology section - yes Rand wrote it, yes its part of Objectivism, yes critics responded --> no it does not belong in the article. Further reading is expected if the wikipedia reader wants to delve into the topic further. -- Karbinski ( talk) 10:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Taxation: How about the quote box I added? My own answer is that it makes an interesting detail (despite lacking importance in an overview) -- Karbinski ( talk) 14:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
IP/patents: We have cut it in half, but I still want to move it away from first-to-file and towards IP being the root of property rights. I'll try to contribute something later. -- Karbinski ( talk) 14:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Should the first sentence have the word "created" or "defined"? I like "created" more. byelf2007 ( talk) 28 August 2011
I made a small change in the introduction. Where it read that man attains knowledge through concept formation and inductive and deductive logic, I cut out "deductive." Since the introduction serves as a kind of "definition" of Objectivism, I think it should serve to distinguish the philosophy from the widest range of other philosophies, and Ayn Rand's emphasis on induction over deduction certainly fits that criteria. Ayn Rand defined deduction as the application of wider knowledge to a narrower observation; while this could be called, in a narrow sense, a form of attaining knowledge, it is not, in the Objectivist view, as fundamental as induction. I welcome any objections, but as a preemptive rebuttal, I offer Ayn Rand's words: The process of observing the facts of reality and of integrating them into concepts is, in essence, a process of induction. ''The process of subsuming new instances under a known concept is, in essence, a process of deduction."[emphasis mine] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew3024 ( talk • contribs) 03:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
For months now there has been an ongoing back-and-forth (primarily between two editors) over how material about criticisms of Objectivism should be handled in the article. One favors having a distinct "Criticisms" section within the article. The other favors placing this material in the other sections, so that, for example, criticisms of Objectivism's ethical claims would appear in the section on ethics. A previous attempt at discussing this went nowhere, and the editors involved have continued their slow but interminable edit war. This needs to end. Therefore I am opening this Request for Comment to get broader input on which approach the article should use. So to frame this in a clear yes-no/support-oppose fashion, the question for comment is: Should there be a distinct section about criticisms? -- RL0919 ( talk) 15:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I came to this article today already familiar with objectivism, and I was hoping to read some criticisms that exist of it. I was disappointed to not find any such sections in the contents. I can imagine that some editors who are objectivists might want to keep such information difficult to find, but I think that for the benefit of the readers of this article, there should either be a section specifically on criticism or, as a second-best solution, a criticism subsection of each regular section. 71.94.185.174 ( talk) 12:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Ayn Rand Answers is a collection of statements made by Rand in response to questions, compiled by Robert Mayhew. It is not a book that Rand herself planned or designed. Mayhew states in the introduction that, "I believe I have done a good job in editing this material. Nevertheless, no one can guarantee that Ayn Rand would have approved of editing she herself did not see. For this reason, however fascinating and useful, these Q&A should not be considered part of Objectivism." Using Ayn Rand Answers as a source for Objectivism's view of primitivism is presenting material that is not part of Objectivism as part of Objectivism. I believe that this is wrong, and that this source should be removed. UserVOBO ( talk) 23:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
"encompasses Q&As from lectures and several media interviews, spanning the years 1958 to 1981"
"Ayn Rand’s responses flowed from her philosophic framework, Objectivism, and her personal values. By reading this book one can gain not only new insights, but also a fuller appreciation of her thought and a sense of what she was like as a person."
"Note that she considered her extemporaneous answers as, at their best, almost publishable or perhaps first drafts, invariably requiring editing. She did not see this edited compilation of her answers and its content, therefore, should not be considered part of her stated philosophy."
Redthoreau's argument is irrelevant, since the subject of this article is Objectivism, Ayn Rand's philosophy, not her opinions on any and every subject. Both Rand and subsequent Objectivists have made it clear that she had many opinions that she did not consider to be part of her philosophy; this would be known to anyone reasonably familiar with Objectivism, though I can find the sources if required. UserVOBO ( talk) 05:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Prompted by her fans, Rand offered a number of controversial stances [during Q&A sessions] that particularly outraged libertarians. ... In other appearances she attacked Native Americans as savages, arguing that European colonists had a right to seize their land because native tribes did not recognize individual rights. She extended this reasoning to the Israel-Palestine conflict, arguing that Palestinians had no rights and that it was moral to support Israel, the sole outpost of civilization in a region ruled by barbarism.
I'm reading through this article for the first time, and making a few minor changes for grammar's sake. I'll summarize my changes here:
That's it for now. I'll add more explanation here if I find any more minor changes to make. — BRIAN 0918 • 2010-02-13 22:20Z
Changes made by MechHead:
Section 1.6 "Denial of indigenous land rights" seems like it is in the wrong place.
The philosophical position is undoubtedly interesting and relevant, but it doesn't seem like a core part of the philosophy and lacks the same type of categorical heading as those above (Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics, Aesthetics).
Without adjusting the rest of the Article too much, this section might fit under 2.0 "View of other philosophies" since much of the content isn't really about Objectivism per se, but about how Ayn Rand rejects indigenous land-claims as "primitivism, mysticism, and collectivism" - ie: the "land rights" section is an objectivist criticism of other points-of-view/philosophies.
Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akiracee ( talk • contribs) 20:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I added a smaller sub-section title, as I believe there is enough material to merit Objectivism's stance on the issue - which I renamed "rejection of indigenous primitivism". Afterall, there is an entire compilation of essays by Rand (i.e. Return of the Primitive) on the matter. Redthoreau -- ( talk) 03:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Primitivism isn't a philosophy so much as a cultural pattern. I was present at Rand's Q&A sessions where this came up. Her opinion was certainly not "racist" since it was not a prejudgement of any individual on the basis of inessential characteristics, but applied to the essential characteristcs of a whole culture; judging by other conversations, she would have agreed that there could be exceptional, worthy individuals within those cultures (who would have a hard time). It is easy to understand Rand's condemnation of primitive cultures when you consider how much she valued rational thought, productive work, etc. (essentially Renaissance values). — DAGwyn ( talk) 21:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Since when are all people who follow Ayn Rand's philosophy "atheists"? Rand may have been one herself, but atheism isn't an essential tenant of her philosophy as far as I know. Many conservatives who claim to be Christian admire her philosophies, right? I think calling Objectivism "a type of atheism" is misleading. Recently I saw a blog article on another site that claimed Alan Greenspan is an atheist because he follows Ayn Rand's teachings. I'm not sure if they got this from the Wiki article or not.-- 206.255.18.74 ( talk) 16:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The quote from the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (under Intellectual_impact) is taken out of context and seems bias as a result. The paragraph the quote comes from reads
To me, choosing that one sentence amounts to nothing more than cherry-picking. Why should it be shown any prominence when it is no more important than the other sentences surrounding it?
The best options are: include the sentence that immediately follows the quoted sentence (to provide context), or remove the quote altogether. I've chosen the former. -- MechHead ( talk) 17:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
As I understand it, this statue (being constructed in 1937, the time Rand was publishing her first works and long before Objectivism had even been conceived) has nothing to do with Objectivism, besides the image of Atlas and its symbolism.
Having the picture as the lead image of the article creates a false association of the Rockefeller Center with Objectivism. I will therefore replace this image with one genuinely associated with the movement unless anyone has a good reason why I shouldn't.
RN - 14 October 2010
I don't know what the original poster had in mind, but certainly a gold dollar sign with two bars is a well known symbol of Objectivism and is mentioned at the end of Atlas Shrugged. That Ms Rand wore such a brooch is I think well known. Certainly when I wear such a pin, those in the know realize I am an Objectivist immediately. 86.15.46.53 ( talk) 20:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
The presentation of the philosophy is straight forward in the article and is NPOV. However, there is an editor who insists that, contra a highlighted point in the
WP:NPOV policy ("Avoid stating opinions as facts"), the ethics section be structured as: Rand's foundation for ethics is X, but authorities say its no good. Whereas stating that Rand's foundation for ethics is X is NPOV, having a clause about some authority or authorities saying its no good is EXACTLY HALF of a back-and-forth between proponents and opponents; it constitutes a POV push.
1. The opinions of scholars a,b, & c should not be construed to settle as a matter of fact that Rand's foundation for ethics is true and indisputably the only proper foundation for ethics (or vice-versa).
2. The structure of the ethics section should not be corrupted by adding one half of a back-and-forth between proponents and opponents (Reference to
WP:Structure is not what is needed, deference to
WP:Structure is what is needed).
It is a combination of both 1 & 2. If it was written neutrally as the content is presented in the criticism section and not so immediate in the ethics section as to preempt fleshing out of the argument being reported - then it wouldn't be such a blatant POV push. The article without this bit added into the ethics section already satisfies such criteria as per NPOV. Karbinski ( talk) 13:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I note that the IP has gutted the criticism section here. Personally I believe it should be restored to the way it was. Thoughts? TallNapoleon ( talk) 21:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I think it is about time for talk page discussion about the inclusion of the comment about Objectivism appealing to "those in a post-adolescent stage" (quoting Andrew Corsello in a GQ article), which has been added and removed multiple times by various parties as far back as late October. Things to consider:
My own opinion is that the answer to (1) is no, GQ is not the sort of source we would typically expect to find in a philosophy article, particularly when the article is tagged as "humor" on the magazine's own website. I doubt that Corsello's opinion on Pragmatism or Predicate logic would be considered appropriate article content. But for (2), I'm quite sure that others have expressed similar opinions, so there should be more appropriate sources to use for documenting this general viewpoint. -- RL0919 ( talk) 16:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
In scholarship, a secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. A secondary source contrasts with a primary source, which is an original source of the information being discussed; a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document created by such a person. Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information
I know Objectivism is a little off the beaten track as far as proper academic secondary research goes, but I agree with the perspective above which holds that we can do better than humour columns in men's magazines. Skomorokh 15:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I was the original poster of this sentence. I think that Corsello's article while being tagged as "humour" and "books" on the webpage, was actually written in the books section of the magazine. The fact that a columnist is funny, doesn't detract from serious points made. I agree that this view of Rand's ideas holds wide currency, so I've posted another columnist who holds a similar view. There must be countless more sources from people who hold this view of Objectivism. - Not sure how to sign this off - RichG1985 —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichG1985 ( talk • contribs) 00:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
OK fair enough Skomorokh, I just think that it's a very widespread opinion (shown by Onkar Ghate's rebuttal of it) - http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=4115 so should have some mention on here with some kind of source. RichG1985 ( talk) 12:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
It's really kind of dumb anyway—"post-adolescent" might have been meant as perjorative, but actually those are the years when people often start seriously searching for the answer's to life's big questions, i.e. philosophy to live by. Since Objectivism provides the broadest, most coherent, and most accessible system of that kind, of course it appeals to many. If there was meant to be an implication that it appeals only to adolescents, that's demonstrably wrong: at one time the article contained a long list of successful, professional, well known adults who said they were influenced by Objectivism. (It seems that since then somebody decided that only academics matter.) — DAGwyn ( talk) 07:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
We've got another dispute brewing over the inclusion of a list of scholars influenced by Rand, most recently removed here. In the diff, BigK HeX ( talk · contribs) asks for sources, but I'm not sure that's the most important issue here. I expect most of these could be sourced. But do we really need/want such a lengthy list of names in the article? I think it would be better to source the general statement, and then either omit the list entirely or include only the most prominent names. A list of 60 names, many of them not particularly notable, doesn't seem like a helpful thing to have in the article. Succinctly put: WP:NOTDIRECTORY. -- RL0919 ( talk) 19:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I would like to change the introduction of Ayn Rand (currently "the Russian-American philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand") to also include the Rand's gender, as this is far from obvious from reading the name and is of a similar (or greater) importance as the geographical origin.
Proposal: "the female Russian-American philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand"
I bring this to the discussion page, as there is a vocal utterance against boldness in a comment near my proposed change. Eroen ( talk) 19:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
What happened to the good article status we had a few months ago? I don't see any explanation for why it was demoted. TallNapoleon ( talk) 02:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
When did this article get tagged for OR? And Why? The tag goes away - I think if it is warranted then the reason or reasons can be articulated here on the talk page. If this is because of the citation needed tag on the NB stuff, it is overkill - plus there is no need for NB biography on a discussion of Objectivism so we can just snip that content. -- Karbinski ( talk) 22:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Why is this not categorized as Pseudophilosophy? Ayn Rand is rejected by just about each and every philosopher and scholar in academia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.8.149 ( talk) 03:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough..
But the criticism section should definitely outweigh the "intellectual impact", which is an absolute piece of nonsense:
"Rand's philosophy has had a significant impact on the work of a range of notable academics and scholars, including: Martin Anderson,[128] Petr Beckmann,[129] Andrew Bernstein,[130] Harry Binswanger,[131] Nathaniel Branden,[132] Edith Efron,[133] Allan Gotthelf,[134] Robert Hessen,[135] Erika Holzer,[136] John Hospers,[137] David Kelley,[138] James G. Lennox,[139] Liu Junning,[140] Edwin A. Locke,[141] Tibor Machan,[142] Charles Murray,[143] Leonard Peikoff,[144] Douglas B. Rasmussen,[145] George Reisman,[146] John Ridpath,[147] Murray Rothbard,[148] Peter Schwartz,[149] Chris Matthew Sciabarra,[150] George H. Smith,[151] Tara Smith,[152] and Walter E. Williams.[153] In recent decades, annual conferences have been conducted featuring lectures by such academics and scholars, highlighting their recent work.[154]"
These are the notable academics and scholars? Lets go through the first ten, shall we?
Martin Anderson - Acquaintance of Ayn Rand
Petr Beckmann - Acquaintance of Ayn Rand
Andrew Bernstein - Author of "conservative manifesto"
Harry Binswanger - long time associate of Ayn Rand
Nathaniel Branden - Former romantic partner of Ayn Rand
Edith Efron - Part of Ayn Rand's circle, and contributor to her magazine
Allan Gotthelf - Heavy involvement inwith Ayn Rand and the Objectivist movement
Robert Hessen - A stub of an article, from the author of something called "In Defense of the Corporation"
Erika Holzer - Member of Ayn Rand's inner circle
John Hospers - Personal friend of Ayn Rand
Comes off pretty desperate, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.8.149 ( talk) 18:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
--
Atlas Shrugged was, according to a poll, the second most influential book to the American people after the Bible. I'm super serial! Also, say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism; at least it's an ethos!
Also, Bob Barr, Steve Ditko, Terry Goodkind, Alan Greenspan, Anton LaVey, Stefan Molyneux, Ron Paul, Neil Peart, Murray Rothbard, Paul Ryan, Kay Nolte Smith, L. Neil Smith, John Stossel, Clarence Thomas, and Jimmy Wales.
So the first ten "notable academics and scholars" are just a bunch of acquaintances of Ayn Rand.
Lets go through the next batch of 10:
Bob Barr - Libertarian Republican
Steve Ditko - Comic Book Artist
Terry Goodkind - Fantasy writer
Alan Greenspan - The FIRST person listed that actually has any merit!
Anton LaVey - Founder of "Church of Satan" and notable occultist (excellent inclusion!)
Stefan Molyneux - Libertarian blogger
Ron Paul - Libertarian promoter (who hates the government, yet has been IN government since the 70's), holds the most conservative voting record of any member of Congress since 1937.
Neil Peart - A drummer (from a GREAT band, I'll give him that) but who *actually* identifies as a LEFT leaning libertarian (Ayn Rand is far right libertarian) .. this shouldn't even be here.
Murray Rothbard - Free Market advocate who argued that taxation represents coercive theft on a grand scale .. also a student of Ludwig von Mises - interesting how Rand disciples dismiss academics for being trained by their "leftist" professors.. but when you study under a RIGHT-wing professor, all of the sudden, they become notable scholars!
and then we stop at Paul Ryan.. the somewhat-far (I wouldn't say extreme, although some would) right-wing economist who plans to end medicare (our most popular social program, even when you poll conservatives) as we know it, while of course lowering taxes on the wealthiest.. without even balancing the budget for decades anyway
This IS influence, but its not influence on "notable" scholars and academics in any way shape or form. That part of the description should be taken down, not these list of names itself.. it is a clearly pathetic attempt to "puff up" her impact and is way outside what should be considered a neutral POV.
I mean look at the list.. these are ALL people who were *already* predisposed to her style of thinking.. and used her work as a stepping stone towards right-wing political and economic positions.
Also, what kind of measure of influence is a list that the Bible is listed #1 on? Even Ayn Rand condemned organized religion.. so I don't understand how you thought that would strengthen your argument. I remember that the Modern Library did a user top 100 and besides two books and the entire top 10 was full of Ayn Rand and L Ron Hubbard books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.8.149 ( talk) 22:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
reply:
Your (unsigned) response is so bad, it's difficult to know where to begin. I'll give this my best shot.
"This IS influence, but its not influence on "notable" scholars and academics in any way shape or form."
Notable by what standard?
"I mean look at the list.. these are ALL people who were *already* predisposed to her style of thinking."
Are you sure? Or, is it possible they changed their beliefs because of her writing?
"Also, what kind of measure of influence is a list that the Bible is listed #1 on?"
It was a poll that asked Americans what book had the biggest impact on their way of thinking.
"Even Ayn Rand condemned organized religion.. so I don't understand how you thought that would strengthen your argument."
Well, it's the second-most influential book according to the American people. So, clearly, her writings are influential (The Fountainhead also got a respectable showing, making her combined total about the same as the Bible. Do you think the Bible is influential?).
Also, how is it relevant that Rand condemned religion? Let me see if I understand you. I think you're saying:
(a) Ayn Rand condemned religion
(b) A poll that asked Americans what book had the biggest impact on their way of thinking had the Bible at the #1 spot.
(c) The same poll showed that Rand's book Atlas Shrugged was #2.
(d) Therefore, Rand's works aren't substantially influential to the American people.
Huh?
"I remember that the Modern Library did a user top 100 and besides two books and the entire top 10 was full of Ayn Rand and L Ron Hubbard books."
What the hell does that have to do with anything?
By the way, the poll I'm talking about was conducted by the Library of Congress, not "the modern library," whatever that is.
> The point is, you have both failed to explain how personal friends, comic book writers, drummers, and libertarian bloggers qualify as "notable scholars and academics".
Sure you are doing the Rand movement a great service here, but its shit like this why people think Wikipedia is pure garbage compared to real encyclopedias like Britannica.. especially when you come to these pages and see that the people who defend these articles are so deprived, they have never even heard of the modern library! I mean seriously, have you never read a book in your life? Even upon graduating high school, I must have read a dozen different books with their logo on it..
Britannica will always be the trusted choice in encyclopedias because unlike Wikipedia you will NEVER find the head of a "Church of Satan" cult being passed off as a notable scholar.. The amount of intellectual dishonesty on Wikipedia is getting frightening.. I've got my eye on the Islamic Golden Age as well, which is unrepairable because of a similar problem. The people editing the articles are nothing but apologists who show no concern for academic integrity.
reply:
" The point is, you have both failed to explain how personal friends, comic book writers, drummers, and libertarian bloggers qualify as "notable scholars and academics". "
I don't care about that. Rand's books are influential to about 15% of the US population. Enough said.
So you DONT care about academic integrity. I get it. Thanks for the confirmation though.
Your argument comes down to majority rules? The more mainstream the appeal = the *BETTER* the influence to you? Has it never occurred to you that some types of influence could be BAD, not good?
About a billion and a half Muslims find the Quran to be influential. According to your logic, if your work is influential to 15% of a population, you have achieved great influence.
Well, 97% of those in Iraq are Muslim. Does that mean Iraq is the scholarly capital of the world just because a particular book had such tremendous mainstream influence? Welll.. according to your perverted twist on logic, yes.. it would! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.3.70 ( talk) 17:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
-- 24.228.3.70 ( talk) 17:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
reply:
"So you DONT care about academic integrity. I get it. Thanks for the confirmation though."
No, I simply don't care how influential Rand was to scholars with respect to this article, just the general public.
"Your argument comes down to majority rules? The more mainstream the appeal = the *BETTER* the influence to you? Has it never occurred to you that some types of influence could be BAD, not good?"
No, I'm arguing that it's influential, whether good or bad. I never said that which is influential is good.
"Well, 97% of those in Iraq are Muslim. Does that mean Iraq is the scholarly capital of the world just because a particular book had such tremendous mainstream influence? Welll.. according to your perverted twist on logic, yes.. it would!"
This assessment of my views doesn't make any sense. Christianity is popular in America, so by your (incorrect) assessment of my views on influence, America must be the scholarly capital of the world as well, but, then, Islam is popular in Iraq, too. They can't both be the "scholarly capital of the world"...
>>>>>>>
"No, I simply don't care how influential Rand was to scholars with respect to this article, just the general public."
Well that's you. My whole point is that average joes do not have the authority that rhode scholars do.
"No, I'm arguing that it's influential, whether good or bad. I never said that which is influential is good."
Which I already stated myself, several times in fact. Ayn Rand had tremendous influence, but only in the libertarian scene.. this is not the same influence that, say Aristotle had which continues to influence multiple fields in academia to this day. Guys like John Locke.. these are examples of tremendously influential philosophers.. Guys like Immanuel Kant (despite Ayn Rands inability to grasp his ideas) synthesized two competing schools of philosophical thought and opened up doors for virtually every philosopher to come. Yet Rand basically asked 20th century philosophers to abandon all that progress, resulting in her becoming an outcast in the philosophy community.. quite similar to the way a creationist would be an outcast in today's scientific community.
But you argued that since 15% of Americans found Rand's work influential, that is "all that maters". NO, that is not all that matters. I can point out multiple countries that have much higher rates of adherence to a certain book.
in Iraq, 97% of people consider the Quran the most influential book. Iran, 98%. Turkey, 97%. Yemen, 98%..
I could go on.. point being your method (percent of adherence / total population = influence) fails to measure the QUALITY of the influence and only measures quantity. So what good is it? One could argue these people were "influenced" but I would argue were simply "manipulated" and cleverly persuaded into believing something.
But I see that the list I initially brought into question has already been tidied up in the article, so that is much appreciated.
>>>>>>>>> -- 24.187.8.149 ( talk) 00:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Lets discuss this paragraph, if it needs modification or removal... -- Karbinski ( talk) 09:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
If any of the given citations are direct evidence that the individual was influenced, we need to improve the citation or drop the entry. High quality original research is still OR. To claim any particular individual's entry is *properly* sourced, we need a reliable secondary source that reports how that individual is influenced, *not* evidence the OR is true. An influence being discussed in a secondary source establishes notability - and, any debates on notability should be based on the context and quality of the source. -- Karbinski ( talk) 10:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Now this delicious piece of irony. Libertarian activists threatening to resort to Wikipedia's form of government intervention.. in order to silence dissent.. the very creator of this committee doesn't consider himself a self-avowed "Objectivist to the core" does he?
How am I supposed to work with people that outright refuse to defend their positions? Especially when they already have a long history of trimming the criticism section?
I do appreciate the editing that has already made progress though.. but I fear there is no way to expand the criticism section without hurting feelings.
-- 24.187.8.149 ( talk) 00:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Lets discuss this paragraph, if it needs modification or removal... -- Karbinski ( talk) 09:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
If any of the given citations are direct evidence that the individual was influenced, we need to improve the citation or drop the entry. High quality original research is still OR. To claim any particular individual's entry is *properly* sourced, we need a reliable secondary source that reports how that individual is influenced, *not* evidence the OR is true. An influence being discussed in a secondary source establishes notability - and, any debates on notability should be based on the context and quality of the source. -- Karbinski ( talk) 09:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
It is currently bouncing around.
Did we have consensus that it should be integrated where possible? I ask as I think that change came about in the midst of other efforts. Personally I think BigK HeX's last version is the way to go (integrated where possible). -- Karbinski ( talk) 10:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
reply: Sorry about that. You put "NP:Structure" instead of "WP"
byelf2007 ( talk) 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I thought it might be a good idea to open a discussion of a recent edit by Zenomax, June 18. "Principal" was changed to "belief" and "man's mind" was changed to "human mind". I'm not certain it was improper to make these changes, but I think it's worth discussing.
First, The editor gave as a reason that "man's" was sexist, which I don't consider a proper reason as it's an opinion. Others may believe objections to "man" are just the result of trendy political correctness. Far as I know, "man" still means "human". I think the question isn't whether Wikipedia should bend to PCness... it shouldn't... but whether "man" is no longer part of the common vernacular for "humanity".
Second, changing "principal" to "belief" is a different issue. It seems like the effect of this edit is to change the meaning: belief implies "opinion", while "principal" implies a choice made as to import. Since this is an article about objectivism, it can't be up to an editor to decide between its being a "principal" or a "belief". The question in this case is whether there is a cite for Objectivism using "principal". If so, than "principal" should stay.
Opinions? BashBrannigan ( talk) 16:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The criticism of x is irrelevant without first reporting on x, and where x=patent law or taxation in a fully free society => its not important detail within an overview of Rand's politics. The article, appropriately does not elaborate on these areas of applied Objectivism. If it did, then criticism's of those areas of applied Objectivism would be relevant. -- Karbinski ( talk) 10:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
-Derived from Ethics and epistemology is the non-initiation of force (two paragraphs) -Ellaboration on Individual Rights -Necessity of Government and Objective Rule of Law -Capitalism as a moral system -Objectivism in the political landscape What you have with taxation and patents are details - and adding them to the article is too much detail. The existence of sources is meaningless here, VOS for taxation and CUI for patents if nothing else. Critics think its important? - there isn't even any criticism of the taxation bit. As for the critic - singular - of the patent bit, that critic took the effort to criticize doesn't speak to the importance of this detail. If there is criticism out there, and I'm sure there is, of what was said about numbers in ITOE, we don't rush to clutter the epistemology section with first the unecessary detail of the Objectivist view on numbers and then the unecessary detail of what a critic had to say about it. -- Karbinski ( talk) 23:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
There is of course too much material about Objectivism to read or re-read every source word-by-word, so I looked for related index terms (copyright, patent, intellectual property) and skimmed sections that seemed most likely to contain discussion of that topic. So if I say a work doesn't contain discussion of it, that doesn't preclude a passing mention or footnote that I missed. I found that the following overviews of Objectivism contain no apparent discussion of intellectual property: Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (Peikoff), The Vision of Ayn Rand (Branden), Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical (Sciabarra), On Ayn Rand (Gotthelf), Ayn Rand (Machan), Objectivism in One Lesson (Bernstein), The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand (Den Uyl and Rasmussen), and With Charity Toward None (O'Neill). I also looked at sections/essays on Rand's ideas in some more general works, none of which discuss her views on intellectual property: On Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism (Barry), Philosophers of Capitalism (Younkins), The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Only by turning to books devoted to discussing Objectivist political and ethical views was I able to find any discussion of this topic: Moral Rights and Political Freedom (Smith), A Life of One's Own (Kelley), and The Capitalist Manifesto (Bernstein) do not discuss intellectual property, but there is a section about it in Then Athena Said (Touchstone). If you were to shrink those proportions (a few pages among thousands of pages of material) to the scale of our article (currently less than 6000 words, which is reasonable for an encyclopedia article), the result is that we would not be discussing it. -- RL0919 ( talk) 13:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Should we include that? I think so, but I think it's perhaps a little too specific, so maybe we shouldn't include that.
Byelf2007's consideration here for a 3rd item, is the core question for both taxation and patent law. I propose we look to the community for guidance.
What we ought to be looking for is secondary sources, whether critical or not, that discuss these subjects. That is the standard Wikipedia approach to determining whether a topic is significant enough to include. If numerous sources discussing Objectivism treat these as important aspects, then we should discuss them here. If they are rarely mentioned, then we can ignore them -- including them would be giving undue weight to minor topics.
And there, RL0919 has pretty much covered it. Defer to the amount of coverage given by secondary sources that share the articles topic, Objectivism. Not research and/or opinion devoted to the specific in question.
Now we've just messed up the end of the section, where the sub-topic is Objectivism in the current political landscape. The taxation bit can perhaps be saved by moving it to a quote box. While something on Intellectual Property may be appropriate, the legal issue of patent law and on top of that criticism, is too much. The reader is being given an overview, and then boom - First-to-file is moral - no it isn't - her views on anti-trust are confusing. Technical concerns of undue weight left aside, its just poor quality and breaks the flow. First-to-file and antitrust are not the stuff of a philosophical overview. What has been added to the article is: Rand considered X moral, critic Y disagrees where X is extremely specific. The issue is not even should IP be protected by the state, not even if there should be patents, its the how patents should be implemented. Its not overview material. Antitrust is totally from left field, and the criticism is that its confusing - one might ask confusing how? - but then again the reader has been given no information on what Rand had to say about antitrust laws. This is all just blades of grass in the forest - no different than taking a concept, any concept discussed by Rand in detail in terms of her theory of concepts, and plugging it into the epistemology section - yes Rand wrote it, yes its part of Objectivism, yes critics responded --> no it does not belong in the article. Further reading is expected if the wikipedia reader wants to delve into the topic further. -- Karbinski ( talk) 10:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Taxation: How about the quote box I added? My own answer is that it makes an interesting detail (despite lacking importance in an overview) -- Karbinski ( talk) 14:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
IP/patents: We have cut it in half, but I still want to move it away from first-to-file and towards IP being the root of property rights. I'll try to contribute something later. -- Karbinski ( talk) 14:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Should the first sentence have the word "created" or "defined"? I like "created" more. byelf2007 ( talk) 28 August 2011
I made a small change in the introduction. Where it read that man attains knowledge through concept formation and inductive and deductive logic, I cut out "deductive." Since the introduction serves as a kind of "definition" of Objectivism, I think it should serve to distinguish the philosophy from the widest range of other philosophies, and Ayn Rand's emphasis on induction over deduction certainly fits that criteria. Ayn Rand defined deduction as the application of wider knowledge to a narrower observation; while this could be called, in a narrow sense, a form of attaining knowledge, it is not, in the Objectivist view, as fundamental as induction. I welcome any objections, but as a preemptive rebuttal, I offer Ayn Rand's words: The process of observing the facts of reality and of integrating them into concepts is, in essence, a process of induction. ''The process of subsuming new instances under a known concept is, in essence, a process of deduction."[emphasis mine] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew3024 ( talk • contribs) 03:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
For months now there has been an ongoing back-and-forth (primarily between two editors) over how material about criticisms of Objectivism should be handled in the article. One favors having a distinct "Criticisms" section within the article. The other favors placing this material in the other sections, so that, for example, criticisms of Objectivism's ethical claims would appear in the section on ethics. A previous attempt at discussing this went nowhere, and the editors involved have continued their slow but interminable edit war. This needs to end. Therefore I am opening this Request for Comment to get broader input on which approach the article should use. So to frame this in a clear yes-no/support-oppose fashion, the question for comment is: Should there be a distinct section about criticisms? -- RL0919 ( talk) 15:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I came to this article today already familiar with objectivism, and I was hoping to read some criticisms that exist of it. I was disappointed to not find any such sections in the contents. I can imagine that some editors who are objectivists might want to keep such information difficult to find, but I think that for the benefit of the readers of this article, there should either be a section specifically on criticism or, as a second-best solution, a criticism subsection of each regular section. 71.94.185.174 ( talk) 12:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)