This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Randian hero article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As I recall, a majority of Randian heroes are seen attractive in the view of other heroes, but are often not seen this way by other characters. I can try to find a good reference to this if anyone vehemently opposes my edit. Joseph.Re ( talk) 10:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
"Why, my dear" said Kiki, "He's not good-looking at all, but extremely masculine." The Fountainhead, page 227, referring to Roark.
-- Darkmusashi ( talk) 07:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I would be interested in showing randian heroes that appear outside of Rand's work. Where there any authors inspired by Rand with Randian heroes in their books? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.249.205 ( talk) 18:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
This section was added to deal with the POV problem of presenting Randian heroes and the influence of this archetype only as a positive image, and also to prove notability of the subject (the idea of the Randian hero influenced a lot of people now and recently prominent in world affairs, politics, psychology). The article is still somewhat pro-Rand insofar as only her actual works, and those of former disciples or admirers, are included. It would be helpful to find some citations from someone credible who thinks Rand is Satan, or simply a bad influence, or otherwise confused about what heroism is. As it stands this article should have a POV tag for being pro-Rand, but the inclusion of a damning admirer (Black) and a recanted one (Ryan) should be enough to keep it from being called pro-Rand or taking her views too seriously "as a philosopher" (note the word non-academic, Rand never submitted any works of "philosophy" to peer review, did she?).
Remember, please, this is an encyclopedia, and to be significant a subject has to be relevant to the real world, not only to the fan base or critics. The various critical essays on the influence of the Randian hero, in particular Branden's,
are really worth reading - it's a crtitique from the inside. Mention of Paul Ryan and Alan Greenspan should prove the subject's relevance to someone who would otherwise dismiss Rand entirely, and mention of Conrad Black and Barbara Amiel can help pretty much anyone illustrate their position (that those who laud Rand's heroes behave like her villains, or that the model of heroism is megalomania, or that stakeholders do not count in Rand's model over majority shareholders or executives, or anything really), so seems neutral enough. Ryan's criticism is harsh but it's what he said.
It's really easy to prove that Greenspan's view of the gold standard influenced his monetary thought and is clearly related to his early Objectivism. With Ron Paul gaining influence in the GOP as of 2012 it seems more relevant than ever, as monetary policy has huge influence on the economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.227.8 ( talk) 16:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't object to the inclusion of a reference to Conrad Black in principle but in the given source there is no mention of him actually even reading or enjoying Rand. There is only a single quote from a friend that he seemed like a character in a Rand novel. With this in mind, parts of the section definitely still feel like OR and seem to provide unsubstantiated evidence in order to support the conclusions they have already drawn. Can someone provide a reliable source to support the implied admiration Black had for Rand or should I just delete it completely? -- ColinLacey ( talk) 02:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Can it at least be made sure that somewhere in this article it has clearly been explained how a Randian hero does not lack all feelings? Sometimes they have clearly emotional episodes, and they certainly experience joy and love as well. The fact that Rands focus is usually on the logical parts, still does not rule out the emotional. 78.69.217.113 ( talk) 13:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Randian hero article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As I recall, a majority of Randian heroes are seen attractive in the view of other heroes, but are often not seen this way by other characters. I can try to find a good reference to this if anyone vehemently opposes my edit. Joseph.Re ( talk) 10:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
"Why, my dear" said Kiki, "He's not good-looking at all, but extremely masculine." The Fountainhead, page 227, referring to Roark.
-- Darkmusashi ( talk) 07:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I would be interested in showing randian heroes that appear outside of Rand's work. Where there any authors inspired by Rand with Randian heroes in their books? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.249.205 ( talk) 18:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
This section was added to deal with the POV problem of presenting Randian heroes and the influence of this archetype only as a positive image, and also to prove notability of the subject (the idea of the Randian hero influenced a lot of people now and recently prominent in world affairs, politics, psychology). The article is still somewhat pro-Rand insofar as only her actual works, and those of former disciples or admirers, are included. It would be helpful to find some citations from someone credible who thinks Rand is Satan, or simply a bad influence, or otherwise confused about what heroism is. As it stands this article should have a POV tag for being pro-Rand, but the inclusion of a damning admirer (Black) and a recanted one (Ryan) should be enough to keep it from being called pro-Rand or taking her views too seriously "as a philosopher" (note the word non-academic, Rand never submitted any works of "philosophy" to peer review, did she?).
Remember, please, this is an encyclopedia, and to be significant a subject has to be relevant to the real world, not only to the fan base or critics. The various critical essays on the influence of the Randian hero, in particular Branden's,
are really worth reading - it's a crtitique from the inside. Mention of Paul Ryan and Alan Greenspan should prove the subject's relevance to someone who would otherwise dismiss Rand entirely, and mention of Conrad Black and Barbara Amiel can help pretty much anyone illustrate their position (that those who laud Rand's heroes behave like her villains, or that the model of heroism is megalomania, or that stakeholders do not count in Rand's model over majority shareholders or executives, or anything really), so seems neutral enough. Ryan's criticism is harsh but it's what he said.
It's really easy to prove that Greenspan's view of the gold standard influenced his monetary thought and is clearly related to his early Objectivism. With Ron Paul gaining influence in the GOP as of 2012 it seems more relevant than ever, as monetary policy has huge influence on the economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.227.8 ( talk) 16:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't object to the inclusion of a reference to Conrad Black in principle but in the given source there is no mention of him actually even reading or enjoying Rand. There is only a single quote from a friend that he seemed like a character in a Rand novel. With this in mind, parts of the section definitely still feel like OR and seem to provide unsubstantiated evidence in order to support the conclusions they have already drawn. Can someone provide a reliable source to support the implied admiration Black had for Rand or should I just delete it completely? -- ColinLacey ( talk) 02:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Can it at least be made sure that somewhere in this article it has clearly been explained how a Randian hero does not lack all feelings? Sometimes they have clearly emotional episodes, and they certainly experience joy and love as well. The fact that Rands focus is usually on the logical parts, still does not rule out the emotional. 78.69.217.113 ( talk) 13:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)