Talk:Objectivism

Article Cross Talk

Use of cross-talk page

There doesn't seem to be much use of the Objectivism cross-talk page lately. I'm the only one who has used it since February. Is it still relevant? --RL0919 (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps not. Although I love it, I have to say it now seems like an esoteric feature. Karbinski (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Some minor changes

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:

• Removed "this primacy of", as the subject of the sentence was not the ideology Rand labeled "primacy of consciousness" - the subject was simply consciousness itself.
• Clarified clunky wording, changing "consciousness that is conscious of nothing outside itself" to "consciousness conscious only of itself", as that is more straightforward. Agree/disagree?
• Switched "Knowledge is Identification" to "Consciousness is Identification", and provided a source (Galt's speech, and For the New Intellectual). I have never seen the former quote in Rand's writing, but the latter is ubiquitous, as in the complete quote, "Existence is identity. Consciousness is identification."
• Changed "specific, limited identity" to "specific, finite identity" to avoid equivocation over meaning of "limited".

That's it for now. I'll add more explanation here if I find any more minor changes to make. — BRIAN0918 • 2010-02-13 22:20Z

Blurts

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)

Needs tightening up, but some of the qualifications are there because the entries themselves have been disputed. A spring clean would be good, but its a mixture of changing the qualifications and also removing some in their entirety.--Snowded ^TALK 19:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Some specific examples would be nice, or just make edits with the recognition that some of them might be reverted. There are a lot of quotes, and I would even agree that it is an excess, but Snowded is right that this is often because of disputes. It is hard to give a non-quoted summary of a position if different editors can't agree on how to paraphrase it. --RL0919 (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Snowded and RL0919. I was also taken aback at first by the number of quotes, but it makes sense given what RL0919 has stated. When you can't agree on how to paraphrase something, simply quote it. — BRIAN0918 • 2010-03-12 17:04Z

Merge_discussion

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)

The three subjects are conceptually distinct: Rand is a person who had a life and career before Objectivism; Objectivism is a philosophy that has been expounded upon by people other than Rand; the Objectivist movement has outlived Rand and has aspects that are not philosophical. Importantly for Wikipedia, all three subjects are notable. Finally, there is more material than is desirable for one article. Ayn Rand is 75K of wikitext; Objectivism (Ayn Rand) is 61K; Objectivist movement is 51K. To have overlapping articles in this situation is a common Wikipedia practice; see Wikipedia:Summary style for explanations. As to editing of the articles by Objectivists, that undoubtedly does happen, but I know of no policy that forbids it, any more than Christians are prohibited from editing Christianity or Freudians are prohibited from editing Psychoanalysis. (Perhaps you are misunderstanding WP:COI?) The key is to maintain a neutral point of view for the articles, regardless of who edits them. --RL0919 (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Move "1.6 Denial of indigenous land rights" to section 2.0

Resolved

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)

It was completely ridiculous to make an entire subsection about that one issue, which Rand never even wrote about. The focus of the subsection was a quote from her answer to a question after a speech. I trimmed the overlong quote and moved the whole thing into the politics subsection. --RL0919 (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks Akiracee (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sub-section as "View of other philosophies"

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)

First, the book Return of the Primitive is not a compilation of essays about "indigenous primitivism". The original title of the book was The New Left, and its essays are almost exclusively about modern issues: progressive education, Woodstock, etc. That's why the only words from Rand you can find to quote on this are from a Q&A session, not any of her published essays. Second, the weight given to material in an article is supposed to be based on the weight it is given in reliable secondary sources. This subtopic gets very little attention in such sources; certainly not so much that it should be given as much weight in the article as subjects that have been written about much more extensively. --RL0919 (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

RL0919, the early comments in this thread refer to the fact that the section was misplaced as part of the "Philosophy", a point I agreed with, which is why I moved it. However, the "rejection of primitivism" clearly warrants a sub-section in Objectivism's "views of other philosophies." I am not sure how much more material you would need to agree (as I have further expanded the section with additional refs) but there is a great dearth of material by Rand or Objectivists in relation to what they deem "primitivism" and their unequivocal philosophical rejection to it. As for the book (which I have read) I am aware that Rand primarily addresses aspects of the "New Left", however ---> Peter Schwartz as an accompanying author for the book under Rand's name adds several additional essays ("The Philosophy of Privation" - "Multicultural Nihilism" - & "Gender Tribalism") that deal with the aforementioned issues. Moreover, it seems that you are setting up a paradox where if I continue to expand the section you could claim Wp:Undue for the amount of space given, however if I don't - then you can claim that the issue gets "very little attention" in secondary sources.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The solution to this supposed paradox is very simple: find secondary sources that discuss Objectivists' rejection of primitivism (clearly not limited to "indigenous" primitivism if you are going to include material on the rejection of modern ideologies like environmentalism, feminism and multiculturalism), and use them to summarize the topic. Most of what you have added thus far is primary source quotes from Rand and various ARI editorials, which add volume but do not show secondary coverage of Objectivist views on this. In short, what the material needs is improvement, not expansion. --RL0919 (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

As a philosophy, Objectivism has wide-reaching implications. There is no paradox here, we can rustle up sources on a very wide array of topics. The reason anyone is pushing for expansion of this specific, beyond just stating the Objectivist position - as NPOV demands of the article - is just POV pushing. See the section below for those specifics that could use expansion (to name them: reason, egoism, and captialism). --Karbinski (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed "Rejection of indigenous primitivism" section focused on a few concretes

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)

I'm not sure what you mean by "concretes", however the solution is to expand the sections on "reason, egoism, and capitalism" not to Wp:Censor or blank the material on primitivism.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the amount of material on Objectivist views of primitivism necessarily has to be zero, but a four-paragraph section filled with quotes of primary source material (mostly little-known Q&A and op-ed stuff) is way out of line with the importance that this topic is given in sources. Extending other sections to give them appropriate weight relative to that would require a massive expansion, beyond anything that is reasonable for an encyclopedia article, because those other topics have vastly more weight in the literature on Objectivism. For example, there are several entire academic books about the Objectivist ethics, but not even a single chapter in any book (academic, commercial, or even vanity published) about the topic of this section. Since the burden of evidence is normally placed on the editor(s) wanting to include material, I would ask you: what evidence do you have that this is a prominent topic in secondary source discussions about Objectivism, such that it merits an extended discussion? Please note that the question is not whether there are one or two secondary sources that briefly mention it, because that would justify a few sentences at best. The question is whether this is a significant topic within the literature on Objectivism. --RL0919 (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing the section is not censor, by all means integrate the point that Objectivism is anti-primitism into the article . However, don't push a POV by giving this sub-topic grossly undue weight. Trying to overwhelm the article with treatments of politcal concretes destroys the article. A section on anti-communism would be just as bad and have plenty of primary sources. The section is being removed for both undue weight and lack of notability - as evidenced by no secondary sources that discuss the sub-topic. --Karbinski (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well there are some third party references in there. It is probably too long but just deleting it smacks of I DONT LIKE IT. A paragraph with links to the full quotes would work. No need to quote in full. The moral implications of anti-primitavism is important to an understanding of Objectivism. --Snowded ^TALK 18:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If someone could write an appropriately brief summary (no more than a few sentences, not several paragraphs) based mostly on secondary sources, I would consider that a welcome addition to the article. But thus far Redthoreau has been insistent about including extensive primary source quotes (the original version had a large block quote as the majority of its content) and giving the material its own section header, neither of which is helpful IMO. --RL0919 (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There are third party references as Snowded has alluded to. Understanding Objectivism requires a section on the rejection of primitivism. This smacks of censorship which I think we can all agree is not in our best interest here. RL0919, your statement that "all but one editor" supports it is incorrect, as I and Snowded seem to feel that we should keep the section.RandPhilo (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

[1] Karbinski, I always WP:AGF, but it does require at least a slight degree of chutzpah for someone who self-proclaims on their Wiki user page to be an "advocate of Objectivism (who) considers Ayn Rand an intellectual hero" - to accuse another editor here of POV pushing. I have not inserted any of my own personal "POV" on the topic, and everything utilized has been the words or work of others per Wiki policy. This section is not comprised of my own "hunch" on what Rand or Objectivism thinks of "primitivism", but rather a litany of sources bearing her and their own remarks. I have always believed that despite Rand being your "hero", that you can be fair and objective (pardon the pun) when it comes to editing the article, all I ask is the same assumption from you. [2] Randphilo, I also believe that the section merits inclusion. An additional solution I would support would be a shortened paragraph here - with an article Objectivism and primitivism in the same way that there is Objectivism and homosexuality. Is there any support for this solution?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Snowded said "A paragraph with links to the full quotes would work," and I left a paragraph with citations of the main quotes. That is the reasonable level of attention to give this topic. The only secondary sources provided at all have been a reference to Rand's not being primitivist in her fiction and a book about native American ideas that quotes an ARI op-ed. These are used to prop up a four-paragraph exposition about Objectivist philosophical views on "primitivism" based on primary source quotes. This despite the fact that no survey of Objectivism, either by Objectivists or critics, quotes these passages or gives any significant attention to Objectivist views on "primitivism". The idea that these scraps could support a full article is ludicrous. I have yet to find the term 'primitivism' in the index of any book about Objectivism (I have dozens) and it does not appear in The Ayn Rand Lexicon. That the long version of this is a violation of WP:UNDUE is clear, but any attempt to shorten or de-emphasize it is met with reversions claiming censorship (even when material about the subject is left in the article, just not as long and prominent as you prefer) and failure to provide a "demonstration" of undue weight (even though the burden of evidence falls on the editor who wants material included). --RL0919 (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It has been my experience that a scholarly article should discuss the salient points. The beauty of Wikipedia is that we don't have to worry about costs associated with printing. This section is well organized, clear, correctly referenced and and most importantly helps provide context to the study of Objectivism. Just because you have several books that don't mention primitivism is not a reason to discard the topic. The burden of proof is inherently on you to delete information that other scholars have deemed important, otherwise it seems to be in violation of WP:Censor.RandPhilo (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

RL0919, you claim that Objectivists do not give "primitivism" significant attention, however the aforementioned section has referenced remarks by Ayn Rand herself, the Ayn Rand Institute, the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, and from Michael Berliner (senior advisor to the Ayn Rand Archives) on the specific issue of "primitivism" and Objectivism’s unequivocal rejection of the "savage"/un-evolved traits that they deem accompany it. Perhaps you should look up the phrase "primitive" as well? You clearly know a lot about Objectivism and have read Rand's works, which is why I can't figure out why you don't believe she supported an anti-primitivist stance. Moreover, Rand’s disdain for "primitivism" extended out to her views on environmentalism, religion, urban & industrial development, technology, civilization, communitarianism/egalitarianism, mysticism, colonialism etc. All of these matters could be expounded on with a separate article.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It is significant, but its worth a paragraph at the most --Snowded ^TALK 22:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

RandPhilo, If scholars had deemed this important by publishing about it, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The long-form version of the material is almost all primary sources. There's a sentence about Rand's fiction, and a book that is not about Objectivism at all (doesn't even mention the word) quoting some comments by Michael Berliner as an example of "the cultural myths of North America". This is not significant secondary source coverage. Redthoreau, I have not said that Rand or other Objectivists do not oppose "primitivism". I have said that the literature on Objectivism, most importantly the secondary sources, provide little discussion on the subject, and therefore it should be given little weight in the article. If you believe otherwise, then pick any book from this list and tell me how much space it devotes to the topic. --RL0919 (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

RL0919, of note, I only increased the amount of article coverage on the topic in response to the initial claim that there wasn't enough material to meet the threshold of inclusion (hence the whole "paradox" I mentioned above). I am open to Wp:Collaboration and Wp:Consensus on the amount of material that should be included; my primary objection was the complete blanking of the section altogether, as happened at the top of this thread.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thus far every attempt to trim the material has been met with reversion or further expansion. If it is 5800+ characters or nothing, then I would indeed vote for nothing. But if we can have a reasonable one-paragraph explanation of the viewpoint (preferably based more on secondary sources if they can be found), then I am happy to settle on that. --RL0919 (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

RL, I have not reverted any "trimming", only the outright blanking once. I have added back in a few of the refs and am content with the 1 paragraph currently present in the article.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The amount of material seems reasonable. I'd still prefer less reliance on primary sources, or if it must be primary sources, at least better known ones such as her published essays. But that is the sort of problem that can be cured over time. --RL0919 (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ayn Rand Answers by Robert Mayhew

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)

UserVobo, the product page at the Ayn Rand Institute states that the book:

"encompasses Q&As from lectures and several media interviews, spanning the years 1958 to 1981"

while noting that:

"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."

There is also the caveat that I believe you are referring to where they state:

"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."

Their and your argument seems to be that since she did not have final say over the editing process, that her verbatim transcripts from speeches can not be deduced to make note on her opinions. In essence, you would be setting the precedent that no public individual could have their public words utilized unless they got the final say to edit their content after the fact of saying them (which would obviously be absurd). Moreover, the ref here is only being used to identify and corroborate the full quote, as Burn's biography already sets forth the statement that Rand believed Native Americans because of their "savagery" forfeited their property rights. I am not sure how deduce that utilizing Ayn Rand Answers as additional verification of her making such a statement makes that section WP:POV and thus worthy of a tag?   Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This sort of dispute is one of the reasons I was so emphatic about the need for secondary sources. If there were third parties quoting this material and commenting on its relationship to Objectivism, then there would be no reason to question its relevance. In the absence of such sources, we get editors wrangling over the interpretation of primary sources. --RL0919 (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

RL0919, Jennifer Burn's in her biography Goddess of the Market already provides the analysis for the line in question and is ref'd. The Ayn Rand Answers book is merely being used as a corroborating source for the full quote in case someone is interested in the "full context" which Burn's used to make her statement. If editors here would rather provide less information and referencing to potential readers, then I guess I will have to acquiesce to removing the Answers text.   Redthoreau -- (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with keeping the answers text in. Ink Falls 04:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)