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)

Original Research Tag

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)

I agree. I didn't understand why the tag was added also. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Pseudophilosophy

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)

Because there are loads of reliable sources describing her as a philosopher. Seriously, we've had this debate a million times; let's not reopen it. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:16, 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.

Byelf2007 (talk) 31 May 2011

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.

Byelf2007 (talk) 3 June 2011

If you have a point, make it. Otherwise, see WP:NOTFORUM. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

> 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.

Byelf2007 (talk) 5 June 2011

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"...

Byelf2007 (talk) 6 June 2011

>>>>>>>

"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)

Notable Scholars and Academics Paragraph

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)

^ "This user is an advocate of Objectivism and considers Ayn Rand an intellectual hero." ^

This page needs to be edited by neutral parties who are interested in making wikipedia more accurate and legitimate.. NOT Ayn Rand disciples who are only interested in glorifying her legacy. Look at this article's history.. it is plagued by Ayn Rand apologists such as yourself and the guy I was attempting to reason with earlier.. editing out ALL the criticisms and inflating the living shit out of the intellectual impact section. At one point in time, the criticism was just a single paragraph based on a single criticism! I'm sure you guys were thrilled, and I'm sure if you had your way there wouldn't be a single mention of anything negative, would there?

Ayn Rand had influence.. there is NO denying that. But she is rejected by just about everyone in academia and the article should reflect this, not attempt to sweep it under the rug. Just about each and every philosophy department worldwide has rejected her ideas. Her work is a laughing stock amongst intellectual circles throughout the globe.. Most *real* encyclopedias entries even give you the impression that she was no more than a pseudo-philosopher.. and I bet I can find college kids in introductory philosophy courses that can obliterate her theories.

Yet the apologists here insist on fabricating this article to appear that Ayn Rand's philosophy is infallible as the word of god, and that it had all this tremendous impact on "scholars" everywhere. In reality, her influence was strictly limited to mostly right-leaning libertarians who were seeking justification for acting purely out of greed and selfishness.

"Please don't post your personal philosophical views on my talk page - I'm not interested" - Ayn Rand Apologist Extraordinaire, Karbinski.

Typical Rand disciple. Uninterested in philosophy in general.. defensive and hostile towards those who request you defend your position.. and it all ends the same way with you people when you are backed into a corner. You either stop responding entirely, or resort to the old "AYN RAND SAID SO, SO THERE!!"

Kudos to the that Philogo fellow for putting a well deserved tag of shame on your discussion page. --24.228.3.70 (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for discussing other editors. Please focus your comments on that and refrain from personal attacks. This list of "notable academics and scholars" needs to be reviewed and poorly sourced entries removed. As far as the general tone of the section, it starts off with an explicit statement that "Academic philosophers have generally dismissed Rand's ideas and have marginalized her philosophy." This is an accurate and well-sourced summary and the rest of the section can and should be generally consistent with it while still acknowledging that she does have a small following within academia. Constructive suggestions for how to revise the article are welcomed. --RL0919 (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

But the editors are the MAIN problem here. Just take a quick look at this article's history. Over and over again, the frequent editors (mostly all proud Ayn Rand enthusiasts) attempt to fluff up the positive aspects while removing negative aspects. I urge everybody to compare even a few histories of this article and see for yourself just how many attempts were made to minimize criticism.

Yes, that section begins by stating that Ayn is rejected by academia, but it is far from consistent after that. Especially since it fails to elaborate at all, as in why and to what extent her ideas are rejected in academia. Even in the criticism section, this kind of stuff is barely addressed. Following that initial claim, the article almost attempts to refute itself, by going on and on about all these "notable academics and scholars" that on closer inspection.. include just about anybody who at one point in time claimed they liked her book. --24.187.8.149 (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

And your proposed improvements to the article are ... what exactly? Just complaining that people who like Rand's ideas edit the article isn't a solution for anything. People often edit on topics that they have a personal interest in, and that isn't going to stop happening. Instead of soapboxing, try proposing specific changes, or making changes yourself (if you can do so in a neutral fashion). --RL0919 (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Any more personal attacks or off-topic postings and I'm going to take this to WP:ANI. I would like to remind both Byelf and our IP that this page is under an Arbitration Committee ruling which will be enforced. IP, you have made no constructive suggestions as to how the article could be improved. Instead you have chosen to come here and fling insults. I strongly recommend that you suggest actual changes that you would like to see made to the article, or that you leave. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:55, 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)

Nice try, but I'm neither a libertarian nor an objectivist. Reported to ANI. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

How to work with people: state your goal. For example, if there is a paragraph you want to discussed, create a new section and invite discussion. --Karbinski (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Notable Scholars and Academics Paragraph (Take Two)

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)

Is your concern that it is a list of Wikipedia entries without outside references? Does this break the rule of Wikipedia referencing itself? Are you concerned that there is no contextual foundation for a list? I seem to remember Barbara Branden's book had a list of people influenced by Rand. It's reasonable to debate the inclusion of this list, but a debate about whether Rand had influence is absurd. There's a story in Greenspan's biography (p.323) of the time he was approached by Putin's chief economic advisor who asked him if he'd be willing to discuss Ayn Rand with some of his friends on his next trip to Russian. BashBrannigan (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

If Rand's influence on them is well-sourced in their own articles, then they can stay, I think. Also, I don't think anyone here is denying Rand had substantial influence; the question is how big the list should be, and also one of WP:WEIGHT and proper sourcing. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm not challenging the facts, nor their references. I'm interested in trimming the list down to only those where the influence is discussed in secondary sources, apart from just reporting that individual X was influenced. I'd like to be specific, but I don't, at least not yet, have access to the sources in use. If we are just referencing other lists, then we can leave it to the references to list things. --Karbinski (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

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)

I don't care whether the criticism is integrated or in a distinct section. And despite the periodic invocation of WP:STRUCTURE, there isn't any firm policy one way or the other. (Read the section that shortcut links to. It explicitly says, "specific article structures are not, as a rule, prohibited".) But I would like there to be some firm consensus about this particular article that we can follow, so it doesn't keep going back and forth. If we can come to that among just the regular editors here, great. If not, then we should do an RfC. --RL0919 (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

NPOV seems pretty clear that it is preferable to integrate criticisms, in the policy on structure.

Really, I could probably go further to say that NPOV likely demands even more due to WP:UNDUE, since Objectivism itself is a minority viewpoint largely dismissed within the relevant field (philosophy). A more rigorous approach to Wikipedia policy would prompt editors to be more inclined to note contentions with mainstream philosophers ["these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view"].

On a slightly related note ... I haven't scanned the page closely, but even in my casual editing I found multiple Randian-style assertions presented as uncontested fact. But more importantly, academic analysis of Objectivist assertions seems lacking, which would violate WP:UNDUE. BigK HeX (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Majority and Minority view points within the context of the topic at hand - BigK Hex. This is not the Philosophy article, where a minority view point like Objectivism receives little or no coverage. This is the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article, the topic to be reported on is what is notable about Objectivism. I'm not even aware of any minority / majority view points on the subject - what Objectivism is, is uncontroversial. --Karbinski (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... you would cover Objectivism in the Objectivism article. The point is that WP:UNDUE would demand that mainstream regard for Objectivism be noted, and additionally that any notable mainstream analyses of Objectivist assertions be noted where relevant. ["these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view"] BigK HeX (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

When reporting how Objectivism has influenced or does influence (that is, how it is regarded), it needs to be NPOV, verifiable, and notable - no argument there. --Karbinski (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

reply: Sorry about that. You put "NP:Structure" instead of "WP"

byelf2007 (talk) 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Words and their meaning

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)

On man vs. human- The edit first blanks out "man's widest ... ideas" to just "... ideas", this is a destruction of what is being reported. Content and accuracy should not be sacrificed to the opinion of "using the word man to refer to humankind is sexist". Later in the same edit, the people(viewers of the art piece) become the subject displacing the work of art as the focus of Rand's view - again wiping out content in favor of a PC opinion. --Karbinski (talk) 08:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

On principle vs. belief - I think the intention was to qualify the principle as being of the Objectivist view against taking it for granted that the stated principle is indeed true. Fair enough if that was the intent, but the edit does alter the meaning slightly. I think idea would be more neutral than belief. --Karbinski (talk) 08:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

She/he was Bold, I'm going to Revert (the man vs human part), Discussion is already under way (WP:BRD). --Karbinski (talk) 08:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can PC the bit on the purpose of a work of art without butchering its meaning, it is Rand's view that is being reported here, and her view may not be communicable in PC terms. Would a direct quotation solve the problem? Perhaps the best solution is to resist attempts to straight-jacket the article into PC language? --Karbinski (talk) 08:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If we aren't quoting Rand, we should make an effort to use gender-neutral language, which is the correct academic convention nowadays. "Human", "person", "people", etc are all perfectly serviceable words. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Taxation and Copyright/Patents

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)