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)

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)

Uh... who deemed it as "not important"? Critics seem to see Rand's support of government-enforced monopolies as pretty significant. BigK HeX (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The material is sourced and seems to have a fair parity of notability in third party reviews of Objectivism. I'm reincorporating it. BigK HeX (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the correct solution in this case might be to mention Rand's defense of copyright law beforehand, rather than remove the criticism. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The lack of importance should be self-evident from a review of the section:

-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)

As per WP:BRD, the bearden of proof lies with those wanting to keep the content. How are these details important for the article? That critics did what critics do does not answer the question. --Karbinski (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is it important to the article? Because it's an article explaining Objectivism. Both taxes and IP are a part of Objectivism. Why does it matter if we can't find criticisms of certain parts of Objectivism Byelf2007 (talk) 1 July 2011

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. Intellectual property (patents and copyrights) and taxation are two different subjects, so we should address them individually. I've investigated intellectual property but haven't gotten to taxation yet, so I'll put the results in a subsection below. Feel free to add information about your own research there. --RL0919 (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

On the editing and BRD, I'll note that the material in question has been in the article since at least August of last year ([1]) and has since been specifically involved in a number of edits (some from me personally). Of course, that doesn't mean its inclusion is justified, but I think that does have a bearing on BOLD-REVERT-DISCUSS. BigK HeX (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources about Objectivist views on intellectual property

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)

That's interesting research but that list is skewed pretty heavily towards fairly pro-Rand POV sources. That is harldly a representation of objective 3rd party academic critiques. BigK HeX (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

How exactly is Objectivism's take on patent law (or taxation) an issue of pro/anti POV? I'm pretty sure everyone is agreed Rand wrote the essays she wrote, and meant what she wrote. The burden of proof rests upon those wanting to include the detail - how is this content an encyclopedic report on what the secondary sources give weight to? --Karbinski (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

See Rand's "Patent's and Copyrights" in "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" and "Government Financing on a Free Society" in "The Virtue of Selfishness"; do other people write about this much? No? Does it matter? No. It's a part of Objectivism. Therefore, it needs to be included in this article. The "secondary source" argument would apply to whether or not there should be an Objectivism article at all. But, while I'm at it:

• http://www.aynrandstudies.com/jars/archives/jars1-1/jars1_1lsechrest.pdf
• http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/04/taxes_and_government
• http://mises.org/daily/4848
• http://mises.org/daily/5025/The-Fight-against-Intellectual-Property
• http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf

byelf2007 (talk) 2 July 2011

Byelf2007, if "it's a part of Objectivism" were sufficient to justify inclusion, then this article would be the size of a book. The point is not that there are no sources at all, but rather that we are expected to keep things in proportion for an encyclopedia article. If you are going to cite a small number of articles as justification for inclusion, then you need to balance that against the overall volume of material about Objectivism. Rand wrote one essay about patents and copyrights, out of over 100 essays, and she isn't the only author of material about Objectivism. This is why I turned to the coverage given in overview works. If Leonard Peikoff did not think the Objectivist view on intellectual property was a significant enough topic to cover in his 400+ page book presenting Objectivism, then that's a clue to what a much shorter encyclopedia article should contain. That Branden, Sciabarra, Gotthelf, Machan, etc., made similar judgments, makes it easy to see what experts think the relative importance of the topic is. --RL0919 (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

RL0919, You claim that if our article comprehensively covered Objectivism, is would be the size of a book. This is ridiculous. It's like 95% comprehensive already. Peikoff's book includes a lot of "And other people say this, and here's why it's wrong". Objectivism is a philosophy. Therefore, it covers what the nature of reality is, what the nature of knowledge is, what the nature of values are, and how people should express those values. If we covered all of Objectivism, we wouldn't have an article the size of a book--we would have an article slightly bigger than how big it would be if the info we're debating were included. The information we have on metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics is complete. We don't need to have every statement Rand made on how a country should work, because philosophy only pertains to the "big" questions. However, she said you shouldn't be allowed to build a dynamite factory in a crowded area, because you're increasing the risk of harm to others. Should we include that? I think so, but I think it's perhaps a little too specific, so maybe we shouldn't include that. But the question of whether or not there should be TAXES is an incredibly important question with respect to politics, obviously. We don't need 3 paragraphs on it. We can just mention Rand opposed taxes because she saw it as an initiation force, because it obviously is. As for IP, not only is whether or not ideas can be property another fundamental political question, but Rand believed that ALL property is fundamentally intellectual. Therefore, if we don't have her views on IP in this article, then we shouldn't have anything about property in it. Do you think Rand's views on property are important enough to put in an Objectivism article? "Rand wrote one essay about patents and copyrights, out of over 100 essays" So what? Her views on Apollo 11 aren't a part of Objectivism. Her views on taxes certainly are. "and she isn't the only author of material about Objectivism" So what? It's her philosophy. Her views are all that count when we talk about what her philosophy is. "If Leonard Peikoff did not think the Objectivist view on intellectual property was a significant enough topic to cover in his 400+ page book presenting Objectivism, then that's a clue to what a much shorter encyclopedia article should contain." So your argument is "If Peikoff didn't include it in his book, we probably shouldn't include it in our article". Why? Peikoff should've included it in his book if he wanted it to be a comprehensive explanation of the philosophy (which is how it was promoted). Just because he didn't doesn't mean we should lower ourselves down to his level. How about we actually explain the philosophy comprehensively (or at least its essential points, and what counts as property should count, so that covers taxes and IP). We just need a couple more paragraphs, not 400 more pages. byelf2007 (talk) 3 July 2011

You are fundamentally missing the point: Wikipedia articles are supposed to focus on what is considered important by the outside sources that cover a topic, not what we personally believe is important. That's why what Peikoff and all the others did or did not choose to include is relevant. All this argument for why you believe this or that is important has zero basis in Wikipedia policy. --RL0919 (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Even so, there are plenty of outside sources which cover these issues. How are these issues then not notable by wikipedia standards? I can go ahead and find more outside sources if you like. byelf2007 (talk) 4 July 2011

BigK HeX, I focused mostly on overview/summary works because I wanted to understand the relative attention given the topic within overall presentations of Objectivism. Many such works written to date have been from Objectivists or sympathizers, but I can't control that. If there are other works that you believe are relevant in this circumstance, feel free to present your own research findings or at least name the additional works so that others could attempt to review them for discussions of intellectual property. (And for what it is worth, I have no pre-established preference for whether this topic is discussed in the article or not. I'm just presenting the result I found in the literature and the natural conclusion that follows from that within Wikipedia policy.) --RL0919 (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly neutral on inclusion, though I suspect that opinion on Rand's stance WRT patents is seen as significant. I was just observing that if we are sampling from the literature that it's probably better to stick to more objective assessments (and almost certainly avoid giving much weight to those who may come off as near-sycophants like Peikoff). BigK HeX (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

If you have sources that show this significance, please let's bring them forth. As to what literature should be reviewed, I did not include or exclude anything based on its POV, nor would I support a practice of refusing to consider a source on such a basis. But in this case it really makes no difference whether you look at supporters or critics, because both are aligned in saying little about Rand's views on IP. --RL0919 (talk) 00:29, 4 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.

User:byelf2007

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.

User:RL0919

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.

I think there are ways to integrate the content concisely and with great brevity - as examples attached to the existing text or find quotes for quote boxes - that avoid giving undue weight - something stand-alone sentences and paragraphs does not achieve. --Karbinski (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Is that more what you had in mind... I think that in a paragraph that discusses racism, affirmative action, I should source it still but it is important I think. Crazynas ^t 02:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That is certainly closer to the brevity I think it deserves. I looked for a better place to hook it in - where the context enables even greater brevity by omitting the reason (state sponsored theft) - but found none. I wouldn't mind trying a quote box as an alternative (I'll edit later if no one else proposes something), but if it doesn't work out - the only hair left to split is we have two sentences in a row that start with "Rand holds...". --Karbinski (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

More content may be appropriate to cover IP, but with a new starting point in relation to property rights - not patent and copywrite law. --Karbinski (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Karbinski, I agree that the criticism is an unnecessary detail, however now we need a reference for Rand's views on IP (which I still think deserve at least a sentence), I restructured those two para to make thing's I hope, flow better. Crazynas ^t 17:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Taxation and IP cont'd

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)

Style questions: 1. Should quote boxes have quotation marks around the quote? 2. With the source given for each quote, should a cite be given, either way - do we need to be consistent? --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)

First Sentence

Should the first sentence have the word "created" or "defined"? I like "created" more. byelf2007 (talk) 28 August 2011

I think created subsumes define just fine --Karbinski (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Inductive/Deductive

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)

I support the edit and the reason backing it. --Karbinski (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Same here. byelf2007 (talk) 13 September 2011

RFC about criticism section

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)

• yes. As a reader I find it helpful to have a section as opposed to having to sift through the article.-- Adjwilley (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• It's reasonable to have both: a general Appraisal/Influence section about Rand's status as a philosopher, and criticisms of specific argument in specific sections. 1Z (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Peterdjones: That is a good compromise suggestion: at a minimum, if the Criticism section is kept (and I'm not sure it should be, see my comments below), it should be renamed to "Appraisal" or "Influence" or "Reception" and it should include all assessments (positive and negative) from outside analysts and philosophers. --Noleander (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Such a section would be almost entirely criticism, since Objectivism is held in low regard by most non-Objectivist philosophers. I don't say this as an argument for or against the idea, but just for clarity. --RL0919 (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• yes. As a reader I find it helpful to have a section as opposed to having to sift through the article.

Also, WP:STRUCTURE says: "It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other."

BigK HeX's interpretation of this is that if we have an uninterrupted explanation of Objectivism, the site is essentially saying "Objectivism is true". This is nonsense--the article has to explain it. We don't need to include "though disputed" because the article never says "Objectivism is true". The correct interpretation of this point of WP:STRUCTURE is that an article which explains an event needs to have different interpretations folded in, or else there is one interpretation being presented. Here, the simple fact is that there is only one interpretation of what Objectivism is--whatever the person(s) who created say it is; an explanation is not the same as an evaluation.

If we were going to consistently apply BigK HeX's interpretation, we'd be putting "though disputed" before every point of view in every article. Byelf2007 (talk) 19 September 2011

• Avoid "Criticism" section- The general policy of WP is to avoid polarizing material into distinct pro & con sections. Instead, it is considered better to organize the material by topic and weave the pros/cons about the topic within it. This is a consequence of the WP:NPOV policy. See the Wikipedia:Criticism essay for details. For example, the PETA animal rights organization has been involved in lots of controversy, but you'll notice the article does not have a "Controversy" section. Instead, the material on controversies/criticisms is woven through the PETA article in the various topical sections. That is the WP ideal. Taking this article, I see two topics in the existing Criticism section: one on ethics and one on epistemology. It would be much more encyclopedic to delete the Criticism section and replace it with two new sections: move it into two existing sections: one on Ethics and one on Epistemology, and in those sections include all material relevant to those topics. E.g. the Ethics section could contain Objectivism's principles on ethics, as well as opinions (both favorable and not) by notable critics and thinkers. --Noleander (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, although you mention creating new sections, there are already sections in the article on ethics and epistemology. Would I be correct to assume you support redistributing the material to those existing sections? --RL0919 (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out: I did indeed overlook those existing sections. Yes, I would endorse distributing the material currently in the Criticism sections into those other topical sections (I've amended my comment above, accordingly). That would (1) retain all the material; (2) not polarize the article into pros/cons; and (3) be more encyclopedic. --Noleander (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If we weave criticisms into article (which I'm still opposed to) I still hope we don't have "though disputed" without saying who disputes in and why. 1- It's obvious that just about every opinion is disputed 2-It's redundant if we include criticisms later (which we do) and 3- it gives the impression that the idea is crazy because we don't say something to the effect of "it's disputed and praised by people". Byelf2007 (talk) 20 September 2011

• I've seen it both ways, and the article seems to read okay either way. One NPOV problem that presents when weaving criticisms into the existing topical sections is POV editors try to front-load the section with the criticism, before any context is laid down. As well, some left-overs usually means a separate section survives, though often with a narrower heading. With the single section however, topical criticisms appear less topical and more editorial - I think this is what WP:Structure is advising against. Therefore I agree with Noleander and Peterdjones: avoid criticism section with topical criticisms (narrow critiques within a branch) and allow for a section to catch broad criticisms of Objectivism. --Karbinski (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)