Talk:Ayn Rand

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)

Proposed deletion

I recently undid an edit by Byelf2007, changing the wording of the article from "She opposed collectivism and the welfare state" (a wording adopted by Byelf2007 without explanation) to "She considered herself a fierce opponent of all forms of collectivism and statism, among which she included fascism, communism, socialism, and the welfare state." I made that change in good faith, but having looked at the source used - which is Peikoff's book about Objectivism - I now think that neither version reflects the source accurately, and that this material should be deleted outright. The reference is to pages 368-369 and 372-373 of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. Despite the title of the book, Peikoff is not really talking about what Ayn Rand personally believed on those pages - he is talking about what he takes the "Objectivist" view to be.

I'm sorry if that seems like a distinction without a difference, but it really does matter. Peikoff is expounding his own understanding of Objectivism, and there simply is no statement there to the effect that "Rand opposed collectivism and the welfare state" or "Rand considered herself a fierce opponent of all forms of collectivism." The material in Peikoff's book that comes closest to such statements is "'Statism' means any system that concentrates power in the state at the expense of individual freedom. Among other varients, the term subsumes theocracy, absolute monarchy, Nazism, fascism, communism, democratic socialism, and plain, unadorned dictatorship" (on page 369) and some hostile comments about anarchism on page 372. The welfare state is actually not mentioned at all, although there is a comment about the mixed economy. So the material should simply go. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That Rand believed each of these to be forms of collectivism and statism is true, relevant, and can be sourced, even if you think the specific source used doesn't say this explicitly enough. For example, in her Playboy interview, Rand actually lists all of them (plus a couple of other ideologies) as doctrines she opposes for their "sacrifice of the individual to the collective". So the worst case here is that the sourcing needs to be updated, not that the material should be deleted. --RL0919 (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

What's in the article is an original research interpretation, if not an outright distortion, of the source used. I'm inclined to remove it if someone doesn't add a better source. Truth isn't the threshold for inclusion. Per WP:VERIFY. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that I said "can be sourced" and mentioned a specific source. The only reason I didn't re-source the passage already is that I prefer not to replace a secondary source with a primary one, when substitute secondary sources could probably be obtained with a short delay for research. Readers aren't being misled about Rand's views, and frankly I don't think they are really being misled as to what the current source means. Peikoff thought he was representing Rand's views in his book, and says as much in the introduction. But such subtleties of interpretation aren't necessary since an alternative source can be used instead. --RL0919 (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The content is a quite imaginative use of a source, and bears little direct resemblance to what it says; refusing to admit this really won't help. The source is about Objectivism as a philosophy, not about Rand personally, and would be more suitable to an article about Objectivism than to an article about Rand as an individual. The description of "statism" on page 369 and the explanation of how forms of "statism" include theocracy, absolute monarchy, Nazism, fascism, communism, democratic socialism, and dictatorship does not mention "collectivism", does not equate "statism" itself with "collectivism", and does not say that Rand considered herself a "fierce opponent" of any of these things. I'm not going to rush to remove that content, but after a few days I will definitely start trimming or rephrasing it if there has been no progress. Outright removal remains an option. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of convincing objections, I've rephrased the material. I note that there is a mention of the welfare state on page 375 of Peikoff's book, but it isn't explicitly identified as either collectivism or statism (Peikoff calls it "a highly controlled stage of the mixed economy", which in turn is "a transition stage, a disintegrating antisystem, careening drunkenly but inexorably from freedom to dictatorship"), so I've removed mention of it from the article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Nazism

Byelf2007 has initiated a bizarre edit war with me over whether Nazism should be listed as one of the forms of statism to which Objectivism is opposed. He asserts that Nazism is a kind of fascism, and that it is redundant to list Nazism separately. It is certainly true that some sources would consider Nazism to be one kind of fascism. Others, however, would consider it to be a distinct ideology. I am not going to get involved in a discussion about whether one is a kind of the other or not; it doesn't matter. The relevant point here is that Peikoff, the source the sentence about statism is sourced to, mentions Nazism and fascism separately; to reflect the source properly, the article needs to do likewise. Byelf2007's most recent edit summary ("So what? Does the fact that he doesn't claim Nazism is fascism mean Nazism isn't fascism?") appears to suggest that he believes that his personal view that Nazism is a kind of fascism is what matters, and takes precedence over the source. Sorry Byelf2007, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. See WP:NPOV, please. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm certainly not suggesting that my version view is what matters (nor do I see how I've given you any indication that I think that way). The point I'm making is that there is no reason for us to have redundancy. Wikipedia has stated that redundancy is bad, with the only exception (to my knowledge at present) being the synthesis issue. If there's a WP:RULE that redundancy is OK if that's what the source says, then I'm not aware of it and I'd like to see it.

Also, you ignored the other part of my edit summary: "If a source says 'Bob hates animals and cats' should we say he hates both?" You haven't addressed this point. Just because Peikoff says "Rand hated fascism AND Nazism" doesn't mean we have to pretend that Nazism is not a type of fascism (if this isn't true) and have the article IMPLY that Nazism is not fascism. So, as far as I'm aware of how this site works, and you can show me the relevant link if I am wrong, we don't write things that aren't true just because we're writing something that has a source that happens to say something that isn't true. What it really boils down to (I think) is whether or not Nazism is or is not a type of fascism. From what I understand of the two, Nazism is a type of fascism (there is no definitional contradiction/they aren't mutually exclusive).

So, as far I'm aware, you have to first establish that Nazism is not fascism before you write an article in such a way as to imply that this is the case. And, while the fact that the Nazism page currently says that it's a type of fascism doesn't prove that this is the case, we should still work to have articles be consistent. Byelf2007 (talk) 3 November 2011

I'm aware that you think redundancy is bad. I actually agree with you: redundancy is bad. But mentioning Nazism and fascism isn't redundant if the two are seen as distinct, which they can be, and evidently are by Peikoff. I don't need to address your analogy about animals and cats to answer your point, and I believe I already have, several times. You again assert that Nazism is a kind of fascism. That's still only your personal POV, and it doesn't matter under Wiki policy, no matter how many times you repeat it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

We are supposed to use sources to determine article content. I say this for two points: First, Byelf, you rely far too much on argumentation about what you personally think is correct, rather than addressing what appears in sources. Second, 'sources' is plural. The editing around this passage has come to rely far too much on the parsing of the one source that is currently cited. This is hardly the only source about Rand's opinions of various political ideologies. Here is a direct quote from Rand's interview with Playboy: "... I oppose any doctrine which proposes the sacrifice of the individual to the collective, such as communism, socialism, the welfare state, fascism, Nazism and modern liberalism." This shows that Rand herself used the "redundancy" of mentioning both fascism and Nazism. It also shows that she did oppose "the welfare state", even if Peikoff doesn't use that exact phrase on a particular page. --RL0919 (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

"Neocleous, Mark. Fascism. Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA: University of Minnesota Press, 1997 p. 23." (from the "Nazism" page) cites Nazism as a type of fascism. Is there a source that argues that Nazism isn't fascism? Where is it? Why is it superior to the one we have now. There's no way you can argue that we shouldn't make the change I want just because it's "my opinion" when it's opposed to "your opinion"--what matters is whether or not Nazism is in fact a type of fascism which can be determined by argumentation. Read the first paragraph from the fascism article. Anyone with a very limited understanding of Nazism know it ALL applies to Nazism. I hope I don't actually have to go over it point by point. If you object to the description of fascism and/or the sources, then you can make your case here.

Why should the Ayn Rand article imply the two are distinct just because the sources we're citing that she's opposed to fascism implies that the are? This is like people saying "Ayn Rand said she wasn't a libertarian, therefore, she isn't a libertarian" when she clearly was a libertarian based upon what we know libertarianism to be. Just because Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff have implied Nazism isn't fascism doesn't mean any article should imply this is true. Again, where is the WP:RULE that says redundancy (and, I'm pretty sure, the implication of a falsehood--that Nazism isn't fascism) is OK as long as the source we're using to establish something is true also includes the redundancy/falsehood? Byelf2007 (talk) 5 November 2011

Given the rather large amount that has been written about both fascism and Nazism, it would not be that difficult to find sources that explain that they are not, technically speaking, the same thing, at least on some interpretations of what "fascism" is. That isn't, however, the important thing; the important thing is accurately reflecting the source we are using here, Peikoff. Wikipedia's content policies, particularly WP:VERIFY, are based on the understanding that what's "really" true isn't the basis for deciding content issues, so it's no good to say that "what matters is whether or not Nazism is in fact a type of fascism which can be determined by argumentation."

Your question "Why should the Ayn Rand article imply the two are distinct just because the sources we're citing that she's opposed to fascism implies that the are?" is misguided. Mentioning Nazism and fascism separately doesn't necessarily imply anything about whether they are separate; we don't have to make any judgment about that. And even if one can be seen as a variant of the other, it's not necessarily a harmful form of redundancy to mention them separately, it could be viewed as a helpful way of stressing that Rand was opposed both to fascism generally and the Nazi version specifically. Byelf2007's approach is creating a problem where none should exist. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

"Mentioning Nazism and fascism separately doesn't necessarily imply anything about whether they are separate" Sure it does--if Nazism is a type of fascism and we know she's opposed to fascism then if we already know she's opposed to Nazism. That makes it redundant for no reason. "it could be viewed as a helpful way of stressing that Rand was opposed both to fascism generally and the Nazi version specifically" Well, if we know she's opposed to fascism, then we know she's opposed to Nazism, so there's no reason to mention that. Unless, of course, she was particularly opposed to Nazism compared to most forms of fascism, but the sources don't say that, nor would it be relevant since any person is going to be particularly critical of forms of some political philosophy (they might be more critical of social anarchism than anarcho-capitalism or vice versa, but it's enough for us to know they're opposed to anarchism). Having them mentioned separately DOES imply they are separate. If you can establish that's true, that's fine. If not, there's no reason for us to imply this.

Otherwise, why not say she's also opposed to liberalism and conservatism. If your argument is that it's in the source, it doesn't matter (unless we're actually quoting the material).

How's this for a compromise?

We say: "Rand said she was [begin quote of her in an interview] opposed to....[end quote]" Byelf2007 (talk) 8 November 2011

Please cease and desist from this silly attempt to expunge all mention of the word "Nazism" because of a personal POV you have concerning its nature. It doesn't improve the article in any way, has found no support on this talk page, is starting to become disruptive. I am starting to get impatient with this line of discussion, and see little point in continuing with it; the bottom line is that you are attempting to impose a personal view of article content based on idiosyncratic personal preferences. Again, please stop. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: You're saying it's irrelevant whether or not Nazism is actually a form of fascism, right? So where is the specific WP:RULE that says that we should have redundancy if it's in the source? Byelf2007 (talk) 10 November 2011

Sorry, the point of your talk page post is lost on me. I don't see any logical connection between the second and third sentences of your post. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You're arguing that redundancy is OK as long as the source has this redundancy. Where is the WP:RULE that establishes this? In other words, where is the WP:RULE that says that if a source says "Bob hates dogs and poodles" then we should put this in instead of "Bob hates dogs"? If you can't find this WP:RULE, then there's no reason to have redundancy (we all know wikipedia is generally against redundancy; the only exception I'm aware of is the synthesis issue).

If you can't find this rule, then the only other reason to include fascism is if it's not dictatorship. The fascism page currently says it supports dictatorship, thereby making it a form of dictatorship. This is sourced. Unless you can establish that this isn't true, then there's no reason to have it listed (if you can't find the hypothetical rule I covered in the previous paragraph). Furthermore, if you were to establish that fascism isn't a form of dictatorship, then you'd also have to establish that Nazism isn't a form of fascism to get it mentioned. The Nazism page currently says it's a form of fascism. This is sourced. Unless you can establish that this isn't true, then there's no reason to have it listed.

Look at it this way: suppose Ayn Rand said "I'm opposed to fascism and...." and then listed every typo of fascism which has ever existed. Would you want to include all of those types of fascism in the article text?

Finally, I'm wondering what you think about my compromise proposal: we have a direct quote of Rand saying she's opposed to fascism and Nazism, which I'm fine with. Byelf2007 (talk) 11 November 2011

The question isn't if Nazism is a type of facism or not, the question is do the secondary sources treat them as distinct or take for granted that Nazism is subsumed by facism. Clearly the answer is that the secondary sources treat them as distinct. To defy the secondary sources and subsume Nazism under facism is to violate WP:SYN. There is the rule violation. --Karbinski (talk) 10:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Libertarianism

I've eliminated the libertarian categories. Ayn Rand rejected the label herself, and many, if not most Rand scholars, from Peikoff to Binswanger to Tara Smith reject the view that Ayn Rand was a libertarian. The fact that some sources claim she is a libertarian should not avail here — certainly, many would label Noam Chomsky, for example, a communist or say that anarcho-syndicalism is in essence communism, but given the contentiousness of the issue, it would be against NPOV to label him as such. Similarly, anyone who reads the Rand article can decide for himself whether she is indeed a libertarian — but it's far from self-evident and non-controversial. LaszloWalrus (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Go to the libertarian article and then try to explain how Ayn Rand isn't a libertarian. Just because she said she isn't doesn't mean she isn't. Since Rand held that individual liberty is the basic moral principle of society, I'm not sure what your case could be. Since, in its broadest sense, libertarianism includes views which "approximate" this view, I'm REALLY not sure what your case could be. She ALSO wanted a voluntarily funded government (Libertarian Party USA). (talk) 9 November 2011

Again, I think we should defer to Ayn Rand's OWN description of her views. Someone might conclude (falsely, in my view) that Ayn Rand was indeed a libertarian, but that interpretation is controversial. After all, Ayn Rand HERSELF rejected libertarianism, as does the Ayn Rand Institute (as do its affiliated scholars, from Tara Smith, to Leonard Peikoff, to Harry Binswanger, etc.). The capaciousness of libertarianism is itself controversial, and it simply violates NPOV principles to assert flatly in the article that Ayn Rand was a libertarian, her own views on the matter and the views of much of the secondary literature notwithstanding. LaszloWalrus (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact that there is no one official specific definition definition only makes it easier to correctly label someone a libertarian, not harder. There's no reason to defer to Rand--if Hitler said he wasn't a fascist, that doesn't mean he isn't one. As long as Rand is plausibly a libertarian and many reliable sources refer to her as such, that's enough. If you read her work on ethics, I think it's pretty clear that she think that individual liberty is the basic moral principle of society, or, at least, that her views are approximate to this. It's also true that she wanted a voluntarily funded government, which is one of the most popular definitions. Besides, her understanding of the term may have been different from the way most people understand it. I'm pretty sure she thought of libertarians as those who tried to defend libertarianism without ethical arguments (see the libertarianism and objectivism article on the "non-aggression axiom" vs "non-aggression principle" spat). (talk) 13 November 2011

Again, it is simply one interpretation of Rand's thought that she was a Libertarian. Objectivist academics (I've listed some above) reject labeling Objectivist politics as "Libertarian," as did Rand herself. Labeling Rand a "libertarian" implies that that is a non-controversial interpretation of her views. Her actual views can be found here: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians. 140.247.187.184 (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Rand was a small-l "libertarian," in the sense that she was a champion of individual liberty, but was opposed to the big-L "Libertarian" political movement, primarily on the basis of its scope being so wide that it included not only points of view compatible with her own, but also points of view that she was quite opposed to, such as so-called "Rational Anarchism." Also, around the late 1960s, it was evident that the Libertarian movement was trying specifically to divert many of Rand's followers into political action, which she believed was premature — she thought that a broader base of educational effort would be necessary before there could be an effective pro-individual political movement. So it is definitely wrong to label Rand a big-L Libertarian, and probably somewhat misleading to label her a small-l libertarian. It is easier to understand her views for themselves than to disentangle them from some pre-formed package like "libertarianism." — DAGwyn (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I concur with LazloWalrus and DAGwyn; the intensity and volume of justification of Rand's (and the orthodox Objecivists') rejection of libertarianism is such that categorising the article as such is misleading to our readers. Skomorokh 16:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Jerome Tuccille's book It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand does a pretty good job of explaining the relationship between Ayn Rand and libertarianism. Many people arrive at libertarianism via the writings of Ayn Rand. Rand herself described Libertarians as a bunch of hippies and wanted nothing to do with them. That, however, hasn't stopped (some) libertarians (both large and small L) from worshipping her. Zyxwv99 (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Since Libertarianism holds liberty as the basic political principle, and avoids deeper ethical justifications, Ayn Rand is distinct from them, as she held that the basic moral foundation of a free society is individual rights. This is distinct from the generic concept of "liberty," in that a "right" is, in Objectivist terms, is a specifically moral concept. It is also relevant that Ayn Rand derived her political views from a deeper philosophical base, whereas libertarianism is less a philosophy than it is a political movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew3024 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact that most contemporary libertarians were originally inspired by Rand ("It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand," 'Reason' magazine, John Hospers, Tibor Machan, et al.) does not make Rand a "libertarian." Ronald Reagan described himself in correspondence as an admirer of Rand, as does the current junior Senator from Wisconsin, and recent scholarship shows that Rand had a direct, if limited, influence on the Goldwater campaign of '64, while Rush Limbaugh has extensively and positively quoted from 'Atlas Shrugged' on multiple programs, etc. None of this makes her a "conservative," either. However, if this is an important controversy about Rand, it should be included, but only IF the controversy itself can be explained. Thus, "Rand described herself as a 'radical for capitalism,' and often stressed that she was neither a 'conservative' nor a 'libertarian.' While thinkers in both camps have been influenced by Rand, and some have argued that Rand should be numbered among libertarian theorists, Objectivists themselves reject the label 'libertarian' and emphasize their sharp differences, for example, in the area of foreign policy." Something like that.Oolyons (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

As is noted below, Martin Anderson, i.e., Ronald Reagan's first chief domestic policy adviser, knew Rand personally and was a serious student of her ideas, and this provides support to Reagan's self-description as being an "admirer" of Rand. See McConnell, Scott, "Martin Anderson", 100 Voices: an Oral History of Ayn Rand, 2010, New York: New American Library, pp. 264-267, and Skinner, Anderson and Anderson, eds., Reagan: a Life in Letters, 2003, New York: Free Press, p. 181-182. But even this does not make Rand a "conservative". Oolyons (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Rand herself should not be described as a "libertarian" does not mean that Rand's significant influence upon libertarian thinkers should be ignored. (It is not adequately covered by Tuccille.) It was "through Rand" that anarchist Murray Rothbard was introduced to the "entire field of natural rights" and even Aristotelian philosophy itself. (See, J. Burns, Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right, 2009, Oxford Univ. Press, p. 145 and 182.) Despite their very sharp differences, Prof. Rothbard even once described Atlas Shrugged as "the greatest novel ever written." The late Prof. John Hospers, the first Libertarian Party candidate for President, reported that he was converted to his political position largely through his exchanges with Rand. (See, "Interview with Johns Hospers: Conversations with Ayn Rand," Liberty magazine, July, 1990, pp. 23-36, and Sept. 1990, pp. 42-52.) The so-called school of "neo-Objectivist" academics, such as David Kelley, Tibor Machan and Douglas Rasmussen identify as "libertarians." It is important to distinguish the "Objectivist" position (that of Rand herself, Leonard Peikoff, Tara Smith, Harry Binswanger and Allan Gotthelf explicitly opposing libertarianism) from theirs, while still noting the important influence. Oolyons (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Although Rand should not be called a "libertarian," it must also be noted that she and her work are often, very positively referenced by John Stossel and Judge Andrew Napolitano on their television programs, and they have each repeatedly featured guests from the Ayn Rand Institute, an organization which not be classified as "libertarian," either. Oolyons (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Was she a KGB agent?

Anyone know her relationship with the Russian government, she never talked bad about the Russian government, she talked about weaking our government, she seems like a social agent? Thanatos7474 (talk) 07:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It appears Cliff Claven has joined Wikipedia.TheJazzFan (talk) 04:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Rand wasn't a KGB agent. Please don't put that in the lead, as it is vandalism. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Any claim like this is thoroughly ridiculous. She did criticize the Russian (to be more precise, Soviet) government, and there are zero sources to support the notion of her working for the KGB. --RL0919 (talk) 10:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the claim is absurd to anybody who knows much at all about Rand. Further, as Rand herself noted, the burden is on the maker of an arbitrary claim to provide evidence of its truth, not on others to refute it. — DAGwyn (talk) 05:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I would also point out that it's quite rational for someone to find fault with both the Soviet and American governments. HiLo48 (talk) 07:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

She wrote a novel specifically denouncing Soviet Russia: We the Living.

Ron Paul & Paul Ryan (and other Politicians) influenced

The article says that Rand influenced US congressmen Ron Paul and Paul Ryan. I don't really understand the reasoning behind this. I can sort of see why Ron Paul would be on this list (even though the only thing he seems to agree with Ayn Rand on is free market economies), but having Paul Ryan on this doesn't make much sense at all. And if the only reason why they're both on this list is because they all agree on which economic system is better, how does this qualify these two for being put on this list? I could name well over a thousand politicians who support or supported free markets and put them on the list, as well. I want to remove these names, but first I would like some reasoning or citations as to why their mentions are relevant. Linking the reasoning of politicians to famous philosophers just doesn't seem practical, to me. WikiGavel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC).

They are listed because of specific sources that say Rand influenced them, not because of inference. Their names used to be listed in the main body of the article with the sources cited there, but subsequent editing removed the names of specific politicians from the body in favor of a more general statement, so now their particular names only appear in the infobox. If you want to check the sources I could dig them up from a past version of the article. --RL0919 (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate seeing a source, for clarification on this. WikiGavel (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The last ones used before the names were removed from the article body are included in the reference note now used to support the general statement that "Republican Congressmen and conservative pundits have acknowledged her influence on their lives and recommended her novels." That's currently note 164, which cites "Gladstein 2009, p. 124; Heller 2009, p. xi; Doherty 2009, p. 51; Burns 2009, p. 283". Specifically, I know that Ron Paul is mentioned in the Heller book, and Paul Ryan in the Doherty article. The latter is available online here. There are other sources that could be cited; for example, Rand's influence on Ron Paul is mentioned in Branden's The Passion of Ayn Rand. HTH --RL0919 (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

There are many sources to go through in this regard. Senator Ron Johnson was attacked for his admiration of Rand in the debates he had prior to his election with the former incumbent Russ Feingold. Far from backing down, he defended Rand and 'Atlas Shrugged', specifically. See, [1] and [2] for example. And this was not an isolated instance with the current crop of "Tea Party" Republicans.Oolyons (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's a source for Ryan: [3]. It's hostile to Rand, but stresses her substantial, not mere "pro forma" influence on Ryan.Oolyons (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Martin Anderson, i.e., Ronald Reagan's first chief domestic policy adviser, was an actual student of Rand's, giving substance to Reagan's own claim to being an "admirer" of Rand. See McConnell, Scott, 100 Voices: an Oral History of Ayn Rand, 2010, New American Library, pp. 264-267, and Skinner, Anderson and Anderson, eds., Reagan: a Life in Letters, 2003, New York: Free Press, p. 181-182. Oolyons (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC).

On the Michael Savage radio show on January 30, 2012, Congressman Allen West went out of his way to recommend Atlas Shrugged. It's ubiquitous. Oolyons (talk) 04:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Mises shouldn't be listed as an influence

Yes, Rand said Mises was an influence of her understanding of ECONOMICS, but Rand was not an economist and never attempted to be one. She wrote philosophy and fiction, and, as such, her listed influences should be limited to those who made work on philosophy and fiction that influenced her philosophy and fiction. If we include Mises, we might as well include someone who influenced her choices in wardrobe, or a musician (if she played an instrument), etc. Having Mises as an influence when she never wrote on economics implies Mises influenced her philosophy/fiction writing style, which he didn't. Byelf2007 (talk) 26 December 2011

Wikipedia articles are supposed to follow sources. There are multiple secondary sources that say he influenced her, and some of these attribute influence beyond just economics. If you can find that type of support for someone who influenced her wardrobe, you can argue for putting it in. Until then, personal opinions that are not supported by sources are not an appropriate basis for editing articles. --RL0919 (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Which source(s) attribute his influence as pertaining to philosophy and/or fiction writing? Byelf2007 (talk) 26 December 2011

I don't accept that only influence on "philosophy and fiction" should be considered. If reliable sources consider influence in other areas to be significant, then your personal opinions to the contrary are not definitive. That said, here are a few sources:

• "Rand was strongly influenced in developing her political philosophy by ... the Austrian-school economist Ludwig von Mises." (The Libertarian Reader, p. 418)

This looks good. Byelf2007 (talk) 27 December 2011

• "A more important intellectual influence for Rand was Hayek's mentor, Ludwig von Mises ...." (Goddess of the Market (updated: this is from her dissertation, not the book of the same name), p. 77)

This could be an influence on her views on economics only. Byelf2007 (talk) 27 December 2011

Rand's views of economy were integrated into her philosophical system, unlike those of many economists. — DAGwyn (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Her total free market vision ... drew much from that of Ludwig von Mises." (The Encyclopedia of the History of American Management, p. 434)

Again, "free market vision" is vague and could be limited to economics. Byelf2007 (talk) 27 December 2011

• "[Rand] said to me, 'I don't agree with him epistemologically, but as far as my economics and political economy are concerned, Ludwig von Mises is the most important thing that's ever happened to me.'" (100 Voices, p. 166)

I think the "Political economy" works. Byelf2007 (talk) 27 December 2011

I think four sources making these types of very explicit statements should be sufficient to say he influenced her. --RL0919 (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

That's two sources that appear to check out, so that's sufficient; I put Mises back in. I'm not aware of any Bastiat or Hazlitt sources for influence on political views, however. Byelf2007 (talk) 27 December 2011

Once again I do not accept your arbitrary limitations on what types of influence could be considered. Regardless, Hazlitt is probably a marginal case, and I haven't found the sort of obvious, explicit "X influenced her" type of statements that are so easily found for Mises. (They definitely had a personal and professional relationship, but that's not the same thing.) As for Bastiat, I'm not sure how he even got on the list, and I doubt an influence could be sourced. --RL0919 (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Ayn Rand's fundamental differences with Mises were many, and her political orientation itself appears not to owe anything to Mises directly (nor is such an influence argued for in the recent biographies on Rand). Her (published) margin notes on her own copies of Mises' books, Human Action and Bureaucracy, indicate her vehement disagreement with Mises on philosophical issues, while her admiration of his work purely as an economist is reflected in the high but qualified praise Mises' writing got in the journals Rand herself published, edited and endorsed in the 1960s. See, e.g., "Books: Human Action," The Objectivist Newsletter, vol. 3, no. 9, Sept., 1963, and Mayhew, Robert, ed., Ayn Rand's Marginalia, 1995, New Milford, CT: Second Renaissance Books, pp. 104-144. Oolyons (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

How does her diagreeing with Mises on several issues invalidate a realiable source that says he was an influence to her in developing her philosophy? Keep in mind that Rand didn't hold a number of the views that would later be included in Objectivism back when he was influencing her. Byelf2007 (talk) 24 January 2011

No, in fact, her ideas changed very little. For this see, "Woman for all Seasons", [4]. The reply from Prof. Burns (who is cited above), author of Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right, is here: [5]. Even in her reply, Prof. Burns notes that, "In comparison to the figures [cited], who made some of the wildest swings in ideology imaginable, Rand was a paragon of consistency. It is to her credit that she saw Communism for what it was right from the start – though she had 'inside information' that most American intellectuals lacked..." Nor does Burns dispute the fact that Rand's basic political orientation itself dated from her childhood admiration of Alexander Kerensky, and teenaged admiration of America. And nor is there any evidence that Rand ~ ever ~ shared any of Mises' epistemological approach, his utilitarianism in ethics, or any other aspect of his basic, philosophical ideas. What we require here is some idea later found in Objectivism that he actually provided to Rand. There is nothing to indicate that there were any. Oolyons (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You assert that Rand did not hold all of her later philosophical ideas "back when [Mises] was influencing her". However, her margin notes in Human Action, for example, appear to have been written upon her first reading of the book, containing exclamation marks ("!") and items like, e.g., "Good God!", along with her many substantive comments. These same notes show her strong disagreements along the very same lines as her later thought would suggest. Mayhew, Robert, ed., Ayn Rand's Marginalia, 1995, New Milford, CT: Second Renaissance Books, pp. 104-144. What we need is evidence of some idea, ANY idea, he could have provided her, i.e., some substance to the claim of influence. Oolyons (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

For example, the most basic idea in Rand's mature political thought is that of individual rights. Mises did not adhere to any variety of natural or normative rights theory whatever. Rand's hero in her 1943 novel (The Fountainhead) advocates rights based on Rand's fundamental approach, and it is pretty much the same as her later view. But I don't think there's evidence that she had read any Mises at that point. Oolyons (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not a forum for debating if/how Rand's ideas changed over the years. Please take such matters to a discussion board, Facebook or whatever. Multiple reliable sources explicitly describe Mises as an influence on Rand. You can reply to yourself a dozen times with more arguments about how they differ, but none of that changes what the sources say. Find reliable sources that explicitly say he had no influence on her, and we can talk about that. --RL0919 (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course not, but Rand's own opinion about this is voiced in her well known assertion that Aristotle alone was a ~ philosophical ~ influence (an important distinction) on her. See "About the Author", Atlas Shrugged. Moreover, we have just cited her own notes. And her own notes -- as she reads Mises -- have been published. Perhaps you dispute the idea that Rand herself is a "reliable source" about her influences? These notes also show ~ her own opinion ~ of precisely how little the "influence" was, for example, of Human Action, even as that alleged influence was supposed to be happening. I have also already cited another source directly arguing that Rand's philosophical ideas, in general, changed very little over the years and arguing that her own claims about what influenced her are credible. All of this is enough to require inclusion of Rand's own opinion on the matter, that is, if Mises is to be claimed as a influence on her philosophy here. In any case, is it really too much just to ask what, exactly, the suggested influence could have been? And are we to include the demonstrably impossible just because someone claims it to be so? Oolyons (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I asked you a simple question which you didn't answer: how does Rand disagreeing with Mises mean he didn't influence her philosophical views when we have a reliable source saying he did so. You haven't answered this, and have only doubled down on this like, saying, effectively, "You guys just don't get it--she REALLY disagreed with him" (which I'm not denying). You don't appear to know enough about Rand's views to know that she vehemently disagreed with Aristotle on a lot more than with Mises. Does this somehow invalidate Aristotle being an influence on her philosophical views? Of course not.

You also appear to be implying that we can't list an influence to Rand unless she said explicitly in an interview that she regards Mises as an influence on her philosophical views. That's not how this site works. We only care about reliable sources as per the site's standards. Otherwise, we would not list Rand as a "libertarian" if she said she wasn't one, regardless of the definition of the term. You could just as easily claim that Rand shouldn't be listed as female if she said she wasn't female. Byelf2007 (talk) 25 January 2011

No, Bye, getting nasty and personal with me won't help you. Rand regarded some things in Aristotle as being much more important, more essential than other things. She was well aware of Immovable Movers and Natural Slavery and many other differences. Yet, as makes sense to Aristotle scholars like Prof. Allan Gotthelf and me, she cited him as her ONLY philosophical source. Other scholars agree with her self-assessment here, as well, such as Leonard Peikoff (see, e.g., his 1995 television interview Ideas in Action, WJM Productions, where he agrees with Rand's self-description here.). Now, I actually answered you (go back and read carefully) by specifying the fundamental areas within what Rand regarded as her basic philosophy and showed that they have almost zero overlap with the comparable ideas of Mises, e.g., utilitarianism (which she vehemently argued against), subjective values, etc. I was demanding that the actual influence which is claimed be specified rather than merely asserted as the cited sources do, if you go and actually read them. Now, I am also aware of the recent efforts made by some in The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies to attempt to equate Austrian economics and Rand's ethics. This must, however, be regarded as a minority position and a controversial one, as the authors there imply repeatedly themselves. Austrians are normally regarded, for example, as being "value free" in their methodology. So, even to make ~ their ~ argument sources other than Mises MUST be cited. You will find that Mises' teacher, Carl Menger is the Austrian cited as showing the most affinity to Rand thought -- not Mises. And the link is Aristotle. In those articles, it emerges that Menger provides a crucial connection that (MAYBE, it is stressed) can bridge the two worlds, which are normally considered light years apart. But it is no where argued that Rand was ever influenced by Menger. Note, too, that it was Rand who first introduced one of Mises' leading American students, Murray Rothbard to the whole field of Aristotle's epistemology and the whole field of natural rights, according to Prof. Burns's new book on Rand, which all apparently came as a revelation to that leading student of Mises. Somehow it was all new to him even after studying Mises. To him, knowing both thinkers at the time, they were worlds apart. George Reisman's reports are much the same.

Sure, Mises admired Atlas Shrugged. He even wrote Rand to tell her that it was "more than a novel," it was a "cogent analysis" of the evils "plaguing" our society, etc. But he no where claims an influence or even connection. Yes, Rand admired his economics, as the reviews of his work in the journals she edited show. And she overtly denies such an influence.

No, I am not saying that we require any such admission as you describe from Rand in order to call something an influence. I am saying that we have a positive, outright assertion to contrary from Rand herself that there was no such influence at all, and I have cited support from other sources, like Gotthelf and Peikoff, who agree with her assessment. This makes what those others say controversial, as it directly contradicts Rand and those other scholars. This site 'works", I trust, by including all of this, as well, if a claim to the contrary is to be made. It should not suppress these other sources, like Rand herself(!), should it? What it can do, I am suggesting, is avoid the whole controversy by not claiming Mises to have been an influence. See, the idea is highly controversial. But if it is insisted that this be included, then I don't see how we avoid Rand's own directly contrary opinion and her supporters views, as well. Get it?Oolyons (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC).

Oolyons, what thing from Rand herself? The margin notes? All you're talking about is her writing about how much she disagreed with Mises on various matters. Granted. Again, so what? Now you appear to be saying "But she said Aristotle was the only one who influenced her/really influenced her." 1) She's also said Aquinas was an influence to her. 2) What do you suppose she would write in the margins of Aristotle's works? 3) This stuff really doesn't matter, as we're ONLY concerned with what reliable sources have to say about how whether or not she was influenced by him (and her margin notes/position on utilitarianism does not preclude her from being influenced by him. Let's keep in mind that around the time she was getting to know him, Objectivism was still years away from being created. Rand voted for FDR in 1936, she hadn't rejected all of the ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche when writing the Fountainhead, that she would eventually reject when she was writing the Fountainhead, whether or not Roark from Fountainhead's behavior in Fountainhead is consistent with Objectivism is highly controversial (as it appears to endorse vigilantism), whether or not she was an Objectivist toward the tail end of writing Atlas Shrugged is difficult if not impossible to determine, etc. We have reliable sources that say Mises was an influence to her philosophical views. Now, if you want to cite (not just refer to) reliable sources that explicitly say she she wasn't, then that would make the matter murky enough to convince me that we should discontinue listing him (I wanted him out earlier). Byelf2007 (talk) 26 January 2011

No, Bye. Rand is a reliable source. She denied that there was any such influence on her philosophy. Full stop. We must not distort matters by merely claiming Mises as an influence without discussing the controversy. Add to that: Rand's notes show her differing with Mises, just as one might expect -- even as she apparently reads him for the first time. Her notes on Aristotle would have been very different, I suspect. Add to that: no one can point to anything that Mises actually contributed to her philosophy, while his ideas contradict hers in numerous ways. Indeed, Aquinas makes a good contrast. We can point to the specifics, and those specifics are consistent with her philosophy. And what she liked about him was precisely his own use of Aristotle ("the Philosopher"), while Mises is not generally categorized as falling within Aristotle's school of thought. And, btw, you are poorly informed. Rand voted for FDR in ~ 1932 ~ because he opposed Prohibition, and before he had been President. (But by July of 1936, according to J. Burns, Rand was describing her "hatred" for the New Deal to friends, well before she had met most of her later "conservative" friends, such as Paterson, Hazlitt and others. Goddess of the Market, p.37-38.) And Rand had thoroughly rejected Nietzsche's entire approach to metaphysics and epistemology, his "perspectivism," in favor of Aristotelian logic when she was still in her 20s, and in her very first philosophical notes of any kind. In those notes, she also rejected any need for a "history" or "genealogy" of ethics, believing, even then, that only a logical "system" of ethics was necessary, in sharp contrast to Nietzsche. She was also arguing against his determinism in favor of volition. She was also advocating a system of rights (a bizarre idea for any "Nietzschean") long before The Fountainhead, as her correspondence and notes show. Formulations of "A is A" are even present in the first edition of We the Living(!) For all of this, see, [6] and [7] In short, all of her fundamental differences with Nietzsche were there before she ever wrote a word of The Fountainhead. Nor is there any evidence that Rand was uncomfortable with any of Roark's behavior later in her career. Her 1968 "Introduction" to the 25th anniversary edition would have been the place to state any qualifications (like the other qualifications she discussed there), but there are none. She actually ADDS Nietzsche back into the book there(!) In any case, none of this even remotely suggests any influence from Mises, that's for sure, an influence she denied. Oolyons (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It can be said that Rand "admired," "promoted," even "found support" in Mises' economics, but I think that it just cannot -- uncontroversially -- be claimed that he was an influence on her philosophy. We can avoid all of this by simply avoiding calling him one. Oolyons (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Bye, even according to Heller, Ayn Rand and the World She Made (read the first several pages of chapter 2), Rand opposed both communism and a constitutional monarchy in favor of a liberal republic as early as 1917. All sources agree that she had a teenaged preference for Kerensky over all of the other practical options. Her correspondence throughout the 1930s shows a similar pro-U.S. Constitution orientation. See, [8]. Oolyons (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Oolyons, what's this source where Rand says this? Byelf2007 (talk) 31 January 2011

The most famous instance of this claim by Rand can be found in "About the Author," in Atlas Shrugged (I've already cited it, above), the whole of which is a quotation from Rand, and she wrote there that the "only philosophical debt" she could "acknowledge" was to Aristotle. This is not an isolated instance, and the point can be found discussed by several sources, e.g. in J. Burns, Goddess of the Market, p. 2. Oolyons (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

And Rand's own account of her philosophical influences and development is closely followed by scholars such as Allan Gotthelf, "Life and Intellectual Development," chapters 1 and 2, On Ayn Rand, Wadsworth Philosophers Series, 2000, pp. 12-27, with no mention of Mises whatever. And J. Burns replies to another source ([9]) that I also provided earlier and which closely follows Rand's own account, here [10]. Oolyons (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

How late after the publishing of Atlas Shrugged did she continue to say he was her only philosophical influence? Is there a source where she says this close to her death? You've also only listed a couple blog posts as additional evidence. On what grounds are they saying Aristotle was her only philosophical influence? Byelf2007 (talk) 1 February 2012

She continued in this position all her life, Bye, up to the last televised interviews she did in the years before her death. And the scholarship is clear: Atlas Shrugged in 1957 represents her "mature view," according to all of our sources. There is no ~ argument ~ that her position (on anything) appreciably changed after this, and none is argued by any secondary source. The argument about her development -- and as I have shown, it is a highly controversial argument -- concerns her intellectual development in the pre-Atlas years, whether its from Burns or Heller or anyone else. The concept of a Misesian influence on Rand's philosophy is controversial and speculative, Bye, as your own inquiries show. They are also without any real substance. The "grounds" for saying that Aristotle was her only basic influence are all of the specifics of her philosophy, and Rand's account of their development from Aristotle. Oolyons (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Were you the source of this from the above bullet point, Bye? "'A more important intellectual influence for Rand was Hayek's mentor, Ludwig von Mises ....' (Goddess of the Market, p. 77." In the hardcover, there is no such quotation whatever on page 77, and Burns' first mention of Mises occurs on page 106, and it reads, in contrast to your quotation, "Rand looked more favorably on Mises, Hayek's mentor, whose works she read during this time." (emphasis added) This is entirely different than alleging an "influence" on her ideas, and the reference above appears to be a plain misquote, unless there is some other "Hayek's mentor" phrase in the book that I've missed. In fact, Burns appears to recognize Rand's vast differences with Mises -- from the start -- in the areas of philosophy proper, i.e., metaphysics, epistemology and ethics (p. 141-142). And Burns says only that Mises' analysis "matched" Rand's understanding, that his work suggested an "insightful" parallel to her (already existing) ethics, that Mises "provided economic support for..." Rand's political position (all on page 142), NOT that he was in any way its source. In fact, Burns reports that Rand's own students were "puzzled" that Rand even "recommend[ed] his books" given their sharp differences, as evidenced in those very margin notes (p. 141). And Burns locates in time the possible period of Mises' alleged influence. Burns has been badly misquoted and misconstrued here, it seems. Oolyons (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I provided the quote, which is legit and can be confirmed with a Google Books search. I will also point out something I mentioned earlier in the thread: the infobox listing is for "Influences". It doesn't say "Influences on her mature philosophy". And Burns very explicitly says that he was an "important intellectual influence". A person can be influenced by someone and still have disagreements with them, so all the wrangling over what disagreements she had with him and when her ideas did or did not stop changing is entirely beside the point. We have multiple sources that explicitly call him an influence. Against this we have so far seen zero sources that explicitly deny he was an influence. Instead, inferences are being made from silences, accompanied by an unjustified narrow focus on someone having to be a direct source for her philosophy, as if she were nothing but a philosopher. Ironically this line of argument is similar to the old "Rand is not a philosopher" arguments, which also relied on arguments from silence. In that dispute the matter was settled in favor of what the explicit statements in sources said, rather than for the interpretation of silences. This dispute should be settled in the same fashion. --RL0919 (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I found that same quote doing a Google Search, too, but the text provided is NOT the same as the text from Burns' book, which I have accurately quoted. Do you have a hard copy of the real book? Compare the book, the hardcover, if you will, from the Table of Contents (utterly different CHAPTER TITLES), forward. Compare the text. It is different. Burns has endnotes, this text has real "footnotes" on the bottom of the page, for example. Try, if you will, to find the quote in question in a hard copy of the actual book. Page 77 discusses Paterson, but not Mises at all. So, no, Burns does not say that, from what I can tell. Not from the hard copy of the book I am holding in my hands right now. I'm not sure what it is they have put under that title, but the text is not Burns'. (Whoever did say that did not say how much "more" up from zero he was going, either.) Moreover, you misconstrue my position altogether, in any case. And, as I have indicated, this can easily be solved by saying that Rand "admired," "promoted," even "found support" in Mises' work, just not calling him an "influence." Oolyons (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Have other references in the Ayn Rand article, or others, been based on this text as alleged citations of Burns? Oolyons (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

A little bit of further browsing solves the mystery: The text in question is Burns' PhD dissertation, which bears the same name as the book she later based on it, but does not have identical text. And yes, I have the hardcover book, although I don't carry it around with me everywhere I travel, hence the use of Google Books for convenience. To my knowledge all citations are against the hardcover text, but you are welcome to review each and every citation in the article if you wish, and update them to reference the dissertation if needed. That would have more value than trying to argue from silences. --RL0919 (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I find it curious, then, that she completely retreated from her assertion of influence when it came time to publish. Now, in fact, its REMOVAL from her text is powerful evidence of the opposite. She went from calling him an "influence" in the earlier version to calling him merely someone Rand "looked on more favorably" than Hayek. That's a serious change in Burns's view. And, of course, you don't carry such a copy around, but, of course, I was arguing from Rand's actual denial of Mises as a philosophical influence, not any silence, and against a notion that is both baseless and wrong, namely a philosophical influence. I accept your distinction, but it must be made in the text if we are to avoid the issues raised here. Rand was a novelist and philosopher, but Mises was neither an influence on her philosophy -- something Rand overtly denied and for which you can cite no clear source whatever -- nor her literature (as Hugo and Dosteovsky, etc.). The secondary sources themselves (like Burns, in any version) stress the vast differences between the two thinkers, as well. At best, he was an "influence," as Burns writes, in that Mises' analysis "matched" her own understanding and that he "provided support" for Rand's political position with his economics. We must also note IF we are to suggest him as an influence, that they had HUGE differences in all the areas that Rand felt important, philosophically. Thus, if he is to be listed as any kind of influence, fairness to Rand's ideas dictates that all of these clear distinctions be made or we will be distorting the secondary sources you cite which claim this (or even ones that formerly claimed it.). Given the context, vagueness here is distortion. And we must avoid implying something that Rand overtly, and quite hotly (if we read her notes on Mises) denied. Merely calling him an influence without qualification is a lie. Oolyons (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the reference in the text enough -- and better? Can't we remove him from the list of major influences, simply given the nebulous quality of the argued-for influence, since he is mentioned in the text in greater detail? Oolyons (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, you are the only one demanding this removal, and despite rivers of text you have yet to produce a reliable source that denies he was an influence on her, in contrast to the sources that say he was. Rand issued no such denial, and as has already been pointed out, "influence" does not imply complete agreement, so there is no issue of fairness or distortion or lies. You can post follow-ups to your own comments a thousand times, but that does not create more support for your position. --RL0919 (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you have me at a disadvantage, RL. You seem to have access to information that I do not about the existing consensus on this specific topic. Since it has never been suggested that "influence" requires "complete agreement" (otherwise none of the others would qualify, either, for instance), I'm at a loss as to what the discussion and editorial standards really are around here. Your best source, for what they are, actually just disappeared, and it doesn't seem to matter. In any case, I will say no more. Oolyons (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ayn Rand's view of

In regard to Ayn Rand's views on Kant, I have deleted the following aside comment: "...although Objectivist philosophers George Walsh[117] and Fred Seddon[118] have argued that she misinterpreted Kant and exaggerated their differences." Since this is irrelevant to Ayn Rand's own view of Kant, it should not be included. I will also note, as an addendum, that the two men referenced are not widely recognized as "Objectivists." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew3024 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I certainly agree with not calling those men "Objectivist philosophers," since (as Andrew3024 pointed out) they are not generally regarded as such by others who definitely are Objectivists. As to Rand's views on Kant, critics who are of a "mainstream" persuasion tend to be cited by some editors, in Wikipedia articles that mention her views, as claiming that Rand misunderstood, misinterpreted, and/or distorted Kant's actual views. From my own knowledge I think she understood what Kant was saying better than most of those critics. And in general, some editors seem to think that it is important for the public to be warned off of Rand's ideas, so don't be surprised if the deleted text gets reinstated. — DAGwyn (talk) 10:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Including the views of Walsh and Seddon also merely invites (or requires) a discussion of the opinion of those who do think Rand understood Kant, and this would be an unnecessary and wasteful tangent. It is all irrelevant to Rand's own view of Kant. Oolyons (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not the responsibility of a Wikipedia article to discourse on every back-and-forth detail of how a given author is criticized and defended, but we should summarize the significant views, including any significant criticisms. The inclusion of a criticism does not require inclusion of a response, unless there are secondary sources of equivalent significance making the counterargument. If there are reliable secondary sources defending Rand's view of Kant, then we could summarize that fact in brief terms to go alongside the criticism, without an extended discourse about either. The criticism is presented in less than 20 words. --RL0919 (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Right. But this is not, in my view, a "significant" criticism: both writers are still largely in agreement with most of Rand's own philosophical positions; "neo-Objectivists", we would have to say. And both writers, Seddon and (the late) Walsh, argue that Kant is arguing for a position similar to Rand's own. Wouldn't that be something important to mention, that is, if we are to include this at all? Not adding this would be a distortion of their "criticism", for what it is, don't you think? Their own work makes clear that each writer thinks extremely highly of Rand's thought generally. Oolyons (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

"Most Academics and Literary Critics"

The introductory material asserts that "reception for Rand's fiction from literary critics was largely negative, and most academics have ignored or rejected her philosophy." First, the cited source for this (Sciabarra's 'Russian Radical', page 1) does not say what is alleged here. The source says only that "academics have often dismissed" her philosophy, not that "most" do or have. The source says ~ nothing ~ about her reception from "literary critics" at all. We should stick to the source's actual assertions. Second, I have searched and been unable to find any survey of academics or literary critics about Rand's thought. In any case, none is actually cited here or contained within the cited material. I would add that the material I have found shows that the reception by contemporary critics of her work was mixed. Some extreme praise can be found in places like The New York Times Book Review (which called The Fountainhead "masterful" and Rand a writer of "great power") and from noteworthy book reviewers such as John Chamberlain (who praised Atlas Shrugged), along with high praise privately offered for specific works by the likes of H. L. Mencken (who recommended We the Living as "a really excellent piece of work"), Frank Lloyd Wright (who reported being "astonish[ed]" by Rand's "grasp" of "the ins and outs" of the profession of architecture, and who called The Fountainhead's thesis "the great one"), and Ludwig von Mises (who praised Atlas Shrugged as "a cogent analysis of the evils that plague our society".) (Berliner, Michael, ed., Letters of Ayn Rand, New York: Dutton, p. 10, 112, and, "Letter" to Rand, dated Jan. 23, 1958, quoted in Hülsmann, Jorg Guido, Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism, 2007, Ludwig von Mises Institute, p. 996.) Numerically, the reviews seem mixed, as well. Her Broadway hit, Night of January 16th was praised by Walter Winchell, among others. Rand is reported to have been disappointed with most of the positive reviews of her work, but, nevertheless, there were a number of them. Since there are also a growing number of academics who do admire Rand, and even a growing number who identify as "Objectivists," as well as an increase in serious publications about Rand (a fact actually noted by the cited source), this should be mentioned, as well. If a credible source can be found for the original claims, that is another matter. But until then, these assertions should be removed. Oolyons (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The cited source (C. M. Sciabarra, 'Ayn Rand: the Russian Radical', 1995) does, however, say that Rand's work "inspired passionate responses," and (on page 2) notes the "growth in Rand scholarship and influence..." These can be mentioned in a neutral way. Oolyons (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Since just a partial list of ~ noteworthy ~ scholars and academics who have been deeply and significantly influenced by Rand includes: Allan Gotthelf, Edwin A. Locke, Harry Binswanger, Tara Smith, George Reisman, George H. Smith, David Kelley, Edith Efron, Robert Hessen, Martin Anderson, Douglas Den Uyl, Douglas Rasmussen, Tibor Machan, Andrew Bernstein and James G. Lennox, the existence of such scholars cannot be ignored. Oolyons (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The cited source for this does not indicate the number of academics or scholars, or the group's comparative size, e.g., "small," or otherwise. The source does mention its noteworthy "growth." Why was this changed to "notable"? While it is true, it is not from the source.Oolyons (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Ethical and Rational Egoist

The articles on both rational egoism and ethical egoism should be linked, as both have discussions of her ideas, and she was both. Oolyons (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)