Jump to content

Talk:Ayn Rand

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 78.69.217.113 (talk) at 11:52, 22 August 2016 (→‎Why do you argue that Rands occupation was at no point as a philosopher?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleAyn Rand has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 20, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 7, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
April 14, 2006Good article nomineeListed
May 2, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 4, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
September 15, 2009Good article nomineeListed
April 20, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

Lead photo

The recent change to the infobox photo (this diff) doesn't strike me as an improvement; it is informal and from an era well before she came to fame as a writer. The previous image, although tagged fair use, is of excellent quality for a lead photo, showing Rand in a relaxed but formal pose with her trademark cigarette. The recent photo is marked as public domain on account of it being a passport photo, but it doesn't look really look like one. How do we know this is actually the case? It is sourced to a writer's blog which does not state the date of the photo, and I haven't been able to find any other instances of the photo other than Pinterest. Pinterest say the image was found on aynrand.org, but the image does not appear to be published there either. Verification of the passport's issue date comes from other sources (eg here), but without an example of the image. If someone could shed some light on the provenance of this photo, that would be of help. My preferred option would be to reinstate the previous image and move the new image to the section on Rand's early life (providing appropriate licensing is possible). --Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The same image appears in Anne Heller's Ayn Rand and the World She Made, where it is described in the caption as "Rand's Russian passport photograph, dated October 29, 1925, when Rand was twenty years old." So the origin of the image appears accurate. I agree that it is not representative of the era of Rand's life in which she was notable, so on that basis it might be acceptable to switch back to a fair use photo of the mature Rand. Our content guidelines allow non-free images only when there is no free image "that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose" -- an arguable point in this instance. However, if this is going to be reverted it should happen soon, because the non-free file is subject to deletion tomorrow as an unused non-free image. --RL0919 (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophers of mind

The category "philosophers of mind" should be removed from this article. The category description is, "Philosophers in the philosophy of mind". I do not believe Rand qualifies. Simply mentioning the mind in her work does not make her a recognized philosopher of mind. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rand's philosophy covers the nature of consciousness, sense perception, abstraction, concept formation, and other topics in the philosophy of mind. She also covers important problems in the philosophy of mind, such as the mind-body problem, free will, qualia, etc. These are covered in detail in Rand's Intro to Objectivist Epistemology, Peikoff's Objectivism: Philosophy of Ayn Rand, chapters 1-5, Binswanger's How We Know, and other books, as well as in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, in the section on Metaphysics and Epistemology. BRIAN0918 15:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically regarding recognition, Stanford's article indicates in its first sentence that her philosophy included a theory of epistemology. BRIAN0918 15:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Rand wrote about mind just as she wrote about many other things. One cannot, however, legitimately apply the category just on the basis that Rand wrote about the mind, as she has no reputation at all as a philosopher of mind, no acknowledgement from writers within the field. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a huge fan of categories in the first place, but Rand not only published only one philosophical monograph, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, she considered it her most important philosophical work. David Kelley's Evidence of the Senses and various other fully scholarly works have been published on facets of her epistemological positions. What would indeed be wrong would be classifying her as a logician or cosmologist. But there is certainly nothing wrong with describing her as an epistemologer. μηδείς (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's epistemology, not philosophy of mind. It's not the same thing. To classify Rand as a philosopher of mind, one would have to have evidence that mainstream philosophers (non-Objectivists) regard her as a philosopher of mind. I doubt there is any such evidence. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The main topic of the philosophy of mind is the mind body problem. All the Stanford article says is that she saw dualism (which I assume she disagrees with) as leading to false dichotomies such as between economic and personal freedom. It says in her book on epistemology,
Q: "I'd like to apply this to the "mind-brain" issue-that is, what is the relation of consciousness to brain activity? That would be a scientific question."
A: "Yes."
That's all she wrote - not enough to qualify her for the category.
TFD (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not about to get into an argument based on unsupported dismissiveness . Rand considered mind relational, and for her primacy of existence over primacy of consciousness was a central concept. μηδείς (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the requirement is that philosophers of mind mention her or her work in connection with the phrase "philosophy of mind", then obviously the evidence is much more limited than if the requirement were that her topics of discussion fall under the philosophy of mind. But in general philosophers don't go around referring to eachother as "philosophers of the mind" - rather, they reference the relevant topic. A more reliable method would be to look at lists/databases of articles in the field, and see whether Rand is cited or mentioned. For example: David Chalmer's database of articles on consciousness, which he states is a "topic in the philosophy of mind", includes several articles by Rand and/or mentioning her. Likewise with the PhilPapers database section for philosophy of mind. BRIAN0918 00:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And she uses her concept of the primacy of existence over primacy of consciousness to argue against the meaningfulness of the philosophy of mind. Again in her book:

Q: "Isn't there a sense in which Locke, Berkeley, and Hume-less so Locke, but all of them-don't really have a concept of existence as a metaphysical fact?"
A: "No, they don't."

TFD (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's useless to suggest that Rand should be categorized as a philosopher of mind simply because some article by her appears in a database. The fact of the matter is that she has had no discernible impact on the field. It makes sense to categorize her as a political philosopher because she has had some (albeit limited) impact on that field; not so philosophy of mind. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was a cleanup tag for excessive external links since last May. I've cleared out several links for the reasons explained below:

That cuts the EL list by a third, and all the remaining links seem appropriate, so I've removed the tag. --RL0919 (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd restore the Stanford Encyclopedia Link. It's a good, objective (npi) article, and having it as an external link makes sense, since the article is wider than any reference for which it is used. Having to look for it amongst the small print of scores of references is not as helpful to our readers. μηδείς (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open-minded about the SEP link if folks want it back; it's the most deserving of the links I removed. The "C-SPAN video" is an interview from 1961 put in a C-SPAN wrapper. There are other recordings of Rand available online, so I'm not sure why this one in particular should be linked, and not (say) this one or this one. --RL0919 (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently folks do want the link back. I have restored it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I have re-added the link (with a new URL that specifically points to the correct program) for the C-SPAN American Writers: A Journey Through History program on Rand (Link here). Please let me know if any concerns. Thanks. KConWiki (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation?

Since Ayn Rand was a philosopher, should we have "philosopher" under Occupation in addition to "writer"? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary. Its mentioned in the article text. The infobox encapsulates key information, and she is most known for being a writer. The philosophical nature of the writing and explaining her status as a philosopher is a complex matter and covered in the main text. -- Netoholic @ 21:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rand was not employed as a philosopher, so no, it clearly was not her occupation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When she was paid to make speeches, it was for her to discuss her philosophy, not for her to perform writing. Also the word "employed" is irrelevant. One can be a writer or a philosopher without being an employee of someone else. -- Netoholic @ 22:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're missing the point. Someone is not a philosopher by occupation if they are not employed as a philosopher. It's irrelevant that they might be a philosopher in some other sense. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When you find yourself so often claiming that others aren't getting the point, it might be because you're not clear on the point that you're trying to make. In fact, I think very few philosophers ever collect a paycheck based on that as their stated profession. They are more often payed as writers, professors, etc. (if we have to define something as their "occupation"). That's why I said right away that her occupation is better left as just "writer". -- Netoholic @ 22:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Her speeches were to present her ideas -- the assertion that they were to discuss her "philosophy" begs the question here. SPECIFICO talk 11:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If your goal is to somehow belittle her contributions as meer "ideas", and not philosophy, then I think you need to stop trying to participate so unconstructively in conversations in this knowledge area. Even someone who thinks its a *bad* philosophy should at least acknowledge that it is one. Historically, we have had many bad philosophies that have failed the test of time, and yet we still call them "philosophy" and not just "ideas". Doing so would be disingenuous to the ongoing process of human understanding.-- Netoholic @ 19:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are two issues here. Firstly is her occupation Philosopher? To that per FreeKnowledgeCreator the answer is no, she was a writer. Secondly is she a philosopher? Well anyone can call themselves that and anyone can engage in philosophy. But to use wikipedia's voice to make the statement requires some evidence. Given that she has few if any references outside a very narrow context in the US my long term opinion here has been that she does not deserve the label per WP:WEIGHT and in general on philosophy articles her views have not been notable enough to deserve inclusions. However there are academic references to her and historically that has been enough to support the statement in the lede. ----Snowded TALK 07:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it should be listed as one of her occupations and of course those who view her with disdain her are going to insist it shouldn't. Employment as a philosopher doesn't mean you have to be on the payroll of a university. Self-employment is employment. She was self-employed as a philosopher. It's a false dichotomy to say she spoke about her ideas as differentiated from her philosophy - a philosophy is composed of ideas. Her novels exist to communicate her philosophy. Besides nonfiction works regarding her philosophy, she gave lectures, put out publications, spoke on her own radio show and was a guest on other broadcasts. She was paid by those who found her philosophy to be of interest. The Ayn Rand Institute exists specifically to promote her philosophy. It's ludicrous to claim she wasn't employed as a philosopher. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. "Occupation" is not necessarily as the arrend boy or secretary of someone else. She made money on her philosophy - her system of "ideas" in the specific areas of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics etc - through writing and speaking about it, of course, but she was not only a novelist or perhaps a speech writer or something else, which is the impression that only putting in "writer" gives. I think ocupation, should it at all need to be mentioned separately in a box, should list all the major things she did. So what is major? If I told you that someone like Karl Marxs, Friedrich Nietzsches, Christopher Hitchens' or perhaps George Bernard Shaws ocupation was as "a writer" what would you think of that? Sure, they all wrote. But only Bernhard Shaw has his ocupation listed at all and he's not merely a "writer", but a "Playwright, critic, political activist".
78.69.217.113 (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replace words that cause uncertainties

The word "bourgeois" ought to be replaced, in my opinion, because it can have multiple - including merely wrong, or even wrongly derogatory - meanings. Any help to find a better word, or combination of such, to resolve this issue would be much apreciated. 78.69.217.113 (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was the early twentieth century, I think it's clear that the first meaning is intended. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Early 20th century in Russia, around the time of the Communist revolution. It does seem to be a very relevant term. --RL0919 (talk) 23:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Neither her family, nor Rand herself, need to be characterised as fully "standing opposite to the proletariat". We have no indication that they did. "Upper middle class" will do just fine here. (+They were jews, remember, and they were not too "priviliged" as such either) If you can give a reasonable argument for why bourgeoisie is a more accurate description, then shoot. Otherwise it's just unnecessary. - And don't even get me started on the popular definitions of "bourgeoisie" that can be found in common dictionaries. They're not pretty either. Point being, we can keep it simple and accurate.
83.143.83.193 (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you argue that Rands occupation was at no point as a philosopher?

The above. Also, what would be required, in order to establish that one of Rands occupations were as a philosopher? /wiki/Occupation 83.143.83.193 (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not argue that Rand's occupation was never "philosopher". I am stating it as fact. Rand was never employed as a philosopher, and as such, "philosopher" was not her occupation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact she was not employed as such is evidence but it is not absolute. People have been philosophers and acknowledged as such. I think she fails on those grounds - yes she is called a philosopher in some references but overwhelmingly she is simply ignored. He name is not mentioned in the major Dictionaries and Encyclopaedias and so on. But. in wikipedia the issue of negative evidence has never been resolved. ----Snowded TALK 05:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If she can be recognized as having done philosophy and created an entire philosophic system that spread to a relatively large group of people and influence the entire libertarian movement, then she was a philosopher. This has been done again and yet again. This is common knowledge.
Wether she was employed or not is irrelevant. "occupation" is not equal to "employment", but can refer to any job or career - and Rand made herself a career writing about and discussing her philosophy; Stating, restating, explaining and debating it in many different settings and TV-interviews to which she was invited because of the controversy surrounding the philosophy she championed. Rightly or wrongly, she was considered the creator of a philosophy and made money that way. --Even during her career as a "novelist", in her bestseller Atlas Shrugged, she included what she and popular culture deem and continue to call her philosophy.
You can't expect a majority to consider it philosophy before recognizing her as a philosopher, because then it would need to be accepted throughout an entire society as being particularily good philosophy and then there could be no controversial philosophy at all.
Is the complete works of Aristotle championed in todays society? Plato? Any of the other greeks? Of course not. Were they revered by the entire society in their life time? No? But where they philosophers in spite of some of the obviously wrong ideas they held? Certainly. Did they come up with everything they stood for completely on their own? Nope. Yet they were still philosophers. -- Rand, was a professional (that means she had a job - not "employment", selfemployment - or career based on this kind of work) philosopher, and as a modern - up to date - encyclopedia Wikipedia should state this.
But, if you don't want to call her a philosopher anyway, then can you tell me what the difference is in the case of "activism" as it relates to Bernard Shaws "occupations"? Why should his "occupation" have been as a "political activist" and a "playwright" for example, but Rand could not be? Was Shaw employed as an "activist"? Or was Rand not employed when she did activism, or as such respectively when she was a "screenwriter" and "playwright"?
Even this very article, though not quite as definately, seems to insinuate that Rand had multiple careers. Take for example this sentence; "Atlas Shrugged was Rand's last completed work of fiction; a turning point in her life, it marked the end of Rand's career as a novelist and the beginning of her role as a popular philosopher." --This is unless of course you seriously want to suggest that she didn't have a career at all after this point in time?
5.254.155.65 (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have editied the "occupation" to include playwright, screenwriter, novelist, political writer and activist. This is accurate, as well as already confirmed and sourced in the article. I leave out any mention of "philosopher" for the time being. (Please participate in further discussion here before deleting or adding anything in this area of the article)
2002:4E45:D971:E472:49F2:5FC6:F90D:CE6B (talk) 08:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The additions were either unnecessary (since "writer" covers most of them), or questionable (in the case of "activist"). You should wait for agreement from other editors before restoring them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IN response to our iP, it is a common belief of her supporters. It is not common knowledge, if it was then she would be referenced as such in the major histories of Philosophy as such,----Snowded TALK 05:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you list examples of the histories you mean? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All the Oxford and Cambridge encyclopaedias and directories I managed to check when I looked into it some years back. There are articles in the Stanford on line but that is a different type of publication. Outside of a narrow range of US supporters she is not even on the radar ----Snowded TALK 21:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rand is known, and equally despised, in Sweden, Candada and India among other places. Stockholm House of Culture & City Theatre just recently wrote about "The writer and philosopher Ayn Rand" on their webpage and a put up a play about her life as a cult figure. It would be ridiculous to conclude that "to be recognized as a philosopher one would have to make it into the history books".. The same would be true of any profession.
Just for the record, Rand has fans in Sweden, Canada and India as well. They are sometimes vociferous, if not great in number. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let me also narrow down the conversation further, as I become more and more convinced that I'm talking to people who are in fact biased to the same lenght that I am on this subject; Why should George Bernhard Shaw be described as a playwright and critic, rather than simply a "writer". And why should he be considered an activist, but Rand not?
78.69.217.113 (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that we can discuss the validity of the claim, that Rand was a philosopher, made by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy later as well... (plato.stanford.edu/about.html#desc) 78.69.217.113 (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be two different questions being discussed here: 1) Was Rand a philosopher? and 2) Was "philosopher" ever her occupation (her job, the way she made her living), as opposed to an avocation or extra dimension of her life? The reliable sourcing for the answer to the first question is quite strong: many sources call Rand a philosopher; we cite a few in the article. But you can be/do something without having it as the way you make your living. Is there specific sourcing for Rand's occupation being as a philosopher? That is what we should be looking for to resolve the second question. --RL0919 (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. So:
1 what would be required to prove that Ayn Rand made a living as a philosopher?
2 But also, why should we not point out (as is done in other articles concerning other writers) which particular ways of writing she earned a living from? (such as being employed for screenwriting) After all, even the article itself starts out with concluding that Rand was "a Russian-born American novelist, philosopher,[2] playwright, and screenwriter". So why would this information not be proper to include in the "occupation" area? Because it's already mentioned? I'm not buying that argument, as most other things are mentioned in the article as well.
78.69.217.113 (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions Rands "full-time" work for a political campaign, but here is my own provided explanation for why I editied it in "Rand campaigned for politicians, promoted and debated her own political proposals on popular TV-shows, to live audiences and via newsletters, was the inspiration and center of a political movement and also produced nonfiction books and recordings."
78.69.217.113 (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May this thread continue without the recent off-topic about activism. 78.69.217.113 (talk) 11:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rands occupation wasn't even as a political activist? What is the reasoning behind that.

Rand had worked full time for political campaigns and she became a key figure of a political movement, where she made money from her political nonfiction works promoted by the same movement. (+ She held speeches, published several newsletters and was connected to the Nathaniel Branden Institute, working for political changes in society) And she wasn't a political activist? Please be very clear on what is actually required for someones "occupation" to have been a political activist.

I quoute my previous reason for adding "political activist" to the infobox: The article mentions Rands "full-time" work for a political campaign, but here is my own provided explanation for why I editied it in "Rand campaigned for politicians, promoted and debated her own political proposals on popular TV-shows, to live audiences and via newsletters, was the inspiration and center of a political movement and also produced nonfiction books and recordings."

78.69.217.113 (talk) 07:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ayn_Rand&oldid=735684533"