Talk:Ayn Rand

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 appreciated. 78.69.217.113 (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

I disagree. Neither her family, nor Rand herself, need to be characterized 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 "privileged" 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Can you list examples of the histories you mean? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Rand certainly obtained some of her income from subscriptions to her periodical newsletters, which mainly discussed philosophical issues, including applications of her own philosophical system to current events. She also obtained income from sales of her non-fiction books, which covered similar material. Her philosophical ideas were among the main reasons for her vast number of followers. If you dig up Talk:Ayn_Rand pages from the past, you can see that whether or not Rand was a philosopher has been debated since the beginning of the Wikipedia article. Since such a large part of her work involved developing and promoting philosophical ideas, it's clear that she "did philosophy" even though she was opposed by many paid professionals. The opinion of contemporary academics is irrelevant, since for the most part they have attempted to marginalize, suppress, and misrepresent Rand's ideas, as I experienced first-hand. — DAGwyn (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it's weirdly contradictory that the lede says "a Russian-American novelist, philosopher, playwright, and screenwriter" but the infobox has "Occupation - Writer". Just "Writer". -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I see no contradiction. One can be a philosopher without its being ones occupation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

So you can be paid for writing books about your philosophy, and philosophy is not your occupation? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I don't count AR among the philosophers, but re the occupation argument, consider Spinoza, who is considered a philosopher yet had the occupation of lensmaker. T85.166.160.7 (talk) 07:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

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)

What is typically asked for to support claims within an article is external reliable sources. Argumentation about such questions on Talk pages ought to be (but isn't always) focused on those sources: how reliable are they, how do we navigate disagreements among them, etc. On this specific question, a quick Google Books search finds one high-quality source (A Companion to Ayn Rand, from the Blackwell Companion to Philosophy series) referring to Rand as "a lifelong political activist", although not specifically describing that as her career or occupation. Another source (Ayn Rand Explained, a non-academic book) says she had "a few stints as a political activist". But in contrast, a different book from an academic publisher (After Multiculturalism) says, "Rand was not a political activist." That's a very quick look; presumably there is more to be found from further digging. --RL0919 (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Its not an occupation, OK for main text to describe activities ----Snowded ^TALK 17:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is an "occupation", see "Job". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation 78.69.217.113 (talk) 10:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Rand was not an "activist" in the sense that most people would understand that term. Her experience with supporting a couple of political candidates relatively early in her life led her to appreciate the futility of political action without proper philosophical preparation of public attitudes. "Occupation" normally means what a person does to earn income; in Rand's case she earned income as a writer for many years and as a philosopher for many years. In her later years, she sold audio lectures and newsletters expounding her world vuew, and continued to receive royalties from her earlier fiction works. — DAGwyn (talk) 11:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

That's where the trouble starts though, as some people here don't want to acknowledge she was ever anything particular other than a very unspecific "writer". But Rand did after all continue to way in on the current political climate and politicians, by which she influenced a great deal of people. So, how would you define "activist"? Because to me it seems pretty clear cut that she was one. She supported speicific political ideals and sought to transform society by a number of means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.130.221 (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Rand also gave lectures and TV interviews that were fairly well known. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Rand applying for Social Security (has been discussed previously)

There has been some editing lately of the section about Rand applying for Social Security. FYI, the question of whether this constitutes hypocrisy has been discussed extensively here and here. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

And also here. This started appearing here shortly after the Huffington Post blog about it appeared in December 2010. The problem of giving undue weight to opinions that appear rarely in reliable sources hasn't changed in the interim. There are numerous published criticisms of Rand, far more than we could possibly include in an encyclopedia article. So you might expect that the ones that make the cut should be particularly prominent. This one is not. And don't even get me started on using a crappy HP blog as a source for factual claims. --RL0919 (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I've reviewed all of the previous discussions, and find nothing persuasive, including the above. It is an undisputed fact that Rand accepted Medicare and Social Security, which are both forms of government assistance. The fact that she did that, in spite of her repeated references to anyone participating in any system of taxation and redistribution as “looters” and “moochers”, demonstrates the impractical nature of her philosophy. Even she couldn't follow it. I can't believe there is any argument that this should be in the article, especially since she remained true to her canon of acting in her own self-interest. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 00:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The fact that she allowed herself to be signed up for these programs is in the article. What you would like to insert is commentary about it. --RL0919 (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

DoctorJoeE mentions "repeated references to *anyone participating* in any system of taxation and redistribution as 'looters' and 'moochers'". It is NOT common knowledge that Rand said this, NOR is it self-evident. I don't recall Rand ever writing such a thing. Can anyone provide a reliable source for this? An indication of Rand's actual views may be found for example here: https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1966/01/01/the-question-of-scholarships . I quote from her essay: "The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance, or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the 'right' to force employers and unwilling coworkers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money -- and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration." You might not like it and you might not agree, but that is her view. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Rand did not accept, for example, any such notion as a "social contract". She denied the existence of a "social contract" and rejected the whole concept. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, yes -- rationalization is a wonderful thing. Call it something else, and it magically becomes okay. If she had no objection to this particular form of taxation and redistribution, why did she initially resist receiving it? I don't really care, frankly, one way or the other -- I'm neither a Rand supporter nor detractor -- I just thought NPOV should apply to this article as much as any other.DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 02:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why. Maybe she was afraid her action would be misinterpreted? Do you still want to add something to the article? You haven't convinced me that her action was hypocritical. I think it would be violating NPOV to say that it was. Although I can't speak for other editors. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Decades ago, I heard Rand answer a general question about whether it was moral to claim "government benefits". Briefly, she said that it wouldn't be in an ideal society, but given that the current government had already unjustly seized a considerable amount of your earnings, if you could reclaim some portion of that, then more power to you, provided that you continued to object to the setup. Note that enrolling in programs like Social Security and Medicare is required by current US law, and she didn't think you could gain anything useful from resistance. So it's more about nuance in responding to unsatisfactory governance than about hypocrisy. — DAGwyn (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

According to Rand, the people who truly deserve to receive such benefits are the people who oppose them. Need is not a claim. Lacking something is not a claim on someone else, or someone else's wealth. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Rand condemned those who demand or support seizing the property of others and redistributing it to those who didn't earn it; that was made abundantly clear by Rand several times. But (as Doctorx0079 documented above) she also said that if you can get your own property back safely, that would be moral. If somebody has trouble seeing that these two positions are consistent, they should work harder to understand. Frankly, I don't think any text concerning routine insurance or taxation is needed, and I suspect the only reason it was done was in order to post POV (and as we have seen, incorrect) criticism. — DAGwyn (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Rand was ethnically Jewish, not Russian, and certainly not both at the same time. FreeKnowledgeCreator is however correct when he says Jews aren't really a single ethnic group; "Ashkenazi" might be more appropriate. Zacwill (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Please wait for agreement before changing Rand's ethnicity. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

That's what I'm doing. Zacwill (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

At first blush I don't see any reason she could not be both Russian and Jewish, and it took only seconds to find a reliable biographical source (Ayn Rand and the World She Made) that calls her "a Russian Jew". Of course this question is complicated by the fact that both "Jewish" and "Russian" are ambiguous -- the former can be an ethnicity and a religion, the latter can be an ethnicity and a nationality. Do you have a reliable source that describes her specifically as ethnically Jewish but not ethnically Russian? Or that calls her Ashkenazi? --RL0919 (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

We are talking about ethnicity here. Her birth nationality was Russian, religiously she was an atheist, but ethnically she was an Ashkenazi Jew. I don't know how you expect me to find sources which explicitly say she wasn't ethnically Russian when this is a necessary part of her being ethnically Jewish.

I'm having trouble finding a good source which describes her as Ashkenazi, but if you're at all familiar with Jews you'll know this to be the case by, for example, her surname. Zacwill (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what your argument is here. Are you saying it is generally impossible for someone to have more than one ethnicity? That sounds very dubious. Or just that Rand specifically did not? You might be right about that, but the preferable thing is to find a source. This page has an ugly history (including an Arbcom case) of conflicts over unsourced arguments and interpretations. So those of us who have been around it a long time have a stronger than typical bias towards enforcing WP:NOR. --RL0919 (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Unless your ancestors are of mixed origin then yes it's impossible to have more than one ethnicity. Zacwill (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

So then I take this to be a specific claim about Rand, since there is an "unless" option. That's good, because generalized arguments about ethnicity should take place somewhere else. So, as I said above, you might be correct in your conclusion, but how to support that if it is disputed? Unless no one is actually disagreeing? I have little concern about this specific, but a lot of concern about how disputes play out here. @FreeKnowledgeCreator: is the one who reverted you, so perhaps he should comment further. --RL0919 (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I have no particular opinion about Rand's ethnicity. My only concern is that a potentially controversial change be discussed and agreed upon here, before being introduced to the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Libertarianism or right-libertarianism

As far as I know, Wikipedia's usage of the term "libertarianism" doesn't specifically refer to the American usage of the term, i.e., right-libertarianism. Wouldn't be it more appropriate to use "right-libertarianism" instead, or, at least, mention it? Wikipedia's article about libertarianism is kind of neutral about the left–right spectrum of it. I think, the best solution would be to mention it in the beginning, but I agree that it'd be quite annoying to use "right-libertarianism" instead of "libertarianism" every time; although, every usage of the term should link to Right-libertarianism or Libertarianism § Right-libertarianism. — Giorgi Gzirishvili (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is a Wikipedia-wide usage of the term "libertarianism". That's something that can be settled article by article. For this article, the only relevant sense of libertarianism is what you refer to as "right-libertarianism", so the added qualification of "right-" seems unnecessary. In the context of this article, no one is going to be left thinking Rand was an influence on "libertarian socialism". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response.

I don't think there is a Wikipedia-wide usage of the term "libertarianism".

Well, yeah, I guess you're right, but the main article about libertarianism does still use the term for anti-authoritarianism and/or anti-statism. Furthermore, Rand herself preferred the term "radical for capitalism". Given that, I think it'd be better if it linked to either of the two places I mentioned above.

In the context of this article, no one is going to be left thinking Rand was an influence on "libertarian socialism".

But what you're assuming there is, that reader has already have some information about Rand and libertarianism and/or has read the whole article.

— Giorgi Gzirishvili (talk) 11:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The term "right-libertarianism" is rarely if ever used in American discourse. Lower-case-l "libertarian" is the broad category and upper-case-L "Libertarian" usually denotes the political movement inspired by Rose Wilder Lane et al. and includes notions borrowed from Objectivism. Rand herself criticized Libertarianism for attempting political change without first preparing the ground with philosophical change. — DAGwyn (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)