Talk:Ayn Rand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Ayn 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.

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

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)
Interestingly, the infobox for Baruch Spinoza doesn't list "Occupation" at all. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

To say Rand wasn't a philosopher was, is and will forever be incorrect. Being employed as a faculty member at a university doesn't make one a philosopher - it makes one someone who got a degree in philosophy. To say she was never paid to be a philosopher is absurdly incorrect. She was a self-employed philosopher - she created a philosophy, explicitly incorporated it into her writing and was paid for it. Docsavage20 (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Libertarianism or right-libertarianism[edit]

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)

Petrograd ?[edit]

I thought that after Lenins death Saint Petersburg city was rrnamed Leningrad,until the fall of the USSR Kp4816 (talk) 05:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

It was renamed Petrograd in 1914 during World War I to remove German associations from the name. In 1924 it was renamed again, to Leningrad. --RL0919 (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ayn Rand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ayn Rand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Rand and the FBI[edit]

Some info here on the FBI file on Rand, and on her attempts to ingratiate herself with that organisation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

What is muckrock, and why should we care what they say? Are they really a credible source? I've never heard of muckrock. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Muckrock appears to be a crowd-funded organization that specializes in obtaining and publishing FBI files. The FBI files seem to be genuine. The file on Rand doesn't really show her trying to "ingratiate" herself; rather (1) she tried to determine whether Hoover considered himself a follower of her philosophy Objectivism (which he did not), (2) she tried to assist the FBI's investigation in opposition to the spread of communism (note that she testified before HUAC about communist influence in Hollywood), and (3) somebody, not necessarily Rand, sent Hoover/FBI courtesy copies of her latest books, presumably hoping that there was an interest there in Objectivism (which evidently there was not). If Rand's FBI file is mentioned in the article, then the Muckrock link seems appropriate, unless the FBI also has the file online, in which case that would be a more first-hand source. — DAGwyn (talk) 06:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
It isn't mentioned and there's no evident reason to mention it at this point, nor is there any obvious use of the files on Wikipedia that wouldn't be original research. --RL0919 (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)