Talk:List of schools of philosophy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Looks like the what is objectivism debate may be about to break out here. It already failed elsewhere. The disambiguation page is here. For those interested the prior discussion is found here. It is not acceptable, having failed to win an extensive discussion elsewhere to attempt to achieve the same result on a list like this. --Snowded TALK 16:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It "looks" like you have a need to mark your scent everywhere you find reference to a school which, no matter your hostility, exists, and is called "Objectivism" and not "Objectivism (Ayn Rand)". I wonder how many sources you can find that refer to the school as "Objectivism (Ayn Rand)"? You are confusing the name of a wikipedia article with reality. By this "principle" you have discovered, every reference to Objectivism in every article in wikipedia should be changed to "Objectivism (Ayn Rand)". The absurdity of that is clear. The disambiguated name of an article is not the name of the thing itself and your needless and unjustifiable action is simple vandalism. Do not persist in it. Kjaer (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no question that the follows of Ayn Rand term themselves "Objectivists" and do not use the bracketed qualification. However many of us who do not follow Ayn Rand also consider ourselves objectivists (for example in respect of ethics) arguing that it is possible to establish objective values in respect of human social interaction. The point here is very simple. You and others are attempting to establish the term objectivism as synonymous with Randism. If you are going to list a school here (and remember calling Rands work philosophy is itself controversial) then it is not reasonable for the listing to be qualified in some way. Your aggressive assertion of POV whenever someone disagrees with you is getting very tiresome. --Snowded TALK 16:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
A possible compromise would be: Objectivism (thinking based on the original work of Ayn Rand) or if you would prefer a footnote to that effect. How about that? --Snowded TALK 17:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
How about (Philosophy based on the original work of Ayn Rand) Ethan a dawe (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Seems like Objectivism is mainly liked with Rand, at least as far as the internet goes, not that that is everything of course.Ethan a dawe (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Objectivism is the name of a school of philosophy - period. It is refered to that way in encyclopedias, in journals, in books on the subject, as well as on the web. Attempts to keep it out of a list of schools of philosophy is peculiar to say the least. Anyone that claims Rands work may not be philosophy is asking to receive a charge of POV - it is listed in encyclopedias as such. I count, at this time, 9 so-called schools on the list that do not even have a tiny little stub of an article on Wikipedia - how many different articles do think are here on Objectivism? Yet those who dislike Rand have no objection to any of those 'schools.' Mr. Snowden, if you are serious about a meeting of the minds, rather than simply having your way... if you are interested in an impartial approach to these issues and wish to see that kind of attitiude returned... Then it requires not making reversions that are questionable. --Steve (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Steve you really need to pay attention. I was not attempting to keep it out a list of schools of philosophy, I just want it made clear that you can't define Objectivism as Randism and that has been a very consistent position and its objective (sic) and supported as you know by several other editors. When my amendment to make that clear was reverted and an edit war looked likey I did the proper thing and reverted to the position before the dispute started to allow a discussion on the talk page. This is all proper behaviour and you might want to apologise or at least withdraw the self-evidentially false statement in your second sentence. You and Kajer are building up a traceable pattern of this sort of misinterpretation by the way. You might like to think about that
Now to the subject. It is clear that Objectivism is a school, but to pipelike that to the Randian version not the disambiguation page is obviously wrong. On reflection I think when I edited it I shold have changed it to Objectivism. This is still an option that you might prefer. In the meantime I see that someone has taken up my suggestion of using a note by way of a compromise solution. I haven't checked that out yet and may not have time until tomorrow to review it. --Snowded TALK 20:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Snowded, I paid attention to the outcome, not the words. The outcome was your removal of Objectivism from the list. Saying, on the talk page, you were not intending to keep it out, while removing it from the artice's page - that is what I paid attention to. I need to point out your unfortunate practice of putting a blame on others for actions that you engage in. My second sentence was not false, much less "self-evidentially false" - you have made Wikipedia's verifiable policy and notability and citations an issue on many occasions - to support your position, but then you choose to pretend that the evidence of Rand's work being philosophy isn't there or that you aren't aware of it. Being disengenuous to that degree is hard to overlook. You admit that it is a school in the post just above this one, which should be the end of the argument, but you removed it from the list. You removed it from the list while ignoring all of the questionable entries on the list - that isn't the action of someone whose concern is for the integrity of an encycolpedial page - what is one to think? I'm not here to grind some partisan axe. I work very well with others when they make an effort to drop partisan approachs and don't attempt to have it their way each and every time. The modification you made to my last change on the Ayn Rand article was a good one. I would have clicked a little button, indicating my approval, if such a button existed. You will find others more attentive to your concerns when you approach the subject with more impartiality and with a less condescending attitude - I say that not to be insulting, but as an invitation to examine your language in different posts. You are always civil and well spoken, yet with a style that talks down other editors, as if it were your job to teach, ours to learn, your job to describe the standards, ours to accept your description, your job to announce the changes, ours to go along with you. You are a very bright fellow, go look and see if that isn't a pattern - look and see if people don't get their backs up just after you announce how things will be - a valuable thing to learn if one hopes to maximize the support for their story. --Steve (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Steve, its common policy in Wikipedia if an edit ware starts to revert to the position prior to the start and thrash it out on the talk page. I did that to try and nip and edit war in the bud. I must admit I am surprised you were not aware of that. I can see how you might have leaped the wrong conclusion if you were not so aware. Thanks for the "civil and well spoken" comment as to the "talking down", well I don't see it but if its how things appear to you I will attempt to be more aware (maybe this is like the different senses of humour?). Either way what do you think of making this one really simple and using Objectivism? --Snowded TALK 21:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Snowded, I appreciate your attempt to find a middle ground. The problem with linking to the disambiguation page is that there is only one school of philosophy called "Objectivism" - the other links on that diambiguation page are not to schools of philosophy. And, "objectivity" is not the same as "Objectivism." For example, should clicking on the School of Philosophy link for Stoics take you to a disambiguation page for the psychological attitude of stoical? And what about pragmatism? Cynics? Academics? Because the reader is already on the page that lists schools of philosophy there is no need to route them to a disambiguation page that separates out the concept of objectivity, a group of poets, or a single position - none of those would be considered a school. --Steve (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with Objectivism linking to the disambig page. Ethan a dawe (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The more I think about it the better the solution. That page allows people to explore the various options. Steve, Pragmatism points to well researched site. There isn't one school of Philosophy called Objectivism (our argument falls or stands by this proposition and that was the debate on the page move which kept the ambiguation page) and Objectivity (philosophy) is not a bad article that makes the wider context clear. It seems to me that linking to the disambiguation page is the nearest we can get to a NPOV. Given that another editor has removed the note and the support of Ethan I am going to make the change. Incidentally I am happy to accept that in the US Rand's ideas would more or less automatically be linked with Objectivism. However this is not the case in the wider world. --Snowded TALK 06:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Snowded, but there is a school of philosophy called Objectivism - it has an article here on Wikipedia, as you know. NPOV requires that we be consistent. Pragmatism, Stoic, Academic - none of them are linking to a disambiguation page, as well they shouldn't. I've recently been in the Far East for 7 months and I've spent a fair amount of time in Europe and found that Objectivism is understood to mean the philosophy we are talking about here. --Steve (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't be absurd. You wouldn't put a link to Mercury (disambiguation) on a list of planets so that people could explore car models and liquid metals. This is simple obfuscation. The matter could be documented and I havce done so, but I agree that it is both unnecessary and undue weight. Do not revert this or it will be treated as vandalism Kjaer (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Both of you (Steve and Kjaer) are working from the assumption that there is only one school of philosophy called objectivism. This is not the case and its one of the reasons there is a disambiguation page. Pragmatism links to multiple philosophers and represents the various approaches that come under that general heading. In contrast Objectivism (Ayn Rand links to a single strand of objectivist thought. This debate has already taken place when there was an attempt to move Objectivism (Ayn Rand to Objectivism. That move was rejected after some debate and it was agreed to retain the disambiguation page. There is no similar debate around Pragmatism, Stoicism etc. Hence the difference. At the moment there are two options. (i) accept Objectivism which establishes the school and will point people to the relevant articles, or (ii) remove all reference and have the debate here until there is a consensus. Kjaer a little less aggression would go down well. The arguments you make about documentation were made and not accepted on the page move request. I'll leave this for half an hour before any further edits to give you a chance to respond.
Oh and a PS, at the moment there are three editors happy with Objectivism myself, Ethan and the IP who originally suggested it. Guys this really is a reasonable compromise that allows the school to be listed but does not take a particular perspective. --Snowded TALK 07:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Snowded, you are mistaken in thinking that there are multiple schools of philosophy called Objectivism.
- The disambiguation page lists Metaphysical objectivism - which not a school of philosophy, but a belief that is better know as philosophical realism. That is just an alternate name for something that is not a school of philosophy anyway. If you believe that metaphysical objectivism is a school - which I don't - then add it to the list. It isn't there under philosophical realism either.
- The disambiguation page also lists Moral objectivism, which has no article page and is instead another disambiguation page that lets you go to moral Realism which is a position in ethics, not a school of philosophy. Are you seriously asking to have a link to disambiguation page that links to a disambiguation page that links to an article that doesn't even have "objectivism" in it's title and isn't a school of philosophy, but a position?
-And, you are doing it again... Telling other editors what they can or can not do, as if you were in authority or royalty - you say we have two options, laying down a Snowded LAW - but that isn't true. A third option is the most reasonable option, and that is to leave this entry as it is. If you think those other positions are defensible as schools of philosophy - add them to the list.
-And by the way, I didn't offer debate around stoicism or pragmatism - I offered them as examples to show the inconsistency and to ask why is Objectivism treated this way, when other schools aren't. --Steve (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
You are offering the same arguments that failed to gain a consensus during the page move debate. You might want to review that material. If I think there are two options I will say so (Your preaching little comments aside) At least I am offering two you only support one. You should also note that three editors at the moment support the disambiguation link, two the "lets make objectivism=randism position. --Snowded TALK 18:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
No, I am not offering the same argument, Snowded. The page move debate was not about this page, which gives an entirely different context. You don't "offer" two options - you say "there are only two options" - surely you can see the difference. What you call "preachy little comments" are my attempt to have you work as an editor equal in status to the rest of us - which means less demanding and less condescending language. I could provide a long string of quotes from your posts to support what I'm saying, but you appear to irritated rather than interested. You really are not answering my arguments - certainly not by pointing at the move page debate nor have you replied to the suggestion of putting the other names on this list nor have you answered why stoicism and others are treated differently (saying they aren't under debate isn't an answer). --Steve (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The key issue in both debates was simple Steve. Does objectivism=Randism. If it does then the page move was justified and it is right to link objectivism to the Rand article here. As it was there was no consensus on that change. I have no intention of repeating those debates and the answers provided by myself and others on non-randian objectivism when you can easily read them. I have answered the point on stoicism above. Its a pretty clear case of you just not liking something. As to irritation, I admit frustration at dealing with people who have such a single focus as you a Kjaer. I am begining to think that it may not be possible and will consider options accordingly. --Snowded TALK 19:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Snowded, this is the list of schools article - that makes this a very, very different context, and that is why the old arguments don't apply. When you say, "Its a pretty clear case of you just not liking something. As to irritation, I admit frustration at dealing with people who have such a single focus as you a Kjaer. I am begining to think that it may not be possible and will consider options accordingly," you are just insulting me and making statements about my motivations. What happen to your concerns about good faith - were they just threatening language, like your "...consider options accordingly"? I offered the suggestion of putting those other links (metaphysical objectivism and moral objectivism) into the list (even though they aren't really schools) but you choose to ignore that. --Steve (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Moving forwards[edit]

As far as I can see we have two editors for Objectivism and three editors for Objectivism. I will not repeat the arguments above. In addition this is a new item on the list, not an established one.

I will put forward again that either Objectivism (Ayn Rand) or Objectivism represent a NPOV. However if no other edits are prepared to get involved, or change their position then I suggest this is taken to mediation. --Snowded TALK 20:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, the name of Ayn Rand's Philosophy is Objectivism. No one is trying to define Objectivism to mean something else other than what it names. Concerning this term "Randism" you use, that term is slang, not the actual proper name of Ayn Rand's Philosophy. There is only one name for Ayn Rand's Philosophy: Objectivism. Karbinski (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, my understanding is that Ethan's preference is that the link go directly to the relevant article which now happens to be named Objectivism (Ayn Rand). His willingness to compromise was not a preference for the use of the disambiguation, but a preference that there at least be a link. So move him into the column which prefers the status quo, that the philosophy be called by its name which is indeed "Objectivism" and that the link go directly to the article which happens now to be named Objectivism (Ayn Rand).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjaer (talkcontribs) 00:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No one is saying that the proper name for Ayn Rand's philosophy is other than Objectivism and I am using Randism as a short hand to avoid writing Objectivism (Ayn Rand). The point is that Ayn Rand's philosophy is not the only one which uses the word Objectivism. Hence the NPOV position is to link to the disambiguation page which is the position that Ethan supported above. That way there is a link. The other acceptable option is to list the school using the name of the article itself --Snowded TALK 07:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Right, I have amended the school to correspond with the article name. If this is not accepted (or a link to the disambiguation page) then I am going to simply refer it to an administrator for decision. --Snowded TALK 14:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
OK its been reversed with the normal accusations. Its not going to be resolved here, I have posted a request for advice on ANI here --Snowded TALK 23:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The name of the school of philosophy is not the name of the wikipedia article. The matter is so simple as to be absurd. The above editor has repeatedly expressed his personal disdain for the philosophy, which can be seen in his current edits to the Ayn Rand talk page. In the absence of (1) independent cited material referring to Objectivism as "Objectivism (Ayn Rand)" and (2) the absence of an insistence on referring to all other schools on this page by their article name, rather than their name in the real world, I find any arguments for giving special treatment to this philosophy, for which the editor has repeatedly asserted his own personal dislike, specious. In the absence of any other philosophical movement with the name Objectivism, there is no wikipedia justification for referring to the thing in itself as if it were actually called in reality by the name of its wikipedia disambiguation. Kjaer (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


A simple search of Google scholar will show you some citations of Rand, but many other references to Objectivism which have no reference whatsoever to Rand. Thus is clear evidence that the the term has broader meaning and if listed here as a school must either go to a disambiguation page or be clearly identified as Ayn Rand.

As far as I can see the link to the disambiguation page is the nearest to consensus. Two editors opposed to the link with Rand, two for and one OK with disambig. The default is thus clear. --Snowded TALK 15:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What Snowded has not mentioned is that those other references to Objectivism are NOT schools of philosopy. And there certainly is no article in Wikipedia for a school of philosophy with Objectivism in it's name, other than the one related to Rand. He wants to link to a disambiguation page that has no other school of philosophy in it. There is no sense to that. --Steve (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The Google citations (and any basic reading of Philosophy, in particular Philosophy of Science) show that Objectivism, like Pragmatism etc is a generic title for several schools or approaches to philosophy. It can not be commandeered by the follower of one author. Its not a question determined by Wikipedia articles as objectivist approaches (non randian) are referenced in many articles on the subject. The link to the disambiguation page is a compromise (and that does make it clear that there are other uses of the term). However it should really be listed with the same name as the page Objectivism (Ayn rand) as that is the school in question --Snowded TALK 20:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sourced and Accurate[edit]

There is a school of philosophy, founded by Ayn rand, called Objectivism. This is sourced, as if you didn't know it. The school is not called "Objectivism (Ayn Rand)" so the philosophy named on this page is not to be called by the name of a wikipedia page. Stop the POV edits, your disdain for Objectivism, no matter how reasonable, doesn't affect its name or its status as a school of philosophy. Kjaer (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer, for a start deal with the arguments not the person. Your citation is meaningless as NO ONE is arguing against the fact that her school of thought is called "Objectivism". The point is that it is not the ONLY use of that term. It is therefore wrong to define Objectivism by linking it to Ayn Rand as it would be to define Pragmatism by linking it to Dewey. In the case of Ayn Rand it is even worse. At least the pragmatists have things in common, but there is nothing in common between Rand's thoughts and those of an objectivist approach in Philosophy of Science. This was debated on the page concerned and the disambiguation page maintained.

Now you object to Objectivism (Ayn Rand) and I object to your Objectivism not because I have a POV or a hatred of Rand, but because I know (and am engaged in) other schools and approaches that use Objectivism in its main stream philosophical sense of the word. If you want examples of that the Google Scholar listing will give them to you.

The compromise would normally be to the disambiguation page but you object to that. Ok lets try a new approach and see if we can resolve this. How about we take your preferred Objectivism but add a text afterwards as follows to disambiguate on the page

Objectivism  (NOTE this references the form of objectivism which originated with Ayn Rand)

--Snowded TALK 22:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

OK Getting more specific as there have been no comments. I propose the following specific change to deal with the various concerns (I am not sure I have the syntax right but you can see the intent if you edit. Silence will be deemed consent :-)

Objectivism[note 1]

--Snowded TALK 10:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, I suggest that it be left without any foofarah or dodads - just "Objectivism", like the others. Now, I know that you are likely to object, saying it needs to be disambiguated from this other school of philosophy named "objectivism" - Why don't we wait until that alledged school of philosophy has an actual article and then we can put in this list as well - maybe as "Moral objectivism" or whatever. --Steve (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes I know that is your position and I disagree with it. Neither is there any requirement for there to be another article, the Google scholar search provides evidence of other uses of the term. Objectivism is a respectable term in main stream philosophy and is not uniquely associated with the ideas of Rand. My suggested compromise above handles that difference. At the moment opinion between your approach, and a reversion to the disambiguation page is evenly divided so there is no consensus. Technically one might revert to having no entry here at all (the position before the edit war), as it is I am suggesting a way forward which I suggest you think about accepting. --Snowded TALK 17:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I know that you have been asked this before, several times, but let me ask again: Would you please share with us the link, or links, to the other schools of philosophy called Objectivism that the reader might be interested in and that exist on that disambiguation page that you insist are being bypassed? And let me complement you on the subtlety of your threat to delete a valid school of philosophy altogether if you can't have it your way - that is worded so well that it almost doesn't look like a threat and it sort of has built-in deniablitity - you can say, "That is not what I was saying." And, Snowded, references to an edit war should always come back to a count, which reveals that you have been the prominent reverter and initiator. --Steve (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I know you have been asked this before, several times, but let me ask again: Look at the Google Scholar search. You cannot confine the term objectivism to Rand. That aside I really can't see why you object to the proposed compromise--Snowded TALK 18:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What the link should be[edit]

The link is to Objectivism (Ayn Rand) as the tooltip/rollover/alt-text informs the user. The little superscript numbers don't take the user anywhere and are therefore somwhat confusing. I think Objectivism (Ayn Rand) on its own would suffice. Karbinski (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I can live with that --Snowded TALK 18:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Bavarian Illuminati[edit]

It appears to me some one is having some fun (aka vandalism) with the list. One would think that the imagination doesn't stretch far enough to put the Bavarian Illuminati here. So, object now, you of this secret order, or loose your link. --Steve (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

List of schools of philosophy[edit]

Sorry, this is a list of schools of philosophy, not a list of wikipedia articles, nor a list of disambiguation pages. If you can find a reference showing that "Objectivism" is really called "Objectivism (Ayn Rand)" the please show it.Kjaer (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I admit, my motivation is to do a little marketing. Karbinski (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
No idea what you are peddling. However its interesting that the Stamford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy does not have a section on objectivism. I return to the compromise proposal - we list objectivism with the pipe link but add a note to the effect that this is the school of thought that grew out of Ayn Rand's writings. This really does seem a way of avoiding controversy/ --Snowded TALK 22:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Whatever it is I'm peddling, the references do a fine job of it. Karbinski (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Guys, you are happily playing with this when its one of the ArbCom issues. At the moment there is no agreement on the name. Karbinski - are you saying that you are linked to one of the referenced sites? --Snowded TALK 01:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a template or something on the article or talk page if this has been escalated to ArbCom? No link to referenced sites. Karbinski (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
There is an ArbCom on the Ayn Rand article, which is focusing very much on the behavior of the editors of that article during the last month or so. This article has been mentioned (by Snowded) but the ArbCom is not about this article. The admins who resolve that ArbCom may look at this article, but it isn't the focus of the ArbCom. --Steve (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
They are looking generally at articles to do with Ayn Rand - we will have to see what comes out of that. For the moment I am not engaging in an edit war on this even though it does not have consensus --Snowded TALK 20:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Christianity as a philosophical school?[edit]

Is Evangelical Christianity, Roman Catholicism, or Christianity in general a philosophical school of thought? It seems to me that they are not; rather they are theological schools of thought. A simple yes or no will be sufficient, but longer responses are always welcomed. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Barring a citation of course, no. A religion or a religious sect is not a philosophical school of thought. Thomism is an example of a Christian philosophical school of thought. An individual can be a Christian philosopher, but his Christianity does not necessarily entail what his philosophical views will be. OottoO (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Per the above, I am going to remove Islam. Also, are Achintya Bheda Abheda, Dvaita, Dvaitadvaita, Gaudiya Vaishnavism, Shuddhadvaita, and Vishishtadvaita considered philosophical schools of thought? I think there may be a misunderstanding in that the word 'philosophy' is used routinely in the articles on Hinduism. I do not know much about Hinduism but it appears that these "philosophical schools of thought" are little more than different religious interpretations, similar to the distinction between Jansenism or Calvinism in Christianity or the Hanafi and Hanbali interpretations in Islam. OottoO (talk) 11:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, that's what I thought too. Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).