Jump to content

Talk:Tara Smith (philosopher)

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

Untitled

[edit]

I've cut out a lot of the material here, because, although Tara Smith is a notable figure, the article read like a hagioraphy and certainly did not have a neutral POV.LaszloWalrus 23:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I restored some of the material censored out, removed attempted package dealing. If a neutral POV is defined as hostile to definitions, concepts or freedom, then no, mine is not. translator 19:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Detected and removed another veiled attack. Until this page existed no one cared a whit. Now people who can't spell the word are worked up over hagiography. Next they'll be linking her to blonde joke pages... easier than pointing to an error of fact, I suppose. QUESTION: what is the exact technical term for a person who does not believe in Santa Claus? the Easter Bunny? translator 03:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I deleted the POV parts. It certainly did not read like an encyclopedia article. By the way, I'm an Objectivist and have met Tara Smith several times.LaszloWalrus 03:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as verifiably, I'm the King of Belgium. translator 18:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to believe me, but the article was poorly written and biased. THAT you can verify. LaszloWalrus 22:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why were the two atheist categories removed? Tara Smith is an Objectivist, and all Objectivists are atheists. Further, she's a "thinker" (in this case, a philosophy professor). There is no reason to remove her from the categories with "atheist" in their names. LaszloWalrus 00:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I witnessed her in action for a semester and no discussion of mystical figures arose that I recall. Your conclusions also are based on conjecture of categories. By reasoning no less fallacious I could brand Einstein a Newtonian. There is no word for folks who do not believe in Santa Claus, nor is there identification in the Wikipedia of folks who believe in deity figures as mystics. I suggest you try editing MLK's entry to identify him as a mystic (verifiably true) and see what happens. The one mystic I recall describing himself as such in the first person on film was Billy Graham, and his entry contains no such term. Why do you not fix it? translator 04:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, it is legitimate to categorize people as atheists if that's what they are; MLK isn't categorized as a "mystic," but he is categorized as a Baptist and as a Christian socialist. Dr. Smith often teaches under the auspices of the Ayn Rand Institute and the affiliated bookstore sells her works; she has to be an atheist to get ARI's support. She also has a number of lectures sold at the Ayn Rand Bookstore defending Ayn Rand's metaethics, metaethics that are explicitly atheistic. Further, as I've said before, she identifies as an Objectivist, and ALL Objectivists are atheists. LaszloWalrus 19:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I recommend Petr Beckmann, Access to Energy, Vol. 12, No. 3 in Volume 12 date: 11/84 title: "On your Enemy's Terms" online for free at accesstoenergy.com. The pitfalls of letting others choose your vocabulary are explained. If you want to class Tara Smith in a category of nonmystics, people-who-aren't-superstitious or just plain rational, fine. Until then, the error is similar to those who confuse "sacrifice" and "tough choice". If it is not an error, but rather, a deliberate use of Klan-style epithets to stir mindless disapproval of a thinker on ethics--makes no difference to me. Examine the word root: do you think she believes nothing at all?translator 23:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't see how calling someone an atheist, especially a SELF-DESCRIBED atheist is a "Klan-style" epithet. I myself am an atheist (see my user page User:LaszloWalrus). Inasmuch as she shares my philosophy, Objectivism, I don't think that "she believes nothing at all." How is labeling someone an atheist an attempt to "stir mindless disapproval of a thinker on ethics?" LaszloWalrus 00:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That someone is described as an atheist and it is notable and another person is described as a-spongemonkey-ist and it is absurd says a lot about the world that we live in. However it is still notable enough to warrant mention in the article. Not everyone knows that Objectivists are atheist by definition. I would like to know what a "Klan-style epithet" is. Billyjoekoepsel 17:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Klan-style epithet is something hurled to besmirch by association, like an n-word. Point to an instance of Tara Smith describing herself as an "atheist" and I'll concede. And yes, look at aphasia, arrhythmia or any number of examples or a book on roots to see the a- prefix is a negation. translator 05:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the "a-" prefix is a negation. Nevertheless, since most people (wrongly, in my view) are theists, being an atheist IS notable. She's an atheist by virtue of being an Objectivist. LaszloWalrus 06:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the best you can do? How about your reinforcements? Point to the evidence supporting the "SELF-DESCRIBED" comment, Billy.
When I added this page I thought to fill a gap and showcase a definition of hers that adds to the store of human knowledge. I had no idea it was wrong to say something nice about my college prof--call me naïve. But to have anonymous self-declared "friends like these" seek to gratuitously direct the boiling wrath of the KKK and all manner of other mystical bigots against her is not something I will abide while she's alive. translator 04:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How am I trying to "direct the boiling wrath of the KKK" against her? She's an Objectivist and Objectivists are atheists, period. I am an ADMIRER of Dr. Smith, and an Objectivist myself, not a "mystical bigot." I'll leave the categories alone for now since you seem so adament if you'll promise to do me a favor and ASK HER if she is indeed an atheist. LaszloWalrus 04:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The key question I'll ask her is whether she wants to be referred to by a term coined by mystics and used as an epithet by the overwhelming mass of humanity. If you want examples the clearest that comes to mind is T Roosevelt's allusions to someone as that "dirty atheist" in his biography of Governour Morris. Most folks are less kind than US presidents in their use of language. Observe that in the MLK entry, the only place any variant of the n-word appears is when quoting him directly, and certainly there is no describing him there as a mystic. Though you and I believe that is an honest attribution, his admirers see it as a slur at worst, and as polluting or detracting from his message at best. But do not believe me; try it and see for yourself. I can see by the color of Billy's hair he may well be in earnest, just as I was 35 years ago reading astronomy books by Dr Fort. At about that time with a group of folks even younger I voted to place the nuclear symbol on the cover of American Atheist magazine. Since then all evidence suggests Madalyn Murray O'Hair and kin have been murdered and their remains skillfully made to disappear. Welcome to Texas, where the Klan still marches. For these reasons, plus the fact that stuff included in the Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable, I view these gratuitous labels as reckless endangerment if not actual menacing. I am sorry I ever opened the page in the first place and will agree to delete it entirely if that's what it takes to have her left alone in that respect. Meanwhile I sincerely recommend the Petr Beckmann essay--he was a capable linguist--to get at the reason mystics do not call their heroes mystics yet thrill when nonmystics make the mistake of publicly labelling someone an atheist. SO I have provided my reasons--both practical and political. I have suggested tests whereby you may readily see with your own eyes whether what I say is true or not. I have offered to concede on verifiability grounds challenged the labeling party to provide a quote of Tara calling herself an atheist yet no evidence of any such thing has been produced. I have pointed to a quote of MLK referring to himself as a Negro as the only instance of that word occurring on his Wikipedia entry and I have checked that neither he nor Billy Graham are listed as mystics no matter how natural that might seem to folks who believe in neither the Easter Bunny nor Santa Claus nor deities. That you can draw a syllogism to conclude that all such people really are mystics will--you may be surprised to discover--not impress them at all.

Because I am gainfully employed, short on diplomacy and bound by goodwill, admiration and gratitude to Dr Smith AND because I will not see her exposed to harm because of any ill-considered initiative of my own, you would do well to consider the olive branches I have offered even if the reasoning hasn't sunk in. I am wrong, pointing to the error will work a lot better than changing the subject, evading then repeating the same equivocations as before. translator 16:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Here's the deal: Tara Smith says "I appreciate your letting me know abut the Wikipedia mess, but I have no interest in reading it or getting involved in the least."

I conclude Dr Smith does not feel threatened by any labels pasted on her here, which is a great relief. I found a quote in which she describes in very few words to the effect that she is arguing that people are entitled to rights. I've since lost it, and do not know if it is public domain or not. It was in a blurb on one of her books. It would be nice to have her say something in her own words. translator 20:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


--But Is She A Philosopher?--

The subject is described in the article as a philosopher. Is every teacher or scholar of philosophy a philosopher in his or her own right? Something to think about. Syntacticus 03:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inasmuch as Smith has contributed to the literature (publishing books, articles in philosophic journals, and the like), and doesn't just teach (about other people's work), then yes, she is a philosopher. --zenohockey 01:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 04:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Tara Smith (philosopher). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tara_Smith_(philosopher)&oldid=1217210569"