Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objectivity (philosophy) (second nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash^talk 02:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objectivity (philosophy)

Subject matter requires original research Amerindianarts 01:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The article has been nominated before, but "saved". "Objectivity" does not rate article space in Dictionaries of Philosophy or Encyclopedias of Philosophy, thus there is no standard outside of original research. The article's past has been for editors to concentrate on what individual philosophers call "objectivity". You can enumerate all the philosopher's versions of what they call "objectivity", but neither this compilation, nor individual versions, comprise or define "objectivity (philosophy)" as a term within the discipline. That is the reason there is no standard for a NPOV article.Amerindianarts 02:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. The term can be found in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy here. Lapaz 22:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Objectivist philosophy. —This user has left wikipedia 03:54 2006-01-29

If deleted, this should be redirected to Object (philosophy) or metaphysical objectivism rather than an article about Ayn Rand. Chiok 04:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Ayn Rand is not a viable option. "Objectivity" is a technical term. The article Objectivist philosophy is basically the position of an individual author using the term in a non-technical sense, and who is not recognized by most philosophers as a philosopher. The basic reason for deletion defies redirect to this article. Amerindianarts 04:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Chiok: Objectivity involves the truth and falsity of the things we say about objects. Objects cannot be true and false, so what would be the impetus to redirect to Object (philosophy)? The article on Intentionality would be a better candidate. Look at that article and access your reasons for redirecting to Object (philosophy).Amerindianarts 04:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that Objectivity is exclusively about propositions. I generally think of it in perceptual terms instead. I also try to avoid the term 'objectivity' altogether as is it confusing and go with something like 'observer-independent' or 'agent-independent'. Sure, objects can't be true, but they might be mind-independent. Intentional objects are (agent-dependent) phenomenal objects that may or may not correspond to mind-independent or noumenal objects, so that's completely different. Chiok 05:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Objectivity involves a mental act. Objects may not be and I fail to see the real direct relevance about mind-independence. True, propositions may not exist, but objectivity requires a mental act and communication between at least two individuals. Unless, of course, you have some solipsist tendencies or a private language and can relate it to objectivity in an isolated mental event. I don't like using the term objectivity either and the reason I describe it as a "propensity to be objective" is because of the mental act aspect, and an intended object. Sure, they make objects mind or agent dependent, but the mental act is the nature of objectivity. Mind -independent objects seem to be of no consequence if they cannot be the intended object of a mental act, which is the essense of objectivity (distinct from objectivism). You otherwise run the risk of having it confused with forms of objectivism. Intentionality is not a form of idealism, it is a form of realism. Whether or not propositions exist is really secondary to the assumption that they may exist. Otherwise you lapse into forms of relativism, which is its opposite. I'm not overly concerned with where the article is redirected as I am with the prospect of it being reintroduced and mutilated and confused. If you check in Macmillan's Encyclopedia of Philosophy you will not find an article on "objectivity", but in the index to the eight volumes most references are directed toward language and intentionality, with little reference to individual philosophers or forms of objectivism. Amerindianarts 06:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

As a merely confused layperson- Objectivity is a technical term. - but not found in Encyclopedias of Philosophy - rather in what discipline is objectivity a techical term? Also - in lay views there are wooly(?) uses - which may at least appear to be philosophical in nature. My view is that even if philosophers have nothing to say about this term - the article may have merit just stating that. (Obviously this would be a special case). It is also interesting to see that the current article still sustains 20 odd links to it, and certainly not merely concerned with Rand. - I oppose deletion, but do not oppose a rewrite. (20040302 10:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC))

I tried to explain the problems with this term when you recruited me for a rewrite. Another rewrite will not solve the problem that it requires original research, and it is doubtful that a rewrite will be NPOV. Amerindianarts 17:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep  ::Amerindianarts - I am grateful for the good work you put into the article. It shines in comparison to what used to be there; my comment was addressing your own disgruntlement with the existence of the article, not an attack against the work you put into it. I believe that any article may be written with a NPOV. My belief may be founded on blind faith! I am aware of articles which have a community of editors who aggressively share a political objective - but I doubt that this article falls into that category. (20040302 10:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC))

• Strong Redirect to Metaphysical objectivism. What this article is attempting to explain is closest to the concept in that article, not objectivism, regardless of the similarity of names. KrazyCaley 10:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The current article distinguishes itself from objectivism. I think you are confusing the two terms.

Amerindianarts 17:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not think so. See for instance the quote "If they do exist, do they exist independently of the mind as do the objects of various objectivisms, or do they come into being when an object becomes the intended object of a mental act?" This is definitely setting up a sort of objectivity vs. inevitable subjectivity problem, which is just the sort of thing the metaphysical objectivism article deals with. We are talking about the quality of detachment, of a view on a particular object without the lens of subjectivity. I think the article is a bit too close to the metaphysical objectivism article, so my vote remains as a redirect/merge. I'd rather keep it than have it redirected/merged to the article on Objectivism, though. It really doesn't have anything to do with that. KrazyCaley 16:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect per above. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 16:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with metaphysical objectivism. The present article has more substance than the latter, so a simple redirect is not appropriate. RayGates 19:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Objectivity means something, it may be important to find what exactly. Especially when Wikipedia's official policy is neutral point of view - in others words, objectivity. Philosophers have deeply thought about objectivity, and User Amerindianarts is wrong in saying that "each personal philophers's conception of objectivity should belong in their pages". Quite to the reverse, I'm sure it's a lot more interesting having philosophers' own definition of objectivity - which, minds you, is not like they're a thousand of them either!!! it is something which has been thought on at least since Plato and the emergence of scientific thought in Ancient Greece, as did François Châtelet for example show in his history of philosophy -, rather than a mix of Wikipedians' opinions on what it means - which is (i'm not even sure it's a mix though) what the article is like now. I find it quite incredible for someone to even discuss the fact that objectivity is linked to truth!!!!! This article should be given proper attention. It is quite ironic that Wikipedia hasn't yet thought it deserved it. Lapaz 20:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. per others. Arbustoo 21:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Reference article more extensively (works, pages, excerpts; NOT entire books); if this isn't done by the end of this AfD, Delete as original research. Don't merge original research. -Ikkyu2 22:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep no question about it. Better article and better title that metaphysical objectivism which now redirects to objectivism (metaphysics) --Salix alba (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as is--don't merge or redirect. Useful discussion, and useful counterpart to Objectivity (journalism), though maybe the two aren't as clearly distinguished as they could be. —rodii 02:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. "Objectivity" is a major question in philosophy (especially philosophy of science, philosophy of history, epistemology, etc.). Entire books written about it. It is not the same thing as Randian Objectivism at all. Now whether the current article needs to be rewritten is an entirely different question than whether the article should exist or not. Original research not required in the slightest; article should be a synthesis of major positions and questions in the relevant literature. --Fastfission 03:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank u Fastfission; so maybe we will be able to find some objectivity in the treatment of this article after all... About the precedent comment regarding journalism (objectivity): philosophy as no definite field, thus entails everything. This specific objectivity (philosophy) should speak about various fields where objectivity is important. Objectivity in sciences (maths or physics) is certainly different from objectivity in historic studies, which themselves can't be compared to immediate history, i.e. neutral point of view which makes US press standards. Lapaz

• Keep per Fastfission. Smerdis of Tlön 17:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as is. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 23:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.