Talk:Objectivism (Ayn Rand)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Philosophy Portal

This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This article is supported by WikiProject Objectivism, which collaborates on articles related to this philosophy. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.

Objectivism (Ayn Rand) is part of WikiProject Atheism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide atheism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

For more information and how you can help click Show →

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4 5, 6, 7, 8

[edit] NPOV

I propose this tag be removed. I've read through the entire archive of talk, and it appears that user gagnon has presented literally nothing besides his own opinion as a basis for his disagreement with the term "philosophy," against multiple reputable citations referring to it as a philosophy. Please present something beyond your own original work or concede removal of the tag. Pusher robot 15:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

And yet, there have been sources given that say she isn't a philosopher. We've had them here before, though I think someone deleted at least one of them. And please look at the other Rand-related talk pages; this is a multi-article spanning controversy. -- LGagnon 22:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you give me at least a link to where such sources have been presented? It's only reasonable to request that if you want to dispute NPOV on this article, you present some argument on this article's discussion page. Pusher robot 22:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Ayn Rand and Talk:Atlas Shrugged have most of the discussion. -- LGagnon 02:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I scanned those pages but found no such sources. Would you be kind enough to reproduce them here? Pusher robot 03:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't bother, he will yell, scream, and throw a tantrum until he gets his way, the best way to deal with him (as I found out several weeks ago) is to stop dealing with him altogether. The Fading Light 19:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I for one think the whole "not a philosopher" part is about as weak as you can get. I first encountered Rand's work in an Intro to Philosophy course at UMASS in 1992. Objectivism was covered in a part of the textbook "About Philosophy" 5th edition by Robert Paul Wolf. Given that Rand held that most of the academic philosophers held positions in direct oposition to her views, it's hardly surprising that using them as a jury to determine whether she is really a philosopher is going to have a odd result. One can conceive all sorts of twisted arguemtns to assert any position. It's called spin. I thinks it's important for NPOV to include the parts on this article about controversies such as cultism, but this particular argument is silly. Ethan a dawe 12:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC) Ethan Dawe

WP:NPA says cut it out. -- LGagnon 22:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

LGagnon, truth is always a defense against the charge of personal attacks. Just a heads-up. MrVoluntarist 03:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not, especially when it's done in an incivil manner. And, might I add, you just made one yourself. -- LGagnon 17:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I said that truth is always a defense against the charge of personal attacks. And some of the true things about your posting history are necessarily going to sound incivil, but that says more about your posting history than malice on the part of other contributors. MrVoluntarist 03:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I think the POV tag should stay (but for reasons other than LGagnon's). Britannica calls her a philosopher, as does my computer dictionary. Ethics classes at my school, Duke, use her books, and there is even an entire course devoted to Objectivism. LaszloWalrus 14:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think the tag should stay? Pusher robot 15:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a lot of the criticism is unbalanced and weasel-y. LaszloWalrus 03:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the tag as the issue at hand was Rand being called a "philosopher." That really has no merit. I'm open to hearing other reason for npov to be restored. Ethan a dawe 23:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Ethan Dawe

[edit] Hilarity

Am I the only one who has noticed that Wikipedia and Objectivism are incompatible? Objectivism is based on doing what you want independent of others. Wikipedia is based on working together to create a source of knowledge for the use of all. This is why all the Randian pages are in constant turmoil, a conflict of ideologies. lol. Finite 21:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Your comment "Objectivism is based on doing what you want independent of others." Is innacurate. Objectivism is based on reality. And the part about "doing what you want" smacks of hedonism, which is not in accordance with Objectivism. Objectivism is about RATIONAL self interest. Wikipedia and Objectivism are NOT incompatible. IF an Objectivists finds value in wikipedia, spending time working on it is pursuing that value. Ethan a dawe 23:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Ethan Dawe

Just as a matter of curiosity: are you saying that participation in wikipedia would be inconsistent with hedonism, but O-ism isn't hedonism. Or are you saying that participation in wiki is consistent with hedonism too, since a hedonist can take his pleasure anywhere he/she finds it, including pleasure in co-operative endeavors? In the latter case, it doesn't matter whether or to what extent hedonism and O-ism differ, if they both endorse wiki-writing for roughly the same reason.

I'll try to be even more specific about my question, though. I read in your graf above at least two claims (1) that O-ists can and do consistently wiki, and (2) that the reason why O-ists wiki has a connection to the differences between their own views and those of hedonists. I'm happy to take your word for (1) but I'm confused about (2). Why couldn't hedoists "pursue that value" too? And if they could, why is the above paragraph supposed to involve "la differance"? --Christofurio 20:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Christofurio, my point had nothing to do with hedonists working on wiki. My point was that the comment that was made "Objectivism is based on doing what you want independent of others" is in error. Objectivism is not BASED on that. Also I comment that the statement seemes to suggest Objectivists do whatever they feel like doing disregarding others. That could be seen as hedonism, or several other things. I wanted to clariy that that was incorrect. As far as your break down of my "claims" (1) Sure (2) No, not at all. The reason an Objectivist would wiki is the same reason anyone would, because they value it. The poster who made the intial comment thinks editing on wiki and Objectivism are incompatible. That is false. Did this answer your question? Ethan a dawe 02:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Ethan DaweEthan a dawe 02:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to make a separate section for your reply; the standard is to keep a single discussion within one section. -- LGagnon 03:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm still unclear why you brought up hedonism at all then? You said that what finite said "smacks of hedonism" but ... so what? --Christofurio 21:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I brought up hedonsim because Objectivism is often mistaken for being the same as hedonism. The statement about "doing what you want independant of others" could be seen as hedonism, or also several other ethical systems. There is a great deal of confusion about this and it's often used innacurately to deride Objectivism.

Okay. Simply as a piece of advice then. In communicating about controversial and abstract matters, it is best to be clear about transitions, and not to write paragraphs that address in a mixed up way very different controversies. The moon is a satellite of the earth. The whole idea of paragraph structure is built upon distinction among topics.

And yes, I realize you haven't been discussing the moon that was my point. That sentence makes the above paragraph problematic. --Christofurio 13:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Finite's comments show that most of the anti-Objectivists trying to de-neutralize these articles have no idea what Objectivism really is. The Objectivist ethics states that each individual should indeed live pursuing his own selfish interests without coercion from others. However, "doing what you want independent of others" is not an accurate portrayl; you may want to cut your throat or jump off a cliff, but that doesn't advance your own self-interest. That which is in one's self-interest must be rationally and objectively identified. As far as cooperation goes, Objectivism states that all human relationships should be peaceful and voluntary; the difference between Objectivism's understanding of cooperation and any collectivist version is that the latter points a gun at your head and forces your submission. If Wikipedia is something you value and you want its articles to be accurate, then it would be in your self-interest to cooperate voluntarily with others to improve it.

So it's rational hedonism. Still hedonism. -Sammy D.

Sorry Sammy, you are incorrect.Ethan a dawe 11:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)Ethan DaweEthan a dawe 11:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You describe collectivism as "putting a gun to your head" and in a rant about people giving false descriptions of something. Nice one. I think the Randists have just as many problems with understanding what they are talking about than anyone else. -- LGagnon 01:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, LGagnon, that is what collectivism is. It is the subjugation of the individual to society, the negation of individual rights in the name of "the common good." In a collectivist society, an individual's thought and work are proscribed and dictate by the state; his property belongs to "the community" and he has no right to exist for himself. It doesn't matter to what degree collectivism exists; the genocide of Nazi Germany was totally consistent with the principle of collectivism.

You know what, Sammy, you are wrong. Hedonism is defined as "the ethical doctrine holding that only what is pleasant or has pleasant consequences is intrinsically good." This is totally different from the rational egoism Ayn Rand advocated, which states that each individual should live for his own self interest and be the proper beneficiary of his own actions. A hedonist, for example, will find pleasure in taking drugs, but a rational egoist, knowing that drugs are detrimental to his own self interest, will abhor them. --24.220.246.20

Alright, let me clarify: It's just as bad as hedonism. Sure, the buzzword motivation is different, but if an "egoist" feels that s/he'd rather have this topic sing the praises of Ayn Rand then s/he would do it. More importantly, s/he would do it without any moral objections to using the most finely sliced bullshit possible. This is why I don't trust objectivists with the writing of this article (Not to say that they shouldn't participate, just that people should keep them in check.) - Sammy D.

Hedonism and egoism differ in that a hedonist will engage in any act that gives him pleasure regardless of the effects it will have on him in the long run, while an egoist will do only that which he rationally determines to be in his long term self interest. I'm sorry to say that anyone who thinks that Objectivism upholds hedonism has never read a single thing written by Ayn Rand.

"Bullshit." Sammy, I find your use of that word in reference to edits made by Objectivists to be offensive. Either way, I still don't understand how you can confuse rational egoism, which, let me state again, says that each individual should live pursuing his own rational self interest, with hedonism, which says that a person should engage in an activity which enhances his pleasure regardless of the effects it has on his long-term self-interest. Egoism says that human relationships are good, but should be voluntary and mutually-beneficial; if a person values Wikipedia, then it would be in his self-interest to work with others in improving it. --24.220.246.20

Sorry, I'm not gonna mince words here. And I'm not confusing them. What I'm saying is that when it comes to working as a collective, and attempting to reduce bias especially, hedonism and rational egoism are equally dangerous. Given a "rational" reason (which is such a flawed term. No human is ever really rational, especiall in their desires) egoists would quickly screw anyone they're working with over. If they are given a rational reason for turning this article into propaganda, they will do it. It pushes their own self-interest, and it doesn't hurt them at all. Rationally, if one wanted to spread the good word of Ayn Rand, there'd be few better places to start than Wikipedia. -Sammy D.

I disagree strongly that "no human is ever really rational." Rationality, a profound virtue is the acceptance of reason as one's only means of perceiving reality and gaining knowledge. While it is true most people do not live rational lives, the fact remains that it is possible. A rational egoist determines which course of action is best suited to his self interest by observing the facts of reality and his own nature. With regard to the Wikipedia article on Ayn Rand, even saying that the Objectivist editors are biased is, in itself, biased and subjective. Just to refresh your memory about some of the things anti-Objectivists have done: first, some wanted to insert Anton LeVay's name into the article, which is simply ridiculous. Then, they tried to remove any and all references to her as a philosopher, claiming that no academic philosopher has ever taken her seriously (which, to use your word Sammy, is bullshit.) Now they know they can't do that (because it's not true), so they tried labeling her a "lay philosopher." I'm really curious as to what they will do next, because their hatred of Ayn Rand the person is so frustrating that they can't be dealt with.

You failed to address my main point. Both times, infact. So I'm going to simply state my main gripe so that you don't have any fodder to avoid it with. Objectivists, if they were interested in singing the praises of their chosen philosophy on a supposedly non-biased website, would have nothing at all to compel them otherwise. They would also feel no compunction against using the most twisted logic to support their claims. Their moral standard says nothing about being honest to anyone but yourself, and the call of "rational self interest" practically demands that they take the measures necessary to establish their philosophy as dominant.

There. That's it. If you somehow manage to find a tangent you can ride off on, my beliefs will only be confirmed. I will address your points after you address mine. - Sammy D.

This is actually quite hilarious because all you have done is show that you have never read a single book by Ayn Rand.

Can you show me where Ayn Rand said that one should only be honest to oneself? Objectivism does not say that; honesty is the recognition of the fact that the unreal is unreal and has no value, and to try to obtain any value through fraud is to raise one's victims to a position higher than reality. Since the sustenance of human life requires an unbreached committment to the facts of reality and their objective analysis, it is moral to be honest. Honesty is a life-sustaining virtue.

How does this relate to Wikipedia? An Objectivist couldn't add a biased statement such as "Ayn Rand was the world's greatest philosopher" because Wikipedia is not his personal property, and he needs to abide by the rules imposed by the encyclopedia's founders and administrators (I'm sure even you are familiar with Objectivism's stance toward property which is not one's own). But to claim that the Objectivists have been making the biased statements is wrong. We're not the ones going from saying that Ayn Rand was not a philosopher to saying that she was a philosopher, but only a "lay philosopher."

I'm also still interested in hearing an elaboration of your claim that no person is ever "truly" rational. --24.220.246.20

Nice to see this argument isn't dead. I don't think people are ever completely rational. Rational beings concern themselves with the physical present and the future. With what's necessary to their survival and comfort. While we're gabbing on a website over a philosophy that was founded by someone I'd venture to say none of us ever met we could be working, or studying, or doing something far more productive than bickering over an encyclopedia entry that'll never settle. Hell, a truly rational person wouldn't even concern themselves with philosophies when they could just do what works and not think anything more about it. But we're sentient beings who concern ourselves with the theoretics attached to philosophy. Any concern with this site already shows that you're pretty illogical (and if you can't see the logic behind that, pretend for a sec that the society and culture we've set up doesn't mean anything.) What's dangerous about Objectivists is that they assume they ARE rational. They remove the critical and human self-doubt that keeps people in check. Without it, any selfish impulse is free to mask itself as reasonable. I'm not saying Objectivists purposely lie, just that following the philosophy to begin with requires some level of self-deception.

'Course the problem is that I'm trying to convince someone that they habitually lie to themselves...

But you're right, I was kinda talking out of my ass in that last post (In the sense that I haven't read any of her books besides Anthem, which is what inspired me to never read anything of hers for a while.) But most of my arguments on Ayn Rand've been based on things I've read about her, her philosophy, and the actions of people who believe in her philosophy. There's a lot of them where I live, and most of them have been complete asshats who had the remarkable ability to proclaim vast amounts of bunk as completely rational, so long as it suited their needs ("I should be completely free to sleep with as many people as I want! That's what freedom is!" or "It's okay that my house could house two more families. Obviously if they don't have one of their own, they didn't have the will to deserve it.") Perhaps that doesn't disqualify her philosophy, but definitely makes the contributions of her followers suspect.

Now, as for your problems that I promised to address ages ago... You're right, not calling her a philosopher is "bullshit." But if Anton LeVay mentioned Ayn Rand, he's famous enough to be mentioned. Cringe all you want, no one wants to be connected to the guy, but if it's the truth it oughta be mentioned (assuming it is the truth, and knowing LeVay's penchant for name-dropping, I wouldn't doubt it.) And while the anti-Objectivist here have been pretty shameful, that's not what we're debating here, now is it? I don't think they're a whole lot better than the Objectivists here, but I guess that's what happens around subjects this controversial. -Sammy D.

You say that humans shouldn't concern themselves with philosophic inquiry and abstract principles because they should "just do what works and not think anything more about it." This is, however, utterly false. Whether or not one has an explicitly defined philosophy one adheres to, everyone has a philosophy. Is reality an objective absolute and is nature governed by absolute laws? Or is the universe an illusion and an unknowable flux? Can man attain absolute knowledge of his environment? Or can he hold no idea with any certainty? Is the good that which advances man's life and happiness? Or is it the sacrifice of one's values to others? Every one has positions on this issues, and the way an individual will go about living his life will depend on the answers he gives to those question. Ayn Rand showed that philosophy is not an academic pasttime or a needless study; philosophy serves a very practical purpose. Without philosophy, people would be unable to deal with the universe, distinguish truth from falsehood, and pursue the good. The philosophy you advocate (Pragmatism, which essentially says we should "do what works and not think anything more about it") is utterly false and denies the efficacy and necessity of reason. Without reason, man cannot gain knowledge.

So you list Anthem as the only work by Ayn Rand that you've seriously read. And then you proceed to attack Objectivism "based on things I've read about her, her philosophy, and the actions of people who believe in her philosophy." So what if she was an eccentric woman who expelled people from her personal circle? So what if she had an affair or was very harsh with people? These things do not effect the truth of her philosophy. Don't spend your time attacking Ayn Rand; if you want to criticize her and her philosophy, read what she wrote. Study her theory of concept formation and knowledge; understand her metaphysical conclusions; learn about her theory of value and her understanding that it is virtuous to be selfish; realize that her defense of capitalism is based on moral, not practical grounds. Read her works! Then presume to criticize her.

"I should be completely free to sleep with as many people as I want! That's what freedom is!" or "It's okay that my house could house two more families. Obviously if they don't have one of their own, they didn't have the will to deserve it."

Ayn Rand would say that it certainly isn't moral to sleep with as many people as one wants, but since doing so would not violate any one's rights, neither the government nor a private individual could prevent a person from doing so. Likewise, no one's misfortunes or handicaps can be considered a mortgage on another person's life and property; if a houseowner doesn't want to share his property with others, that is his absolute right to do so and no one can interfere with his decision.

By the way, I don't think I always act rationally, and no Objectivist I know does either. Don't make stereotypical remarks such as those. --24.220.246.20

When Rand said that humans are "rational beings", she meant (as she clearly explained) that normally functioning humans have an essential characteristic of being capable of rational thought — not that that capability was automatic or infallible (quite the contrary, and Objectivist morality has largely to do with individual choice of whether or not to exercise that capability). — DAGwyn 21:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mis-link

The link to moral in the second paragraph goes to the words use in in reference to storytelling, it should probably go to morality.

[edit] Libertarianism to be moved

Objectivism defined in terms of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and Libertarianism? I would move it to the responses section, but that would not be accurate (although less construed than the sub-topics current placement). Perhaps a section entitled: Enemies of Objectivism?

It does not belong under politics as it does not contribute to answering the question: what political principles are advocated within Objectivism?

[edit] External Links removed

Now isn’t that odd? Almost every other Wikipedia entry has an External Links section, yet suddenly that for Objectivism (Ayn Rand) disappears. And when did it disappear? Right after a link to “ARI Watch” http://ariwatch.com was added to the list.

Like killing everyone in a village in order to get one resistance fighter.

So the question here is: Why was External Links removed?

Is 'Rebirth of Reason' really a trivial group unworthy of inclusion on the links part? KyZanKyZan

All of the groups linked to are either information about Objectivism, or some type of public advocacy group. RoR is just a web forum. If we link to them, there are many more websites and web forums that would need to be added. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a directory of links. Endlessmike 888 17:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acceptance by mainstream philosophy

What is the best way to state that Objectivism isn't really accepted by most of mainstream philosophy? While it shouldn't say "most academic philosophers", what's the best way to state this? I can't think of another way to say "some" that would encompass a larger portion of philosphers. What about "many"?--Dylan Lak e 22:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The best way to do this is to describe its audience. it appeals most to teen males, people with certain psychological issues, etc. etc.... ;) or whatever is, in fact verifiable. --Buridan 23:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There have been sources that claim she gets her audience mainly from impressionable teens. I know we had one cited in one article about her, but I can't seem to find it. -- LGagnon 02:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

LGagnon: You're thinking of the quote I posted in the Atlas Shrugged article probably--there was a book titled something like "Cult Fiction" but I don't think the cite said anything about impressionable teens, though I think I said something to that effect in the talk section. I think the right way to think about it is that there is a body of literature we could call "cult fiction" which has certain characteristics and exemplars (Lord of the Rings, Dune, Atlas Shrugged) and that many of the readers for these texts are adolescents. But who reads something isn't really that helpful for characterizing *what* it is, which is why I prefer the cult fiction concept, since that involves features of the texts, not speculations about what sorts of people are drawn to the texts (hard to demonstrate anyway). Similarly, you might want to call a text "African-American fiction" because it dealt with the experiences of African-Americans, and while you could speculate that perhaps such books are of greater interest to African-Americans, there's no reason why they wouldn't be of interest to someone else, and there's no reason to make any value judgments just on the basis of the characteristics or the audience. I think I mentioned Hesse novels as another example, and yet most literature professors would say these are "serious literature" (whatever that means) but they obviously have certain features (Bildungsroman structures) and teenagers are especially attracted to that. Does that make sense? Of course, this issue has nothing to do with what the status of the philosophical content is. I think that tehre is an almost universal consensus now that Nietzsche is a philosopher, but I think I could make a case that Zarathustra is of special interest to adolescents... BTW, the Tara Smith book on Rand's thought from Cambridge UP has now been reviewed somewhat favorably by Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, so I think the horse is out of the barn now. Agent Cooper 07:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that any particular non-establishment life view is likely to appeal primarily to the age group that is first starting to question establishment views and seek alternatives. That happens to be teens and young adults. That has nothing to do one way or the other with the validity of the alternative life view. — DAGwyn 20:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

For the love of God, could you please stop saying that there are references somewhere out there and actually put some up? I haven't seen you post one direct reference, even when you're under direct criticism for lacking sources. - Sammy D.

Hey, not sure where I should suggest this, but it seems to me in the fifth "paragraph" down in the "Criticism of Ayn Rand’s reading of the history of philosophy" section the words "logically consistent" from the fourth sentence should be changed to "globally applicable" or something similar as it is arguable that "logically consistent" means the same thing as "universalizable." --Aducknamedjoe

The honest way to put it would be that Objectivism and mainstream philosophy have largely been in opposition. — DAGwyn 20:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] refs problem

hi! I notice the references is mis-formatted and it's uneditable to lil ole me (Kissedsmiley 16:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC))

Fixed. I think I broke this cleaning up an edit the other day.Ethan a dawe 17:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Ethan DaweEthan a dawe 17:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar

Commas go before the period. There are two mistakes in the second sentence alone. Please fix this.

He or She is correct about this grammar issue. I fixed the ones mentioned but I'm sure it carries on throughout the article. I'll try and clean these up later, or other can do it before thenEthan a dawe 14:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Ethan a. DaweEthan a dawe 14:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Modest Proposal

One way to think about the Objectivism phenomenon is to see it as a political ideology, though not only that. The discussion of political philosophy in this article makes it clear that Objectivists are, like many conservatives, pro-market, and elsewhere in the article, like many liberals, secularists. But one would never discover from this article that the preponderant majority of Objectivists, including the two main think tanks (ARI, TOS) are very hawkish on foreign policy, holding views analogous to many so-called neoconservatives. Since isolationism is such a prominent feature of the libertarian tradition, this feature needs to be addressed somehow. I hate to see the drafters of this article descend into yet more controversial topics, inviting more edit warring, but promoting the War on Terror has become a central feature of contemporary Objectivist culture, and this is not merely a "movement" issue. The Objectivist view is that governments which violate the natural rights of their own citizens have no legitimacy, and thus are "fair game" for military intervention. This view conflicts with a widely held view that governments cannot legitimately engage another country militarily unless it has been attacked itself, and is thus of philosophical interest. The War on Terror is of especial interest to Objectivists because of the convergence of issues (conflict with religion in the form of Islam, defense of capitalism, the legitimacy of pre-emptive military attack on rights-violating governments, etc.)

I haven't looked at all the Objectivism-related articles to see if there is a discussion in any of them, but I think that we should be talking about this here first. And perhaps people can direct me to discussions elsewhere in Wikipedia if such already exist. Agent Cooper 14:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raimondo Quote

Raimondo is using a different sense of "cult." The section lists accusations of literal cultness, like Scientology. Raimondo's article does not accuse Objectivism of having a hierarchy or a guru. Rather, he accuses Objectivists of holding positions which amount to the glorification of death. "Cult" does not always have the same sense, and Raimondo is clearly using it in a different sense than the Walker "Objectivism is like Scientology" sense. This link would belong in Agent Cooper's proposed foreign policy section, as it is a criticism of a position taken by Objectivists, rather than a criticism of the sociology of Objectivists. Endlessmike 888 22:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making my point more clearly. It is also worth discussing how closely the undoubted tenets of Objectivism as espoused by Rand should be connected (in the Wikipedia) with the more recent applications to political issues by Objectivists. As a further note, there is a long history of critics, not only of Objectivism but also of other points of view, exaggerating, distorting, misrepresenting, or smearing those points of view with which they disagree — for example, Raimondo's seems to take for granted several disputable notions such as that support of military action is invariably glorification of death. Certainly not every criticism needs to be reported in an encyclopedic article, just "significant" criticisms. Almost every interesting subject has plenty of random criticisms that could be used to clutter their articles, but generally speaking we don't permit that. — DAGwyn 02:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Objectivism and Existentialism/Humanism

Is there any connection between these three philosophies, I remember reading somewhere that Rand said she would have called herself an existentialist, had it not been for Sartre, who tried to sythesize it with Marxism? ForrestLane42 04:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

There is not really a connection. Rand was talking only of the name "existentialism", which she would have preferred over "objectivism", had it not already been taken by Sartre et al. for a quite different philosophy. — DAGwyn 10:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel?

Due to the recent vandalism of Rand related articles by anonymous editors (apparently one banned low-life named Alienus), I eliminated the weasel tag. But if the anonymous person didn't intend vandalism and would like to explain why he thinks the "Responses" section is weasel worded, I'd be very interested. Endlessmike 888 06:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Beats me, not being the responsible party. However, I can't help but notice that "Rand's ideas are often supported with great passion or derided with great disgust, with little in between. Some of this comes from Rand challenging fundamental tenets of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and some may be due to her own all-or-nothing, take-it-or-leave-it approach to her work." is just gut-achingly awful prose that (1) means almost nothing, and (2) is actually problematic if it does mean anything. I thought I had spoken to this before but that might be in the AS article talk section. "The Judeo-Christian Tradition" (JCT) is a problematic reference for two reasons. One: does Rand ever talk about any such thing? Absolutely not. In fact, I recall a specific passage (a letter, I think) in which she explicitly advises someone not to refer to specific religions ever because they are beneath consideration, and that the issue with religion is much broader than that of any specific tradition (the repudiation of rationality and egoism). Are there even any discernable literary allusions within her fiction to Jewish or Christian motifs? Absolutely not. In fact, the only bad guys in AS who have religious views that can be discerned at all are characterized as having some form of nonspecific Asian mysticism. So to say that she is opposed to the JCT, since it is insupportable by any particular text, is to beg a bunch of questions, the main one being that how she characterizes bad stuff and how one should characterize JCT would coincide. This is a big leap, however obvious it may be to fans. Maybe they, and she, are completely wrong about what the JCT is like. If so, one cannot say she's against it unless she says she is. It's like reading someone go on and on about what a terrible automobile would be like, how much they hate cars like that, and then saying they hate Fords becauyse, hey, we all know what Fords are like, right? It won't work to say that she must be or is by implication, since that requires adding a characterization as fact to make the inference go through. It may be "obvious" that it is Christianity she's opposing, but just try to back it with a cite to see what I mean. You can't. Rand criticized the Catholic Church's stance on abortion in "On Living Death". That's about it in terms of verifiable references. Two: what Judeo-Christian Tradition? You mean there is such a thing? Could've fooled me. Or is it the Judeo-Christian-Islamic Tradition? Or just the Christian Tradition (in light of the various implicitly philosemitic things Jeff Walker identifies in Ayn Rand Cult)? Or is it the Protestant Tradition (in light of various pro-Thomistic things she says here and there)? On my view, the Judeo-Christian Tradition is an empty referring expression formed by fusion, and in any case nothing Rand had anything specific to say about. Agent Cooper 23:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, when Donald Klopfer of Random House met with Rand to discuss publishing Atlas Shrugged, he observed that a moral defense of captialism would have to clash with the entire Judeo-Christian culture, and Rand was favorably impressed by his acumen. Perhaps there is a better way of expressing it in the Wikipedia article. The essential point is that Rand's ideas clashed with the prevalent intellectual background of her surroundings, so that many in the "establishment" felt that they were attacking cherished beliefs, which helps to explain their extreme (and often irrational) reaction to Rand. — DAGwyn 03:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for improvement

I can't parse one sentence in particular in the paragraph from the article below, and hope someone can edit the paragraph and especially this sentence to make it more intelligible. Could Venn diagrams work? I'm certain there's a way to help lower-level readers like myself understand her omission idea.

Objectivism distinguishes valid concepts from poorly formed concepts, which Rand calls "anti-concepts". While we can know that something exists by perception, we can only identify what exists by measurement, and by logic (defined by Rand as "the art of non-contradictory identification,) which are necessary to turn percepts into valid concepts. Rand's procedural logic specifies that a valid concept is formed by omitting the variable measurements of the values of corresponding attributes of a set of instances or units, but keeping the list of shared attributes - a template with measurements omitted - as the criterion of membership in the conceptual class. When the fact that a unit has all the attributes on this list has been verified by measurement, then that unit is known with contextual certainty to be a unit of the given concept.

How can a "poorly formed concept" be an anti-concept? Isn't there a better way to put that? If it's a concept, it's a concept, even if it's poorly formed.

Objectivism distinguishes valid concepts from poorly formed concepts, which Rand calls "anti-concepts".

[edit] Other questions

I don't see anything in the article that directly results in a "therefore" preceeding the sentence below.

There is a difference, therefore, between rational self-interest as pursuit of one's own life and happiness in reality, and what Ayn Rand called "selfishness without a self" - a range-of-the-moment pseudo-"selfish" whim-worship or "hedonism."

Looking at the next sentence, I don't see how a human being can be "sub-human" in any way. This is like the notion that a man can behave effeminately. It seems logical to me that a man can only behave like a man and a human can only be a human. (A man trying to behave like a woman is still a man behaving as a man who is trying to behave like a woman and a person who, for instance, imitates a chimpanzee, is still a human imitating an animal.) Is this a basic flaw in her logic, or a problem with the article?

A whim-worshipper or "hedonist," according to Rand, is not motivated by a desire to live his own human life, but by a wish to live on a sub-human level.

I am not attacking Rand, just trying to see if her views are accurately represented. Perhaps she has provided a rebuttal to my point concerning "sub-human"? If so, it should probably be included in the paragraph. Also, the point about "anti-concepts" seems to reflect the same logical flaw— the idea that something can't be what it is if it's a lesser form of that something.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.133.103.221 (talk) 03:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Certainly, much of the article could be expressed more clearly. However, your formulation of contradictory categorization is flawed: "effeminate" means, essentially, "possessing behavioral characteristics typical of women", and it surely makes sese to apply this to males that so qualify. I bet most of us have encountered effiminate men.. By "subhuman" Rand would have meant something along the lines of "not living up to human potential", and surely there are humans that qualify for that description. Similarly, an "anti-concept" would be something substituted for a valid concept that acts actively to undermine one's conceptual facility.

To be fair, that sort of linguistic-analytic misunderstanding is encouraged by academic philosophy, which is the kind of thing that made Rand intolerant of that profession. — DAGwyn 09:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You have set up a dichotomy between academic philosophy and something else, which I assume is non-academic philosophy. What is that, exactly? As for effeminate: Technically, no matter how a man behaves, his behavior is male behavior. He does not become a woman through his behavior. No matter how a human behaves, a human is human, not sub-human. Your summary of anti-concept is meaningless to me. Once again, a concept is a concept. There can be no such thing as an anti-concept if that thing is also a concept. An anti-concept, by definition, is the opposite of a concept. I really don't know what that would be in reality which is why I asked the question. This is not linguistic misunderstanding. This is logic. Trying to sugar coat fallacious logic with "she sorta meant this" seems to be the essence of your response. Certainly, I understand what she's implying with sub-human, even though I think it's incorrect language. If she wants to set up a hierarchy of human performance she can do so, without using the illogical term "sub-human". Anti-concept, as I've pointed out, reflects a similar misuse of language, one that mystifies me because I really have no idea what she means by a concept that degrades a person's mind, as you've paraphrased its definition to be. I am not trying to be rude, just honest. I am the first to proclaim that I'm not an expert in any field, and simply do my best to try to understand things. I suppose the word effeminate is best defined as "behavior that is commonly perceived as feminine". That is one way to keep from trying to turn a man into a woman via behavior (which can't occur) while also differentiating behavior according to sex/gender. Even so, that definition still is imprecise because, as I mentioned, the most accurate way of looking at behavior is that any behavior a man exhibits is masculine behavior. That pure definition, though, doesn't promote gender rigidity, something that most cultures prize. Differentiating between artificial and natural behavior may be helpful, although it can become very cloudy, as the most accurate way to look at behavior is that it's always natural. I think what I'm doing here is pointing out that line between heuristic reasoning and (linear?..flat?) investigation. The imprecision of heuristic reasoning results in things like sub-human, anti-concept, and effeminate. The trouble, though, is that sometimes the idea is lost in translation, as it is with anti-concept for me. The other issue is that terms like sub-human and effeminate, by carrying illogical usage, instill fear and are used to control. The Soviets during the Terror used sub-human. Role playing video games like Final Fantasy IV portray the world as humans battling monsters, monsters that are often disguised as humans (such as a false king and assistant). Effeminate is used to control people by promoting the irrational notion that behavior transforms men into women. Sub-human is used to control people by promoting the irrational notion that behavior can turn a human into a monster. Even a serial killer with marginally functional frontal lobes is a human whose behavior is human. The transformation myth that's embedded in this use of language is something that should be highlighted when discussing philosophy. Language is a powerful tool for distortion and mind control.

Rand would have said that you've fallen into the trap that nominalism has set up for you: trying to understand linguistic expressions via macro-expansion of definitions rather than via the concepts involved. To Rand, "human" wasn't merely a label that one could attach to any instance of human behavior, but was shorthand for behavior that is appropriate for humans, considered as a class with common inherent characteristics. Anyway, this debate is way off charter; the Talk articles are supposed to confine themselves to discussions about the content or style of the associated articles, not discussions about the subject matter itself. — DAGwyn 22:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor problem with the Academic Philosophy section

Under the Academic Philosophy section you find the following.

In recent years, however, there are signs that this is beginning to change, with the publication of several academic books on Rand and the creation of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.^[1] That said, there are only two Objectivist philosophers, Tara Smith (University of Texas at Austin) and James Lennox ((University of Pittsburgh) holding tenured positions at one of the top fifteen leading American philosophy departments .^[2]

It seems to me that 'That said, there are only two Objectivist philosophers... at one of the top fifteen leading American philosophy departments' supports, rather then challenges, the previous statement that 'there are signs that this (Objectivism isn't mainstream) is beginning to change....' While they may still be a minority I think you would find it hard to argue that this is not a sign of Objectivism being taken more seriously by other academic philosophers. Also why are there two philosophers holding tenured positions at one of the top fifteen leading American philosophy departments when they are at seperate schools? Are only one of them holding tenure? I can't find anything that justifies that so I'm going to assume it is just an error.

I think the wording should be changed to following:

In recent years, however, there are signs that this is beginning to change, with the publication of several academic books on Rand and the creation of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.^[3] There are two Objectivist philosophers, Tara Smith (University of Texas at Austin) and James Lennox ((University of Pittsburgh) holding tenured positions at two of the top fifteen leading American philosophy departments .^[4]

I'm sorry if I'm not following protocol, I'm new to this but I've been following this discussion for a while. Kukyona 19:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to make the change. Certainly, the article suffers from piecemeal editing and is in need of improvement. — DAGwyn 23:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Change made. Kukyona 16:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cult accusations

The cult accusations section seems one sided. I'd like to suggest the following changes.

Several authors, such as Murray Rothbard, who helped define modern libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism;^[5], Jeff Walker, author of The Ayn Rand Cult;^[6] and Michael Shermer, founder of The Skeptics Society,^[7] have accused Rand and Objectivism of being a cult. Walker compares it with organizations that have been considered cults such as Scientology.^[6] Although this has been repeatedly denied^[8] and others have argued that Objectivism is not a cult because it lacks the structural organization that is a key feature of cults.^[9]

Anton LaVey describes his religion, Satanism, as "just Ayn Rand's philosophy with ceremony and ritual added".^[10] Satanism, however, differs from Objectivism in advocating pragmatic skepticism and interprets rational egoism hedonistically, holding that "indulgence in life or 'fun' as perceived by the individual is the highest standard of ethics."^[11] Moreover, Satanists favor of "domination of the weak by the strong" (ibid.), , which is incompatible with the Objectivist doctrine of non-sacrifice. Satanists also believe in magic, a belief that clashes strongly with Objectivism's rejection of the supernatural. The fundamental difference according to Satanists is that "Satanism is a religion... and Objectivism isn't." (ibid.).

Any thoughts? Kukyona 19:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to make the change. Certainly, the article suffers from piecemeal editing and is in need of improvement. — DAGwyn 23:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Change made. Kukyona 16:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've always thought the whole comparison silly, but if one is limiting oneself to LaVey's thought, my understanding is that he regards supernatural notions as metaphors. How he thinks about domination is another question. Agent Cooper 11:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Most academic philosophers

The section begins...

Most academic philosophers have long considered Objectivism to be a pop philosophy and unworthy of their attention. For example, David Sidorsky, professor of philosophy at Columbia University, characterizes Rand's work as "outside the mainstream of philosophical works," and more of an ideological movement than a well-grounded philosophy, which explains in part why it is not more widely taught.

While there is a citation that quotes David Sidorsky, I can find nothing cited that validates the claim that most academic philosophers consider Objectivism to be pop philosophy... let alone the fact they have long considered it as such.

I think it could be given a more neutral wording.

Some academic philosophers consider Objectivism to be a pop philosophy and unworthy of their attention.

However, it’s still unclear whether this statement requires a citation. It seems biased to assume that a lack of attention is evidence that it is unworthy when it could be just as likely that her works are largely unknown to most academic philosophers. The use of pop philosophy here also seems to be a weasel word since it is without citation. I feel that citations that are given on pop philosophy page aren't relevant or valid justification for using the term. The first citation would require the reader to study the entire book to understand how the citation makes sense, if at all. Its unclear if the book even references Ayn Rand or Objectivism at all... it seems to only be a critique of objectivity.

Can anyone give a citation of an academic philosopher that has used this term with respect to Objectivism or Ayn Rand? Perhaps the sentence should be removed entirely and the second rewritten.

Some academic philosophers, such as David Sidorsky, professor of moral philosophy at Columbia University, characterize Rand's work as "outside the mainstream of philosophical works," and more of an ideological movement than a well-grounded philosophy, which explains in part why it is not more widely taught.

Any thoughts? Kukyona 20:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, go for it. Endlessmike 888 21:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The recent change looks very good; thanks. As I know from first-hand experience, Objectivism drew a lot of fire from "the intellectual establishment", many of whom did whatever they could (such as extreme misrepresentation) to suppress the ideas. There was a lot more of that while Rand was still alive and kicking than there is now. I think that the shift is due to two things: Objectivism has become an established popular influence (in political thought in particular), and it may seem that ignoring it (not presenting it in philosophy courses, for example) is the best strategy for making it go away. — DAGwyn 02:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is tricky. As a professor of philosophy, I can say that the "most" claim is still almost certainly true. However, precisely because it is true, it is almost impossible to document, because it is "beneath" consideration for people to go on record with their contempt. "Some" is misleading, because the existential quantifier aside, the word has the connotation of "not a lot." There are objective facts that could support the reception claim, but they would be almost impossible to shepherd. For example, I defy anyone to find three upper division courses exclusively about Ayn Rand offered by any philosophy departments in the English speaking world. It can't be done. (Requiring freshman to read "Virtue of Selfishness" in introductory ethics classes doesn't count, which is not unusual, since she is always presented there as a strawman, as in Rachels' widely adopted textbook). But that kind of negative fact is impossible to document. "There are no upper division courses on her offered by a major university's philosophy department [footnote]." Yeah, where's that footnote going to point? To every college catalog in North America? Just to pre-empt any credibility issue here, I should say that I have always disapproved of her reception, which seems disproportionately small compared to her cultural influence and largely driven by political bias and ignorance. But I think there is something subtly propagandistic about "some" in this context, because it sends the message that the opponents are a cranky minority, whereas they are the minority that deigns to speak of her at all. The majority is silent. The reasons are not far to find, given that some studies have placed the percentage of Democrats in academia at over 90%. Unfortunately, I have nothing better to offer than frustrated hand-wringing here. I invite others to do better. Agent Cooper 10:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we agree that such a claim is impossible to document, however, it would take more then an appeal to authority or personal experience to justify such a position in the article. It may very well be the case that you are correct, that most do hold her in contempt and not worthy of even being discussed, but we must stick a neutral description of what can be verified. I also agree that 'Some' does have a connotation of 'not a lot.' 'Not a lot' is accurate when describing just how many have people opened criticized her work, which is something we can verify. Kukyona 17:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it significant that Rand has only four books (two Sciabarra's w/Penn State Press, a collection of articles w/ U Illinois Press, and the Tara Smith book w/Cambridge) published by university presses about her. Not exactly a groundswell of respectability. Agent Cooper 10:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain of how many books have been published by university presses regarding her. I will accept your assertion and agree that is only four. However, this is further proof of her absence in the academic world and not necessarily the contempt academics have for her. Lack of proof is not proof of lacking. Just as we can't verify that most academic philosophers hold her in concept, so too can we not verify she is not being taken seriously. While I sympathize with your sentiment and personal experience, such negative proof is a fallacy. I agree that the number of books is indeed very small, but I could see how that information might be significant in pointing out a positive proof of change, that she is being taken more seriously. Kukyona 17:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions about the article

I recently re-wrote the Objectivist movement article. It went over well. I'm considering doing an overhaul of this article as well (though it requires a lot less than the Objectivist movement article). I have several requests for comments to anyone who can help.

If you do revise the article, please keep in mind that it needs to be an objective (no pun intended), factual description, not a promotion (except insofar as readers might like what they see described). — DAGwyn 05:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Satanism

Why is this included in the "cult" section of the article? If it is to be included at all, it should be in a section like "Groups or Movement or Ideologies influenced by Objectivism."

I agree. It has nothing to do with whether Objectivism may in some way be considered a cult. Frankly, I don't see how Satanism can reasonably be related to Objectivism; there are few if any common concepts between them. — DAGwyn 05:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Responses to Objectivist Philosophy

The section is barely about its section heading. Nozick should be discussed, as should John Hospers. That's about it. The rest should be shortened and given its own section. "Influence of Objectivism" or something.

Keep in mind that non-Objectivists get their say here too. I agree that the section is disproportionately long, and the latter part is largely defensive. You might take a cue from what I did for the C (programming language) article and give "Criticism of Objectivism" its own article, to which much of this section could be moved. (The introductory part should remain.) — DAGwyn 05:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

My point on this section is that it should concern objections raised by philosophers, not on who or how many people in what institutions like Objectivism (that is a topic for the Objectivist Movement article). Since there is already and article on the Objectivist movement, this article should focus on philosophical topics. Movement issues, such as Objectivisms lack of acceptence by most mainstream philosophers, should be mentioned briefly with a re-direct to the Objectivist movement article. Otherwise there is much too much overlap.Endlessmike 888 05:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur. There has to be that mention of the (historical, at least) lack of acceptance by the academic mainstream, because that is important to people in that mainstream! — DAGwyn 17:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Varieties

This should be titled "Interpretation Controversies" or something and discuss (briefly) the interpretive differences between Peikoff and Kelley.

I agree. "Competing interpretations" is another possible heading. Also note the quotation in the into to the "Responses" section; while Rand was alive, she reasonably could demand that "Objectivism" be treated as a sort of trademark of hers, but now we have to consider whether a stationary body of thought is sufficiently viable. Both Peikoff and Kelley appear to believe that the philosophy can be further developed. I'm almost certain that Rand designated Peikoff as her "official" intellectual heir (replacing Branden), but there is a question as to what extent he can actually dictate the philosophy, and whether that is desirable. — DAGwyn 05:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I basically agree. I want to avoid discussing competing institutions, and focus on competing interpretations. Institutions are a topic for the movement article.Endlessmike 888 05:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Presentation of philosophy

Some of the presentation is too vague, some too techincal (ie requiring terminology that is meaningless to people not already familiar with Objectivism), and some is plain wrong. As opposed to listing five branches I propose listing explaining important concepts or principles. "Similarity as Measurement-Omission," "The Objectivity of Values," "Egoism," something political. Maybe not those specific topics but something along those lines. Other philosophy articles do not have a breakdown branch by branch.

I too have thought that the article doesn't really present a clear picture of Objectivism to the general reader. I suggest sticking with Rand's own summary formulation(s) in this article, reserving details for the auxiliary articles on specific facets. By the way, it's not just "egoism", but "rational egoism"; otherwise the general reader would get the wrong impression. — DAGwyn 05:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Good ideas. A discussion of ethics would include her rejection of predatory egoism and hedonism, with emphasis on her idea that egoism requires principles. Endlessmike 888 05:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That's it for now. Endlessmike 888 02:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/b/j/Talk%7EObjectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29_343b.html"

Categories: Unassessed-Class Philosophy articles | Unknown-importance Philosophy articles | B-Class Atheism articles | Mid-importance Atheism articles