Talk:List of political philosophers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
List This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Who counts as a philosopher?

This list is inaccurate. To be a political philosopher, surely one must be a philosopher. But Erich Fromm, Paulo Freire, Roland Barthes, Noam Chomsky, Jean Baudrillard, Guy Debord, and Fredric Jameson are not philosophers. Did they all advance important and interesting theories? Sure. But advancing important and interesting theories is not sufficient to qualify one as a philosopher. To be a philosopher, one must work to attain a coherent view of the theories that the various disciplines accept. Neither Fromm, Freire, Barthes, Chomsky, Baudrillard, Debord, nor Jameson ever did this.

This list would be better called "List of political theorists." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.30.198 (talk • contribs)

A lot of the names on the list never held an academic position in philosophy: Aristotle, Plato, Confusius, Kant, Marx. In contrast, a number of the other more recent figure the anon mentions did hold academic posts in philosophy, though some held titles in other modern disciplines. Trying to judge whether a given figure "attained a coherent view" is pure original research, so has no place here (I'd argue a lot of the central, canonical figures of political philosphy were ultimately not coherent in their positions... though not in Wikipedia article space, since I'm no primary source). But exact job title isn't that much of a guide either: for example, Rorty is definitely considered within the philosophy discipline most of the time, even though his job is in comp lit or something. LotLE×talk 19:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
It's true that a lot of the names on the list never held an academic position in philosophy. But that is irrelevant to the question whether they were philosophers.
But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose it is relevant. Of Fromm, Freire, Barthes, Chomsky, Baudrillard, and Jameson, who held an academic position in philosophy?
Off the top of my head, I think Fromm, Frieire, and Baudrillard have had that job title. Maybe Jameson too, I'm not sure of his resume. I don't think Barthes did, and I'm sure Chomsy did not. And I'm completely certain Artistotle and Marx did not. LotLE×talk
The criterion I proposed for being a philosopher was not that one "attained a coherent view." It was that one "work to attain a coherent view of the theories that the various disciplines accept." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.212.142 (talk • contribs)
Please, anonymous, read no original research. You are proposing to substitute your own judgements (which seem to amount to what you were told in two or three undergrad classes) for consensus of the field of political philosophy. I have no idea how one might decide, other than by personal bias, who did or did not "work to attain" (nor what "theories that the various disciplines accept" means in even the vaguest sense: what disciplines are "various"? There aren't any theories that all disciplines accept, or even all political philosphers, etc). LotLE×talk 16:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What's on the top of your head hardly constitutes sound evidence for views about who's a philosopher and who's not.

There's good evidence that Fromm never held an academic position in philosophy, and his Ph.D. was in sociology, not philosophy: http://www.erich-fromm.de/e/index.htm

There's good evidence that Freire never held an academic position in philosophy: http://www.paulofreireinstitute.org/PF-life_and_work_by_Peter.html

There's good evidence that Baudrillard never held an academic position in philosophy, and his Ph.D. was in sociology, not philosophy: http://www.mediamente.rai.it/mmold/english/bibliote/biografi/b/baudrillard.htm

I couldn't find any conclusive evidence on the web that Jameson never held an academic position in philosophy. But the fact that for the last 35 years he has held posts in French, Literature, and History of Consciousness Departments, never in Philosophy Departments, places the burden of proof on the view that he may have held an academic position in philosophy: http://sun3.lib.uci.edu/~scctr/Wellek/jameson/A19biography.html

It's slightly interesting that none of the links you provide speak whatsoever to what particular academic positions Fromm, Freire, Baudrillard or Jameson held.
False on all counts. Each speaks of the academic positions they held, and names them. (Had you read them, you would have seen that Freire did hold a chair for a couple of years in History and Philosophy of Education. But that provides no evidence for the view that he held a position in philosophy.)

It's quite possible that some or all of them never worked in a building that had a sign saying "Philosophy" over the door. But you haven't given any evidence about it, one way or the other. In any case, that's of no particular relevance or interest to this article.

Exactly! I only set down this path for the sake of argument. It was you who thought this might be relevant. I have all along maintained its irrelevance. See my comment above. I am glad we now agree.

LotLE×talk 02:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I read No Original Research. Nothing I've said or implied violates the policy, which provides:

"Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position." Nothing I've said or implied contains any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position. What I've said (that is, my proposed criterion for what counts as philosophizing) summarizes the consensus in philosophy about what philosophy is and how it is done.

You think that what I've said violates the policy. But so does your own position, which holds that consensus in the field of political philosophy ought to be the criterion for determining who's a political philosopher. So this complaint is both irrelevant and self-contradictory.

That you have no idea how one might decide whether a given person meets my proposed criterion is irrelevant to the question whether it is a good criterion. As I've said, the criterion summarizes what consensus philosophers have reached concerning the question, "What is philosophy?" Philosophers do know how to apply the criterion, and they do apply it. Again, Fromm, Freire, Barthes, Chomsky, Baudrillard, and Jameson do not satisfy it.

The fact that I managed to earn a Ph.D. in political philosophy, and am moderately well published in the field probably makes it moderately significant that I cannot even begin to make heads or tails of what your "criterion" is even trying to describe. I honestly haven't the foggiest idea how one might even begin to evaluate who has "worked to attain a coherent view", or whatever it is you are suggesting. If an ordinary Ph.D. in the exact field cannot make any sense of your criterion, it probably suggests it's not neutral or objective. LotLE×talk 02:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It might make it moderately significant. But it hardly makes it conclusive. There are plenty of published practitioners in many fields who either do not grasp or reject some doctrine that a majority of published practitioners in the field do grasp and accept. Here again is the criterion, as I proposed it: "To be a philosopher, one must work to attain a coherent view of the theories that the various disciplines accept." Philosophy is metatheory--it tries to make a coherent picture out of all the pictures that the various disciplines accept. As those theories change, the philosopher tries to rework the picture so that it adequately represents the new theories and yet retains coherence. Fromm, Freire, Barthes, Chomsky, Baudrillard, and Jameson have never published results of any engagement in this activity. So, by my criterion, they are not philosophers.
Is there anyone who has done this weird characterization you write?! How could someone tell whether someone had done it. I'm not being a smart-ass here (perhaps uncharacteristically), I haven't even the slightest idea what you're even advocating, let alone how one might decide who has done whatever it is. Other than the fact that the mentioned names have apparently not done this thing, are there people who have done it? Is there any course of research that could identify such people?
I'm assuming that you probably speak some other language than English as a first language—and so no doubt are to be praised for understanding that language far better than I do. But as a native English speaker, I cannot even quite make grammatical sense of your stated "criterion". What are "the various disciplines"? How would one know what these various disciplines accept? What could it mean to "attain a coherent view"? Are there people who attain incoherent views? Or have no views at all? Is there any human being, living or dead, who would not qualify under your characterization? LotLE×talk 02:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
In any case, the burden lies on you to provide a better criterion. So far, all you have done is (1) assert that Fromm, Freire, Barthes, Chomsky, Baudrillard, and Jameson are philosophers, (2) complain that my criterion is not good enough, and (3) criticize evidence I gave for my views while providing none yourself in support of your own views. You have yet to give a reason for the assertion, and you have yet to propose an alternative criterion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.30.198 (talk • contribs)

[edit] is rand a political philosopher?

there seems to be no agreement that she was a philosopher, therefor how can she be a political philosopher. --Buridan 19:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I definitely think Rand is out of place here. But it's a big enough list that I haven't worried unduly about the one questionable name... especially since it gets so many vociferous proponents (none who know actual philosophy, I think). LotLE×talk 19:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually do know philosophy (though that is beside the point). Britannica calls Rand a philosopher, as do the American Heritage Dictionary, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Wadsworth Philosophers series, and the American Philosopical Association. LaszloWalrus 03:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well... I see, LaszloWalrus, that your user page says Bachelor's degree in philosophy and classics (expected 2010). I'm afraid that's exactly what I meant by "don't know philosophy"... as in "have a Ph.D. in the field" (or at very bare least, a masters). Heck, what does this mean, that you took one class as a freshman? I know this is a bit too close to WP:NPA, but I do always hate to see my (former) profession besmirched by such loosey-goosey claims about what philosophy means (as if it meant a personal passing fancy or attitude, not a discipline of scholarship).
Philosophy DOES mean an attitude, love of wisdom, not a disciple of scholarship. Love of wisdom often lead to scholastic philosophy (philosophy as a disciple of scholarship), or academic philosophy (philosophy in an academic setting) but those are important kinds of philosophy rather than the whole of philosophy. Do you think of other disciplines of scholarship that someone doesn't know them unless they have a Ph.D. in the field, or at least a masters? That seems excessive for any field, much less one like philosophy. Bmorton3 19:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by the APA calling Rand a philosopher: they're an association not a publication. But if those other sources do, that's pretty strong. The IEP sort of dances around it, talking about "her philosophy" but not quite calling her a philosopher... but it comes close. EB (at least the 2004 Complete Home Library CD version) is rather farther from the claim, settling for: Russian-born American writer who, in commercially successful novels, presented her philosophy of objectivism. So the bluster about these sources is a bit less than born out by the sources I have at my fingertips. I have an AHD (electronic version) on another computer; I don't own the Wadsworth series. Nonetheless, despite your somewhat loose use of facts, I'm not going to remove Rand's name personally... some of my solid B political philosophy students had a strange affection for her. LotLE×talk 04:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Well the APA did allow the creation an Ayn Rand Society as an affiliated organization that meets at APA conventions. Check your program next time you go to one, if your in the states and go to them ... Bmorton3 19:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I am beginning to suspect that Laszlo is promoting rand to a status that she does not hold. that is a non-neutral position. what are the standards for inclusion for this list? Most philosophers do not see rand as a philosopher, from my experience. there are few articles in the philosophers index, and of those, none in journals of note. as i made the argument elsewhere, herman melville's moby dick is references more frequently in better journals. until a consensus is reached that a. rand is a philosopher, b. rand made contributions to political philosophy according to a standard of inclusion, then rand should not be on this list. --Buridan 12:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Followup: got to my other computer... and well:
Rand, Ayn. 1905-19821. Russian-born American writer primarily known for her polemical novels, such as The Fountainhead (1943), which defend political conservatism.
The American Heritage (r) Concise Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition. Copyright (c) 1992 Houghton Mifflin Company.
So far, it looks like LaszloWalrus' claims of citational support are batting zero. There's one I don't have handy, but of the three I do, not a single one says what he boastfully claimed it did. Being an APA society is basically nothing... it means that something like three APA members (not sure if they need to be full members, or if student members suffice) decided to fill out a form, possibly pay a nominal fee.
The thing is that, to my mind at least, bullshit supporting sources come off even worse than an absence of sources. Just guessing that some book might support something you advance isn't passable as scholarship, including not for meeting WP:V on Wikipedia. LotLE×talk 22:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, there is a volume published by Cambridge University Press [1] which deals in part with her political philosphy. Likewise, Robert Nozick's books also deal with Rand to an extent. LaszloWalrus 15:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My reference to the APA deals with this branch [2]. LaszloWalrus 15:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The Nozick was dismissive, and that some group is a part of the apa does not mean that they deal with philosophy. there is only one way to deal with this. we need to set objective criteria for who is and who is not a political philosopher. since it is not widely recognized that rand is a political philosopher, until consensus is reached on wikipedia that there she is, or is not, she should not be included. The next step will be to develop a standard of inclusion that defines political philosophers for this list.--Buridan 16:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think Ayn Rand should be counted as a political philosopher. Her books, especially Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and Anthem are pretty philosophical... but i dunnno. Dawn Abend 21:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] standards for inclusion

I suggest that the standards for inclusion for political philosopher be as follows:

  • 25 references in the philosopher's index from known political philosophy journals
  • if prior to 1900, widely cited as a political theorist or political philosopher.

--16:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ayn Rand

Here is a scholarly work about Rand's political philosophy [3]. LaszloWalrus 01:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Y'know, you really don't do your argument much good by presenting such amazingly bad sources and arguments. First the outright misrepresentation of four reference sources above, and now claiming as a scholarly work a non-academic book by a Rand disciple (that even at that does not obviously call her a philosopher anyway). I've never taken out the name myself... in fact, I'm the first editor who ever added it, albeit largely as a way of preventing some littering of the main political philosophy article. At this point, I'm really starting to want a reputable and neutral source that describes Rand as "a philosopher", which we haven't seen yet (talking about "her philosophy" is a quite different thing). The problem with novels is that while they might imply certain philosophical attitudes, they don't really make philosophical arguments... calling George Orwell a "political philosopher", for example, would have similar problems (another writer contemporary with Rand who has been influential on political thinking, and might even have a political philosophy... but ain't really "a philosopher"). LotLE×talk 05:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

How abou this? [4] LaszloWalrus 16:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I did some poking around, to see what I could find that might shed some light on this debate. I have to say, for the amount of arguing that is flying around here, there doesn't seem to be an equal amount of earnest effort to find firm support for either view. Hopefully this can clear the air a little bit and help lead towards consensus.

  • References that indicate support for her status as a philosopher:
    • The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy does have an article on Rand[1], and it is fairly well developed. Its introduction states plainly, "Rand’s philosophy is in the Aristotelian tradition, with that tradition’s emphasis upon metaphysical naturalism, empirical reason in epistemology, and self-realization in ethics. Her political philosophy is in the classical liberal tradition, with that tradition’s emphasis upon individualism, the constitutional protection of individual rights to life, liberty, and property, and limited government.", but the whole article deals mostly with her work on ethics and reason. After reading it all the way through, I see no indication that it "dances around" her title as a philosopher. It also includes a good bibliography of her work as well as that of others that evaluate and deal with her work and its influence in philosophy and other disciplines. A few are by a scholar, acknowledged to be a philosopher by the Wikipedia and acadmic communities, named Leonard Peikoff. He claims to be Rand's intellectual heir, yet this has not affected his title. I have not myself read or looked through any of the books themselves, but some titles reflect that philosophers are engaging her ideas as philosophy:
      • Rasmussen, Douglas and Douglas Den Uyl, editors. The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1984. A collection of scholarly essays by philosophers, defending and criticizing various aspects of Objectivism's metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics.
      • Branden, Nathaniel, and Barbara Branden. Who Is Ayn Rand? New York: Random House, 1962. This book contains three essays on Objectivism's moral philosophy, its connection to psychological theory, and a literary study of Rand's novel methods. It contains an additional biographical essay, tracing Rand's life from birth up until her mid-50s.
      • Hessen, Robert. In Defense of the Corporation. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution, 1979. An economic historian, Hessen argues and defends from an Objectivist perspective the moral and legal status of the corporate form of business organizations.
      • Sciabarra, Chris Matthew. Ayn Rand, The Russian Radical. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995. A work in history of philosophy, this book attempts to trace the influence upon Rand's thinking of dialectical
    • The Chronicle of Higher Education has an article[2], I beleive from 1999, thats speaks at length about Rand's creeping acceptance in the academic world. A good article that treats both pro- and anti-Rand positions.

Sanford G. Thatcher, director of the press, sees The Russian Radical and Feminist Interpretations as turning points. "A lot of what had been written before was done from a cultish viewpoint," he says. "The effort here is to bring Rand into dialogue with other thinkers, the way Marx or Jung were brought out of their narrow circle of devotees." He also notes that Rand "sells a lot of books." Other presses want a piece of the action. In addition to Mr. Sciabarra's two volumes, new books are forthcoming or in process on Rand's aesthetics, moral philosophy, relevance to the philosophy of science, and stormy relationship with libertarianism. A journal of Rand literary studies is in the works, and the Twayne Masterworks Studies, published by Macmillan, will soon include volumes on The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

– Jeff Sharlet, Chronicle of Higher Education, Ayn Rand Has Finally Caught the Attention of Scholars: New books and research projects involve philosophy, political theory, literary criticism, and feminism

  • References that lend weak support for her status as a philosopher:
    • The Wadsworth Philosopher Series[3] does have a book written on her and her philosophy, but they also include in that series other scholars whos status as a philosopher is sometimes contested (e.g. Freud, Thoreau, Wallstonecraft, Krishnamurti, Camus, Jesus, etc.)
    • The Philosophical Dictionary calls her a novelist and essayist, but also states that she "introduced the philosophy of objectivism in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and defended a version of ethical egoism in The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism."[4] The website is run and written by Garth Kemerling, a professor of philosophy for 25 years at the University of Iowa - which has a very good philosophy graduate program. A short bio[5] and his curriculum vitae[6] are available on the website.
    • The Free On-line Dictionary of Philosophy (FOLDOP) has a small article on Rand as well; it is mostly copied from the IEP, but with a different list of suggested reading.[7]
    • The Encyclopedia Brittanica, on its website[8], offers this intro to her article, "Russian-born American writer who, in commercially successful novels, presented her philosophy of objectivism, essentially reversing the traditional Judeo-Christian ethic." and then includes a full paragraph talking about how, "The political philosophy of objectivism shaped Rand's work..."
    • At Answers.com, and online encyclopedia acknowledged by the wikipedia community, it has the following[9] bit:

1905–82, American writer, b. St. Petersburg, Russia. She came to the United States in 1926 and worked for many years as a screenwriter. Her novels are romantic and dramatic, and they espouse a philosophy of rational self-interest that opposes the collective of the modern welfare state. Her best-known novels include The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957). In For the New Intellectual (1961) she summarized her philosophy, which she called objectivism.

– Columbia University Press, The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia

    • The Philosophy Research Base[10], has a bit on her, in addition to some links to Rand or pro-Objectivist sites, but it also has this nice blurb:

As a thinker, Ayn Rand has occupied a remarkably polarized status in American culture. Her novels and collections of nonfiction essays have for decades attracted a large popular readership, worldwide, and her ideas have generated a multifaceted philosophic movement, with a discernible influence on political and economic thought in the culture at large. Yet she is still regarded with a mixture of suspicion and contempt by many intellectuals, including most academics. In truth, such negative feelings were, in large measure, mutual during her lifetime, for she began her career as a popular author and, like Tolstoy and other well-known Russian writers, she deliberately pursued her literary and philosophic goals as an academic outsider.

– Author of, What Art Is: The Aesthetic Theory of Ayn Rand

  • References that indicate she is not accepted as a philosopher:
    • The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has no article on her.
    • The All Media Guide, and the American Heritage Dictionary simply refer to her a 'writer' who espoused or contributed to the doctrines of Objectivism and political libertarianism.

Lets see if we can get some more, non-internet related sources here. - Sam 20:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Notice Sam, that a lot of people write about "Rand's philosophy" while not writing that "Rand was a philosopher". That's why it's quite similar to the Orwell example above. This includes some academics, including all of those you quote. Peikoff doesn't really count, since his only notability is as a disciple of Rand. Or maybe she's similar to Ted Kazinski who is presented the same way (with fewer followers though), who also had a "philosophy" without actually being a philosopher. LotLE×talk 05:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
OK - I have to ask - if someone comes up with a/several philosophies or champions and outlines a/several philosophies, does that not then make that person a philosopher? And if the topic has ties to politics, would that not make one a political philosopher? If Rand's not enough of a political philosopher for this list, what would you call her? An author who writes about philosophy that discusses politics? In which case, the whole list fairly well blinks out of view, no? Also, regarding a comment below - what evidence is there that people do not think she is a political philosopher? Absence of proof is not proof of absence, after all, and the list above provides support, some weak support, and some absences... DukeEGR93 04:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Rand is pretty clear about her own status in citation. She says that she is a novelist and that all novelists are philosophers. However, as we know, not all novelists are philosophers. The logic of my position is based in the fact that the dispute is quite clear and footnoted on the rand page on wikipedia. The further evidence is found in who cites rand and uses her the philosopher's index. only one major philosopher used or dealth with rand, and that was nozick, and he later said he wished he hadn't. The issue is one of being a philosopher vs being promoted as a philosopher. many rand disciples want to promote rand as a philosopher, i think it is fine to want that. i think it is a npov violation to do that. --Buridan 11:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
So, I checked the Philosoper's Index (who knew?) and after going through the Ayn Rand Studies journals, which I am sure would not be counted here, I did note some entries for Rand, not from those, that would seem to indicate naming as a philosopher would be appropriate: "Ayn Rand" by Sciabarra (2003) and "American Philosophers, 1950-2000" by McHenry (2003) (which includes in the description "...the editors have also included important figures from political philosophy--John Hospers, Ayn Rand,...") in particular. DukeEGR93 15:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
yes, i think that has been brought up before and the clear reading is that he included them 'also', not because they were noted political philosophers, but because some people think they made important contribution, but one authors editorial discretion really does not change much. I think that if you search for Rand and then search for other non-philosophers like Thoreau and Orwell in the index, you'll see the issue there. Usually she has fewer citations than Orwell:(. --Buridan 15:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Buridan, Rand says no such thing. She has always said that she was BOTH a novelist AND a philospher. And the remarks that you are misquoting do NOT say "all novelists are philosphers". Here's the quote, "Rand viewed herself primarily as a novelist, not a philosopher (but was somewhat bothered by the question because it implied that they contradict)" Her point is very clear: Being a novelist does not prevent one from being a philosopher. And the footnote you refer to is very ambiguous. Here is the heart of that footnote, "Perhaps because she so eschewed academic philosophy, and because her works are rightly considered to be works of literature, Objectivist philosophy is regularly omitted from academic philosophy. Yet throughout literary academia, Ayn Rand is considered a philosopher. Her works merit consideration as works of philosophy in their own right." Now, what niether you nor the footnote mention is that she wrote as many or more pages of non-fiction, on her philosophy, as she did fiction. Your whole argument about "...disciples want to promote rand...' is so wrong. First, she is a philosopher and needs no "promotion". Second, anyone that was a "disciple" would certainly not think of her as less than a philosopher and therefore would have no such motivation. Third, as an argument, it makes more sense when turned around - "There are those who feel a strong dislike for Rand, perhaps because of her ardent support of Capitalism, and they want to demote her". Fourth, it is an insulting form of attack on fellow WP editors. I'll let the other readers be the judge of who is pushing non-neutral POV. And I notice that you still choose not to answer the WP policy issues raised by User:144.189.5.201 (see below in this section)- those objections you deleted from the other talk page. SteveWolfer 15:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
the quote is from the new intellectual where she says 'in a sense, all novelists are philosophers' its on page 7 steve. as for anonymous users, i had thought that it was probably just your or laszlo repeating the same old same old same old same old.... i answered that one months ago, it seems. verifiability is the principle, except where there is contradictory evidence, then you have to either present both sides, which is a logical impossibility, one cannot be and not be the same thing, or no sides. if she needs no promotion, then why are you promoting her?. she's clearly not a philosophy by the standard of successful philosophers, else she would be widely cited by philosophers. --Buridan 20:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


Here are some courses at my school (Duke University) that include Rand as a major component: [5], [6], [7], [8]. LaszloWalrus 04:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the best we can do currently is assert that she is a writer who espoused a philosophy, much like orwell, much like many others. we can find far more philosophy and politics courses that use george orwell, than we can find those that use rand. similarly we can find far more philosopher's citing moby dick than we can find citing her book which supposedly with epistemology. if philosophers do philosophy, and we can take the whole of the spirit of the field as evidenced by the citation indexes, then use of rand's books in philosophy is equivalent to the use of other literary figures's books. there is no way to distinguish using the evidence above that there is anything other than a philosophical writer there. then you have to compare her works to the philosophy of the authors of the philosophy lists... and you quickly find she's missing in their bibliographies, even usually when you go look for the libertarians. all you have really is a very small, group of people promoting rand on wikipedia because they think she does philosophy, but that is not being neutral toward the whole of the overwhelming evidence which suggests that 'people don't agree that she is a philosopher'. if the evidence suggests that people do not agree, then you cannot certify her has a philosoper in wikipedia, as it is npov.--Buridan 12:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Verifiable source of Rand as a philosopher: http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761579630 "Ayn Rand (1905-1982), American novelist and philosopher, whose championing of the gifted individual established her as a controversial figure in 20th-century literary and philosophical debate."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VERIFIABLE "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research."

So, please provide a reliable verifiable source that she is not a philosopher. 144.189.5.201 22:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

A bit of a false dilemna - can you give me something printed by, say, Oxford University Press which says that magic doesn't exist? --GoodIntentionstalk 02:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly cry myself to sleep if it was decided to call Rand a philosopher, but I think we shouldn't. There certainly is a lot of philosophic implications to what she does, or rather, to what assumptions she underpins her novels with. But she never practiced as a philosopher, unless someone can dig up a career of philosophic articles, contributions to journals and the like. There is exactly as much ground for calling Dostoevsky a philosopher, or Shakespeare, and for the sake of precision we probably should not. Sartre managed to contribute to philosophic literature, De Beauvoir managed to be a writer, so it would perhaps be overly kind to call Rand both a philosopher and a writer on the strength of her being the latter alone. In my estimation that would be why secondary and tertiary sources prefer not to directly call her a philosopher. To do so would to weaken the definition, especially since the only cogent definition of philosophy seems to be "that which philosophers do". --GoodIntentionstalk 02:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

A couple quick points: "...practiced as a philosopher" and "that which philosophers do" would include founding a philosophy (Objectivism), lecturing and teaching on the philosophy, publishing hundreds of articles on epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, and aesthetics, as well as non-fiction books on the same subjects. Writing for academic journals is NOT the only way to practice philosophy. SteveWolfer 05:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Read her works, judge for yourself. Dawn Abend 21:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The Orwell analogy, in my view, is a false one. If all Rand did was write novels, then I would agree with excluding her from this list; however, she wrote non-fiction works explicitly dealing with political philosophy, such as The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal, and is referred to as a philosopher in a variety of sources, including, for example, one published by Cambridge University Press. I really don't see what the dispute is over. LaszloWalrus 19:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

The wiki pages for the majority of the philosophers use BC, it seems correct to maintain wikipedia consistancy on this page by maintaining that convention.

Look at the articles for Confusius, or Mozi, or most of the philosophers listed here using the non-Xtian-specific BCE style. They all use BCE. Socrates is about the only exception, perhaps because he was European (though I'd still prefer to avoid that... but that's a different article). LotLE×talk 18:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
No the majority use BC. Socrates, Xenophon, Plato, Diogenes, Aristotle, Han Fei and Marcus Tullius Cicero use BC. Confucius, Mozi, Mencius are the only ones I saw that use BCE.
I thought that changing to match the Wikipedia philosopher page date format most used seemed to be a substantial reason, as "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." as "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but should be consistent within an article."
But, you seem to feel stronger than I do on this point (although your "They all use BCE" except for Socrates statement is factually wrong), so I'll allow your "subjective truth" to trump my "objective truth".

[edit] RfC Feedback

RfC initiated Monday, 9/25, to help answer the question, "Should Ayn Rand be included in the Wikipedia List of political philosophers" DukeEGR93 17:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course. A.J.A. 17:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a debatable question with no clearly correct answer. I note the existence of an organization that pays to promote her philosophy. I note very shoddy research above for some of the claims that she so is. (For example, claiming that Answers.com describes her as a philosopher, when they mirror Wikipedia content constitutes using Wikipedia to justify the claim, but Wikipedia is not a reliable source per WP:RS.) Ultimately, I come down to the question of whether what she thought she was. When the judgement is questionable, I prefer to use self-identification as the preliminary evaluation. (If I'm still alive then, ask me a generation after copyright on her works has expired, and we can reevaluate then.) On the evidence available to date, she appears to have primarily considered herself a novelist, and thus I would say that she should not be included. GRBerry 22:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, she considered herself BOTH a novelist and a philospher. For her, the novelist was the primary 'love' but she saw no contradiction in being both. There are those who believe that the explicit philosphy she created and promoted within her novels justifies calling her a philosopher. She wrote more non-fiction philosophy than novels and her non-fiction writing covers political philosophy, aethetics, ethics and epistomology. It wouldn't make sense to exclude her for being a novelist without having away to explain away the non-fiction writings on Objectivism. I believe she should be included. SteveWolfer 01:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
got a cite for that, that isn't contradicted by other cites by rand herself?--Buridan 02:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Might I humbly suggest the smallest little chill pill for all of us who have commented on this issue already way above this RfC, as to let the RfC process do its work? DukeEGR93 02:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment The word 'philosophy' is used in two senses: 1. to name a particular academic and literary discipline; 2. to refer to a system of beliefs. In sense 2, Rand certainly had and promoted a philosophy. We could call her a philosopher on that basis, in the same sense that Tolstoy was a philosopher. But this list is surely a list of notable political philosophers in sense 1, not sense 2: if it's not, it's likely to expand beyond any possibility of coherence or usefulness. So, was Rand a notable political philosopher in that disciplinary sense? Some things are not relevant to that question: her self-description is not (or I'd be on the list); WP editors' positive or negative assessments of the quality of her thought are not (or the list would be irredeemably subjective and partial); influence on people's thinking about politics is not (or Tolstoy would be on the list). Some other things are relevant. Is she widely described as a political philosopher, in the disciplinary sense, in reliable sources? The answer reached above seems to be 'no'. Did she engage with the discussions of the discipline, or take part in other disciplinary activities? No. Has she had a shaping influence on those disciplinary activities? No. Did she engage with political questions in the style(s) which make philosophy distinctive as a discipline? No. On these grounds, I don't think she should be on this list (on these criteria, I also think a few other names should be dropped: much as I love the work of Frederick Douglass, for instance, he doesn't count). Note that I've made no comment whatever on the quality of Rand's thought or the importance of her conclusions - I have views about those questions, but they're not to the point. Cheers, Sam Clark 10:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Ayn Rand definitely considered herself a philosopher. The question is, did her philosophy specifically apply to the philosophy of politics or was it more general/in a different area? If yes, then she should go on the list. If no, then she shouldn't. I'm afraid I don't know enough about her to decide, it should be obvious to anyone who has read her work, I assume. Dev920 11:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just argued, above, that whether or not Rand considered herself a philosopher isn't relevant to whether she should go on the list or not. Are you disagreeing with me, and if so, on what grounds? Cheers, Sam Clark 11:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't say I was disagreeing with you necessarily. You are right in one sense that whether Rand considered herself a philosopher or not above is irrelevant, as Saddam Hussein still considers himself President of Iraq and that's blatently not true. But that she considered herself a philosopher and wrote books on the subject to me, makes her a philosopher. So I'm not really disagreeing with you because we're answering different questions, so to speak.Dev920 12:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Reading back, my question above comes across as snappy: sorry, didn't mean it that way. I think we are disagreeing (in a friendly way), though: I don't think that one becomes a philosopher (in the relevant, disciplinary sense) just by considering oneself one and writing books on the subject. There's more to it than that, and I try and suggest some of what that more is in my comment above. Specifically, I don't think one qualifies for inclusion in this list just by meeting your criteria, and I don't think Rand qualifies for inclusion. Cheers, Sam Clark 13:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
What would you call someone who writes books on philosophy then? Dev920 14:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd call her a writer, or a crank, or an iconoclastic genius, or any number of other things depending on what exactly she wrote. Alain de Botton writes 'books on philosophy', but what he writes is selfhelp fluff, and I wouldn't call him a philosopher. Sophie's World is a book about (the history of) philosophy, but Jostein Gaarder is a novelist, not a philosopher. 1984 is a novel which expresses a philosophy (my sense 2), but George Orwell was not a philosopher (sense 1). I wouldn't include any of these people in any list of philosophers, because either the point of such a list is to identify important members of a particular discipline, or it has no useful or achievable purpose. Cheers, Sam Clark 14:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment I pulled 4 recent introduction to Philosophy textbooks off my shelf, and 3 list her as a philosopher, (Invitation to Philosophy: Issues and Options 2006, 10e 4 authors; Twenty Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy, 2007, 6e 3 editors; Voices of Wisdom: A Multicultural Philosophy reader 2007, 6e Gary Kessler), and 1 didn't mention her at all (Philosophy: A text with Readings by Manuel Valasquez 2005). Doctrines discussed include Objectivism's response to Relativism, Rand on free will, and Rand on selfishness. Both texts which are collections of primary texts include excerpts from Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness." None of them includes her in discussions of political philosophy, but Kessler's Voices of Wisdom, explicitly ties her take on selfishness and altruism to economic and political considerations and briefly discusses her influence on political Libertarianism. (Kessler's brief bio of her before her excerpt says "Rand was a novelist and a philosopher who began a movement called Objectivism.") I know she crops up as a philosopher in a wide variety of other recent philosophy textsbooks. I'm sure I could find half a dozen other references in recent reliable sources. I've taught her as a philosopher before, and I don't particularly agree with her. I had a collegue in the philosophy department at Auburn who wrote extensively on her relation to Aristotle (a book, Reason and Value: Aristotle vs Rand). Whether you like her or not I can't think of anyway to deny that she is a philosopher in the sense required by Wikipedia. In the disciplinary sense, she is called and treated as a philosopher by other professional philosophers on a routine basis, in writing and teaching, even if many others do not think of her as a philosopher. Whether she is a notable political philosopher is trickier. Mostly people engage her ethical thought, rather than her political thought. JSTOR doesn't list any decent recent discussions of Rand's political thought, for example. I haven't found any good discussions of her as political philosopher in reliable sources, but you can keep looking. Has anyone come up with any decent verifiable sources that Rand ISN'T a philosopher yet? Even the weak ones above simply don't claim she is. Bmorton3 19:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

this is probably why none of my philosophy courses used textbooks.... :) I do think we have to be wary of what we teach in introductory courses as being representative of anything philosophical, frequently introduction courses are aimed less at philosophy and more about making the translations between diverse groups of minds and philosophical ideas. to use rand in such a context would not be uncommon, however, when you go onto higher level work, which is clearly much more disciplinary, rand more often than not, falls aside in favor of philosophers. Are there other possible non-philosophers in your introduction to philosophy textbooks? likely yes? --Buridan 19:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I think we have to be wary of assuming that only what goes on at the higher levels of the discipline counts as philosophy. As if the mathematics done by grade school children was not mathematics because it was not professional mathematics. Do you have any evidence that Rand "more often than not falls aside in favor of philosophers" at the "higher level"? Because, I looked briefly for evidence and found none other than my experiences. I'm guessing you and I have only anecdotal evidence here. And my experiences include a collegue at Auburn who taught and thought about her a LOT even at the high level discussions. What exactly do you mean by "possible non-philosophers"? My guess is that every philosopher is also a "possible non-philosopher" and thus that all other examples count. My sense is that Invitations to Philosophy sticks pretty close to the main stream here, and that the other 3 all make a conscious effort to be multi-cultural. Thus they include some thinkers who might be considered religious rather than purely philosophical if you think that distinction can fly somehow, Lao Tzu is in all three, for instance. Likewise, I suspect you would consider some of the authors to be writers-but-not-philosophers, Borges' "What is Real?" is included in one text and Tolstoy's "What is Art?" in the other for example. The four I grabbed first are all Wadsworth texts, look them up at Wadsworths site and judge for yourself. But let us return to the point, the job of Wikipedia is not to decide whether Rand is or isn't a philosopher, but whether she is deemed one by reliable sources. Introduction textbooks are a great example of a reliable source, and I've found one saying she is (as well as the host of sources someone found earlier; the IEP lists her and has plenty of high level discussion of her in the Bib, that's a great reliable source). Find some equally reliable sources saying she isn't and then maybe we can have a debate, but right now my shelves and this site seem to have a lot of evidence on one side, and little more than anecdotal evidence on the other. Here's another Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia footnotes Rand's position 3 times from 3 different texts. Maybe she isn't famous as a political philosopher, but the other political philosophers do engage her even at the high levels. Bmorton3 20:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
BM3 (hi Brian) is quite right that the standard is verifiability not truth, but we do have to decide on the criteria for inclusion in this list: we can't take that from reliable sources. I'd like to restate my suggested answer to that question. To be included, candidate X should meet the following criteria:
1. peer recognition: X is widely described as a political philosopher by other political philosophers
2. engagement: X took part in the discussions and other activities of the discipline of political philosophy
3. influence: X had a significant influence on the discipline
4. style: X considered political questions in the style(s) which make philosophy distinctive
X could be widely referred to in political philosophy texts (e.g. George Orwell); could write about issues which also concern political philosophers (e.g. George Monbiot); and could be described as a philosopher in reliable works (e.g. any philosopher who isn't a political philosopher), without meeting these criteria. I completely agree with BM3 that we should be wary of supposing that only 'high-level' discussion counts as real philosophy; but I think Buridan's point that inclusion in an introductory anthology does not make X a (political) philosopher is a good one. The collection I'm going to be teaching from this year includes Dostoevsky, for instance. I still don't think Rand counts: she probably doesn't meet my 1 and almost certainly doesn't meet 2 or 4. 3 is trickier, and would probably turn on the question of how much influence she's had on libertarians who are clearly political philosophers. Nozick is mostly dismissive of her thought, and much more obviously influenced by Locke and by Rawls. Tibor Machan would be worth investigating, but I don't know enough of his work to judge. Finally, checking the reference works to hand on my desk, I find that neither the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy nor the Oxford Companion to Philosophy has an entry for Rand; that the Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy describes her as a 'writer' and refers to her 'so-called philosophy of objectivism'; and that Goodin and Pettit's massive Contemporary Political Philosophy: an anthology not only contains nothing by Rand, but doesn't even give her an index entry. Cheers, Sam Clark 10:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
the only problem with your criterium is that they need to be measurable/judgeable in a non-subjective manner and not left into the realm of opinion. 1. can be judged in the philosophers index by specifying the major journals of the field, or it could be measured otherways such as reference works. 2. can also be measured in relation to journals. 3. ?? 4.?? other than that, i support your move to clear standards.--Buridan 11:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I like Alec's point later that if the question is is she "notable" "political" and a "philosopher" the answer has to be yes, yes, and (I argue) yes, but if the question is "is she notable FOR her political philosophy" the question is trickier. My sense is here the main problem is the threshhold for "notability." There is a complex and contentious set of doctrines on this at Wikipedia: Notability Wikipedia: Notability (Academics) and Wikipedia: Notability (people). In essense Sam seems to be trying to create criteria for Notability (philosophers), and his criteria seem a little to strict to me, but in the right spirit. For example, the author criteria is "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." That's a very low standard, Rand certainly meets that even for just her political philosophy, as do LOTS of people. My sense is that the standard for notability for political philosophers ought to be very low, as electrons are cheap. But if you wanted you could put an explicit stronger criterion at the top of the list, say "These people made widely recognized contributions that are part of the enduring historical record in political philosophy" (Modeled after the strictest of the Notability (people) criteria). Here there would be real debate on Rand and Orwell. You could even re-phrase the criteria at the top to be something like "These people are widely recognized as political philosophers who have made enduring contributions to political philosophy by other political philosophers." This would be an explicit way to change the list from all political philosophers who meet (low) requirements of notability, to some other function. You could even re-name the list "influential political philosophers" or something. Bmorton3 20:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Seems pretty convincing to me that she is often referred to as a political philosopher, and that's all that matter. Looking over the discussion, I see lots of evidence that reliable sources call her philosopher, and lots of evidence that reliable sources call her views (Objectivism) a philosophy. I don't see any evidence, however, of anyone reliable sources saying she's NOT a philosopher. She's more-often referred to as a writer, but being a writer doesn't preclude also being a philosopher. Some philosophy sources don't mention her, but this doesn't prove that the source denies Rand is a philosopher-- she just might not be a very important philosopher, for example. Seems like a slam-dunk case for inclusion. --Alecmconroy 11:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have one more go at this. I have now argued at length, in two posts, that 'being referred to as a political philosopher' is NOT all that matters. It's not a sufficient condition of inclusion (although it is probably a necessary one, as my criterion 1, peer recognition, suggests). The reason it's not, to repeat, is that such a broad criterion of inclusion would make the list unfit for purpose. I may be wrong about that, but it would be nice if people who think I am wrong said why, rather than casually reasserting an inadequate criterion without argument. OK, grump over. On a more pedantic point: the list is not a list of philosophers, it's a list of political philosophers, and none of the sources referenced so far call Rand a political philosopher, even if they call her a philosopher (and many of those, on a fast second scan, seem to me to say that she had or promoted a philosophy, i.e. a system of beliefs, which is not the same thing). Cheers, Sam Clark 12:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, actually, if your point is that YOU do not consider her a philosopher, even if three philosophy books do, that'sWP:OR and irrelevant to this discussion. Write a book on it and maybe it should be considered. Dev920 12:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
That's not remotely what I've said, and I'm pretty tired of repeating myself, but again: the point at issue is whether Rand should be included in a list of political philosophers. In order to answer that question in an impartial way, I've suggested some general criteria for inclusion in such a list: they include, but are not limited to, being described as a political philosopher by other political philosophers. Rand, in my view, does not meet these criteria (and nor do some other people on the current list). This has nothing to do with whether I personally think Rand is a philosopher or not. I invite you, not for the first time, to respond to my arguments for my suggested criteria for inclusion. If you're unwilling to do that, you're not contributing anything constructive to the discussion. Sam Clark 13:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Sam, I'm not going to respond to your arguments because I haven't read them and don't intend to. I came to comment on an RfC, not argue what you think defines a political philosopher. I have done that. Hence my severe lack of interest in getting into a debate with you. Dev920 (Tory?) 17:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Right, so your idea of commenting on an RfC is to state a snap-judgement opinion about a subject you don't know anything about, and then to respond to other people without having read what they said? Please, feel free not to get into a debate with me! After all, that might involve - shock! - thinking about your opinions, or maybe even - horror! - changing your mind. Perhaps you should avoid getting involved with discussing philosophy in future, if you find giving and listening to reasons so dull. Cheers, Sam Clark 23:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, Sam Clark-- my response was listed just in terms of the criteria I thoguht important, but since you mention your criteria, let me explain more fully why I reject them. "#1: widely described as a political philosopher" is a valid one. It's verifiable, it's NPOV, it's repeatable. It's a good criterion. But #2 and #4 lack this"X took part in the discussions and other activities of the discipline of political philosophy", "considered political questions in the style(s) which make philosophy distinctive". How are we ever supposed to assess "proper activity" or "proper style" in a verifiable, neutral way? Again, if you have any reliable, verifiable sources claiming that Rand isn't a political philosopher because of her style or activities, then we can consider those, but we can't just look at the evidence of her life ourselves and decide for ourselves whether she counts. That would be original research. I also object outright to your criterion #3: had a significant influence on the discipline. That might be a good requirement for "List of influential political philosophers", but failing to be influential doesn't mean someone is no longer a political philosopher.
So, for me, the only real issues are "Do lots of reliable sources CALL Rand a political philosopher" and "Do lots of reliable sources explicitly deny that Rand was a political philosopher". The answers to those questions strongly point to her being included in the list-- she's called a philosopher numerous times, and Britannica and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy call some aspects of her work "political philosophy". But even if I ignore my own verifiable criteria for a moment and just ask my own Origian Research opinion of whether Rand merits inclusion, here what I get: She seems to have created Objectivism, which is a system of beliefs that is certainly more philosophical than it is religious. And one of the central pillars of that philosophy is a firm endorsement of capitalism-- and debates about capitalism -vs- other systems is one of the great issues of political philosophy. So, even my original research common sense test tends to lead me to believe that at least ONE of the role Rand had was that of political philosopher.
Looking over your criteria and your comments, I get the feeling that what you're getting at is that Rand was not a GOOD political philosopher-- that her methods lacked rigor, that her influence was limited, that her conclusions were unsound, etc. Sort of like your trying to draw a line between "a novelist who dabbled in philosophy" and "real, grown-up, professional philosophers". And I just don't think its our place to be making that distinction. Maybe Rand won't go down in history as an influential figure. Maybe her work isn't going to win any awards from within the circles of serious philosophy. That's fine-- but none of those facts disqualifies her from being listed as a political philosopher. If I read a novel that I find utterly boring and without redeeming value, I say the author was a bad novelist-- I don't deny that they're a novelist at all. If I go to a restaurant and the food taste terrible, I say it was a lousy meal-- I don't deny that the meal was, in fact, food.
--Alecmconroy 14:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for this civil and sensible response. You argue against my 2 and 4 on the grounds that they can't be verified. I disagree: engaging in disciplinary activities and operating in disciplinary style(s) can be assessed by criteria like publishing in relevant journals, attending relevant conferences, being the subject of such publications and conferences, associating and debating with other political philosophers, and expert opinion. This doesn't remove the requirement of judgement completely - exactly how many publications are required, for instance? - but then, nothing could, or else WP could be written entirely by computers. You argue against my 3 that 'failing to be influential doesn't mean someone is no longer a political philosopher', and of course you're right about that. But what's at stake is inclusion in a WP article, not just being a political philosopher. I'm a political philosopher, but I certainly shouldn't be on this list, because I'm not notable in the discipline, having had no noticable influence on it (yet).
A list of 'people who have been described, by somebody somewhere, as political philosophers' has no obvious use: what I take this list to aspire to is giving a personnel roster of the top echelons of the discipline, and that's what my proposed criteria try to delimit. My concern here is to prevent the list from bloating out of all recognition and usefulness. I don't think that being described as a 'political philosopher' is a badge of honour which must be defended from upstarts and fakers: I think that a political philosopher is a member of a particular disciplinary community (in many cases, an honorary member adopted as part of a canon). This entails limits on who goes on the list. That's why I've repeatedly distinguished 'having a philosophy' (a property of any writer worth reading) from 'being a philosopher in the disciplinary sense'.
Rand is certainly a borderline case, which is why I've been careful to distinguish my argument for particular criteria for inclusion from my personal opinion that she doesn't meet those criteria. Many people, including Rand, have interesting things to say about subjects including politics, but not all of them are political philosophers in the sense which is relevant to inclusion in this list, and a source which uses the term 'political philosopher' of them doesn't in itself make them so.
- Cheers, Sam Clark 15:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


Ahh! okay, okay, I gotcha now. I see where you're coming from. It seems like we've got two different lists we're making here. My list, using my criteria, was essentially: "List of wikipedia articles about notable people who some reliable sources have classified as political philosophers" whereas, your list, using your criteria, is trying to get at "List of wikipedia articles about people who some reliable sources have classified as notable political philosophers". For my list, if you're notable enough to merit a wikipedia article, then a reliable source classifying you as a political philosopher is an automatic inclusion in the list. For your list, the notability requirement applies specifically to the political philosophy aspect of the individual".
For most potential candidates, this does not present any conflict, because most candidates will belong on both lists or neither list. But a few candidate, like Rand, present a problem, because they might belong on one list (x)or the other (but not both). So, the question, as I see now you were trying to tell me, is less about Rand herself and more about what the defining criteria of a list is going to be.
I'm willing to take a very utilitarian approach. To me, it seems BOTH lists are useful. I can see how a reader would want to instantly see a list of every person in the encyclopedia who can reasonably be called a political philosopher, and I can also see how someone would want a list of the people who had made notable contributions to political philosophy. My suggestion would be to leave the current article, "List of political philsophers", as the most inclusive list-- including on it practically anyone who has a Wikipedia article who could reasonbly be called a poltical philosopher. Since this article is entitled simply "List of political philosophers", non-inclusion would seem to imply that an individal cannoy reasonably be regarded as a political philosophy by any reliable source. So this is the place for the "everyone who's called a political philosopher by a reliable source" list.
And then, elsewhere, create a list of only those people who have been particularly influential in the realm political philosophy. Something like this is already underway at Political_philosophy#Influential_political_philosophers and List of classics of political philosophy, althought it could be that the list you think should be created is somewhere in the middle-- fewer people than on there are on this page's list, but more people than there are on the Political_philosophy#Influential_political_philosophers list. You could add to the influential list, or you could create some new list with an appropriate title-- list of notable political philosophers? I dunno.
Of course, you still have the problem of who belongs on what list, but if the list name has some word like "prominent", "notable", or "influential" in it, then you have a much better leg to stand on for exercising editoral decisions about who merits inclusion. I notice, for example, that there are a lot of people on the current list who have that same "Rand" pattern-- that their are principally notable for contributions outside of political philosophy, but they also did engage in political philosophy. Noam Chomsky, for example, is notable for his linguistic philosophy and for being political, so while he's certainly a notable philosopher and a political philosopher, is he actually a notable political philosopher? Camus and Sartre also jump out at me as people who I wouldn't usually think of as political philosophers.
Anyway, as long as the title is "List of political philosophers", I think you have to be really inclusive about it. To not include someone is essentially equavalent to writing "This person is not a political philosopher" in their article, and leaving that claim unrebutted. If, on the other hand, the sentence "X is a often regarded as a political philosopher" could be added to their biography article and backed up with a reliable source, then you really have to include them on a list with this title, I think.
So, in the end result, I guess I still agree with what I said earlier, but only after having had a completely new understanding of what you're getting at.
--Alecmconroy 18:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
That makes things much clearer for me, too: nice one. You've convinced me that there are several lists which could be useful, and that one of them could be the broadly inclusive one I've been arguing against, which includes pretty much everyone notable, for whatever reason, who's written about political issues (Jameson, Douglass, Chomsky, Rand - and Ursula Le Guin, Mark Thomas, Iain M. Banks, Robert Newman, and so on...). The only argument I'd still want to put against that list is that it'll be very, very long, but maybe that's not such a big issue (electrons are cheap). I'd also prefer that it be called e.g. List of writers addressing political themes, but if consensus is that this should be the inclusive list, so be it. Is that consensus? Cheers, Sam Clark 23:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there's any need to be THAT inclusive-- or at least, that topic is sufficienty different from the political philosophy that I don't know we need to get into the creation of a list of all authors anywhere talking about anything poltical. A better place to me to draw a rule for inclusion is simply "people who are called political philosophers by reliable sources"-- only a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of authors ever get called "political philosophers"-- those people are worth listing in one place. --Alecmconroy 00:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I suppose things I would like to know from an NPOV perspective are: (1) is Objectivism a notable philosophy or philosophical work, (2) if so, is it a notable political philosophy, and (3) if yes to both, given Rand's body of work in the area of a notable political philosophy, doesn't that make someone a notable polotical philosopher? Not that this is the only path to this list - just that it might be one way to say someone is a notable political philosopher. To be honest, I am more curious about why F. Jameson is on the list, given that he shows up in the Stanford Ency. only once, and then only as a citation in "Secondary Literature." DukeEGR93 17:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
to the best of my capacity to tell from the practices of philosophers as evidenced by publications and citations in the philosophers index. (1) no; (2) less so. At best what we have is a vocal minority, at worst we have a minority that seeks to promote a non-neutral position. As for Jameson, I suspect he is on the list because his works are widely cited in political philosophy (if you take it as synonymous with political theory). His work is right up there with Rorty in citations the last time I checked.--Buridan 17:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Does the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy count? If so, there is an article on Rand that starts[11]:
"Ayn Rand was a Russian-born US novelist and philosopher who exerted considerable influence in the conservative and libertarian intellectual movements in the post-war USA. Rand’s ideas were expressed mainly through her novels; she set forth a view of morality as based in rational self-interest and in political philosophy defended an unrestrained form of capitalism." The list itself says that politics may not be the focus of a member's philosophical work, but this article, from the encyclopedia, would seem to me to be a verifiable source stating that Rand is a philosopher, and that some of her work was in political philosophy. (I realize the timing is suspicious - I really hadn't seen this before just now...) DukeEGR93 18:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I doubt that it counts as much as other distinguished publications, routledge is not known for its fine philosophy publications. Usually there is a reference set in research libraries called the encyclopedia of philosophy. it is encyclopedic and not meant for the mass market paperback market, it is just meant to give the best knowledge of the field. That is what i would choose. it would be in my mind no issue if Rand was in the library of living philosophers, which she could have been when she was alive, that is canonical, much like the philosopher's index is canonical. --Buridan 21:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anybody agrees on what the "notability" standards are for a philosophy, or school of philosophy. Look at the guideline Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. It gives an example of freak dancing which becomes notable when "For example, Catherine Gewertz has written an article, published in Education Week in 2001, about the school craze of freak dancing, which makes freak dancing a valid topic for a Wikipedia article. It's verifiable, the research has already been done (and peer reviewed and fact checked) outside of Wikipedia, and the world at large already knows about the craze from the Education Week article." However minor Objectivism might be from the POV of American academic philosophy, it has been written on in peer-reviewed sources, and was not made up in school one day, and that seems to be enough to grant notability. Routledge may not have the highest prestige of all possible philosophy publications, but it is more than enough to pass this kind of notability hurdle. Bmorton3 20:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment Two points that may be of use in the discussion: 1) Inclusion standards to make better articles are a good thing, but they should not be formulated as part of debate over one individual's entry to the article - that too much colors the arguments and gets in the way of deciding what good standards would be. It is also not the best idea to reject entries over standards that haven't yet been accepted. 2) I notice that Sam's suggested standards would really be for a "List of academic political philosophers" - his 'peer recognition' appears to be academic peers, his 'engagement' requirement only works for someone in academia (which Rand seems to have had a strong dislike for), his 'influence' clause is influence on the discipline - again, I suspect this would be inside the academy. I'm going with the idea that philosophy, even political philosophy might exist, in however minute a quantity, outside of the hallowed halls. And that published material might include a few words outside of those journals read only by academics. I know it makes it harder to formulate a good standard, but it has the benefit of fighting any intellectual inbreeding that might otherwise occur. SteveWolfer 17:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see how we can debate whether to put an individual into the article without considering inclusion standards. The question 'should X be included?' is either answered via 'what are the norms of inclusion?' or answered without reason. You're quite right, however, that my suggested standards take it that the view of the academic discipline is authoritative. For better or worse, most (political) philosophy is now done by academics, and the canon is created and contested by the academic community. This doesn't mean that no valuable thinking about politics is done outside that context - that would be an absurd suggestion - but it does mean that we have a fairly solid basis for distinguishing political philosophers from the much broader category, 'people who think seriously about politics'. Alecmconroy convinced me, above, that there are plenty of potentially worthwhile, more or less broad lists, of this general kind. But I still think that this one, using as it does the discipline-term 'political philosophers', would be better kept fairly narrow. The alternative criterion in play is X is described as a political philosopher (or is it 'is described as having a political philosophy'?) in a reputable source. I think this is too broad to be practical, but I'm happy to be shown how I'm wrong, or what an intermediate criterion would look like. I want to emphasise, again, that I don't think 'philosopher' or 'political philosopher' are indications of special value. So, by arguing that Rand isn't a political philosopher in the sense I think relevant to this list, I'm not claiming anything about the quality of her work, just about what kind of work it is. I'd make the same arguments about George Orwell, whose work I greatly admire. Cheers, Sam Clark 13:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Proposal In reading the above comments, it would seem that the demarcation I see is between people who are principally philosophers and people who are not principally philosophers. The list is for people who are principally philosophers (though not principally political philosophers), so I would say I am convinced that while the article on Ayn Rand should say - among other things - that she was a political philosopher, and while the article on Objectivism should say - among other things - that it is a part of or wholly a political philosophy (I'm neither a Randian, nor an Objectivist, nor a philosopher, so I don't know what to put there)but that this isn't the list for her. Does that seem reasonable? DukeEGR93 14:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
If we go this route, put some disclaimer at the top of the list to the effect that "The list is for people who are principally philosophers (though not necessarily principally political philosophers)." Bmorton3 20:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability

In the same manner that verifiability was added to the lists of philosophers by century (see those pages), I would like to suggest that someone find some/any general reference works specifically on political philosophy, and adapt this list in a similar fashion. KSchutte 21:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Eesh, My department's library has 4 shelves of books on Political philosophy, and not one of them claims to be a general reference specifically on political philosophy, at best they claim to be on "recent political philosophy" or "English political Philosophy" or "Modern Political Philosophy" etc. They are also all pretty old (or they wouldn't have been donated to our department. Bmorton3 20:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
There are a lot of conservatives in these books that aren't on the page, Lord Acton, Thomas Carlyle, Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises. Does our 20th century list look light on conservatives to you folk? Do we have a single Fascist? We have Sun-Yat Sen, but not Mao Tse Tung? For that matter where is Amartya Sen? Also people I wouldn't have thought of as philosophers like Louis Brandeis, or Arnold Toynbee, or Kenneth Galbraith (the books on American Political Philosophy include lots of discussion of various chief justice's opinions). Jawaharlal Nehru is mentioned, as is Gandhi, but no earlier Indians. Neither my books nor our list mentions any Muslims in any time period! Where is Sayyid Qubt? Ibn Khaldun? Fazlur Rahman? Khomeini? Iqbal? Al-Farabi? Erich Fromm and Sigmund Frued are listed in psychology and politics sections of two of these books (although I suppose its odd we have Fromm but not Frued). One of the books on older stuff includes Polybius and John of Salisbury's Politicratus, and Dante's De Monarchia. None of the books mention Bacon, why is he here? the idols stuff? Bmorton3 20:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I vote for both Rand and Orwell being on this list. Both wrote more than novels - they wrote articles that are studied in universities under the heading 'political philosophy' or 'moral philosophy'. Philosophy involves a special kind of second-order reflection on ideas. It need not involve working to develop a coherent understanding of life the universe and everything - not even a coherent view of everything to do with one area of philosophy. If it did involve either of those things it would be almost impossible for anyone now to become a philosopher. I am not sure why people want this list to exclude people like Rand and Orwell. If someone comes ot this list as a novuce interested in learning about political philosophy, they would learn about this from reading about the work of Rand and Orwell. What is lost by including them? Anarchia 05:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Nobody, so far as I can see, has argued that to count as a philosopher, one must work to 'develop a coherent understanding of life the universe and everything'. I have argued, above: 1. that being studied in universities is not a sufficient condition for going on this list, because that would make the list far too large (when I was a grad student, I audited an interesting course on moral integrity which mostly focussed on Billy Budd: should Melville therefore be on this list?). 2. that political philosophy is a distinctive discipline, and that thinking seriously about politics (including 'second-order reflection' on it) is a much broader category. 3. that what's lost by including Rand, Orwell, and the hundreds of other thinkers who could be included on the same grounds, is the coherence and usefulness of the list. So, that's why I want to exclude 'people like Rand and Orwell' - because, in my view, doing so makes the best encyclopedia article. Finally, I disagree about what a novice would get out of the inclusive list. Someone interested in learning about political philosophy, and directed to read about Rand and Orwell, would have been misled. She would be better directed to read about (e.g.) Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and Mill, and better still to flip through Jonathan Wolff's Introduction to Political Philosophy. Cheers, Sam Clark 09:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
hmm, it is actually hard to say what they would learn from Rand or Orwell, it could be any number of things, but in all likelihood if they presented what they learned to a political philosopher, she would not recognize it as philosophy as much as proto-philosophical ideas. if the person went to some of the classics and read them without reference, the same would likely occur.--Buridan 13:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Sam should have checked with his instructor. I'm quite sure that Billy Budd was just a pedagogical tool for studying moral integrity and that his instructor was not implying that Melville was philosopher. Sam says we are threatened with a flood of hundreds of names that don't belong. But that, like vandalism, is always happening anyway - they appear - they get deleted. Of course the only name that always generates intense conflict is Rand. You asked why but didn't get an answer. It is fairly simple. She was extremely critical of the way philosophy and political philosophy are taught at the university. She had a very sharp tongue and lashed those academia on many occasions. Some of them took it personally and they really don't like her. Sam and others adopt an exclusionary approach and show great inventiveness in finding reasons for deleting her name from the list. They are driven to invention because they don't want to accept the Wikipedia policy of verifiable authority. If she was a political philosopher there would be one or more valid, verifiable references to that effect (and there are). So, getting rid of her name, censoring what goes in here, results in condescending explanations of how the novice is being protected. Or the flood of novelists are being held at bay by deleting Rand. Or how it is necessary to create biased inclusion standards to post at the article's head. This section is called, "Verifiability" but it is really about a kind of censorship by inserting an artificial and biased set of inclusion rules. There is a presumption of ownership of the article that is irritating. It flies in the face of what Wikipedia is supposed to be. SteveWolfer 16:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Steve, kindly assume good faith. My interest in this issue is straightforwardly that I want to build a better encyclopedia. I have no animus against Rand, and your belief that I must be motivated by offence at her criticisms of academia is merely silly - the fiercest and most accurate critics of academia, in my experience, are academics, and I've done my share of bitching. Let's set aside the bizarre and insulting belief that, since I disagree with you, I must be corrupt, and discuss the issue at hand: what are the criteria for inclusion in this list, and does Rand meet them? I've given reasons for my answers to those questions. What you now need to do, if you have any interest in reason at all, is give your counter-arguments and your alternative answers, rather than simply shouting, over and over again, about sources calling Rand a political philosopher. We know that there are such sources. But there are choices to be made about what is relevant to particular articles, which are not closed by WP's verifiability policy. I've given reasons why being called a political philosopher isn't enough of a criterion for this page. Either give me reasons why I'm wrong, or admit that you have no interest in reasoning, and that your advocacy of Rand - a believer in reason, I've heard - is irrational. Your choice. - Sam Clark 17:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Sam, you have my apologies for linking your name with the motivations I mentioned. I should not have done that. And in any case, I would never have called you 'corrupt.' What I did say stands true for some people. I've been called a number of names and treated less than respectfully on occasion. I let the irritation get to me. I'm sure you are aware that there are people with less than honest agendas (from a Wikipedia standpoint) on both sides of any dispute involving Rand.
On the issues: What is relevant to a particular article is, of course, broadly defined by its title. Any restrictions, other than WP policy, needs to be consistent with that title and not exclude things that do indeed fit the title. Political philosophy is a body of knowledge addressed both inside the academy and out - by thinkers from the past and the present - and will most likely always contain strongly conflicting views. Based upon those facts, it would be wrong to restrict the verifiable sources in such a way as to build in a bias. That would include any implied redefinition of political philosophy in a narrower fashion - which I believe your second point does. There is a distinction you make between categories of thinkers that would be correct applied to Melville but not to Rand. I agree with keeping Melville out - he didn't engage in 'first-order reflection' on political philosophy. She did. Respectfully, I ask that you reconsider your final point - taking this person or that off of the list to make it more useful to novices - I can't see that as a reason since it really isn't an answer to the one question at hand - is or isn't the person a political philosopher. A list designed to be a study list for novices would be so titled and purposed. SteveWolfer 19:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Apology accepted, and I completely understand frustration at the way WP can work! On the particular issues, I perhaps don't make it clear enough what I'm talking about in my post above: all I meant was to respond to the particular, implied criteria for inclusion in what Anarchia says, so my comments about Melville and about what a novice would be best reading are just examples. You're quite right that the list shouldn't be structured as an introductory tutorial on political philosophy. I think BM3 (below) makes some sensible points about inclusion criteria, so perhaps we should both take it from there? Cheers, Sam Clark 11:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Issues as I see them

1) How "important" does a person need to be to be listed here? "Notable" is a very low standard that basically means at least worthy of mention in passing. Any topic that has a WP page at all should be at least notable. "Important" "Influential" and "Seminal" are all stronger standards. I think I feel that Sam's early stabs at criteria set the importance bar too high, but I'm persuadable, and I can certainly see problems with setting it too low as well. This is a disagreement about the desired function of the page, rather than about any figure on it. My guess is that this page isn't intended to be a list of every political philosopher on WP (a category could do that job). I would like to see the final header language reflect whatever decision we make here. Is our goal to have a nice overview of political philosophers? Is it to have an exhaustive list? Is it to mention the 40-50 most influential ones from each time period? What is the usefulness and cohesiveness of the list intended to be? I don't have a good answer here, 'cause I'm not sure of the intended purpose of the list. 1A) how do we verifiably measure who meets whichever bar we set in 1? -(Fair question, but lets get a consensus on question #1 first) 2) How closely tied to the "discipline" of political philosophy should someone be to be listed here? Right now the standard is "people who are principly philosophers" and the page has the category "List by occupation" both choices tend to exclude novelists who also write on philosophical topics but are not principly philosophers. That seems like the wrong call to me, because I don't think philosophy as a field of inquiry is very closely linked to philosophy as a "principle occupation." This is a dispute in meta-philosophy and is unlikely to terminate in consensus, so compromise is probably the only viable strategy. Notice that the currect criteria fits awkwardly for many already on the list. Was Gandhi "principly" a philosopher or a politician? Was Chomsky principly a linguist? Was Paine principly a revolutionary? Was Cicero principly an orator? If our goal is to give an overview of political philosophy, it will be vital to include many people who have greatly influenced the discipline, but were not "principly" philosophers. In the modern world, this probably means that a number of judges, economists, and novelists should be considered as well. The coherence and usefulness of the list is worth saving, so lets try to get clear on what the usefulness of the list is supposed to be. 3) Is there discrimination in the choice of people on the list? Sure seems so to me. There isn't a SINGLE Muslim, and Heidegger is the closest thing to a Fascist here. That's POV discrimination. It is also probably totally unintentional, and a result of oversight rather than bad faith. WP has systemic bias problems without having to accuse anyone of acting bad faith. I happen to know more Islamic political philosophy that a lot of people so I see holes. But I can't think of a good Fascist thinker who might not seem more like a politican than someone who is "principly" a philosopher. Maybe part of the issue is liberal bias, but if so, its probably just because liberals have been doing the work! Let's fix this stuff when we see it. 4) Particular disputes. By my reckoning, Rand is an example of all 4 of these issues, each of which is tricky on its own. Let's come to consensus on the big picture, and then work towards figuring who should be on here. Does that seem like a fair characterization of the disputes to you folks? Bmorton3 18:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems right to me, and I'm willing to be pursuaded that my suggested criteria are too narrow: they were always intended as a first go, for discussion. Right-wing/conservative political philosophers: possibly Bertrand de Jouvenel, certainly Michael Oakeshott. Cheers, Sam Clark 12:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
[[Sergio Panunzio] was a noted italian fascist thinker. (was wrong about croce) Rand on the other hand, was a novelist who wrote some books that are claimed to be philosophy books about philosophy topics which are not recognized by most philosophers as being either. if there is a standard of philosophy not being done by philosophers, then i'm not sure what we are talking about, literary theory?--Buridan 01:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't know why you keep saying Rand only wrote novels. She wrote many non-fiction articles and books on philosopy. SteveWolfer 03:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
At the moment 8 of 29 20th century people on are list are full Marxians of some stripe, and another 11 are way at the liberal end of the spectrum. Further 19 are clearly coming out of the Continental traditions (with several more border cases). The 19th century list is pretty loaded left-ward too. We are definately in danger of unconscious bias here. Further, refusing to allow political theorists who have an occupation other than "primarily" philosopher will only make the problem trickier. Think of the most influential 20th century conservatives you can, many of them have other professions, think of Pope John Paul II, or William Bennett, or H.L. Mencken, or Buckley. The problem is even clearer for a political philosophy position like Fascism. All the famous Fascists were also politicians. Does that mean there were not Fascist political philosophers? or just that Fascists tend to be politicians primarily rather than philosophers primarily? Bmorton3 20:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Who else could we add? (how about John Finnis, Joel Feinberg, Antony Flew, Jacques Maritain, or William Bennett wow trying to research conservative political philosophers is odd.) Bmorton3 21:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
hmmm, maybe a capitalist to balance out all those marxists? Say, Rand :-) SteveWolfer 03:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Bmorton made excellent points at the top of this section. I've just re-read them and find his argument compelling - our first step should be a clearer statement of the list's purpose and expected scope. With that as a foundation it will be easier to address the other issues he raised. SteveWolfer 05:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Crap I hate to raise another debate, when I've already raised too many, but how are we thinking about political philosophy vs. its near relatives like social philosophy, military philosophy or philosophy of law? Most of my texts raise lots of issues in these in the process of trying to talk about political philosophy. Should we have Carl von Clausewitz? Any Feminists? Hans Kelsen? H L. A. Hart? Should we link to other lists, like the list of Philosophers of Law at Philosophy of Law, Social philosophy or Philosophy of Economics? There doesn't seem to be a list, stub, or page for military philosophy yet. Bmorton3 16:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/rand.htm
  2. ^ http://chronicle.com/colloquy/99/rand/background.htm
  3. ^ http://www.wadsworth.com/cgi-wadsworth/course_products_wp.pl?fid=M80&discipline_number=5&subject_code=PH05
  4. ^ http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/r.htm#rand
  5. ^ http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/k.htm#keme
  6. ^ http://www.philosophypages.com/vita.htm
  7. ^ http://www.swif.it/foldop/dizionario.php?find=Rand%20Ayn%20-%20Alissa%20Rosenbaum
  8. ^ http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9062648/Ayn-Rand
  9. ^ http://www.answers.com/topic/ayn-rand
  10. ^ http://www.erraticimpact.com/~feminism/html/women_rand_ayn.htm
  11. ^ "KUKATHAS, CHANDRAN (1998). Rand, Ayn. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge. Retrieved September 27, 2006, from http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/S089

[edit] Rand again

I notice that SteveWolfer is adding Rand to this list again, and that Buridan is reverting him again. BMorton3's done some excellent work filling out the list, but we still haven't agreed criteria for inclusion, which means that the edit warring over Rand (and possibly others) is likely to continue. I've had a go at criteria (see above), but they weren't widely accepted, so perhaps someone else should have a go. What should make someone count as a political philosopher for the purposes of this list? Let's try and sort this out reasonably, shall we? Cheers, Sam Clark 09:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

cited in political philosophy journals, published in political philosophy, and referred to as a political philosopher in publication. those three things define being a political philosopher after 1900, before 1900, if they are part of the accepted cannon and referred to as having a political philosophy or political ideas, then they can be included. --Buridan 12:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me add: whether Rand belongs on this list is a matter of dispute. Editors - notably LazloWalrus and SteveWolfer - who persist in putting her back in, without discussion, reference to previous arguments, or consensus, are not helping to resolve that dispute. Discuss here before putting Rand back in. And for about the hundredth time, it is simply not the case, either according to consensus here or according to general WP policy, that a description of Rand as 'a political philosopher' in some text (whether published by Cambridge or by anyone else) is sufficient justification for putting her on this list. Yours, Sam Clark 18:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That there is a dispute is obvious. Sam, if you care to count lines, you will see that I am one of THE heaviest contributers to the discussion in this area. If you research my entries you will also see many attempts to find workable compromises. So your comment above is less than responsible. What sense does it make to criticize my putting her back, without criticising those who keep deleting her! Please note that there is also no consensus for deleting her name again and again. Where is the balance? There are two main issues. One revolves around Rands status as a philosopher. The other revolves around the WP policy governing valid edits. WP policy has to be the base for any standard. The article title provides the only acceptable filter. Rand is listed in valid, verifiable sources as a political philosopher. That is the only justification anyone needs to put her name here. It doesn't matter how much someone dislikes her - they have no right to remove her. All of the upset, the deleting, the quibbling over some kind of special meanings for the terms "political" or "philosopher" or setting dates like 1900 - they look suspiciouly like cover for POV. Sam just deleted Rand's entry stating, in the edit summary that I was "sneaking" her in. Sam, I don't "sneak." I edit - as per WP policy. If this list isn't for "political philosophers", then just rename it and people won't attempt to put Rand here. SteveWolfer 18:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Steve, 'sneaking' was actually directed at LazloWalrus, and I stand by it as a description of his actions, but regret the ambiguity. My criticism of your (non-sneaky) edits is based on the fact that, although you have indeed taken part in the discussion, you apparently haven't paid much attention to it: you keep repeating, and acting on, the claim that all that's needed for inclusion is a source describing Rand as a political philosopher, but this is precisely what's in dispute. It is just not the case that you use the 'real' or 'obvious' meaning of 'political philosopher', and that I or others are trying to introduce a 'special meaning'. The term is contested, and therefore who properly belongs on this list is also contested. Nor is it the case that WP policy gives an unambiguous answer to the problem: WP:V states a necessary condition of inclusion, not a sufficient one. These points are made repeatedly and in a variety of forms in the lengthy argument above. So, your final suggestion - 'If this list isn't for "political philosophers", then just rename it and people won't attempt to put Rand here' - is just another polemical attempt to impose your preferred sense of the term on the list, and an attempt which flat-out ignores the earlier discussion and takes us back to square one. Yours, Sam Clark 19:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sam, I appreciate your comments. Sometimes you sound a little snippy, like where you accuse me of not paying attention. Let's see if I have indeed paid attention. You say, "The term is contested and therefore who properly belongs on this list is also contested." So far we are in agreement. Given more than one reasonable meaning for the terms, it is reasonable to have entries representing each of those meanings. In the absence of an agreement on the terms, there is no basis for rejecting a entry that is reasonable from either of the contested viewpoints. It has been suggested, and I will suggest again, put a letter 'D' after the names of 'Disputed' entries. Or let us all seriously try to come up with a name for the article whose terms aren't contested and that doesn't conflict with standard English. I phrased that suggestion in my previous comment in smart-assed tone of voice, but it was intended as a serious suggestion. When I take the 'real' or 'obvious' meaning of the terms, it is a matter of using what the language gives us. I'm not trying to impose my understanding of the terms on the list, after all, I'm not the one deleting the entries that arise from a someone else's understanding. I'm open to suggestions. I'm not open to a one-sided approach where one side of the dispute is allowed their reverts but the other side is not. SteveWolfer 20:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know can this help, but she is listed in "The Routledge Dictionary of Twentieth-Century Political Thinkers". -- Vision Thing -- 08:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Guilty as charged on being snippy: sorry. Let me have another go, emulating Steve's enviable calm. I worry that the 'D for disputed' tag will become another focus for edit-warring. I have much more sympathy for the suggestion to come up with a better name. After discussion above, I no longer think that a more expansive list would be useless, although I still think that the strictly disciplinary list I've been arguing for would be useful. So, how about combining the two? 1. rename the article 'List of political thinkers'; 2. include Rand, Orwell, etc.; and 3. mark some entries to indicate that they are regarded as members of the academic discipline of political philosophy, understood as a subset of political thinkers. It'd need to be made clear that being so marked isn't a badge of quality, but a sociological distinction. The inclusion criteria for the list as a whole would be ordinary notability and verifiability; for the academic subset, something like the narrower criteria I or Buridan have suggested. Thoughts? Cheers, Sam Clark 09:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sam's proposal is better than my suggestion of tagging 'Disputed' entries with the letter 'D'. Following the steps he provided would produce a list richer in information, of value to more people, with less bias, have a title whose terms aren't in dispute and should reduce the squabbling. Sam, I agree completely with the proposed steps. SteveWolfer 15:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
that is fine, we should have such a list. we should also have a list of political philosophers. --Buridan 23:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, and we could call it "Buridan's list of political philosophers" ;-) SteveWolfer 00:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, so how about creating List of political thinkers and having both lists: this one as a fairly narrow disciplinary one, the new one as more expansive, each dablinked to the other? Sam Clark 16:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There would still be dispute on List of political philosophers. SteveWolfer 20:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

True, but it might at least be limited by explicit inclusion criteria and the availability of another, equally worthy list. Sam Clark 12:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There already is a limit by explicit inclusion criteria. The problem being that some people choose to ignore the criteria or to assign their own meanings to the words or to just delete entires they dislike. I have no objection to a broader list - either in place of this one or in addition to this one. And I like your idea of tagging the entries to give added information - on this list and on the proposed list. In fact, I'd like to see both lists coded for additional information and to have a single sentence saying what makes the entry notable. This would be good for WP. But none of that will change this fact: Rand was a political philosopher yet a small number of people will keep deleting her entry from this list. That's not good for WP - it's also not good when others allow that to happen - not because they agree with it, but because they don't like Rand. If this list were renamed in a way that validly excluded Rand, that would be different - something like "Polictial philosophers from the Analytic school." Steve 15:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For people who are principally philosophers

I'm just perusing through the list and finding a number of people who don't meet the above-cited condition:

I see from the above discussions that people have a bit of an attachment to this list staying a certain way. Would anyone object if I were to do a little snipping? Simões (talk/contribs) 05:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to the removal of all of the above. Cheers, Sam Clark 13:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Trimming is fine, though people that do American Political Philosophy, tend to cite Douglas, Dubois, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison as political philosophers. --Buridan 16:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Buridan (especially on retaining Jefferson), and I would also retain Hayek. Steve 19:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I deleted everyone in the above list except Jefferson since there are two voices supporting his inclusion. I also got on a roll and cut Vladimir Lenin and Pope John Paul II. Jefferson, I think, still needs to go, since he is primarily known as a political figure. I'd like to see an argument for the conclusion that he isn't. Also, from the above discussions, the only one who is controversially included (or whose conclusion is being discussed) is Ayn Rand. Thus, this "Others" section's description appears to be inaccurate.

One final note: It appears from the above discussions that this "principally philosophers" criterion was written in as a way to exclude Rand. While I think this is somewhat absurd (her being a particularly bad philosopher still makes her a philosopher), I have no desire to join in that dispute. However, be careful that your methods don't also catch people you don't wish to arbitrarily exclude. Simões (talk/contribs) 21:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

My argument for including Jefferson would be that his political activism and participation shouldn't obscure his philosophical contributions. I view his activism as a product of the time and his personality. While his writings and his work as a theorist and architect of the new government should be enough to qualify him as a political philosopher on their own. Steve 22:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, this business of "primarily known for..." and "principally..." - they get in the way of answering the question, "Is the person notable in the field of political philosophy?" Steve 22:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
er let me repeat myself "I don't think philosophy as a field of inquiry is very closely linked to philosophy as a "principle occupation." This is a dispute in meta-philosophy and is unlikely to terminate in consensus, so compromise is probably the only viable strategy. Notice that the currect criteria fits awkwardly for many already on the list. Was Gandhi "principly" a philosopher or a politician? Was Chomsky principly a linguist? Was Paine principly a revolutionary? Was Cicero principly an orator? If our goal is to give an overview of political philosophy, it will be vital to include many people who have greatly influenced the discipline, but were not "principly" philosophers." Further if you are serious about the "principly" criteria, LOTS more need to go ... Bmorton3 21:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I object to Friedrich Hayek being excluded from the list, and am surprised that his inclusion would be regarded as controversial. KSchutte 19:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, he shouldn't be excluded. -- Vision Thing -- 20:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I also agree. The WP article on Friedrich Hayek lists him as a political philosopher in the first sentence and the Google Scholar brings back 10,600 hits - I can't imagine why he would be controversial. Steve 20:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
He was excluded because he's not principally a philosopher. "Large" Google numbers notwithstanding, the "principally philosophers" bit is a necessary condition for inclusion. If you wish to put that under review here, feel free. I've removed Hayek until then. Simões (talk/contribs) 20:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Simões states that the "principally philosophers" criteria is a necessary condition for being on the list. In an earlier post (same section of this page) he stated, "It appears from the above discussions that this "principally philosophers" criterion was written in as a way to exclude Rand." I agree with his suggestion that the "principally philosophers" criteria deserves review. But first, I'd like to point out that Hayek should be able to stay on list as a philosopher (even with the "principally" thing) based upon his contributions ito the body of knowledge in epistemology, ethics, and political science - without even going into the field of economics where he worked on the most fundamental of levels. Steve 22:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Hayek was formally educated as an economist, and his accolades--including a Nobel prize--are all in economics. This is in contrast with his philosophical writings, which do not have near the regard as, say, a John Rawls or a Robert Nozick. I think these facts clearly pin him as primarily an economist and not a philosopher. Simões (talk/contribs) 22:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that "primarily an economist" is an apt description. But is that the same as saying that he isn't "principally a philosopher" - I'm not too sure that they are mutually exclusive. The word principally is a little squirrely and his work in economics was done in a way to be seen as philosophy on its own. I would say that Hayek was a philosopher best known for his work in economics - his first love - but with his approach it would be impossible to separate his economics and his politics. Steve 22:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been using "principally" and "primarily" interchangeably. I interpret the criterion as "the person's main work is done in [field]." If that is the correct interpretation, then I can't see how Hayek should be included. Simões (talk/contribs) 22:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert your deletion (I only have the heart for one edit war at a time). But I wonder if you don't see the possibility that his approach to economics WAS an approach to political science, human nature and ethics at the same time. I would maintain that he was principally a philosopher for his work in economics (not the more detailed aspects but in his foundations for human action.) Steve 23:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it shouldn't matter what one's primary field was, and we seem to be including some (e.g., Thomas Jefferson) despite the fact that philosophy wasn't his primary field. That Hayek is primarily an economist is irrelevant to his impact on political philosophy. Similarly, one could say that Amartya Sen (who probably also belongs here, BTW) has had much more influence on contemporary political philosophy than say, Robert Nozick (who very few philosophers take seriously anymore). Political philosophy, political science, ethics, economics, philosophy of law all overlap to some degree. The idea that one's work must be restricted to one field is dubious, at best. (Steve, Rand doesn't belong on this list either.) But I'll leave it to you all to figure out. This is not a debate I want to get into. KSchutte 02:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The most famous Hayek's work is The Road to Serfdom, a book from political philosophy. Because of that I think he should be included. -- Vision Thing -- 20:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is "principally philosophers" the right way to word the criteria?

On the issue of "principally philosophers" do we agree that we want those who made notable contributions to the body of knowledge known as political philosophy to be included?

And do we wish to exclude notable political activists or notable intellectuals or academicians in those cases where the activist, intellectual or academic has not made a notable theorectical contribution? If so, perhaps that is a direction to go in changing the wording that will otherwise always be a pain.

Some good points that have been made on this issue:

  • "I don't think philosophy as a field of inquiry is very closely linked to philosophy as a "principle occupation." This is from Bmorton's comment in the section above - his post should be read in full.
  • "It appears from the above discussions that this "principally philosophers" criterion was written in as a way to exclude Rand." This is from the section above by Simões
  • "this business of 'primarily known for...' and 'principally...' - they get in the way of answering the question, 'Is the person notable in the field of political philosophy?" From one of my comments.
  • With the loss of Jefferson and Madison, haven't we excluded key thinkers in formulation of the politcal theory behind the constitution and an understanding of theory of natural rights they applied?

What wording would work to better? Steve 22:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm definitely for a more inclusive list, but I can't say I favor including mere activists. Something like "The individual is notable for his or her written work in political philosophy" would be ideal given that we can figure out a standard for deciding whether or not someone is notable in a particular field. Unfortunately, Wikipedia policies and guidelines don't seem to offer any help here. Simões (talk/contribs) 22:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you. When the word "philosopher" is used in the title, it has to refer to written ideas - not actions. If a writer happened to also be an activist that is a separate issue - an issue to be ignored. That person must be judged on their written contribution to political philosopy." Steve 23:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, mere activists are definitely inappropriate for this list. Were it up to me, I'd include anyone whose writings have been and remain influential in political philosophy, and also those whose historical importance is prominent. Presumably, this is roughly the criteria printed encyclopedias adopt, such that they remove "fads" as they become outdated but keep the historical big shots. (Note: I would say that this criteria would exclude merely political intellectuals, such as Noam Chomsky, who have surely written some very interesting things about the present political system, but haven't really contributed to political theory in any way.) KSchutte 02:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)