The following policy is given in Wikipedia:Verifiability: ‘articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy’. On the other hand Wikipedia:No original research states ‘Examples of primary sources include... ...original philosophical works...’ and ‘Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation’ it also states at the end of the paragraph ‘Appropriate sourcing is a complicated issue, and these are general rules. The decision as to whether primary or secondary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages.’
The above enables me to derive some conclusions: 
What is mend by “third-party sources” (WP:V) is not exactly the same as “Tertiary sources” (NOR). If the policies do refer to the same they contradict each other, which probably is not the case. I think “third-party sources” are, placed in context, ‘other sources than Wikipedia itself and its editors’; this would make sense, given what follows directly after the line containing “third-party sources”: ‘Reliable sources are necessary [...] to substantiate material within articles...’
Vassyana said ‘Reliance on Rand directly is a NPOV concern...’ it is now clear that it is of no concern at all. Yes ‘an interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source’ but when the text of the citation speaks for itself no further interpretation is required. She also said ‘there is absolutely no need to rely heavily in any way on the primary material’ which is still argued, in contrast I say there is absolutely no reason not to rely heavily on the primary material.
The arguments pro primary source material have, as of yet, not been given a response; the focus was on the demand to have (mainly) third-party sources. In the proper context primary sources are third-party sources, fulfilling the demand. Again ‘The decision as to whether primary or secondary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages.’ Let’s now focus on that.