Talk:Objectivism/Archive 9

message: I think that the organization of this article would be improved if the last 4 text sections of the current version were merged into a single, coherently organized section on "Scholarly responses and influence."  Is there any good reason not to? AdamReed 22:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me, go for it. Endlessmike 888 23:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Scholarly" might be over-dignifying some of the response, but I have no real objection. — DAGwyn 05:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization

message: I propose this tag be removed.  I've read through the entire archive of talk, and it appears that user gagnon has presented literally nothing besides his own opinion as a basis for his disagreement with the term "philosophy," against multiple reputable citations referring to it as a philosophy.  Please present something beyond your own original work or concede removal of the tag.  Pusher robot 15:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet, there have been sources given that say she isn't a philosopher. We've had them here before, though I think someone deleted at least one of them. And please look at the other Rand-related talk pages; this is a multi-article spanning controversy. -- LGagnon 22:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give me at least a link to where such sources have been presented?  It's only reasonable to request that if you want to dispute NPOV on this article, you present some argument on this article's discussion page. Pusher robot 22:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk:Ayn Rand and Talk:Atlas Shrugged have most of the discussion. -- LGagnon 02:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I scanned those pages but found no such sources.  Would you be kind enough to reproduce them here? Pusher robot 03:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't bother, he will yell, scream, and throw a tantrum until he gets his way, the best way to deal with him (as I found out several weeks ago) is to stop dealing with him altogether. The Fading Light 19:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPA says cut it out. -- LGagnon 22:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LGagnon, truth is always a defense against the charge of personal attacks.  Just a heads-up. MrVoluntarist 03:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's not, especially when it's done in an incivil manner. And, might I add, you just made one yourself. -- LGagnon 17:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I said that truth is always a defense against the charge of personal attacks.  And some of the true things about your posting history are necessarily going to sound incivil, but that says more about your posting history than malice on the part of other contributors. MrVoluntarist 03:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Now isn’t that odd?  Almost every other Wikipedia entry has an External Links section, yet suddenly that for Objectivism (Ayn Rand) disappears.  And when did it disappear?  Right after a link to “ARI Watch”  http://ariwatch.com  was added to the list.
Like killing everyone in a village in order to get one resistance fighter.
So the question here is:  Why was External Links removed?
Is 'Rebirth of Reason' really a trivial group unworthy of inclusion on the links part? KyZanKyZan
All of the groups linked to are either information about Objectivism, or some type of public advocacy group. RoR is just a web forum. If we link to them, there are many more websites and web forums that would need to be added. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a directory of links. Endlessmike 888 17:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links removed 

message: hi! I notice the references is mis-formatted and it's uneditable to lil ole me (Kissedsmiley 16:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. I think I broke this cleaning up an edit the other day.Ethan a dawe 17:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  refs problem 

message: Commas go before the period. There are two mistakes in the second sentence alone. Please fix this.
:He or She is correct about this grammar issue. I fixed the ones mentioned but I'm sure it carries on throughout the article. I'll try and clean these up later, or other can do it before thenEthan a dawe 14:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: One way to think about the Objectivism phenomenon is to see it as a political ideology, though not only that. The discussion of political philosophy in this article makes it clear that Objectivists are, like many conservatives, pro-market, and elsewhere in the article, like many liberals, secularists. But one would never discover from this article that the preponderant majority of Objectivists, including the two main think tanks (ARI, TOS) are very hawkish on foreign policy, holding views analogous to many so-called neoconservatives. Since isolationism is such a prominent feature of the libertarian tradition, this feature needs to be addressed somehow. I hate to see the drafters of this article descend into yet more controversial topics, inviting more edit warring, but promoting the War on Terror has become a central feature of contemporary Objectivist culture, and this is not merely a "movement" issue. The Objectivist view is that governments which violate the natural rights of their own citizens have no legitimacy, and thus are "fair game" for military intervention. This view conflicts with a widely held view that governments cannot legitimately engage another country militarily unless it has been attacked itself, and is thus of philosophical interest. The War on Terror is of especial interest to Objectivists because of the convergence of issues (conflict with religion in the form of Islam, defense of capitalism, the legitimacy of pre-emptive military attack on rights-violating governments, etc.)
I haven't looked at all the Objectivism-related articles to see if there is a discussion in any of them, but I think that we should be talking about this here first. And perhaps people can direct me to discussions elsewhere in Wikipedia if such already exist. Agent Cooper 14:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Modest Proposal 

message: Raimondo is using a different sense of "cult." The section lists accusations of literal cultness, like Scientology. Raimondo's article does not accuse Objectivism of having a hierarchy or a guru. Rather, he accuses Objectivists of holding positions which amount to the glorification of death. "Cult" does not always have the same sense, and Raimondo is clearly using it in a different sense than the Walker "Objectivism is like Scientology" sense. This link would belong in Agent Cooper's proposed foreign policy section, as it is a criticism of a position taken by Objectivists, rather than a criticism of the sociology of Objectivists. Endlessmike 888 22:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for making my point more clearly.  It is also worth discussing how closely the undoubted tenets of Objectivism as espoused by Rand should be connected (in the Wikipedia) with the more recent applications to political issues by Objectivists.  As a further note, there is a long history of critics, not only of Objectivism but also of other points of view, exaggerating, distorting, misrepresenting, or smearing those points of view with which they disagree — for example, Raimondo's seems to take for granted several disputable notions such as that support of military action is invariably glorification of death.  Certainly not every criticism needs to be reported in an encyclopedic article, just "significant" criticisms.  Almost every interesting subject has plenty of random criticisms that could be used to clutter their articles, but generally speaking we don't permit that. — DAGwyn 02:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Raimondo Quote

message: Is there any connection between these three philosophies, I remember reading somewhere that Rand said she would have called herself an existentialist, had it not been for Sartre, who tried to sythesize it with Marxism? ForrestLane42 04:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not really a connection.  Rand was talking only of the name "existentialism", which she would have preferred over "objectivism", had it not already been taken by Sartre et al. for a quite different philosophy. — DAGwyn 10:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Objectivism and Existentialism/Humanism

message: Due to the recent vandalism of Rand related articles by anonymous editors (apparently one banned low-life named Alienus), I eliminated the weasel tag. But if the anonymous person didn't intend vandalism and would like to explain why he thinks the "Responses" section is weasel worded, I'd be very interested. Endlessmike 888 06:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, when Donald Klopfer of Random House met with Rand to discuss publishing Atlas Shrugged, he observed that a moral defense of captialism would have to clash with the entire Judeo-Christian culture, and Rand was favorably impressed by his acumen.  Perhaps there is a better way of expressing it in the Wikipedia article.  The essential point is that Rand's ideas clashed with the prevalent intellectual background of her surroundings, so that many in the "establishment" felt that they were attacking cherished beliefs, which helps to explain their extreme (and often irrational) reaction to Rand. — DAGwyn 03:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel?

message: Under the Academic Philosophy section you find the following.
::In recent years, however, there are signs that this is beginning to change, with the publication of several academic books on Rand and the creation of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.Jeff Sharlet, "Ayn Rand Has Finally Caught the Attention of Scholars: New Books and Research Projects Involve Philosophy, Political Theory, Literary Criticism, and Feminism," The Chronicle of Higher Education, xlv, no. 31 (9 April 1999) Friday, A17-A18.  That said, there are only two Objectivist philosophers, Tara Smith (University of Texas at Austin) and James Lennox ((University of Pittsburgh) holding tenured positions at one of the top fifteen leading American philosophy departments .See http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/ (retrieved July 26 2006) for the ranking and its methodology. 
It seems to me that 'That said, there are only two Objectivist philosophers... at one of the top fifteen leading American philosophy departments' supports, rather then challenges, the previous statement that 'there are signs that this (Objectivism isn't mainstream) is beginning to change....'  While they may still be a minority I think you would find it hard to argue that this is not a sign of Objectivism being taken more seriously by other academic philosophers.  Also why are there two philosophers holding tenured positions at one of the top fifteen leading American philosophy departments when they are at seperate schools?  Are only one of them holding tenure?  I can't find anything that justifies that so I'm going to assume it is just an error.
I think the wording should be changed to following:
::In recent years, however, there are signs that this is beginning to change, with the publication of several academic books on Rand and the creation of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.Jeff Sharlet, "Ayn Rand Has Finally Caught the Attention of Scholars: New Books and Research Projects Involve Philosophy, Political Theory, Literary Criticism, and Feminism," The Chronicle of Higher Education, xlv, no. 31 (9 April 1999) Friday, A17-A18.  There are two Objectivist philosophers, Tara Smith (University of Texas at Austin) and James Lennox ((University of Pittsburgh) holding tenured positions at two of the top fifteen leading American philosophy departments .See http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/ (retrieved July 26 2006) for the ranking and its methodology. 
I'm sorry if I'm not following protocol, I'm new to this but I've been following this discussion for a while. Kukyona 19:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to make the change.  Certainly, the article suffers from piecemeal editing and is in need of improvement. — DAGwyn 23:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Change made. Kukyona 16:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor problem with the Academic Philosophy section 

message: The cult accusations section seems one sided.  I'd like to suggest the following changes.
::Several authors, such as Murray Rothbard, who helped define modern libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism;Rothbard, Murray. , Jeff Walker, author of The Ayn Rand Cult;Walker, Jeff (1999). The Ayn Rand Cult. Chicago: Open Court.  and Michael Shermer, founder of The Skeptics Society,Shermer, Michael.  Originally published in Skeptic vol. 2, no. 2, 1993, pp. 74-81. have accused Rand and Objectivism of being a cult. Walker compares it with  organizations that have been considered cults such as Scientology.Walker  Although this has been repeatedly deniedAyn Rand Biographical FAQ. Objectivist Reference Center. Retrieved May 26, 2006. and others have argued that Objectivism is not a cult because it lacks the structural organization that is a key feature of cults.Peron, Jim. "Is Objectivism a Cult?". Objectivism Reference Center, reprinted from The Laissez-Faire City Times. Retrieved May 1, 2006.
::Anton LaVey describes his religion,  Satanism,  as "just Ayn Rand's philosophy with ceremony and ritual added".Lewis, James R. "Who Serves Satan? A Demographic and Ideological Profile". Marburg Journal of Religion. June 2001.  Satanism, however, differs from Objectivism in advocating pragmatic skepticism and interprets rational egoism hedonistically, holding that "indulgence in life or 'fun' as perceived by the individual is the highest standard of ethics."http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/SatObj.html Moreover, Satanists favor of "domination of the weak by the strong" (ibid.), , which is incompatible with the Objectivist doctrine of non-sacrifice. Satanists also believe in magic, a belief that clashes strongly with Objectivism's rejection of the supernatural. The fundamental difference according to Satanists is that "Satanism is a religion... and Objectivism isn't." (ibid.).
Any thoughts? Kukyona 19:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to make the change.  Certainly, the article suffers from piecemeal editing and is in need of improvement. — DAGwyn 23:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Change made. Kukyona 16:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cult accusations 

message: The section begins...
::Most academic philosophers have long considered Objectivism to be a pop philosophy and unworthy of their attention. For example, David Sidorsky, professor of philosophy at Columbia University, characterizes Rand's work as "outside the mainstream of philosophical works," and more of an ideological movement than a well-grounded philosophy, which explains in part why it is not more widely taught.
While there is a citation that quotes David Sidorsky, I can find nothing cited that validates the claim that most academic philosophers consider Objectivism to be pop philosophy... let alone the fact they have long considered it as such.
I think it could be given a more neutral wording.
::Some academic philosophers consider Objectivism to be a pop philosophy and unworthy of their attention.
However, it’s still unclear whether this statement requires a citation.  It seems biased to assume that a lack of attention is evidence that it is unworthy when it could be just as likely that her works are largely unknown to most academic philosophers.  The use of pop philosophy here also seems to be a weasel word since it is without citation. I feel that citations that are given on pop philosophy page aren't relevant or valid justification for using the term. The first citation would require the reader to study the entire book to understand how the citation makes sense, if at all. Its unclear if the book even references Ayn Rand or Objectivism at all... it seems to only be a critique of objectivity.
Can anyone give a citation of an academic philosopher that has used this term with respect to Objectivism or Ayn Rand?  Perhaps the sentence should be removed entirely and the second rewritten.
::Some academic philosophers, such as David Sidorsky, professor of moral philosophy at Columbia University, characterize Rand's work as "outside the mainstream of philosophical works," and more of an ideological movement than a well-grounded philosophy, which explains in part why it is not more widely taught.
Any thoughts? Kukyona 20:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The recent change looks very good; thanks.  As I know from first-hand experience, Objectivism drew a lot of fire from "the intellectual establishment", many of whom did whatever they could (such as extreme misrepresentation) to suppress the ideas.  There was a lot more of that while Rand was still alive and kicking than there is now.  I think that the shift is due to two things: Objectivism has become an established popular influence (in political thought in particular), and it may seem that ignoring it (not presenting it in philosophy courses, for example) is the best strategy for making it go away. — DAGwyn 02:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: I recently re-wrote the Objectivist movement article. It went over well. I'm considering doing an overhaul of this article as well (though it requires a lot less than the Objectivist movement article). I have several requests for comments to anyone who can help.
:If you do revise the article, please keep in mind that it needs to be an objective (no pun intended), factual description, not a promotion (except insofar as readers might like what they see described). — DAGwyn 05:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  It has nothing to do with whether Objectivism may in some way be considered a cult.  Frankly, I don't see how Satanism can reasonably be related to Objectivism; there are few if any common concepts between them. — DAGwyn 05:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep in mind that non-Objectivists get their say here too.  I agree that the section is disproportionately long, and the latter part is largely defensive.  You might take a cue from what I did for the C (programming language) article and give "Criticism of Objectivism" its own article, to which much of this section could be moved.  (The introductory part should remain.) — DAGwyn 05:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point on this section is that it should concern objections raised by philosophers, not on who or how many people in what institutions like Objectivism (that is a topic for the Objectivist Movement article). Since there is already and article on the Objectivist movement, this article should focus on philosophical topics. Movement issues, such as Objectivisms lack of acceptence by most mainstream philosophers, should be mentioned briefly with a re-direct to the Objectivist movement article. Otherwise there is much too much overlap.Endlessmike 888 05:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur.  There has to be that mention of the (historical, at least) lack of acceptance by the academic mainstream, because that is important to people in that mainstream! — DAGwyn 17:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree.  "Competing interpretations" is another possible heading.  Also note the quotation in the into to the "Responses" section; while Rand was alive, she reasonably could demand that "Objectivism" be treated as a sort of trademark of hers, but now we have to consider whether a stationary body of thought is sufficiently viable.  Both Peikoff and Kelley appear to believe that the philosophy can be further developed.  I'm almost certain that Rand designated Peikoff as her "official" intellectual heir (replacing Branden), but there is a question as to what extent he can actually dictate the philosophy, and whether that is desirable. — DAGwyn 05:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I basically agree. I want to avoid discussing competing institutions, and focus on competing interpretations. Institutions are a topic for the movement article.Endlessmike 888 05:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I too have thought that the article doesn't really present a clear picture of Objectivism to the general reader.  I suggest sticking with Rand's own summary formulation(s) in this article, reserving details for the auxiliary articles on specific facets.  By the way, it's not just "egoism", but "rational egoism"; otherwise the general reader would get the wrong impression. — DAGwyn 05:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good ideas. A discussion of ethics would include her rejection of predatory egoism and hedonism, with emphasis on her idea that egoism requires principles. Endlessmike 888 05:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions about the article 

message: Why is this included in the "cult" section of the article? If it is to be included at all, it should be in a section like "Groups or Movement or Ideologies influenced by Objectivism."
:I agree.  It has nothing to do with whether Objectivism may in some way be considered a cult.  Frankly, I don't see how Satanism can reasonably be related to Objectivism; there are few if any common concepts between them. — DAGwyn 05:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Satanism

message: The section is barely about its section heading. Nozick should be discussed, as should John Hospers. That's about it. The rest should be shortened and given its own section. "Influence of Objectivism" or something.
:Keep in mind that non-Objectivists get their say here too.  I agree that the section is disproportionately long, and the latter part is largely defensive.  You might take a cue from what I did for the C (programming language) article and give "Criticism of Objectivism" its own article, to which much of this section could be moved.  (The introductory part should remain.) — DAGwyn 05:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point on this section is that it should concern objections raised by philosophers, not on who or how many people in what institutions like Objectivism (that is a topic for the Objectivist Movement article). Since there is already and article on the Objectivist movement, this article should focus on philosophical topics. Movement issues, such as Objectivisms lack of acceptence by most mainstream philosophers, should be mentioned briefly with a re-direct to the Objectivist movement article. Otherwise there is much too much overlap.Endlessmike 888 05:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur.  There has to be that mention of the (historical, at least) lack of acceptance by the academic mainstream, because that is important to people in that mainstream! — DAGwyn 17:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses to Objectivist Philosophy

message: This should be titled "Interpretation Controversies" or something and discuss (briefly) the interpretive differences between Peikoff and Kelley.
:I agree.  "Competing interpretations" is another possible heading.  Also note the quotation in the into to the "Responses" section; while Rand was alive, she reasonably could demand that "Objectivism" be treated as a sort of trademark of hers, but now we have to consider whether a stationary body of thought is sufficiently viable.  Both Peikoff and Kelley appear to believe that the philosophy can be further developed.  I'm almost certain that Rand designated Peikoff as her "official" intellectual heir (replacing Branden), but there is a question as to what extent he can actually dictate the philosophy, and whether that is desirable. — DAGwyn 05:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I basically agree. I want to avoid discussing competing institutions, and focus on competing interpretations. Institutions are a topic for the movement article.Endlessmike 888 05:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Varieties

message: Some of the presentation is too vague, some too techincal (ie requiring terminology that is meaningless to people not already familiar with Objectivism), and some is plain wrong. As opposed to listing five branches I propose listing explaining important concepts or principles. "Similarity as Measurement-Omission," "The Objectivity of Values," "Egoism," something political. Maybe not those specific topics but something along those lines. Other philosophy articles do not have a breakdown branch by branch.
:I too have thought that the article doesn't really present a clear picture of Objectivism to the general reader.  I suggest sticking with Rand's own summary formulation(s) in this article, reserving details for the auxiliary articles on specific facets.  By the way, it's not just "egoism", but "rational egoism"; otherwise the general reader would get the wrong impression. — DAGwyn 05:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good ideas. A discussion of ethics would include her rejection of predatory egoism and hedonism, with emphasis on her idea that egoism requires principles. Endlessmike 888 05:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Presentation of philosophy

message: While re-structuring "Responses and influence" I plan to remove vanity quotes.  This is an encuclopedia, not a scrapbook. AdamReed 02:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vanity quotes. 

message: Adam Reed replaced a variety of secondary sources with primary sources on the philosophy of Objectivism, an edit that may have unintended consequences. While primary sources are usually preferable to secondary ones, they are not always so. For example, Diodorus Siculus is a primary source on fourth-century BC Greece but his chronology is jumbled in places and modern historians — secondary sources who use many other sources — can correct some of his confusions. In the current situation, Adam Reed may not realize that the group of secondary sources cited after the phrase "Objectivism is a philosophy" were orignally put there not for the purpose of describing that philosophy, but for the purpose of justifying the use of the label "philosophy" in a dispute from the ancient history of this article where one or more editors objected that Objectivism did not merit that label. Thus the secondary sources from what are considered reliable scholarly and journalistic sources were cited specifically for their use of the term "philosophy" to describe Objectivism. So in this case Rand and Peikoff are in the position of Diodorus and need 'vetting' by the media and academic mainstream. I will restore the references with an explanation since I think it may still be required. —Blanchette 20:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any objection, other than that the notion that Objectivism is not a philosophy reflects confusion about Objectivism, about philosophy, or both, or else is another instance in a long history of denial by those whose ox it gores. — DAGwyn 23:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Objectivism is a philosophy" edit is questionable for 'historical' reasons. 

message: Under influence, a new section is required at the top: Legacy.
This section needs to spell out the differences between ARI (Peikoff) and TOC/Atlas Society (Kelley). 
At a minimum, the section needs to communicate what the fundamental differences are. Karbinski 15:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scholary Suggestion. 

message: I agree with arguments for re-titling, but partitioning material from other sources into a separate section is indispensable to organize the article so that the beginner can understand what the topic of the article, Objectivism, is, before going on to other issues.  And 4 or 5 outline levels is not much in scholarly work - up to 7 or 8 levels is common.  Please discuss further if this is not adequate. AdamReed 00:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partitioning material on topics other than Objectivism itself is indispensable. 

message: What is meant by the reference to "natural categories" in the summary at the intro? This seems to blur the difference between Rand's and Aristotle's epistemology, in that Objectivism clearly holds that although concepts must be formed objectively (as oppossed to subjectively,) the categories do not already exist in nature and must be formed by humans. Use of "natural categories" seems to imply the opposite, i.e. appyling to her Aristotle's belief that there is "man-ness" in man and "rose-ness" in rose. D prime 18:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So far as I can recall, Rand never used that terminology.  You are right to note that it raises (unanswered) questions.  I have just removed that phrase and think that improved the sentence. — DAGwyn 21:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural Categories?