Talk:Objectivism/Archive 8

message: Jossi, when you made this change, did you actually intend to revert my grammar fix along with removing the cult category? Al 01:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Silence is compliance, so I made another change intended to fix the awkward English there.  Hope you don't revert it out of hand again. Al 01:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collateral damage 

message: Unless there are any specific objections I will proceed with merging in a few days.  ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 02:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merging what? —Centrx→talk • 02:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the merger notices. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 04:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you are going to do both merges? Both were added both today and yesterday, so don't merge them too soon. What are the reasons for merging? —Centrx→talk • 05:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging 

message: Consider these two versions:
1) This recent academic interest is due in part to the actions of the Ayn Rand Institute, which has spent more than $5M on educational programs advancing Objectivism, including scholarships and clubs.
2) This recent academic interest may be due in part to the actions of the Ayn Rand Institute, which has spent more than $5M on educational programs advancing Objectivism, including scholarships and clubs.
(In both case, emphasis was added to show the difference.)
The former already says "in part", admitting that only some of the interest is due to the cash being thrown in this direction.  The latter weasels with original research, implicitly denying that spending $5M has any effect at all.  For this reason, I suggest that we return to the former version.  Does anyone disagree? Al 01:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do. Unless you have a citation from a reliable source that asserts that, we can only same "may be". Even better, would be to remove that sentence all together, or re-write it. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 04:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Exaclty. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @
Common sense dictates that $5M is going to have some effect, however small.  The burden is then shifted to the opposing view. Al 21:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The money does not appear to be going toward university programs. I don't see how investing in high school programs in the last few years would certainly cause some 50-year old professor to all of a sudden become interested in it. Saying "is" means that there is more than an assumption, and all we have here is a "common sense" assumption—not a direct inference. —Centrx→talk • 22:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says the money is going to "educational programs advancing Objectivism, including scholarships and clubs".  Giving scholarships to Objectivists and supporting Objectivist clubs is necessarily going to increase interest among the students, as well as the perception of legitimacy.  So, yes, it's common sense that it's responsible for some of the academic interest. Al 22:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not an issue of common sense, but of original research. Unless there is a reliable source that describes the effect of that sum of money, any assertion other than "may be", is nothing but speculation. The whole sentence needs to go as it seems to be an un attributed opinion. I would leave it at "educational programs advancing Objectivism, including scholarships and clubs", and let the reader reach their own conclusions ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 22:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Clearly, this does not fit Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Even so, it does not assert that the donations are propelling academic interest beyond high school. —Centrx→talk • 22:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Excelent find. The you can add this: "The Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) has offered free copies of Anthem and The Fountainhead to teachers all across North America," and avoid making conclusions on behalf of readers. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 23:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That is your conclusion. Unless there is a reliable source that reports that influence, we need to stick to stating the facts. Let the reader connect the dots. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 23:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly. That is why I edited that passage to include only facts and not speculation.  ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 03:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: On the basis of your comments, I'll put aside this argument over "may in part", and agree that a larger rewrite is in order so as make it accurate.  In any case, I'd also like to pick up on a thread you dropped.  The impression I got from my sources is that Smith was not entirely forthright about her Randism until after it was too late to do anything about it.  However, Wikipedia works on verifiability, not impressions, so I'm wondering if you might have some citations that would allow us to make Smith's article a bit more complete. Al 01:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weaseling 

message: I get the sense that all this will be settled by good outlining...
#Objectivism
##A. R.'s Objectivism // strictly and only as A. R. saw it
##Criticism of A. R.'s Objectivism
#A. R.'s contemporaries react to Objectivism
##Early Objectivism // generally not A. R.
##Criticism of early Objectivism
###Randism gets labeled as a cult
#Current Objectivism
##Modern Objectivism
##Criticism of modern Objectivism
###Perception as a cult persists
...Well, something like that anyway. Then strictly placing the facts, quotes, and notable opinions in the appropriate section. The manner in that these topics and sub-topics are allowed to "slosh around" is the current problem. All the topics outlined above have things worthy of cataloging in Wikipedia. It is possible to state some else's POV using a NPOV. --Charles Gaudette 20:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to start 

message: I think that is is vital for the reader to be aware of the Peikoff/Kelley split right away.  Without that knowledge, they have little hope of being able to follow and appreciate the rest of the fine points we ourselves seem to be having some difficulty sorting out. -- 75.24.110.126 21:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The small lead section 

message: If Ayn Rand were alive today, I cannot imagine anything more offensive to her worldview than the idea that we cannot define the Objectivism that she promulgated for Mankind without, even before we have finished the first sentence about it, making references to her ethnicity.  Tell me, people: was she a babe?  How would she have fared on that TV show American Idol?  The color of her eyes and her bra size and whether she enjoys skiing, golfing and tennis do belong in this article (which they, thank God, are not).  Neither does her ethnicity.  It is well-documented in her biography. This is the Objectivism article. -- 75.24.108.134 02:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What did Ayn Rand want? 

message: First, I disagree with the change that says the philosophy has split into Peikoff and Kelley factions and puts this at the top of the article. First, without any indication anywhere in the article what the precise differences are between the philosophical commitments of these two groups are, this has the appearance of reporting a fact about the *movement* rather than the intellectual issues. Also this seems to me linguistically slopping: both groups claim that they are representing objectivism and that the other is mistaken. The current text suggests that there are now two philosophies, objectivism1 and objectivism2, and implicitly implies that each side would accept this characterization. That seems quite wrong to me. Each side thinks that it is correctly interpreting objectivism. So rather than saying that the philosophy has split, I think that this should read something like "there has been a split in the correct interpretation of some central tenets of objectivism." But if that is done, there *has* to be some statement as to what this disagreement is (which as I understand it has to do with moral accountability for holding opinions which can contribute to bad consequences primarily, and the issue of whether and in what sense objectivism is a closed system).
Second, citation needed issues. The statement about existentialism: this is a widely repeated anecdote, but I have found absolutely no confirmation of it. All I can find is a statement in OPAR to the effect that objectivism could have been called existentialism but... rather than Rand said that objectivism could have been called existentialism. Should we leave the citation needed open in hopes that someone will find something? Or should we change the language and go with the OPAR cite? 
Also, the comment about Kant and self-sacrifice--this is very very tricky, and that's why no one has been able to produce a citation. First, a huge number of Continental philosophers in effect agree with Rand that Kant's view is motivated by masochism (if she is charitably read) (because this view is lifted from Nietzsche, who is enormously influential among Continental philosophers), so the claim that most philosophers disagree is an overgeneralization. Second, there's a significant body of literature in analytic circles that in effect agrees with this too (Bernard Williams, Phillipa Foot, the virtue ethics movement). But the very claim and counterclaim is so imprecise that it borders on meaningless. No one thinks that Kant didn't think that we should not act from self-interest. The controversial claim that Rand appears to make is that Kant claimed we should make self-sacrifice our goal (as opposed to accepting it as a side effect of some other goal, say, acting only on universalized maxims).  The problem is that the controversial claim is never made by anyone except Rand (Nietzsche's claim is that this is his secret goal, not his express goal), but no analytic philosopher makes precisely this interpretive claim as far as I know either, and so it is false to say that most scholars deny this--it simply never comes up. It would be like saying "most scholars reject the claim that Kant believed that Elvis lives." This whole issue is confused and our text compounds it. The sentence has to be completely rewritten to capture these nuances.--Agent Cooper 16:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [A.C., I answered your question about "flagging" a user's contributions at the (current) end of the "An offer of expert help" section above. Blanchette 05:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: In Objectivist movement#Factions where "Peikoff responded by claiming Kelley had violated the basic tenets of Objectivism and would therefore no longer be allowed to lecture under the auspices of the ARI or any of its affiliates." So you are right, these tenets and their differences deserve some examination. -- 75.23.155.82 21:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some small problems 

message: Article says:
:There are no Objectivist philosophers who hold a tenured position at one of the dozen or so leading American philosophy departments. 
This sounds like weasel or peacock words, and very unprofessional ("or so").  Could someone put a hard number in instead of "dozen or so", and state who is ranking the philosophy departments?  What does a philosophy department need to accomplish to be "leading"?  Influence policy?  Get citiations from other institutions?  Get grants to study philosophy? MrVoluntarist 16:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed: This absolutely has to go. There is a tenured objectivist at a number 14 ranked department; we get the "desired" result by defining "dozen or so" as 13.--Agent Cooper 21:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The minority of academics that have taken the time to study her work typically conclude that many of the specific stances are demonstrably false rehashes of old errors,
Is this supposed to be different from say, Karl Marx's endorsement of the labor theory of value, or the God-knows how many demonstrably false statements of "true" philosophers in their less-known works? MrVoluntarist 16:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: But the statement, despite using a bad source, is true. It is a very hard to prove statement, but it does reflect reality nonetheless. I am adding it back in. -- LGagnon 02:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it's true and maybe it's not. Either way, it's against the rules to have a statement in an article that can't be sourced. I'm going to be a citation request tag on the line, and if no one can come up with a reliable source then the line has to be deleted. A statement that can't be sourced is "original research," which is something we're not allowed to do here. SourceChecker 04:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SourceChecker, much as I hate to include things with insufficient source or specificity (see the beginning of this thread!), it would seem that the blog falls under the exceptions.  The author of the blog is writing under his real name, and he has been published.  Further, since his bias (to the small extent it exists) would be in favor of Rand, he's not unfairly biased for purposes of showing negative aspects of her.  Also, since the statement in the WP article is a negative, it's very difficult to find an academic source for or against.  If someone's not taken seriously in academia, their work simply won't be discussed; that means someone won't say "We ignore Rand."   They'll just say "..."  The blog overview is imho the best we can get. MrVoluntarist 16:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel/peacock words