Talk:Objectivism/Archive 5

message: I believe the Ethics section needs to be rewritten as to become more formatted and systematic, in the "Man->The Good->Virtue" style that Peikoff uses to explain it, and the explanation that Rand gives as to the role that ethics plays in the title essay of The Virtue of Selfishness. As it stands now, the section is less of a summary and more of a third-person description. D prime 00:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethics Section

message: Some portion of Objectivists may favor an esthetic of Romanticism, like Rand.  However, I think there needs to be more support for stating that this philosophy officially prescribes a particular esthetic.  I may have missed this somewhere so please clue me (us) in. --Davidp 21:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rand did not include esthetics in her earliest summaries of her philosophy, but she published a book on the subject (The Romantic Manifesto), and later descriptions of her philosophy included esthetics (see, for example this summary from the Ayn Rand Institute or this item from the Objectivist Center). However, the article in its current form is inaccurate in one respect: the term Rand applied to her esthetic views was "Romantic Realism," not simply "Romanticism." Rand knew that the latter term had been applied to other schools, and wanted to distinguish her views from theirs. So an update to that effect would be appropriate. -- RL0919 03:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objectivism favors an esthetic of Romanticism? 

message: I would like if there were an image to go along with this to make it look less dry at first apperance. Perhaps a copy of Atlas Shrugged beside Peikoff's paperback describing the entire philosophy? Or maybe The Fountainhead, Atlas and all of the non-fiction anthologies? I would explain what they are at the end. Does anyone have any thoughts? D prime 16:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about moving that Reason Magazine cover up to the top or just using the photo of Rand from her biographical article? Alienus 16:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The photo of Rand or a particular magazine cover is more a representation of Rand herself than her philosophy. Of course they're completely related, but, it needs something more particular. D prime 01:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I do know what Rand looks like, but I'm not sure what an Objectivism looks like.  Abstract nouns are hell when I play Pictionary.  Since Objectivism is the personal philosophy of Ayn Rand, I'm not sure what better illustrates it than her. Alienus 04:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are witty, but the image doesn't necessarily have to be of Objectivism. I think I may add one of my suggestions at the top. Are there any complaints? D prime 22:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this is an article about her philosophy, perhaps using the cover of one of her non-fiction philosophy books would be more appropriate than using a cover from one of her novels. Perhaps Philosophy: Who Needs It or For the New Intellectual? -- RL0919 00:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: I propose that this article be moved to Rand's Objectivist philosophy or similar name, so that the article title reflects the content and makes the distinction clear. Also similer moves for other articles on Rands work, also rename the category :Category:Books by Ayn Rand be renames to :Category:Ayn Rand and the articles places there. Thoughs? --Salix alba (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chris, I think you know that "Rynd" is misspelling of "Rand", so let's no be coy.  In any case, the idea has some merit, although I'm not sure about the details.  Would the article be improved if it were called "Randian Objectivism"? Alienus 17:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I neither think nor know that it was a misspelling. I suspect Pfafrich was trying to be funny, importing the "y" from her one-syllable first name into her one-syllable last name. --Christofurio 01:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Two questions: First, is the current disambiguation (a disambig notice at the top of this article, and a separate disambiguation page for objectivism) not sufficiently clear? If so, perhaps there is a less disruptive solution than moving the page. Second, if this article were moved to some other namespace, what would you like to see done with this namespace? -- RL0919 18:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why move? If you type "objectivism philosophy" into the search box you get directed here, really it should go to an overview page. Its all very confusing at the moment we have Objectivity (philosophy) (non Rand), Objectivism (metaphysics) (non Rand), Moral objectivism (non rand), Objectivist metaphysics (Rand), Objectivist philosophy (Rand), Objectivist epistemology (Rand), Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (rand book), Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (Rand book), Objectivist ethics (Rand), its taken me a day just to figure out whats what. --Salix alba (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't have a clear picture of what the goal of the move is, or what you want done with the existing namespace. And now with you bringing in a bunch of other articles into the discussion, I'm not even sure what is the scope of the changes you want. Do you want to rename all of the articles you mention? I'm not sure that this would reduce confusion all that much. Do you want disambiguation articles for all of these phrases? For example, if someone enters a highly specific string like "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology," what exactly are they likely to be expecting, if not the book of that name? (Not that the current stub is a particularly compelling article, but that is a somewhat different issue.) Several of these articles already have clear disambiguation notices at the top of the article. Arguably all of them should. I wouldn't oppose that at all. But that's a far cry from renaming/moving/redirecting multiple articles. I think the less radical disambiguation options should be explored first. -- RL0919 04:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I would agree that there is absolutely no need for the massive move. The disambiguation page is performing the function that disambiguation pages are intended to perform admirably. More over, titles like "Objectivist metaphysics" are, I think, unambiguous, as non-Objectivists are more likely to refer to themselves as "metaphysical objectivists". BTW, if you type "objectivism philosophy" you end up on the search page — it would be better if that pointed to the disambiguation page. Ig0774 11:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: A quick Google confirmed that Randian is much more common than Randist.  As an experiment, I created a "Randian Objectivism" page that redirects here.   Alienus 23:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still not convinced of the need for a move... A quick google search for the term "Objectivist" shows that the first two pages (and all but two links on the third page) link to Randian Objectivist view (or rejections of those views). If the move must be made, I would prefer the "Objectivist metaphysics (Rand)" style because it seems more in keeping with Wikipedia-style disambiguation. Nevertheless, I still think that anyone searching for non-Randian objectivist metaphysics is likely to search for "objectivism" or "objectivist", the first of which links to a real disambiguation page, the second to a pseudo-disambiguation page. While there is a clear distinction between the two, I am not convinced that the current labelling scheme doesn't already solve this. Ig0774 01:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Rand's Objectivist philosophy 

message: The argument against the Objectivist view of causality appears to be original research. It would be interesting to learn of an authority who disputed what is specifically Objectivist, in particular the Objectivist insistence on 'entity to action' causality rather than 'action to action' causality. In any case, the argument made here was an argument against determinism per se and could be cited by reference to the "Determinism, quantum mechanics and classical physics" section in the Wikipedia article on Determinism. But please cite your source for this criticism, if you can find an authority who levels it specifically against Objectivism. Incidentally, if the subject interests you, I suggest you consult the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which has  a series of articles on the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics. You will find that the Copenhagen interpretation is far from satisfactory to many philosophers of science. It is a fascinating topic in it's own right but probably too vast and too tangential to merit a lengthy exposition in a survey article on Objectivism.  Blanchette 22:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed argument from quantum mechanics 

message: I should think the reader would benefit from knowing the identities of some of these number of philosophers who find Rand's argument for atheism both laughable and embarrassing. While laughter and embarrassment often occur together, what are the odds of both sentiments being expressed by a number (greater than one) of philosophers with respect to this one issue? I think this is especially unlikely since, as far as I know, Rand's argument for atheism is that there is no evidence for the supernatural -- hardly a novel, or uniquely laughable and embarrassing position in the history of philosophy.  I recall her offering a 'sense of life' reason to reject the notion of God as well, something along the lines of the concept of a being superior to man as demeaning to manifestly real human greatness (someone may have a reference for this), but she certainly did not offer that as a primary argument for atheism. 
The entire paragraph, aside from the first sentence, which would qualify as common knowledge, would greatly benefit from a few citation of sources for the particular claims made, especially since the paragraph is a litany of emotion words (passion, derided, disgust, not... serious, dismissal, rehashes, errors, etc.) rather than of arguments. I'm sure knowing where to find the arguments would be worthwhile.  Blanchette 23:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "laughable and embarrassing" -- maybe so, but... 

message: There's a longstanding section in the Alan Greenspan (former chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve banking system) that purports to cover Objectivist criticism of him. I think there are problems with it, but I hesitate to delete it, because IMO non-mainstream viewpoints like that should be treated inclusively on Wikipedia. I wondered if one of the editors here would take a look at it and perhaps improve it. 
Here is the first bit of it: "Greenspan continues to support a gold standard and advocate laissez-faire capitalism [14] [15]. His support for a gold standard is somewhat of an irony given the Federal Reserve's role in America's fiat money. He has come under heavy criticism from Objectivist philosophers, most notably Leonard Peikoff and Harry Binswanger [16], as they believe that working for the Federal Reserve is an abandonment of Objectivist and free market principles. Increasingly, however, some Objectivists have come to believe that Greenspan has deliberately and with full intention engineered the downfall of the American economy."    
So, you can probably see that there may be some issues there, at a minimum the section is insufficiently sourced. Hope someone here can improve it. DanielM 18:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Daniel, I'm no friend of Greenspan's 'enabling' of the Fed's engine of intervention and inflation but I don't believe any authority has made the charge that Greenspan deliberately worked to destroy the American economy (which makes it just a Wikipedia editor's opinion) or reported that significant numbers of self-identified Objectivists believe this (which makes it original research). I can't prove it's false but such a charge requires a reference.  I have added a "citation needed" tag to the end of the offending paragraph.  If no one can find a reference for this claim in a week or so I will support the deletion of that paragraph. Blanchette 18:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  help with Objectivist criticism of Alan Greenspan 

message: For those who may be interested, I am proposing a formal WikiProject to co-ordinate work on Objectivism-related articles here on Wikipedia. I have written a little about what I hope the project would achieve on my User page. Interested users should "sign" their usernames here. WikiProject guidelines suggest that at least 5 and ideally at least 10 users express an interest in a proposed project before a formal project page is set up. --Matthew Humphreys 14:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Objectivism WikiProject

message: This section is POV in the extreme, I fear - a handful of books and a single journal without a major figure on its board do not constitute increased academic respect. And the idea that "many" academics dismiss Rand is understatement in the extreme. Rand is a joke in academic philosophy. To say otherwise is POV advocacy. Phil Sandifer 23:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Academic Response section

message: Here's the text I removed.
It should also be noted that followers of many great personalities have come to magnify the person after being deeply affected by the ideas of that person.  This does not by necessity reveal faults of either the person being idolized or the ideas they have shared.  Furthermore, the social and intellectual image of her philosophy, which was somehow preserved by Rand during her life, was left in the hands of others after her death.
This was clearly added to spin some POV onto the otherwise critical passage.  It appears to be OR and POV, so I've removed it.  If it can be rewritten so that it cites some relevant, reliable sources, perhaps it should then be reinserted.  Al 02:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed uncited apologetics. 

message: At List of groups referred to as cults there is a disagreement whether Objectivist philosophy is a cult. Can someone more knowledgeable volunteer a statement on the talk page? --Pjacobi 07:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Objectivism has been accused of being a cult numerous times, with plenty of citable sources available. Unfortunately, Wikipedia allows biased Objectivists to edit our so-called "NPOV" encyclopedia to remove any such criticisms (notice how the biased editor LaszloWalrus removed :Category:Purported cults on a poor justification). Yes, it belongs on the list, but the unspoken-of bias here will probably try to stop you from doing so. -- LGagnon 03:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Objectivist philosophy a [[cult]] 

message: There's been a move-war over the naming of the Objectivism and homosexuality article, with LaszloWalrus repeatedly renaming it to Ayn Rand's views on homosexuality.  I won't rehash the arguments here or otherwise prejudice interested parties.  Instead, I ask that you consult the Talk page and participate in forming a consensus. Al 19:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So far, two people have come over to help break the deadlock, but we need more.  You're invited. Al 16:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment: moving homosexuality article. 

message: Has anyone seen that in the Template:Satanism, among the Associated Concepts there is also Objectivism? It clearly must be deleted from there.--Arado 13:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Anton LeVey got some of his ideas from Rand. Technically, it is associated. In fact, that should probably be mentioned in this article. -- LGagnon 13:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satanism 

message: I'm looking for people with knowlege of Objectivisim to contribute to the Objectivist Wiki  This project is just getting off the ground, and needs lots of love :). Crazynas 20:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wiki 

message: I tried adding www.strongatheism.net as an external link but someone removed it. The site is definately based on Objectivism even though it never directly identifies itself as that.
I've noticed that Objectivists don't tend to identify their philosophy as Objectivism but instead label it as the only true and complete philosophy. Even though some of the philosophy makes sense they do seem to have a bit of a cult mentality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihils (talk • contribs) 
:Cult mentality aside, I removed the link to strong atheism because it didn't seem as "Objectivist-y" as the other links in that section of the article. On first glance, it seems to be a site strongly promoting atheism (which is great). But Atheism is a very small part of Oism and the other links in the list seemed very strongly Objectivist. On encyclopedic grounds, it doesn't seem to fit. I have no problem with the site personally or ideologically. Just taxonomically, for this article. Enkrates 06:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a rule of thumb, it's fair to say that the only time Rand gets mentioned is by her followers.  By this rule, strongatheism.net has some of the hallmarks of an Objectivist site.  However, that's not strong enough evidence on its own.  Perhaps this link suffices.  It is an essay explicitly endorsing Objectivist ethics.  What do you think? Al 06:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  strongatheism.net 

message: :"And yet if individualism is to be praised by Rand then taking her in parts must also be completely acceptable.  Her philosophy must then have freedom to grow or the right of individual self-interest would be taken at the very moment that it is affirmed." This statement was presented as some sort of self-evident fact, while it is really just an interpretation of the philosophy, and a highly controversial one at that. Someone should either cite a source that supports this claim, or be content to see it removed. LaszloWalrus 10:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone keeps re-adding this... 

message: There is a conflict on List of philosophers over whether Ayn Rand qualifies as a major philosopher. It might be of interest to editors here.  I ask, however, that people make an effort to be objective on this matter, rather than voting based on their personal feelings.  My pet philosopher isn't on this list, for example. Al 19:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of philosophers 

message: I just archived everything up to 2006, hope this cuts down the page load time some, all the stuff I archived is in Archive4. Crazynas 05:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed the obscene size of the page and archived everything that wasn't "current", but seeing as how the two biggest discussions are huge AND current... I'm not sure when the page was renamed, but I've added in an Archive box in the process of trying to quickly do the edit... I'll add all the other archives into the box and add nav tags.  --Xinit 04:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: He's been adding some more POV lately.  I've fixed some of it but I don't want to be doing this alone. Al 19:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll help you out. I'm sick and tired of that guy's POV pushing. RJII 02:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RJII

message: This article lacks sufficient discussion of her philosophy of value. That's major. I'm trying to comprehend it but have not been successful yet. If anyone understands it, please add to the article. It needs to be explained why Rand thinks life itself has to be the foundational value which makes all other values possible. RJII 03:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably, because the dead are in no position to value anything. Al 03:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's beyond that. It's not that to value something one has to be alive. I quote from Peikoff: "The distinctively Objectivist viewpoint here, let me repeat, is not that life is a precondition of other values--not that one must remain alive in order to act. This idea is a truism, not a philosophy. Objectivism says that remaining alive is the goal of values and all proper action."  Rand says, "Epistemologically, the concept of "value" is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecdent concept of "life." RJII 03:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No, that's definitely not her argument. According to her, an immortal and indestructible being could not value anything at all. RJII 03:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Obviously, you're not familiar with her argument. So, you're definitely not in a position to judge. RJII 03:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Understanding her stance does not make me an apologist for the errors in it.  For that, try a Randist. They'd probably say that, for us, living is a choice. Al 04:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What errors? You haven't pointed out any errors in it. How can you oppose a philosophy if you're not able to point out any errors in the argumentation? (much less, even know what the arguments are)RJII 04:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: In other words, you don't know her argument. All you can do is disagree with the conclusion. I'm asking for someone that understands her argument to add it to the article. So, this doesn't concern you because obviously you're not familiar with her philosophy. RJII 05:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No you don't. You have no clue what her argument is, as has been made clear in this exchange. RJII 05:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you're on the right track. What has been bothering me is why an immortal indestructible being couldn't pursue Happiness. I think Rand's argument for that has to do with that happiness depends on first having a value system. But, it seems circular to me because of her position that having a value system requires that life be the ultimate value. RJII 05:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: To be frank, that does not appear to make a whole lot of sense.  If anything, I'd value life more if I lived longer. Al 03:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you were immortal then you wouldn't pursue life, because you already had it for eternity. With a "value" being defined as "that which one acts to gain and/or keep" it would be a logical impossibility. Maybe you would appreciate it (but then, maybe not) but it wouldn't be a "value." (Speaking in accordance with Rand, as far as I understand it) RJII 03:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't distinguish that because that's not the question being pondered. If you want to talk about quality of life, it would be the same concept. Imagine a being that was perfectly happy for eternity. He couldn't have happiness as a goal (a "value"), because he already had it forever. RJII 04:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: So back to the previous issue, a person couldn't have life as a "value" unless he was mortal. Why an immortal indestructible "robot" couldn't have, say, an automobile as a "value" is what I'm having a problem understanding in Objectivism. From what I understand, the robot would have no need for a car because it had no need to work to get food since it was immortal. But, also, it couldn't even pursue a car to drive around in to make himself happy. The reason for that is that happiness requires prior value judgements, according to Rand. What would those value judgements be based on? For Rand, the only that those value judgements could possibly be based on is the choice to value life --the choice to pursue the continuance of one's life. I suppose Rand would think that you could go through and analyze every possible thing to value to determine what they were a value TO and they would all, in order to be coherent, have to be a value to the sustaining of LIFE. There has to be a fundamental value for which all other values are judged as being a value TO. The most fundamental value is the choice to continue to exist in the future (continuing to live) over allowing oneself to cease to exist in the future (to die). (I THINK this something like her argument, but I'm not quite getting it). RJII 04:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Value