Talk:Objectivism/Archive 10

message: Aren't Rand's Objectivism and Neoconservatism rather closely related? It isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. —AldeBaer 00:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never seen ANY evidence for a relationship between the two, other than an adversarial one: Leonard Peikoff has been a very strong critic not only of Neoconservatism itself, but of nearly everything connected - as Neoconservatism demonstrably is - with the Platonist philosophy of Leo Strauss.  Remember, this is an encyclopedia; everything here must be verifiable.  In scholarly disciplines, including philosophy, by reference to primary and scholarly sources. AdamReed 01:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, that's why I didn't edit the article. But I'm curious because I remember reading about that connection (via Strauss) somewhere. May have been inspired by Peikoff, I can't really remember where I got this from. Speaking only for myself, I think the connection is more than obvious. —AldeBaer 03:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the claim of a connection between the two is made by Lyndon LaRouche and his minions, for whatever that may be worth. —Blanchette 19:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only relationship I am aware of is the one discussed by Adam Reed. In addition to Peikoff, Brook (president of ARI) has been highly critical of all things neo-con. So has C. Bradley Thompson (Objectivist political philosopher). Endlessmike 888 20:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Neoconservativism is not very closely aligned with Objectivist principles and values; don't be misled by the occasional advocacy of similar political actions. Note that the Wikipedia Neoconservatism article contains no mention of Objectivism. — DAGwyn 22:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense, but that means basically nothing. Some articles are owned and whitewashed. Hold on to your seat, but a tiny minority of articles are not even NPOV. I know, it's disgusting and hard to believe, but that's just the way it is. The one thing someone actually leaning towards neoconservatism would do is to clean that article of all negative bias. That, after all, is what neoconservatism is really all about: Fight without mercy. Get rich or die trying. Cut social welfare and medicaid while the number of millionaires is on a constant rise. See, and while I'm non-neocon, my non-absent integrity forbids me to edit that article, what a shame. LaRouche asserts that relationship? I'm fairly sure he is not the only one. But guilt by association is always worth a shot, ain't it? Best regards, —AldeBaer 06:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  closely related to [[Neoconservatism]]? 

message: I've looked through claims that Objectivism is not a philosophy, and all but one pre-date Peikoff's OPAR, and say that it is not a philosophical system because it was never published as a philosophical system.  There have been no such criticisms since the publication of OPAR, so I am inclined to leave them out, because they are obsolete.  The one exception is Merrill's claim that Objectivism is not a philosophy but rather the starting point of a set of new natural (albeit theoretical) sciences concerned with questions that previously were the exclusive concern of philosophy.  I'll need to cite my own work, but it is from a refereed journal (JARS) and definitely not original research for the Wikipedia.  Comments? AdamReed 02:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Objectivism a Philosophy?

message: I don't think the issue is really whether or not Rand's Objectivism constitutes a philosophy (or philosophical system), but whether the sometimes-heard assertion that it doesn't ought to be addressed in the article.  It's obvious to me that the assertion is without merit..  The cultism accusation is a separate issue, and to me doesn't belong in this article, but rather in the (at least) two other articles where it is already mentioned. — DAGwyn 20:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  end of excerpt 

message: :Influence sub-topic in other disciplines adds little value to understanding the philosophy due to its brevity.  A bullet list of facts added ad-hoc is bad content.  Ayn Rand asserted that Objectivism was for living life.  A paragraph addressing this theme supported by a number of examples (perhaps the current three) would be much better.  Perhaps I will write it if the section survives a long time in its current form. Karbinski 14:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  article structure requires refinement 

message: the article is getting too long and needs pruned.  since there are now main pages for most philosophical disciplines, perhaps we can cut some content? however, we shouldn't cut things that are needed to sustain npov.--Buridan 11:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in the process of streamlining the organization to reduce redundancy.  Once this is done, the next step will be to make the language more concise. Let's defer the "pruning" until then.  It would be helpful, before we start pruning, to develop (here in talk) explicit criteria beyond just NPOV - for example, do not remove from the earlier sections material that is referred to in the "Response and Influence" section, or material that pertains to foundational differences between Objectivism and traditional philosophical systems. AdamReed 14:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: How about a new article: Objectivism, cultural influence?  Such a move would shorten this article nicely without losing too much.  Perhaps leaving a paragraph behind based on the monographs section that mentions the new article along with a reference to the bibliography article. Karbinski 00:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: how about just cleaning up this one? cleaning up the areas that are redundant with other articles.--Buridan 09:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  article is too long 

message: Who wrote this section? It is, on a whole, almost entirely false. I'll take it assertion by assertion.
"little dialogue of any scholarly quality has passed between Objectivists and other kinds of philosophers" Hello! This is discussed in the Objectivist Movement article.
"There are several sociological and historial reasons for this, including but not limited to: the promotion of Objectivist philosophy by private organizations rather than academic institutions," The University of Texas isn't an academic institution? What about the University of Pittsburgh. What about the APA? Again, covered in the Objectivist Movement article.
"Additionally, the non-academic history of Objectivist philosophy creates a situation where many non-Objectivist philosophers find themselves talking past their Objectivist counterparts" Says who? That's a bold assertion to make with zero sources. Here is what Geoffrey Sayre-McCord, a well known professor of philosophy at UNC-Chapel Hill had to say about two conferences he attended between Objectivists and analytics: "I found both conferences engaging and interesting. It seemed like ordinary high-powered philosophy." That's from the latest issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education. He goes on to say that he benefited strongly from working with Objectivists.
"Objectivists tend to dismiss analytic philosophy as mere "linguistic analysis" Really? Which ones?
"Naturally, contemporary non-objectivist philosophers counter that much of Objectivism - such as its views on causation, free will, and the mind-body relationship - is false." Who? Where? Is Objectivism ignored by academics, or have they studied it and then rejected it. It can't be both.
"As well, Objectivism is hostile toward continental philosophies" No disagreement there. But how is a reader supposed to know what we are talking about without some citations or quotes?
"Though the volume and quality of the scholarship has improved, the presence of non-partisan evaluators has not." Unsourced evaluation.
"ARI-inspired works tend to eschew academic publication standards" Really? Then explain Tara Smith's CV, or Allan Gotthelf's article in the review of metaphysics, or Darryl Wright's article in Social Policy and Philosophy, or John Lewis's book contract with Princeton University Press, etc.
"Finally, many works critical of Objectivism seem superficial and fail to appreciate the complexity and internal coherence of the philosophy." Which ones?
This section is REALLY bad, especially when all the facts are available in the Objectivist Movement article. There are other problems as well, but this is enough to dismiss it. I'm deleting the whole section. Endlessmike 888 01:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, your summary is way off base, but the point remains that the original poster needs to work on his citations, precisely because his words need defense from the sort of sloppy arguments you're tossing out. Until they provide citations, I'll let your deletion stand. ThAtSo 02:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'll explain what you think is "sloppy," that may help a future version of the section. And, btw, I didn't provide an argument. I cited facts that contradict what was written. Endlessmike 888 02:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objectivism and Contemporary Philosophy 

message: I wasn't sure about the relationship between the Ayn Rand Society and the American Philosophical Society Association and some google searches turned up very little, so I sent an e-mail to the APA.  Apparently the ARS is not affiliated with the APA, though they do meet at the same time occasionally (quote from my e-mail:  "The Ayn Rand Society is not affiliated with the APA, though they do meet in conjunction with us at some of our meetings.")  I'll be removing the mention of the link.  WLU 20:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Ayn Rand Society, founded in 1987, is an affiliated group with the American Philosophical Association, Eastern Division. Its aim is to foster the scholarly study by philosophers of the philosophical thought and writings of Ayn Rand." From their website. Endlessmike 888 23:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, the section you deleted contianed a cite to an APA handbook, listing the ARS. Endlessmike 888 23:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The APA and APS are different. For some reason the article says APS, when it should be APA. I'll fix it. Endlessmike 888 23:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  APA 

message: If you're a frequent editor of Objectivism-related articles, you may have noticed that the Objectivism box has been changing lately. There are actually two different topics being debated, leading to reversions. The first is about what philosophies should be listed as influenced by Objectivism and the other is about some cosmetic and organizational changes that make the box more compact. Come join us and break the deadlock. ThAtSo 14:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: This is a dispute about whether specific sub-sections (below) should be included in the page; the overall section discusses the impact of objectivism in various areas of culture and academia.
--
I propose that rather than having a section on "influence of objectivism in other areas," instead, discuss the influence of each major component of objectivism in the discussion of that component.  For example, in the section on Objectivist aesthetics, include a subsection about the influence of Objectivist aesthetics. VisitorTalk 21:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Objectivism isn't a collection of disconnected components, but an integrated world view.  Some of the cited applications mentioned multiple components being applied, which makes such a split problematic.  In particular, Objectivism has a definite position on government involvement in the arts, in science, and in economics, quite apart from its theories in the individual disciplines. — DAGwyn 02:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment:  Influence of Objectivism in other areas

message: ====Economics====
One of the goals of economist George Reisman's Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics is to place Austrian economics on a foundation of Objectivist epistemology and Objectivist politics.
====Physical science====
There have been efforts to apply Objectivism to the philosophy of physical science, in terms of ontology and epistemology, as well as ethical and political philosophy.
====Art====
The online art and philosophy of art review Aristos claims that it "owes much to the philosopher-novelist Ayn Rand".  In addition, fantasy author Terry Goodkind has incorporated Objectivist philosophy into his series of novels.
====Video games====
See also:  Influence of Ayn Rand in popular culture
According to project director Ken Levine, BioShock, a video game in development by Irrational Games, will include many references to Objectivism, and its story will largely mirror Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged. 
====Satanism====   
LaVeyan Satanism, according to its originator, Anton LaVey, is "...just Ayn Rand's philosophy, with ceremony and ritual added"., p. 180  The Church of Satan has clarified this in an essay explaining that, while LaVey was heavily inspired by Rand's ethics, he adapted the original philosophy and replaced her metaphysics with pragmatism and epistemology with mysticism.
====References====
------------
====RFC section====
Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
* The information was removed from the page, citing WP:NOT#INFO.  I don't see it as a collection of trivia, but rather a listing of areas where Objectivism has impacted other areas of culture and academics following Rand's death.  It's not a collection of FAQs, it's not a plot summary, it's not a lyrics database, it's not a list of statistics, and it's not news reports, the five sections cited in WP:NOT, though that particular section is obviously not comprehensive.  Each section (barring physical science) has references and wikilinks to other areas of wikipedia, pages which are sufficiently notable to merit their own pages.  Further, most of the pages are non-stubs, and referenced.  I think that all sections barring the physical sciences one have a place on the page.  WLU 14:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In other areas 

message: Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
* The information was removed from the page, citing WP:NOT#INFO.  I don't see it as a collection of trivia, but rather a listing of areas where Objectivism has impacted other areas of culture and academics following Rand's death.  It's not a collection of FAQs, it's not a plot summary, it's not a lyrics database, it's not a list of statistics, and it's not news reports, the five sections cited in WP:NOT, though that particular section is obviously not comprehensive.  Each section (barring physical science) has references and wikilinks to other areas of wikipedia, pages which are sufficiently notable to merit their own pages.  Further, most of the pages are non-stubs, and referenced.  I think that all sections barring the physical sciences one have a place on the page.  WLU 14:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC section

message: * Unlike the vast majority of "philosophies", Objectivism specifically addresses what is required for proper human living, and thus its applications in such areas are important.  All the cited sections, including the "objective science" one, are definitely Objectivism-inspired (more so than LaVey's Satanism actually is) and thus merit mention. — DAGwyn 18:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: So... there seem to be two essentially polar opposite claims regarding the RFC.  Do we wait further?  Or how do people feel if all the sections were rolled together into a single prose paragraph that basically said 'Objectivism has been cited as impacting x, x, x, x and x'?  WLU 18:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WLU, and Karbinski:  I find it interesting that the Church of Satan claims to be influenced by Objectivism (and even that it is rumoured that Brad Pitt is a Rand fan) but my question is:  do such claims rise to the level of being relevant to the (core) Objectivism article?  Perhaps another article with a stub pointing to it from here is in order.  Alfred Centauri 22:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Will the RFC tag be removed at this point, and this page dropped from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:RFCreli_list? VisitorTalk 15:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to RFC 

message: * A paragraph outlining the influence of Objectivist ideas outside of Philosophy is welcome in the Cultural impact section, even if it is not much more than a wrapper for the previous list.  Lack of participation in this RFC leaves us little to go on.  Thanks to Alfred, DAG, and Horn for their input.  Karbinski 13:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will the RFC tag be removed at this point, and this page dropped from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:RFCreli_list? VisitorTalk 15:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC Conclusion 

message: I had made this entry the other day, as the second paragraph to the article;
The capitalized term "Objectivism" does not appear in Websters or Oxford Dictionaries, The Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy, or the Encyclopedia Britanica. The lower case term appears in all these, and applies to a much broader set of beliefs then set forth by Rand, and is described as "any of various theories asserting the validity of objective phenomena over subjective experience; especially : REALISM"
It was undone, and I got this note;
Hello, I reverted your recent additions to the Objectivism article. The discussion about whether Objectivism is a philosophy and how the term Objectivism is used has been had several times. You can see this in the talk archives of the Objectivism article. If you wish to discuss this more or feel your changes are correct then please read the talk archives and discuse those changes on the talk page. Thanks! Ethan a dawe 12:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary.  The very top of the article has a link to the appropriate page for resolving ambiguity.  I don't think there is anything more required of a encyclopedic entry on wikipedia. Nor do I think this article will be improved by spelling out that wikipedia is not a dictionary in the opening paragraph.  Karbinski 14:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Karbinski's comments.  It also says something about the quality of a dictionary if it doesn't include a definition for the name of a popular philosophical movement that has had substantial influence; perhaps you should inform the dictionary editors. — DAGwyn 15:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: let's be clear... almost all encyclopedia articles start with a definition of some sort.   objectivism is a popular ideology currently, perhaps in 50-100 years people will universally think it is a philosophy, let's hope not.  as for it's influence, that's always in dispute... i mean...  there are quite a few other phenomena that are copresent with objectivism and objectivist ideology, whose to say which is the real influence. in other words, don't promote the non-neutral please.  but i think the reference at the top of the page is also fine.--Buridan 13:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 9/4/07 - request for article adjustment

message: The sentence is biased original research that serves a POV purpose.  Article quality should be the goal here.  What is meant by conventional academic journals during Ayn Rand's lifetime is a research topic in its own right.  This is the simplest case of WP:OR I've ever seen. Karbinski 13:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you just reinforced the argument that it is POV.  Rand neither tried nor wanted to get her work accepted by academic journals.  She had a very low opinion of the state of academic philosophy and academic economics at the time, and from her point of view and my own experience in academia in the 1960s and 1970s her opinion was justified by the actual situation that then prevailed.  It is probable that had she attempted to get published in such journals, her submissions would have been rejected, not because of lack of clarity, quality, or relevance, but because of disagreement with the ideas dominating that subculture.  Therefore the lack of publication in such journals is not indicative of what the naive reader would assume by its mention in the article. — DAGwyn 18:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: if you wanted to put the "Rand neither tried nor wanted to get her work accepted by academic journals." in the article in place of what is there.  i would see that as a reasonable approximation.  umm, see there you go thinking that she was clear, writing of some quality or relevant.  there is no consensus in philosophy that those words represent her work.   however, lack of publication in those journals is indicative of one significant aspect and that was she was not recognized as a professional philosopher by peer philosophers of her day.  in the current writing it is unclear about who thought she was of merit and who did not.  all that tends to pop up is the perpetuation of people seeing her work as having merit, which is why we need something that balances that and thus provides a neutral article. --Buridan 19:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't claim that her (nonexistent) academic journal articles were clear, relevant, and of high quality.  What I said was that lack of those qualities, which would be legitimate reasons for rejection by academic journals, would most likely be assumed by the general reader, for some formulations of the sentence in question.  That would be misleading, and so there would have to be additional explanation about the reasons for this factoid, which would be out of place in the context in question. — DAGwyn 15:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: no, the answer of to whom in this case is just .... 'all'...  one doesn't have to select karbie, it is all.  it isn't pov because it is just a brute fact.  her work does not appear where one would expect someone claiming to do philosophy to appear.  her work was not submitted is the argument, to which we then say, ok do we have proof of that either, no.  so we still have the brute fact of it did not appear.   how is that pov?  the pov is when there is something edited out that removes a critique of her work that is pertinent in a specific section. --Buridan 20:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: While I didn't strongly object to the sentence which was just removed, it should be noted that the lack of such publication is easily inferred anyway from the text that remains. — DAGwyn 15:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  09/14/07 Removing sentence that Ayn Rand did not publish in "conventional ..."