Talk:Objectivism/Archive 1

message: Has anyone noticed the rewrite?  It is better than the one it immediately replaced (with the nonsensical allusion to 'original validation').  But there are still many problems.
* Rand's ethical egoism, her advocacy of "rational selfishness," is perhaps her most well-known position. 
** The problem with this is the implied equivalence between ethical egoism and rational egoism (which "rational selfishness" links to).  These are not the same positions.
* She defines morality as "a code of values to guide man's choices and actions - the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life."
** This is the beginning of a long-winded and inconclusive rationale.  Having checked some of the other philosophy articles, they all give reasons why philosophers held their most well-known or important positions.  Since Rand's position on 'rational selfishness' is well-known and clearly important, some justification or rationale should be given.
** The problem with this one is that it leaps about.  We start with 'rational selfishness' in the first sentence then immediately move to 'values' and 'morality'.  There is no idea in this sentence that connects in any obvious way with the first.
* Rand maintained that the first question isn't what should the code of values be, the first question is "Does man need values at all- and why?" 
** So the first question, the primary question is whether man needs values.  Good.  We are starting from first principles.
* Of primary importance for Objectivist ethics is an answer to the question "What are values?"
** But now we are told the primary thing is not 'does man need values' at all, but something else.  Be consistent.
* According to Rand it is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible," and, "[t]he fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do."
**  The previous sentence promised the hope of an answer to that important question 'what are values', but this sentence doesn't give us that.  We are merely given a condition of the possibility of values.  Also, this suggests that 'what are values' is not the primary question at all, but 'what is life'.
** Also smuggled in here is a statement involving the fallacy of moving from 'is' to 'ought'.  First, it's a fallacy.  Second, isn't this move also a 'well-known position' of Rand?  There are just too many ideas floating around.  What position are we trying to explain here?
And so on. Note the paragraphs floating around towards the end of the section which talk about selfishness and more about values.  The first step to a clean-up would be to move around these paragraphs so the section has an approximate logical order (this is what my version was working towards, but of course it has  been deleted).
Peter Damian (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *"But now we are told the primary thing is not 'does man need values' at all, but something else.  Be consistent." 
** good point, needs to be fixed (entirely my writing at fault there).
*Problems with the opening paragraph 
** I havn't much time right now, but the introduction should focus on the beginning questions and Rand's definition of morality
*Moving from is to ought and defining life
** I think we need to remember we are not working up a treatment of her ethics here, we are summarizing her position: values are objective.  The level of detail where we consider the Objectivist definition of life is too low level in my opinion. 
*** Eh wht n erth are you talking about.  The section heading is 'ethics' so why wouldn't you 'work up to a treatment of her ethics in that section?Peter Damian (talk) 06:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

text: There are many weaknesses in the section.  I will discuss them one by one, starting with the question of what the section should be about. See below. Peter Damian (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karbinksi's rewrite 

message: There appears to be no serious justification for omitting this book as a source on issues related to Ayn Rand and Objectivism. 
It is the only source for Ayn Rand's own words on the topics of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden. So, including reference to the Brandens' books on Rand while excluding Rand's own perspective is necessarily non-neutral and one-sided. Indeed, it is polemically set in biased opposition to Rand.
Many of the sources Wikipedia cites have not been reviewed positively by Kirkus Reviews, as 'The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics' has been -- "deserving of a place on the growing shelf" of books about Rand, it said. Numerous books and articles critical of Rand from self-published "vanity" houses -- like Writer's Club Press -- are used in Wikipedia. In its brief life, however, Durban House was named one of the "best new imprints" by Publisher's Weekly. Unlike the Brandens themselves, the author did not have a personal, nasty falling-out with Rand. The book is far more of a neutral"/"third party" source than either of these, and it contains first hand reports of equal quality to the Brandens from Rand herself. The author's academic credentials appear to be superior to either of the Brandens.
The Sciabarra review cited has been distorted in the instant discussion of this book. Indeed, that this book got such sustained and serious attention from Sciabarra suggests that it is worthy of serious attention. It seems highly implausible that Sciabarra -- who also invited the author to discuss the book still further in 'The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies' -- intended excluding it as a scholarly source. 
Quite the opposite appears to the case. Sciabarra's engagement with the author suggests the book's seriousness and importance to Sciabarra.
Also, previous references to 'The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics' show that lecturers and scholars once associated with David Kelley's Objectivist group (even a board member) left that organization as a result of the release of this book. These are scholars and lecturers impacted the book being censored by Wikipedia. The book itself is part of the "history" of the Objectivist movement. That a number of scholars once critical of ARI were affected by the book also suggests its importance and seriousness, since these scholars and teachers found it to be "reliable" enough to act upon.
Indeed, as his review of the book shows, Sciabarra is far ~ more ~ critical of another source cited repeatedly in Wikipedia, Jeff Walker's 'Ayn Rand Cult.' Other scholars are, too -- according to Wikipedia's own references to it. To add another example, Walker repeats the allegation that Branden may have killed his second wife(!) Excluding the book suggested but not Walker (or Nyquist, for that matter) seems to distort Sciabarra's intention.
This author is also a first-hand reporter -- and a former student of -- Murray Rothbard. The error he cites from Rothbard is simply a fact -- no one was ever "excommunicated" by Rand for not sharing her musical taste, as Rothbard erroneously alleged. Thus, the facts presented in this title are also important, not merely the author's evaluation of them.
Pelagius1
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelagius1 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Pelagius1. You are a brand new editor who seems to be a fan of the work of James Valliant. You've also edited the article to reinsert a citation of Valliant's work. Can you quote any third-party sources that have a high opinion of Valliant's work about Ayn Rand? Even published book reviews would help.  EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello Pelagius1.  Welcome to Wikipedia.  Fear not being a new editor or being a fan (or not a fan) of anyone's particular work.  You have made a case for the reliability of Valliant's work and done the natural thing and edited the article.  There is no need to suffer a double standard. If you are not satisfied with what comes from this discussion, the community welcomes you to utilize its Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for consideration by a wider audience (concensus isn't limited to only whom happened to show up). --Karbinski (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please bear in mind that not only is 72.199.110.160 the IP that James Valliant sends email from, but that Pelagius1, our newish editor, is actually James Valliant.  Which would make Pelagius1 subject to a few questions, I think. Wsscherk (talk) 05:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, how do you know this? TallNapoleon (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The style is similar, and the coincidence of dates might be enough for a sock puppet report - have you got any evidence on this Wsscherk?  If so it should go to ANI.   --Snowded (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, on the basis of the fact that unlike Pelagius, our problem IP editor never, ever engaged on talk pages. Unless Wsscherk has some specific evidence to the contrary that this is James Valliant I don't think he should be checkusered. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually TN you are agreeing ....--Snowded (talk) 08:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops... so I am. Maybe I should cut back on the late night editing... TallNapoleon (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

text: All right, if you believe this is the case I would suggest requesting a checkuser and taking this to WP:ANI. If 160 = Pelagius = Valliant, then he needs to be made aware of WP:COI and he needs to interact honestly. The problem is that this is based on private, personal information, so there's no way any of us can confirm it. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks to me like a posting to ANI with an offer to supply the emails etc. directly to any investigating administrator.   If you need help doing that Wsscherk just ask, Skomorokh is one of the most au fait editors with the process but most of us have been there at one time or another.  --Snowded (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if Pelagius1 is Valliant, and is the same editor as IP 160, he is topic-banned only from the article itself, not the Talk page. I agree it is better for him if he will clarify his identity. If he continues to edit the article itself, and does not obey consensus, further sanctions are possible. EdJohnston (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd be really surprised if 160 = Pelagius based on their wiki actions.  There exists a sock-puppet notice board, so if someone thinks there is a real case, take it there instead of bogging down discussions with this stuff.  That is, if one is serious about this they'll post on the noticeboard, if the discussion happens everywhere but on the noticeboard its likely the goal is to simply chuck mud at Pelagius. --Karbinski (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring James Valliant and The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics 

message: Why is there a criticism section?  This seems out of place. I wouldn't go to the wiki entry on "Automobiles" in order to see their critic's views on them.  Rather, I just want to find out about automobiles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.205.21 (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles on philosophies routinely include discussion of their critics.  The analogy to automobiles just seems absurd. Why is philosophy like an automobile?  Both leak? --Christofurio (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: If people who watch this page are also interested in how Wikipedia is governed, be sure to check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development . Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI 

message: The contrast between 'external reality' and 'reality' in the following sentence is obscure, to say the least: "The name "Objectivism" derives from the principle that human knowledge and values are objective: they are not intrinsic to external reality, nor created by the thoughts one has, but are determined by the nature of reality, to be discovered by man's mind." But 'external reality' linked to an article on the Kantian conception of noumena, so I'm replacing 'external reality' with 'some inaccessible reality', and replacing 'reality' with 'reality (i.e., the empirical world)'. I expect no (serious) objection from people who understand Kant; I want no (frivolous) objection from people who have only read Rand. 145.116.9.201 (talk) 03:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear--there could be a serious objection from an objectivist as to whether glossing 'reality' as 'the empirical world' is right. For example, such a person might object that the 'empirical' qualifier is misleading because it suggests the existence of also something non-empirical in addition to the empirical world. But, in context, I think that particular objection is forestalled. There might be others, as I don't know Rand very well. But judging from what the sentence originally said, I'm guessing that I'm pretty close to right, and it's much clearer than what was there before. 145.116.9.201 (talk) 03:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think readers are going to have some trouble understanding that sentence as written.  I would not have known what was meant in this context by "inaccessible reality" without the discussion here and the link to Noumenon.  Aside from that, why introduce the noumenal at all at this point?  We know Rand objected to what she wrongly understood to be Kant's distinction between phenomenal and noumenal, but does this have anything to do with values?  Kant didn't argue that values are intrinsically noumenal, nor as far as I know did Rand ascribe that view to him (if anything, the contrary; she (wrongly) takes him to be a superficial relativist, basing values on the non-real phenomenal world).  The sentence would lose nothing and read better without the reference to the noumenal: "...they are not created by the thoughts one has, but are determined by the nature of reality, to be discovered by man's mind."KD Tries Again (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Rand did not use "absolute" in quite this way, but the 3-way distinction is characteristic of her.  The analogy to theory of relativity, though plausible, would not go down well with the Ayn Rand Institute contingent that distrusts 20th century physics.-RLCampbell (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Reality and Noumena