Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 8

message: The legacy section says this:
"Following her death, continued conflict within the Objectivist movement led to a proliferation of independent organizations, a few of which claim to be her exclusive intellectual heirs."
People are born Jewish, American, Russian whatever.  She was born in Russia and she was born Jewish.  People don't care that Alan Greenspan, Bob Dylan, Sandy Koufax aren't religious.  Most Jews aren't religious.  It doesn't make them not Jewish.  Its DIFFERENT to Christianity and Islam, where if you stop believing you are no longer a Christian or a Muslim.  Ayn Rand was influence by her Russian-Jewish-American experience.... and they were crutial to her theories and writings.  Her experiences in communist russia, freedom in America... and judaisms belief of not converting others and not having ANY problem with people of other religions... as long as they don't hurt you.
--User:Adamhman 11:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Exclusive intellectual heir?

message: It's true that Peart was influenced by Rand, but our consensus is that this list of influenced people is restricted to those who are philosophers.  Therefore, Peart really should be removed.  Al 06:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neil Peart 

message: I didn't find anything in the Wikipedia:Citing sources about this specific topic, but what is the policy on citing a conjecture from an article, which itself does not substantiate its claim?  The source given for this sentence in the article:
Rand's novels, when they were first published, "received almost unanimously terrible reviews"
is given as:  "As Astonishing as Elvis", which is a review about a biography of Ayn Rand written by an unpublished author.  This author does not cite her source for this claim.  So how can it be considered valid here?  It would have been unacceptable if she simply wrote that statement in this article.  So how is writing it (unsubstantiated) in another article, on another site, then citing that article here valid?
Scratching my head here...  --WayneMokane 22:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It does appear to be a weak reference. The basis for it as a source is on accepting the authority of the London Review of Books to hire an honest, careful, knowledgeable person and to edit their articles in the same way. Jenny Turner or the editors may indeed have a fairly good knowledge of how this book was accepted when it was published, or have access to databases which confirm that. However, it would warrant solidifying or verification by citing major book reviews at the time of publication actually giving it terrible reviews. Because the statement may not be the result of careful consideration, other reliable sources that directly research the matter would be overriding. —Centrx→talk • 02:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited claims from cited articles? 

message: I believe we previously discussed the fact that other philosophers had non-philosophers listed in the list of people they influenced, and thus it was ok for Anton LaVey et al to be on the list. There has been no counterargument given to this, and I expect some form of one to be made rather than another undiscussed revert. -- LGagnon 04:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it depends on how philosophical it is. I removed Nick Peart, a musician, from that list after this comment, but the listing may be more appropriate for LaVey. However, if indeed LaVey's church be a farce, then I don't think it should be listed. —Centrx→talk • 04:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hardly a farce. Granted, I don't agree with LaVeyan Satanism, but they seem to be pretty serious about what they are doing. -- LGagnon 14:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It is just an argument I encountered somewhere in one of these discussions related to cults. The assertion was, indeed, that LaVey himself created it as somewhat of a joke/farce. I was only allowing for the possibility of that premise in my comment and have no independent reason to think it true. —Centrx→talk • 02:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-philosophers

message: The new link "* Objectivist Living - An Objectivist Community dedicated to Ayn Rand and the Art of Living Consciously" has only 191 registered users - I am thinking that it isn't notable enough for inclusion - thoughts? --Trödel 15:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Delete that spam. -- LGagnon 15:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: You said below that, "Ayn Rand was influence[sic] by her Russian-Jewish-American experience.... and they were crutial[sic] to her theories and writings" 
Do you have a source to cite for the claim that her ethnicity affected her as much or in the same way (or in any way) as her experiences in Russia and the United States? Contrary to being influenced by Judaism, as her parents were agnostic and largely non-observant, Ayn Rand may have been more influenced by Eastern Orthodox Christianity than any other religion.Sciabarra, Chris Matthew.  While her ethnic heritage should be mentioned in her "early life" section, it does not warrant being part of the defining, introductory paragraph, as it is not one of her  essential characteristics. Her experiences in Russia and America are clearly an influence on her philosophy, however, the fact that her ancestors were Jewish is not. 
Furthermore, your claim that her work was influenced by or based on the hackneyed subjectivist notions "of not converting others and not having ANY problem with people of other religions..." is a monstrous falsehood, as her entire life's work was dedicated to revolutionizing philosophy, a task only possible by "converting" people, and opposing all manifestations of whim-worship and mysticism - AKA "other religions." No amount of subjectivist slogans such as "don't convert others" will whitewash the fact that Ayn Rand advocated just that, most famously in her article reprinted in The Virtue of Selfishness where she states that a "fundamental aspect" of leading a rational life in an irrational society is to form and communicate moral judgements.Lawrence, Richard.  "Judge and prepare to be judged"Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, 1964, ISBN 0-451-16393--1. 
As she was an avowed atheist and rejected all forms of collectivism, including the most primitve version - tribalism, labeling Ayn Rand as a "Jewish American" is a sham. It's a dishonest (and unreferenced) attempt to attribute her identity and achievement to her ethnic heritage. 83.46.66.236 20:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "[[American Jews | Jewish American]]"?

message: I believe that after reading an except of one of his books, she liked him and was possibly influenced by him. However, after reading more of his ideas, she began to disagree with him. I am not entirely sure about this, but if it is, I think we should remove his name from the Influences section.
: If she was influenced by him, as consensus seems to indicate, then even if she didn't agree with all his viewpoints, he was an influence. —vivacissamamente 08:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nietzsche an influence? 

message: There seems to be only one link in the "critical views" section. That seems like a natural place people for critical links. I know there are some in the footnote area; would it be reasonable to reproduce them below? —vivacissamamente 08:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical views 

message: I'm trying to make Hilary Putnam into a featured article. But do you know what the problem is? I cannot find practically ANY biogaphical information 
on someone who is universally acclaimed as one of the leading philosophers (even outside the analytic school, I can assure you!) in the world today. I ask this out of simple frustration and incomprehension, not as an anti-Randian pot-shot: why is there so much damned info about Rand and almost nothing about Putnam. How can I find out more info about Putnam?' Do I have to wait until he is dead, or what? Or is this really a question of a cult of fame and popularity, not in a negative sense, versus someone who hasn't published popular books and so forth? Does anyone here know anything or can find out anything about Putnam? Why is EVERYONE battling over the time details of Rand articles and no-one gives a damn about Hilary Putnam? Alienus, can you help me out here?--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 22:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somehow Putnam didn't inspire the same kind of devotion Rand did. I mean, there wasn't a community devoted to his teachings that immigrated to live near him. No one wrote a pamphlet explaining in rather positive terms who he was. I've met people who say things like "The Fountainhead changed my life!" I can't recall hearing that about any Putnam piece. He was a philosopher in a traditional sense, who didn't give "non-philosophical types" the answers they were looking for, so he doesn't have devotees. Alienus seems to have left, according to his user page. Incidentally, what did you hope to accomplish by putting that on this page, an influx of pro-Rand biographers contributing to the Putnam article? —vivacissamamente 04:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The thing is, Rand built a cult following on a bunch of low quality romance novels (as someone who studies literature, I can guarantee you that's an accurate assesment of their value). She attempts to dumb down "philosophy" into merely "whatever I say it is" out of spite for academia. She had the "rebel cool" image that worked for pseudo-rebels who wanted to still be conformists by ditching religion but still conforming to bland right wing politics so they could still be part of the in-crowd of conformity. Essentially, Rand is "mall punk" for right wingers; and like in the case of mall punk, it has much more followers than the real thing (in this case, both philosophy and real non-conformity). With so many conformists following her, she had no trouble getting biographies written. -- LGagnon 06:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In answer to viv's question: No, it's just that I used to follow this page a while back and remember that there were not just pro-Rand contributors but huge numbers of people: pro-Rand, anti-Rand, neutral,  etc.. who all flocked to this page. The obvious answer just struck me though after reading LGagnong's comment above: Rand is not just more popularly known, but she is extremely controversial. Puntnam is marginally "controversial" among academic analytic philsophers who know about him. So that's pretty much settled. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ayn Rand and Hilary Putnam

message: Lo and behold, again!!!!!!!!!!!! I suggested the addition of the sticker ("The neutrality of this article is disputed") to the Rand article in my relentless pursuit of a truly neutral POV, fair, reasoned presentation, and again, again,again, lo and behold, the sticker emerges!!!!!!! Is reason once again about to prevail???!!!!AOluwatoyin 20:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a temporary warning until I am able to revert your edit. It'll be gone once I get around to putting LeVay back in the article. -- LGagnon 20:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality sticker and Ayn Rand article. 

message: It seems like saying "'Ayn' rhymes with 'whine'" is a little insulting. I think "mine" is more appropriate, but a more neutral term would be preferable. lordspaz 15:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rhymes with" 

message: LGagnon has put a "dubious" tag behind statements referring to Ayn Rand as a philosopher. He then objects when I put a similar tag behind Anton LeVay's name, stating that I can't do that because there's a source there. However, there are many "non-Randist" sources that refer to Ayn Rand as a philosopher, so his actions are just simply POV. -- 24.220.246.20
:Statements of hypocrisy, true or untrue, are ad hominem attacks, which violates WP:NPA.
:And there is a source cited that has LeVay himself saying that Rand influenced him. You can not disprove that unless you can find a statemtn in which he said Rand didn't influence him. -- LGagnon 04:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say that. I said that there was no standard for who belongs on that list. I said that Rand isn't even a philosopher, so it shouldn't matter if LaVey is on the list. -- LGagnon 04:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I never mentioned race at all. Can you actually argue against my statements, not ones that you make up out of thin air? -- LGagnon 15:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ethnocentrism isn't even part of this discussion. If Rand claims to be part of Western philosophy, and she rejects all philosophy except for that which she agrees with (which was only the works of Western philosophers), then philosophy in other parts of the world don't even come into the equation. I have no clue why you are throwing something so irrelevant to the subject matter into this discussion. -- LGagnon 00:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what's dubious about the statement that "Opinions differ on whether Rand is properly regarded as a 'philosopher.'" It seems crystal clear that a substantial number of do people regard her as a philosopher and a substantial number of people do not regard her as a philosopher. Given the number of shades of different meaning in the dictionary definition of "philosophy," both are right. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What is dubious is that, despite saying that the issue isn't resolved, we push the opinion that she is a philosopher as the truth, only mentioning the fact that this is disputed in a footnote. We essentially have an implicit statement in the article that contradicts both the facts and the footnote that follows it. -- LGagnon 04:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: When you make very specific claims about what someone said, you should be able to back your claims up with a source. If you can't do that for this claim, then there is no need to acknowledge it as useful to this article. -- LGagnon 21:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think you understand. It's not my job to research your claims. It's your job to back up your own statements. I'm not looking up a small statement in one of Rand's books just because you aren't willing to make a proper citation. -- LGagnon 01:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Could you cut the personal attacks and stick to the subject matter? You are blantantly violating Wikipedia:Civility again. All I ask of you is to make a simple citation, something that, if you really are a professor, should be child's play for you. -- LGagnon 16:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  dubious 

message: I can't find anything conclusively and strongly linking McVeigh with Rand.  At least not on the interweb.  I am going to take him out pending a source that strongly ties him to Rand.  The influenced list can't become a litany of every notable person that read Atlas Strugged. Rangek 20:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We had writers on the list. Why would people of the same profession as Rand be removed? They have more reason to be there than any "philosopher" (as we can all agree that Rand was a writer). -- LGagnon 04:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Timothy McVeigh

message: Ayn Rand insisted on an elemental and elementary distinction between values and virtues. One need not accept this, but neutrally speaking anyway, one cannot thereby force one or the other into an articulation of her work. So even in introducing what she "emphasized," one must not -- must not, I repeat -- make it seem that she said something that is precisely what she explicitly did not say. Thus the latest intro edit in the article.AOluwatoyin 20:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Values versus virtues 

message: I protected the page due to the long running dispute over this page. I think everyone needs a cooling off period. Talk this out here. --Woohookitty(meow) 03:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: There is a serious problem with the opening of this article: Ayn Rand did NOT reason, rational egoism, or capitalism fundamental philosophic concepts of objective reality. They are derivative issues in her system. LaszloWalrus 01:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the concepts of objective reality, reason, self-interest, and capitalism constitute the essence of Objectivist philosophy. http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro  That's what Ayn Rand said when asked to explain her philosophy while standing on one foot.
You are mixing up terms; those are a summary, but not all of those concepts are fundamental. LaszloWalrus 07:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundamental 

message: For some reason, this seems absolutely wrong to me:
"Rand believed that if an object has an effect upon the senses, then that effect upon the senses gives us knowledge about the object itself. At the most basic level, it informs us that that object is of a particular character such that when it interacts with one's sense organs it causes a particular sensation; and, that is knowledge about a quality of the object itself. It is not in fact clear that Kant would have disagreed with such a weak formulation of realism. In Rand's view, Kant's dichotomy severed rationality and reason from the real world — a betrayal of the very nature of man. In Rand's words..."
First, the phrase "weak formulation of realism" is POV; second, most of this seems like OR: "In Rand's view", "Rand believed", etc., it is without citation; and third, and I could be wrong, I thought this was Kant's view of things to begin with: "At the most basic level, it informs us that that object is of a particular character such that when it interacts with one's sense organs it causes a particular sensation; and, that is knowledge about a quality of the object itself." To put it short and dirty, didn't he say that "sensing" (or otherwise perceiving) something proves that whatever you sense, whether it is how you sense it or not, exists and acts on the sensory organ, and  is therefore "a thing in itself"? -Bordello 04:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't so clear, I guess. I agree with what you said, and I meant to say that a quality (namely its objective existence) can be determined, no? Anyway, is this just another in an index of slanted, uncited philosophy articles? Because I was just at Nietzsche for a while, and that place (though improved from day to day) is still somewhat a mess. -Bordello 01:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kant