Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

Developing the philosophy section

In terms of organisation and scope, there a number of things that need thought. First, do we have one section on 'Philosophical criticism' and another on 'Philosophy'? If we use KD's McGonagall analogy, this would be akin to introducing McGonagall as a poet (without mentioning how famously bad he is) then having a 'criticism ghetto' section at the end which mentions how many people have considered his work very bad (including of course counter-balancing comments from pro-McGonagall sources). That seems wrong.

If we have one section on Philosophy, which includes the criticism, how much do we say about Rand's philosophy? Perhaps begin with the fact that most of Rand's early work was fiction writing, but that many of her 'philosophical' views are expressed in a fictional context. From 1962 to 1976 she lectured and wrote on strictly philosophical subjects. There are nine such works, including The Virtue of Selfishness, which develops her ethical theory, and Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

Comments welcome. Peter Damian (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Her creation of Objectivism is notable. There exists some notable criticism that addresses her creation as a whole - such as Chambers. Beyond that there is a main article on the philosophy she created that reports the more granular criticisms. We need only say as much about Rand's philosophy as to summarize and introduce the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article and notable "macro" criticisms. To start listing criticisms concerning - for example - Objectivist Ethics in the biography of Ayn Rand is to evade the concept of _context_. --Karbinski (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflicted) I agree with integrating criticism, but whether this is best done while describing her philosophy or in the context of her reception/influence/legacy I'm not certain. If we were to integrate it into the philosophy section, we might also be inclined to integrate literary criticism into the fiction section. The downside to this would be losing the broadly chronological structure of the article. It's also worth asking whether it is optimal to get into philosophical criticism before explaining Rand's political and social views, for example. I think the proposed beginning above offers helpful context for the reader. Skomorokh 13:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are struggling with the fact that most philosophers would consider her 'philosophy' a complete joke. We have to approach the whole philosophy section in that light. Just as we would not introduce William McGonagall's poetry, or describe it, in the way that we would do it for Homer. Her creation of Objectivism is notable, I agree, but it is notable in the way that McGonagall is notable. Just as he is famous for being a bad poet, Rand is famous for being a bad philosopher. Peter Damian (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand is primarily famous as an author. As for "most philosophers'" account of her philosophy, there is no argument against including this point as can be verified by secondary sources. Stretching the exposition of that point - obstensibly just to fill up space with adjectives - is POV pushing. --Karbinski (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

She is primarily notable as an author, but secondarily as a bad philosopher. Or are you denying the notability of this? Balance, balance, balance. On lists of adjectives, I do not propose this in the final version to go into the article. here is the latest version. A paragraph or two about why her philosophy is so bad, would be enough. If you disagree on that, you would then have to justify the enormous amount of space given over in Wikipedia to her 'philosophy'. Peter Damian (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it's wonderful to see Damian finally acknowledge that she was in fact a philosopher. There was an awful lot of time wasted on the rather preposterous supposition that despite creating a philosophy and writing books on it, she somehow wasn't a philosopher.

Everyone, I think, agrees that notable criticisms appropriately worded (rather than argued or written as a kind of essay) would be good to include. Personally, I'd be okay with a criticism article as well. I think there is enough controversy and opinion on all sides, that forking out and handling the weighty content assessing her and her work would best be handled in a separate article. This would unburden this one (where the assessments should be handled more broadly and a more generalized discussion of the most notable is more appropriate). I think an article of critical reception and continuing controversy and cultural significance would be a useful and appropriate resource for encyclopedia readers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

A very bad philosopher is a kind of philosopher, I suppose. Just as imitation jewellery is a kind of jewellery. Peter Damian (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I think all the editors currently discussing this, including Karbinski, have been in favor of reducing the multiplicity of articles on Wikipedia about Rand's philosophy, and using the the Objectivism (Ayn Rand article as the main page on that subject. Perhaps that's where any extended criticism should go, but so far Peter's proposal for this article seems fairly brief and compact. I don't support this article being saddled with a weighty discussion of Rand's philosophical failings. I have never had any qualms with her being referred to as a philosopher, but I do support a brief, supportable assessment of her technical philosophical skills (and oppose the idea that we then have to find sources which contradict that assessment in the name of "neutrality").KD Tries Again (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I am proposing something on the lines of, and the length of this. Please note still in draft. I will add something about how some of the philosophers cited (Watson, Vallicella, Huemer) are actually sympathetic to Rand, as someone with interesting ideas who had native philosophical ability, but never developed the strict discipline necessary to succesfully master the subject. There should be something about the 'philosophy' but I am not sure what. I haven't been able to locate any reliable source about her 'epistemology', nor about her 'logic' and 'metaphysics'. Technically this means we can delete most of it, but we need to provide evidence we have searched and failed. Peter Damian (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

There are many more reliable sources on Rand that have not been used in the article: the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies would be one place to start (plenty of work by credentialed academic philosophers). Of course, that shouldn't stop the development of drafts which can be built upon later. Skomorokh 17:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

A very quick search of that site produces no articles on her epistemology, and only a few on her metaphysics - and notably, on her misinterpretation of Kant. Perhaps I am missing something, though.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

What is the reference for her misunderstanding of Kant? I am conscious of my over-reliance on Huemer. Peter Damian (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Walsh, George (2000). "Ayn Rand and the Metaphysics of Kant". Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. 2 (1): 69–103. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) A search for "fred seddon" "ayn rand" "kant" in scholarly indexes should unearth a lot of the debate. Skomorokh 17:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I have incorporated a reference this into the draft. Peter Damian (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Note that there is a reply in a later issue. Skomorokh 17:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

OK the one called 'Kevin' is Assistant Professor, Northwestern University Department of Philosophy. Note he essentially agrees with the assessment. I am less sure of 'Fred' (Seddon) now. Peter Damian (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Developing the biography section

The biography section seems to me far too small compared to the rest of the article. Perhaps some accounts of her personality could be added? CABlankenship (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Britting and Sciabarra's biographies might be helpful here, as might Gladstein's books and Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life (see Ayn_Rand#Further_reading). Skomorokh 16:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Kukathas and the impact of Rand's poverty

160 has removed the claim attributed to Chandran Kukathas in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy that the expropriation and poverty of Rand's family had a profound effect on her, on the grounds that "Rand biographers do not say this, nor her letters, nor her autobiog. interviews, nor letters, etc.-This is SHEER PSYCHOLOGICAL speculation". The source is an article by a political scientist in a philosophical rather than biographical book; is this reliable in this context or not? Skomorokh 17:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't imagine any serious argument that Routledge isn't a reliable source. Individual editor's opinion on what the source says is surely irrelevant; what might be relevant is an equally reliable source which contradicts Routledge. That change should be reverted.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

To play devil's advocate, these short entries on philosophers usually take their biographical information from the published literature on that person's life. If a particular claim about a philosopher's influences could only be found in a two page profile and in none of the biographical studies, it would cast doubt as to how the author came by that knowledge. However, the IP's removal has been reverted, and I think that is the correct course of action unless as you say a contradiction is forthcoming. Skomorokh 17:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but we're not required to proceed by doubting the content of reliable sources, unless there are conflicting sources.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Changes

Our recent IP editor has made a huge number of changes, some of which look quite dubious. In particular he reintroduced the Binswanger quote and apparently nuked a lot of the philosophical criticism section. Does someone feel like reviewing the changes and reverting the ones that don't meet consensus? TallNapoleon (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

If no one else gets to it, I'll go through them tomorrow. Some of them are uncontroversial improvements, some blatant reverts against consensus, some helpful additions and lots else in between. It looks like the IP is either oblivious to, or intent on ensuring, the prospect of being blocked. Skomorokh 21:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Skomorokh: It looks like the IP is either oblivious to, or intent on ensuring, the prospect of being blocked.Indeed. Enough is enough with this IP anon. It's now becoming disruptive. J Readings (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

A couple questions

Are her views on war and the Vietnam war in particular still in the article? And secondly, the criticism seciton is extensive, but does it still include positive assessments like: Jim Powell, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, considers Rand one of the three founders (along with Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson) of modern American libertarianism, although she rejected libertarianism and the libertarian movement. ref ""Three Women Who Inspired the Modern Libertarian Movement"". Retrieved 2008-01-17. /ref ? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I am a little confused as to why you are asking what's in the article.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I was trying to compare article versions. And it looked like the section on her war views got taken out. I don't know if it was discussed, or if it was just moved, so that's why I'm asking. Nevermind it's there, I just missed it. I'll see if the bit giving her credit as one of the "three" founders of the libertarian movement is there too. Seemed interesting and notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Merrill again

I just found an interesting record of the lobbying by the Ayn Rand society chairman Allan Gotthelf. [1]. It turns out they were not pleased by the entry. But in any case there is a reference to R. Merrill's The Ideas of Ayn Rand, as "an amateurish work by a non-philosopher.", which sums up very well my immediate impressions of Merrill's work. Given that the source would be considerable reliable by Randians, and that Merrill's work would not be considered reliable by any trained philosopher, do we have everyone's agreement about my striking out the Merrill references? Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If we want Objectivist philosophers, why on earth should we bother with Merrill? There's Tara Smith, for one, and Sciabarra, for another. Hell, there's the entire Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. Peikoff and ARI are in my opinion too partisan to be worthwhile, but David Kelley and his crowd may be worth looking into. One of my professors is actually an Obectivist philosopher. Would folks like me to ask him if he knows of some good third party sources? TallNapoleon (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite - it's just that there was a dispute above about whether M. was a reliable source. On your second point, I would very much appreciate you asking your prof. I am particularly challenged on finding any reliable sources on Rand's epistemology. Peter Damian (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

She actually wrote a monograph on it, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. Obviously that's not an independent source, but my understanding is that she goes into a bit more depth there on her epistemology. This may also be of use if you have access to Cambridge journals. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I was aware of this, and I will look at it at some point. The problem is that it is a 'primary source' and therefore OR to discuss it. The need is for reliable secondary sources. I have written to Sciabarra, who seems a reasonable chap, to give us some pointers. If there really is no reliable secondary source, all the material in the sub-articles should be flagged. Peter Damian (talk) 10:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It'd be OR to use it as an evaluation of her philosophy, but Rand is presumably an expert on her own epistemology, so I don't see any reason why we couldn't cite her talking about what her philosophy is. TallNapoleon (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have the book and was prompted to open it while working on this article. It's a short book, about a hundred pages, and deals mainly with her theory of concepts (and the three axioms). I'll browse through and see if there are any useful summary statements (I do find it hard to paraphrase her prose).KD Tries Again (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Some points:

• That someone of Gotthelf's stature and inclination disparages Merrill's book does cast a negative light on it. That said, the two books on Rand the (independent) Routledge entry recommends are Den Uyl and Rasmussen and Merrill.
• I think as far as describing Rand's philosophy, it would be negligent of us to ignore Peikoff (except perhaps where his interpretation of what Rand said is contested by others e.g. Kelley and company); obviously we should not be citing Peikoff for a neutral assessment of Rand's importance/technical ability/grasp of the subject.
• Primary sources don't have to be independent to be reliable – how could they? The only danger in citing them is that the editor citing will have to engage in interpretation to get a sense of what the author meant, which runs the risk of being original research. TallNapoleon is on the mark that "Rand is presumably an expert on her own epistemology".
• Gotthelf's own On Ayn Rand (ISBN 0534576257) is a technical overview of Rand's philosophy, including her epistemology and might be of use. Skomorokh 16:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Peikoff and Gotthelf may be the only sources we can use. My best effort at paraphrasing Rand herself (from the Mentor paperback edition of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology) is this:

The central topic of Rand's epistemology (p1) is her attempt to clarify how we form concepts of "universals" although we only perceive "particulars" (or "abstractions" and "concepts" as she also calls them (pp1-2)). For Rand, this is explicitly an epistemological rather than a metaphysical question (p114). Her solution is to argue that we form concepts by mentally isolating general characteristics shared by entities, while disregarding particular differences between them (pp111-112).

Hardly original, but that's her position. This kind of paraphrasing is routine on other philosophy pages, but I understand it might be regarded as unacceptable OR when it comes to Rand. Best I could do, anyway.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Rather more difficult is her rejection of the analytic-synthetic distinction. As far as I can understand it, she rejects it because all truths are analytic. We don't know all analytic truths, however, because the full content of concepts is as yet unknown to us. This strikes me as bizarre, but I don't have her own formulation of it, and don't know how much this owes to Peikoff. Peter Damian (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Does she formulate it anywhere? There's an appendix at the back of the epistemology book on the subject, but it's written by Peikoff.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I just read it, and it seems my paragraph above misses an important point. Although the individual forms concepts by grasping similarities among particulars (concretes), the concept includes all properties of those particulars, and not the sub-set on which the formation of the concept was based (or any other subset). For example, an individual might form the concept "man" by noticing that "rationality" and "being a biped" are similarities among a group of entities. But the concept "man" also includes "smoking a pipe", "being dead", "liking coffee" and "being a dentist." It also, obviously, includes "not liking coffee" and "not being a dentist". For Rand/Peikoff, this is because concepts are somehow really instantiated in the entities which fall within their scope - they are not Platonic ideas. This dissolves the analytic/synthetic dichotomy, in Peikoff's view, because any concept includes all possible empirical observations about the entities which fall under it - whether we know it or not. I have the impression that this is exclusively Peikoff's work, based on Rand's theory of concept formation, but I am open to correction. I admit, I can't see how it follows from this line of argument that "a batchelor is an unmarried man" is not analytically true; just because the concept "batchelor" includes all empirical properties of any batchelor ever, few of those properties seem relevant to determining the meaning of the concept. Smoking a pipe is just not part of what batchelor means. (Quine, of course, evades that objection by acknowledging that some observations are more important than others)KD Tries Again (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Your final point is absolutely spot on. I think there is a confusion here between the internalist/externalist question about whether meanings are 'in the head' or not, and the analytic-synthetic question, of whether the meaning of the predicate is always included in the subject or not. You could validly hold that 'water' means H2O, and that it always meant H2O even in Aristotle's time when they didn't know that water actually is H2O, but still uphold the analytic-synthetic distinction (for example, it is not part of the 'externalist' view that 'water fell as rain in London on Friday 24 April 2009 12:00 BST'. But according to the article Objectivist epistemology, Rand's view is 'a version of content-externalism'. Now I look at this I am even more confused. The article says "Which particulars a concept subsumes, according to Rand, depends upon what the concept-coiner was discriminating from what when he or she formed the concept (this appears to be how Rand accommodates Gottlob Frege's insight that there are different "modes of presentation" of the same content). This view is a version of content externalism, similar in certain ways to the views of Hilary Putnam and Tyler Burge." As I understand the view, it is not at all similar to content-externalism. Rather, it seems similar to Leibniz' view that in every true proposition the predicate is included in the subject (I have a Latin formulation of this somewhere) and that the name 'Adam' includes every fact, past present and future, about Adam. Peter Damian (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

""Which particulars a concept subsumes, according to Rand, depends upon what the concept-coiner was discriminating from what when he or she formed the concept". That doesn't seem to be right; that's how the concept is formed, but - according to Peikoff, anyway - it subsumes every property, every fact about, any particular which falls under it. Hence, for Peikoff, any truth is a logical (or analytic) truth. I support blanking and re-directing Objectivist epistemology in any case, as it seems to be an original interpretation.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

At the risk of inducing apoplexy in Karbinski, I have located the idea of Leibniz I was thinking about. It is called the 'predicate-in-notion' principle by Leibniz scholars. See here. It derives directly from Arnauld and Nicole, and (according to the author of the SEP, | am not so sure) has its ancestry in Posterior Analytics I.4. I don't see any great harm in discussion around the subject on these talk pages, and indeed it is difficult to write about the subject at all without some basic and background knowledge. Peter Damian (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Objectivist_epistemology for deletion?

I now think we should seriously consider nominating Objectivist_epistemology for deletion. The reason is not that it is badly written to the point of incoherence. That is not grounds for deletion (rather, for careful well-sourced re-writing). The grounds for deletion are (1) that nothing would possibly count as reliable sources for the article. I have tried very hard to locate such sources and they don't exist. There are reliable sources for other aspects of her philosophy (e.g. on politics and possibly ethics). No serious philosopher, as far as I can tell, has written about her 'epistemology'. I am not sure there is even a coherent view to write about. (2) Her views in any case is not notable. The authoritative SEP article on the analytic-synthetic article contains a list of 104 philosophers who have worked on the subject, some of whom have less notability than others. (Quine is clearly notable, Kahneman, Slovic & Kersey probably not). Rand is not mentioned at all. Therefore there is no reason to include her views in Wikipedia. What do we think? Peter Damian (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are on the wrong talk page - not once but twice (Objectivist epistemology and Analytic-synthetic distinction). Your personal exploration of Rand's ideas above should be on some forum, blog, or even your wiki user talk page. As well, your user sub-pages have discussion tabs (User_talk:Peter_Damian/Ayn_Rand). --Karbinski (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Support for blanking can be expressed at the cross-talk page here. I am not sure if any editors other than Karbinski and myself are using that page. We do need to emerge from the discussion of Rand's views, but what prompted it was the difficulty in finding any reliable source encapsulating these views. If we had a good third party source which put Rand's epistemological and metaphysical views into a nutshell, we needn't bother with this.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

On the contrary: how much weight is given to Rand's philosophy on this page, as opposed to sub-pages, is highly relevant to this page. In addition, this page is the most read of the Rand pages, it would have been necessary to advertise the issue here anyway. Does that not seem reasonable? Peter Damian (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If there wasn't already an open discussion, that was already advertised here (via the cross-talk page), it would be reasonable to open the discussion on one page or the other and link to the discussion from the second article's talk page. --Karbinski (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't know about the cross-talk page until now. I shall be sure to put things in the right place from now on. Peter Damian (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Non TOC headers

Are we able to use headers for the Views and Bibliography sub-sections that are _format only_ headers so they don't show in the TOC? If not for the View section, how about just for the Bibliography section?

Yes, but why would we want to do that? It would seem to hamper the reader's ability to navigate to their section of interest. Skomorokh 23:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Three A's cited in Pennsylvania State University Press

Anon IP address 72.199.110.160 removed the following cited passage from a book published with Pennsylvania State University Press:

Rand had a high opinion of her own legacy, remarking in a tape-recorded question-and-answer session that in the history of philosophy she could only recommend "three A's" —Aristotle, Aquinas, and Ayn Rand.

72.199.110.160 also calls the re-insertion of this passage as "VANDALISM"[2], stating "no source for Rand's 'allegedly high opinion of own legacy.'"

I don't have access to the book right now, but will be stopping by the library this afternoon to verify the citation. My question is: assuming the passage is both accurate and verifiable in Sciabarra's book, what is objectionable to the anon IP -- the citation itself for lack of historical cross-referencing (plausible) or something else? It's unclear to me what the problem is. J Readings (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Does it matter? If he's not willing to engage on the talk page, it's not our job to read his mind. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I think what the IP is getting at is that the first clause of the removed claim, "Rand had a high opinion of her own legacy", is editorialising; the "three A's" itself remark is cited, though without context: Sciabarr cites "Peikoff 1976T" for the anecdote, full ref should be visible here. One would need access to Peikoff's collection of her interviews (see link) for that. And though 160 raises useful objections on occasions, I'm with TallNapoleon in that we don't have to satisfy them if they are not willing to discuss their edits. Skomorokh 23:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Skomorokh: And though 160 raises useful objections on occasions, I'm with TallNapoleon in that we don't have to satisfy them if they are not willing to discuss their edits. Thanks to everyone for their comments. Just so we are clear here, what is the bottom-line with regard to 72.199.110.160? Every time someone disagrees with its edits, a quick revert without talk page discussion amongst ourselves is acceptable? I just want to understand the WP:CONSENSUS on this issue. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, if there is an existing talkpage discussion on an issue, and an editor involved in that discussion objects to one of 160's edits related to that issue, it's fine to revert while referring to the discussion. Articles can't be held hostage to one editor's perspective. That said, it would be productive if reverting editors would follow CABlankenship's example and accommodate any useful points 160 raises. I think there is enough of a reasonable distribution of editors watching the article that the IP's points will get a fair hearing. Skomorokh 23:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, when the IP makes 50 edits in a day without any discussion, that's disruptive. If he won't engage on the talk page, he needs to be blocked, at least temporarily. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

At the least, anon should be checked out. His style of throwing around accusations of vandalism whenever he disagrees with something is remarkably similar to Kjaer. Furthermore, anon only appeared after the arbcom bans. CABlankenship (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, IP has been editing related articles long before, [e.g.]KD Tries Again (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

It would just seem to follow that if she believed that she was one of the three greatest philosophers in history that she had a "high opinion" of her legacy. CABlankenship (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, making edits is not disruptive. All edits are subject to WP:BRD - thats the concensus. Anyone who wants to challenge the concensus is welcome to do so on the appropriate policy pages and forums. --Karbinski (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

True, and this IP editor clearly has very detailed knowledge of the subject and has made many improvements to this article and to other related articles. At the same time - and you can check the editor's talk page [for example] - the editor is intent on working unilaterally rather than engaging in any discussion. That makes things difficult. Specifically, we can't have this anonymous editor deleting content sourced to the Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy just because he/she finds it unappealing. For what it's worth, I placed a warning on the editor's talk page.KD Tries Again (talk) 03:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Also, check this diff - a sweeping revision of the academic philosophy section yesterday, removing plenty of supported material, with no discussion. Everyone okay with this?KD Tries Again (talk) 04:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Anon160 appears to have gone off the deep end. It seems that hysterical ranting is not merely confined to Rand's "technical philosophy", but has perhaps become a critical part of the Objectivist system. CABlankenship (talk) 06:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted this morning [3]. This is not encouraging. To the more moderate supporters of Rand here: I am doing considerable research to arrive at a fair and neutral assessment of Rand's work, based on reliable sources. I am beginning to feel this is pointless, and that it will be undone as soon as completed. One is tempted to leave the article to rot until it is proof that Wikipedia has no effective mechanism for dealing with extreme partisan groups. The comments left by the IP ("Commie swine", "may you rot" and so on) are also extremely disturbing. Peter Damian (talk) 07:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

So now that Anon160 has declared himself to be an implacable foe of Wikipedia, may I gather that we no longer have to assume good faith concerning his edits? CABlankenship (talk) 08:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I put in a complaint at WP:ANI and it is has been blocked for 31h. Peter Damian (talk) 09:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Good grief, now I'm apparently a Communist. If that's his attitude towards Wikipedia, permaban him and be done with it. We'll see if his attitude improves when--and if--he returns. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

One important point to take away from all this is that if WP is saying much the same thing as other encyclopaedias from reputable publishers, we're probably on the right track.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Reviewing

I'm going to go through the latest batch of edits from 160, reverting where appropriate. If anyone has any concerns or objections, please raise them here so we can come to consensus on what should stay and what should go. Thanks, Skomorokh 23:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

See changes. There is a lot I didn't touch, so feel free to review this series of edits for anything else that might be improved upon. Skomorokh 01:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Anon IP is back, removed the three A's statement again, and still is not engaging on the talk page, despite his block. That means that he's edit-warring. Also, on an unrelated tangent, why on earth is Boisevert described as "opining". Really? TallNapoleon (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Rand, the Enlightenment, and Romanticism

There's something really interesting about Rand that I think may be worth mentioning. Rand is interesting for attempting (no matter what one thinks of the results) to square the ultimate philosophical-historical circle: to unite Enlightenment and Romantic thinking. You can see it in the bizarre fusion of Nietzsche and Locke, her "Romantic Realist" esthetics and various other facets of her thinking. Now personally I think she made a real hash of it, fusing the worst aspects of both movements instead of the best. But I think just the fact that she made the attempt is interesting, and fairly unusual. I wonder if any of our more philosophically trained contributors could comment on this? Is it a line of thinking/research we ought to consider further? TallNapoleon (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are right, FWIW. But not an area of competence for me - this sort of thing is not really part of philosophy. In any case, we need reliable secondary sources that deal with this issue. Which we don't have. Peter Damian (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

James S. Valliant

Here is another author whose book, The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, I find even more suspect in its repeated citation throughout the Ayn Rand article than Roger Merrill's The Ideas of Ayn Rand.

Valliant is a self-described "Objectivist" who has taken it upon himself to defend Ayn Rand from two of her most notable critics -- Nathaniel Branden and his ex-wife Barbara Branden. While I have absolutely no objection to Valliant's OPINION from being briefly expressed in this article, I am still very cautious about presenting anything in his book as unadulterated FACT, which is how anon IP 160 would choose to present his views.

I have checked the following databases to see if I could find any articles that support either the notability of "James S. Valliant" or of his book (title above). These are my findings:

JSTOR - 0 hits
LexisNexis - 0 hits
Google News - 0 hits
Google Scholar - 0 hits

I also wanted to cross-check Valliant's background. Unlike Tara Smith, Valliant is not a credentialed academic, nor apparently is he a well-respected author. He is, apparently, a lawyer who happens to be a follower of Ayn Rand and, according to his publisher, found it necessary to publish this book "for supporters of Ayn Rand."

In any case, I have tagged the passages with "dubious" because I was unable to find the "reliable source" tag for an in-line citation.

I apologize for not posting to the reliable source noticeboard yet. My day-job prevents me from sitting down and composing a coherent message to the noticeboard regarding Merrill. I'll try to do this in the next day or so. When I request experienced third-party opinions on Merrill's work and his publisher, I'll post a similar (but separate) query regarding Valliant's work. I would stress, however, that the issue with Valliant (as I see it) is presenting his published partisan arguments as pure FACTS, while the issue with Merrill is allowing his book or opinion to be mentioned AT ALL. J Readings (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why Valliant's opinion should be included at all. But it certainly should not be treated as fact, considering how minor a source it is. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I am considering putting the James S. Valliant article up for deletion. It fails the notability guidelines on almost every level. J Readings (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Thanks for finding that nugget. Peter Damian (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Tisdale

I don't think we need to preface that quote with "Tisdale says". Either US News is a reliable source, or it's not--let the information stand on its own with a proper cite instead of trying to marginalize it as just one person's opinion. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

That's a non-starter I'm afraid – all quotes must be attributed inline per the MOS. Skomorokh 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? The MOS actually says that only quotations of a sentence or more should be attributed in the main text. The quote in question is not a full sentence. Peter Damian (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hah. I deserved that for not checking it weekly. The new wording of MOS:QUOTE ("The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote. However, attribution is unnecessary for quotations from the subject of the article or section.") is ambiguous. The idea was that readers shouldn't be forced to dig through the References section to find out who is being quoted. I appreciate that an author who has already been identified need not have their short quotations attributed multiple times in a paragraph, but dropping "sophomoric, preachy and unoriginal" out of the sky strikes me as terribly confusing. One solution would be to paraphrase Tisdale rather than quoting her, and state the paraphrase as fact, but I don't think this can be done neutrally while remaining faithful to the source. Skomorokh 06:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The paraphrase would be something along the lines of "The academic community has largely taken a dim view of Rand's work", or something along those lines. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Tisdale was specifically talking about Atlas Shrugged, not Rand's entire career -- though, truth be told, the vast majority of academic philosophers do either ignore Rand or think she's irrelevant to serious philosophical studies. The problem is that's probably original research to synthesize that statement into the article, UNLESS we were to quote the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I recall it stated something similar. J Readings (talk) 09:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't like the quote. (a) It's by a columnist, not a philosopher (b) it's rather strident (c) it has the Americanism 'sophomoric' which I think means 'in the style of an undergraduate', which I tend to confuse with 'soporific', though that would equally apply to Rand's writing. What is needed is a subtle form of wording which would confirm the truth to anyone who suspected the truth, but which would not be offensive to lovers of the Rand genre. Something like Rand's work being almost entirely neglected by academic philosophers. Academic philosophers would then nod knowingly, and lovers of Rand would conclude this is because there is an academic conspiracy against Rand. This is the best way to deal with WP:FRINGE subjects. Peter Damian (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, no agenda in evidence here. Can't imagine why anyone would consider it pointless to engage in discussion such as the ISP editor you all whine about. To tallnap, I'd say my input is as constructive as the comment I'm responding to.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to these objections, but I do think we need to have a lead-in statement on the history of Rand's relationship of academic that is rigourously sourced, and the Tisdale quote is one of those. I'm not sure replacing it with the Routledge line is a move in the right direction given the controversy of the latter. These are some potential alternatives from news sources (not endorsing any of these, just throwing them out here):

• "Ayn Rand's novels of headstrong entrepreneurs' battles against convention enjoy a devoted following in business circles. While academia has failed to embrace Ms. Rand, calling her philosophy simplistic, schools have agreed to teach her works in exchange for a donation. " Bloomberg/Globe and Mail
• "Every few years, journalists write that the study of Ayn Rand's philosophy is making a comeback at mainstream universities. (I'm guilty!) It's perpetually sort of true. But the fuller truth remains that while she has fierce adherents, often in campus libertarian groups or on the fringes of philosophy departments, most academics look down their noses at her." The Boston Globe
• "Historically, American academia has been dismissive of Ayn Rand, but in recent years her work is increasingly being included in mainstream curricula." The Jerusalem Post
• "A sui generis philosopher, who looked at the world anew, Ayn Rand has long puzzled the intellectual establishment. Academia has usually met her views with antagonism or avoidance -- unable to fathom that she was an individualist but not a subjectivist, an absolutist but not a dogmatist. And they have thus ignored her original solutions to such seemingly intractable problems as how to ground values in facts. But even in academia her ideas are finding more acceptance, e.g., university fellowships and a subgroup within the American Philosophical Association to study objectivism. " The Pittsburgh Tribune/Mens News Daily
• "Educators have until now largely been absent from the roll-call [of admirers], though, perhaps not surprisingly given the scorn Rand seemed to reserve for universities and their faculties, which she often viewed as being intellectually corrupt." The Guardian
• "...[N]ow she is back in fashion of a sort. Her theories have made inroads into academia. Objectivism is taught at more than 30 universities, with fellowships at several leading philosophy departments. The Ayn Rand Institute has a war chest of over $7m to promote her ideas and more than a million high school pupils are being given free copies of her novels to read." The Independent

These are from a (not remotely exhausted) Google News search (I found Scholar and Books too noisy to be useful). The most comprehensive treatments of the topic are in books (e.g. Merrill, Walker) that have been called into question here unfortunately, but I think the above sources can be used to support a neutral and informative summary. Skomorokh 16:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

On the notion of rigour

The issue of whether Rand was 'rigorous' has cropped up a number of times, and it is not clear this idea has been understood. It is not synonymous with 'dotting i's and crossing t's'. Nor does rigour require a strictly formalist-deductive approach. The use of 'handwaving' - the omission of important but self-evident assumptions, and the omission of logical steps that are manifest, is not inconsistent with rigour in the philosophical sense.

You can get a good idea of what a rigorous approach is by studying carefully and understanding the paper by Huemer [4] and the piece by Vallicella. [5]. They show, by means of their own strict and rigorous approach, exactly why Rand's approach was neither strict nor rigorous. Rigour in the required sense is identifying clearly

• the actual claims that are being disputed (this is to avoid accusations of ground-shifting and straw man that are so characteristic of amateur philosophical argument)
• the assumptions of the argument (so as to distinguish the claims that remain assumptions, from the claims that will be argued for or proved)
• the actual steps being used in the argument, in order to highlight the logical progression from the premisses to the conclusion

Note how both Vallicella and Huemer make use of numbered statements. For example, Vallicella argues that Rand's claim about the 'primacy of existence' conflates three distinct propositions:

• • P1: Each thing exists independently of any consciousness.
  • P2: Each thing satisfies the Law of Identity in that, for each x, x = x.
  • P3: The identity of each thing consists in its possession of a specific nature.

The use of such numbered propositions allows the reader to focus on and separate each proposition in order to understand the distinction between them. The numbering also allows writer and reader to refer back to the claims in a way that is unambiguous (to avoid ground-shifting and confusion).

Huemer's article uses the same technique in a much more complex way (although it is still understandable and accessible to the average reader who takes the time, trouble and intellectual effort to work through his argument). It is well worth the effort: no one who makes the effort to work through these pieces carefully will have any trouble identifying for themselves the problems with Rand's approach to philosophy.

"Rand illustrates the perils of being an amateur philosopher. By the way, the difference between a professional and an amateur philosopher is not the difference between one who makes money from philosophy and one who does not. It is the difference between one whose work meets a certain standard of competence and rigor, and one whose work does not." [Vallicella, my emphasis]

Peter Damian (talk) 09:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That's well and good, Peter, but Wikipedia is also written to be accessible. Consider the average reader who has not had formal philosophical training. When they see the claim that Rand lacked rigour, stated without qualification, as Wikipedia claiming that she is a sloppy or bad philosopher. Despite the fact that I agree with you that that is precisely what she is, it is not the place of Wikipedia to say so or imply so, even unintentionally. Again, don't think about rigor the way your, ahem, rigorously trained academic mind would. Think about, say, an intelligent teenager who sees it, and the message they would take away. It will come off as a value judgment--the kind of judgment Wikipedia cannot make. On the other hand I really do see your concern about weasel words, especially given the history of the article. How about something like: "Vallicella has been sharply critical of Rand's work, criticizing it as lacking philosophical rigour." That avoids weasel words while still avoiding the impression that Wikipedia is passing judgment on Rand.

On a completely different note, do people feel like an article on what constitutes philosophical rigour might make a good addition to the encyclopaedia? I'm not sure that there is one. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The point I take away from this is that the average reader will see what Vallicella says, and will not be analysing as closely as editors here the way in which it is presented. I'd also like to emphasize that, not for the first time, this edit is being treated as a special case because of what Valicella says. Throughout not just Wikipedia, but in this very article, views are attributed to individuals without being dressed up in special language to warn the reader that it's a view - even where the view is controversial, which - as Peter points out - Valicella's is not.KD Tries Again (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

• Well there is an article about Handwaving, although parts of it are rather strange. I'll see what I can do.

• Examining in a rigorous way the argument you give here. First you say that Wikipedia is also written to be accessible. Correct, and very important, but that doesn't mean that anything in Wikipedia should be wrong, or should gloss over the truth, or misrepresent things. You then say "When they see the claim that Rand lacked rigour, stated without qualification, as Wikipedia claiming that she is a sloppy or bad philosopher. " which is not a finished sentence, so I don't know what you mean by that. You then say that you agree, but "it is not the place of Wikipedia to say so or imply so, even unintentionally". To say what? And why? How is your statement that Wikipedia shouldn't say something (that Rand was not rigorous? That she was a sloppy or bad philosopher?) connected with your assertion that Wikipedia should be accessible? You then say that an intelligent teenager would take away the message that Wikipedia is passing a value judgment. So? If judging a writer's work as 'lacking rigour' is a value judgment, and if reliable sources say her work lacked rigour, then Wikipedia should be making that judgment. Once again, the question is not about value judgments, but about what reliable sources say.
• On accessibility in general, I use Wikipedia myself for reference, and it is very useful for some things (it was the only internet source I could find with the 200 bus route, for example, including the Transport for London website). I think it's important for the encyclopedia to present a generally fair and balanced view of its subject, whoever is reading it. But when I came across the Rand article some time ago, despite a strong background in twentieth century philosophy (and indeed philosophical history generally) I was surprised because I had never heard of her. Yet the article did not present Rand as in any way unusual or different from a standard twentieth century philosopher. It took some work and research using reliable sources to discover 'the truth'. Which Wikipedia hadn't been giving us.
• On how Rand should be treated, I think it is perfectly possible to balance criticism with fairness, indeed a positive tone. Vallicella, Huemer and Watson actually express qualified admirationof her, whilst being fiercely critical of her lack of rigour, sloppy thinking and so forth. Peter Damian (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia can, should and does make such value judgments when they are well supported. William McGonagall - "He is comically renowned as one of the worst poets in the English language." Colley Cibber - "Cibber's poetical work was ridiculed in his time, and has been remembered only for being bad." Amanda McKittrick Ros - "her eccentric, over-written, circumlocutory writing style has a cult following among critics as being some of the worst prose and poetry ever written." I am not making any comparison between Rand and these writers, just observing that there is no policy against making negative statements as such.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Wikipedia should never make value judgements. There is a very clear distinction between the first two examples you've given and the last one; only in the latter does Wikipedia endorse a negative view of the subject. Just as the Vallicella wording has Wikipedia endorsing a claim of lack of rigour, the McKittrick Ros wording has Wikipedia - not critics - claiming that her writing style was "eccentric, over-written, [and] circumlocutory". Skomorokh 13:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The McKittrick Ros wording explicitly mentions critics. I understand the distinction you are trying to draw, but I don't see the relevance when what is clearly proposed is a view of Rand as expressed by her philosophical critics. It is not our job to wave a flag telling the reader the critics might be wrong (unless someone can find serious, independent disagreement about the matter): there is no implication that, for example, MacGonagall is believed or claimed by some to have been a lousy poet; there is no backing away from the judgement.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Here is a selection of criticism of Rand drawn mainly from Huemer. I will collate some more, then attempt the more difficult task of turning into elegant prose.

• She offers no argument for the position on which her ethics, making only a bald assertion
• She doesn't even explicitly state some assumptions, indeed, she seems simply not to have noticed that she was assuming them
• Lacks clarity, and makes statements for which a number of conflicting interpretations are possible.
• Makes question begging arguments. Rand claimed to have an argument, a proof even, for ethical egoism. But one of the required premisses for that proof essentially just is ethical egoism!
• She seriously misrepresents the history of ethics.
• Her description of the history of ethics is a gross caricature, and she makes no effort to document her claims with any citations.
• She draws plausibility for her position by attacking straw men.
• She makes illegitimate shifts between equivocal interpretations
• She gives no criteria for the classifications she makes.
• Many of her claims are simply arbitrary declarations.
• She uses fudge words: i.e. words that can be interpreted to mean whatever it is convenient for them to mean at a particular time, and which can be used to insulate her thesis from testing and to enable her to claim that her theory supports, or doesn't support, anything; since there is no precise and unambiguous definition of these terms.
• Her arguments rest squarely on her intuitions.
• She thinks her theory, as she sets it out , is an exact science, but this claim would not withstand a casual acquaintance with any actual exact science. "
• She represents her intuitions and philosophical theories are 'scientific proofs,' and then derides the philosophical theories of others for being unscientific and therefore 'mystical.'
• She refers to philosophers that she does not identify, and probably does not identify them because she did not know.
• She makes no effort to document her claims and they are in fact impossible to document because not true.
• She was very ignorant of the history of her subject. This explains, in part, why her ethics is so flawed.

Note hardly any of these are 'value judgments'. They might be taken to reflect negatively on Rand's work, but that is no reason for not making them. Peter Damian (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I think you've convinced me Peter. My only request is that it read that her work lacked philosophical rigour, rather than just rigour, because it appears the philosophical definition of rigorous is something of a special case (for instance, mathematical rigour doesn't allow for hand-waving). TallNapoleon (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

All it means is that Rand's style of working differed from that of mainstream academic philosophy, which given that most of it was targeted at the general public rather than academicians is hardly surprising. Most if not all of the above list of criticisms could be rebutted, and many similar claims could be made about opposing philosophers, but this is not the place. It is regrettable that Rand's main philosophical points, some of them quite well supported and original, are obscured by focussing on minutiae instead. Rand herself decried the "analytic" school of academic philosophy, and cited several examples of patently absurd articles resulting from that style. As to the article, it is appropriate to indicate the widespread lack of acceptance by academic philosophers, since that's a verifiable fact. However, presenting a long list of such criticisms would call for rebuttal, which would not make for a good article. A year or so ago, I set up a Wikipedia article specifically for Criticisms of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) within which various reasonably justified criticisms could be discussed; however, since then that article has been replaced by a link but the criticism text has been lost. That needs fixing. — DAGwyn (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)