Talk:Objectivism/Archive 5

Ethics Section

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

Objectivism favors an esthetic of Romanticism?

Some portion of Objectivists may favor an esthetic of Romanticism, like Rand. However, I think there needs to be more support for stating that this philosophy officially prescribes a particular esthetic. I may have missed this somewhere so please clue me (us) in. --Davidp 21:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Rand did not include esthetics in her earliest summaries of her philosophy, but she published a book on the subject (The Romantic Manifesto), and later descriptions of her philosophy included esthetics (see, for example this summary from the Ayn Rand Institute or this item from the Objectivist Center). However, the article in its current form is inaccurate in one respect: the term Rand applied to her esthetic views was "Romantic Realism," not simply "Romanticism." Rand knew that the latter term had been applied to other schools, and wanted to distinguish her views from theirs. So an update to that effect would be appropriate. -- RL0919 03:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Image

I would like if there were an image to go along with this to make it look less dry at first apperance. Perhaps a copy of Atlas Shrugged beside Peikoff's paperback describing the entire philosophy? Or maybe The Fountainhead, Atlas and all of the non-fiction anthologies? I would explain what they are at the end. Does anyone have any thoughts? D prime 16:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

How about moving that Reason Magazine cover up to the top or just using the photo of Rand from her biographical article? Alienus 16:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The photo of Rand or a particular magazine cover is more a representation of Rand herself than her philosophy. Of course they're completely related, but, it needs something more particular. D prime 01:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do know what Rand looks like, but I'm not sure what an Objectivism looks like. Abstract nouns are hell when I play Pictionary. Since Objectivism is the personal philosophy of Ayn Rand, I'm not sure what better illustrates it than her. Alienus 04:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You are witty, but the image doesn't necessarily have to be of Objectivism. I think I may add one of my suggestions at the top. Are there any complaints? D prime 22:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Since this is an article about her philosophy, perhaps using the cover of one of her non-fiction philosophy books would be more appropriate than using a cover from one of her novels. Perhaps Philosophy: Who Needs It or For the New Intellectual? -- RL0919 00:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Re-placing

I've taken the liberty of putting back the libertarian sidebar and disambig notice. There was never any good reason to remove the latter (see, e.g., the title of the book by Richard Bernstein — Beyond Objectivism and Relativism), nor was there even a proposal to do so. As for the libertarian sidebar, (a) no consensus was ever reached, (b) Rand was a libertarian under any definition thereof, and (c) it doesn't matter what she said—Camus is listed in Category:Existentialists, even though he explicitly disavowed the label. --zenohockey 02:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with the disambig notice -- that is entirely appropriate. The libertarianism sidebar, on the other hand, I'm not so comfortable with. Leaving Rand's objections to the term aside, my concern is that this prominently placed box makes it look as if Objectivism is a particular type of libertarianism. The box itself even says that "This series is linked to the Politics series," which reinforces the suggestion that Objectivism is purely a political theory. But Objectivism isn't primarily a political theory, so this suggestion is very misleading. Objectivism is a philosopical system, and as such, its political theory is just one component. That component is no more (and I think most Objectivists would say less) important than its other components, such as epistemology or ethics. At most, a variant of libertarianism would form the political branch of Objectivism. (Obviously many would reject even that claim -- and that includes some non-Objectivist libertarians, your "any definition thereof" comment notwithstanding.) Additionally, the box -- which as a compact item cannot contain much in the way of caveats -- suggests that it is a settled issue that Objectivists are libertarians. That raises POV issues. So for those two reasons I don't think the box is appropriate. -- RL0919 03:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Objectivism is a group of philosophies linked chiefly by what Ayn Rand opposed. The portion that is political philosophy is a specific type of libertarianism. Rand's chief complaint against (other) libertarians is that they didn't embrace Objectivism, just that one portion of it. Let me put it this way; if Rand's political philosophy isn't libertarianism, what exactly is it? Alienus 03:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd say "capitalism" or "laissez-faire," but yeah, it's libertarian. She opposed libertarians, because at the time, they supposedly didn't have a philosophical justification for it --it was based on consequentialism, which she thought was morally bankrupt. RJII 03:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, I get the impression that you are responding to arguments that I did not make. To restate what I did argue, I have two objections to including this sidebar: 1) The presence of the sidebar suggests that Objectivism is primarily or entirely a political theory, when in fact it is more than a political theory (true even on your description of it above), and 2) There is a well-known POV dispute about whether Objectivism and libertarianism are compatible (discussed in the Libertarianism_and_Objectivism article), and including the sidebar seems to come down on one side of that dispute. Are you attempting to argue against one of those two points? -- RL0919 04:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think RJII has it right: the issue isn't whether Objectivism is compatible with libertarianism or even whether the political philosophy aspect of Objectivism is libertarian. Since unalloyed support for laissez-faire capitalism entails libertarianism, the answer to both of those is an obvious yes.

The real issue is whether Objectivists want to be associated with libertarians. The two are, after all, not identical. As you point out, Objectivism entails more than just libertarianism. As RJII points out, Objectivism has a specific basis for its libertarianism, whereas libertarianism in general might have any basis at all, including the dreaded consequentialism.

Really, the situation is entirely parallel to Objectivism and atheism, and I'd support a libertarianism sidebar to the same extent that I'd support an atheism sidebar. Objectivism isn't primarily a religious or political philosophy; it's primarily the worldiew of Ayn Rand, and is largely defined by what she opposed. Therefore, excessive concentration on any one part might be misleading, but relevant sidebars for any aspects that deserve one would be fine. 17:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I see that D prime removed both the libertarianism sidebar and the disambiguation notice. These two aren't really related, and the discussion above doesn't show any opposition to the disambiguation notice. I've got no love for the bar (as explained above), but I strongly believe that the disambig is 100% appropriate. I've added that back. If there is some serious objection to it, I'd like to hear what it is. -- RL0919 23:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

D prime performed the same edit again. This time I simply reverted, because there clearly isn't a consenus on making these changes. No one -- not even D prime -- has made any argument for why the disambiguation shouldn't be there. I oppose the libertarianism sidebar, but removing it is clearly a controversial act. To do both, without so much as an edit summary, is not a positive approach to the controversy. -- RL0919 16:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

My impression from D prime's comments under the "Libertarian Bar" section is that he had not read the discussion under this section, and therefore did not realize that it was still ongoing. I pointed him down here. Hopefully that will lead to a more engaged discussion instead of an edit war. -- RL0919 22:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree, discussing on the talk page is preferable to an edit way. My view

• The disambig link to objectivism (metaphysics) is essential. It might be better pointing to Objectivity (philosophy) which is a fuller article.
• The libertarian box. Boxes tend to imply that the topic is part of a larger whole, i.e. that objectivism is part of libertarianism. This is not the case here, as it historically predates libertarianism, and their are prominant Randian objectivists who are not libertarian. So on the whole I think not.

--Salix alba (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

In the discussion under "Libertarian Bar" at the top of the page, D prime suggests that the libertarianism sidebar should link to the Libertarianism and Objectivism article, rather than this one. I think that is a very good suggestion. Comments pro or con? -- RL0919 22:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about missing the area down here. That's why I thought there were no responces (see our conversation at the top.)

I think we can agree to leave the lib bar out of this, but add 'Objectivism and Libertarianism' to the libertarianism series, and put the bar on that page. The Objectivism article does already have a link to it, under the header concerning its relationship to libertarianism, so they're connected, but no one will be led to believe that Objectivism is merely a faction of libertarianism, which it isn't, or that it's officially aligned with it, which it is not.

As for metaphysical objectivism, because there are so many topics, instead of referencing metaphysical objectivism exclusively, or all of them, how about we have it link to the disembaguation page, as should all the others? I don't believe this article should be renamed 'Rand's Objectivist Philosophy,' becuase she wanted her name to be disassociated with it.D prime 22:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the suggestion to have the disambiguation notice point to the full-fledged disambiguation page for Objectivism. I've added a disambiguation notice using that idea, but I won't take offense if someone has a better version of the wording. -- RL0919 23:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

In pursuit of the idea of linking the libertarianism sidebar to the Libertarianism and Objectivism article, I edited the sidebar template to re-add 'Objectivism' under the Influences heading, but linked to that article instead of this one. The sidebar is already on the Libertarianism and Objectivism article, so I didn't have to do anything about that. I did not add the sidebar back to this article (for all the reasons discussed previously). -- RL0919 23:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Everything appears to be in order now. Alienus seems to be fighting us, but I'm not sure.D prime 23:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Alienus has pointed out that changes to the sidebar template itself is more appropriately discussed at Template_talk:Libertarianism. On that point, I agree. Let's take the discussion on that specific issue to the appropriate page. -- RL0919 06:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

For the fun of it I created a meta-disambig page, coverint objective, objectivity, objectivism and objectivists. Have a look at User:Pfafrich/Sandbox2. Yes I agree with RL0919 on the sidebar, good solution. --Salix alba (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Your sample is very thorough and has some good ideas, but it is perhaps a bit over the top! Putting the disambiguations 'objective', 'objectivity', 'objectivist' and 'objectivism' on one page makes the whole somewhat overwhelming. I think disambiguation pages should be relatively simple, so that users can find relatively quickly what they are looking for. So I would keep 'objective' and 'objectivity' as their own disambig pages separate from 'objectivism' (as is done currently). However, I do think the other two terms should always be included in the "See Also" section for each (along with 'object', as you have in your sample). That way people immediately see the listings for the term they actually searched for, but have quick access to the other variants if they were really looking for something else. -- RL0919 06:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Move to Rand's Objectivist philosophy

I propose that this article be moved to Rand's Objectivist philosophy or similar name, so that the article title reflects the content and makes the distinction clear. Also similer moves for other articles on Rands work, also rename the category Category:Books by Ayn Rand be renames to Category:Ayn Rand and the articles places there. Thoughs? --Salix alba (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Who is Rynd? --Christofurio 17:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Chris, I think you know that "Rynd" is misspelling of "Rand", so let's no be coy. In any case, the idea has some merit, although I'm not sure about the details. Would the article be improved if it were called "Randian Objectivism"? Alienus 17:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I neither think nor know that it was a misspelling. I suspect Pfafrich was trying to be funny, importing the "y" from her one-syllable first name into her one-syllable last name. --Christofurio 01:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Two questions: First, is the current disambiguation (a disambig notice at the top of this article, and a separate disambiguation page for objectivism) not sufficiently clear? If so, perhaps there is a less disruptive solution than moving the page. Second, if this article were moved to some other namespace, what would you like to see done with this namespace? -- RL0919 18:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Why move? If you type "objectivism philosophy" into the search box you get directed here, really it should go to an overview page. Its all very confusing at the moment we have Objectivity (philosophy) (non Rand), Objectivism (metaphysics) (non Rand), Moral objectivism (non rand), Objectivist metaphysics (Rand), Objectivist philosophy (Rand), Objectivist epistemology (Rand), Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (rand book), Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (Rand book), Objectivist ethics (Rand), its taken me a day just to figure out whats what. --Salix alba (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I still don't have a clear picture of what the goal of the move is, or what you want done with the existing namespace. And now with you bringing in a bunch of other articles into the discussion, I'm not even sure what is the scope of the changes you want. Do you want to rename all of the articles you mention? I'm not sure that this would reduce confusion all that much. Do you want disambiguation articles for all of these phrases? For example, if someone enters a highly specific string like "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology," what exactly are they likely to be expecting, if not the book of that name? (Not that the current stub is a particularly compelling article, but that is a somewhat different issue.) Several of these articles already have clear disambiguation notices at the top of the article. Arguably all of them should. I wouldn't oppose that at all. But that's a far cry from renaming/moving/redirecting multiple articles. I think the less radical disambiguation options should be explored first. -- RL0919 04:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that there is absolutely no need for the massive move. The disambiguation page is performing the function that disambiguation pages are intended to perform admirably. More over, titles like "Objectivist metaphysics" are, I think, unambiguous, as non-Objectivists are more likely to refer to themselves as "metaphysical objectivists". BTW, if you type "objectivism philosophy" you end up on the search page — it would be better if that pointed to the disambiguation page. Ig0774 11:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC) — Sorry didn't read the above. Just ignore this comment...

I don't have any conclusion about the right solution, but there's definitely a real problem here that Pfafrich has pointed out. Mainly, the pages that involve Rand are not clearly labeled so as to distinguish the ones that don't. For example, how would anyone guess which of the following two is Randist: Objectivism (metaphysics) and Objectivist metaphysics? Maybe the Rand-specific topics ought to be named as such. For example, "Objectivism (metaphysics)" would be a general article, while "Objectivist metaphysics (Rand)" would be the specific one. Substitute "Randist" or "Randian" for "Rand" if you prefer. Alienus 23:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

A quick Google confirmed that Randian is much more common than Randist. As an experiment, I created a "Randian Objectivism" page that redirects here. [1] Alienus 23:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Removed argument from quantum mechanics

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

"laughable and embarrassing" -- maybe so, but...

I should think the reader would benefit from knowing the identities of some of these number of philosophers who find Rand's argument for atheism both laughable and embarrassing. While laughter and embarrassment often occur together, what are the odds of both sentiments being expressed by a number (greater than one) of philosophers with respect to this one issue? I think this is especially unlikely since, as far as I know, Rand's argument for atheism is that there is no evidence for the supernatural -- hardly a novel, or uniquely laughable and embarrassing position in the history of philosophy. I recall her offering a 'sense of life' reason to reject the notion of God as well, something along the lines of the concept of a being superior to man as demeaning to manifestly real human greatness (someone may have a reference for this), but she certainly did not offer that as a primary argument for atheism.

The entire paragraph, aside from the first sentence, which would qualify as common knowledge, would greatly benefit from a few citation of sources for the particular claims made, especially since the paragraph is a litany of emotion words (passion, derided, disgust, not... serious, dismissal, rehashes, errors, etc.) rather than of arguments. I'm sure knowing where to find the arguments would be worthwhile. Blanchette 23:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

help with Objectivist criticism of Alan Greenspan

There's a longstanding section in the Alan Greenspan (former chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve banking system) that purports to cover Objectivist criticism of him. I think there are problems with it, but I hesitate to delete it, because IMO non-mainstream viewpoints like that should be treated inclusively on Wikipedia. I wondered if one of the editors here would take a look at it and perhaps improve it.

Here is the first bit of it: "Greenspan continues to support a gold standard and advocate laissez-faire capitalism [14] [15]. His support for a gold standard is somewhat of an irony given the Federal Reserve's role in America's fiat money. He has come under heavy criticism from Objectivist philosophers, most notably Leonard Peikoff and Harry Binswanger [16], as they believe that working for the Federal Reserve is an abandonment of Objectivist and free market principles. Increasingly, however, some Objectivists have come to believe that Greenspan has deliberately and with full intention engineered the downfall of the American economy."

So, you can probably see that there may be some issues there, at a minimum the section is insufficiently sourced. Hope someone here can improve it. DanielM 18:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, I'm no friend of Greenspan's 'enabling' of the Fed's engine of intervention and inflation but I don't believe any authority has made the charge that Greenspan deliberately worked to destroy the American economy (which makes it just a Wikipedia editor's opinion) or reported that significant numbers of self-identified Objectivists believe this (which makes it original research). I can't prove it's false but such a charge requires a reference. I have added a "citation needed" tag to the end of the offending paragraph. If no one can find a reference for this claim in a week or so I will support the deletion of that paragraph. Blanchette 18:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Objectivism WikiProject

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

Academic Response section

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

That's not at all the case. That most (albeit more than 'many') professional philosophers dismiss Rand (as I would expect them to, considering that modern philosophy is crap) does not equate to Rand being a 'joke in academic philosophy.' Obviously the section should state that most professional philosophers do not take Rand seriously, explain the common Objectivist responce, and cite what recognition she does have - which is pretty much what it does. D prime 00:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

While it is true that Rand's Objectivism hasn't gained widespread academic acceptance, neither has quite a lot of Continental philosophy in the United States. So also, Existensialism took quite a while to gain widespread acceptance in academic circles depending on where you are speaking about. This doesn't say anything about Objectivism's validity, only its degree of acceptance. It should be possible to re-write that section in a way that indicates those facts in a non-inflammatory way. Keep in mind this section is meant to convey something like an ethnography of Objectivism in academic philosophy. It's acceptance in academic circles also does not mystically anoint Objectivism as a "philosophy," but it may indicate that it is an accepted philosophy for the masses. That is all a matter of what authority you respect. Domhail 07:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed uncited apologetics.

Here's the text I removed.

It should also be noted that followers of many great personalities have come to magnify the person after being deeply affected by the ideas of that person. This does not by necessity reveal faults of either the person being idolized or the ideas they have shared. Furthermore, the social and intellectual image of her philosophy, which was somehow preserved by Rand during her life, was left in the hands of others after her death.

This was clearly added to spin some POV onto the otherwise critical passage. It appears to be OR and POV, so I've removed it. If it can be rewritten so that it cites some relevant, reliable sources, perhaps it should then be reinserted. Al 02:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Is Objectivist philosophy a cult

At List of groups referred to as cults there is a disagreement whether Objectivist philosophy is a cult. Can someone more knowledgeable volunteer a statement on the talk page? --Pjacobi 07:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Objectivism has been accused of being a cult numerous times, with plenty of citable sources available. Unfortunately, Wikipedia allows biased Objectivists to edit our so-called "NPOV" encyclopedia to remove any such criticisms (notice how the biased editor LaszloWalrus removed Category:Purported cults on a poor justification). Yes, it belongs on the list, but the unspoken-of bias here will probably try to stop you from doing so. -- LGagnon 03:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

And again the category was removed. I've put it back again; let's cut the POV and not remove it again. -- LGagnon 22:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment: moving homosexuality article.

There's been a move-war over the naming of the Objectivism and homosexuality article, with LaszloWalrus repeatedly renaming it to Ayn Rand's views on homosexuality. I won't rehash the arguments here or otherwise prejudice interested parties. Instead, I ask that you consult the Talk page and participate in forming a consensus. Al 19:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

So far, two people have come over to help break the deadlock, but we need more. You're invited. Al 16:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Satanism

Has anyone seen that in the Template:Satanism, among the Associated Concepts there is also Objectivism? It clearly must be deleted from there.--Arado 13:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Why? Anton LeVey got some of his ideas from Rand. Technically, it is associated. In fact, that should probably be mentioned in this article. -- LGagnon 13:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned in Anton LaVey, Satanism has roots in a number of philosophies, including Objectivism. This is a historical fact and will not be removed. Al 17:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

wiki

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

strongatheism.net

I tried adding www.strongatheism.net as an external link but someone removed it. The site is definately based on Objectivism even though it never directly identifies itself as that. I've noticed that Objectivists don't tend to identify their philosophy as Objectivism but instead label it as the only true and complete philosophy. Even though some of the philosophy makes sense they do seem to have a bit of a cult mentality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihils (talk • contribs)

Cult mentality aside, I removed the link to strong atheism because it didn't seem as "Objectivist-y" as the other links in that section of the article. On first glance, it seems to be a site strongly promoting atheism (which is great). But Atheism is a very small part of Oism and the other links in the list seemed very strongly Objectivist. On encyclopedic grounds, it doesn't seem to fit. I have no problem with the site personally or ideologically. Just taxonomically, for this article. Enkrates 06:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, it's fair to say that the only time Rand gets mentioned is by her followers. By this rule, strongatheism.net has some of the hallmarks of an Objectivist site. However, that's not strong enough evidence on its own. Perhaps this link suffices. It is an essay explicitly endorsing Objectivist ethics. What do you think? Al 06:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone keeps re-adding this...

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

criticism of ayn rand

I strongly object to the presence of a link to a website (The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult) accusing Ayn Rand's admirers of being a "cult." Although such a link may have a place on the article on Ayn Rand herself, this particular article provides information on Objectivist philosophy, and if there should be any critical links, they should be critical about Objectivist ideas, not Objectivist people. Would anyone agree to this? A.T.

In a word, no. The accusation that Objectivism is a cult affects the entire movement, not merely Rand. Al 05:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree; in the first place, Objectivism is not primarily a movement, but a philosophy. Most Objectivists are not involved in any movement. In the second place, criticism of Ayn Rand's character, whether valid or not, has little to do with the ideas of Objectivism. LaszloWalrus 09:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Objectivism is a movement based on a philosophy (and a philosopher). To be involved in the philosophy is to be involved in the movement. If the movement is indeed a cult, then it would be POV for us to discuss the philosophy without mentioning its use in a cult. Imagine an article on the philosophy of Jim Jones which didn't make any mention of Jonestown! Al 17:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ayn Rand defined Objectivism as "a philosophy for living on earth", not as a "movement." As LaszloWalrus pointed out, criticism of Ayn Rand's character, whether valid or not, has nothing to do with the ideas of Objectivism, which this Wikipedia article is about. Criticism of Objectivism in this article should be restricted to ideas, not persons or associations. I have a small group of Objectivist friends, and none of us are "card-carrying members" of the Ayn Rand Institute or any other organization, for that matter. - A.T.

With all due respect, people inside a movement are often least qualified to understand what they are participating in. Rand's personal philosophy became a social movement with the founding of the NBI and (after her death) ARI. If you want to deny that the movement exists, you should probably go to Objectivist movement article, where you will beat your head against a brick wall of evidence.

This is not about criticizing her character, but documenting the cult aspect of the movement she founded. No matter how much you love or hate her, the facts remain unchanged, and the fact is that Objectivism has been repeatedly characterized as a cult. Al 18:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of Ayn Rand's admirers may have formed a cult, but that cult is not "Objectivist philosophy", which is the title of this Wikipedia article. "Objectivist philosophy" is, as the term states, a philosophical system, something that that link does not deal with. Since you vehemently disagree, I won't eliminate the link, but respectfully urge you to consider it. A.T.

Actually, the cult allegations don't speak of some special sub-group that is a cult. They say that the philosophy and its social movement are a cult. Al 19:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Objectivism itself has been accused of being a cult. Not the movement alone, but the "philosophy" as well. Thus, info that accuses it of being a cult should be here. Might I add, it is in fact POV to call it a philosophy. Mainstream philosophic organizations and academia do not consider it to be a philosophy (not surprisingly, Rand criticized both as useless for rejecting her, just a L Ron Hubbard did with psychiatry after it rejected him). But again, "Objectivist uber alles" is the motto here at Wikipedia, where NPOV doesn't count when it makes Objectivism look bad. So Objectivism will continue to be in the philosophy category, and the articles will continue to call Rand a philosopher and her cult a philosophy, and no article relating to Objectivism will ever truly be NPOV. -- LGagnon 19:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Your optimism inspires me! Al 19:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not pessimism, but mere sarcasm about the lack of truly neutral editing on Rand-related articles. As long as I've been here, these things have always been POV, marking a rather noticable blemish on Wikipedia's reputation (journalists have been taking note, might I add). It's the most shameful problem we have, given that it's the organization head's own personal beliefs (this does, in fact, make Jimbo look bad in the press), and if Wikipedia is going to gain a reputation other than being temporarily unbiased we have to make some serious changes to these biased articles. Maybe I'm a little too sarcastic about how bad it is, but it often seems that way. -- LGagnon 20:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could disagree, but I can't. Al 21:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

To LGagnon, Just to give you an update in response to your statement "Mainstream philosophic organizations and academia do not consider it to be a philosophy" this has been changing over the past 10 years or so. One notable example is Tara Smith, Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas, Austin (a very high-ranking insitution for Philosophy), who has mentored several doctoral students who have written Objectivist dissertations. This year, she is publishing her second book by a respected academic publishing house (I can get you the exact ref if you're interested) on the topic of Objectivist Ethics. Also, I know of no statement made by Rand where she said academia was useless. I know a great deal about both Scientology and Objectivism and they are not comparable -- I find them to be about as opposite as any two philosophies could ever be. Objectivists have, for many years now, been quite active in academic environments, in spite of the rather harsh criticism some of these scholars have received for doing so. This is very different from Scientologists, who have never had anything to do with academia. --MonicaPignotti 19:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

One professor and a bunch of people trying to push themselves into academia does not make it widely accepted. And yes, Scientology has tried to push itself into academia. I once talked to a professor of mine about this comparison, and he said that the Church of Scientology has sent "academic" material to the university in the past. Admittedly, that doesn't work as a source for the article, but neither does your statement. -- LGagnon 22:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I never said it was "widely accepted". Only that it is not nearly as shunned in academia as it has been in the past and has succeeded far beyond what many Objectivists expected. And it is more than just one professor. There are a number of other Objectivists who have obtained teaching positions in universities (some are named in the article and there are others such as Stephen Hicks). As for Scientology, heresay about Scientologists sending academic material to a university is very different from holding an established faculty position and having numerous Objectivist doctoral students writing dissertations. As for Scientology taking part in university activities and active Scientologists becoming faculty in Philosophy or Psychology departments or active Scientologist PhD students doing dissertations, there is no documentation of this ever occurring so in that sense you're right, there cannot be a reference for something that doesn't exist. The closest thing to Scientology getting even close to academia is that Frank (Sarge) Gerbode, an Ex Scientologist and psychiatrist (no longer an active Scientologist) started an offshoot Traumatic Incident Reduction and he managed to convince a professor (who is not and has never been a Scientologist) at Florida State University to include that offshoot in a study he conducted on novel therapies. But again, this is in no way comparable to Objectivists such as Tara Smith, Alan Gotthelf, Stephen Hicks, and others holding actual faculty positions in universities and having students doing dissertations on Objectivism.--MonicaPignotti 18:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Give me ARI's $5M propaganda budget and I'll get "Alienusism" into the philosophy curriculum at all sorts of schools. Al 18:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

List of philosophers

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

Considering that her books have sold 20 millions copies and her huge following, and the relatively long length of the list, she certainly deserves to be on there. The list includes several philosophers who are/were less 'major' than Rand. D prime 06:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

The Criticism of Objectivism section is pathetic. It doesn't address any philosophical issues. It's just allegations of being a cult and other trivial stuff like that. Who cares? The philosophy itself should be critiqued --instead of all this peripheral stuff. Don't the opponents of Objectivism have anything more substantial to say? RJII 05:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, her philosophy is rarely taken seriously enough to be critiqued. Al 05:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This is an appeal to popularity/authority, therefore logically fallacious.JToH 01:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Another sock puppet account. Do you Randists know how to play fair? -- LGagnon 00:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

(removing personal attack)

That's a serious accusation. Who do you think this is a puppet of? We can get a checkuser, if needed. Al 00:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This is his very first edit. And yet, he knew exactly how to sign his name, and immediately decided that you are a troll. Those are classic signs of a sock puppet. As for who it is, I wouldn't put it past any of the Randists. -- LGagnon 00:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

After digging around a bit, I have to agree. Note that the issue of sock puppets is particularly sensitive given the AFD I placed on their new POV fork. Looks like Randists are trying to stack the deck against neutrality. Al 00:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...your post directly after Gagnons and in full agreement too...are you a sock puppet? (Oh, and it's easy to copy the format and check it with the "Show prievew"- any fool can do it.) -- JToH 02:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That sounds pretty irrational. If one doesn't examine and critique the philosophy, then how would they know that it shouldn't be taken seriously? There is something very wrong if the only criticism that the critics can come up with are charges of cultism and attacks on Objectivists as "Randroids," etc. It's laughable. It doesn't address the underlying philosophy. Surely, there must be counter arguments to her epistemology, for example. I don't know because I'm not very familiar with Objectivism or have seen criticisms of it. But, I hope someone can do better. RJII 05:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to explain this to you any clearer without being rude. The best I can come up with is that academic philosophers have examined her ideas and found them to be worthless. They're a rehash of other people's work, misinterpreted. I'm sorry, but that's how academia sees Rand. Al 05:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Prove that they have examined her ideas. Let's see some meaningful criticism of the philosophy. Otherwise, there is no reason to take these "academic philosophers" lack of seriousness seriously. The impression I get from reading the section (and I'm sure I'm not the only one) is simply that no one can come up with meaningful refutations, so they just rely on these flimsy irrelevant attacks about peripheral issues. RJII 05:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

RJ, please don't play burden tennis with me. As was pointed out, she refused to publish in peer-reviewed journals and threatened to sue critics. This sort of attitude is going to get someone soundly dismissed and for good reason. Al 05:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a convenient excuse. It's hard to believe that philosophers would be wimpy enough to refrain from criticising her philosophy simply because she threatened to sue. It's a disservice to the reader of this article to give him such a shoddy criticism of Objectivism. It's not even a criticism. Surely there must be something more substantial out there. Hopefully, someone here that has actually examined the philosophy will come up with something more meaningful and relevant. Because, anyone that wants to judge the merits of Objectivism gets absolutely nothing from that so-called "criticism." RJII 05:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the cult accusations are not trivial; they are one of the most common accusations against Rand's "philosophy", appearing at least as much if not more than any other criticism of it. Secondly, there are some academic criticisms on a philosophic level, but, as Al said, she is mostly ignored because she makes herself look too paranoid to be worth taking seriously in most cases. For now, I'll suggest reading the last chapter of MRM Parrott's Synthetic A Priori[2], which takes on Objectivism both as a philosophy and as a cult. -- LGagnon 12:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That's nothing more than a personal attack on Rand. It's irrelevant. Would calling Kantianism a cult be relevant to the truth of the philosophy? It means nothing. Why should anyone care whether it's a cult or not? RJII 16:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Academics, people who know their philosophy, have called it a cult. That is very relevant, because it shows what experts in the field think of her nonsense. It doesn't matter if you think it's a personal attack or not; it's expert opinion, and thus it belongs in the article. As far as I know, Kantianism isn't considered a cult by philosophers or any other academics, so we wouldn't have any reason to add that; however, Randism is. And to answer your final question, they should care because it shows that it's a pseudophilosophy and that Rand's fans have been had. -- LGagnon 16:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't care whether you put claims of cultism in the article or not. But, for people like me who are trying to figure the philosophy out, it means nothing. So what if it's a cult? What does that matter? Certainly there must be a more substantial criticism out there. The impression I'm getting is that these people simply can't come up with any cogent criticism of the elements of her philosophy so they're falling back on cheap shots. It seems if you want someone to take your criticism seriously then you should address the philosophy itself. RJII 16:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're still not getting it. When someone claims to be a philosopher and to offer philosophical ideas of value, the burden of proof is on them. Academia is not going to bend over backwards to examine every crackpot who can get a book of fiction published for potential philosophical value. If someone refuses to submit work for peer review, they're choosing to avoid academia, and should not be surprised when the favor is returned. Of course, it doesn't help that Rand insulted and threatened (as in law suits) academic philosophy.

Now, is it possible that Rand's ideas still have value despite her being such a jerk about things? Sure. But who's going to bother looking? And who would blame them for dismissing her out of hand? Not me. Al 16:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Then that's very irrational of you. It's a logical fallacy to dismiss the message based on the personality of the source. RJII 16:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I suspect you don't really understand what rationality is, then. The academics are acting quite rationally. Moreover, it's not as if the ones who bothered to read her work are screaming, "Oh my God! How could I have been so wrong to dismiss this brilliant philosopher!?!" Rather, they're almost uniformly unimpressed, which just shows how rational the academics who initially dismissed her were. Al 16:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The point I had trouble getting across to RJ is that a writer with no academic credentials who refuses to submit to peer reviewed journals and threatens to sue anyone who criticizes her is, quite rightfully, going to be viewed as some flake, not a genuine philosopher. There are plenty of people who do this sort of thing, and they're soundly ignored. The only reason anyone in academia took notice of Rand at all is that she's a popular writer who is considered by some to be a philosopher, so it might be worth a paragraph or two to summarize and dismiss her. That's pretty much been the case until a few Randians grew up and got degrees that let them write about Rand. Al 15:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's more like you guys just don't know where to find the criticisms. If criticisms actually do not exist, then the "academic philosophers" who oppose "don't take her seriously" are a laughingstock. Why would anyone take a critic seriously who hasn't studied the philosophy? RJII 16:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I pointed you towards one in my last comment. Like I said, they have written a little, but that which they have written was just enough to show that she's not a real philosopher so they can get back to real philosophy without Randroids getting in their way. And please don't use personal attacks on us; if you want academic sources so badly, you can look them up yourself without whining to us about not doing the job you want done. -- LGagnon 16:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That's demonstrably false. Note that Gag gave a link to one such criticism. Al 16:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't a criticism. That's an article showing that she's studied in academia now. RJII 16:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Gag says the article "takes on Objectivism both as a philosophy and as a cult". I suspect this qualifies as criticism. Al 16:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not a criticism of any of the elements of her philosophy. RJII 16:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You didn't read it. That's not a guess; that's a certainty. If you had, you'd notice that it actually goes into philosophic analysis. And as far as being "studied" goes, it's only to the extent to show she's not a philosopher. There's no Objectivism 101 in colleges as far as I know. -- LGagnon 16:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Then why isn't the philosophical analysis in the article? That's all I'm saying. The criticism doesn't address her philosophy. It needs improvement. Right now it's a joke. RJII 16:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

We used to have a professor in our philosophy department who used one of Rand's books in his Introduction to Philosophy class. Not as an instructional guide for intro to phil, but as a guide for students as to what philosophy is not.Amerindianarts 16:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That's hilarious. I also had a philosophy professor who called Rand "fascist literature." Rand really upsets the establishment. That tells me there is something to her philosophy. RJII 16:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Scientology upsets psychiatrists. Creationism disguised as "intelligent design" upsets legit scientists. Jim Jones wannabes upset religious people. There's something to these things, all right: they trick people into believing lies, even in the face of real academic research. L Rand (sic) Hubbard's no different. -- LGagnon 17:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, let's pull back on the all-too-easy Rand-bashing. Under the bluster, RJII does have a legitimate point, which is that, to the extent that this article is supposed to be about a philosophy, it would be nice if we included more criticism of it as a philosophy.

The article that Gag linked to is a start. I'm sure there are others. As Amer pointed out, Rand is not at all well liked by people whose knowledge of philosophy doesn't begin and end with Atlas Shrugged, so this shouldn't be impossible. Al 17:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I tagged just about every other sentence with a cite needed, we have no proof that any of those outside sources said what they said, and if they aren't properly sorced in a few days, they're gone. I also added {{weasel}} for obvious reasons. Crazynas 17:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't be too hasty to delete. Many of these things can be cited just by syncing this article with Rand's article, which has plenty of references cited. -- LGagnon 17:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. While it's fair to ask for references, I think it's clear that these sentences are not really questionable. References will be found in time, but deletion is premature and would likely be reverted. Al 17:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I won't delete, but they DO need to be sorced. Crazynas 17:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Al 18:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm also going to work on sourcing when I can. Crazynas 17:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool. It's always nice when people are willing to help out in addition to detecting the problem. Al 18:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not informed on objectivism, and so I am not ready to add to the page, but I believe that this read [3] by Nathaniel Branden has alot to add to the criticism section. Also, I must add that the criticism section has too much emphasis on the "cult problem", it should be mentioned but at the moment it seems like the focal point of the section. --A Sunshade Lust 02:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. There's plenty of criticism about Objectivism on its own merits, not the merits of the allegedly cult-like social movement that it is imbedded within. Al 05:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If Objectivism were exhibiting major characteristics of a cult in a pervasive manner, then it would be relevant to discuss in this article because what key proponents of a philosophy actually do can be reflective of the philosophy itself in some cases. However, ad verecundium arguments aside as to who in authority considers Objectivism a cult, I have read many of these allegations and have not found the arguments behind any of these accusations I have read thus far to be sound (I say this as someone who has extensive experience working with families who have loved ones in destructive cults). Contrary to what Shermer contends, having an affair and keeping it private from students and friends does not constitute cult deception. If it did, any academic institutions where such affairs have occured would also have to be labelled cults!--MonicaPignotti 19:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Boiling his argument down to one minor point won't win this argument. He didn't say the affair made it a cult; he said the deceptive methods and unspoken rules made it a cult. -- LGagnon 22:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

But his allegation of "deceptive methods" precisely what I am contesting (and I wasn't boiling his argument down to one point -- I was taking that as just one example). Failing to tell people about an affair (that is none of anyone's business except for the people directly involved and the spouses) does not constitute "deceptive methods". There is nothing in the O'ist philosophy that would preclude people having extra marital affairs, nor would O'ism advocate the need to go public on a private matter. Being truthful with ones spouse (which they were) would come under the O'ist virtue of honesty but honesty doesn't mean having no rights to privacy and having it to people not directly involved. There were no "unspoken rules". Any knowledgeable Objectivist would understand these principles. As for other group dynamics in O'ism, these are the sorts of dynamics that could be found in any new movement and it is an error to take these out of context and make unwarranted generalizations. Actual cults such as Scientology fail to disclose actual philosophical beliefs (only revealed on expensive secret advanced courses) to new members and that is what is meant by deceptive recruting practices. Objectivism is just the opposite and fully discloses all philosophic principles, even the ones that are highly controversial.--MonicaPignotti 18:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

But it's not the affair that he considers to be deception. It's the problems spelled out in the list of cult similarities ("Hidden Agendas", "Financial and/or Sexual Exploitation", etc) that are the deceptive methods. And yes, there were unspoken rules; Branden of all people said so (that was Shermer's source for them). And of course they weren't written down for everyone to learn; they wouldn't be unspoken then, would they? So there was something hidden from the "lower members".

And Randism actually does cost money to learn more; you have to go out and buy a bunch of ARI-owned books to learn about it. So you do "move up" based on money spent. -- LGagnon 23:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Come on, Gag, this is an incredibly unfair characterization. Would it not be analogous to claim that it costs more to "move up" in existentialism because you have to buy a copy of "Nausea" or in Christianity by buying a Bible or a prayer book? That you purchase media including information about a philosophy/religion/cult is not enough to compare it to Scientology. It's more than a little silly, really. --The Central Scrutinizer 20:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

And, of course, you don't have to buy them at all, but apparently LGagnon has never heard of a library. —Centrx→talk • 01:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Name change dispute

I believe the term "Objectivism" was first used by Fichte in a counter (alternative solution) to Kant's work. What he intended may not be the same as what is referred to in the article title "objectivist philosophy" Amerindianarts 05:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You do realize that this article says at the very top This article is about Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy. For other uses of the term, see Objectivism. don't you? Crazynas 05:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's probably more worthy of being the subject of an article called "objectivist philosophy" than this pseudophilosophy is, as the title of this article, at least for the current purpose that it is used for, is definitely POV. -- LGagnon 12:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait, what? How can the purpose of the article be POV? It's an article about a philosophy that has touched millions through the non-fiction books (just go look at how the books are selling):

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes reader-facing templates, categories, and portals.

NPOV is about the writing, not about the article itself. Crazynas 14:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The POV aspect is that it is calling Objectivism a philosophy when, in fact, the vast majority of experts consider it a pseudophilosophy. Had this been about Fichte's concept, then we could argue that it was about a philosophy (as Fichte did practice academically legit philosophy, unlike Rand). However, what we have here is an article about Randism, which is not a philosophy by academic standards. The name of an article is not supposed to be POV; we actually went over this with the "Ayn Rand cult" article. If that article can be deleted based on the name alone, then this article should at least get a name change. -- LGagnon 16:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And here we have again, a naming dispute. I quote from WP:NC Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists. Quickly reading through the article on Fichte, I don't see any mention of his Objectivist Philosophy. Idealy, this article would be called Objectivism as that was the name Rand gave her philosophy, but that page is (understandably) a disambig. In any case, I think that the average reader looking for the 'pedia article on Ayn Rand's philosophy would expect to find in under Objectivism or Objectivist philosophy, not Objectivist psudophilosophy. Crazynas 17:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

To give it a more neutral name, maybe "Objectivism (Ayn Rand)" would work. Admittedly, that still has a problem, as "Objectivism" is a loaded term (the rest of us are implied to be subjective), though as long as we add something to the article pointing this out (such as in Pro-life) it should work better. Whichever way we go about it, the word "philosophy" has to go, as it is POV and is not intrinsicly connected as part of Objectivism's name. -- LGagnon 17:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to Objectivism (Ayn Rand) since you are correct that philosophy is not connected to the name of this system of thought. Regarding Objectivism being a loaded term I disagree, when someone talks about existentialism, you don't automatically assume that those that don't believe in it don't exist, do you? Crazynas 18:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Existentialism doesn't claim that those who don't believe it are irrational. There's a specific motivation in play with Objectivism in trying to show itself as being the only objective way of thinking; as whether or not Objectivism is objective is up to debate, the term becomes loaded.

That said, I'm moving this article to the new proposed name. -- LGagnon 18:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I support the move. You should know that I set up a redirect a while back from "Randian Objectivism", which is much in the same spirit. Al 18:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do. My comment was in regard to user Alienus' reference to the term and should be understood within the context of the discussion in this section.Amerindianarts 05:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, cool. Crazynas 17:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Objectivism is not a philosophy? What a ridiculous claim. This one-man war against anything Rand on Wikipedia by LGanon is becoming quite evident. Imperator2 21:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

One man? I have more than one supporter here. And I'd like to point out again that ad hominem is a fallacy, and thus you have no real argument against me. I have cited sources, and thus my arguments are perfectly legit. -- LGagnon 22:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And I'd like to point out appeals to popularity and authority are also fallacies, which appear to be the cornerstones of most of your arguments. -- JToH 01:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not Objectivism qualifies as a philosophy, the name change is a good one and am among those who support it. Gag does not stand alone on this matter. Al 22:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The move was a good one and I compliment LGagnon's efforts and motives. Objectivism is a loaded term, and an article title can open up a POV can of worms. To say that Objectivism is a philosophy is to use the term in lay terms, as in "My philosophy is", which is not a very technical usage of the term "philosophy". What objectivism is, is an ontological position within the discipline of philosophy, which attempts to establish epistemological parameters for objectivity (the propensity to be objective). Amerindianarts 21:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"Philosophy" doesn't have a "technical usage." I've studied Albert Camus in Philosophy class. If that's philosophy, then surely something as systematic as Rand is philosophy. Why you guys are going so out of your way to discredit Objectivism without studying it or making any criticisms the philosophy itself is interesting. I'm going to learn about it before I condemn it. I've bought a couple books and will be studying it and hopefully improve this pathetic article. And, if I turn out to agree with it, you're going to call me a cultist, right? RJII 18:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you always jump to conclusions before without paying attention to what people say? First, you claim I cited no sources when I did, now you somehow claim that I definitely have not looked into Randism. Let me explain something you Randists don't get: even after the rest of us have studied Rand's BS, we still don't like it. I've had to bear with the absurd stupidity of The Fountainhead and I can tell you knowing full-well what that waste of trees is like that I'd rather die than be a Randist. And that was before I even read up on Atlas Kampfed. I've learned plenty and have read plenty on Randism and there's still no way I can give it credit as a philosophy. Sorry, but society will still be made up of "looters" whether they read Rand or not. And I'll gladly join them.

(removing personal attack)

And if you agree with it, that won't make me think you're a cultist. What will is if you continue to load the articles with POV as you have been doing. Hell, I don't consider Jimbo to be a cultist, because he isn't here forcing POV onto the article. I can't say the same for the other Randists here. -- LGagnon 20:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

So, you'd "rather die than to be a Randist." Ok, now we can plainly see the rational direction you're coming from. RJII 21:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

By, the way, don't call me a Randist. I know very little about Objectivism. I'm just now setting out to learn about it. After reading some material, there are some things right off that I don't think I disagree with but not sure yet. RJII 21:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Randism is a very (in my opinion, extremely) right-wing ideology. I have left-wing political views. Thus, it makes sense that I would not want to follow Randism. And given that it looks little different from fascism to me (like I said, Atlas Shrugged reminds me of Mein Kampf), I have a very good reason to have such a view of it. You can disagree with my views if you want, but I am not coming from an irrational viewpoint.

The belief in political "lefts" and "rights" is an irrational veiwpoint. It's really beyond the scope of this "talk" to go into details of either Mein Kampf or Atlas Shrugged, but I'm willing to bet that your knowledge of either book is lacking, particularly in the "essentials" department. -- JToH 01:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

And I did not call you a Randist; I called the other POV-mongers that. I simply pointed out that you seem to be pushing POV in their favor, which does not mean you are a Randist but you at least seem sympathetic to their cause (I could guess you're a libertarian or a Reaganesque neocon, but I'm not going to jump to conclusions). -- LGagnon 22:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is nither right or left wing. It supports individual rights in all cases. My question, LGagnon if you hate Objectivism as much as you do, why are you here? In any case, please refrain from personal attacks POV-mongers and such, remember to assume good faith. I certainly know that I am with you, as well as everyone else working on this article. Crazynas 23:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

(removing personal attack)

It is actually encouraged on Wikipedia for editors to "write for the enemy", and I support this policy. Who'd want to read an article on Objectivism written entirely by Objectivists?

In any case, American libertarianism is firmly aligned with the Republicans and their religious right agenda. Al 23:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, the philosophy of Objectivism and the American Libratrains are two distinct groups and modes of thought, they're not the same thing by any streach of the imagination.

There's a whole article on this, but the short version is that Objectivists are libertarians. Al 00:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

well if you say that A. Objectivists are Libertarins and B. Libratarins are aligned with the religious right then it follows that Objectivists are aligned with the religious right. Since Objectivists are not aligned with the religious right there is a fallacy in your argument, either Objectivists aren't Libertarians or Libratarins aren't aligned with the religious right, or both. Crazynas 00:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is based on a false premise, since Objectivists are aligned with the religious right. They vote Republican, not Democrat, and the Republicans are the religious right's home party. Of course, they're not voting Republican because they agree across the board with the fundie Christians. Rather, they agree on economic conservativism and anti-federalism. All three groups want to lower taxes, take away the social safety net and free corporations to do as they wish. On their points of disagreement, they hold their noses in political expediency. Apparently, they consider their commonalities more important than their differences. Al 00:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"Objectivists vote Republican, not Democrat"?? What idiotic nonsense. You made that up yourself out of nothing. Anyone who should be writing about this would have checked: Ayn Rand herself voted for Republicans on some occasions and Democrats on others (she voted for Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Democrat of New York, precisely because of here opponent's religious-right alignment and his opposition to abortion). She also obviously opposed Ronald Reagan, and did not vote for him (I think she may have sat out that election). Leonard Peikoff of the Ayn Rand Institute endorsed John Kerry in 2004. Michael Hardy 01:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

All too often, Objectivists and other libertarians try to curry favor with liberals by arguing that their libertarianism is more consistently on the side of freedom. "We're the true liberals; come join us."

Then Bush comes along and puts this claim to the test. Even though liberals see him as the anti-Christ, libertarians tend to like him, but for his religious extremism. If libertarians were really close kin of liberals, you would imagine that Peikoff's endorsement of Kerry would be wholehearted, not a tepid lesser-of-evils nod. For that matter, you wouldn't expect someone of Binswanger's stature to endorse Bush.

The truth is that libertarians are so out of touch with reality that they don't fit well in either American political party. However, they have frequently allied themselves with the Republicans and will likely continue to do so, especially when the next Republican presidential candidate proves to be a little less obviously in the pocket of the religious right. Al 01:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

And so it all comes out. This Objectivism bashing is politically motivated. Isn't the point of studying philosophy to subject your beliefs to rational scrutiny? Don't oppose a philosophy for its conclusions but because it makes unsound and invalid arguments. But, the only criticism that seems to come from you guys has nothing to do with Rand's arguments. It's just that she supports laissez-faire capitalism, therefore you oppose her. So, to discredit Objectivism you criticize everything but the arguments themselves. Either this is because you don't know her arguments or you can't come up with any cogent objections. Which is it? RJII 02:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, that's a really silly statement. Objectivism is, at heart, a political philosophy, so any objection is necessarily political. I am not a libertarias, so I cannot be expected to endorse libertarianism, whether Objectivist or not. As for Objectivism specifically, the more I've learned about its extra-libertarian aspects, the less I've been impressed. Rand just wasn't much as a philosopher, and she was even worse as a person.

Having said that, I've gone out of my way to protect this article from vandalism of all sorts, only to find that it is still deeply biased. Now I am joining with others to redress that bias. Al 03:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Who CARES what Rand was like a person? How is that relevant to anything? I'm sure all philosophers have their personality flaws. What's important is the argumentation. Are the arguments valid or not. Attacking the person, the conclusions, and the Objectivists themselves as being cultlike (etc.) is worthless. RJII 03:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

RJ, again I'm sure you never read that source I gave you. It breaks down the philosophic problems with Randism pretty well, and if you actually read it you'd see why it doesn't work as a philosophy.

And you are surprised that a person opposed to a very political ideology has different political views? If I said I was anti-Republican, would you be shocked that my politics are different? And no, this isn't just about laissez-faire. It's also about her proto-nazism, her anti-intellectualism, and her cultism. And, above all else, her anti-philosophic attitude and pseudophilosophic ideology. There's plenty of reasons not to like Rand. -- LGagnon 04:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Proto-nazism? Individualism is the conceptual opposite of fascism. In fascism, the individual lives to serve the state. In individualism, especially in Rand's individualism, the individual lives to serve himself and sacrifices nothing for the collective. There's absolutely nothing fascist about Rand's philosophy --it's the opposite. Contrast her philosophy with that of Adolph Hitler: "The Aryan is not greatest in his mental qualities as such, but in the extent of his willingness to put all his abilities in the service of the community. In him the instinct of self-preservation has reached the noblest form, since he willingly subordinates his own ego to the life of the community and, if the hour demands, even sacrifices it." --" Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf. Now that's fascism. Or how about Mussolini:"If the nineteenth was the century of the individual, it may be expected that this one may be the century of collectivism and therefore the century of the State." That you think Rand's philosophy as "proto-nazism" just reiterates how little you know of the philosophy you condemn. RJII 04:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, and it sure is a good thing that, as a socialist, Hitler was as far from fascism as he could get. :-) Extremes are hard to tell apart sometimes, eh? Al 05:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Reading these discussions, I cannot help but feel compelled to express my views. First of all, it is quite clear that many of the individuals writing against Objectivism lack the most basic knowledge about Objectivism. For instance, the individual who claims that Objectivism is associated with the religious right simply does not understand the first thing about Objectivist philosophy. Objectivism is totally atheistic and opposed to any form of supernaturalism or mysticism. Al, the individual who wrote that Objectivists vote for Republicans, unfortunately does not know what he is talking about. If he were to read Ayn Rand's writings on the subjects of conservatism and liberalism, he would learn that Ayn Rand viewed both camps as being of the same essence: pro-government, anti-freedom, the differences lying only in where the government should intervene and control. Objectivism is NOT a political philosophy. Politics is itself a branch of philosophy, one that studies the nature of governments and how men are to deal with eachother in a social context. However, BEFORE men can study how they are to deal with eachother, they must study how they themselves are to live, a topic that is covered by ethics. And before knowing how one is to live in this world, one must know the nature of the world he is in (metaphysics) and his means of understanding this world (epistemology). Ayn Rand's politico-economic conclusions are based upon volumes of epistemological-metaphysical-ethical thought, and so, as Leonard Peikoff once stated, politics is not the central theme of Objectivism. To claim that it is shows simply to the Objectivist reader that the accuser has obviously not read very many of Ayn Rand's non-fiction writings, and that he is basing his conclusions on biased sources. Objectivism is, as Ayn Rand directly stated on countless occasions, neither liberal (based on today's understanding of the word) nor conservative. Objectivism is not "proto-nazism." Objectivist politics states that the government's sole function is the protection of individual rights; other than that, hands off. (Please pardon me if this somewhat lengthy statement is not coherent or does not flow logically, but I taught myself English a few years ago, as Polish was my first language.) Adam T.

With all due respect, you've said nothing that's new to me, and much that I have already rejected. Objectivism is libertarianism formed into a religion. All the rehashed and poorly understood philosophy that she claims as original is a means towards supporing the desired political end. Politics, however, makes strange bedfellows, and the Republicans are closer to the libertarian ideal of low taxes, small government and corporate freedom than the Democrats. The goal is the libertarian ideal embodied in Galt's Gulch; finding a way to succeed while letting the rest of the world rot. Al 05:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, you're wrong. There really isn't any other way to say it. That statement is wrong, I just, I don't know how to say it any other way. It's flat out not true. Objectivism is not libertarianism formed into religion. Objectivism is aginst religion, it's aginst every variety of collectivism including facism and soicalism. What Adam T said is compleatly correct, and you'd be wise to listen. Crazynas 18:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

She's against traditional religion, but her own movement has been called a cult and psuedoreligion. Her parlor group was only jokingly called the Collective, but the joke's on them. Al 18:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, with all due respect, in all of your comments, you have never offered any constructive criticism of Objectivist philosophy as a whole. Your statements are restricted to attacking Ayn Rand's followers, misrepresenting her political philosophy and making ludicrous statements about it such identifying Objectivism with "the religious right" (among other things). One cannot discuss Ayn Rand's philosophy with you if this is all you have to say. Do you have any comments about Objectivism's epistemological views, which Rand said were central to her philosophy? What about her metaphysical conclusions, which exemplify the concept of independent reality? What you are doing, sir, is simply bringing more credibility to the accusation that most critics of Objectivism are critical of Ayn Rand the person and not Ayn Rand the thinker. Adam T.

To paraphrase my philosophy prof, Rand is either unoriginal but right or original but wrong. I tend to focus on the latter. Stuff like the objectivity of reality was around long before Rand, and was done better. Still, she made plenty of errors outside of ethics and politics. A good example would be her infallibilistic epistemology. Al 21:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It's true that some philosophers believed in the concept of objective reality long before Ayn Rand, but what she did was, in many people's view, rediscover it in an age that had forgotten it. Whether other philosophers did it "better" than Rand is a matter of opinion. Could you elaborate a bit on what you call her "infallibilistic" epistemology? To my understanding, what Ayn Rand wrote on the subject was that an individual can achieve knowledge of the world around him through sensory perception and a scrupulous process of reasoning, but anything that is not learned by objective, rational means is not knowledge. Adam T.

Uhm, anyone who says that knows nothing about the history of philosophy. The logical positivists, for example, were at their heyday when Rand was just getting started, and despite a few subtle errors on their part, they were way more advanced than Rand. Yes, there's been this destructive postmodern movement, which has to a large extent come and gone, but what's revealed by its departure is what's been here all along; a strong core of reasonable philosophers who aren't tempted by nihilism. For every Rorty, there are two Dennetts.

As for infallibilism, it is the claim that we can gain knowledge that is absolutely certain, with no possibility of error. In other words, to know for sure, not merely with sufficient justifiable confidence that any alternative is perverse. Note that this isn't merely the claim that truth is objective and we can know it: it's about Knowing, not just knowing. It's such an overblown claim that, not only can it be knocked down by mild, reasonable skepticism, but it leaves you open to attacks from radical skepticism, including postmodernism. In short, it is an embarassing philosophical error. Al 23:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Rand doesn't hold that humans are infallible --that there is "no possiblity of error." You don't have any clue of what her philosophy is about. RJII 15:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think much of your opinion that I don't know anything about the history of philosophy because it is just that: your opinion. It's easy to accuse a person with whom you disagree with ignorance, but that's not always the case. I think that logical positivism is quite irrational, and it differs from objectivism on many points. Adam T.

Is that your final answer? You keep editing the text, mostly to make it more civil. Al 03:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As I stated before, I, a native Pole, have never taken any formal English classes, and while my grammar may appear to be just fine, I spend a lot of time editing anything I may write to ensure that it says what I want it to say. Adam T.

Either way, I don't see why that should concern you. Adam T.

It does concern me, of course, because I'd hate to waste time answering something you're going to delete.

In any case, you've mostly missed my point, hence confirming it. I didn't say Rand was a logical positivist. I said that writing about reality being objective was not a rediscovery at all, since there was never a point where this concept went away. You also said nothing about her error of infallibilism. I rest my case. Al 04:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Rand doesn't hold that humans are infallible --that there is "no possiblity of error." You don't have any clue of what her philosophy is about if you think that. The fact that she thinks reality is "objective," instead of created by the mind, means that she thinks claims about reality can be true or false. Her position is that you can't make an assertion about reality (that which exists) true just because you think it's true. Human judgement IS fallible --that's the whole point. To make a rational judgement about reality, you use science and reason. She doesn't say you can't be wrong, but the opposite --that you CAN be wrong, because the nature of that which exists IS its nature regardless of your opinion of it. RJII 15:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny that a self-proclaimed non-Randist who supposedly is still studying her work can make such claims and at the same time accuse the rest of us of not reading her work. We know you're a Randist, RJII; you make it so blatantly obvious with the cult-like adherance to the absolute truth of your goddess-incarnate, your pro-Rand edits, and your blatant pro-Rand elitism. -- LGagnon 15:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Not worthy of a response. RJII 03:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, as RJII stated, Ayn Rand did not believe that humans are capable of being infallible. Can you give an example from one of Ayn Rand's written works stating that she did indeed believe this? Thank you for clarifying the logical positivism thing. Adam T.

Adam, I suspect that you and RJII, despite being students of Objectivism, are mistaken on this point. A quick google for "Rand infallibilism" turns up many entries that show how universal it is for philosophers to classify Rand's epistemology as infallibilistic.

A good starting point would be here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/16/145333/935

Al 19:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Al, I have read your link, and while I am now attempting to compile a general response to your accusation of infallibilism in Objectivist epistemology, I do just want to say that I wish that you wouldn't assume that since I admire Ayn Rand, I belong to her "cult of personality." I don't consider her to be the greatest human being to have ever lived, and I do not consider Atlas Shrugged to be the greatest literary achievement of all time. I believe that a person can disagree with Ayn Rand and still be "rational", and I believe that Ayn Rand herself was an awkward person. However, this doesn't change the validity of her ideas, most (but not all) of whom I accept to be true. Adam T.

Also, I do want to point out that I have a problem with your link's validity as the author himself states: "Since I don't have access to any of Rand's writings, I will have to base myself on second-hand sources and, especially, on the writing of Nathaniel Braden (formerly her number two) and the Objectivist Society web site to help me along the way." It's not fair for this person to write an article critical of Objectivism without first having read primary sources for the philosophy, such as her work on epistemology, "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology." Adam T.

There are problems with the article Al cites, but it is useful enough for his purposes. RJII seems to confuse epistemological infallibism with the idea that everyone has infallible knowledge of the world. That claim is obviously false: only Ayn Rand has infallible knowledge of the world. Rand's epistemology is undeniably infallibistic. That is to say, she claims that absolute certain knowledge is attainable. Remember the Objectivist mantra: A is A. Is epistemological infallibism wrong? Who knows. My own knowledge is just too faulty to be able to tell... ^iggy_talk 23:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a difference between "knowledge" and "absolute knowledge"? It's either knowledge or it's not, right? Yes, Rand thinks it's possible for humans have knowledge about the world, but that doesn't mean she think's their opinions about the world can't be wrong. She does not think human judgement about the world is infallible. She thinks their opinions can be right OR wrong --BECAUSE the word is what it is regardless of what anyone thinks it is. RJII 03:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh please, it's absolute nonsense to assert that any of Ayn Rand's admirers claim that she has infallible knowledge of the world. That is reducing the whole conversation to nothing more than meaningless accusations and offensive comments. Ayn Rand was NOT infallible, and neither is any human. Also, I think what Ayn Rand meant by claiming that man is capable of absolute knowledge is that there is no limit as to how much his mind can comprehend. If that's not correct, please correct me. Adam T.

With all due respect, I think you may be missing a perhaps subtle point. The issue is not whether Ayn was infallible on all counts (as only the most insane of cultists migth claim), but whether there is even a single truth that we can know without any possibility of error.

Rand's foundationalist approach, however, is nakedly infallibilistic, starting with axioms that you're not supposed to be able to deny. Though she is right that any direct denial is self-defeating, she's short-sighted in excluding the alternative of fallbiilistic axioms.

So, for example, I can't deny that stuff exists, but I can certainly say instead that, as far as I can tell and to the best of my knowledge, stuff exists. Note how this avoids even an implicit claim of certainty while still allowing knowledge. It may not even be clear to me how I might get this obvious foundational belief wrong, but that may well be my own limitation, or a limitation of the language I use, rather than of reality.

Is this a serious risk? Do I stay up all night wondering whether, in fact, nothing exists? No, of course not, but all the same, I have the intellectual humility to admit that I can never absolutely rule out all possibility of error, even about the blatantly obvious.

My stance is fallibilistic, hence highly resistant to attack by postmodernism, nihilism and other forms of epistemological skepticism. It is flexible but strong, whereas her infallibilism is rigid but brittle.

I hope this explains the issue better. Al 03:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

So every statement that a philosopher makes should be premised with "As far as I can tell..."? Ludicrous. All philosophers assert things as being true --it's implicit that they are making their best judgement. You just single out and attack Rand for asserting things as being true, for some reason. Is it because it's a woman making the claims? I don't understand. RJII 04:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you ever make a counterargument without personal attacks in them? You're calling the guy sexist just because you can't come up with a good counterargument? That's just pathetic (although I'm sure you, as a Randist, feel degraded by pity, so I won't waste it on you). And it shows the weakness of your own argument as all you have to defend yourself is a fallacy. -- LGagnon 04:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a Randist. I only know a few things about her philosophy. I do know that she's a metaphysical realist and thinks that people CAN have knowledge about the world --that's something I agree with. I also know, from observing your comments here, that you know absolutely nothing about her philosophy --which is strange, because you seem so intent on discrediting it. I can't help wondering if it's simply hatred for the philosopher herself --a personal thing. RJII 04:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Now we can assert that A) you don't really know Randism that well B) you are accusing me of the same problem you have. Thus, what is the problem with me supposedly not knowing Randism that well if you don't either? If we're on equal ground, I think you have no need to whine about my supposed lack of knowledge.

Though the thing is, I have studied a lot of Randism, and have found it to be thuroughly worthless. This is what happens when most of us who have studied academic philosophy take the time to study Rand: we just can't consider it worthwhile.

Oh, and thanks for further proving my point about the fact that you can't make a counterargument without making a personal attack. I suggest reading ad hominem and logical fallacy to find out just how weak you've made your arguments sound by doing so. -- LGagnon 14:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You've studied it? Great. Then you'll know all about "package dealing" and why it's false. In which case, why are you doing it? -- JToH 02:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to say it, RJ, but Gag has your number. Al 04:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to think I'm an Objectivist, even though I inform you that I'm not, I supposed that's fine. It doesn't change anything. This article is not about me. RJII 05:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Objectivism's epistemological stance is a rejection of the assersion that humans can't have any knowledge of the universe at all and that reason is impotent to comprehend reality. Objectivism states that humans can attain reliable knowledge only through sensory perception. Ayn Rand holds that sensory perception is axiomatically valid because it would be self-contradictory to say that the senses aren't sources of genuine knowledge, as making such a statement relies at least implicitly on the senses, since they are the only possible source of the alleged knowledge eof their validity. That's how I understand it. Adam T.

Rejecting extreme skepticism does not mean accepting eequally extreme infallibilism. There is a middle ground. Al 03:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be substantially the Objectivist point of view. Of course, positing sensory perception as the sole means of attaining knowledge kind of eliminates the possibility of "knowing" Objectivism to be true, unless, of course, we can determine the truth of Objectivism by the physical manifestations of Objectivist philosophy, but now we are inferring the truth of one claim from something directly perceptible and knowledge is no longer solely attainable through sensory perception, but attainable through something like "reason" — otherwise any inference of "knowledge" of Objectivism's "truth" is groundless. Now, no one could deny that sensory perception is a possible source of knowledge — what remains undetermined, however, is the reliability of sensory perception itself. Consider any sort of sensory illusion — that is any case where sensations of what appears to be one and the same thing are contradictory. Given the possibility of such deception by the senses, we are warranted in approaching our sensory data with a certain amount of skepticism (nor does Ayn Rand deny this; rather, she asserts that if something appears contradictory it is because we are looking at it the wrong way). But on what grounds we can assert that thing 'A' really is the way we perceive 'A' to be? We must again insert something like the faculty of reason — in other words, this function of reason allows us to assert that the senses are the source of reliable knowledge about the world.This is the infallibilism of Rand's epistemology: if we choose to exercise our faculty of reason, it always leads to true knowledge; false "knowledge" is the result of a failure to use one's reason. But now we run up against a wall: our perceptions, naïvely considered, do not always lead to true knowledge, and so we come to the $64K question: how do we determine which things we "know" are true and which are not? How can we know what it is we really know? Instead of going on a spree of "discovering" faculties which justify other faculties ad nauseum, the Objectivist response is as simple as it is circular: we know what we know because our knowledge conforms to the world we perceive — and this leads us right back to where we began. It is this last stage that the fallibism that Al advocates avoids, at the expense of "absolute certainty". This is not the same as saying knowledge isn't possible, but that most of it is possible only in qualified ways (that is, what we claim we know is, hopefully, our "best judgement" about the situation at hand). What this allows is the possibility of "knowing" something that appears to be true on the best available evidence, but which later turns out to be false — according to Rand, if what we "know" turns out to be false, we chose not to use our reason (and if you follow that line of reasoning out long enough, then the truth or falsity of Objectivism really is predicated on the infallibility of Ayn Rand, that is, on whether or not Ayn Rand's philosophy really was the result of the use of her faculty of reason). ^iggy_talk 13:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Put briefly, fallibilism admits that there are justified beliefs that are nonetheless false. 03:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Rand's argument for the infallibility of the senses is as follows. If a stick in the water looks like it's bent, it DOES look like it's bent. The sense aren't fooling you. The information the senses transmit to your brain are EXACTLY the result of the effect of light frequencies upon your eyes. The sense are not intepreting the world at all. They are just reacting as they are programmed to react. At the very least, you do know that the effect upon your eyes of whatever it is you're looking at is indeed the effect of that thing about your eyes. Since the senses don't make judgements, they HAVE to be infallible (actually, fallibility and infallibility can't even apply to the senses). What is NOT infallible is human judgement --the interpretation of that sense information. RJII 17:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps there is no stick in the water and you're hallucinating. The senses aren't necessarily reliable, even for telling us what we're sensing. Al 03:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're hallucinating, then you're not using your senses. The senses are reliable for allowing us to determine what effect an object has on our senses. There is no way they could be unreliable, since they don't make judgements. They always react in the way that they're situated to react in response to any given stimuli. The eyes don't tell us that the stick is bent. The only thing that makes that judgement is the brain. (According to Rand) RJII 03:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If I can't even tell whether I'm using my senses or not, how can they be infallible? Al 04:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If you can't tell whether you're using your senses or not, that's not a problem with your senses. RJII 04:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

I just archived everything up to 2006, hope this cuts down the page load time some, all the stuff I archived is in Archive4. Crazynas 05:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed the obscene size of the page and archived everything that wasn't "current", but seeing as how the two biggest discussions are huge AND current... I'm not sure when the page was renamed, but I've added in an Archive box in the process of trying to quickly do the edit... I'll add all the other archives into the box and add nav tags. --Xinit 04:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

RJII

He's been adding some more POV lately. I've fixed some of it but I don't want to be doing this alone. Al 19:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll help you out. I'm sick and tired of that guy's POV pushing. RJII 02:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Please start by reverting your changes. Al 03:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Value

This article lacks sufficient discussion of her philosophy of value. That's major. I'm trying to comprehend it but have not been successful yet. If anyone understands it, please add to the article. It needs to be explained why Rand thinks life itself has to be the foundational value which makes all other values possible. RJII 03:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Presumably, because the dead are in no position to value anything. Al 03:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's beyond that. It's not that to value something one has to be alive. I quote from Peikoff: "The distinctively Objectivist viewpoint here, let me repeat, is not that life is a precondition of other values--not that one must remain alive in order to act. This idea is a truism, not a philosophy. Objectivism says that remaining alive is the goal of values and all proper action." Rand says, "Epistemologically, the concept of "value" is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecdent concept of "life." RJII 03:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

And birds go 'tweet'. A corrolary is hardly unique or original, much less "distinctively Objectivist".

In order to value, you must live. In order to be alive, you must hold those values consistent with remaining alive. Therefore, whatever your other values are, you must value your continued existence in order to value anything else. Al 03:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

I never claimed she correctly applied these principles or understood them thoroughly. She operated on truthiness, not truth. Al 03:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

If someone can explain why she thinks that an immortal and indestructible being cannot value anything at all, then they understand why she thinks that a mortal human being must value life in order to value anything at all. For example, why can't an immortal being value an automobile? According to her, it couldn't --it would be a logical impossibility. I've been reading the arguments for that position but haven't been able to intuit them yet, so am not comfortable explaining it in the article. RJII 03:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Understanding her stance does not make me an apologist for the errors in it. For that, try a Randist. They'd probably say that, for us, living is a choice. Al 04:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

What errors? You haven't pointed out any errors in it. How can you oppose a philosophy if you're not able to point out any errors in the argumentation? (much less, even know what the arguments are)RJII 04:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I realize that some of these matters may be genuinely hard for you to grasp, so I'm going to just assume good faith and repeat myself as clearly as I can. It's an error to claim that mortality is required for values. Rand is boldly conflating Is with Ought, without bothering to draw the complex path that connects the two. I hope that explains what I said before. Al 05:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

In other words, I know her argument and know it's wrong. Thank you so much for assuming good faith. Al 05:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

I'm sure you think so. Thank you so much for sharing. Al 05:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you even know what an argument is, in philosophy? The argument is not the position --not what is being proved, but the proof itself. You don't know her arguments, so you are in no position to disagree with her conclusions. And, in no position to explain her arguments in this article. That a person has to be mortal and value life in order to value things, is not an argument. It's an assertion or conclusion. The argument is her reasoning that leads to that conclusion --something you're obviously not familiar with. I'm asking for someone familiar with her philosophy add her argumentation on "value" to the article. (And, to critique a philosophy, you don't critique the assertions but the reasoning that brings the philosopher to conclude that those assertions are true. Didn't they teach you that in Philosophy 101?) RJII 05:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a stab at something for others to kick around (I am not an Objectivist or even all that sympathetic to Objectivism, so I won't just add this in). As I understand it, however, the thing for Rand which has moral value is not "life", but specifically human life, particular conscious human life which includes the ability to judge, that is the ability to discern right and wrong. Thus, she writes, "Man’s consciousness shares with animals the first two stages of its development: sensations and perceptions; but it is the third state, conceptions, that makes him man" (This much, I take it from the discussion above, is not getting to RJII's question). Further, Rand writes that "the living organisms that possess the faculty of consciousness need to exercise it in order to survive". The function of moral judgement — that is the action of the "conceptual" consciousness — is thus the promotion of survival. And hence "when [one's morality] is set to oppose his own life and mind, it makes him turn against himself and blindly act as the tool of his own destruction." What we can see underlying this is the words she puts in the mouth of John Galt: "‘Value’ presupposes a standard, a purpose and the necessity of action in the face of an alternative. Where there are no alternatives, no values are possible." Finally, "there is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms." Now we have here Ayn Rand's own words — what can we make of them? For Rand, moral values ultimately arise only in the struggle for existence — an immortal, indestructible, conscious being (which is, from Rand's perspective, purely hypothetical and probably not even worth discussing) cannot have values because there is no standard to measure these values. Remember that values are "objective" that is, are moral judgements are either true or false. The type of actions taken by an immortal indestructible being are a matter of total indifference — whatever such a being does, it will be alive and no more "objectively" worse off than it was before. Thus, only "life", that is, only the struggle for survival in the face of one's own imminent non-existence (death) is capable of moral values — is capable of genuine choice and freedom. Freedom, for Rand, is not just the ability to do something, but the ability to produce, to produce the means of survival. And that, as I understand it, is Rand's argument. ^iggy_talk 06:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

To quote: "ill-thought out and unsystematic". Al 05:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

RJIII, in my basic understanding, here is how Objectivism explains it. Ayn Rand defines "value" as "that which one acts to gain or keep." Only living organisms can understand and follow the concept of value because it is only to living organisms that things, ideas, or situations can be good or bad. Why? Whereas matter is eternal - it changes forms, but nevertheless never goes out of existence - life is not, and must be preserved by the organism who values it. An indestructible robot, obviously not being alive, cannot pursue values. Adam T.

To be frank, that does not appear to make a whole lot of sense. If anything, I'd value life more if I lived longer. Al 03:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If you were immortal then you wouldn't pursue life, because you already had it for eternity. With a "value" being defined as "that which one acts to gain and/or keep" it would be a logical impossibility. Maybe you would appreciate it (but then, maybe not) but it wouldn't be a "value." (Speaking in accordance with Rand, as far as I understand it) RJII 03:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That fails to distinguish quality of life from quantity of life. Who wants to live forever in misery when there are better ways of living? Al 04:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Is Objectivism a cult?

This section replaces the previous section on the same subject which was tagged for 'weaseling' in that it lacked citations for its claims. This current section was moved from the Ayn Rand article where it was hardly illuminating about Ayn Rand the person and replaced by a link to this location. It has the distinct advantage of citing its sources. Of course, this section is currently overwrought with information about persons and ideas that tell us little about Objectivism but much about those who abhor it. For example, Justin Raimondo is just another guy with a political point of view, and his opinion is hardly better than anyone else's. The accusation of a "death cult" is grossly provocative and does not fairly characterize what it criticizes. I'm going to excise it for that reason. In addition, the comparison to L. Ron Hubbard & Co. is particularly far fetched. I invite other fair-minded editors to help improve this section. Blanchette 22:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not against merging two sections with the same content, but I have some issues with this change. Chiefly:

1) To an extent, it is alleged to be a personality cult that worships Ayn Rand, above and beyond her words. This links it more closely with her than with Objectivism.

2) Stuff was lost. For example, there is currently no mention of the term "randroid", even though it comes up a lot in the context of cults. Are you going to restore the lost material or am I going to have to? Al 04:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The Criticism section is like half the article. How about we split it off into it's own article? All that irrelevent stuff about cults, etc is distracting from improving the description of the philosophy itself. The rest of the article needs a lot of work. RJII 17:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't feel a POV fork is appropriate. Al 18:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No. The moment it's gone from here, you randroids will stage a deletion of it claiming it's too biased, and then we'll have no criticisms of your cult leader on Wikipedia. You randroids did it before (and not long ago), you'll likely do it again. -- LGagnon 19:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

(removing personal attack)

Gag, I agree with your conclusion, but I feel that the phrase "you randroids" is a bit too hostile to be productive. Al 19:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a tiny bit hostile, but they are being much more hostile. Unjustified deletions and vandalism is much more hostile than pointing out their cult mentality. If they could edit a bit more civilly, I wouldn't have any reason to accuse them of abusing Wikipedia. And if they weren't abusing Wikipedia, I wouldn't have any reason to call them randroids. -- LGagnon 19:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree about the inappropriateness of deleting valid material, but you do yourself no good by bordering on incivility. Al 20:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude, lay the F off. You and Alienus have at least as much of a POV as the rest of us, don't get all holier then thou. Some of us are here trying to build a better encyclopedia, I'd suggest you keep that in mind before attacting every propoent of a philosophy on Wikipedia. Crazynas 19:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, we disagree on the matter of what would make Wikipedia better. Al 20:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently. I'm working for WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V. What are you working for? Crazynas 21:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

False objectivity is bad. You see, I think we're both working for what we think constitutes WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. However, we disagree on precisely what that goal looks like. Al 21:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you even looked at my contributions to this article... they consist of tagging {{fact}} and {{weasel}} at various places, I'm not pushing a POV, I just happen to agree with most of the tenents of Objectivism so this is on my watchlist. Crazynas 22:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I was trying not to point fingers at anyone, but if you're going to take offense, Crazynas, I was refering to RJII and Laszlo, who have both edited in a very reckless manner. They are my main concern, as they have demonstrated a lack of respect for the rules of Wikipedia and for the simple concept of discussing controversial edits first. They are the ones I expect to try to turn this and other Rand articles into a big Rand shrine. I do not doubt that other Randists can edit appropriately, but I can not trust these two fanatics, as they have proven themselves to be a threat to the NPOV state of the articles.

And yes, I have an opinion. But unlike those two Randian fundamentalists, I'm not deleting everything that goes against it (in my case, things that look good for Rand). Hell, I haven't even removed the philosophy-related categories yet (as Randism is not, in my opinion, a philosophy); unlike them, I'm willing to discuss it first. -- LGagnon 22:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I'm not an Objectivist. Tell the truth. I don't know how I could be one when I'm only familiar with a few elements of the philosophy. I'm in the process of learning about it to try to help improve this article. I certainly do not edit "in a very reckless manner." I'm very careful not to write something into the article about the philosophy that I don't understand or that can't be sourced (and have attached sources to several of my edits) You really need to stop your unfounded attacks and absurd claims of "Randian fundamentalism." RJII 01:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As you've demonstrated, the proper alternative to biased pro-Rand editing is neutral editing, not biased anti-Rand editing. Al 23:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well here's the issue, I understand that there are all types of editors in all the various philosophies, and it somewhat aggravates me when you group me with a certain subset of editors using a group (Objectivist) that I consider myself part of. You see how that could be annoying? I do think that you and Alienus have valid points in this argument, but I can also see where RIJJ is coming from. Crazynas 00:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It may be best if we focus on actions, not people, and not factions. Al 04:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I was focused on actions. It just so happens that those actions were committed by people who have factionalized themselves. And thus knowing their actions, I felt the need to warn of potential repeated negative actions on their part. -- LGagnon 14:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Crazynas 05:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

POV problem isn't yet resolved

GreedyCapitalist, we haven't resolved all the POV problems yet. There's still the issue of whether or not we should be calling this ideology a philosophy. If that bothers you, I don't care and Wikipedia doesn't either. We're here to create an unbiased article, not promotional material. We're not removing the POV tag until the problems are solved. And yes, I don't like Randists that much; with the way they act here, it's not hard to see why. -- LGagnon 00:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What is it with all the people obsessed with denigrating Ayn Rand? Don’t you have better things to do? It’s like we’re a global conspiracy obsessed with taking over the world. I’m a fan, I admit. I think her ideas have the potential to change the world for the better. That doesn’t mean I treat Objectivism as a religion. Sure, a few people do, but they are a small minority in my experience. I met Dr Peikoff last year. I was pretty intimidated, but he seemed like a nice guy, genuinely interested in my life. He once remarked that he didn’t like that people always behaved so formally and seriously around him.

Anyway, this is a quote from the radio show he used to do regarding the “Objectivism as a cult” discussion. This is what Peikoff said about the "Beethoven Myth" on his radio show:

"If it were true that Ayn Rand kicked out of her circle or denounced or would not tolerate anyone who disagreed with her on things like music and painting, I'd like you to account for my continued existence as a close friend of hers for over thirty years plus being designated as heir.

"I loved Beethoven. I have a vast Mozart collection of which she knew perfectly well. I love Somerset Maugham whom she hated. [ ...]

"She knew in great detail of the conflicts -- such conflicts or disagreements as there were -- and as long as you could specify what you liked in terms that were understandable in reason (and that were not an assault on reason, as I indicated to you before) there's no such thing. It's a complete, total lie." http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4082/rtat.html

--GreedyCapitalist 00:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm "obsessed with denigrating Ayn Rand", huh? You, like the other Randist vandals here, are simply using ad hominem attacks in a very weak attempt to back your ideology rather than any real logic. And you wonder why you're considered a cult by everyone else.

And ya, there's some interest in taking over the world. Atlas Shrugged had a very Mein Kamphf-esque attitude to it (complete with Final Solution).

I almost forgot about the whole music thing. That should be added to one of the articles, with both sides of that debate represented. -- LGagnon 01:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

(removing personal attack)

You, like the other Randist vandals here are simply using ad hominem attacks. Who's using the ad hominem? You, or the Randist vandals. I have to echo GreedyCapitalist in asking you what your obsession is with attacking us Randist vandals and suggest that you take a look at WP:NPA and consider changing your attitude. Crazynas 01:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, GreedyCapitalist has repeatedly removed the {{pov}} tag, which qualifies as vandalism. That's why I've been reverting using popups, not leaving an explanatory message. Al 01:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude, check the edit history. These guys actually vandalized the articles. They aren't just vandals by my standards, but by Wikipedia's too. And ya, I avoid personal attacks. But GreedyCapitalist, RJII, and Lazslo are all Randists, and all committed some form of vandalism (mostly wrongful deletions). Thus, they count as Randist vandals. That's not a personal attack but simply pointing out what they've done. And please stop thinking I'm talking about you. You're associating yourself with the vandals just because I call them Randists when I've already said that you aren't who I'm talking about. You have no need to back the extremists just because they share your ideology (ableit an extremist variant of it). -- LGagnon 01:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Everybody who disagrees with you is a "Randist", right? RJII 02:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No, just those who claim to be one, and those who back her opinions to an extreme degree. You're the latter. -- LGagnon 02:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That's very funny. I haven't even figured out her philosophy yet, other than a few basics. You've convinced yourself that there is some "cult" of Rand worshippers out there. You're saving the world from them, aren't you? Somebody give the guy a medal. RJII 02:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)