Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Rand's views on the initiation of force

I changed the reference to Rand's holding "that government action should consist only in protecting citizens from criminal behavior (via the police) and foreign hostility (via the military)" to refer rather to criminal and foreign aggression, i.e., the initiation or threat of force. Criminal behavior could include committing victimless crimes, which Rand argued should not be crimes, and "hostility" is too weak a word to describe the aggressive intents and actions that she saw as justification for a military response. This should not be controversial for anyone familiar with her work, but I could cite portions of Galt's speech from Atlas, for starters if anyone needs evidence of this. —Blanchette 06:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but it's more complicated than that, because Rand's idea of force was peculiar. If I told you this milk expires in 8 days but it really expires in 7, Rand would say I'm effectively initiating force because I'm commiting fraud. But if I were Bill Gates and told you I was going to buy out your company, fire you, then repeat this at every company you worked at, this would not be considered force or the threat of force, since it's within my (Bill Gates', that is) property rights to buy, sell and fire at will. Now, even a die-hard libertarian would have trouble swallowing this! Given all this, how do we explain what Rand meant by force without either oversimplifying it or going on and on? ThAtSo 06:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the change to "aggression" is fine. As to your examples, they center around the idea of voluntary contracts and shouldn't be controversial. You have to negotiate your employment, and the terms of the employment contract must be honored; the government has a legitimate role in enforcing them. In fact existing law recognizes "wrongful termination" as actionable, and there must be other recourse against persecution/harrassment. Anyway, the example is extreme: Bill Gates couldn't buy out a company that wasn't for sale, and you always have the option of self-employment (consultant, etc.). — DAGwyn 14:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

A better example would be a situation where Bill Gates decides that whatever company you work for, he will pay them 10 million dollars to fire you. And if you become self-employed, he will pay your customers to stop doing business with you. So unless you are able to secure a lifelong contract with an employer (or customer(s) if self-employed), you will eventually be forced into starvation by his actions, even though he hasn't used direct force against you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.249.244 (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

As long as we're considering absurdities, why wouldn't you just approach a prospective new employer, explain that if you go to work for him he can keep half the $10M that Gates is sure to pay him to fire you, giving you the other $5M, then you can retire. — DAGwyn 16:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

What I was getting at is that you can technically avoid initiating force while still, in practice, initiating force. In an idealized free market, this is less possible, as there is an endless supply of alternatives, but things in the real world are a bit uglier. I'm not sure if there's much point discussing this further except as it affects the article. ThAtSo 02:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think what you are getting at is something that you can argue with any Randian or any other free-market capitalist on any site on the internet, more or less. That somehow economic pressures can be construed as 'force'. Precisely the position she argues against. Now if it is your position that it is NPOV to define the term 'force' within your own ideology then go for it. Query (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Rogerofdoncaster on suicide

Rogerofdoncaster just added a clearly-written and well-cited paragraph on the Objectivist view of suicide. I'm concerned, though, that it is irrelevant as a refutation of Nozick's criticism. Nozick is saying that Rand treats the value of life as axiomatic and offers no independent reason for us to value life over death. Peikoff's response continues to take the value of life for granted, only adding that sometimes life is so miserable that, as a special exception, death is better.

If a new home can be found for this paragraph, then we should move it there. Otherwise, I think we should just take it out.

For the record, I happen to agree with both Rand and Peikoff, but I have to admit that neither of them have done a great job supporting their stance, so Nozick also has a point. It's not enough for a philosophy to have some coincidentally true conclusions (even Christianity admits that murder is a bad idea!), it has to rigorously support them. One of the criticisms of Objectivism I've personally encountered is that it fails in exactly this way. ThAtSo 15:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The notion of "stolen concept" (which deserves its own article) could be applied to any claim that life is not a value. Rand emphasized "proper" life according to an organism's objective requirements (due to its existential nature). As to where to put the text, it seems appropriate for the article on Philosophical views of suicide, as a paragraph appended to its "Other Arguments" section. I wouldn't want too large a fraction of the Ayn Rand article to be taken up with criticisms and responses; the Wikipedia is not a debating platform. — DAGwyn 22:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're saying that Rand's defense against Nozick is to apply the notion of the "stolen concept", that sounds like it might be relevant, but it also needs some citation. Personally, I'm not sure if that's a strong rebuttal, since it brings up other problems, but let's not get into that. If we can find a cited rebuttal, I'm all for putting it in. For now, I think I'll go ahead and remove the irrelevant one that's there now. As for criticism, I've read that it's best to have it mixed in as opposed to relegated to a flame-attracting section of its own, so I'd definitely support putting some of the criticisms of ideas right next to where the ideas are introduced. ThAtSo 01:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that Rand uttered a defense against Nozick. What I was saying is that if you identify the meaning of "value", you see that it is inherently connected to "life"; rocks don't value anything, because they can't choose how to act. While that doesn't in itself prove that life is a proper value, it does prove that anti-life is not a proper value. (Essentially the law of noncontradiction, which stems from the law of identity.) As to mixing citicism in with exposition, I am strongly against that, because then the diversions cause confusion over what the corpus of ideas actually consists of. In other articles with which I am familiar, criticism is cleanly segregated from the exposition of the ideas, and it is clearer that way. I will look into putting the text you deleted into the Philosophical views of suicide article, although I won't be monitoring it so somebody might immediately remove it.. — DAGwyn 13:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be Rand herself; Peikoff would have been fine if only his comments had been addressed at Nozick's objection. I don't think the argument you offer actually works, for what it's worth. For example, someone could desire above all things to end suffering. Based on this, they'd live only to (painlessly) end all life. Once that altruistic (if insane) mission was accomplished, they could end their own life, too. No stolen concept or self-contradiction here, and yet it's entirely incompatible with a saner set of values.

Rand admitted that people can act irrationally. As I recall her definition of "value" was "that which one acts to gain and/or keep"; accordingly, there can be irrational values. When she identified life as a supreme value she meant a rational, objective value. Anyway, this thread doesn't seem to be leading anywhere with regard to the article itself. — DAGwyn 14:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to criticism, I've seen it done both ways, and it depends on the material. Sometimes you need to hear the standard criticisms in order to really understand what's being criticized. Other times, it's distracting. I know there's a push for integration of criticism, but I don't automatically favor that, either. I think we should take this on a case by case basis. ThAtSo 02:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right; this discussion of Objectivist ethics doesn't belong here, but it belongs in the article, at least in the form of cited criticisms and responses. By understanding how an idea is attacked and how its supporters respond, the idea itself becomes much clearer. I still don't see how calling some values rational avoids the charge of question-begging, but I wouldn't even have gotten this far in my understanding if we hadn't moved past the material that the article covers. ThAtSo 15:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"Nozick is saying that Rand treats the value of life as axiomatic and offers no independent reason for us to value life over death." How can you offer independent reason for valuing life when all values and reasoning depends on life. His argument is flawed, and it should be pointed out in the discussion. However, I agree with you the quote I put up is not the best response to his argument, therefore I will look for something else. rogerofdoncaster 15:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for life, but it's not obvious to me why it should be the highest value, and there's considerable disagreement out there. A realistic example is the euthenasia debate, where quality of life is argued to be more valuable than its duration. Another is the abortion debate, which comes down to whether we should value the life of a fetus over the woman's right to end her pregnancy. But let me take this a bit further, even out on a limb, just to be clear.

Imagine a truly militant Buddhist who has decided that the end of suffering is the highest value, and therefore goes around (gently) killing everyone so that they can no longer suffer. He does not value his own life, or anyone else's, except to the extent that it allows suffering to be ended. The only sorrow he feels when he contemplates the possibility of his life ending is that it would prevent him from completing his great mission. In fact, if he could end suffering for all by dying right this moment, he eagerly would. Now, I'm not endorsing this set of values, but there's nothing patently irrational about them, and his actions are quite consistent with his ethics.

Rand's argument is essentially that, since you need life to value anything, you must value life, but this is not patently obvious or uncontroversially correct, so we can't insert our POV in support of it. Personally, I value life as a means to an end, not an end in itself, and that end is something for me to discover and determine. As one t-shirt reads, "The meaning of life is to give your life meaning". ThAtSo 01:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am sure Rand would have said that the Buddhist's belief is in fact irrational, since it contradicts a fundamental objective requirement for life, including the very life holding that belief. I think you have fallen into the trap of thinking that beliefs can validly be mere whims. Anyway, if the criticism is merely that Rand's view (as I just expressed it) differs from the criticizer's, that isn't noteworthy. A criticism claiming an actual inconsistency might be noteworthy. — DAGwyn 21:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Handling criticisms

I'm coming to the conclusion that it's almost always better to see the arguments on all sides and make your own decision than to have those arguments swept under the carpet in the name of streamlining, and I'm concerned that a lot of this has been going on in the article. Just look at the recent edit, whose comment reads 'responses to "characters are flat" criticism which is no longer here'. Wilanthule is right about those responses making no sense in isolation, but why were the criticisms removed in the first place?

The fact that notable people have accused Rand of writing cardboard characters is important, as is the response. If we try to hide this fact, people are going to hear the criticisms anyhow, but they won't hear the refutations, so we're not doing Rand any favors by keeping all mention of this particular criticism out of the article. ThAtSo 15:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Talking about editing articles isn't as productive as just editing them. I dug up the original accusation as well as the freshly-deleted response and restored them both. So now the article answers this criticism instead of sweeping it under the carpet. What do you think? ThAtSo 15:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with this latest edit, since it does add information about Rand's writing goals. There is a problem with the general notion of padding any article with every possible argument and counterargument, since the weight of that text would distort the overall emphasis. Unless there is an especially relevant point to be clarified, the article is better off if it merely notes that Rand's views were controversial, which it does, and then explains those views (without the controversy). — DAGwyn 13:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Find me a political philosopher whose views aren't controversial and I'll show you someone who's said nothing of interest to anyone! Saying Rand's views are controversial doesn't say much, though you do have a point about article bloat.

But the introduction says much more than that, and I think it says it exactly right. The opposition to Rand's philosophy went far beyond the normally expected level of academic disagreement. (We could discuss why, but that is beside the point.) — DAGwyn 23:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at the article for a guy named Daniel Dennett, who's regarded as the leading atheist philosopher in America, both because of his own work (he wrote a book on religion called "Breaking the Spell") and his connection with Dawkins and the Brights. I don't know much about him yet, although I can say he has little in common with Rand except a reputation for polemics. Anyhow, that article doesn't try to explain his entire philosophy, just summarize it with links to more in-depth articles on specific ideas, like the intentional stance. Those details articles contain about an equal measure of explanation and criticism. As a result, his main article is short and clear, with the thornier issues given full length in their own places.

Maybe this is the sort of approach we could take here. I know there are already some articles on Rand's metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics, but they're terrible, especially after their recent rewrite. Maybe we need to plan out what a good Ayn Rand article would look like, then bolster the supporting articles so they can do their job, only then trimming down the main one. I don't know, but something has to be done. ThAtSo 16:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Details of Rand's philosophy are discussed in the various Objectivism articles, which can be "bolstered" as warranted. I think the Rand article should be primarily a biography, which in her case does mean summarizing briefly her ideas, with links to more specific articles. See the Albert Einstein article to see what I think is about the right amount of technical discussion in what is basically a biography. Note also that despite there having been lots of criticism of Einstein, the editors of that article haven't felt obliged to try to include much of it, and especially not crackpot criticisms. Much of the criticism of Rand missed (or disregarded) her point so badly that it would be a disservice to the reader to treat it as worthy of discussion in the Rand biography. The criticism of her characters not being naturalistic enough is a case in point. However, since it provides the opportunity to cite Rand about the goals of her writing, which is important information for her biography, we can allow that to stand. (I did remove some blathering that didn't justify the amount of text it occupied.) — DAGwyn 23:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll look at the Einstein article and get back to you. I'm not disagreeing with the trimming you did, since the text did look like it was trying a little too hard. ThAtSo 23:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I read the Einstein biography but I'm not sure how it applies. Einstein was a scientist who was highly respected in his own field and amazingly popular outside of it. Rand was a philosopher and novelist who is both loved and hated, though often ignored academically, and she never achieved his sort of fame. There also seems to be very little extant criticism of Einstein as compared to Rand. In contrast, Dennett is a philosopher who has many vocal supporters and detractors. Granted, Rand is probably better known than Dennett (although he seems very well known within his own field and even among lay people with an interest), but not as universally recognized as Einstein, at least outside of Objectivist and other Libertarian circles. One thing that distinguishes Rand is that she came up with a complete system, an Ism of her own, where the other two didn't, but that only makes it harder to separate her biography from her philosophy. Any ideas? ThAtSo 02:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the Ayn Rand article is in good enough shape at the moment, especially given the multiple-editor nature of the Wikipedia. Probably the Objectivism articles could stand some improvement, even though that might be hard to implement. — DAGwyn 13:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point when I said "See the Albert Einstein article to see what I think is about the right amount of technical discussion in what is basically a biography." The relative esteem the persons are held in has nothing to do with it. I was talking about keeping a biography biographical and not miring it down in technical argumentation. — DAGwyn 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Different issues. With Einstein, the question is how many formulas to put on the page. Hawkins is famous for writing that he expected to lose half his readers for each formula he used in the book, so he stuck to just one: e = mc^2. The Einstein article follows Hawkins' example, and that works. But Einstein is a scientist, not a philosopher, so it's not the same thing. In the more relevant example of Dennett, it's not clear what he stands for except when he speaks against his critics, and that would make no sense if his critics weren't allowed to speak. With Rand, there's a lot about her philosophy but very little about the criticism, so it's never exactly clear what she means. For example, her rejection of feminism only becomes apparent when you include feminist criticism and her rebuttals. Now, this may not be as obvious to you because you're already more familiar with her views, but try looking at it as if you were new to her. I think you'll find that the article is guilty of preaching to the choir. ThAtSo 13:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not about "how many formulas", it's about the appropriate place to delve into details, including criticisms and rebuttals. In the Albert Einstein article, we give only brief one-sentence summaries of his key ideas/discoveries, many of which can be and have been hotly debated. However, those debates are not embedded into the biographical article; instead they are relegated to other (linked) articles that get into technical details and discussion of the specific ideas. To set it up differently would bloat the article with irrelevancies to its main subject. Further, interspersing opposing views would tend to fragment the exposition of Rand's ideas, making them appear to be unrelated and arbitrary, rather than part of a single cohesive world view. As to her viewpoint on feminism, understanding it requires understanding, as a minimum, her view of the natural rôles of the sexes, her views on individualism and racism, and a discussion of her perception of the goals and methods of the feminist movement of the time. That is far too much to cover in this article; I would have no objection if somebody wanted to create a separate article getting into it in more detail, with a link from the Ayn Rand article. — DAGwyn 17:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't seem to find any parallel examples linked from the Einstein article. His major ideas get their own articles, but there's not a whole lot of criticism. I did find some stronger parallels from Dennett, where his ideas are both explained and criticized. ThAtSo 13:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

There's the relativity priority dispute and the claim that his wife actually had the ideas that he took credit for. Also, to a lesser degree, in articles on EPR, the cosmological constant (aka "Einstein's biggest blunder"), and classical unified field theories, and most likely in sundry associated articles. Most of the vast amount of crackpot criticism (usually aimed at the theory of relativity) has been left out of the articles. (There is a slight hint at some of this in the mention of "Jewish physics" by the Nazis, in the Einstein article.) Presumably the editors didn't deem it necessary to "present both sides of every issue". Note that the criticism included in those articles is couched carefully, not just "Dr. X disputes this." — DAGwyn 13:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The "Jewish physics" thing was obvious crackpottery motivated by politics, so I didn't even take it as serious criticism. The cosmological constant isn't criticism because Einstein is the one who called it his biggest blunder. The only controversy is that, according to some astronomers, maybe Einstein was right the first time, though I didn't see that mentioned anywhere. I also didn't notice anything about stealing ideas from his wife; what article was that in? On the whole, criticism of Einstein is almost entirely confined to the crackpot category, while criticism of Rand has lots of mistakes but usually isn't nuts. ThAtSo 15:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

One means of handling the question of "streamlining" is to condense arguments and link to sub-articles that expand upon them. The tendency to delete, instead of improve, information is anti-wikipedian, and all too often just happens to align with the personal goals of the editor. A Democrat persistantly deletes all mention of Senator Byrd having been an important Klan leader, an editor whose very income depends on the premise that black holes exist persistantly deleting any reference to MECOs from the Criticisms section of the Black Holes article, et cetera. The goal should be to fix alleged flaws, not censor the information containing them.--Kaz 19:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I peeked at the Einstein too. Oddly enough I have been working on a critique of Rand and I recently read Iassacson's biography of Einstein. I'll not the wiki Einstein has none of the romantic liaisons that Einstein engaged in covered. But there is plenty of content on Rand's single documented affair. I'd also note that there is no criticism in the Einstein wiki of those who had charged (and occasionally still do) that Einstein's Relativity gave scientific support to moral relativism. Yet critiques of those who accuse Rand for existent economic systems (that have little enough similarity to her own economic theory) that they see as evidence of her philosophical failing seem welcome here. Odd that. Query (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

A in ancient Greek

The person who removed the mention of "A=A" said in the Edit Summary that there was no letter "A" in ancient Greek. How can that be so, when Aristotle, Plato, Archimedes, et al have "A"s in their names? Should the deleted text be restored? — DAGwyn 21:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no "A" in "Ἀριστοτέλης"; it starts with the letter Alpha. Therefore, the deleted text should not be restored unless it's somehow corrected. ThAtSo 02:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to believe you are serious. When translated to English, the Greek "alpha" (denoted by "α" or "Α") becomes "ay" (denoted by "a" or "A"). Unless you have a better objection, the text should be restored. — DAGwyn 14:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The section reads: "For many years, because of a reference in Atlas Shrugged, Rand was connected to the so-called Aristotelian phrase A=A. However, it has since been determined that this notion does not appear anywhere in the works of Aristotle."

First, A IS A is distinct from A=A. Rand's phrasing is with "is." IS implies that they are the same thing, = implies that they are two distinct things which are in some respect equivalent. Second, determined by whom? ThAtSo's argument about the Greek alphabet is borderline retarded, but the section does need to be edited and cited. Endlessmike 888 20:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with most of that. However, in mathematics "=" is reserved for identity; one side of an (unrestricted) equation can be substituted for the other side in any context. I would like to see a reputable source cited for either the presence of absence of the "notion" (which might be along the lines of "a thing is what it is") in Aristotle's works. — DAGwyn 14:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The important point in regards to "=" is that Rand never used it. I'm not familiar with Aristotle scholarship, so I can't help with a reference on this one. Endlessmike 888 21:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone referred to "Ayn Rand's phrasing"...this implies that the entry is at least loosely correct, and simply needs to be edited to say that she was associated with "A is A". This certainly is an expression of the Law of Identity, and there is indeed some debate over whether Aristotle ever bothered to express it in those specific terms. --Kaz 19:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

National Review

In the Whittaker Chambers article, where it recounts his infamous review of Atlas Shrugged, it describes Ayn Rand as a "fellow National Review editor." Is this correct? If so, this fact should be mentioned in this article or it should be corrected in the other. --D. Monack | talk 19:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Rand did try to cooperate with Conservatives early in her life, and it is possible that at some point she was briefly associated with the National Review. I have no information on that one way or the other. It seems somewhat unlikely that she would want to work with Bill Buckley, however, and at any rate she soon became disappointed with Conservatism and especially distanced herself from it after Goldwater's performance in the Presidential election. — DAGwyn 21:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, but irrelevant to the question of whether she was a National Review editor. Regardless of what she did thereafter, if true it is absolutely necessary that it be included, as it's a significant position, biographically. --Kaz 19:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Rand and Kant

Should perhaps it be mentioned that despite Rand's stated hatred for Kant she appears to have completely missed the fact that one of her main ethical ideas '"Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others." is straight out of Kant? This must rank as a slight oversight on her part especially as man as an end in itelf is one of the first things you learn when you read about Kant's ethical philosophy. For all her contempt, how much did she actually know about Kant and how much was she just mouthing off? (unsigned by 90.199.0.98)

If that's your original research, then no. But if you have a reliable source that's notable for saying just this, then maybe it can fit in somewhere. ThAtSo 02:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the Kant article on Wikipedia has the Second formulation of the Categorical Imperative as:

The second formulation (Formula of the End in Itself) "says that the rational being, as by its nature as an end and thus as an end in itself, must serve in every maxim as the condition restricting all merely relative and arbitrary ends."[24] The principle is "Act with reference to every rational being (whether yourself or another) so that it is an end in itself in your maxim…", meaning the rational being is "the basis of all maxims of action" and "must be treated never as a mere means but as the supreme limiting condition in the use of all means, i.e., as an end at the same time."[28]

and the reference is

Kant, Foundations, p. 436.

and this article has Rand stating

"Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others."

And someone who'se not me making this point is

http://www.friesian.com/rand.htm#note

Are those any good for references? 172.212.227.134 14:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Not really. It's not enough for us to quote Kant and Rand; we need to cite a notable, reliable source who has synthesized this information already. Take a look at the WP:OR policy for further explanation. ThAtSo 14:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware that we can't just quote Kant and Rand but what about the link I supplied. Does that not count as a notable reliable source? Sorry if I'm getting my wires crossed here.

http://www.friesian.com/rand.htm#note

A couple of points. First, as I recall, Rand had in her early years studied the history of philosophy as presented in at least one textbook, although I don't recall which, and later relied on Leonard Peikoff (who was a philosophy major) and perhaps others for some of the details of the subject. As to the above citation from Immanuel Kant, I have trouble identifying just what it is supposed to mean, but it doesn't seem to be the same thing as what Rand was saying. She was making an argument against altruism as a moral/ethical imperative. The Friesian Web page cited above misanalyzes Rand's positions on at least of couple of counts, including (apparently) claiming that she failed to note that "being forced against their will" was relevant, and that Rand's positions would justify "crimes against nature", both of which are obviously false to students of Rand's actual writings. Note that Rand claimed to derive her philosophical positions by building them from a combination of first principles (axioms) and observation of the characteristic nature of various entities (including man, the rational being), which puts her at odds with most philosophers even when a particular conclusion may seem to formally match one of theirs. (As an analogy, if a poor mathematician started with some questionable axioms such as "1=0" and sloppy reasoning and managed to derive "1+1=2", that doesn't mean that a good mathematician's derivation of "1+1=2" has been plagiarized from the other fellow.) — DAGwyn 21:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree the quote is a bit obtruse, that was Kant's style, he was an academic philosopher of the most rigorous style rather than the more easy to understand and populist approach taken by some modern philosophers like Rand. What it is universally taken to mean is that the centre of morality is treating people as an End in themselves, rather than a means to an end. This is exactly what Rand says, give or take the dense writing style of Kant's what Rand said could be used interchangeably to express the views of either of them. They do admitiddly take different conclusions from it. I do not suggest that Rand plagerised Kant in any way. Far from it. I think it would be pertinent to express that they shared a major conclusion, despite her demonisation of Kant. As I said it also brings into question how much she actually knew about Kant and his work, given I am not aware of her addressing the point anywhere in her writings. However i am not as familiar with her work as perhaps I ought to be so I am perfectly willing to be corrected on the matter.

In defense to Dr Kelley he does not say that her position would justify crimes against nature, he said a mistake she makes with her ethical theory was the same mistake that justified paternalistic laws against 'crimes against nature', which is not nearly the same thing. Also as Dr Kelley says it would appear from what I have heard about her authoritarian tendencies within her movement, though I admit that is a matter of debate, that she did take said paternalistic viewpoint, if not in he writings, then certainly in some of her actions.90.199.0.236 12:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You're referring to Dr. Kelley L. Ross, just to clarify. Ross's article is self-published on his own website, but he is a real philosophy Ph.D. at Los Angeles Valley College. Here's an old edit I made on this same issue on the Objectivism article back in June of 2005:

"She despised Immanuel Kant but then actually invokes 'treating persons as ends rather than as means only' to explain the nature of morality,"[1] argues Dr. Kelley Ross. However, it is at least as likely that the concept, if not the wording, originates with Aristotle, who said "the man is free, we say, who exists for himself and not for another..." (Met. Bk. 1 982b27), and "Moreover, that for the sake of which things are done is the end (an end being that for the sake of which all else is done) and for each individual that thing is a good which fulfils these conditions in regard to himself." (Rhet. Bk. 1 1363b21)

Of course it was properly removed as OR, but it does bolster the arguments made here that Rand need not have borrowed the idea from Kant, and indeed, that Kant need not be credited with great originality in this thought. —Blanchette 23:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not Rand was aware of the similarity between her and Kant on that one issue, I'm sure that she considered her own position to have been reasoned independently of anything Kant did, and unlike standard practice for many academic publications, she didn't see any need to cite Kant for what was to her a noncausal similarity. It might be an interesting curiosity that on one issue they came to a similar conclusion, but without a causal connection it might qualify as "trivia".

As to the latter issue, which doesn't seem to bear on Kant at all, Rand did consider that she had developed a consistent, integrated world-view, which she labeled "Objectivism", and that while she was alive she was the sole arbiter of what Objectivism had to say. Sometimes she would lose patience with people who tried to argue with her about the implications of Objectivist principles. And certainly there were some "purges" from her inner circle of people with whom she had what she considered to be fundamental philosophical disagreements. (Nathaniel Branden reportedly intensified that practice, having rationalized much of it on the grounds of "evidence of defective psychoepistemology".) The Ayn Rand article should probably contain a bit more about the purges (NPOV of course). — DAGwyn 17:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the apparent similarities with Kant, as contrasted with her stated rejection of Kant's ideas, would be worth including if we had a reliable source that noticed this pattern. Otherwise, it's just original research. I'm all for more information about the purges, though. ThAtSo 03:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Her influential and controversial ideas have attracted both enthusiastic admiration and scathing denunciation.

Some kinds of "balance" simply cause bloat. "Her ideas have attracted both enthusiastic admiration and scathing denunciation" would work as well. Bacrito 11:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when I wrote the comment above, I hadn't noticed that someone had taken the trouble to make a (very nice) audio recording of the text. Sorry about that - I would have refrained from minor quibbling about the prose if I'd realized. Bacrito 01:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't even consider it "balanced", since it is highly US-centric. Outside the US, Rand is largely ignored, so there is little means for her to be "influential and controversial". --213.209.110.45 08:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is-- if everyone hasn't heard of her, she can't be controversial to those who have?--Gloriamarie 14:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinion. Now, if you have a reliable source to back it up, then maybe there's a place for it in the article. Until then, there isn't one. ThAtSo 11:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence in question entirely, as it doesn't really say much. Every well-known idea has "attracted both enthusiastic admiration and scathing denunciation." LaszloWalrus 16:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That is simply not true. One of the most important things for someone being introduced to Ayn Rand to be informed of is the extreme degree of controversy surrounding her ideas, which has far exceeded almost anything else I've seen or heard about. — DAGwyn 18:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Karl Marx's ideas have also "attracted both enthusiastic admiration and scathing denunciation"; the same applies to the ideas of Locke, Jesus, Muhammad, Plato, Augustine, Aristotle, Jefferson, Rousseau, Heidegger, Chomsky, Rorty, etc. I don't see what's special about Rand in this regard. In any case, I'll let you respond before reverting it. LaszloWalrus 23:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It would also be appropriate in an introduction to Karl Marx, because again, it is one of the primary things one needs to know about the subject. The vitriol directed against Rand was excessive, probably because she was seen as a real threat to the established order, unlike most academics who have little direct popular appeal. — DAGwyn 15:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, certainly (to the last sentence). If I am pushing a "philosophy" that is both morally pernicious and easily misunderstood to be even more harmful, and if additionally I am incredibly popular, damn right if you see that as a threat. Of course saying it like that "was seen as a real threat" is loaded with the implication that she might debunk a powerful and corrupt "establishment." Anyway, I don't see how that reinforces the claim that the vitriol was excessive. That's certainly as ridiculous as saying her exposure has been excessive. Yes, perhaps societies make mistakes, but regardless Ayn IS well known in the US and many people ARE outraged by her ideologies. That's an objective fact. 24.59.106.118 01:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The article needs a much longer, summarizing intro, which could perhaps go into more detail on the above sentence-- one paragraph for such a long article doesn't suffice.--Gloriamarie 14:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Deeply in love?

FTA: "She discovered Victor Hugo at the age of thirteen, and fell deeply in love with his novels."

Is it just me or does that sound a bit over the top for an encyclopedic article? I'm not seeing a source that specifies her love (deeply or otherwise). Would "throughly enjoyed" be an acceptable replacement for "fell deeply in love with"? 198.6.46.11 16:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No, "thoroughly enjoyed" is not the same thing. I see nothing wrong with the existing wording. — DAGwyn 17:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't? The statement is totally unsourced. All the associated webpage says is that she her "ideal curriculum" would include Hugo in literature. "Throughly enjoyed" may be too strong. In fact, I'm not seeing any source that she read Hugo at 13. Do you have a source? 198.6.46.11 21:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a well-known fact. I found plenty of references, including: The Romantic Manifesto (Hugo has more Index entries than any other writer), A Sense of Life (by Paxton), the authorized biography "Who Is Ayn Rand?" (by Branden), and in Rand's introductions to Hugo's The Man Who Laughs and Ninety-Three. For example, in the latter she says: "Victor Hugo is the greatest novelist in world literature". — DAGwyn 06:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Fell deeply in love" is (1) unsourced, and (2) would be unencyclopedic, even if it were sourced. We don't have to use the same cutesy phrases that a source uses. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a magazine. Tragic romance 07:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Edited to be more true to the source and encyclopedic. Also toned down the flowery language. WNW3 15:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Broken link.

I have been removing broken links to Objectivist politics but I cannot remove the one in this article because I have no interest in creating an account. I would ask that someone with an account remove the link. 67.90.197.194 17:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Rand as an anarchist?

There doesn't seem to be any mention of Rand and anarchism in the article. I'm wondering if it's worth a mention somewhere, as her views on the state are quite anarchist, if not typically left-wing anarchist. She's refered to as somewhat of a founder of anarcho-capitalism in Lyman Tower Sargent, "A New Anarchism: Social and Political Ideas in Some Recent Feminist Eutopias" in Marleen Barr (ed.), Women and Utopia: Critical Interpretations, University Press of America, New York, p. 7. I'm no expert on Rand's views and elsewhere on Wikipedia it seems to suggest that Rand is anti-anarchist... but I think that there's a good case for linking Rand with anarchism. On the Objectivism page under Culteral Impact it quotes from the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, saying that "Rand’s political theory is of little interest. Its unremitting hostility towards the state and taxation sits inconsistently with a rejection of anarchism". Perhaps this comment is more for the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) page than the Ayn Rand page. I'm a bit of a newbie to editing wikipedia, so some thoughts would be welcome.Mozric 00:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Rand was opposed to anarchism. She saw a proper role for government in protecting the natural rights of its individual citizens against those who would threaten them with force, whether domestic or foreign. She supported a proper system of objective law, contracts, law enforcement, and military. It may be true that some sources claim she was anarchist, but that merely shows their ignorance on the matter. — DAGwyn 03:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ayn Rand was a Minarchist. Period.Justice III 06:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Looking at the page on Minarchism, Minarchism seems heavily linked with Anarchism. But I guess it's not in the scope of this article to theorise on such matters, unless some good sources arguing the same can be found. Thanks, Mozric 01:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Minarchism is linked with anarchism only in the way that, let's say, New York City is linked with Washington DC. Both are cities, but they're different ones, and if you're in one, you're not in the other.--Gloriamarie 14:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Chronology

The article was revised to say that The Collective wasn't formed until after the 1950 move to NYC. I thought it existed and was called that while Rand still lived in a house designed by Neutra in CA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DAGwyn (talk • contribs) 18:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

'Native American' quote

The quote I removed was referenced to Wikiquote [2] (not a reliable source) where it attributed the quote to an Q&A session that may or may not be published and needs to be verified. See that article's Talk page[3] for more on this problem.—Blanchette 22:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I was at the session where she spoke to this. Certainly it was her opinion that civilized societies could justly take over territory from tribal societies, and she said much the same about Israel vs. the Arabs. — DAGwyn 03:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Praise

What an outstanding woman, she just became one of my personal heroes.

But I'm stopping to note that I think this is a great article that does much credit to her. I learned so much from just a quick skimming. I doubt I'll have much to contribute here, however, I expect I'll be back to keep learning more.

Contributors here have my sympathy, controversial writers will always have energetically contested entries. Please err in favour of quoting the writer's controversial opinions, rather than in commentators evaluation of them. It is the fact that this article does just that in so many places that makes it tower above some other contentious articles at Wiki.

Peace. Alastair Haines 01:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks. For the most part the editors (of this and of other articles I participate in editing) try to maintain an "objective neutrality". That's especially hard when the subject tends to polarize people, editors included, into opposing camps.

Things should get interesting once the Atlas Shrugged movie hits the theaters. Like it or not, Angelina Jolie is likely to be treated by the press as a spokesperson for Rand's ideas; here's hoping she does okay with it.. — DAGwyn 05:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Introduction too short?

Somebody flagged the intro as "too short" according to Wikipedia:Lead section guidelines. While it certainlt is "too short" by those guidelines, the problem is that the guidelines are silly, essentially calling for the intro to serve as a complete article in itself. The intro we currently have strikes me as one of the best in the Wikipedia, if one applies rational standards and general historical guidance concerning the purpose of introductory sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DAGwyn (talk • contribs) 23:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The basic idea is that the lede should contain a line or two summarizing each of the sections below; that way the reader has a hint of what to expect, and can even skip to the part that piques their interest. The intro here says nothing about her biographical details, the objectivist movement, her stances on the particular political issues, or her legacy. Don't you think that's somewhat deficient?

The Introduction should not present details; it should provide a mere framework of understanding which the rest of the article will flesh out. There is a Table of Contents right alongside it, if the reader wants to see what to expect (it even helps him to "skip to the part that..."). — DAGwyn (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Summaries are not details. Would you honestly object to the lede containing something like "Rand started her career as a playwright before becoming a novelist", "She inspired the Objectivist movement?! Skomorokh ^incite 13:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It depends on how much the most important facts are diluted by the additions. As it stands the lead paragraphs provide, apart from birth & death, almost exactly what somebody who had never heard of Ayn Rand needs to hear first. They don't really need to hear that she was employed as a screenwriter or wrote a few plays, and elevating that information to the same level amounts to treating it as of comparable significance, which is very misleading. Also, "She inspired the Objectivist movement" is derivative from "She developed a philosophy which she called Objectivism" and doesn't need to be stated in the summary. I suggest that if the lead paragraphs are to be expanded, we exhibit drafts in the Discussion article first, and after some consensus is reached then copy the result into the main article. — DAGwyn (talk) 03:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A reasonable suggestion. Skomorokh ^incite 03:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Another point, which I had in mind when I placed the template, is that this is a pretty good article and could have a chance at WP:GA status, but that would require a proper lede. Skomorokh ^incite 12:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Photo needed

Somebody, perhaps User:Skomorokh, removed the file ayn_Rand1.jpg on the grounds that it was copyright and could not be used (in connection with the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article, but it affects this one too). — DAGwyn (talk) 11:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not really how it works - I only removed the link to the image from the Objectivism article; it does not effect the image itself. It can still be linked from here. While it lacks a fair use rationale here also, its use is easier to justify since the subject is dead and no free images can be created. Let me know if you have problems seeing the image here. Skomorokh ^incite 12:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was certainly broken; instead of a picture I saw just something like "{{image:ayn_Rand1.jpg}}". Note it was a lower-case "a" and maybe the picture had just been renamed using an upper-case "A"? Anyway, thanks for restoring it (it's visible now). — DAGwyn (talk) 13:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Now what we still need is a photo of Rand that could be used in the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article. (I don't think Ilona's portrait of her would be available for that use.) Maybe the Ayn Rand Institute could grant permission to use one of the photos they have.. — DAGwyn (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the ARI are exactly the copyfighting infoanarchist type, but good luck! I searched Flickr but there were no free images of her. Skomorokh ^incite 13:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting "copyfighting", but rather granting of permission by a copyright holder. That ought to be acceptable for the Wikipedia; even if it doesn't meet their literal policy, it ought to meet the intent behind it. — DAGwyn (talk) 13:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the difficulty in squeezing a copyfree image out of the intellectual property zealots at the ARI Skomorokh ^incite 13:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Rand and Kant

A negative influence is as important to a philosophy's development. Your revert is unsound and only biased. She spends countless paragraphs on how his influence is the wrong influence in HER philosophy, thus she must have been influenced by Kant to look to refute him - thus he was influence if not WHY was her time writing about KANT! By your logic - Nietsche should be removed, since she barely mentions him in her writings and doesn't follow him in her philosophy. If Kant can't be there, neither can Nietzche. I expect my revert to be revert since Wikipedia has little hope of being objective! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.210.83 (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is silly. All of the other influences are positive influences, and then there is Kant. By comparison to the others, "influences" clearly means positive influence. And that's how it should be. Else we would have to include every person she had a negative reaction to, from Skinner to Rawls. Unless there is reason to think her reading of Kant was instrumental in her FORMING her philosophy, he should be out. Endlessmike 888 03:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

And: "Wikipedia has little hope of being objective!" Random dig at Wikipedia notedEndlessmike 888 03:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlessmike 888 (talk • contribs)

Rand was influenced (positively) by Nietzsche early in her career, as she herself has said. However, her philosophy neither follows Kant nor is a reaction to Kant; she did criticize his influence on several occasions, but that is not evidence of an "influence", any more than Rush Limbaugh being considered an "influence" for Al Gore. The Kant section of the Rand article is present as a criticism of her interpretation of Kant, not a criticism or description of her own philosophy. — DAGwyn 22:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I give up Endless Mike/DAG - if we are only admitting influences by their positive influence then we are missing the point of NPOV. As for your statement "Unless there is reason to think her reading of Kant was instrumental in her FORMING her philosophy, he should be out." I think it is obvious that Rand's philosophy was founded on discrediting her reading of Kant therefore Kant influenced her. I mean from my reading of Rand - she blames altruism on Kant (im paraphrasing). I mean if there is a section devoted to Kant - it is absurd not to see a small little line that says Kant is a influence in her thinging. If we are going by only positive then you are missing the story. Every philosopher is influenced for good and bad and has their archenemies in thinking. Its like omitting David Hume from Kant's influence - Kant's philosophy was all about dismantling Hume's thought. It is sheeringly absurd that DAG is pickering over a name in a section. As for Endless's arguement that we shoudl add Skinner by my logic - no Skinner is minor and not of revelance - if Rand and Kant can't be seperated in the sentence, Kant belongs in that section. If anyone is going to understand Rand, Kant is there. But hey im powerless I only have my vote - because if i revert back it will be a waste of time. Its just absurd that you would have a section of Kant in Rand's article but no mention in a little box that states influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.210.83 (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Rand's philosophy was not a reaction to Kant. Some of her later writing was, but that is not sufficient to label Kant an "influence" in general. We're applying the same standard here that has been applied in other Wikipedia articles on thinkers of all kinds. — DAGwyn 17:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well seeing from the amount of edit control you have, it wouldn't matter anyway to argue with you - but your rebuttal is severely lacking - if you can concede the point that her later writing was a reaction to Kant, then I feel my point was made and you just have other interests that you are serving in omitting a name to a box! Her philosophy is everything she saw as Anti-Kantian, her followers talk about their great archnemesis as Kant - but no no its not an influence on Rand's thinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.210.83 (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

She also denounced Joseph Stalin; does that mean that Stalin should be listed as an influence? The argument doesn't hold water. Unless evidence can be presented that Kant's ideas influenced the formation of Rand's ideas, he's not an influence in the sense used in the Infoboxes. I don't recall seeing any such evidence. — DAGwyn (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Feminism, Woman president comment

I have been searching for any kind of quote which states that Ayn Rand said anything about women being "not psychologically suited to be president." I cannot find it anywhere, and I didn't see it in her 1964 playboy interview. Unless someone can show specifically where she states that at, I am going to be editing the paragraph. ArthurJohnJones (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)ArthurJohnJones

I beleive it's in Philosophy: Who needs it? Ethan a dawe (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's in The Voice of Reason, and the Objectivist Dec. 1968 Ethan a dawe (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I can look it up if it's still needed. The idea, as I recall, was that no woman with a healthy outlook should want the job. Also as I recall, the supporting biological/psychological argument wasn't backed by much more than mere assertion. My opinion is that Rand got a lot of her ideas about psychology from Branden, and he has since changed his mind on many such issues. It is ironic that Margaret Thatcher, who was the British equivalent of President, was an admirer of Rand. — DAGwyn (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the article should be worded differently if Rand never outright said that women were not psychologically suited to be president, also if it wasn't stated in the playboy interview, and stated somewhere else, that should be changed.161.133.8.248 (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Rand did in fact maintain that there was an innate psychological basis for women not being suitable to be President. I'll try to remember to look up the various articles to see if there is a suitable quotation. — DAGwyn (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that the text was edited some time ago to address all these issues. — DAGwyn (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Major inroad.

A major inroad into academic territory is the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies (JARS). What is major in this context? that the journal is published? well that's not a major thing. That it's a academic journal? well it's not a particular well-regarded one - that whole section seems to be full of weasel words. --Fredrick day (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)