Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Why so much controversy is not mentioned in the article?

One thing that is not mentioned in the article is why Rand and her _______ (fill in whatever you like: sect, or philosophy, or whatever) are the subject of so much disagreement and controversy among so many? Just look at this discussion page for proof. I mean, in a certain sense she at least had the power to create something that has us here disagreeing about her. Relative to what she achieved while alive, compared to other famous (or infamous) people, I find a bit surprising the amount of passion she can still stir both from the pro and from the anti camps. Shouldn't we mention this in the article? Anagnorisis 00:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be interesting to mention, but it would count as original research if all we have to back it up is this talk page. Outside sources are what counts in adding content. -- LGagnon 01:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

But of course! I am not suggesting to use this page as support for mentioning that in the article. I am only using it to try better conveying here what my point was. I think this page is just representative of the strong passions or convictions that Rand generates in both directions (supporters and opponents). Now, digressing a bit, if something is obvious and nobody disputes it, do we need an outside source? I mean, there is no source in the day article to support the statement that a day is 24 hours long. Anagnorisis 01:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Rand on Kant

If this page ever gets opened up again for editing, a sentence we need to address is the following, from the section where Rand's dislike of Kant is discussed. " It is not in fact clear that Kant would have disagreed with such a weak formulation of realism." I think this is a rather weak representation of Kant's philosophy versus Rand's. If we are to be "balanced," given the savage nature of Rand's attack on Kant (calling him a monster, etc) it would be more NPOV to make it clear that Kant isn't exactly what Rand claims (or rather, thinks) that he is.

I have my own opinions as to why Rand is so anti-Kant (to me its pretty clear that she came to his philosophy through the German idealists, who Kant wasn't overly fond of, she hadn't read the primary sources, and she conflated the german term "kritik" with the english term "criticize)but my opinions as to the source of Rand's anti-Kantian bias are irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that Rand, in her works, misquotes and misargues Kant in a dreadful way, and that needs to be drawn out more. There's a lot of talk around here about citations, so here are some:

From Rand's "Philosophy: who needs it?"-

"I can't prove it, but I feel that it's true." You got it from Kant. Or: "It's logical, but logic has nothing to do with reality." You got it from Kant. Or: "It's evil, because it's selfish." You got it from Kant."

The problem with Rand's attack here on Kant is not that it lacks subtlety or misinterprets the philospher's meaning (as her attacks on Hume do), but that, it is simply untrue, or false at the root of it. I hate to use such an inflammatory word, but Rand here is lying. Kant never did, and never would, make the statements or express the toughts that Rand attributes to him. KAnt is, despite Rand's claims that he is anti-rational, to a great degree the father of modern rational inquiry.

Kant is a tough read. I know because I spent a great deal of time at University reading him, and he is perhaps, in terms of grammatical construction and whatnot, the most torturous and truly German of philosophers. Nevertheless, it does not excuse Rand from her duty of reading Kant before she criticizes him. It is very clear, from even a cursory examination of the Critique of Pure Reason, that Kant is not anti-rational. This is from the first paragraph of the work.

"Time was, when [Human Reason] was the queen of all the sciences; and, if we take the will for the deed, she certainly deserves, so far as regards the high importance of her object-matter, this title of honour."

Additionally, the word "critique" in the title does not mean "attack", but rather, the critical application of reason to the esamination of reason itself.

The most egregious of Rand's misquotations is the claim that Kant would say "I can't prove it, but I feel [italics added] that it's true. (cited from above work by Rand). Compare this to what Kant actually says in The Critique of Pure Reason:

"As regards certitude , I have fully convinced myself that, in this sphere of thought, opinion is perfectly inadmissible, and that everything which bears the least semblance of an hypothesis must be excluded, as of no value in such discussions. "

It doesn't get any clearer than this. And I think this must be brought out within the text of the main article. Rand's "Kant is a monster" contrasted witht he article's "Kant might not agree with Rand" is horribly weak.P97dav45 12:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of what is said above seems like original research to me.

"Rand's "Kant is a monster" contrasted with the article's "Kant might not agree with Rand" is horribly weak."

I agree. On the other hand I don't see a simple solution to this problem unless someone has a scholarly criticism of Rand's treatment of Kant that can be referenced. 24.17.165.124 02:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This isn't original research- it's a simple reading of the source material. If simly quoting a text counts as original research we have a serious problem with making any claims at all in Wikipedia. Kant's writing say what they say, so do Rand's. Why not just insert a quote from the critique? P97dav45

If you're looking for some serious academic writing on Rand and Kant, you might want to look at http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/objectivity/walsh1/ This could provide some useful information as well as a serious third party source. According to this obit http://webscript.princeton.edu/~paw/memorials/memdisplay.php?id=2396 the author was a PhD in philosophy and a professor at several colleges, and thus I would say he's a legitimate academic source. Huadpe 19:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A "serious third party source?" Why do you need a third party source when you are quoting text? Do I need yet another source to verify that source? further removal from a primary source weakens the "chain of evidence" it does not make it stronger. Kant says what he says, and Objectivists have a hard time dealing with that. Because (as the article you mentioned above makes clear) they have to go through torturous psuedo-exegesis of Kant to make it appear as though Rand hasn't made a mistake. That's strange in of itself (is Rand like Jesus? If so, that's curious. Why not simply place, in the article (after Rand's attack) "however, Kant's work XXX states ZZZ." If that makes Rand look bad, well, tough. P97dav45 15:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

How do you know that Rand and Kant use the same definition of reason? They don't, by the way. A single quote is entirely insufficient to prove contradiction. Kant uses words in a very explicitly defined fashion, and these are in many cases different definitions than those that Rand uses. That matters when comparing them. Kant's work as a whole and Rand's work as a whole do require expert analysis before one can draw conclusions about contradictions in this regard. Philosophy is more complicated than a series of quotes. Huadpe 04:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Rand's work is neither complicated nor deserving of expert analysis. Kant would have laughed at her.

Amusing

Rand advocated the individual as the final arbiter of reality, so I find it quite humorous when an organization such as Wikipedia, based on encyclopedic concepts of multitudes of individuals, has such a hard time defining (outlining, delineating, etcetera) her and her philosophy. It is a resounding indictment of her success in forming her ideas. I think Rand would be happiest (if somehow miraculously still alive) if this organization abstained from defining her and her work any other way than leaving the names of her books under her name, possibly a picture and dates of birth and death. Of course, most others will not agree with me as the beloved majority rule must be observed. ~RJM

Reply: We are not amused. Ayn Rand advocated the exact opposite of the amusing nonsense: "the individual as the final arbiter of reality." Rand's unique philosophic motto is: "Existence exists." That is, independent of any individual(s). Just as we need to flesh out criteria, criterion by criterion, in debating specific issues in Rand, we need to refer to Rand's actual text, specific piece for piece, in terms of running commentary. Too many clearly seem not to know anything of Rand's actual text. AOluwatoyin 08:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Finally you admit sources count. Now, could you please use actual MLA citations to point them out instead of the Rand-esque, academically weak "see this piece for more info"?

Also, I'd like to note that "existence exists" is hardly a unique phrase. Any idiot could throw two similar words side by side. All of Rand's supposedly brilliant short anti-thoughts ("Existence exists", "A is A", etc) were far from profound, only showing her disdain for actual thought, as all of them essentially said "don't think about anything deeply; what you see is all you get". -- LGagnon 17:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually "A is A" is Aristotle's Law of Identity. You might not think it's profound but plenty of philosophers of the past several centuries would disagree with you... --Bookgrrl 02:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Further, there is considerably more content in the principle than the preceding criticism implies; ironic when part of the criticism was about not thinking too deeply. In the full context of Rand's own presentation, after such a postulate there was generally an elaboration such as "and in the act of grasping that, ..." — DAGwyn 20:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"'Reply: Re: We are not amused'" If the individual does not decide (arbitrate) what is presented by existence existing, who will? A corollary of existence existing is that each existing informed mind must think for itself. So, perhaps you thought I meant that the individual is the final 'creator' of reality. This is not so. Regardless of how fleshed out your criteria becomes, criterion by criterion, I must still have to agree with the content of this organizations decisions on who Rand is and what she left to posterity. If I didn't do so, acting as the final arbitrator of my existence (or my interaction within reality) who will? Existence and existents hold the validity (or lack thereof) of my perceptions, my concepts, my decisions, consequences of my ethics, etc. Not Wikipedia. Certainly not you who thinks such a thought nonsense. And I have all her texts, I'm quite aware of her ideas. Making assumptions without checking on premises is what landed Rand's page in this editing nightmare. Also, Rand didn't form the thought Existence exists (existence qua existence) or A is A, Aristotle did. She resurrected the import of the phrase and logically extended the consequences. Its been fun. ~RJM

Warning and Reply to LGagnon: I don't know what you mean by "sources." Again, Rand is unique in demanding rigorous, objective standards. "Sources" are not made equal.

I am going to issue a warning to you in terms of how you continually employ ugly juvenile terms like "idiot" in the context of academic discourse. I hereby warn you to cease and desist with regard to such unprofessional, personal language. Being a freshman is no excuse for foul language. Avoid vulgarian modes of response. Reply strictly to the issue. Let this be your actual, last warning in this regard. AOluwatoyin 08:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply to ~RJM and further reply to LGagnon: Existence exists is not merely Aristotelian. It extends and deepens the genre. It is a call to metaphysical primacy ("A is A" is not merely logical for Rand) that does not reduce to primacy of the senses (empiricism). We must not confuse "tools of cognition," how we come to know, with what we come to know and that we do come to know.

Rand goes beyond the matter of who comes to know (rational men). Her focus is on how rational men ratiocinate, the symbiotics of perception and conception. AOluwatoyin 08:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, do not mess with my comment; that is poor ettiquette of you to delete and/or change part of it. If you had gone any further, I'd report you for vandalism.

Second, I referred to Rand as an idiot, not you. Sorry, but I don't see how "for example, see the works of Hegel and Kant" counts as the type of citation a supposed professional philosopher would give.

And once again you resort to a personal attack by calling me a "freshman" (I'm actually almost done with my second degree, for your info). You're getting reported again. -- LGagnon 20:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

For some strange reason, the "is she or is she not a philosopher" issue managed to get sorted out satisfactorily on the main "Objectivism" page, though not without similar discussion. Just to repeat: if the question is about the content of the texts, as opposed to some group's perception of them, there is no question that she is a philosopher. I don't even think that most academic philosophers would disagree with that classification. What they would say is that she's not a very good philosopher. We ought not to use "real" and "good" as synonyms, even implicitly. The best characterization I've seen anywhere by an objective source is Richard Posner in Public Intellectuals, A Study in Decline, where he classifies her as a nonacademic public intellectual (and claims that she is one of the four most influential of such since WW2, with Betty Friedan, Rachel Carson and William F. Buckley, none of whom I would describe as philosophers). An argument could be made that partitions AS into fiction, FNI into intellectual history (tricky, since it is philosophy's history), and all the other essays into political advocacy or cultural criticism. But that would still leave ITOE and the first essay in VOS. They are nothing if not philosophy: what nonphilosophical genre discusses the problem of universals in Plato and Aristotle? Or the Is-Ought problem in ethics? There's no escaping it by any reasonable standard. And the proof is that Nozick refuted her take on the latter in an academic philosophy journal article, "On the Randian Argument." How is it possible to be a professor of philosophy at Harvard, refute a philosophical argument in a philosophical journal, and not be talking about philosophy? And if it is philosophy, wouldn't that make the author a philosopher? Seems like a no-brainer to me. Bad does not equal nonexistent. Routledge Encyc. Phil. put it this way: she's in, she has an entry, and the entry says she's no good. That, BTW, is about as standard standard reference material can get, yes?

And BTW, if you want to really get the edit wars started, list "Marx" as an influence. I would (and have the credentials to be a reputable source if uncloaked), and so would one of the leading (damn near only) published academic press Rand scholars, Chris Sciabarra. The parallels are extensive. And, BTW, most would classify Marx as a philosopher, though I think that such a classification raises exactly the same problems to the same extent as here.

As for the LeVay thing, I don't know if we're past it, but if it stays, I'm heading over to the Hegel entry and adding "Mussolini" as "influenced by", which is also true, and ever so helpful in all sorts of unspoken ways. I appreciate LGag's efforts a lot--we need balance--but what I want is balanced balance, not this endless teeter-tottering between what seems to me contrary POVs. Agent Cooper 17:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

As one source pointed out (it was either in this talk page or another Rand-related one), there are academics who do consider her work to be pseudophilosophy. This, at the very least, should be mentioned. And given that such varying views exist, would it not be POV to assert that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, she is a philosopher? I do not intend to remove any and all claims that she is one, but to balance the article by showing that there is a dispute over whether or not she deserves the title. You may find some sources that consider her merely a bad philosopher, but other sources will claim she doesn't even deserve that. I think that these opinions deserve to be balanced, not treated in a way that makes the article contradictory. -- LGagnon 14:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. Yes, you can say that some people say that she's not a real philosopher; again, sourcing this is going to be difficult in the same way that sourcing the general academic lack of enthusiasm was difficult (though we got there in the end!). Most academic philosophers have a kind of tacit idea of what is and is not philosophy, though none can define it, and most proposed definitions would be rejected. There are clear cases: I think that almost all academic philosophers would say that Conversations With God is not philosophy. There are certain areas where for historical or political reasons, something may be included that would otherwise not be included--for example, in the past decade or so, some introductory philosophy classes have begun to add Native American religious texts. Almost no academic philosophers would regard these as philosophical texts if they were written by anyone other than who they are written by. But that aside, I think that there is very little disagreement about what is in and what is out. Now there is a secondary phenomenon which is not uncommon, in which, for example, Analytics may say about some instance of Continental philosophy that it isn't really philosophy (though oddly, this is seldom reciprocated--the response is more like "Analytic philosophy is shallow"). But in almost every prominent instance, there will also be people saying that the figure is a philosopher, is good and is important. I think that everyone understands that when these kinds of discussions go on, the upshot is that everyone agrees that the figure is doing something that resembles something another "canonical" figure has done, but that they are disagreeing on whether it is being done well or importantly. In these kinds of cases, however, the horse is out of the barn and there is a debate over whether someone should go fetch the horse. The Rand situation is different. First, the amount of discussion is dead minimal--despite some change on this front, the presence of Rand on campus is mostly due to students. To the extent that there is non-Objectivist talk about Rand, though, I think that Rachels is probably representative: he knows that some of his students will be Objectivists, and he knows that they have views and arguments which are philosophical in character, but which prevent them from being receptive to anything else, so these arguments must be rebutted early or else no further teaching can happen. So he rebuts the arguments, in a standard philosophy textbook. Now that's not by itself dispositive, because I will admit that that kind of phenomenon involves a kind of shading off into darkness--a textbook will sometimes address an argument widely accepted but SO bad that philosophers won't see it as something to *discuss* so much as to warn against. I think I would characterize Intelligent Design this way: almost no one in science thinks that it reaches the starting gate of being worthy of consideration qua science, but feel that because it gets considered by students and the public anyway, there needs to be a hygenic discussion to undo its influence. And yet very few people would say that ID is *therefore* science because a scientist discusses it in his professional capacity.

So my question is: how should Rand be thought of? How is Rand thought of? And I guess if I'm talking only about perceptions and not what I personally think, I guess I'd say that it's closer to indeterminate--the response by analytic philosophers is akin to their response to continentals whom they themselves concede are philosophers but not their sort. But the response of continentals is that she's just pro-capitalist ideology akin to the writings of Newt Gingrich. And the response of the faculty who must do duty with intro ethics courses is that she's something akin to ID--you don't quite want to say that it is in but bad, but you don't quite want to say it's out and hence not relevant. And there there's the very small handful who think that all these responses are just biased, that she has something interesting and different to say worth considering. I think my comments have been *normative*--I think that she should be treated exactly the same way that many Continentals are because objectively, she's no worse than most of them, but that she doesn't because of the Left bias of Continentals. Conversely, if the Analytic way of thinking her beyond the pale prevails, well pretty much all Continental philosophy has to go too (which to me is a kind of reductio).

But our problem, now that I see more clearly where you are coming from, is ambiguous. I think it's a *fact* that she's a philosopher, and *maybe* a fact that most academics view her as somewhere in between being not a philosopher and being a philosopher so bad that you don't want to deal with her except hygenically with undergrads. And my first claim makes me think that we just say that in articles because isn't the reporting of fact what is at issue? Whereas you, I take it, are saying that for me to say that is something akin to violating the "original research" rule, and that we must start from the social consensus about how to classify her because in effect that is what we are reporting when we report that she is or is not a philosopher. Here's a possible analogy. There are Southerners who believe that the the 14th Amendment was never properly ratified. Most people think they are loony-tunes, no one agrees, no one will ever agree. Suppose that on closer examination, we see that all reasonable people would have to agree that it really wasn't ratified. But this observation goes nowhere because our whole system of government presupposes that it was, and no one dares even say that it wasn't out loud. And then we're working on an article that contains a sentence "the 14th Amendment says that..." and our imaginary Southerner says "this is a factual error, because it was never really ratified," and you say "well, the reference stays in but we can add a section called "Ratification Controversy" if you like. And they say "well great, but we still can't refer to the 14th Amendment because actually, there isn't one." This would be something of a pickle, because usually expert and consensus opinion is pretty close to the truth.

So I'm actually at something of a loss here, in part because I don't know how to think about Wikipedia's own intentions. I want to say that because it is a fact that she is a bad philosopher widely rejected by academia for her badness, we should just *say* that. But I realize that that is perhaps not quite how the academic consensus would characterize things, and that some, but not all, would probably say that she's not really a philosopher any more than UFO abduction stories are science. And if we ever sorted all *that* out (good luck!) then there's the source problem: as an inside observer, I know exactly what goes down and why, but no one is on *record* about what goes down, so it's damned difficult to get anywhere near even the truth about the disagreement without there too straying into original research.

That's all I have for now. Agent Cooper 18:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that this is an impressively substantive analysis, and fits well with what I see from the inside also. I think it's also sad that the article is now locked and littered with loud tags at the top. I appreciate LGagnon's efforts to make the article NPOV -- my own main contribution to the article has been writing and defending the Philosophical Criticism section -- but I think this needs to be done in a less militant way. Otherwise there is no positive revision going on. :-(. Can we consider going forward and calming down a little bit so that the article can actually improve? --Wilanthule 16:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply to LGagnon: Please note that throughout I corrected neither your appalling grammar nor your disgraceful typos. That is not a personal comment, but a fact I can demonstrate, entry for entry. Any deletions or the like would have been accidental in the process of responding to entries. This should be immediately obvious.

I made no reference to Hegel or Kant. You provide no specific citation from Rand. Once again, you conflate my view with someone else's entry.

I referred to foul freshman language, as employed by anyone. I referred to unprofessional language. Please familiarize yourself with figures of speech as with parts of speech. With regard to the unsolicited, personal information you volunteered, I take no personal interest in your lengthy struggle to finish a degree.

I made it clear that I had in fact provided you with a final warning in regard to these personal angles and unprofessional language. Now with your unsubstantiated accusation of a personal attack, you bear false witness. Accordingly, I will seek appropriate, serious sanctions against you. AOluwatoyin 03:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. With all the personal attacks you make (including the ones in the above comment), I doubt you'll be able to convince an admin that you are acting civil and I am not. They'll likely take action against you instead.

As a word of advice, read up on ad hominem, as well as WP:NPA; they might help make your claim to be a professor of logic look more realistic. More importantly, they'll teach you how to avoid making personal attacks.

And the quote about Hegel and Kant was from one of Rand's books. That is what she assumes, in her considerably poor scholarship, to be an appropriate citation (even though she'd be laughed out of academia if she tried to get that published with them). As for the citation, I'll give one appropriate to Randism: "See the works of Ayn Rand". -- LGagnon 14:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply to LGagnon: "See the works of Ayn Rand" is not a citation. Please see any of many Basic Manuals of Style (UC, etc.) that we recommend for Freshman philosophy students. AOluwatoyin 21:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's called sarcasm and parody. And honestly, you are pushing it by using another personal attack right after you got back from being banned for one. -- LGagnon 00:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Agent Cooper. Please do not conflate "influenced by" with "influenced." That Rand was influenced by Marx is no more problematic than that she was influenced by Nietzsche. Or, Kant, for that matter. AOluwatoyin 03:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You've completely lost me. Karl Marx died before Ayn Rand was born. How have I confused before with after? I don't even know what you're talking about. Once we get that sorted out, I meant that she was influenced by in the more specific sense of "indebted to, learned from and as a result has similar ideas as." But you knew that. Agent Cooper 15:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Agent Cooper: Again, "influenced by" is not problematic. Again, Rand readily acknowledges "influenced by" (e.g; Nietzsche) so long as this does not intimate "agrees with."

"Influenced" is a problem, precisely because it non-cognitively, (some scholars would argue, cognitively) intimates agreement or some sort of "shared" core belief/view, as opposed to something that could be as weak (loose generic) as "shared opposition to institutional theism." AOluwatoyin 21:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Factual Error On Page

The page says "courses" offered by ARI are accredited. This is not what the source says. The source says one course is accredited. Huge difference methinks. Agent Cooper 17:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I want to add a citation for accredited courses at the OAC, but I'm not sure how. There are currently two OAC courses offered for credit through Chapman University's distance learning program. The citation is from Impact, the newsletter of the Ayn Rand Institute (Volume 12, Number 12, December 2006). The courses are an introductory philosophy course and an introductory writing course. Endlessmike 888 01:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Under the heading Gender, Race, and Sex is a reference to a line in Atlas Shrugged: "In Atlas Shrugged, Rand writes that the 'band on the wrist of [Dagny's] naked arm gave her the most feminine of all aspects: the look of being chained.' (One must note that this description is from the character Lillian Rearden, whose views certainly are not intended to reflect those of Ayn Rand.)" This is erroneous. The passage is Rand's narrative and is most assuredly NOT Lillian Reardon's dialogue.````Fourchette

That quote reads a lot like origional reasearch and probably ought to be removed anyhow. 24.17.165.124 19:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor technicality

In what is currently footnote 86 in section 7.2, the template {{cite book}} is called with parameter "coauthor", which should be "coauthors". Sciabarra's name doesn't show up until this is corrected. --LA2 18:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Drug use

No mention of her drug use?

Considering it was prescribed by her doctor according to the source I read? I'm also interested in the source of this. I know it's in Passion of Ayn Rand by Barbara Branden, but I wondered if anyone else mentioned it.

Humorous

I find it endlessly funny that, when I go to see what the page of long-debated Ayn Rand looks like, I find three huge warnings when I get to the page: "this is biased" "this is wrong" and "this page is locked untill a dispute can be settled." Fitting, no? I think she's smiling...155.45.81.25 22:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Con.

From reading this page it seems most of you guys forget that this is not a forum where one discusses personal views. Discuss the article and how to improve it. Thanks. Anagnorisis 05:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Grammatical Errors

Big ol' dangling modifier here:

A broadly influential figure in post-WWII America, her work attracted both enthusiastic admiration and scathing denunciations.

The opening sentence of the third paragraph reads:

"The express goal ..."

That is grammatically sound English. —Centrx→talk • 23:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Protection

There doesn't seem to be any real attempt to fix any specific problems with this page right now. Further, I honestly don't see that this page is so terrible that it needs to be under protection. Unless somebody who is opposed to the content of the current version wants to make some specific argument the page should be unprotected and the neutrality and contradiction tags should be removed--at least temporarily.

This page isn't really much worse than most of the other philosophically focused articles on the Wiki. 24.17.165.124 20:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Page is now unprotected... I might suggest that we all try to be reasonable enough to figure out how to get rid of any neutrality and contradiction issues. If you have specific complaints about the current version of the article say so (under a new heading) now. 24.17.165.124 05:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Given that nobody seems to have any major complaints about the current version of the article I am pulling the neutrality and contradiction tags. If you feel the need to replace the tags feel free to do so but offer specific reasons, please. 24.17.165.124 19:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The usual bias

I still haven't heard a good explaination for why we keep on removing Alan Greenspan, Anton LaVey, Terry Goodkind, and Steve Ditko from the Influenced list. It seems very biased to remove LaVey, as this has been proven before to have been removed because of disgust amongst Randists at his beliefs. The others I'm not sure why they were removed, but no good explaination has been given yet. -- LGagnon 18:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on the edit summary, the reason was to keep the list confined to philosophers. This is reasonable, but it is perhaps an artificial distinction in the case of, e.g., Alan Greenspan who is an intellectual who writes about and acts in areas that would be affected by his own personal philosophy, but, for example, the guitarist who was in the list long ago certainly did not belong. —Centrx→talk • 18:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

While I personally feel that this particular list should be reserved for philosophers only, I don't think it is something to get into an edit war over again. Let's just drop the LaVey issue. -- 24.220.246.20

Why drop it? Is LaVey any less of a philosopher than Rand? Is Rand any more of a philosopher than LaVey? And why philosophers only? That seems to push the idea that Rand is only a philosopher, and that she is definitely one beyond dispute. -- LGagnon 12:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Then have writers she influenced too, but influenced as writer. Just because some later author happens to agree with the philosophy does not mean it is prominent in their work or that her writing style is found to influence his work. —Centrx→talk • 03:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You'll find that some of those writers (Ditko in particular) used her ideas quite a bit in their work. -- LGagnon 12:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I say put LaVey back in. Who care's if he is the head of the Church of Satan? As an Objectivist I expect people to make up their own minds, so if he says he was influenced by Rand, let people judge for themselves. The others should go back in as well.Ethan a dawe 16:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Ethan Dawe

What I meant, LGagnon, is that the individuals who have made a case for keeping LaVey's name in the article have done so well, and that's all that's important. I personally don't consider LaVey a philosopher, but objectivity must take precedence. -- 24.220.246.20

Philosopher template- whom do we include?

Can we get consensus about whether the template should mention non-philosopher influences? Lazlo seems to think it shouldn't. However, it isn't at all clear to me why it shouldn't. What matters is who her ideas influenced and who she inspired not whether or not they are technically philosophers. Thoughts? JoshuaZ 02:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I would think that any public intellectual of significance should qualify, but if this list is limited to professional philosophers, shouldn't we add a separate list of literary influences and influencees?--Pheidias 22:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

anton levay was a philosopher just as much so as ayn rand. he definitely needs to be on the list. i'll consider the others later, though.

He is a significant figure and notable historically but I don't think his writing is taken seriously by many prominent thinkers. Which would not keep him off a general list of "influenced", but might keep him off a list of accepted philosophers.--Pheidias 22:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Rand is taken seriously either (one of the reasons for my opposition to her being considered a serious philosopher). He's no less than she is. -- LGagnon 23:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The titles and authors of results on Google Books and Scholar would suggest otherwise; what evidence of this do you have? —Centrx→talk • 23:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"Lay" philosopher

That is ridiculous. Not all philosophers have to be professors; actually, the overwhelming majority of philosophers throughout history wasn't. Some acclaimed philosophers also eschewed academy, see Schpenhauer. Besides, Rand used to give lectures for several Universities.Xemoi 14:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

why is it an issue, there are professional philosophers and lay philosophers. she is not a professional philosopher, so she is a lay philosopher. it is purely a matter of clarity. yes, many literary figures give lectures at universities, that doesn't make them philosophers in any sense of the word. why isn't she a lay philosopher? it seems to be a clear categorization to me. it isn't derogatory like pop-philosopher, which is really more appropriate in some ways. --Buridan 14:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Look up "lay philosopher" on google. You will find naïf writers, self-help authors, folk tale tellers, internet bloggers, but nothing like Rand. Besides, the very notion of "professional philosopher" is disputable. In Plato's view, people who made money from their philosophy (e.g. Sophists) weren't worth of the title of "philosopher" at all.Xemoi 14:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

how are they different from rand? --Buridan 14:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

If being university-educated and having a doctorate are necessary qualifications for being a "philosopher", I might as well go to the Socrates article and label him a lay philosopher. Or maybe I'll just label his ideas an "ideology." Please. This is getting so ridiculous. -- 24.220.246.20

no, it is a question of what you actually do for a living. if you are primarily paid to be a philosopher or make your living through philosophy then you are a professional philosopher, if you make your living primarily in other ways then you are a lay philosopher. they are both philosopher, but of which sort. for instance, George Orwell is a lay philosopher as was Dostoyevsky.--Buridan 14:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

ok, well if one's income is the standard, then Rand profitted immensely from her non-fiction publications, her lectures at institutions such as Yale and Harvard, and her public forums and debates.

Are you performing your own original research? Please give a link to Ayn Rand as a lay philosopher (as opposed to the more usual non-academic philosopher.) Why do you choose to create your own non-standard category? I have added Category:Non-academic Philosophers to the Rand list of categories. Not the plural - most categories for philosophers are plural75.18.119.242 20:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Do we limit the designation "philosopher" (the non-lay type, that is) to one who works full-time within an academic institution? That seems too narrow. But would we require that she publish in peer-reviewed journals? Possibly. The situtation has changed since pre-Socratic days... even since Locke's day. A philosopher now is expected to demonstrate familiarity with quite an expanse of the thought that went before, as well as great care and rigor in developing her own contributions. Rand made strong and original contributions; I think the question is whether she showed enough respect (I almost said "deference") for her predecessors in the process that she be considered to belong to the "main line" of philosophy, whatever that may be. I would say that many philosophers, good and bad among them, have believed their own insights so astounding and their elaboration of them so definitive that they find little of what came before worthy of consideration. We aren't talking about the Supreme Court -- in philosophy, a certain degree of freedom from constraining ancestors can be a positive thing. It makes sense to place Rand in the Non-academic category, but it is perhaps unfair to the vigor, insight and consistency of her philosophic writings to call her a "lay" philosopher, especially since professionals debate her ideas seriously. --Pheidias 22:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

few professionals debate her, i think the last count was something under 50, though we should probably check that again. given the size of the profession worldwide, it was a relatively tiny number. we should also note here that outside of the u.s. her recognition is much less.--Buridan 23:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

How is she not a professional philosopher? She studied philosophy at university. Furthermore, she produced many nonfiction philosophical works. The Virtue of Selfishness is an undeniable work of philosophy, as was Philosophy: Who Needs It?. The claims that Ayn Rand was not a real philosopher are simply perpetrated and perpetuated by disagreeing 'critics'. Give evidence and sources that contradict her being a real philosopher, and then we can go from there. Until that happens, please stop posting your opinions as if they were fact.

"we should also note here that outside of the u.s. her recognition is much less." No, we shouldn't. If that were the case, then we should also note that Kant is not recognized in the US. It's a matter of culture. It's assumed that people with more socialist regimes, like Europe, will not agree with a capitalistic philosopher, such as Ayn Rand. It's implicit, and does not need to be expressed explicitly.

I disagree with the last part. We should note that she is less well known outside North America (if we can cite it, though it seems obvious). More people in the US know of a socialist like Chomsky than of Rand, so the culture angle doesn't really work. In response to Buridan, Rand is debated enough to have scholarly journals and books on her philosophy, so 50 seems entirely too low. LaszloWalrus 05:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Rand didn't even earn a degree when she went to college; she got a mere certificate. That essentially gives her no more concrete experience than any casual philosophy reader (which, judging by her strawman attacks on Kant, she wasn't even that).

And how is Kant not recognized here? Have you actually been to a university? I've heard him mentioned even in casual philosophy circles.

And where are these scholarly books and journals on her work? I've yet to see any of them brought up explicitly. And no, fan club (ARI, etc) propaganda doesn't count. -- LGagnon 13:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Knowledge in a subject is not determined by a college degree. —Centrx→talk • 15:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

But for Rand it would have helped. If she had one, she'd have understood the most basic logic, which would have helped her avoid her strawman argument. My point is her education in logic was pathetic, and her lack of professional education contributed to this. Granted, if she actually tried to learn logic she wouldn't need a college degree, but she didn't. -- LGagnon 03:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course she is less known outside of North America. It's IMPLICIT. It doesn't need to be stated. Do I need to keep making analogies? Abraham Lincoln is less well known outside of the US. So is Rockefeller. Democratic and Capitalistic icons are naturally going to be more known in our country. Furthermore, she is an American writer, so naturally she will be more known here. Articles are supposed to be succinct.

LGagnon, why do you go from saying that Ayn Rand developed an "ideology" to saying that she was a "lay philosopher"? It's becoming clear that your only interest in this matter is lowering Rand's prestige, not developing the article. --165.234.117.82

Another personal attack from the anti-logic crowd. Don't you just love how Rand's use of fallacies have rubbed off on her followers? Glad to know Jimbo lets his fellow Randists get away with whatever they want to do, policies be damned.

And if you guys didn't delete my sources, I'd use them to fix the whitewashing you've done to the article. However, this is not a NPOV encyclopedia, it's a Randist POV one, and Jimbo and his servants aren't about to change that. Please don't act like anyone here is actually trying to develop a well made non-propagandist article. -- LGagnon 03:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, LGagnon, if you're looking for a scholarly book on the subject of Ayn Rand published by professional philosophers, I would recommend The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand, edited by by Douglas J. Uyl and Douglas B. Rasmussen. Some contributors include philosophers Erik Mack, Anthony Flew, Wallace Matson, J. Charles King, and Tibor Machan. In the introduction, the editors state that each of the contributors agrees that "Rand was a philosopher, not a mere popularizer." And while some articles are somewhat favorable or completely neutral, a few are very critical. So, LGagnon, to say that academia has completely ignored Rand is absolutely false.

It's also fallacious to say, as you do, that only Objectivists refer to Rand as a philosopher. Consult Britannica Encyclopedia and The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Even Michael Huemer, who is highly critical of Ayn Rand, referred to Objectivism as a "philosophy."

So, you can keep trying to de-neutralize this article to attack Rand, but fortunately facts will have the last word. --165.234.117.82

LGagnon's charge that Rand did not get a degree is spurious; in Russia at the time, "certificate" = degree, much like (for example) a bachelor's degree is undergraduate in some contexts, and graduate in others. LaszloWalrus 19:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Where's your proof? Got a source to cite? -- LGagnon 03:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My source is the fact that she GRADUATED from university, which means she got a degree [1]. LaszloWalrus 07:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

LGagnon, you asked for a scholarly book written by professional philosophers on Ayn Rand. I offered one; does this change your opinion that she has been completely ignored by academics? --165.234.117.82

Who says she's completely ignored? I said she's mostly ignored. That is, the vast majority of academics see her as not worth their or their students' time. I already knew about the little fringe that takes interest in her (they're in the article already). -- LGagnon 22:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you telling me that a person is not to be regarded as a "true philosopher" until at least 51% of academics take him or her seriously? Is that the standard you use to determine whether a person is a philosopher or not? Provide me with a decent source stating that "most" professional philosophers don't take her seriously. The fact that academic interest in Objectivism has been growing over the years is a sign that she is acknowledged.

or it is a sign that the standards of doctoral research in philosophy are being severely degraded.... or it is a sign that there is at least one blue mouse.... or it is a sign that..... hmmm. anyway the point is that one book or 30 books does not really make one a philosopher, what makes one recognized as a philosopher, a professional philosopher, is your participation in the profession. Rand did not do that, therefore she is a lay philosopher. --Buridan 00:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

An integrated view of the universe, man, and man's relationship to existence is a philosophy. Ayn Rand developed her own view of the universe, man, and man's relationship to existence; therefore, she is a philosopher.

having a philosophy, even developing and promoting a philosophy, does not make one a philosopher... if it did, then every fashion maven with a chihuahua is a philosopher and while that might be true in some people's world... it isn't widely considered to be true. rand might be a popular philosopher, she is clearly a lay philosopher, but she is not a professional philosopher. --Buridan 14:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to some people's claims, though, Rand's work has been discussed by professionals; scholarly books have been published on the subject of Objectivism, etc. Show me a statistic which states that "most" philosophers don't consider Objectivism to be a philosophy.

don't be daft, no one has done that math, though I assure you that if you really want me to go to the philosopher index and show once again that in most fields where people think she is relevent she is less relevent than some noted novelist, i surely can. that one or 30 people have published a work on here, the key is that only one noted philosopher did anything with her work and that is generally looked on poorly. i'm not sure who the rest are, frequently they are also philosophers outside of philosophy, but there are apparently enough to publish a book or two. however, in terms of editorial review, whose to say the actual merits of that publishing over time. are the secondary literatures on rand's philosophy selling well?--Buridan 18:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that you simply have a low opinion of her work and worth, and so disingenuously promote these patronizing pinpricks (such as "lay" and "actor"). Would she be a philosopher to you if she held a university post? Or if she spent more time debating philosophers in person? What exactly did she fail to do which disqualifies her from membership in the (very large) club of philosophers? I am most definitely NOT an Objectivist or a Randian, by the way, and I can smell more than a whiff of idolatry lingering about the article. Let's focus on calming exaggerated claims in the article, not on undercutting the subject. (And I have to mention that your boycott of capitals and semicolons makes your posts hard to read and, in the most recent case, hard to interpret.)Pheidias 23:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so eager to say that only one "noted" philosopher has studied her work. First, I have a problem with the word "noted" because it's highly subjective. Second, it's simply not true that only one professional philosopher has considered Objectivism. If you read the book The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand, you will see essays written by philosophers such as Anthony Flew, Erik Mack, Wallace Matson, J. Charles King, and Tibor Machan. Some of them are somewhat favorable or almost entirely negative. These men are not "philosophers outside of philosophy", whatever that statement is supposed to mean. I know this is won't be satisfactory, but I don't know what specific, objectively-definable qualifications a person must have to be regarded as a philosopher --165.234.117.82

order of professions

the argument that i'm making in the lines is this, presenting rand as primarily a philosopher is disputed even on her own page in footnotes. as best as we have been able to determine in the philosophy discussions, she is more widely recognized as a novelist or literary figure than as a philosopher. to present her either primarily as a novelist or primarily as a philosopher is to present something that is not neutral, therefor to be neutral, we should choose a way of listing her professions that is neutral. there are two that come to mind, one is alphabetical, and the other is by income. her novels greatly outsell her philosophical works, and it is likely that her screenwriting/playwriting also earned more money, though we would need to do the research. due to lack of research, alphabetical is the way left to be neutral.--Buridan 15:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think listing her as a novelist first is appropriate. The Ayn Rand Institute calls her novelist/philosopher, and her novels outsell her philosophy books by quite a bit. Also, Rand initially considered being a novelist her primary interest, using philosophy as a means of creating in her own mind the values she wanted to project. LaszloWalrus 17:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

costume manager

Why is costume manager in list of professions, where is a reference that she spent any significant time managing costumes? Should all actors references also have waiter added?

apparently she was one for several years, and there is evidence in the article itself.--Buridan 21:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It goes without saying that Ayn Rand would see disrespect in placing her "day job" work alongside her life's work. And as she did not make any great contribution to the field of costume management and did not consider it a significant enough part of her life to discuss it at any length in print, nor to maintain any sort of involvement with costumerie later in life, I would say it does not belong. We could make almost the same argument regarding the designation "actor" in her case.--Pheidias 22:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

is there some sort of research that demonstrates this? we have research showing she was both an actress and a costume manager. i'm also not sure why her wishes would be relevant. the goal is verifiability, if it is verifiable, it is in.--Buridan 22:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is with listing every occupation in the superficial infobox. Nothing to do with what she wants or not, but if she was not notable for being a costume designer then it does not belong, if she was not notable for being an actress, then it does not belong. —Centrx→talk • 22:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

notability is not an infobox standard, notability is the article standard.--Buridan 22:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the most acting Rand ever did was as an extra — hardly notable. Likewise, costume design was a short-term "day job" to make ends meet, and Rand is not particularly notable qua costume designer. LaszloWalrus 22:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not referring to Wikipedia:Notability, I am referring to the prime occupation and life of the person. She would not have an encyclopedia article if she was merely a costume manager, just as Jimmy Carter would not have an article if he was merely a peanut farmer. The major features of a persons life are what is relevant here, not every possible job they ever had. The infobox is stupid enough as it is. —Centrx→talk • 04:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

yes, but what goes into the occupation field is the occupations, not the occupations that you prefer to report for whatever reason.--Buridan 04:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh good, I've got lots of stupid careers to add to so many people's wikipages. :-) Off I goEthan a daweEthan a DaweEthan a dawe 11:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If that is supposed to be what the "occupation" field is for, then the "occupation" field does not belong in the infobox at all, or it should be replaced with a "profession" field that only includes the occupations that either were the most major part of the person's life or the occupations for which the person is famous. —Centrx→talk • 05:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And if you would look at the usage guide at the Template page, you would see the occupation field was intended to denote "type of writer: novelist, short story writer, journalist, etc", which is less relevant for someone who is not strictly a writer, but your invention about "what goes into the occupation field" is similarly irrelevant. The question here is what goes in this article where. —Centrx→talk • 05:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Kant image

I have removed the Kant image and caption for two reasons: 1) The image link is dead. 2) The caption is horribly oversimplified and patently false. Rand did not consider Kant a "monster" merely because of advocacy of another "noumenal" dimension. Saying otherwise (especially without a citation) amounts to original research. LaszloWalrus 22:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Here you go. It was practically a verbatim quote, why did you get rid of it?

http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2006/02/david-kelley-versus-ayn-rand-on-kant.html

I got rid of it for the same reasons I listed above: it is a dead link and the caption is horribly oversimplified. LaszloWalrus 05:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Maybe you could write up a better summary of her thoughts? I think it's quite relevant to the article, so I wouldn't want it completely erased.

In my view, the Kant caption is such an oversimplified account of Rand's views that it amounts to original research. The source you cited was a blog, which doesn't really count. LaszloWalrus 02:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The blog contains an actual quote from her newsletter. My point is that if you're going to take it out, would you please resummarize it to your liking? It's a fact that Ayn Rand considered Kant a monster. So, choose how you'd like that fact displayed.

Edit Wars

Folks, as a new wiki person I'm finsding the edit wars over Rand to be frustrating. Firstly, I'm an Objectivist, so I'd like to see her fairly represented. Secondly, as an Objectivist, I respect the inclusion of items regarding controversy with Rand and her ideas. Lets be reasonable and rational here, okay? Some of these edits rate as down-right pety, and I'm not going to name nmaes, as the attitudes seem bad on all sides. Can we get some agreement on what can be done to bring this article up to good quality, or should I just stop wasting my precious time? Ethan a dawe 22:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Ethan DaweEthan a dawe 22:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Futhermore, I recommend having this article protected from anonymous editing. I'm not sure how to go about this. I think that interested parties should debate the issues here rathern than chasing sock puppets and such about. Ethan a dawe 22:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Ethan a DaweEthan a dawe 22:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

A new way to look at things

Since my above post on edit wars has been mostly ignored I feel something must be done. I've taken a long hard look at the edits here and decided that similar treatments should be focused on wider wiki entries. There are vast realms of people whose wiki bios lack crticism and stink of POV failings. I'm off. First targets will be Ralph Nader. Hell I voted for him once, so I know he's got some dirt. Then, Jello Biafra. Then Karl Marx. Then I'm going to tackles pages on Socialism. Then Karl Marx. Yeah, I've got a lot of work to do to keep the editing up to the standards seen here. Ta ta. ~~Ethan Dawe~~

What, pray tell, does this have to do with anything here? -- LGagnon 00:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Alleged is correct

It's funny that, despite having allegations of being a cult leader in the article, Lazslo won't allow for Category:Leaders of alleged cults to be in the article. POV? I think not; all the proof that she is alleged is right there in the article. Plus it fits all the criteria given at Category:Alleged cults. -- LGagnon 13:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I think that whole category is POV. I mean the category name is half weasel words. Rangek 15:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting quote from Ayn Rand in response to an individual who swore cult-like allegience to her: "My philosophy advocates reason, not faith; it requires men to think – to accept nothing without a full, rational, firsthand understanding and conviction – to claim nothing without factual evidence and logical proof. A blind follower is precisely what my philosophy condemns and what I reject. Objectivism is not a mystic cult." (http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/biofaq.html) To say that Objectivism is a "cult" when that directly contradicts "the founder of this philosophy is extremely POV. I suppose that you could argue that some of Rand's admirers may act as if they are in a cult, but Objectivism itself is not a cult and Ayn Rand is not a cult leader. --24.220.246.20

Exactly correct.Ethan a dawe 13:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Ethan DaweEthan a dawe 13:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

actually the argument is a non-sequitor. it does not follow that just because she said she was not something, that she was not something. she could say she is not a woman also, but very clearly she was. she could say that she is a philosopher and that is still hotly debated. try to be objective and well-reasoned, if there is verifiable evidence that people follow her like a people follow then the category should stay, if there is no evidence, then it should go.--Buridan 14:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Therefore most rock stars could be labelled alleged cult leaders...right?Ethan a dawe 14:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Ethan DaweEthan a dawe 14:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Fandom is not the same as cult behavior, is it? if you can find verifiable evidence alleging cult behavior, then yes, you could put this tag. if you cannot find such evidence, then no. --Buridan 15:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of cases of Fans behaving in cultish ways. Do you really think this is NOT the case? Regarding Rand/Objectivism, plenty of "Objectivists" have behaved in cultish ways. The point Rand made was that she expected people to think for themselves. She didn't attempt to control people, other than saying that she wouldn't associate with or deal with people who behaved a certain way or held certain beleifs. You may think Rand's ideas suck, but the cult claim is laughable when compared with her own statements and actions, and the actions taken by actual cult leaders. They are as different as night and day. This is not a real critique of Rand. If Rand's comments and actions regarding not being a cult don't matter, then why do Rothbard's claims matter? It's enough to say that he made that claim and cite the source. The whole alleged-cult-leader category is meaningless and should be removed from wikipedia, or more carefully defined. Otherwise it becomes a a case where anyone can claim someone is a cult leader and any comments to the negative by the target are treated as meaningless. It's a POV smear category that holds no value whatsoever.

and how do you think your argument above is in any way sufficient? you just said what had previously been said. it was previously rejected, i don't think you are really trying to see the issue. the issue is 'is there evidence'? if so, is there counter-evidence, and if so, how do we present it neutrally? --Buridan 00:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how I can make it any more clear.Ethan a dawe 00:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Ethan DaweEthan a dawe 00:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

There's specific criteria for Rand being an alleged cult leader, and she fits it. It doesn't matter if she denies it; all cult leaders stand to gain from denial of cult activity, and thus all would do so. The point isn't whether they are one or not, but that they are accused of such. Rand has been accused, and fits Wikipedia's criteria to count as an alleged cult leader. This may bother Randists, but that's tough; it's a fact that she's been accused, and you can not erase that fact from existence just because it makes you uncomfortable. -- LGagnon 00:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a very poor argument LGagnon. Very very subjective and POV. All I need to do is find one person calling someone something and then they are it? Face it, you and Buridan are not interested in documenting criticism, you are anti-Rand and simply wish to attach anything you think will make her look bad. I've said in numerous places that keeping criticism is important, but you are over the line, and appear to me to be on a POV campaign. It's time to stop. I can see you've contributed to a lot of pages here, and I encourage you to continue and even to make sure the existing criticsms aren't white washed, but it's time to stop with the baseless POV edits.Ethan a dawe 00:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Ethan DaweEthan a dawe 00:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

What part of "alleged" do you not understand? Yes, it only takes someone to call her something for it to be alleged; that's what alleged means.

And again the Randists, despite false claims of rationality, use personal attacks. Do you guys understand that your use of fallacies proves you are not as rational as you claim? And you do know this is exactly why nobody rational backs Rand's fallacy-laden pseudo-philosophy, right? -- LGagnon 02:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

To the contrary, a substantial number of recognized professionals and intellectuals have favorably cited Rand's philosophy. Calling them all "nobody rational" is ridiculous. — DAGwyn 06:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I just removed the category "leader of alleged cult." There are basically four main interpretations: journalistic (tends to be sensational), theological (defines "cult" by some standard of orthodox truth), sociological (uses "cult" to describe groups that self-consciously oppose the mainstream of culture), and psychological (uses a standard of psychological manipulation and coercion) [2]. What counts as a cult differs by these varying definitions. obviously, but Objectivism doesn't seem to me to fit any of the four categories. The fact that someone labelled it a cult -- which is indeed mentioned in the article, yes -- does not make it a justified allegation, particularly if the accuser(s) didn't back it up with any evidence whatsoever other than their opinion. I can call Islam or Christianity or Judaism a cult if I feel like it, that doesn't mean you could out "Leader of alleged cult" on the Jesus article. --Bookgrrl 02:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Read Category:Alleged cults and then List of groups referred to as cults. There is specific criteria that counts Randism in on this category, and it fits Wikipedia's standards. It doesn't matter how much weak rhetoric you throw at the subject; the fact of the matter is that it still fits the criteria given, and none of you has been able to make an argument against that. Instead, you've simply skirted around the issue and tried to pull it off topic. Face it, you can not deny this no matter how much you want to erase history. If you can't argue that it doesn't fit the criteria, then stop reverting it. -- LGagnon 02:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. You're right. It does meet the definition on that page. However, you did not address the point that, according to that definition, everything from Christianity to liking a certain band to J.R.R. Tolkien to Dungeons and Dragons to Wikipedia itself can be classed as a cult. It makes the definition so broad as to be pointless. That's disappointing, Wikipedia's collective wisdom generally does a better job than that... --Bookgrrl 12:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

hmm, not quite, the key is in having a reputable source. In terms of Rand, the source is the New York Times. The key to rejecting this will be with one of two arguments. Either Rand cannot be the leader of the cult because she is dead and most accepted norms of leadership outside of cults don't accept that leaders can be dead(however, i think this will fail because there is ample evidence that in cults, death does not prevent leadership of a sort), or changing the criteria on alleged cults. What we have to be careful with and you'll see this all throughout wikipedia in regards to rand is that there seems to be a tendency to act without and against verifiable evidence, and even with that there seems to be a strong tendency to revert/delete materials that are critical of rand/objectivism in any way. There is also a tendency to put up highly questionable pro-rand pov's, so we need to keep in mind the principle of neutrality and evidence. In the case of the cult status, the article itself mentions it, so it should be included.--Buridan 13:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, nowhere on the criteria page do the words "reputable source" appear. In fact if you check the discussion it appears that those words were deliberately omitted. (Either way, I have to admit the NYT is reputable LOL!) I guess my quarrel isn't so much with the inclusion of Rand as a "cult leader" (she did do some pretty cultlike things -- I mean, a loyalty oath for goodness' sake??) as it is with the fuzzy definition of "cult." Anyway, thanks to all for the clarifications. --Bookgrrl 14:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

<<< Note that both "alleged" and "cult" are Wikipedia:Words to avoid. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to come to this discussion late, but I can't understand the purpose of stating that objectivism is considered by some a cult activity on the Ayn Rand page. Shouldn't that be addressed only on the objectivist page itself? On Wiki's cult pages (which are a mess), where Rand is referenced, it looks like her critics were pointing out that the author herself had/has something of a cult of personality status among some followers of the school of thought. But that's a far cry from the philosophy itself from being cultish. I mean, how can a form of reason or philosophy itself be cultish? It's nonsensical. 66.57.225.77 07:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC) DEL

Ayn Rand and philosophy

The article currently paints a picture of her as rather distant from philosophy as an academic field. While this was true of her personally (she rarely engaged with it), it's not my impression that it's true of the current state of things. It's certainly true that many philosophers disagree with her views, and that many don't engage with her writing, but that's different than saying that few-to-none engage with her writing. She's regularly covered in university philosophy classes, especially ones on ethics, and the American Philosophical Association (the main U.S. professional society for philosophers) has a sub-group, the Ayn Rand Society, specifically devoted to philosophical study of her works and influence. --65.182.51.67 06:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a difference of view and presentation between you thoughts above and the widely accepted view. coverered in a few courses, having a relatively unpopulated subgroup, etc. does not contitute any notion of 'vibrancy' or 'closeness' to philosophy. what you see above is a POV of someone that already like sees Rand as a figure in philosophy, that is a significantly minority view, I think. To demonstrate it is a minority view, traditionally we look at citation analysis, which indicates the work that is being done in philosophy, and the relations amongst it. --Buridan 13:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Buridan, I disagree. Seems to me if the American Philosophical Society recognizes her as worthy of study, as implied by the fact that they have a subgroup for study of her works, that's a pretty strong argument. 17,000 students annually compete in the Ayn Rand Institute's essay contest. Last year members of the ARI were included in numerous panels on free speech in response to the Danish Mohammed cartoons. A search of The Philosophers' Index (an abstracting database for scholarly journals in philosophy) gives 609 hits for Objectivism. And Cambridge University recently instituted a Fellowship for the Study of Objectivism, which I think definitely brings her out of the "few to none" cstegory. --Bookgrrl 13:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

but also keep in mind that this is an article about rand, and not an article about who studies rand. i do not know the nature or history of the apa subgroup, but that would need to be investigated before one can claim it has any meaning. That students submit things to ARI has no indication of philosophic merit, it is a strong indication of sophomoric popularity. Fellowships are sponsored by people with money, anyone can sponsor one, that someone has sponsored one in objectivism does not certify any merit. what we need is a large population of noted philosophers interacting with her work, and that is not reflected in publication. This though is still an article about rand, so it is better to stick to the facts of her life and things that have verifiable and incontravertible evidence.--Buridan 17:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

"Citation analysis" is certainly not something we should be doing, nor should we be doing censuses. If someone has claimed that philosophy ignores her, then we should say so and cite that person as saying so. In any case, I think the 2-paragraph section as it currently stands gives a fair summary of things. --65.182.51.67 14:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's difficult to categorise contributors to subjects whose work did not meet academic standards (this is someone who dismissed John Rawls on the basis of a book review without having read his work, and whose understanding of Kant is lamentable), but who through other means acheived popularity and notoriety. I think, as the article does, we can probably use the umbrella term 'philosopher' but then elsewhere stress the absence of academic legitimacy. --Nmcmurdo 00:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts on her economic views

1.) Her stand that objects have objectively intrinsic value - it seems strange, even wrong, to me that the economic value of objects is intrinsic. This is far removed from mainstream economics that holds value depends upon the marginal utility one gets from a good/service. This leads me to my second contestation.

2.) Her apparent support for a gold standard - I cringed while I read the part when John Galt told Dagney they used only gold coins in the Gulch or valley thing. He said because they would only deal with objects with objective value. While the gold standard still has adherents, it has largely discredited by mainstream economists as being inflexible and doing more harm than good. I've yet to see an economics textbook recommending it.

Both these ideas fly in the face of the current economic definition of money. Responsiblebum 07:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The gold standard is useful in periods of hyperinflation. You are correct though, it is generally not very feasible in comparison to fiat money. As much as I like her novels, I have to say that her statements can be pretentious at times, such as the conversation with Galt that you posted.

"Objective" and "intrinsic" are not the same thing. This isn't a discussion forum, but if you want to be critical of somebody you should first understand what they are attempting to say. As to the gold standard, its primary value to Rand was to establish a common unit for exchange.

Obviously, but how can something be objectively (having reality independent of the mind) valuable if it isn't intrinsically valuable? Responsiblebum 08:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

DAGWyn is correct. Her support of the gold standard had nothing at all to do with any intrinsic value of gold. Any study of Rand's view on value will show this. Those interested on what she was saying about money and gold can find some interest here

http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1826 Ethan a dawe 14:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Ethan_a_DaweEthan a dawe 14:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

the problem of course is that... gold has no objective value and its value solely exists within the subjective interpretations of various social and economic conventions. if something has objective value.... we also have to admit that there cannot be a market in that thing... logically... --Buridan 16:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Buridan, I think you're missing the whole point. Rand's point was that gold is something that is a material commodity that people value, and even though that value fluctuates in the market it is something material and objective. Even if the value of gold drops you would still be effectively left with the material in question. fiat money is tied to no physical objective substance. Being confused about this is fine, but let's not let people claim that Rand said X when she never did. Let's keep arguments and criticisms to what she actually did say.Ethan a dawe 16:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Ethan_a_DaweEthan a dawe 16:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

no you are missing the point... the point is that there is no value in the material commodity of gold outside of the market, which is what friedman pointed out ever so clearly.--Buridan 18:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You say that there is no value in a material commodity outside the market. I said even though that value fluctuates in the market. What am I missing? We said the same thing, except that it seems people are saying that Rand's statements disagree with this. They don't. Are we arguing about what she said or what someone interprets her statements to mean. Responsiblebum said one thing, and DAGWyn and I have showed how what he said was incorrect. Do you agree or disagree?Ethan a dawe 18:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Ethan a Dawe18:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There is too "material commodity outside the market" for gold. It's a very high quality metal.

Ola sorry for my lateness. Gosh thanks for the responses. I've read the link provided and Aynd Rand definitely understood the concept of money as a proxy for goods and services produced by an economy. But the thing is so is gold. It wasn't until the advent of electronics did gold have any practical use. No one can deny you have a physical lump of gold. But it's just as valuable as metal coins or paper money (which is also tied to the physical objective substance of paper and metal!) if people will not be willing to trade goods and services for it. I'll be reviewing Aynd Rand's Virtue of Selfishness before commenting further.

I think I have yet to answer the 2nd responder's an argument. But it seems self-contradictory. If you just want to establish a unit of exchange why not use fiat money? However, I must review Aynd Rand first.

For clarification, Ethan, does your comment: “Even if the value of gold drops you would still be effectively left with the material in question.” also provide for instances when the price/value of gold is zero? Will people still “value” gold for it's own sake? Say in a hypothetical post-apocalyptic world of barter exchange or during prehistoric times before man started making jewelry? According to Buridan and me, no. Responsiblebum 09:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

During the early part of Rand's life, the gold standard was generally accepted by nations around the world, and was used as the measure of economic worth for any given unit of currency. It was this objective standard of value that Rand supported; gold happened to be the one that was generally accepted within the "civilized world" at the time, for reasons that could be presented, but in other cultures or at other times, animal skins or some other generally agreed-upon material objects could play a similar role. It was the divorcing of currency from any material constraint (so that governments could merely print more currency and thereby inflate the economy) that Rand objected to. — DAGwyn 20:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

EXACTLY! Ayn Rand sided with the gold standard that today is considered to be unwieldy and impractical. Yes, there was much debate during the 60s and 70s whether to continue or discard the gold standard. Ayn Rand was simply on the losing side on this one. I would like to debate the merits and demerits of the gold standard but this is not the place to do so. I think it is sufficient to askː “how do you fight the recessionary effects of deflation under a gold standard?” to see how cumbersome it is. You could open the vaults in the central bank and release gold into the system to increase money supply. But this can only be done with a limited amount of gold in the world. In the long run, if the amount of gold in the world does not increase inline with economic activity, it will constrict economic growth. Note that hyperinflation is at least curable and its risk is partially offset by the seperation of central bankers and politicians.

Will answer further when I review Ayn Rand becuase I don't remember Ayn advocating gold standard simply because it put a lid on money supply which government could not control. I only remember her saying something about gold being an objective standard and having objective value. Responsiblebum 08:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that to Rand, "objective" involves a specific relationship between the observer and what is observed, whereas "intrinsic" implies properties independent of observation. And of course "values" are determined with respect to the valuer. Gold does have certain intrinsic properties (malleability, durability, divisibility, scarcity) that make it nearly the best possible choice for an objective standard for purposes of economic trade, and people used to use genuine gold coins (as well as silver and other metals) as currency, world-wide. A gold coin is literally "worth its weight in gold," and retains its economic value (assuming free trade under a gold standard) regardless of governmental actions, etc. Paper money and cheap-metal token coins, however, represent more value than their own material, and thus that value is more at risk (such as by inflation of the money supply). Not so long ago, when the US was on the gold standard, US paper money could be officially exchanged for its equivalent in silver (more practical than gold for one-dollar quantities), but that is no longer supported. — DAGwyn 21:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This isn't really the right forum for extended discussions unrelated to what should appear in the Wikipedia article. It is certain that Rand strongly advocated the gold standard, and that should be included in the article. It isn't so certain that anything more about the g.s. needs to be there. (It should have its own article.) — DAGwyn 21:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree to just say Ayn Rand supported the gold standard. This discussion probably shouldn't even be in Wiki as we are not professional philosophers. Seems like a lot of wasted of space just to come up with that. hehehe :) Rand's definition of objective is very alien to me; but hey, its her philosophy. [User:Responsiblebum|Responsiblebum]] 09:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism issue

Who put her in the "Female Dark Lords" category as "Ann Rand"? That is blatant vandalism, and it needs to be corrected ASAP. Treybien 1:47 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't me...but that's pretty funny. It's not often you get amusing vandalism.

Fixed. It required editing the redirect page for "ann Rand" It was added by an anonymous user. Surprise!Ethan a daweEthan DaweEthan a dawe 03:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Help needed with Objectivism article

Help! Somebody changed "Objectivism (Ayn Rand)" to redirect to "Objectivism", which is just a disambiguation page. As a result, all the information in the former article seems to be inaccessible. I don't know how to fix it… — DAGwyn 20:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed now, though the history log indicates that the editor responsible Madhava 1947 did this earlier today and had already been reverted once. I'm going to try to communicate with Madhava 1947 and find out what's going on! --Matthew Humphreys 22:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Madhava is a new user, I don't think he meant any harm - seems to have been trying to move the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article to Objectivism. I've sought to explain the purpose of the disambig and requested that they discuss with other editors before making changes of that nature. --Matthew Humphreys 22:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I confirm that it is now working.. DAGwyn 20:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Mencken and Sumner

I am back with a link supporting my claim that Mencken and Sumner influenced Rand, not Freidrich (whom Mencken translated). The link is: http://hankphillips.com/freedom.htm There are too many looter vandals crawling through this Wikipedia article to make it worth my while to keep re-editing, but I would appreciate some help including Mencken and Sumner under influencers and the thumbnail statement of what she taught: She believed:

• That man must choose his values and actions by reason;
• That the individual has a right to exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing self to others nor others to self; and
• That no one has the right to seek values from others by physical force, or impose ideas on others by physical force.

translator 20:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Paterson's Influence

I noticed that someone deleted Isabel Paterson from the list of Influences. I believe that Paterson was a huge influence on Ayn Rand...if anyone read God of the Machine you can see the obvious parallels between Paterson and Ayn Rand's Views. Not to mention Ayn Rand worked closely with Paterson when she was an immigrant...I refrained from re-adding Paterson's name to the list of influences so we can get this sorted out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VinceyB (talk • contribs) 17:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree — either Paterson had some influence, or at least her ideas partly met with Rand's approval. As I recall, they later parted ways, but that was common for Rand's associates. There seems no harm in including Paterson in the list of influences. — DAGwyn 23:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

cites only where prudent

It seems to me to reflect bias in the following quote:

She has sometimes been disparaged by academic philosophers for perceived lapses in quality and originality. It has been suggested that Rand's practice of presenting her philosophy in fiction and non-fiction books aimed at a general audience rather than publications in peer-reviewed journals have encouraged this negative view. Rand's defenders note that she is part of a long tradition of authors who wrote philosophically rich fiction — including Dante, John Milton, Fyodor Dostoevsky, and Albert Camus, and that philosophers such as Jean-Paul Sartre presented their philosophies in both fictional and non-fictional forms.

That the sentences critiquing Ms. Rand require sources and yet the last, comparing her to the likes of Camus and Dostoeyvsky (!) requires none. ... aa:talk 09:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well if you can cite a source for the last then no need for the 1st and 2nd. If Aynd Rand's defenders are saying such then the latter two claims must be true. Responsiblebum 09:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Both the criticism and the defense seem biased. I have long noted that the main apparent motivation, admitted or not, behind much of the academic criticism of Rand's philosophy is that it deeply challenges the critic's personal beliefs. Thus there is a natural defensive reaction, taking the form of trying to prevent the spread of the perceived threat, by discouraging others from looking into it seriously. The (un)cited "perceived lapses in quality" are meaningless without an objective standard of "quality", which if it indeed existed and were exhibited would probably raise questions about the standard itself, and similarly "perceived lapses in originality" is a pointless criticism, if the standard is truth rather than publication in academic journals. I suggest that both the criticism and the defense be removed from the article, which should simply present relevant facts clearly, not try to summarize irrelevant debates. — DAGwyn 20:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Ayn Rand's father name in the article needs correction.

Proper first name should be "Zinoviy" not "Zinovny" Eabernstein 11:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)eabernstein.

Marx as influence?

In my view, it would be worth mentioning Karl Marx as an influence on her. Clearly, she was deeply opposed to his philosophy, but some of her own appears to be a response to it. --MacRusgail 15:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The list would become seemingly endless if we included philosophers with whom Rand disagreed. I think that only the ones who had a direct influence on the content of her thought should be added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.220.246.20 (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

I realise that she disagreed with plenty, but surely Marx stands out, partly by virtue of her Russian origins, and also her constant attacks on collectivism, egalitarianism, communialism & communism etc. Marx talks about forces of history, Rand goes out of her way to talk of individuals of history - the polar opposite.--MacRusgail 17:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Stating that Marx was an influence on her would be the wrong approach - it might imply that her ideas were just reactions to his writings and that's not the case. And a person would not be able to find a source to back that kind of phrasing. The way to most accurately express her ideas in this area would be to provide examples of her opposition to collectivism, egalitarianism, communialism & communism etc - directly (properly cited). Or, another approach is to find any place where she named Marx directly and provide that as a sourced quote. Steve 18:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Singling out Marx would be wrong, since Rand was not a student of Marx. Certainly, her experience as a youth with living under Soviet communism had an influence on her. So did lifelong living in Judeo-Christian cultures, but we wouldn't add Jesus Christ to the list of her influences. — DAGwyn 00:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Categorical Imperative

There is no debate among Objectivists as to whether or not the categorical imperative is compatible with Objectivism. Rand herself wrote an essay, "Causality versus Duty" which is a total condemnation of the categorical imperative. The only link given to back the claim up was a personal website. LaszloWalrus 06:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, such criticisms by non-Objectivists obfuscate Rand's ideas, whether intentionally or not, and reasonably should be omitted from the article. Some criticisms that are often heard, or that are significant in other ways, merit mention (and possibly quick rejoinder). The purpose of a Wikipedia article is to give verifiable information about a specific subject, not to serve as a forum for debate. — DAGwyn 00:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Influence on Anton LeVey

I feel that Rand's inflence on LeVey and The Satanic Bible should be included in this article. Ayn Rand was a very significant influence on LeVey; to the extent that he plagarised her in the introduction to The Satanic Bible. For further details see J. R. Lewis "Legitimating New Religions", Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, 2003, ch 5, pp 112-115 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Morandir (talk • contribs) 03:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree that LeVey was strongly influenced by Rand; this is clear from his books. However, before we enter an edit war on this, (a) we should reach some sort of consensus about what persons belong in the "influenced" infobox, and (b) find a secondary source WP:V that agrees with this. You have mentioned the above source, but how does that relate to the topic? A quote would be most useful in helping reach consensus. Until then, I'm removing LeVey from the infobox, since the others appear to be straight Objectivists (at some point), not just those who twisted her philosophy for their own gain. --Otheus 07:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There'll never be any "consensus" because Randians like SteveWolfer consider LaVey to be a "wacko" and are embarassed by the fact that LaVey formed Satanism based largely on Objectivism. Call me nuts, but it looks to me like Steve's such a big fan of Rand that he's willing to censor the article to make his hero look perfect. This is coming from the same guy who's edit-warred to hide the fact that Nathaniel Branden doesn't have an accredited PhD. Now, I knew coming into this that it was a waste of time, but I tried anyhow. I'm sorry I did and I completely give up. Go ahead and hide whatever truth makes you antsy. I'm never editing Wikipedia again, thanks to people like you and Steve. Lancombz 09:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's clear to me from reading Lancombz post above that his reason for wanting to include LeVey is entirely POV. LeVey may have been influenced by Rand's works, but, just as the neo-tech movement, his work is in complete oposition to Objectivism. Lancombz states that Steve's edit was to keep Rand looking perfect and to hide something. It's no refection on Rand that some person took her work and used it in some other way. It's no reflection on Objectivism either. A man who buys a hammer and uses it to kil someone is using the hammer in a way that was not intended. That doesn't make the hammer imperfect.Ethan a dawe 09:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Ethan.A.Dawe

It's not Lancombz who is guilty of POV here. The subtext of your statement is that you axiomatically consider Anton LaVey to be "bad," and therefore associating him with Rand is some kind of insult (although I'm not at all sure the insult would be greater to Rand than LaVey). It's apparent that you're attempting to censor the Rand article in order to protect the reputation of Rand. That's called hagiography, and it's not what is supposed to happen on Wikipedia, which is an encyclopaedia. A perfectly factual edit I made concerning Rand's total attention to personal freedoms rather than collective rights was reverted within hours by SteveWolfer with a similar sort of comment about protecting Rand's reputation. The only people fanatical enough to constantly guard the article are the Randroids, so -- like Lancombz -- I suspect that working on this article will be a waste of time for me. SmashTheState 11:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to protect Rand's reputation. I've argued that controversial content should be part of the various Objectivism articles. As far as your edit about collective rights, it was proper to revert it. Rand rejected the idea of collective rights, which was made clear in teh revert. As far as your other comments, I note that it's both you and Lancombz who are using foul language and insults in their posts here. I'm letting you know now that that is not appreciated.Ethan a dawe 13:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Ethan.A.Dawe

I agree with Otheus's point that we ought to decide what is the purpose of the "influenced" item in the Infobox. Not long ago, I added a long list of notables who were better candidates than LaVey, and found myself in an editing war (which never did settle what the criteria for inclusion were). Consequently, I moved the list to the "popular influence" section, which is harder to dispute, and which allows more convenient attachment of references to resolve challenges about inclusion. Note that LaVey is in that list! Frankly, I think that his claim that Satanism is based on Objectivism shows his lack of understanding of Objectivism, but whether that is true or not, his claim of being substantially influenced does meet my criterion for including him in that list. I doubt that he meets the (so far unstated) criteria for inclusion in the list in the Infobox. My guess is that the Infobox list is considered by some to be links in an academic graph structure; if so, surely we should not include negative influences, e.g. Rand should not be considered to be influenced by Plato and Kant, even though some of Objectivism was indeed a reaction against them. — DAGwyn 21:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I like your comments DAGwyn. All one need do is read the article on Objectivism and then read the article on LaVey's satanism to see that LaVey may have been influenced by Rand, but his satanism is NOT Objectivism with some ceremony as he stated. That is my only argument against his inclusion. I don't think Rand is a Saint as Lancombz implied with his "hagiography" comment and I am far from a Randroid. I AM an Objectivist.Ethan a dawe 21:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Ethan A. Dawe

{{ref}} template

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Ref says that the Ayn Rand article links to the {{ref}} template, but a search of the article found that it doesn't. Any idea why that might be? Just wondering; it's not very important. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 09:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Article Length

Why is this article longer than Aristotle? Vikien 18:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd guess it is because there is more controversy and higher levels of excitement (in the public and among editors) - also because she is more contemporary there is a great deal of information on her personal life. Steve 19:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's still way too long. I can't believe that such a minor if best-selling writer has been taken as seriously as this. This article needs heavy cutting, particularly in the sections about Rand's so-called philosophy. Lexo 14:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, you aren't biased are you? Is there such a thing as a minor best-selling author?Ethan a dawe 19:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Ethan A Dawe

I'd say Tom Clancy is a minor best-selling author, and so is Ayn Rand. Vikien 07:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

on Huadpe's critique

As for Kant's rationality, Rand is quite correct, no matter what Kant claims for himself. Rationality is the degree to which one's subjectivity matches empirical reality. Kant's entire theory of "noumenal existence" does not match empirical reality because noumena are entirely uprovable and there is no shred of evidence they even exist. Yes, there are things the "human animal" cannot be aware of because of the limits of his sensibilities; yet many things never conceived were identified either by hypothoses proved, or by technology that allows us to discover and to use that which we cannot otherwise even see. These things are not noumenal. Noumena by Kant's definition are Italic textneverItalic textidentifiable. They are that which cannot by their nature be identified either by man's senses nor by his mind since the contents of his mind all come from the senses. This is not rational thinking. Prove that noumena exist, and you have thus proved that no noumena exist, that all things are phenomena. And someone please explain to me why, when I use the "italic" icon, the above effect happens. Thank you. CurtisEdward 01:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Italic text is contained within four single-quote ' characters, two on each side. — DAGwyn 10:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you read Kant? Positing the possibility of something whose existence could never be proved isn't irrational. It would be irrational to deny the possibility that such things might exist. Your penultimate sentence ("Prove that noumena exist...") is just plain false, by the way. Cadr 11:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

DAGwyn, thank you.

Cadr--"Proving" noumena was the point. It cannot be done, and positing the impossible is irrational. I did not myself, by this, posit the irrational by pointing out what cannot be done: Kant "denied the existence of any but sensuous intuitions," Dictionary of Philosophy which is false anyway, since we have intuitions all time that are made of combinations of concepts, which are twice-removed from sensations, because sensations create perceptions, and combinations of perceptions cause concepts Rand. Then Kant posited the fallacy that something "trancendental" must exist and also that the trancendental must be unprovable in order for it not to be of phenomenal origin. He did not convince Rand, and that is where she veers from the philosophy of Kant, back toward Aristotle, making a virtual fork in the road. Plato posited "essences" in the heavens, Aristotle posited (wrongly, said Rand,) that essences were "in the things themselves." Kant put it back where Plato had it and Rand took essences to be of conscious origin, disagreeing with both Plato and Aristotle. Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

Yes, I read Kant until he proved himself to me to be irrational. Until then, I had no idea why Rand really hated him. I had to see it for myself to understand for what reasons she despised his epistemology.

And somewhere in her works--I do not remember where--she said plainly that most errant thinkers did not mean to make the mistakes they made. I think she saw how Kant could make his mistake in the same way that people of faith believe in the noumenon of God. I see it. I despise their belief, but I often love the people since so many of my family have faith made of rock.

She also said plainly that she preferred talking to left wingers rather than right wingers because they were more cerebral, more conceptually interactive. She could not find someone more conceptually interactive for her interests than Kant and I think she would have taken him on face to face--amicably in debate--and respected his intelligence while despising his ideas.

So, the whole point was to say, why posit what one defines as "the object of a non-sensuous intuition" and then define that as unprovable?

Rand's philosophy accepts "transcendental" because perceptions and concepts transcend empirical reality and are subjective; but perceptions and concepts are provable, and Kant never says noumena are subjective, but puts them outside of consciousness, never to be known, never to be proved, always to be infinitesimally outside the realm of Man's "animalism."

This has lead to the conclusion that Man is a failed animal, when in fact it is his animalism that causes his knowlege in the first place by giving him consciousness of existence.

Where Kant wrote: “…[R]eflections… on the starry heavens above…of a countless multitude of worlds annihilates, as it were, my importance as an animal creature," Rand wrote of Man qua Man, essentially reveling in her importance as an animal creature. I certainly revel in mine; it allows me these types of cerebral interactions with other people. That transcends two minds, yours and mine, and it is provable because it is phenomenalality of the mind.

Good chatting with you, btw. CurtisEdward 15:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

In Moral Defense of Israel

Consider adding this to the section on Political and Social views http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_america_at_war_israeli_arab_conflict "Thus, in the name of justice and self-preservation, we hold that America should openly support Israel against our common enemies."

Ayn Rand on Israel (Ford Hall Forum lecture, 1974)

Q: What should the United Sates do about the [1973] Arab-Israeli War?

AR: Give all the help possible to Israel. Consider what is at stake. It is not the moral duty of any country to send men to die helping another country. The help Israel needs is technology and military weapons—and they need them desperately. Why should we help Israel? Israel is fighting not just the Arabs but Soviet Russia, who is sending the Arabs armaments. Russia is after control of the Mediterranean and oil...

Further, why are the Arabs against Israel? (This is the main reason I support Israel.) The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it's the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are. Israel is a mixed economy inclined toward socialism. But when it comes to the power of the mind—the development of industry in that wasted desert continent—versus savages who don't want to use their minds, then if one cares about the future of civilization, don't wait for the government to do something. Give whatever you can. This is the first time I've contributed to a public cause: helping Israel in an emergency.

IHTFP 04:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Cults

On that subject raised above, cultists are not allowed to debate or question their leader's ideas. Obviously, Rand's followers do just that, sometimes getting vehement. It is only the executor of her estate who treats Objectivism as if it is a closed system of "beliefs" that he must protect. The rest of us do what she told us to do, which is to use our own powers of reason. CurtisEdward 19:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)