Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Warning, Stop Name Calling

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This is not a matter for debate.

The terms Randist, Randite, Randroid, cult, cultist and so forth are simply uncivil name calling, and are considered personal attacks. No matter what anyone thinks, people who identify themselves as Objectivists or Rand supporters should be referred to respectfully by their own self identification, and not some alteration of Rand's name. Any further comment will be reported to administration.

You are not in a position to be threatening blocks, nor are you in a position to be claiming that things "are not a matter for debate". If terms like Randite offend you, then you should say so first without threatening blocks. There are sources specifically referring to Objectivism as a cult, and those sources need to be discussed. If that offends you, with all due respect that's your problem. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought he had only placed that on my talk page, not issued it as a threat it to the world! The idea that we should have a wikipedia policy that any group of editors should be respectfully referred to by their own self-identification raises some interesting possibilities. I am thinking of setting up a group to be called "Purveyors of truth and enlightenment" and placing warnings on the pages of any editor who dares to use any other form of words. --Snowded TALK 23:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy and AGW demand that we refer to people respectfully. When people have expressed a clear preference, we should refer to them by their self-chosen name, not by names that are known to be insulting or typically used in derogatory contexts. Else we are substituting OR for identification, among other faults. Gyrae (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Very open to their suggesting a name, but a part of this whole debate is the use of the term "objectivist". If we just take philosophers (with no implication here), then people talk about Hegelians so we could have Randians if people find Randists offensive (although I can't see why). --Snowded TALK 23:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Randism even has a wiki link. I'm not sure how reasonable it is to be offended over something so trivial. No, I will continue using this well-known and common phrasing instead of "Objectivism", a term which covers much more philosophy than just that of Ayn Rand. It is not "substituting OR for identification"; it's a common phrase. Nor will I stop using this term simply because Kjaer demands it and threatens me with a ban. He actually posted a message on my talk page saying "you will be blocked" if I continue using the term "Randism". I find such threats unimpressive, petty, and strange. CABlankenship (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If it is all the same to those of you involved in editing this article I'd prefer to be referred to as "Steve" or as an editor. I'd prefer not to be lumped in with any other group. I might refer to myself as belonging to the "pro-Rand" faction in this recent period of edit warring, but I believe in neutral articles and am only "pro-Rand" in the sense that I oppose attempts to impose an anti-Rand bias on the article - not in the sense that I feel any urge to write "fan" material. Those who insist on labels where they are not needed and not wanted, particularly derogatory ones like "cult member" are not helping, and are not within Wikipedia policy. The fact that there ARE cult like followers of Rand is no different than the fact that there are cult like followers of Catholocism or anarchy or Marx or... But accusing another editor of being one of those would go outside of the bounds of civility. Is it too much to ask that we not call each other names? --Steve (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There's really no reason to have this debate on the article's talk page when there's plenty of uncontroversial edits that we could be discussing (e.g. putting in Rand's views of Plato and updating the references). See WP:Talk and WP:Soap. Idag (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

But I wasn't speaking to you or about you Steve, as reading the context clearly shows. I was talking about "Randism". If you chose to identify yourself with this term, that's your business. I didn't specify you or any other editor on this board in any way. Kjaer simply decided he was offended by the term, and started making threats. I will also not insert the name "Steve" in place of the word "Randism", and I don't think this suggestion would help in any way. For instance, take this sentence from my original post (replacing "Randism" with "Steve" as per your request): "I have also stopped using the term 'Objectivists' for the group. I usually refer to her followers as 'Steve'...nor do I believe that it's objectionable to call Steve a cult...We cannot ignore relevant and verifiable facts (such as the fact that many respectable academics consider Steve a cult) simply because those facts might offend a small group of people...nobody suggested that we change 'Objectivism' to 'Steve' in the article...trying to fabricate a relationship between Steve, Empiricism, and anarcho-capitalism which simply doesn't exist" Obviously, this simply will not work in context of my statements, and underscores the fact that I was clearly not speaking of any specific editors here in any way. CABlankenship (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Playing cute word games doesn't obscure the fact that if Steve has self-identified as an "Objectivist" and asks that you stop calling his group "Randites," immediately making a point of repeatedly using a close relative of that term is uncivil. Your "I wasn't speaking to you... I was talking about 'Randism'" reminds me of the rather silly phrasing children sometimes use: "I'm not naming any names... but someone whose name starts with a 'C' is blahblahblah." And again, just my personal opinion, but openly dancing around the edge of WP:CIVIL while this article is being observed by ArbCom seems like a pretty bad idea. arimareiji (talk) 07:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with you that innocuous terms like "Randism" are "dancing around the edge of WP:CIVIL. I think it's strangely unreasonable, in fact. I have never used the term "Randite", so I will ignore that comment. CABlankenship (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Arimareiji is correct - these are word games at best and often just naked attacks. Here is an example of Snowded calling me a cult member[1] - I have not self-identified as anything but a Wikipedia editor and I'm getting really tired of being accused of being a liar, dishonest, and a cult member. This is inexcusable behavior. --Steve (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see your name in the diff Steve, I was making a general comment about abusive behaviour being a characteristic of cults defending their views to another editor. Moving on (I think) to "self-identification"; as far as I can see the term Randists or similar has been used to describe the approach associated with Ayn Rand not individual editors. I do think there is a real issue here (signified by your and similar comments) of personal identification. It does seem that criticisms of Rand are taken personally by some editors, a behaviour which is problematic. --Snowded TALK 08:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It was my comment, made to you, about an Aristotle scholar who recommended that other scholars take a look at Rand's work that you were referencing. So, yes, I was the one who you were referring to as cultist. Using a word like that is offensive and a direct violation of WPA:NPA and even debating it is unacceptible. --Steve (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Steve, I'm sorry if you consider the term Randism for Objectivism to be a "naked attack". I don't mean it to be insulting or an attack. Nor did I ever refer to you by any such terms. I will not stop using the term "Randism", so just be aware that I don't mean this term as an attack against you (or anyone else). CABlankenship (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

CABlankenship, I didn't have to look far to find these quotes of yours on this talk page: "It's clear that Rand has many cultists (sorry), just like Hubbard. They will of course rabidly object to any unflattering information about her." So, anyone objecting to your edits or comments (which somehow always seem to be of the 'unflattering' sort) makes the objecting editor into a rabid cultist. And, "I usually refer to her followers as 'Randians'." And, "There is no reason to be overly-sensitive," which shows a lack of concern for making any positive contributions towards a good working relationship with fellow editors. Again, do not use these offensive terms in context with with Wikipedia editors. It violates WP on civility and personal attacks. --Steve (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You are identifying yourself with those comments. I clearly did not point any of those terms or comments at you. I still fail to understand why on earth the use of the term "Randism" is an insult or personal attack against you or other editors. You are choosing to identify yourself with this term (I didn't identify you with the term), and I cannot help this. What if creationists decided that they wanted to be called "scientific rationalist empiricists" and declared that any mention of the word "creationism" was "personal attack"? Would we, then, have to call all creationists "scientific rationalist empiricists", else be guilty of a "naked attack"? "Randism" is an innocuous term. You're being unreasonable by calling it offensive and a personal attack. It is, as I said, "overly sensitive". You have also failed to explain why referring to Rand's personal philosophy as "Randism" is incorrect or offensive. You just assert that it offends you, and so it should not be used. I agree with you that I have indulged in too much discussion on Rand, and her followers. But I don't agree with you that the term "Randism" constitutes a personal attack on editors. In fact, this is ridiculous to me. I will not be bullied into using whatever terminology you demand simply on the basis that you dislike certain terms. I believe that this shows your "lack of concern" in forming a "good working relationship" with me. CABlankenship (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Its a smokescreen I think. Seizing on anything to try and present people opposed to them (Kjaer, Steve, Jazz) as lacking good faith etc. Given the general tenor of their own contributions it looks like a tactical effort to try and achieve a "both sides are as bad as each other" type ruling and/or simply muddy the water by attacking the motivation and behaviour of others while feeling entitled to say anything, or make an assumptions themselves. The behaviour is in accordance with the ideological position they maintain so we shouldn't really be surprised. I know that I have never referred to Steve as anything other than Steve when addressing his comments. I have used (and will continue to use) "Randism" as the name for this particular group. While I think it is a cult, and the behaviour of its followers cult like, I do not think it would be balanced to have that reference in the lede or to allow it to dominate the article. There needs to be a cited reference to the "cult" label and its use but that is it. If Steve or anyone else wants to self-identify with that its their problem. --Snowded TALK 09:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the right section to speak of another individual, SmashTheState, who closely mirrors the position on Rand taken by Snowded, Idag, TallNapoleon, and CABlankenship. This is a quote from the bottom of his User page: "Wikipedia is at best a useless collection of random trivia, and at worst an active exercise in State and corporate propaganda for the personal profit and aggrandizement of the King Nerd and his sycophantic cult of Randroid hangers-on." No one with that attitude is likely to contribute to a neutral encyclopedia article. --Steve (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:SmashTheState"

comment deleted Kjaer (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

StS, see WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:SOAP. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Steve, do you honestly

Wikipedia already states Rand was a philosopher

There are articles specifically on Rand's Objectivism and "Criticisms of Objectivism" which are accepted as notable on Wikipedia and in both articles it's referred to specifically as a philosophy. It's ludicrous to assert the individual who created a philosophy isn't a philosopher. If both Objectivism and even criticisms of Objectivism are regarded as notable, then obviously Rand was notable as a philosopher.TheJazzFan (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It is in fact perfectly possible for a novelist to give rise to a philosophy without being a philosopher. However I think you are missing the point. This issue is not a simple either/or its a more complex question of weight and other factors all of which have been elaborated above. The determination of policy in that respect will determine the way forward. Pending that determination I don't really see that much progress can be made. At the moment there are three options are (i) she is a philosopher, possibly qualified to reflect the general lack of recognition (ii) Her profession is novelist/screen writer but she gave rise to a philosophy called objectivism (iii) she is recognised as a philosopher within a certain geography. There may be others, but all of these depends on policy decisions or interpretation that are I think (given this history) beyond the ability of the active editors on these pages to agree. --Snowded TALK 12:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You're engaging in sloppy use of language and ignoring facts so that might impede progress. She didn't "give rise" to a philosophy - weasel-wording to frame it as something she well, might have had *some* influence on. She named it and explicitly defined it, spent most of her adult life writing and speaking about it. Her novels were only part of the picture. There's no amount of "weight" that will alter this fact. It's ludicrous nonsense to suggest that someone who creates and dedicates their life to a philosophy isn't a philosopher. No matter how much you or others parse the language and dance around, however much of your life you dedicate to campaigning to keep it out of this article based on ridiculous, specious reasoning as if your efforts actually mean something, stamp your feet and hold your breath and refuse to accept it, engage in various mental gymnastics to try & bifurcate logic and fact, she was a philosopher. TheJazzFan (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably one of the best illustrations of why there are problems with this article JazzFan. One could equally say that its "ludicrous" for someone to be called a philosopher when the vast majority of academic work in the field simply ignores her. However as I had said several times the issue is a policy one. If the policy is that a few notable citations count then I'll accept that ruling. You keep missing that, not sure why, although you would be limited in your use if hyperbole if you engaged with it so that may be the motivation. --Snowded TALK 08:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

What's "one of the best illustrations of why there are problems with this article", that your reasoning is specious and will eternally shape-shift with no anchored consistency save that you simply don't like Ayn Rand's ideas despite having demonstrated no real comprehension of them? The fundamental dishonesty of your methodology continues. If it were true that you'd accept notable citations, the discussion would have been over long ago. However, acceptance or non-acceptance by the "academic world" has no bearing on whether one is a philosopher. That entire question is a red herring that you and others latch onto. I'm engaging in no hyperbole, I'm reflecting what you and others have demonstrating. The "problem" with the article is that the environment doesn't foster a genuinely neutral article. TheJazzFan (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question, your previous comment. You are fully entitled to the opinion that acceptance or otherwise by the academic world has no relevance. I am entitled to think otherwise. Just calm down and wait for Arbcom, its obvious a consensus is not possible but you might try to respect another points of view and stop using words like "dishonesty" and the like. I was being polite using "hyperbole". --Snowded TALK 12:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You're entitled to harbor the notion that the Hoover Dam was built by magic flying monkeys and that someday you'll have a bigamous marriage with several supermodels. And in exactly the same manner the difference between my position and yours is your position is unsupported by reality. TheJazzFan (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There are also a few useful essays that respond to the types of arguments raised by TheJazzFan. Rather than rehashing them, I'll just provide the links. I offer no opinion on these essays other than to state that they exist:

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, WP:INN, and WP:SEWAGE. No doubt, everyone here (if they haven't already) should read and think about them. No one is discussing deletion of any articles here, but rather an extension of the same logical fallacy -- "I found a word (e.g., philosopher) used to refer to someone on another Wikipedia page, therefore it should also be on this page." The response is: "Perhaps it shouldn't be on that page, either." What matters is the adherence to *all* Wikipedia policies based on the preponderance of verifiable evidence from reliable sources. J Readings (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL! (Looking around sneaky like) Psst! Don't tell anyone, but when I made this section, I was being facetious. I figured folks would find some reason to naysay. But the irony of those sections you referenced is that they're essentially saying "the Wikipedia environment is such a ridiculously inconsistent mess that just because something passed muster as "notable", it doesn't really mean a thing. But hey it gives some folks a chance to spend lots of time participating in all sorts of pseudo-academic exercises, take on nifty, important sounding titles and the like. But don't actually take any of it as reliable or meaningful." TheJazzFan (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

preponderance of verifiable evidence from reliable sources And it would be a simple matter to create a genuinely neutral article that simply summarizes the facts of her life and works. All relatively straightforward to document. But as long as there are those who insist that somehow "neutrality" means the exact opposite of what it means and introduce the element of taking positions on the subject, then you get exactly the results as seen here.TheJazzFan (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

May I ask you to clarify your statement? I think it's important that you state as clearly as possible what you mean, so we are all operating on the same page. When you write "it would be a simple matter to create a genuinely neutral article that simply summarizes the facts of her life and works," are you suggesting that you believe the "criticism" section or -- criticisms of her life and work (even if verifiable) -- should be removed from the article or something else in particular? It's unclear to me what you're trying to say. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Read my statement on the main Arbcom page. I spell it out there.TheJazzFan (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

What other novelist created a systematic philosophy? Stevewunder (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

L Ron Hubbard? Oh wait, that's a religion. arimareiji (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I lolled. In all seriousness though, in terms of truly systematic philosophies, I can't think of any--but then I'm not a philosopher. However I can think of philosophers who used novel and fiction to promote their ideas. Plato's dialogues are a fairly primitive form of this. Other notable examples would include Voltaire and many Existentialists. Going with a looser definition of philosopher, one could add CS Lewis to the list. I believe Nietzsche also wrote fiction, but I'm not sure. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nathaniel Branden, Rand's former top disciple, called Randism a "dogmatic religion". http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/benefits_and_hazards.html CABlankenship (talk) 04:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph where Branden uses the phrase, "dogmatic religion," starts with this sentence: "Ayn always insisted that her philosopy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others." He went on from there to interpret her position as equivalent to being a dogmatic religion. That interpretation doesn't hold.

• 1) we all see our knowledge as correct until such time as we discover an error. Every philosopher puts forth their most basic positions as correct.
• 2) Rand saw knowledge as hierarchical, that some concepts build upon and depend upon others. She said, for example, that Capitalism depends upon rational egoism. Her argument with some of the Libertarians was for taking Capitalism but not accepting rational egoism.
• 3) Rand always insisted on reason and logic and never on faith. She was explicit and adamant in disavowing faith. She never said anything like "It is true because I said it is true."
• Those three points demonstrate that Branden is wrong to use the phrase "dogmatic religion" in reference to Rand, but not necessarily with some followers. But those individuals will find no support in her writings or anything she said to support the dogmatic aspect of their belief. The real criticism here is of Rand's personality, style of presentation and not of the philosophy.

Branden speaks highly of Rand and her philosophy in the same article: "Here was a philosopher who taught that the highest virtue is thinking; and she was commonly denounced as a materialist. Here was a philosopher who taught the supremacy and inviolability of individual rights; and she was accused of advocating a dog-eat-dog world. Here was the most passionate champion in the Twentieth century of the rights of the individual against the state; and her statist opponents smeared her as being a fascist."

"Now what are some of the values that Ayn Rand offers, as a philosopher, to the many people who have been moved by her work? To begin with, she offered a comprehensive and intelligible view of the universe, a frame of reference by means of which we can understand the world. She was a philosophical system builder who offered a systematic vision of what life on this planet is essentially about and a vision of human nature and human relationships. And the point right now is not whether she was right or wrong in all respects of that vision, but that she had a vision, a highly developed one, one that seemed to promise comprehensiveness, intelligibility, and clarity; one that promised answers to a lot of burningly important questions about life. And human beings long for that. We humans have a need to feel we understand the world in which we live. We have a need to make sense out of our experience. We have a need for some intelligible portrait of who we are as human beings and what our lives are or should be about. In short, we have a need for a philosophical vision of reality." --Steve (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing that Steve's foray into personal opinion and discussion of Randism will not provoke a warning from Kjaer. Just a hunch. Here is another article I came across from Rand scholar Roderick T. Long: http://praxeology.net/unblog09-02.htm#02 Quote: "Like many admirers of Ayn Rand's work, I've often found it baffling that so many of those who are attracted to her message of reason, independence, and heroic individualism turn out to exhibit such a timid and cultic conformity when it comes to thinking outside the strictures that Rand herself laid down." This could be a good source for one of the articles about Rand or Randism. CABlankenship (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if this were correct, it has no bearing on the validity of what she had to say. A topic like this would be suitable for a discussion forum, has no place in an encyclopedia. Once again, failing any ability to intelligently refute what she said, you resort to fallacious carping. Still waiting to hear you expound on the conceptual differences between Russian and Western philosophy.TheJazzFan (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

A Cogent Argument for Why Rand Can't Be a Philosopher

To be a philosopher, one must be engaged in the study of philosophy. Philosophy is divided into three fields: natural philosophy, metaphysical philosophy, and moral philosophy.

Natural philosophy is scientific. That is, it relies on empiricism -- the study, interpretation, and categorization of sense phenomena through schema in order to produce a coherent world-view. Since Rand's beliefs are very strongly rationalist (the very basis of Objectivism is that there is a single, external, objective truth which is both observable and knowable), she is clearly not a natural philosopher.

Metaphysical philosophy is based in revelation (that is, insight and religious, theological, or spiritual discovery). Given that Rand states the metaphysical does not even exist. she can hardly be considered a metaphysical philosopher by her own lights -- although I would argue personally that this is exactly what she is, a metaphysical philosopher dedicated to the religious study of an unproved and unprovable (and non-existent) objective external universe of physical matter. I doubt the local Randroids care to have Rand defined in religious terms.

That leaves only moral philosophy, and indeed, this is generally where Rand is placed. Rand is often at least mentioned in university courses which study moral philosophy. The problem is that the system of philosophy she preaches, based roughly around egoism, is not described by Rand herself as being a system of morality. Rand argues that the entire Universe in fact operates in this fashion, regardless of the desire of humans, and that she is merely codifying what she believes to be an objective truth. This takes her from moral philosophy fo metaphysical philosophy -- and since she, herself, would have rejected (with great repugnance) her categorization as a metaphysical philosopher, we must be left to conclude that, if we are to take Rand on her own terms rather than attempt to interpret her work (which would be WP:OR anyway) Rand is not a philosopher. -- SmashTheState (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's OR to cite RS's which say she (for better or for worse) created a philosophy and was a philosopher? But it's not OR to deduce through various lines of argument that the RS's simply must be wrong, without citing RS's to back it up? arimareiji (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Full disclosure - I don't particularly like Ayn Rand or her conclusions. I don't much know her from Adam's housecat; the little I know about her, I don't find impressive. But I find no common cause with those who would turn her Wikipedia page into an attack page, or with those who would strip her of her accomplishments (such as they are) without any RS basis. arimareiji (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

SmashTheState's argument is not only OR, but it isn't that cogent. Take a look at a realistic divisions of philosophy. --Steve (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Steve's right. StS's argument is very, very heavily OR. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

StS also doesn't understand what "metaphysical" means (or what Rand said). There is a Wikipedia article he can look at that will help him on metaphysics if he wants. --Steve (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The section title mentioned something about a cogent argument. Apparently they were just joshin'.TheJazzFan (talk) 11:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand what "metaphysics" means quite well, thank you. For the record, I didn't just pull those divisions out of my hat. They're based on those used by Carl Hempel, which I thought appropriate given Rand's naturalist leanings. As for my argument being OR, there is no prohibition against using OR on a talk page as a rationale for what to include or not include on the article page. Wikipedia would be in pretty sorry shape if every statement on a talk page had to be cited. -- SmashTheState (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

SmashTheState isn't consistent, his OR isn't useful, he doesn't understand what metaphysics means, he doesn't understand Rand's positions, and, according to him, nothing exists anyway...

• Not consistent: He says in his first post in this section that Rand is not a natural philosopher and then in his last post, just above, he says "given Rand's naturalist leanings".
• His OR isn't useful: It is the original research that he claims is the reason for not listing Rand as a philosopher that is the issue. He can spin theories all day long, but what we should be discussing are not his theories of what constitutes a philosopher, since that is of no help.
• Metaphysics isn't revelation: He said that metaphysics is "based in revelation (that is, insight and religious, theological, or spiritual discovery)," which is not the case for Objectivism - maybe his personal metaphysical beliefs have to do with reading bones, or tea leaves or something, but neither Rand nor Aristotle used the term that way - like I said, he doen't know what the term means.
• He doesn't understand Rand's positions: If he did, he would not characterize her understanding of 'truth' as something that exists out there in the external world, as some intrinsic quality of existents. She said, "Truth is the product of the recognition (i.e., identification) of the facts of reality."
• We are all just a dream, or something... He personally does not believe in a, "unproved and unprovable (and non-existent) objective external universe of physical matter." Hey, I'll bet he still doesn't step in front of any unproved and unprovable moving busses. --Steve (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say Rand was a naturalist, Steve, I said she had naturalist leanings. To be a naturalist, she would have to drop her faith in an unknowable Universe-in-itself. Naturalism, science, and empiricism rely entirely and exclusively on representational reality -- that is, the reality of the senses and the symbolic representation we manufacture from our sensory data filtered through schema. And I understand Rand's position quite well. Her belief in "truth" is not scientific. Science cannot and does not make truth claims. The problem is that when she says "reality," she is really referring to the representational reality of perception, but is claiming it is the thing-in-itself (to use Kantian language). It's at best disingenuous on her part. In any case, it prohibits her from being either a naturalist philosopher or a metaphysical philosopher, as she denies both possibilities through her lack of understanding of the difference between the knowable representation and the unknowable real.

As for your mocking about my lack of faith in an unknowable objectively external reality comprised of physical matter, I have never claimed things aren't real. In a phenomenological sense, whatever I perceive is real, because this is the source of knowledge itself. My experience is dasein, and hence all the reality which is required. The realization that the theory of physical matter is internally inconsistent has been known since at least Berkeley's Three Dialogues, and has been demonstrated empirically many times in the laboratory since then (see superfluidity, for example). Although why I should need to defend myself in order to support my argument is rather mysterious. -- SmashTheState (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

she would have to drop her faith in an unknowable Universe-in-itself - I don't know who you're talking about, it apparently isn't about Ayn Rand. Show exactly where she referred to an unknowable Universe.

The realization that the theory of physical matter is internally inconsistent has been known - let us know when your car one day turns into a cactus or spontaneously melts.

Dear Bureau of Weights and Measures:

Since it's obvious that physical matter is internally inconsistent I insist that you cease operations immediately. I mean, you might as well - trust me, nothing is anything. In fact, I hope this letter doesn't simply evaporate before it reaches you.

Sincerely - SmashTheState

This:

The problem is that when she says "reality," she is really referring to the representational reality of perception, but is claiming it is the thing-in-itself (to use Kantian language)

Doesn't even make sense. This verbal muddle aside, Rand asserted that reality exists independent of man's consciousness. As Steve stated, you seem to have no genuine grasp of what she said. Of course, you've also got several kindred folk voicing their "opinions" related to the Rand article who demonstrate no grasp of what she said either.TheJazzFan (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I assure you that it makes perfect sense. I'm guessing that you're unfamiliar with Kantian terminology, and are attempting to "common sense" your way through a philosophical argument. I'm not being deliberately obtuse, the problem is that the CoPR is the basis for almost all modern Western philosophy. Some of the terms I'm using, such as the thing-in-itself or schema or representational reality would take a lot longer to explain in plain English than could reasonably be devoted to it on a talk page unrelated to the subject.

This is not entirely off-topic, however, because the brusque, jeering tone you and SteveWolfer use is part of the problem we're having with the Ayn Rand article as a whole. It is part of the Objectivist mindset, and something Ayn Rand herself both promoted and engaged in. It makes any kind of consensus impossible where Objectivists are concerned. You have a religious faith that you have access to the One Really Real Objective Truth, and so you mock anyone who stands athwart your path in the perfect faith that they are wrong and you are right. Those of us who understand that objectivity simply does not exist -- quantum physics reveals that there are no black boxes, and that simply staring hard enough at the facts are enough to make them change -- will never be able to convince you that our uncertainty is more useful (and incidentally more honest) than your faith in an objective external reality. It is a flaw you share with your prophet, Ayn.

None of which alters the fact that my argument (that Rand cannot, by her own beliefs, be a philosopher in the technical sense of the word) is internally consistent and therefore completely logical, whether or not you agree with the conclusion. -- SmashTheState (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Notice that SmashTheState is certain that one can ever be certain. We can know that his arguments make perfect sense because he "assures us" that they do. It is only our ignorance that stands in our way. The fact is, he says, that there is no objective external reality. (Evidently, he was able to take a quick look, before anything was moved by the force of his stare, and he assures us, there was nothing there.) My favorite part of his post, is his statement that it is the mindset of others that is the problem. --Steve (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Editing proposals

Just a crazy idea, but we might want to use this page for discussing actual edits? ^_^ (I'm as or more guilty than anyone.)

Transposition of "opponent of communism" by Peter Damian

This one's pretty minor, so please limit to agreeing or disagreeing with an explanation as short as or shorter than the sentence for proposed move. If you have a counter-proposal, please give it its own subsection:
[2] moves "She based some of her writings on her personal experiences and was a fierce opponent of communism." from the first paragraph to the third paragraph about her beliefs, and trims it to "She was a fierce opponent of communism." arimareiji (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Update - including the editor, five in favor and two opposed so far. Please note that unlike Minnesotans, we're allowed to change our votes. arimareiji (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agree - arimareiji (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• AgreeStevewunder (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• Agree - Idag (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - support alternative either delete as innacurate and undue weight or move, if corrected to alternative wording below. But the DEC 31 version is the consensus version, and I support reverting to that and the adding the text.Kjaer (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether to revert to the Dec. 31 version is something that will be addressed by ArbCom. I also support deleting it, but for now, do you support moving it? (we can discuss the deletions after we get the rest of this mess sorted out) Idag (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I again insist on primacy of arbcom issue. I would prefer rewrite to delete to move to status quo.Kjaer (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agree - J Readings (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• Agree But with corrected language (opposed all forms of totalitarianism and only We the The Living bears the stamp of Russia. The sentence could be improved, could be moved, or could be deleted and it would be acceptable. It is tolerable as is, but substandard. No change should be made till after ArbCom. (unsigned, but added by Steve (talk) at 0149 8 Feb 2009)

alternative wording

She was a fierce opponent of all forms of collectivism and statism,, including Nazism, communism, and the welfare state Her fictional anti-collectivist novel We the Living was based in part upon her personal experience in Soviet Russia.

The problem is not the move, but the wording. I suggest either fixing the problems and moving it or deleting the phrases entirely. First, to say that she based "some" of her writing on personal experience is either inaccurate or empty, since all writing is to some extent based on personal experience, and only one book of Rand's, We the Living, was based on her personal experience in Russia. Second, Rand considered herself an opponent of collectivism and statism, which includes Nazism, communism and the welfare state. To mention only her opposition to communism is misleading (e.g., Catholics and Nazis also opposed communism for quite different reasons,) and amounts to undue weight.

I would find the above unobjectionable, but I repeat my insistance that the JAN 6 version was imposed without consensus, and that the proper move is to revert to the DEC 31 version, and make all changes from there.Kjaer (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

My understanding was that the wording above was based off Sciabara's book, which details how her life experiences shaped her philosophy. ChildofMidnight, since you originally added that sentence, would you mind clarifying what you meant (and what sources you were referring to)? Idag (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of CoM's source, the flaws exist, and I have provided wording with specific refs that correct them. I could provide dozens more.Kjaer (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

1. The first three would need to be attributed: "XYZ, as reprinted in The Ayn Rand Lexicon by Harry Binswanger, published by, etc etc." Sources can only be directly attributed when they're taken straight from the original - alternately, all three should probably be shortened to one ref since they did all come from one ref.
2. The second sentence may be true, but it's not what the source says.
3. If this is made as its own separate counter-proposal, it can be voted on and I would be inclined to agree if the second sentence is sourced or removed. Continuing to leave it as an addendum to the above proposal does not act as a stumbling-block, since the two questions can be separated. arimareiji (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Arimareji, the sources are correct as stands, the pages cited are not pagenumbers from Binswanger's compilation, they are the page number of the original source, such as The Virtue of Selfishness. I am not sure what you mean by saying that the second sentence is not what the source says. The second sentence, as rewritten Her fictional anti-collectivist novel We the Living was based in part upon her personal experience in Soviet Russia. is factually correct, and the reference is simply provided to support it. The original wording is problematic for the reasons I stated, is offered without unsources, and I cannot support it. Kjaer (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Regardless of whether Binswanger names page numbers, the source is Binswanger. See Wikipedia:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT for clarification.
2. You may personally know facts which can be added to your source's assertion of "Ayn Rand said that her first novel, We the Living, was the closest she would ever come to writing an autobiography." to reach the conclusion of "Her fictional anti-collectivist novel We the Living was based in part upon her personal experience in Soviet Russia.", but that would be both OR and SYNTHESIS. If I simply missed seeing evidence for that sentence in the source, please provide a quote?
3. Noted; you maintain your Oppose to moving it. If there's consensus for replacing the sentence instead of moving it, then that can be done. arimareiji (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

I don't see where in the above there was a consensus to the changes applied overnight (my time). I think a fair number of them are good edits, but we still have the overemphasis on the Texas reference (surely if there has been an increase in interest there is a more recent one, otherwise several years on it is only evidence of a temporary and isolated interest (its funding source also needs mentioning by the way). The total removal of the paragraph about US influence also seems to have lost some material. I have not reverted as overall there seems to be some progress being made. The shift to collectivism from communism has my agreement (to take one example) but I don't see agreement to that above. --Snowded TALK 06:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to concur. Only three of us discussed it at all beforehand, and only one expressed unqualified acceptance. I think the majority of it is good editing, but I also think this needs to be brought back to Talk to get consensus first. arimareiji (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Reword of political philosophy to match source by Lo que pasa

[3] purports to remove wording not supported by the source and replace it with wording from the source. Please limit to a short explanation and agreement or disagreement, or counter-propose in either a new section or the next subsection. arimareiji (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Update - including the editor, three in favor and three opposed* so far. Please note that unlike Minnesotans, we're allowed to change our votes. (* - opposed to changing it in the near future; see WP:DUCK) arimareiji (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agree - I think it's a good catch wrt what the source actually says. arimareiji (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• Agree - Idag (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Tentative Agree But just three votes is not consensus, please wait esp for arbcom. Kjaer (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Agree But only after ArbCom - no edits should be made till then. --Steve (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, the opinions of Professor Hicks are better placed elsewhere. CABlankenship (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose You're trying to rewrite a paragraph in the introduction based on a single source that expresses one person' opinion. The existing paragraph summarizes article content. The revised paragraph is also confusing using ambiguous words like liberalism and leaves out specifics of her positions such as her opposition to Communism. The trimmed version isn't clear at all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

maybe you could suggest a rewrite and provide more sources? I do ahttp://www.aynrandlexicon.com/ree that not all refd sentences must be reduced to a quote of ref. This http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/ should be very handy.Kjaer (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The introduction is meant to summarize the article contents. So one person's opinion generalizing her political views is a very bad idea.

In addition to the sourced content already in the article about her personal experiences with COmmunism, her first book We the Living ("We the Living is so anti-Communist that it makes Doctor Zhivago look like The Communist Manifesto." and "On paper, the novel's anti-Communist theme was acceptable to the state, which controlled film production. But the film follows the book rather faithfully, and to Rand Communism was less a specific political movement than a free-floating governmental fog that suffocated the individual." [4], her testimony against communists in Hollywood, here's another source; "American intellectuals of the 1930s did not share Rand’s distaste for communism" [5]. The introduction is meant to be a summary giving a clear description of the article contents and maing points about the subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no question that she opposed communism. But so did Hitler and the Pope. She opposed communism as a form of statism and collectivism - that is the appropriate comment, see the refs I provided for my alternate statement, they are quite strong. Of course, I want the article reverted to the DEC 31 consensus version first.Kjaer (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Paragraph 4 of Lead

I still don't understand why the extremely negative tone of paragraph 4 of the lead has been allowed to stay in its location for so long. Is there really support for that paragraph? Stevewunder (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

If you have a specific wording change in mind, please toss it into the fray above? I can't guarantee that responses will be positive or even civil, but it's worth a try. arimareiji (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Depending on how many changes you want to make, the Sandbox is a useful tool. Though you'll have to copy the final text here, as the sandbox is cleaned out regularly. Idag (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The text should be deleted entirley, as part of the proper move, which is to revert to the DEC 31 version which suffered none of these difficulties. An RfC was held to see if there was consensus for the JAN 6 rewrites which included this paragraph and a radical reinterpretation of the cited Library of Congress survey. The RfC failed, and the Jan 6 rewrites should be reverted. This is the subject of the current arb com. Kjaer (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus for such a revision. Said RFC is not accepted. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably not a good idea to use command words like "must" in the subject header, Kjaer. It's a little off-putting. J Readings (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The RfC says that there WAS consensus. You are right that it failed. So, you prove my point, over and over and over. On the basis of your finally coming to reason and admitting that you did not have consensus, please act and revert the article.Kjaer (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I miswrote. I meant to write that there was no consensus to revert--as in to revert to Dec 31. The RFC was invalid, and I do not accept its results. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That paragraph does not belong in the article unless it is supporting something in a criticism section. But no changes should be made till after ArbCom. --Steve (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with Steve that that paragraph cannot stay as written. Until someone can propose something better I'm in favor of deleting it. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I am completely in favor of rewriting it. But I think some points from the criticism section should be in the lede and that's why I think we should keep it. Idag (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's have formal votes:

delete unacceptable POV Kjaer (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC) See WP:!vote. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

delete after the ArbCom. --Steve (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep with some rewriting - the lede is supposed to be a summary of the main points in the entire article. - Idag (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete as it is. Something like it, but substantially shortened and rewritten to be less WP:POINTy, would be good. arimareiji (talk) 05:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Revise Perhaps something like "While Rand's work has failed to generate much interest outside of Objectivist circles, her books continue to sell in high volumes, and intellectual collectives dedicated to her ideas form a lively community." CABlankenship (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

First, a small note to Kjaer: please read WP:!vote. There are no formal votes on Wikipedia or anything like it. There is only discussion. SlimVirgen et al., all very experienced editors, mentioned this point to you on several occasions, so it's a little strange why you keep talking about an old RfC and a consensus long since passed. Second, per WP:CONSENSUS, the consensus can always change. Provided that no one is canvassing -- something unfortunately you were guilty of -- a new consensus can always form made by editors wanting to improve the article. All this repetition of reverting to December 31 is really meaningless at this point. Aside from that, and linked to this current section's discussion, I provided several citations for issues regarding Rand and philosophy departments. I would like to incorporate those into the article at some point, in particular the criticism section. I've been waiting for the ArbCom ruling but I'm wondering if it's necessary considering what's happening here right now. Weeks have passed since I posted them for EndlessMike888 and Snowded, so I'll assume that since they meet WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, they can be used there with a synopsis per WP:LEAD in the lead. J Readings (talk)

agree with your comments re votes. Which references are you saying you posted for me? Sorry there has been so much I may well have missed it --Snowded TALK 21:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think a good start would be to simply cut and paste paragraph 4 from the lead to criticism. Idag, I disagree that the lead should introduce a strong negative criticism. I think it would be hard to find another good article that does such. It does seem reasonable however that, given the virulent criticisms that exist, the criticism section be longer than most. I think the paragraph should be moved before the results of arbcom because:

1) arbcom is taking forever

2) we are letting what is now a well-agreed problematic paragraph linger

3) if the results of arbcom were to somehow affect this paragraph, we can always change it back then Stevewunder (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, WP:LEAD outlines what we are supposed to do in these instances. The lead is simply a concise summary of everything else in the article. Others, including Arimareiji (I think), have mentioned this point already. Should there be criticism in the lead? Well, yes of course there should be. Why? Because there is an entire section in the article entitled "criticism". So, *something* should be there in order to introduce what the reader will find later on. The next question is: is there support for the assertions already made in those lead sentences? Well, yes and no. Yes, they are cited on the talk page above. No, they are not cited in the article yet (as far as I can tell). I would suggest a revision to the lead that accurately reflects the several citations I already posted on this talk page regarding Rand and philosophy departments -- otherwise, add them to the criticism section and then revise the lead. Something to that effect. J Readings (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

My main point is extreme negativity. "Within academia, her philosophical work has earned either no attention or has been criticized for its allegedly derivative nature,[3] a lack of rigor, and a limited understanding of the issues she wrote about". Note that this is incongruous with fact she isn't called a philosopher in the first place! She is merely a novelist, screenwriter, playwright! You can't have it both ways. You can't not call her a philosopher and then talk about how bad she was at it! Stevewunder (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

In paragraph 3 there is reference to what is termed "theoretical work". This presumably same work is called "philosophical work" only when it is pointed out that it gets no attention. Should we really draw attention to the fact something gets no attention? Why not make the whole article about what she isn't? It seems to be the goal here. Stevewunder (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So why not talk about this paragraph over and over and over without doing anything to it! The disagreement over moving this paragraph isn't editing by consensus, it is filibustering. Stevewunder (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I moved it again since no one else would. So ban me. Stevewunder (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No need to be hostile, Stevewunder.J Readings (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It would need to be revised a little bit, I happily acknowledge that (I never wrote that sentence to begin with). But there is enough support found in independent third-party newspapers for what disinterested third-parties would already acknowledge by reading these sources: that philosophy departments generally did not (and still do not) teach her work for decades. Only someone trying to push an agenda would attempt to halt that point from being cited in the article, I think. After all, Rand was first and foremost a novelist based on what the preponderance of sources say. Then, there are the sources presented by independent third-parties discussing the situation. Here's a sample: Stanford University's philosophy department did not teach the ideas of Ayn Rand writes Jennifer Nuckols in the University Wire (if a course were to be taught, it was by the students themselves not the professors who wanted nothing to do with it). Today, “Rand remains an obscure figure in Israeli academia even though many Israelis read her novels in their teens and 20s including Prof. Elhanan Yakira head of the philosophy department at the Hebrew University. ‘I don't know anyone with us that really teaches her philosophy he said." Orit Arfa, “The nexus,” The Jerusalem Post, FEATURES, July 13, 2007, pg. 26. “Ayn Rand generally held little regard for academic philosophers, and philosophers have tended to return the favor,” writes David Glenn in the Chronicle of Higher Education, "'It used to be the kiss of death to your career to say that you liked Ayn Rand,' says Jurgis Brakas, an associate professor of philosophy at Marist College, whose work is not supported by any Rand-affiliated foundation." And so on, J Readings (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be deleted. The Austin chair was already mentioned above, and the lack of academic attention is noted directly below. Also, if we are doing this, then I shall rewrite the opponent of communism, personal experience section and move it as per above, and restore the philosopher attribution with the DEC 31 qualifying footnote which is the obvious consensus. Kjaer (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Kjaer, it needs to be rewritten, not deleted entirely. And please don't touch the "philosopher" issue in the lead until ArbCom decides on their interpretation of WP:UNDUE. Let's not get into another debate on this issue, Kjaer.J Readings (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

J Readings, I agree entirely with what you just wrote. I think "Her ideas and work, however, have generated much criticism." is a good final sentence to the lead, and well alludes in a neutral tone to the criticism to come.

Kjaer, I don't see how it follows that you should restore everything else. Not one person argued to keep paragraph 4 as it was, which is different than restoring what is under major debate. Stevewunder (talk) 03:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say restore everything. I said rewrite the "oppose communism" sentence per the above discussion, and restore the word "philosopher" with the DEC 31 footnote which is this:

Her New York Times obituary (May 7, 1982, p. 7) identifies her as "writer and philosopher." She was not an academician. Some sources simply label her a "philosopher," others prefer language such as "espoused a philosophy." One writer comments: "Perhaps because she so eschewed academic philosophy, and because her works are rightly considered to be works of literature, Objectivist philosophy is regularly omitted from academic philosophy. Yet throughout literary academia, Ayn Rand is considered a philosopher. Her works merit consideration as works of philosophy in their own right." (Jenny Heyl, 1995, as cited in Mimi R Gladstein, Chris Matthew Sciabarra(eds), ed (1999). Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand. Penn State Press. p. 17. ISBN 0-271-01831-3.

I also suggest you look at the DEC 31 intro wording as to her being controversial, since that will not have any objections whatsoever.

But if everything is up for grabs, then everything is up for grabs, and I have no problem with that. Contrary to Tall Napoleon's false assertion below, I never insisted upon arbcom, I explicitly opposed it, and supported we continue editting. Kjaer (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with revising the oppose communism sentence, if it is mostly agreed on here. The "philosopher" label, however, is the most controversial issue here. I am in favor of making progress on areas of the article which aren't under major dispute and not of letting the major dispute stop everything else. Perhaps if we can find common ground on other issues, when we return to the major item of dispute we will be more able to work together on it. But maybe not. Stevewunder (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

A Cogent Argument for Why Rand Can't Be a Philosopher

To be a philosopher, one must be engaged in the study of philosophy. Philosophy is divided into three fields: natural philosophy, metaphysical philosophy, and moral philosophy.

Natural philosophy is scientific. That is, it relies on empiricism -- the study, interpretation, and categorization of sense phenomena through schema in order to produce a coherent world-view. Since Rand's beliefs are very strongly rationalist (the very basis of Objectivism is that there is a single, external, objective truth which is both observable and knowable), she is clearly not a natural philosopher.

Metaphysical philosophy is based in revelation (that is, insight and religious, theological, or spiritual discovery). Given that Rand states the metaphysical does not even exist. she can hardly be considered a metaphysical philosopher by her own lights -- although I would argue personally that this is exactly what she is, a metaphysical philosopher dedicated to the religious study of an unproved and unprovable (and non-existent) objective external universe of physical matter. I doubt the local Randroids care to have Rand defined in religious terms.

That leaves only moral philosophy, and indeed, this is generally where Rand is placed. Rand is often at least mentioned in university courses which study moral philosophy. The problem is that the system of philosophy she preaches, based roughly around egoism, is not described by Rand herself as being a system of morality. Rand argues that the entire Universe in fact operates in this fashion, regardless of the desire of humans, and that she is merely codifying what she believes to be an objective truth. This takes her from moral philosophy fo metaphysical philosophy -- and since she, herself, would have rejected (with great repugnance) her categorization as a metaphysical philosopher, we must be left to conclude that, if we are to take Rand on her own terms rather than attempt to interpret her work (which would be WP:OR anyway) Rand is not a philosopher. -- SmashTheState (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's OR to cite RS's which say she (for better or for worse) created a philosophy and was a philosopher? But it's not OR to deduce through various lines of argument that the RS's simply must be wrong, without citing RS's to back it up? arimareiji (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Full disclosure - I don't particularly like Ayn Rand or her conclusions. I don't much know her from Adam's housecat; the little I know about her, I don't find impressive. But I find no common cause with those who would turn her Wikipedia page into an attack page, or with those who would strip her of her accomplishments (such as they are) without any RS basis. arimareiji (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

SmashTheState's argument is not only OR, but it isn't that cogent. Take a look at a realistic divisions of philosophy. --Steve (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Steve's right. StS's argument is very, very heavily OR. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

StS also doesn't understand what "metaphysical" means (or what Rand said). There is a Wikipedia article he can look at that will help him on metaphysics if he wants. --Steve (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The section title mentioned something about a cogent argument. Apparently they were just joshin'.TheJazzFan (talk) 11:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand what "metaphysics" means quite well, thank you. For the record, I didn't just pull those divisions out of my hat. They're based on those used by Carl Hempel, which I thought appropriate given Rand's naturalist leanings. As for my argument being OR, there is no prohibition against using OR on a talk page as a rationale for what to include or not include on the article page. Wikipedia would be in pretty sorry shape if every statement on a talk page had to be cited. -- SmashTheState (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

SmashTheState isn't consistent, his OR isn't useful, he doesn't understand what metaphysics means, he doesn't understand Rand's positions, and, according to him, nothing exists anyway...

• Not consistent: He says in his first post in this section that Rand is not a natural philosopher and then in his last post, just above, he says "given Rand's naturalist leanings".
• His OR isn't useful: It is the original research that he claims is the reason for not listing Rand as a philosopher that is the issue. He can spin theories all day long, but what we should be discussing are not his theories of what constitutes a philosopher, since that is of no help.
• Metaphysics isn't revelation: He said that metaphysics is "based in revelation (that is, insight and religious, theological, or spiritual discovery)," which is not the case for Objectivism - maybe his personal metaphysical beliefs have to do with reading bones, or tea leaves or something, but neither Rand nor Aristotle used the term that way - like I said, he doen't know what the term means.
• He doesn't understand Rand's positions: If he did, he would not characterize her understanding of 'truth' as something that exists out there in the external world, as some intrinsic quality of existents. She said, "Truth is the product of the recognition (i.e., identification) of the facts of reality."
• We are all just a dream, or something... He personally does not believe in a, "unproved and unprovable (and non-existent) objective external universe of physical matter." Hey, I'll bet he still doesn't step in front of any unproved and unprovable moving busses. --Steve (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say Rand was a naturalist, Steve, I said she had naturalist leanings. To be a naturalist, she would have to drop her faith in an unknowable Universe-in-itself. Naturalism, science, and empiricism rely entirely and exclusively on representational reality -- that is, the reality of the senses and the symbolic representation we manufacture from our sensory data filtered through schema. And I understand Rand's position quite well. Her belief in "truth" is not scientific. Science cannot and does not make truth claims. The problem is that when she says "reality," she is really referring to the representational reality of perception, but is claiming it is the thing-in-itself (to use Kantian language). It's at best disingenuous on her part. In any case, it prohibits her from being either a naturalist philosopher or a metaphysical philosopher, as she denies both possibilities through her lack of understanding of the difference between the knowable representation and the unknowable real.

As for your mocking about my lack of faith in an unknowable objectively external reality comprised of physical matter, I have never claimed things aren't real. In a phenomenological sense, whatever I perceive is real, because this is the source of knowledge itself. My experience is dasein, and hence all the reality which is required. The realization that the theory of physical matter is internally inconsistent has been known since at least Berkeley's Three Dialogues, and has been demonstrated empirically many times in the laboratory since then (see superfluidity, for example). Although why I should need to defend myself in order to support my argument is rather mysterious. -- SmashTheState (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

she would have to drop her faith in an unknowable Universe-in-itself - I don't know who you're talking about, it apparently isn't about Ayn Rand. Show exactly where she referred to an unknowable Universe.

The realization that the theory of physical matter is internally inconsistent has been known - let us know when your car one day turns into a cactus or spontaneously melts.

Dear Bureau of Weights and Measures:

Since it's obvious that physical matter is internally inconsistent I insist that you cease operations immediately. I mean, you might as well - trust me, nothing is anything. In fact, I hope this letter doesn't simply evaporate before it reaches you.

Sincerely - SmashTheState

This:

The problem is that when she says "reality," she is really referring to the representational reality of perception, but is claiming it is the thing-in-itself (to use Kantian language)

Doesn't even make sense. This verbal muddle aside, Rand asserted that reality exists independent of man's consciousness. As Steve stated, you seem to have no genuine grasp of what she said. Of course, you've also got several kindred folk voicing their "opinions" related to the Rand article who demonstrate no grasp of what she said either.TheJazzFan (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I assure you that it makes perfect sense. I'm guessing that you're unfamiliar with Kantian terminology, and are attempting to "common sense" your way through a philosophical argument. I'm not being deliberately obtuse, the problem is that the CoPR is the basis for almost all modern Western philosophy. Some of the terms I'm using, such as the thing-in-itself or schema or representational reality would take a lot longer to explain in plain English than could reasonably be devoted to it on a talk page unrelated to the subject.

This is not entirely off-topic, however, because the brusque, jeering tone you and SteveWolfer use is part of the problem we're having with the Ayn Rand article as a whole. It is part of the Objectivist mindset, and something Ayn Rand herself both promoted and engaged in. It makes any kind of consensus impossible where Objectivists are concerned. You have a religious faith that you have access to the One Really Real Objective Truth, and so you mock anyone who stands athwart your path in the perfect faith that they are wrong and you are right. Those of us who understand that objectivity simply does not exist -- quantum physics reveals that there are no black boxes, and that simply staring hard enough at the facts are enough to make them change -- will never be able to convince you that our uncertainty is more useful (and incidentally more honest) than your faith in an objective external reality. It is a flaw you share with your prophet, Ayn.

None of which alters the fact that my argument (that Rand cannot, by her own beliefs, be a philosopher in the technical sense of the word) is internally consistent and therefore completely logical, whether or not you agree with the conclusion. -- SmashTheState (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Notice that SmashTheState is certain that one can ever be certain. We can know that his arguments make perfect sense because he "assures us" that they do. It is only our ignorance that stands in our way. The fact is, he says, that there is no objective external reality. (Evidently, he was able to take a quick look, before anything was moved by the force of his stare, and he assures us, there was nothing there.) My favorite part of his post, is his statement that it is the mindset of others that is the problem. --Steve (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)