Talk:Objectivism/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Ethics Section

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

Objectivism favors an esthetic of Romanticism?

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

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

Image

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re-placing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Move to Rand's Objectivist philosophy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removed argument from quantum mechanics

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

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

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

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

help with Objectivist criticism of Alan Greenspan

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

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

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

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

Proposed Objectivism WikiProject

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

Academic Response section

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

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

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

Removed uncited apologetics.

Here's the text I removed.

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

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

Is Objectivist philosophy a cult

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

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

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

Request for comment: moving homosexuality article.

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

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

Satanism

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

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

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

wiki

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

strongatheism.net

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

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

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

Someone keeps re-adding this...

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

criticism of ayn rand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of philosophers

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

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

Criticism section

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

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

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

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

(removing personal attack)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name change dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(removing personal attack)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(removing personal attack)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Al 19:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archiving

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

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

RJII

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

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

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

Value

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Objectivism a cult?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(removing personal attack)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV problem isn't yet resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(removing personal attack)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ayn Rand as a philosopher?

I had to read Ayn Rand in my college ethics class at Texas A&M. Her essay from "Selfishness, the Unknown Ideal" was in my textbook. Questions about it were on my midterm. No, the professor wasn’t an Objectivist (he was a fan of Dewey), but he (and the book) called her view a “philosophy.” It’s becoming standard for Ayn Rand to represent the “ethical egoist” position in ethics classes. So I don’t see how you not call her philosophy a … philosophy. I run the Objectivist Wiki, where her stance as a philosopher is pretty obvious: http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/ --GreedyCapitalist 00:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Randism isn't accepted by the vast majority of academic philosophers. Because of that, it's pseudophilosophy by the same terms that intelligent design is pseudoscience. If we accept Randism as real philosophy, we'll have to accept ID as science. We'll have to claim the flat earth "theory" is a real scientific theory. We'll have to throw out all academic credibility and replace it with equal validity (which is against Wikipedia's rules for obvious reasons). The fact of the matter is, these articles favor an anti-academic's views over that of academia. It's favoring the least credible research over the most credible. Essentially, the Rand-related articles are the epitome of POV in its worst form. And for this, we must have the POV tag here until that problem is solved. -- LGagnon 01:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you're confusing standards to establish a valid scientific theory with standards to establish a recognized philosophy. A valid scientific theory is endorsed by the vast majority of scientists. It's absurd to imply that all philosphers endorse all philosophies. It should be needless to say, but validity within philosophy is very different from validity in science. --Serge 01:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

LGagnon I have to agree with Serge on this one, what is considered scientific is reletivly rigid whereas what constitutes a philosophy is much more up to interpratation. Crazynas 01:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What the hell is "real philosophy"? No such thing. RJII 01:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree, there is such a thing as a philosophy, although it is quite different from a scientific theory. Crazynas 01:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we include Scientology in the philosophy category? It's not accepted by academia, but I'm sure Hubbard's crew would love a brand new title. And they simply have a set of beliefs, which fits the vernacular definition of philosophy.

And no, not all philosophers agree with every philosophy. But they do agree on what is a philosophy and what isn't. If they didn't, they could teach any random set on nonsense in universities. Everything from I'm OK, You're OK to Scientology to Mein Kamphf would flood academic philosophy. There's a need to point out that this stuff is rejected by the experts.

As I've suggested, we should not call Randism a philosophy, but claim that Randists call it one. To call it a philosophy is to take up one POV, and as we do so in the articles now we must have a POV tag warning those the this article is not neutral. And that tag will be there, as well as in other Rand-related articles, until the problem is solved. -- LGagnon 01:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You've already been provided with sources that refer to her philosophy as a "philosophy" so you're arguing is fruitless. RJII 01:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC) For example, "Russian-born American writer who, in commercially successful novels, presented her philosophy of objectivism, essentially reversing the traditional Judeo-Christian ethic." -Encyclopedia Britannica. So, I'm going to remove the POV tag. RJII 01:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

We hold Britannica as having the final say now? Britannica, who's known to make even more mistakes than Wikipedia does, is the end-all-be-all source, beyond further discussion? This is a controversial subject, and we are not going to simply cite one source and say that's that. We're going to be NPOV about editing this whether you like it or not.

We're supposed to remove those tags by consensus that the problem has been fixed. I'm reverting your vandalism again. -- LGagnon 02:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Britannica is a credible source. And, stop accusing me of vandalism. Removing the POV tag is not vandalism. You're the one being disruptive here. I've provided a source for it being a "philosophy." RJII 02:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude, the POV tag is not supposed to be removed by the opposite side of the argument just because you disagree. That is considered vandalism, whether you believe it or not. You're imposing your views on a controversial article by pushing the idea that there's no controversy when there is one.

And your source is only one. Like I said, it's not the end-all-be-all source. All arguments are not overridden because Britannica says so. You're basically arguing that because we have one source there's no other source that can argue agianst it. And if that's not your argument, then I think the debate continues on. -- LGagnon 02:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You're forgetting to establish someone is not a "philosopher", you must maintain that no reputable source claims this; you can't play "mine cancel yours". Brtannica is a reputable source. Case closed. MrVoluntarist 02:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No, not closed. That's not how it works. NPOV is about showing all view points. We don't say "oh look, one source in our favor; so much for NPOV". We are not going to throw away the rules just because of one source when multiple sources will reveal multiple opinions. -- LGagnon 02:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I know how NPOV works. The requirements for listing someone as a "philosopher" are much lower than listing them as being "correct". There's no special privilege associated with being called a "philosopher". The fact that people who disagree with her and were denigrated in her work don't want to give her the title doesn't hold a lot of weight. You're the one throwing away the rules by allowing a small cabal to overturn a long-held consensus. MrVoluntarist 03:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to draw the line between being a bad baker and not being a baker at all. Consider that anyone can burn a cake. Al 01:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Is that your philosophy? MrVoluntarist 01:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Seriously guys, this is getting ridiculous. Having a filter for whose belief system is a real, academia-endorsed philosophy and whose isn't? Come on. MrVoluntarist 01:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Really. I thought one of the purposes behind the creation of Wikipedia was to be free from the political correctness restrictions of academia. RJII 02:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't PCness. This is about the truth. Like I said, if we call this philosophy, then Dianetics is psychiatry and intelligent design is science. -- LGagnon 02:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics doesn't claim to be psychiatry, analogy expert. And "philosophy" doesn't attempt to enhance the prestige of the beliefs like calling something a "science" would. Lots of ridiculous belief systems get to retain the title of philosophy. Just look at the philosophy portal! MrVoluntarist 02:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics was originally a "psychiatry alternative" until it was banned by the APA and had to switch to "religion". And yes, calling something a philosophy does enhance its prestige. It legitamitizes it over all the mental snake oil that's thrown around by various wackos. And that's what's happening here. -- LGagnon 02:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"I support objectivism. Objectivism holds that ... ." "That's stupid." "Oh yeah? Well, it's a philsophy." "oh. Tell me more then." And on dianetics -- you're making my point. They present it as an alternative to using psychiatry. MrVoluntarist 02:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You prove my point there. If it's called a philosophy, it's considered legit, while "ideology" could be anything. It's blatantly POV language used for the sake of making Randism sound like it's on level with anything academic. And as for Dianetics, the term "psychiatry alternative" also gives it an air of legitimacy, as it sounds like it's a valid alternative. -- LGagnon 02:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that was your sockpuppet. I agreed with no such thing. In fact, I mocked your claim that people lend additional credence to something because it's a "philosophy". And no, "psychiatry alternative" does not imply "valid psychiatry alternative". Where do you get this?MrVoluntarist 02:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Al is not my sockpuppet. We have totally different edit histories which you can easily verify on your own. For instance, he never helped out when East Bay Ray tried to destroy the Jello Biafra article. Don't use such a ridiculous ad hominem attack on me.

As for your claims, you've made no argument other than "I don't agree". Typical Randian arguments: all personal attacks, no substance. Makes me wonder if you're a sockpuppet for someone. -- LGagnon 03:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You claimed I agreed with you due to your inability to read. You've claimed I've made no arguments. You can't tell when someone's joking. Who's wasting whose time here? MrVoluntarist 03:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit that "philosophy" does sound more legit than "ideology", "political view", or "personal beliefs". Al 02:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for "admitting" something everyone already knew was your position, based on your express hostility to calling objectivism "philosophy". So honest, so heartfelt of you. MrVoluntarist 02:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

θ

Philosophy can and should be approached as a science (although most mystics would disagree with this) but the epistemological process for validating the highly abstract ideas contained in a philosophical worldview is necessarily more open to disagreement due to the difficulty of validating philosophical concepts. For example, the process of concept formation is a key point of argument in different philosophies, with vastly differing takes between, say Schopenhauer (materialism), Ayn Rand (objectivism), and Plato (idealism). But we don’t take the fact of disagreement as such as evidence that the theories are not philosophical theories, and we do not take popularity polls to determine the truth. Any two different philosophies contradict each other at least in part by definition.

Due to the constraints of the philosophical profession, it is accepted that these are differing theories, and the validity of each up to each individual to judge. This is different from the field of evolutionary biology, where ideas be experimentally validated, and where consensus is necessary for progress, and even for a coherent understanding of a field. To call a theory a “scientific,” we have objective criteria regarding the *process* - not regarding the popularity of its advocate. The fact of community consensus only servers as confirmation of the validity of the experimental process, not as validity of the theory itself, since scientific theories are not taken on faith. There is no commonly-accepted criteria for the *process* of deriving philosophical ideas. Indeed, this is a key point of philosophical debate itself. For this reason, the only questions we Wikipedians should be concerned with is the prominence of a philosophical theory.

Andthere is plenty of evidence for the prominence of Objectivism. For example, if you Google Ayn Rand on Google News, I get 174 hits. Nietzsche gets 177. Immanuel Kant gets 31. By this (admittedly nonscientific) comparison, Ayn Rand is clearly taken sufficiently seriously in our culture to merit inclusion here as a philosopher.

--GreedyCapitalist 04:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's false. She's a popular writer, but she's a nobody in the world of philosophy. Al 04:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If having your essays published in philosophy textbooks does not qualify one as a philosopher, what does?

--GreedyCapitalist 04:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Publishing peer-reviewed essays instead of suing critics. -- LGagnon 04:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

She wished to get her philosophy to the masses. She did so remarkably with Atlas Shrugged and her books designed to be read by the masses. Just because you don't like it and you try to slander it by making comparisons to bad things like Dianetics does not make it "not a philosophy." --Neverborn 05:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not because I don't like it. It's because academia rejects it. Again, the Randists prove me right that they're illogical ad hominem users. -- LGagnon 19:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

She certainly wanted to affect the masses and get masses of money, but that doesn't make her ideology count as philosophy. Al 05:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Definition of "philosophy": [4] RJII 06:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're published in philosophy textbooks, then you're a major philosopher. Aristotle and Plato didn't publish in peer-reviewed academic journals, but they count. Even where Rand is condemned, she referred to as a philosopher. LaszloWalrus 17:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Aristotle & Plato didn't have the same standards in place as modern philosophers do. You can't compare their situations to today. Today, in a world with tons of snake oil salesmen, we need such standards to weed out everything from Dianetics to the Time Cube. A&P didn't have an anti-academic/anti-intellectual front to battle against, but modern intellectuals do.

And no, Rand is not always called a philosopher by opponents. Plenty simply call her a cultist, a McCarthyist, or any number of political insults. -- LGagnon 19:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not true. The list of major philosophers excludes Dennett, even though he has a huge footprint in academia as compared to Rand. Whereas Rand shows up once in a while and is often laughed at, Dennett's a standard in classes on philosophy of the mind. Despite this, he's just not as big a name as Plato and some of the others who rank as major. Rand is minor, at best. Her status as a professional philosopher is suspect, and the quality of her work is extremely questionable. Al 17:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a philosopher whose "quality of work" is not questionable? Quality of the philosophy is irrelevant. Look at the definition of "philosophy" in the dictionary. It says nothing about quality. RJII 19:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The dictionary (assuming the ridiculous idea that there is even one dictionary) is not the end-all-be-all truth source. Again, you try to claim that one source overrides all. So much for working towards NPOV. -- LGagnon 19:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Here is a list of PhD philosophers and members of the Steering Committee of Ayn Rand Society of the American Philosophical Association, Eastern Division. They have published academic works on Ayn Rand. I don't know how much more legit you can possibly get.

• Allan Gotthelf is Visiting Professor of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh, where he holds the University's Fellowship for the Study of Objectivism.
• James G. Lennox is Professor of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh.

Robert Mayhew

• Robert Mayhew is Professor of Philosophy at Seton Hall University.
• Douglas Rasmussen is Professor of Philosophy at St. John's University (NYC).
• Tara Smith is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin, and holder of the University's Fellowship for the Study of Objectivism.
• Darryl Wright is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Harvey Mudd College, and Adjunct Professor at The Claremont Graduate School.
• Fred D. Miller, Jr. is Professor of Philosophy at Bowling Green State University, and Executive Director of the University's Social Philosophy and Policy Center.
• Lester H. Hunt is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin, Madison

Here are some other philosophers (members of the American Philosophical Association and their invited speakers) who have spoken professionally about Ayn Rand's philosophy:

• Helen Cullyer (Center for Hellenic Studies and University of Pittsburgh)
• Christine Swanton (University of Auckland)
• Jaegwon Kim (Brown University)
• David Kelley (Verbank, NY)
• William Bechtel (Georgia State University)
• Harry Binswanger (Ayn Rand Institute)
• George Walsh (Salisbury State University)
• Fred D. Miller, Jr. (Bowling Green State University)
• Richard Kamber (Trenton State College)
• Andrew Bernstein (Pace University)
• Neera Kapur Badhwar (University of Oklahoma)
• Gary Hull (Claremont Grad. Sch. of Business)
• Susan Haack (University of Miami)
• Stephen Hicks (Rockford College)
• Jan Narveson (University of Waterloo)
• Tibor Machan (Chapman University)
• Paul E. Griffiths (University of Pittsburgh)
• Douglas B. Rasmussen (St. John's University)
• James G. Lennox (University of Pittsburgh)
• Allan Gotthelf (University of Pittsburgh)
• Fred D. Miller, Jr. (Bowling Green State University)
• Robert Mayhew (Seton Hall University)
• John M. Cooper (Princeton University)

The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies is now abstracted and indexed in whole or in part by Arts and Humanities Citation Index, CSA Worldwide Political Science Abstracts, Current Contents/Arts & Humanities, IBR (International Bibliography of Book Reviews of Scholarly Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences), IBZ (International Bibliography of Periodical Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences), International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, International Political Science Abstracts, The Left Index, The Philosopher's Index, MLA International Bibliography, MLA Directory of Periodicals, Social Sciences Citation Index, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, and Women's Studies International. Also linked to EpistemeLinks.com, The History Journals Guide, History Resources, The Insight, Literature Online, NEXUS, and SOSIG (Social Science Information Gateway)

Want more? --GreedyCapitalist 00:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, both Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff have been invited to the [graduating class (and the philosophy departments) of West Point. Is West Point “biased” too? --GreedyCapitalist 00:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The fascist smear of Ayn Rand

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

As someone whose entire extended family was slaughtered by Nazis (my grandmother and grandfather survived the massacre of our Ukrainian shetl because they served in the Soviet army) I am slightly offended at being called a fascist-worshiper. I was beaten up many times for being a Jew as a kid, but you’re the first to call me a Nazi. Perhaps if you had read one word of Ayn Rand, you would know that she was equality harsh on conservatives as she was on leftists. (I was a member of the Young Democrats before I became an Objectivist) Perhaps you have not heard of Peikoff’s book, which was dedicated to understanding the cause of Nazism and defending individual rights. And you call my attack ad-hominem?

- - --GreedyCapitalist 04:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to call other Wikipedians fascists, at least have the balls to defend your claims instead of trying to erase the evidence. --GreedyCapitalist 23:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

When did I ever erase evidence? That's blatant libel and you know it.

And my claim of fascism is due to the plot laid out by John Galt. What do you think would happen to society if he actually orchestrated the fall of civilization? Do you think everyone would live to bow before Galt's ubermensch gang? Galt's plan, in reality, would cause widespread poverty, and thus widespread chaos, killing off tons of people. And Galt would just sit back and watch them die. That's utterly disgusting at least, fascism at worst.

And ya, I know Rand didn't say that would happen. Rich girls like her don't understand what extreme poverty does to people, so of course she can't show the situation in a realistic manner. But the fact of the matter is that if you cause the downfall of a civilization's economy the worse of human nature comes out. Poor people will rob and kill to survive, those with power will abuse it to improve themselves, and the Klan & neo-nazis will blame it all on minorities and slaughter them.

The fact that Atlas Shrugged is unrealistic (which is pointed out time and time again by critics) is very important to note because if it was realistic it'd look a lot like Mein Kamphf.

By the way, I'd recommend you look into a book called Parable of the Sower by Octavia Butler. It'll give you a better perspective on what would happen in such a world. -- LGagnon 02:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Learn what fascism is. RJII 02:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"When did I ever erase evidence? That's blatant libel and you know it."

What do you call this: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29&diff=57649409&oldid=57649023 --GreedyCapitalist 02:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I call it an accident. Honestly, I didn't mean to do that; I thought the landscape of the page seemed a bit different, but didn't realise that was why (my guess was that you'd deleted it yourself). I apologize for that technical error, so long as you're willing to accept that it was one and not vandalism.

Still, I wouldn't call it "evidence". It's evidence that you aren't a fascist (I never explicitly called you one anyways), but it is not evidence against Rand. -- LGagnon 04:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

---

"And my claim of fascism is due to the plot laid out by John Galt."

It's obvious to me that you have never read Ayn Rand's writing, nor have you actually read the Wikipedia pages on Ayn Rand's life or work, since you don’t have the slightest familiarity with her ideas or biography. Ayn Rand (and I as well) came to America from Soviet Russia as penniless immigrants to escape anti-Semitism and a totalitarian state. She dedicated her life to defending individual rights and the dignity of the individual (as have I) And you accuse us of being facists?

I don’t know what else to say. You have ignored my attempts at referring you to actual Objectivist communities or writing, you have ignored my attempts to resolve this peacefully on your user page, you ignore or erase any evidence I present, and you have tried to vandalize my comments instead of replying to them.

I appeal to saner minds.

--GreedyCapitalist 03:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, did you know that Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia once ran an Ayn Rand study group? Does that make him a fascist and cult member too?

Jimbo doesn't even seem like a real Randist to me, let alone a fascist (he's kind of altruist for a Randist). I haven't seen him imposing his views onto the articles, so I can at least say that from my experience he seems like one of those guys who went through "the Ayn Rand phase" (as its come to be called; I'm surprised there's very little about this in the articles) then rejoined the rest of society afterwards.

Oh, and please don't get me started on the hell that was The Fountainhead again. Let's just say that I have dealt with Rand's work already and still didn't like it.

And ya, I looked at your forum, and that was also unconvincing. The thread about why Randism still hasn't won further proved that all Randists resort to ad hominem to "prove" their points (with quotes along the lines of "we haven't won because everyone else is stupid").

And I did respond to your posts on my user page; I just did it here in the article talk pages. I also posted to your talk page a few times, but you deleted my comments.

And thanks for calling me insane. I love being given more proof that Randists are heavily reliant on logical fallacies. -- LGagnon 04:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

What's the opposite of a "Randroid" --a Randophobe? I'll coin the term. Randophobia: 1. a. An intense fear, hatred, or distrust of Objectivists, which may include a belief that they are a grave danger to society that one must remain vigilant against (often includes attacking Objectivists as "Randroids"). b. The tendency to fear, hate, hold a personal grudge against, distrust, ridicule, or attack as a "Randroid" anyone that seems they may be in the slightest agreement with any part of the philosophy of Ayn Rand. c. The paranoid suspicion that an individual who supports laissez-faire capitalism is an Objectivist simply because of this support. 2. Intense antipathy toward Objectivism without sufficient knowledge of the philosophy to justify such a bias. 3. The belief in the existence of a "cult" that worships Ayn Rand or agrees with every statement she has uttered without empirical evidence of the cult's existence, or the belief that an individual is a member of this supposed cult without conclusive evidence. 3. General paranoia in regard to Objectivism or Objectivists. Also Randophobe: One who engages in or experiences Randophobia. RJII 06:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You do realize this adds nothing to the conversation, and is what is normally called a troll on web forums. Seriously, all you are doing now is throwing around personal attacks. Maybe you should read up on Wikipedia's policy against this. -- LGagnon 14:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack. I'm just coining and defining a term. Calling people "Randroids" is a personal attack --something you engage in all the time. RJII 15:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is a personal attack; you use the same complaints you made against me before and simply left my name out to make it look innocent. Either way, it does nothing to help build the article; it's fancruft at best, trolling at worst.

And no, I don't use Randroid "all the time"; that was one instance where I was trying to come up with a different term for those here who vandalize the articles. I tried "Randist vandals", but that also caused complaints from the non-vandal Randists. I don't know what kind of PC term you want me to use to refer to you and the other vandals ("Vandals who happen to be in favor of Rand's ideology"?), but it doesn't seem like your collective is ever satisfied with any attempt I make to distinguish those vandalizing the article from other Randists. I've told you guys to stop thinking of a complaint agianst one of you as being against all of you, but none of you seem to get it. Instead, you take everything personally and make false complaints of personal attacks when I say something bad about Randism but not any of you (which, by Wikipedia's guidelines, is not a personal attack). -- LGagnon 15:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, and you also go around calling people "vandals" simply for editing the article. You need to stop your personal attacks and falsehoods. RJII 16:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I call you a vandal for making edits that shouldn't have been made. You delete and alter things that don't fit your POV. You change things that have been cited. There are other Randists here who actually add to the article by contributing info with sources cited, and I don't call them vandals. You, on the other hand, simply whitewash the article in favor of Rand. There's a big difference between your vandalism and real editing. -- LGagnon 16:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You must be joking. I'm been adding sources to this article. You're the one that's been deleting sourced information. This is the kind of stuff anyone who tries to work on this article has to deal with. It's not the Objectivists that are the problem but those who start throwing accusations around of Randroidism or vandalism to anyone that disagrees with them --Objectivist or not. In fact, a problem is that there are not enough Objectivists working on this article. I'd like to understand Objectivism better but they don't seem to be working much on explaining of her philosophy in the article. I'd like to see more Objectivists working on the article. RJII 16:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Here, you change the section's title to something that doesn't reflect the sources. The sources call Randism a cult, but you change it to say that they call the members a cult. You give no source, only your opinion. And you have no proof that I vandalized the article, so cut the libel.

And there are more Randists editing this article than non-Randists; that's why there's so many bias problems here. We don't need more Randists editors; we need more unbiased editors. -- LGagnon 16:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed the title to reflect what the source said. It said that a cult had developed around Objectivism. It didn't say Objectivism itself was a cult. The PEOPLE would be the cult --not the philosophy. For example, the source said: "How, then, could such a philosophy become the basis of a cult, which is the antithesis of reason and individualism?" RJII 16:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That's one source. The section has multiple sources, some of which call Randism a cult. Changing it based on one source is POV. -- LGagnon 17:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That was the only source there at the time. I haven't looked at anything in that section since. RJII 17:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

But the other sources were up on the Ayn Rand article. You've seen them there, so you should have known better. -- LGagnon 17:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You sure do make a lot of assumptions. I've never read the Ayn Rand article. I've read the intro, but that's about it. I remember I noted the Nietzsche influence and changed a couple words in the intro for grammar purposes, but I think that's been the extent of my involvement in that article. I'm not much interested in Ayn Rand the person. I'm just trying to figure out the philosophy. When I'm able to, then I'll be comfortable critiquing it if I see any significant problems with it. (And all these stupid attacks from you against other editors as "Randroids" just serves to interefere with the editing the article to present a clear explication of her philosophy.) RJII 18:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude, a quick scan through the talk page shows you had more involvement in the Rand article than you claim. And if you're not an adherant, then why are you so unwilling to read the criticisms of it? I pointed you towards a philosophic criticism of Randism, and you flat out refused to read it. Don't tell me you don't want to read criticism before your done with it; that's a bit too pro-Rand to be non-adherant. If you're unbiased about it, you'd look into both sides at the same time. When something looks questionable on one side, check the other side's response to it. This is the kind of thing you'll find in Wikipedia's articles, which makes it truly objective, unlike Rand's writing.

And please stop plurualizing "Randroid attacks". I used the term only once, and only because I keep hearing complaints from Randists who don't know the difference between you and themselves. Randists use the term Randroid too when they are pointing out the extremists in their ranks, so what I said is really not an attack but merely your own group's terminology. -- LGagnon 18:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You pointed me to a self-published criticism of Objectivism. It's not a credible source, according to Wikipedia policy. It can't be cited on Wikipedia. RJII 21:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people self publish, and I'm sure we've used them for sources on other articles already. That doesn't mean they aren't credible. And besides, I'm talking about you right now, not the article; you, if you want to show yourself as an unbiased non-Randist, should be open to criticisms of Rand, including such a well thought out philosophic criticism from someone who has studied philosophy. -- LGagnon 22:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Self-published sources are not allowed on Wikipedia. See WP:V. And, I never said that i was "unbiased." Of course I'm biased. I'm just saying I'm not an Objectivist. Given the small amount of study I have engaged in, I can see that I agree with some things in Rand's philosophy. Apparently, in your mind, anyone who shows any interest or agreement with any of her points is a "Randroid" and your sworn enemy. RJII 15:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No, just those who vandalize articles to make them more favorable for her. Oh, and Rand fans who can't give a real argument and resort to logical fallacies (which you and several Randists here have been all too willing to prove to be rampant amongst Randists). -- LGagnon 17:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly true that there are both Randians and anti-Randians who have gone a little nuts about their beliefs. There really was a personality cult around Rand, complete with her own "orthodox church" and its schisms, heretics, and purges, and some people were and are fanatical about Rand and Objectivism, for which the fervent denial of the existence of cultism and fanaticism in the Objectivist camp is merely itself a symptom. On the other hand, it's also true that some of Rand's critics resort to personal attacks and straw-man arguments, motivated by an ideological dislike of what Rand stood for, especially laissez-faire capitalism. Rand's philosophy has its good and bad points, and hopefully some of the people who "have gone through a Rand phase" (in which category I count myself) emerge from it keeping the good parts while leaving behind the bad. *Dan T.* 15:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've seen it happen both ways, when it comes to going through a Rand phase. Some people use Randism as an antidote against traditional religion, then shrug it off and are in great shape. For them, Rand was a ladder they climbed, then threw away. Other people get into Randism and later say they're no longer involved, but their views never moved very far away at all, leaving them as fellow travelers and worse off on the whole. Al 22:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel for Objectivists that are accused of being a member of a cult. Just because one is an Objectivist it doesn't make him a member of a cult. The argument that's made is that Objectivism is a cult, therefore all Objectivists are cultists. It's a circular --the conclusion is in the premise. Having a philosophy doesn't make one a cultist. There may be SOME individuals who think Rand is infallible and that everything she said was correct. but I think they're rare --especially today. I think the idea that there are hoards of "Randroids" out there who have absolute devotion to every word of Ayn Rand is basically an urban myth. RJII 16:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

So, like, there's this article.

There's this article on Ayn Rand's Objectivism, and then there's all this chatter on the Talk page that's nasty and entirely irrelevant to what's going on in the article.

Let's cut the fighting and stick to constructive efforts towards making the article better, shall we? Al 22:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There can be no progress here until everyone acknowledges that Objectivists are human beings, whose opinions ought to be tolerated and equitably represented on Wikipedia, if not respected. It is not something to be “grown out of” as dozens of Objectivist philosophy professors (see list above), and [10,000] successful adults have proven.

User:LGagnon is an outspoken socialist whose views advocate the kind of socialist slavery and totalitarianism my family barely survived and escaped from, and environmentalism represents a religion aimed at destroying industrial civilization – leading to the death of billions.

But I don’t go around calling people fascists and cult members, vandalizing the environmentalist, Fair trade, Noam Chomsky pages, and abusing Wikipedia articles to insult their ideas. I edit the topics I understand and have spent years studying, not ones I am ignorant of, other than knowing I disagree with them.

My philosophy is not a disease, a cult, or a mental disorder – it is my chosen guide to living my life, and I am immensely proud of it – and I respect the right of others to their own ideas, however wrong and misguided I may believe them to be.

However if some persist in treating Wikipedia as their own personal forum, I will edit their ideologies articles in the exact same way they do mine.

--GreedyCapitalist 04:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you take my claim that Randism is fascist as a personal attack on you (which, by Wikipedia policy, it's not; you just took it too personally), yet you make a blatant personal attack on me. Not only are you a hypocrite, but you actually violated Wikipedia policy. I never called you a fascist; I actually said you're not one. Yet you go and call me a enslaver and totalitarian. Nice one there; just be glad that Wikipedia's admins don't do jack-all about Randists who break the rules.

And thanks for painting a false reality of what's happening. I never vandalized the article, called Randism a disease or mental disorder, or even told you that you have no right to your ideas. I have called Randism a cult, but I never called your ideas and opinions a cult.

You need to learn to distance yourself from the subject matter. You insulted environmentalism and fair trade, both of which I believe in, yet I did not falsely claim that you made a personal attack against me, because you simply commented on concepts I just happen to believe in. I did the same with Randism, and thus you have no reason to falsely accuse me of personal attacks against you just for commenting on the article's subject matter.

And that goes for all you Randists: quit the collectivism and start thinking of yourself as you, not Randism. A negative comment about Randism is not about you, no matter how you'd like to spin it. If you take offense to it, that's tough. There's things on Wikipedia that offend me too, but unlike you I don't whine about how criticism sections of articles offend me and thus must not even be talked about. -- LGagnon 05:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Objectivism is INDIVIDUALISM. Individualism is the OPPOSITE of fascism. Fascism requires the individual to sacrifice his self-interest for the state's interest. Individualism, including its Objectivist form, advocates that individuals should be free to pursue their own self-interest and sacrifice nothing to the state. Anyone who equates Objectivism with fascism has no clue what either ideology is about. RJII 19:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Randism is just another form of collectivism disguised as individualism. Randism requires the individual to sacrifice his mind, logic, and emotions for the cult's interest. Individualism, including forms found in altruism, humanism, and left-wing politics, advocates that individuals should be free to pursue both their self-interests and care about their fellow human beings (which do not conflict with one another).

You ever heard of the concept of the individual who thinks he's an individual because he joined a new form of conformity? This happens with teenagers a lot, who eventually grow out of that phase when they realize that they've conformed yet again. This is why we have the phrase "the Ayn Rand phase"; because Randism is exactly that. -- LGagnon 19:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say in Objectivism that one must "sacrifice his mind, logic, and emotions" for a cult? RJII 19:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

For one, Rand excommunicated people who disagreed with her; if you decide to have no choice but to agree, then you have sacrificed your mind. Second of all, Randists have no counterarguments but logical fallacies (ad hominem being particularly popular with them); thus, they sacrifice logic. Lastly, Randists are not allowed to take concern for their fellow man; any form of help is "self-sacrifice", even if it pains you to see others suffer. Thus, emotions are sacrificed to be able to not participate in "self-scarifice". -- LGagnon 19:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You're confusing the actions of a person (Ayn Rand), with the philosophy of Objectivism. Nowhere in Objectivism does it say one should sacrifice oneself for anything. And, Objectivism is not opposed to people helping others. Objectivism is opposed to the ethical doctrine of altruism --the ehtical doctrine that says people have a moral obligation to help others. The reason Rand opposed that is because it can be used as the moral basis for an authoritarian system --like fascism. If there is no moral obligation to help others, then doing so is left to the free decision of the individual. RJII 19:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Randism, like many cults, has unspoken rules as Branden pointed out. You don't have to actually mention them for them to be enforced. And given that Randism is built around the opinions of Rand, her methods control how the ideology was formed. Thus, excommunication is part of Randism, as it was practiced at least in the early days.

And how can helping others be allowed if you are supposed to never self-sacrifice? If you spend money to feed children (who I'm convinced are Rand's Waterloo; child care is definitely self-sacrifice, yet absolutely needed for the survival of the human race beyond a single generation), you're sacrificing your hard earned money for the sake of others. And you'll do this out of ethical need, as nobody short of a psychopath can feel ethically confident about starving their children.

And I'd like to point out a further lack of logic in Randism: slippery slope. Altruism is bad because it'll lead to fascism? There's no way you can prove that. Fascism has always came about because of self-centerness, be it Hitler's personal hate for Jews or Stalin's greedy warping of communism into fascism (not that I support communism, but Stalinism isn't the real thing; it's just trading humans for pigs). -- LGagnon 21:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Nazism was quite altruistic. The Germans were taught to sacrifice themselves for the good of the German nation. Nazism was built upon altruism, as was Stalin's Communism. A.T.

Not really. Altruism does not exist in a state where one kills his fellow man for others' (as well as his own) sakes. And even if you were right, this is still a slippery slope argument. -- LGagnon 22:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I always just assumed people had and took care of their kids out of self-interest. Having kids makes them happy. Also, they need someone to look after them when they're old. RJII 04:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Kids don't always make people happy. Haven't you heard people complain about their bratty kids? But whether their kids bother them or not, they still feel an ethical duty to ensure their safety. And this doesn't go for just their kids; people are protective of other people's kids too. This is why we have the welfare system: because someone else's kids could starve without government help (and don't say everyone on welfare is too lazy to get a job; kids can't work for a living). The fact of the matter is, humans feel ethically obligated to all children, and we are perfectly fine with "self-sacrificing" to help them survive. -- LGagnon 14:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that people feed their kids beause they think it's an ethical obligation. I think they do it simply because they want to. It makes them sad to see their child go hungry. RJII 14:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think claims of fascism really belong; it seems to me to be just a smear term, (i.e. Bush is a fascist; Kerry is a commie). LaszloWalrus 07:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

And yet it has been said by her opponents. Common accusations are supposed to be documented, true or not. -- LGagnon 17:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

What opponent of hers has accused Objectivism as being fascist? Any scholar who claimed that would be making a total fool of themselves. RJII 19:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Objectivism does NOT reject altruism based on some kind of slippery slope. LaszloWalrus 06:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does. RJII just said it does. Even Atlas Shrugged shows the world going to hell from a slippery slope. Face it, Randism is not build on logic. It's built on Rand's political biases and her illogical attempts to justify them. Time and time again, whether it's Rand or her followers, Randists use logical fallacies to justify anything they do, because they haven't studied either philosophy or it's sister art of rhetoric, and thus they don't even know how logic works. If they had studied either one, they'd understand that they aren't actually practicing a legit philosophy. -- LGagnon 14:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand what Rand is talking about when she talks of "altruism" even though I explained it to you. "Altruism" has two meanings. One is non-self-interested helping of others. The other is an ethical doctrine that holds that an individual has an ethical OBLIGATION to help others (something you wouldn't be familiar with if you haven't studied philosophy of ethics). The latter is what she's talking about, as this article indicates: "For Comte, altruism is not simple benevolence or charity, but rather the moral and political obligation of the individual to sacrifice his own interests for the sake of a greater social good. It should be noted that Ayn Rand did not oppose helping others in need, provided such actions are voluntary. What she opposed was the use of coercion--that is, the initiation of physical force--in social relationships. The doctrine of altruism, in Rand's view, is evil partially because it serves to justify coercion, especially governmental coercion, in order to benefit some people at the expense of others." Note this is talking about the DOCTRINE of altruism --not the ACT. RJII 14:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

But if society falls apart from the use of altruism (ala Atlas), isn't that saying that the act of altruism is bad? If it destroys society, then she is showing the act in a bad light. So how can you say she is only opposed to the doctrine when she has used her writing to oppose the act?

And whether it's the doctrine or the act, she is still claiming that altruism leads to fascism, which is still a slippery slope. She has no way of proving that will happen, and there is proof to the contrary.

For instance, Being forced to pay taxes so that welfare children don't starve to death is not fascist. You are being forced to do something, but it will save the society from a proletariate revolution (a lesson that she should have learned from the Russian Revolution). It actually help you out as well, as it ensures safety and helps in keeping the economy from falling downward. Of course, we could argue that that to is done out of self-interest, but the vast majority of people (especially Randists) aren't educated enough to realize the "trickle-up" effect (for a lack of a better term) of a balanced economy. Instead, we are able to frame it ethically to convince others to work towards their own goals. With ethics in play, one is willing to do what improves life for everyone even if one does not understand exactly how the system works.

This altruism thus saves us from falling into fascism. By using economic balance to hold down attempts at violent revolution, we make the world safer for individuality. And by having ethics to guide the less educated towards helping others, we are able to avoid their use of a Galt's Gulch-style destruction of civilization through negligence (which would be way more realistic than what Rand perposed). -- LGagnon 17:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this fight, because in the well-known Rand/Rothbard dispute I'm on the side of the latter but ... Gagnon, are you talling about "apposition" or "opposition"? It isn't just an issue of spelling, "apposite" is a real English word and a very different one from "opposite," which is what I suspect you mean above. --Christofurio 19:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, what she is against is the idea that people have a moral obligation to help others. She thinks it should be a free decision whether you want to send money to the starving in a third world country or to your next door neighboor. Now, you may think that it's in someone's else's best interest that you force them to help others, but of course you're imposing your will on that person. An individualist would ask: What makes you think your more qualified than the individual to himself to make that determination? An individualist, including an Objectivist, want to allow the individual to decide for himself what is in his best interest as long as he doesn't impose his will on anyone else. You, on the other hand, apparently, want the liberty to force others to do what you think is in their best interest. An individualist wants the liberty to live his life as he best sees fit --and allow you the same. You, on the other hand, want the liberty to make him live his life as YOU see fit --to make him spend his money on what YOU think is best for him. Can't we all just get along? RJII 19:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This still does not rebutt my claims that 1) she is arguing against the act of altruism in her writing (most notably in Atlas Shrugged), not the doctrine, 2) Randism is built on a slippery slope and is thus illogical, and 3) reality shows the opposite of her claims, as altruism prevents fascism. -- LGagnon 21:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look like you even know what an altruistic act would be. If you're engaging in "altruism" in order to prevent yourself from being the victim of fascism, then it wouldn't be altruism at all. It would be a self-interested act. Don't confuse benevolence, or helping others, with altruism. An altruistic act has no self-interest involved. A benevolent act can indeed be self-interested. RJII 23:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just misinformed, but Atlas Shrugged didn't show the harm resulting from altruism as such, but from the campaign against business. MrVoluntarist 13:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fascinating, but what does it all have to do with the article we're editing? Let's focus, people. Al 20:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think LGagnon (among others) argues to a great degree. People, you have to remember WP:NOR find a source that satifies WP:V. Then put it in the article. Crazynas 06:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you make personal attacks. Crazynas you have to remember WP:NPA. -- LGagnon 19:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of me violating WP:NPA. Crazynas 00:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at the comment above my last one. "I think LGagnon (among others) likes arguing" is a personal attack. -- LGagnon 00:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I quote WP:NPA "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks." Crazynas 01:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, "likes arguing" runs afoul of "involving their personal character". Sorry, but this really does look like a personal attack. Al 01:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Very well, I fixed it. Crazynas 01:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I wasn't the target so I can't forgive you. Perhaps you should apologize directly to Gag so that he can. Al 01:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Cult, POV?

I think that [[Category:Cult]] does not fit with the Objectivism article and is pure POV, let's look at a DIRECT QUOTE from Ayn Rand herself on the subject of Objectivism being a cult. "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." Do you know where I found this quote? THIS VERY ARTICLE!!! Category:Cult is simply a vicious and bias attack by the Anti-Objectivist click that is currently here. The Fading Light 20:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Objectivism is already listed on List of cults and already has a section about numerous accusations of culthood. It would be POV to remove the category. Moreover, presence in a category is for the purpose of aiding navigation, not as an absolute statement of fact. Al 21:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The accusations of culthood only fit with one GROUP that is Objectivist (the ARI, which isn't even the first group to promote Objectivism, see the Nathanial Branden Institute), not the whole movement, I have met Objectivists that were not members of the David Kelly group that couldn't be called cult members by ANY stretch of the definition. It isn't fair to label an entire movement a Cult because of the actions of a minority. Otherwise we should label Christianity a Cult because of David Koresh or Islam a cult because of the Nation of Islam. The Fading Light 21:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Read the description of what a cult is in Cult. Randism (not just ARI, but all of it) fits this perfectly. Combine that with the cited accusations and we've got every reason to put it in that category. -- LGagnon 21:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that any religion could be considered a cult, as could many philosophies; especially if they define the totality of your world-view. Objectivism could easily be defined as a non-religious cult, but that doesn't mean that it equates with Scientology or the Branch Davidians. The world isn't black and white, as much as some cultists would like to believe. --Xinit 21:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but what counts here is whether there are reliable sources we can cite that accuse it of cultism. Al 21:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If you read the cites, you'll find that you're mistaken. The Objectivist movement, even before the ARI, was seen as cultish. It has fragmented into a few cults, with the ARI being the orthodoxy but by no means the only source of cultishness. Sorry, but the category belongs. Al 21:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Cult links -- Xinit 22:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Skeptic Magazine
• Globe and Mail
• Not citeable, but has some interesting points

GREAT! Now in the name of equality we should label Christianity, Islam, and all other groups a cult and since it is Alienus who is LOOKING for the excuse to label Objectivism a cult he should be the one to explain to everyone on all of the pages of various religious and philosophical groups why they need to accept the label of "Cult" since they are groups that have a point of view (and therefore they are cults). The Fading Light 23:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

So, apparently when we find a handful of critics who call Objectivism a cult, it's a cult; when Britannica, ad infinitum calls Objectivism a philosophy, that doesn't count. LaszloWalrus 23:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Christianity was a cult for about 400 years, no? --Xinit 23:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I just found a list of sources calling Bush a fascist: [5], [6], [7] and another list calling Kerry a communist [8], [9], [10]; we should probably add the fascist and communist categories, respectively, because if I can find sources, it must be true. LaszloWalrus 23:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Did any of you read the Cult article? The definition given there fits Randism perfectly. Look, I'll even copy-and-paste the intro for those who aren't going to look no matter what:

In religion and sociology, a cult is a cohesive group of people (often a relatively small and recently founded religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream. Its separate status may come about either due to its novel belief system, because of its idiosyncratic practices or because it opposes the interests of the mainstream culture. Other non-religious groups may also display cult-like characteristics.

Doesn't that sound like Randism to you? Randism is far outside the mainstream, having been rejected by academic philosophers as well as political factions on every side. And religious or not, it still fits the description (the rest of the article mentions non-religious cults).

And no, we aren't required to treat all religions equally. We're only required to add what has been cited, and Randism is cited as being accused of being a cult. We're not here to please the Randists; we're here to state the facts.

And Laszlo, Al already pointed out that the cateogry is for groups accused of being cults, which is the situation here. And as I've stated, Randism fits the description in the cult article. -- LGagnon 23:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"A cult is a cohesive group..."?? Objectivists are as far from cohesive as it gets! Michael Hardy 00:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

ARI is cohesive. So are the Randists here, and in every other Randist group I've seen. -- LGagnon 00:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You list a bunch of "unreliable sources" for your tangential facism example... I listed professional publications with editorial policies. Not exactly the same idea. To be honest, mine was a quick search. If I hit an academic library I believe I could find scholarly publications that would also support the argument that Objectivism is labelled a cult by the mainstream. --Xinit 23:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey LGagnon I can copy/paste too! Here is what was mentioned at the END of the cult article, "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."- Ayn Rand This is a DIRECT quote. Kinda undercuts the idea that Objectivism was meant to be a cult huh? The Fading Light 00:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You're still sticking to the idea that I'm going to be convinced just because your god said no? Rand is not the fountainhead of all knowledge; her opinion does not override all others. She is not omnipotent and omniscient, and thus her "no it's not" argument is meaningless. Yes, she, like all other cult leaders, denies accusations against her. That's to be expected. But it does not work as an argument. We don't label intelligent design as science because a proponent of it says "yes it is science! It definitely is!" And likewise we do not assume Randism is not a cult despite accusations just because the alleged cult leader says "it's not!" and gives no proof to back up her argument (kind of like what you are doing). -- LGagnon 00:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

At last the bare truth is exposed for all to see, LGagnon hates Objectivism and everyone associated with it for no real logical reason. Do you want to know how I came to this stunning line of thought? Because I am not an Objectivist!!! I reject the idea that Ayn Rand was infallible, I reject the idea that Objectivism is perfect BUT what I don't do is assume that the whole thing is rotten just because I disagree with some of her viewpoints (like LGagnon clearly has). The reason I have used the Ayn Rand quote was to point out the fact that it was NOT HER INTENTION to create a cult out of her philosophy, the cult was created by the NBI and it's successor organization the ARI by exploiting the flaws in Objectivism (rather than correcting those flaws like they SHOULD of done), BUT the ARI is not the sole Objectivist group in existence, there are thousands of men and women who are Objectivists who do NOT associate with the ARI nor the Neo-Objectivists of David Kelly. They are pure individuals who have found the flaws in Objectivism and corrected them and live out their lives using Objectivism and Reason as their tools to understand reality, they are NOT cult members by any strech of the definition of the word and it is DISGUSING that a few hate filled Anti-Objectivists like LGagnon are trying to marginalize the good things about Objectivism by labeling it a cult so that people will dismiss it's support for Individualism and Capitalism as pure evil. The Fading Light 00:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, cut the personal attacks. Not only does it make you sound illogical, but it violates Wikipedia policy. And please don't shout; it's rude and unneeded.

Secondly, Rand said that you are not a Randist unless you follow her words exactly. Those who left the "Ayn Rand phase" and moved on may have a few views left over from the phase, but they are not Randists by Her concept of it if they have changed their views.

And again I'll repeat myself: Randism itself has been accused of being a cult. You can see this in the article itself. Thus, you are not justified in arguing for a singular POV in the article when we are supposed to represent multiple views. -- LGagnon 01:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

And of course (once again) you ignore large parts of what I said, take the rest out of context, and completely fail to say much of anything beyond "I don't like Objectivists". The Fading Light 01:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? You know an argument only works when it contains proofs to back its claims. Your comment is all claims and no proofs; thus, you've essentially written a non-argument. -- LGagnon 02:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Gagnon, your argument, if I may summarize it, is that the cult article is a good description of "Randism"; this article is essentially about Randism, and, therefore, it's valid to label it with the cults category. Is that about right? If that's even close, the problem with this argument is that the cult article (correctly) defines cult as "a cohesive group of people ...". But this article is about Objectivism the philosophy, not Objectivism the movement, much less, Objectivsm the cohesive group of people who .... In short, your argument has no application to this article. More on this at the bottom of this Talk page. --Serge 07:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That's part of my argument, not the whole. You miss the fact that we have citations showing that critics consider Randism to be a cult. Also, Randism's (loaded) name is often used to refer to the cult in question. Thus, there is no reason to remove the category. -- LGagnon 22:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

(removed personal attacks)

Cult cohension

ARI sticks together quite well. And all Randists I've known are cohesive. -- LGagnon 00:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That shows you haven't known many, or much. So ARI sticks together: why not say therefore that ARI is a cult, rather than that Objectivists, including those who oppose ARI, are a cult? If ARI is cohesive, that's very remote from saying Objectivists are cohesive. Michael Hardy 00:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Because both ARI and the Randism ideology are accused of being cults. It's not just one, it's both. And they share very similar qualities. And can we keep discussions of articles on the articles' talk pages please? -- LGagnon 00:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

So again: if cults are cohesive, how can something so non-cohesive be a cult? Michael Hardy 00:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's cohesive in beliefs. It follows the Word of Rand, and those who do are willing to work together despite differences (we've seen this here on Wikipedia). Thus, it's cohesive in actions too. -- LGagnon 01:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"...and those who do are willing to work together despite differences..."

No, they're not, obviously, since ARI refuses to have anything at all to do with the organization headed by David Kelley, and lots of followers of ARI refuse to have anything to do with those who appear to sympathize with David Kelley. And Barbara Branden considers herself an Objectivist while many in ARI accuse her of dishonesty. Accusing someone of dishonesty when she says she supports this philosophy is not a case of working together. Michael Hardy 16:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If I called Chomsky a cultist (which is supported here, by the way, [11]), every anarchist or socialist on Wikipedia would revert and I'd be called a vandal. Does this mean that Chomskyans are a sinister "cult"? LGagnon has used intentionally derogatory terms (like "Randist") and has shown a generally bad-faith attempt to smear anything having anything to do with Ayn Rand. By the way, I give to ARI and I've met other Objectivists once; so much for being cohesive. LaszloWalrus 04:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Your source is a blog; it's utterly useless for Wikipedia's purposes. So no, you can't edit Chomsky's article that way because you don't have legit proof.

And as I've explained before, "Randist" is a neutral term, not a derogatory term. "Objectivist" is closer to a derogatory term, as it is a loaded term that connotes that others are not objective. I use "Randist" as to not degrade those of us who are not Randists. And none of you Randists have suggested a proper non-loaded term to use, nor have you complained about me using "Randist" until someone else brought it up a short while ago in a personal attack against me. Thus, you're the one running a smear.

And I suggest you cut the personal attacks. I'm not going to stand for this much longer. -- LGagnon 04:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I find the term “Randian” or “Randist” insulting because I agree with a certain set of ideas, not a person. I have a number of important disagreements with Ayn Rand related to her views on psychology and politics (btw, how many “cult members” would say that?) but they are not part of her philosophical system. Ayn Rand herself refused to identify her own philosophy or her followers by any term stemming from her name for the same reasons. --GreedyCapitalist 20:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Btw, insult: “a statement or action which affronts or demeans someone.” When everyone being identified by a term finds it demeaning, and everyone using it uses it as an implied attack, I think that matches the definition.

The implied attack is that Objectivists are Rand-worshippers, when it fact the designation of “Objectivism” implies agreement with a philosophy, not a person, and certainly not religious observance of certain rituals.

--GreedyCapitalist 20:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

By your standard, "Objectivism" is an insult because I feel offended by it. Thus, all of you who are calling yourselves "Objectivists" are insulting me. But I'm not pressing this further, because it's loaded language, not an insult. But if you change the standards as you are trying to, then you'll have to count your own comments as insults.

And no, not everyone finds it demeaning. Nobody has complained until now. One of those who complained (the first one to do so) said they didn't mean it that way. You're just trying to get me in trouble for a made-up reason.

And no, it is not implying that they are Rand worshippers, only Rand followers. Do you follow a large portion of her ideas? Then you are a Randist. You don't need to follow everything she syas for that to apply to you, only a lot. And the term has been used neutrally in several writings about her, without intent to insult.

Now if you force me to use the term "Objectivist", you are in fact forcing your opinion on to me. What you are doing is trying to censor my beliefs, which is not going to happen. And you know why? Because Wikipedia is not built to be inoffensive. Articles will feature multiple viewpoints, and editors will have several. You'll be offended by some, and that will be tough. Sorry, but NPOV will win over your censorship campaign. -- LGagnon 21:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

An insult is an insult because it carries an implied attack, not because you find it offensive. I’ve already explained the implied attack behind your usage. Someone using it without the implied attack is not being insulting, they are just using a non-standard term.

If the terms are both neutral, why do you insist on using one and not the other, epecially if some, including the namesake of the term objected to it? And how is using the one less people find insulting "censorship", unless there is some idea (ie, the implied attack) that they are trying to "censor"? --GreedyCapitalist 21:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"Objectivist" is not neutral; I never said that, so don't put words in my mouth. I said it's loaded language. And it is also an implied attack, as it implies that non-Randists are not objective (a loaded term always implies something). And I've never heard of an objection to "Randist" by Rand herself.

And I said you are trying to censor me. You are trying to make me express opinions I don't hold by forcing me to use a loaded term. Using the term "Objectivist" goes against my beliefs, which I will not violate for the sake of any PC police. -- LGagnon 02:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

LGagnon a troll?

Has LGagnon done enough at this point to qualify as a troll? MrVoluntarist 02:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It is only by a truly monumental effort to assume good faith that I am not citing you for personal attacks and general incivility. I am going to pretend that you really think LGagnon is a troll, and you are going to stop insulting them. Got it? Al 03:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Al, I don't "do" ultimatums, and I'm not a big fan of condescension. Your behavior here is at least as reprehensible, and you're ad admin. Discussing whether or not someone's action is trolling is not a violationg of "assume good faith" or "no personal attacks". It is a relevant matter. MrVoluntarist 03:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No. I'm not the one making personal attacks. If anything, those who are making personal attacks are trolls. Nice one with the loaded question there, though. Both a non-argument and illogic spawned from ad hominem. This degrades no one's argument but your own. -- LGagnon 03:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The question was just for others who are observing you. But if you want reasons, how about your relentless campaign to overturn consensus and remove the terms "philosopher" and "philosophy" from the article and label a movement as a "cult" despite the incohesion, your insistence on the neologism "Randist".... I could go on, but the point is, this isn't a personal attack. Whether or not you are trolling is of vital import for the proper management of Wikipedia. I'm soliciting the opinions of others here before bringing in admins to deal with you. Most of your behavior here is unacceptable. Not just the things listed above, but your labeling of others as "Randists" despite virtually all of them editing this as their first article on objectivism and thus probably not having a dog in this race. I've never seen such rabid devotion toward fighting someone's ideology. Almost like you're part of a cult. MrVoluntarist 03:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm overturning consensus? There's no consensus, and that's the problem; we've got a POV article pushing an opinion as a fact. By pointing this out, I'm not trolling; I'm helping to fix the POV problem here. -- LGagnon 03:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There was a consensus, including the input from opponents of objectivism, for a long time until you and Al insisted on drastic changes, before discussing them. MrVoluntarist 17:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not intermix your responses. It is an unacceptable practice according to the Wikirules. Some people will revert your entire entry and let you sort out your own mess.

In any case, there was no consensus, just an ongoing conflict. Al 17:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No. Wrong. This is common practice. You are in clear abuse of your power by making such threats. If you plan to revert me, say so. Don't absolve your responsibility with "Someone might revert you... be a shame if that happened." I'll clarify who said what, but that's all. MrVoluntarist 17:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

And "Randist" is not an insult. -- LGagnon 03:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Had you read my full comment and given it due diligence, you would see that I was not claiming "Randist" is an insult in itself. I was pointing out that jumping to the conclusion that someone is a proponent of Rand's views ("has a dog in the race") is inappropriate. Most people here are not Objectivists, but are merely trying to ensure neutrality. I'm not, RJII's not, and still others aren't. You're trying to promote this belief that anyone who disagrees with your views is a pro-Rand fanatic, and that is not acceptable. Please stop. MrVoluntarist 17:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It is an "unloaded" version of the loaded term "Objectivist". It's a neutral term - the kind that is expected in Wikipedia discussions.-- LGagnon 03:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

While it may not be insulting, while it may be neutral, it's not necessarily appropriate. It's a rarely-used neologism. It's no more loaded than many, many philosophical terms. For example, is "existentialist" loaded because it tries to make it look like opponents of existentialism oppose existence? Is "democratic" (in the sense of majoritarian) loaded becuase it implies its opponents oppose people (demos)? MrVoluntarist 17:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Neither existentialist, democratic nor Randist are insults. Move on. Al 17:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please properly indent your responses, and do me the courtesy of reading what I actually post. LGagnon was claiming that "objectivist" is loaded. It is not. It is no more loaded than "existentialist" or "democratic". MrVoluntarist 17:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

And what cult am I in? The cult of academia? The cult of intellectualism? Only cults consider those to be cults. -- LGagnon 03:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You're acting like what you say cannot reasonably be disputed, usually without providing reasons, and coming up with smears and broad labels for anyone who disagree with you. MrVoluntarist 17:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to make accusations, because I don't know what's going on in Gagnon's head, but it appears to me that Gagnon is just here to try to get a rise out of other editors (and to piss off so called "Randroids") and is not interested in facts, credible source, or consensus building, etc. But, I could be wrong so I'm trying to "assume good faith" as long as possible. But, it's wearing thin. RJII 03:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added more sources than you have. I've also tried to build consensus (I haven't removed references to Randism being a philosophy yet). And no, you are not assuming good faith; you never have. You just resort to personal attacks, as you are doing now. -- LGagnon 03:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

And might I add, this whole section here is just an invitation for personal attacks. That's all that can come of it. And it has nothing to do with the article, which is what this talk page is meant to be used for. This discussion is over, and will see admin intervention if it continues. -- LGagnon 03:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to honor your comments with responses, MrV, given that you broke up my comments in a rather disrespectful way. Additionally, since this section is just a witch hunt, and a violation of Wikipedia policy, I shouldn't have to put up with it. We'll use this talk page to discuss the article's topic, not your hatred for me. This is the end of discussion on this section; if you continue further, I'll report you for personal attacks. -- LGagnon 19:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This is from troll:

A troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion.... Trolls tend to be more subtle than in discussion groups, often posting material that could be legitimate, but will cause controversy by challenging the current power structure. Difficulty is compounded by the impossibility of discerning whether a user is simply espousing a controversial opinion, or trolling."

I have banned dozens of trolls in the various forums I administer, but since I am threatened with being banned, I will keep my judgment to myself. However, my experience with them can be summed up as keep cool and do not feed the trolls! --GreedyCapitalist 21:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

And this is from WP:NPA:

Specific examples of personal attacks include but are not limited to:

• Accusatory comments such as "Bob is a troll"

Thus, this whole section is a personal attack against me. Like I said, this discussion is over, and anyone who adds more flames to the fire will face disciplinary action. -- LGagnon 21:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• You'll be offended by some, and that will be tough. Sorry, but NPOV will win over your censorship campaign. -- LGagnon 21:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Like I said, this discussion is over, and anyone who adds more flames to the fire will face disciplinary action. -- LGagnon 21:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI, we should all read Wikipedia:What is a troll --GreedyCapitalist 22:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thinnly-vieled personal attack. I've just reported you for this and the previous ones. -- LGagnon 02:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Alienus and His Abuse of Administrative Powers

Several times User:Alienus has removed portions of my very civil response to LGagnon for no legitimate reason and has threatened to block me from editing wikipedia if I continue to pursuit my right to respond to LGagnon's hate speech against anyone who is interested in Objectivism (calling people "Randroids" and "Randists" is a BLATANT attempt to provoke people's tempers and start arguments). But since Alienus has threatened to use the powers of the Wikipedia administration against me for speaking my mind I'm not even sure if it is worth fighting the Anti-Objectivist clique if they hold an unequal share of power on the Wiki. The Fading Light 15:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It is physically impossible for me to abuse administrative powers. Moreover, it is accepted practice to remove or refactor uncivil text to prevent snowballing. I'd say "Randroid" might be considered insulting if used just so, but "Randist" is neutral, though not preferred. Al 16:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we stop the personal attacks? They are a violation of Wikipedia policy, and they make you (and by extension, your side of the argument) look illogical (as personal attacks are a logical fallacy). If you have legit arguments to make, then you are free to make them. However, if you are going to make personal attacks, such as labelling everything I say as "hate speech", then don't bother. You'll only attract disiplinary actions onto yourself. -- LGagnon 19:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing: hate speech does not apply to political views. It does, however, apply to religious ones. Are you suggesting Randism is a religion? -- LGagnon 19:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hate speech relates to things like Race, Religion, and Political Viewpoints (which include Objectivism) and please stop using the terms "Randism", "Randian", and "Randroid" when speaking to me because I find them to be insulting. The Fading Light 20:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

From a legal standpoint, no, arguing against a political view is not hate speech. If it was, we'd hear of more "hate speech" political websites being shut down than we do now. And the terms "Randist" and "Randian" are not insults; they are neutral terms. I find the term "Objectivist" to be insulting to me, but you don't hear me whining to you about that (though your other personal attacks are still not excused). Instead, I simply use non-loaded neutral terminology in my speech so that neither you nor I am insulted. -- LGagnon 20:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I find the word "the" insulting, so please stop using it. Oh, wait, it's not about what others actually find insulting, just what a reasonable person would be insulted by. The term Randian is quite neutral, though it's more an adjective than a noun. The noun form is Randist, though it's less common. Randroid can be an insult, depending on the context, but isn't clearly so. In short, you're going to need to grow a thicker skin. Al 20:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me put what you have just said into a different context Al, what if what you had just said was directed at a black person who was offended that you called him a "Nigger"? Understand where I am comming from? I have every right to request (politely) that people not use certain words when speaking to me (words like "Faggot" come to mind) and I have requested that when speaking to me about Objectivists that you do not use the terms "Randist" and "Randroid" because I find to be just as insulting as Faggot. The Fading Light 03:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a big difference between race and political affiliation; don't try to act like they are the same thing. Same goes for gays. People openly discuss political opinions all the time, trying to show the inferiority of another over the other. This is not hate speech; it's called normal political discourse. Thus, you can't claim that having a different political opinion makes someone a troll.

And you are insulting me by using "Objectivist". You might as we be calling yourself the Master Race, and then complain when I call you a German instead. I'm using neutral terminology; you are not. If you're offended by someone not using your preferred term, that's tough. I am not compromising my political beliefs just because you feel offended by the fact that I refuse to use loaded terminology. -- LGagnon 15:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"Objectivist" is NOT a loaded term because it is merely stating that this person accepts Ayn Rand's philosophy as their own, terms like "Randian" and "Randroid" are designed by the academic community to be insult words to be use against Objectivists because they don't agree with Objectivism and hate Ayn Rand. The Fading Light 16:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. The academic community does not create neutral terminology to insult, because the academic community exists to teach logically, not to create ad hominem non-arguments. In fact, they, unlike Randism, teach that ad hominem is wrong. Don't try to argue your point with an unfounded (and completely unsourced) conspiracy theory.

And yes, "Objectivism" is a loaded term. It suggests that non-Randism are not objective. It's the same as "pro-life", which suggests that people who are in favor of abortion rights are not in favor of life. There's no requirement for me to call Randists objective, especially since they often prove otherwise. Like I said, my beliefs will not be compromised for your sake. -- LGagnon 16:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine, if you want to use hate speech I suppose that I can't stop you, but I also have the right to voice my opinions and viewpoints and I think I have made my opinion on your hate speech very clear.The Fading Light 18:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

On a personal note: I'm finding a disturbing trend with you LGagnon, you have mistaken philosophy for a religion, instead of using proper terms for political viewpoints as opinion you are using religious terms like "belief", I have done my best to purge this word from my vocabulary but it seems that you are turning politics and philosophy into a personal system of... dare I say it? Religious belief. The Fading Light 18:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The Atlas Society

Check out the new reference to The Altas Society. A branch of Kelley's sect, it focuses on Rand as author, not philosopher. Interesting. Al 19:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

From http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth-13-1712-The_Atlas_Society_and_TheObjectivist_Center_names.aspx

"So our Trustees have decided to use The Atlas Society as our official name, which will help us promote our ideas to Rand readers as well as to the general public, while reserving The Objectivist Center name for our more academic and scholarly activities."

They have renamed the organization itself, with the Objectivist Center just being a sub-division. Should we rename all references, including the article on it? --GreedyCapitalist 21:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, we agree again. You must be becoming an evil collectivist looter. :-) Al 02:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this not a personal attack on GreedyCapitalist ? If not, the I would like an explanation on how calling someone "an evil collectivist looter" is not a personal attack. Oleksandr 17:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is the fact that I ended with a great big smiley. There's also the fact that, even without that hint, I was very obviously joking. The joke being that, by agreeing with a non-Objectivist, he's becoming just like them. Ha. Ha? I'm sorry if this painfully obvious bit of humor didn't strike you as funny, but I can't imagine how you can miss the fact that this is at least an attempt at humor. I chalk this up to language difficulties, not bad faith. Al 18:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems like he was just joking with him. -- LGagnon 18:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)