Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 22

The Result
So with all these self-important committees, arbitration this, policy that, concerns over (so-called) "balance" and consensus - (yeah just how much unsubstantiated b.s should be mixed in just to be "fair" and inclusive?), trying to police the entire web to make sure people aren't talking to each other about an article - this whole glorious process has resulted in - a locked-up article that no one can edit until "disputes have been resolved".

Uh huh.

You know when the controversy over Ayn Rand is going to end? Never. It didn't happen within her lifetime, the broad's been dead 27 years and the battle rages on. Not gonna happen within the lifetime of anyone reading this. The Klan will dedicate themselves to preserving the legacy of MLK first. If mankind finds another place to live and a way to get there before the Sun goes red giant and fries the planet, I guarantee Earth's refugees will be debating at least two things on their voyage - Digital -vs- LP's & Objectivism.

As long as this forum is available it's going to keep going through these paroxysms over essentially the same issues - with endless time wasted on meaningless arbitrations that aren't going to resolve anything when virtually all of it could be bypassed by following suggestions already made.

Or keep doing it the way it's being done.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand that you're frustrated, but please try to keep your posts constructive and relevant to edits that need to be made on this article. See WP:Soap and WP:Talk.  If you would like to discuss behavior issues, there's room to comment on the ArbCom case, there's no need to do it here. Idag (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently you don't grasp that my comments are precisely about editing the article. I understand, I've gone outside the parameters of your programming.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, The Dark One's right, and what's unfortunate is that no one seems to be content with an article that really seems quite fine (upon skimming, at least). Perhaps it's the bickering on this talk page that is the problem. I suggest keeping to the basic principle of this project: that acclaims and criticisms of Rand cannot be chosen at whim; both need to be well developed throughout the surveys of Rand and her work. And there are many well-developed themes. (For example, does her quote about Native Americans, discussed above, meet that standard? No.) Build theses from the literature and spend less time debating whether so-and-so's scathing critique or glowing appraisal of Rand is worth mentioning. Neither Rand (by direct quote) nor the editors here inform what is proper to include in the article; the secondary sources do. – Outriggr § 02:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That might be helpful advice, Outriggr, but the problem is that no one is making any glowing appraisal of Rand. Unless you thinbk to call her what hundreds of reliable sources call her, a novelist and philosopher, is glowing praise. The dispute we have here is not between a faction that wants to praise Rand, and one that wants to damn her, but between one that has decided, since she's evil, her article needs to be censored, bawdlerized and rewritten, and a faction of experts who want the article to be helpful, factual, and inclusive. Look at the last month of incredibly unuseful talk. Look at the section in archive 16 or 17 entitled "propoganda pa[g]e." You will see hundreds of remarks about how Rand is not so good, and how this article needs to be cut down to size (avainst wp policy of splitting larve articles) and how we have to let people know how evil Rand really was. Look at the notable section on Rand's very notable opinion on homosexualty (the subject of books, chapters of books and academic papers) - not flattering - that was removed by editors who simply don't like anything Rand, and who then engaged in an OR POV orgy about a fictional quote of Rand on that most notable of subjects, her opinion of the nature of political rights and the more primitive of Indian societies.

What we have here is not a dispute between those who want to glorify Rand and those who want to damn her, but between those who want to tell as much as is helpful, and those who want to tell only what reflects their own personal negative POV.

That POV groups is in the minority. There has been no consensus in their favor. And you are right in the end. We do not need arbitration, we simply need adherance to wp policy. Kja er (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the above comment, Outriggr, the problem with secondary sources for some of the topics in this article is that there aren't any. For better or worse, Rand has never caught on to mainstream academia, which means there aren't a lot of papers/books written about some parts of her life and some of her views.  This has resulted in big parts of this article relying on questionable sources.  Its a thorny issue and hopefully the arbitration will allow us to make some headway on it (or at least develop a process to make some headway on it). Idag (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally the quote posted was NOT fictional. Furthermore I *repeatedly* asked anyone who might have access to the full quote in context to post it, until I finally found a transcription on WikiQuote, whose accuracy I would still like to see confirmed. Personally, though, I believe that the abridged version of the quote is true to the spirit of her arguments. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I said before, I'll say it again. I have the book.  The statement is too long to post.  And you don't have to believe me, but that misquote does NOT represent the spirit of her statement.  You can go ahead and believe otherwise - without any proof whatsoever.  If you want, you can believe a burning bush told you it is true.  That is all up to you.  However, most people would NOT declare that it is accurate until they had checked for themselves (do you live in area without any libraries? They can order books they don't have.)  You mention that you "*repeatedly* asked anyone" for verification - I responded, no one else did - and that is your idea of validation?  Most people wouldn't be making outrageous comments about things as serious as genocide on the basis of unvalidated, dubious information.  But that is me.  I guess you have different standards. --Steve (talk) 04:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Where it might belong is in a debate or discussion in a different forum where you could properly examine the larger picture of her thoughts on property rights, it doesn't belong in a biographical article period any more than large quotes from her radio programs or a transcript of her Mike Wallace interview. What might belong in the Objectivism article is a summary of her thoughts on property rights. In the context of this article this particular quote would serve only as bloat clumsily shoehorned in for the sole purpose of serving an agenda. TheJazzFan (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was referring to | this, Steve, when I was asking for validation. Evidently you missed it. You have the book. That appears to be the full quote, with adequate context. Is it accurate? TallNapoleon (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a philosopher?
I'm just finding this page for the first time, and noticed the revert war over calling her a "philosopher". I'm curious what motivated this. I've read some of her non-fiction, and find it quite similar (in subject-matter and analysis) to the writings of Aristotle, Locke, Price, Paine, Reid, etc. Are these people philosophers? I understand that that is OR on my part to make that connection, but it would also seem that these books and these journal articles have got it all wrong...? She likewise takes up a large chunk of the book Philosophers of Capitalism: Menger, Mises, Rand, and Beyond, for example. There are also her television appearances over the decades, Mike Wallace, Donahue, Tom Snyder, etc (that's just what I could find on YouTube), where she is popularly considered a "philosopher". Until these can be discounted as unreliable, I don't see any evidence that is not simply original research. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2009-01-22 13:56Z


 * What started it? Ironically, some folks who unlike her believe reason isn't an absolute have reasoned that she absolutely isn't a philosopher in defiance of facts and find it unreasonable to call her one.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 11:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Phil Donahue introduced her as a philosopher. Debate over. TheJazzFan (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, no? TallNapoleon (talk) 06:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I don't personally consider her a philosopher (I think she is more of a life-style guru), she did make humorous attempts to take on Kant and Hume; she is called a philosopher by many sources; she attempts to make use of philosophy as the grounding basis for her life-style doctrines and dogmas. Furthermore, one definition of philosopher is: "a person who establishes the central ideas of some movement, cult, etc." For these reasons, I remain of the opinion that she can fairly be called a "philosopher". As could L.Ron Hubbard, for that matter. Or Farrakhan, for example. CABlankenship (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion. While you certainly are entitled to your own opinions of Rand, the measure of whether a statement should be included in Wikipedia is whether it is used in reliable sources. So those sources that I linked to are either reliable or we need to show that they're not. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2009-01-22 16:23Z


 * Amused at the conceptual disconnect between CAB's not considering her a philosopher but then declaring she can be fairly called a philosopher. He demonstrates that his denial is strictly about acrimony not intellectual evaluation. Oh wait, I already knew that.TheJazzFan (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The word "philosopher" has many definitions, and means many different things to people all over the world. Another example would be that I don't personally consider Rand a "liberal", even though she could fairly be called by such a term. There is no contradiction, merely a realization that my opinion is not an objective truth, and that there is room for fair disagreement. In other words, I don't think you're necessarily wrong to consider her a philosopher. It just so happens that I wouldn't personally use that term to describe her. CABlankenship (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course the world's just a big bag of floating abstractions, ain't it. What Ayn Rand said and wrote is fixed, it doesn't change. What you and other are trying to do is claim she's not a philosopher not by anything as courageous as asserting a definition, but by a sniveling act of avoidance - apparently insisting that "a philosopher is whatever Ayn Rand isn't". As "substantiation" you can only offer another non-assertions - a tallying of those who haven't said she's a philosopher, still avoiding taking any responsibility for being held to a standard.TheJazzFan (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the debate its also about her prime identity. In a sense all novelists are philosophers in some sense of the word. We have made reference to several taught on philosophy courses around the world whose pages do not use the term. The compromise suggestion was to give her a primary designation as author and screen writer and state that she founded a philosophical movement known as objectivism. That avoided the prior position of footnote qualifications. -- Snowded  TALK  15:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The debate is NOT about her "prime" identity - that, I believe is just Snowded's insertion. Here is the essence of the debate: Some people here do not accept any of the many, many valid sources that can (and have been) cited that show her to be a philosopher as well as a novelist and screenwriter. --Steve (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Some sources call her a philosopher and some sources don't. Idag (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Absence is not evidence, though. If reliable sources go into detail about why they think she is not a philosopher, then that should be discussed in the article, but if she is popularly considered a philosopher, as my original post shows, then she should be considered a philosopher in the article. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2009-01-22 16:23Z
 * Actually, her exclusion from notable comprehensive reference works of philosophers is evidence. Obviously they're not going to put in a detailed analysis for why they excluded the people that they excluded and to ask for one would be to request proof of a negative, which is impossible.  If the majority of sources called her a philosopher, I would have no problem calling her as such on this article, but that is not the case. Idag (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If they have not stated the reasons for excluding her from their directories, we cannot presume to know what those reasons were. Books, for example, may exclude due to space limitations. Websites may exclude due to lack of a writer knowledgeable on Rand on their staff. Or maybe they just haven't come across her. Absence of content is not an argument, as I said. And again, if there is a reliable source that argues that she is not a philosopher, they should be included, but if popular media calls her a philosopher, she should be considered such in the article. It is original research to make the connection that you have made, namely, "she is not a philosopher because sources X, Y, Z don't list her as a philosopher". If a reliable source makes that claim, however, we can include it in the article. It would read something like this: "Writer John Smith contends in his book History of Philosophy that Ayn Rand is not a philosopher, because she doesn't appear in the directories of philosophy X, Y, Z." &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2009-01-22 17:01Z
 * And the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy does not mention her at all. Proving a negative is difficult although there is cited material that at least one notable libertarian philosopher while agreeing with her politics dismissed her "philosophy".  Within a US context she has more prominence.  I haven't had an opportunity to check the Stamford lists an entry for Rand, but none for Objectivism.  I haven't manage to get access to that yet to check what it says but it may constitute evidence and needs to be checked.  The fact they don't list objectivism itself is significant.  If she was a philosopher of any note, then you would expect all major international dictionaries to list her.  There is no question that she is an author (although again outside the US she does not appear in directories even of American Literature) and that is the primary claim. Also you need third parties, papers from "inside the movement" can result in undue weight.  I still think the compromise of her creating a philosophical movement is supportable and does not require qualification.  listed her as a philosopher when large parts of the world do not recognise as such would  .  -- Snowded   TALK  17:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Dismissing her philosophy is an acknowledgment that it is a philosophy, no? (Unless he dismissed it as not being a philosophy.) &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2009-01-22 18:01Z
 * (1) he didn't call it a philosophy when he dismissed it (it was more akin to a dismissal of an argument); and (2) he was one of, at best, a handful of major philosophers to acknowledge that Rand even exists. Idag (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, so then it's not even relevant to this discussion. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2009-01-22 18:14Z

I understand your position, and yes it makes sense. Maybe we'll see compromise here, but I doubt it. I don't think it's a big deal. Far more important, in my opinion, is elaborating on her ideas, life, and what she said. For instance, she claimed that Kant was "the most evil man in mankind's history." She blamed him for Hitler, Stalin, and all of the crimes of the 20th century. She claimed that without Kant, the philosophical climate would not have permitted such acts. This is crackers, as I'm sure we all believe, but it's this type of interesting fact that I think deserves attention. It's fascinating stuff that the casual reader would find interesting. CABlankenship (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe she blamed Kant for Hitler, Stalin. Those guys did their own things and are to blame for their own actions. Kant, according to her, simply opened them up to that line of reasoning. You'll need to provide some quotes for what you call "crackers" - I haven't seen it suggested that "without Kant", things would be peachy. What you may be doing is taking her words out of context, and setting up a straw man that, while being convenient to attack, is ultimately counterproductive to our discussion. It's one thing to say that parallels can be drawn between Kant's philosophy and the opinions of Marx, Hitler, Stalin, but quite a different thing to say that Kant directly caused them (which assumes those individuals have no free will of their own), and that "therefore" without Kant we would not have had them. I need to see quotes in context to back up your statements. &mdash; BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2009-01-22 16:23Z

Leonard Peikoff agrees with my analysis. http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_fv I can find other sources also. Peikoff says that: "In the final issue of The Objectivist, Ayn Rand described Kant as “the most evil man in mankind’s history.” [...] She held that Kant was morally much worse than any killer, including Lenin and Stalin (under whom her own family died), because it was Kant who unleashed not only Lenin and Stalin, but also Hitler and Mao and all the other disasters of our disastrous age. Without the philosophic climate Kant and his intellectual followers created, none of these disasters could have occurred; given that climate, none could have been averted." Isn't Peikoff the "intellectual heir" and "foremost authority" on Rand? I do not believe that I'm using Rand "out of context" or that I am introducing straw men. I believe this is accurate. CABlankenship (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is the difference: you first stated that Kant caused Hitler. Now in your quote from Piekoff, it is apparent what was meant is that Hitler's opinions were so readily absorbed by the public because of an intellectual climate that can be traced to Kant. Do you see the difference between these two things? Also, given that this is the article on Rand, not the article on Piekoff, I would prefer actual quotes from Rand, and not simply from her "intellectual heir", who has his own opinions. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2009-01-22 17:08Z


 * "Do you see the difference between these two things?" Does he comprehend? I'll take that one - no.TheJazzFan (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * See WP:CIVIL. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just stating a fact.TheJazzFan (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (why are you using * by the way not :? its confusing). We are meant to use third party sources rather than summarise her which means Pelkoff's views are relevant.  -- Snowded   TALK  17:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * After years of experience, I've come to favor bullets for replies. For example, the quote above could be confused for a reply. I did not say Piekoff wasn't relevant, just that direct quotes from her are preferable. Please reread my post. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2009-01-22 17:24Z


 * Ah (on the * I see but I still find it confusing). I agree that direct quotes are appropriate (and I had read that).  My point was that we are really meant to source from third parties and here we have a generic problem on the whole article in that independent ones are notable by their absence. -- Snowded   TALK  17:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have shown you a source (well-respected by Objectivists) that makes exactly the same claim that I made, which you denied. As you say, original research is not allowed, so we should defer to the published expert on Rand, not our own interpretations. So from that, we can say that Peikoff believes that a proper interpretation of Rand is that she believed without Kant's philosophy, there would not have been a holocaust, mass murders by Stalin and Mao (how did Kant influence Mao and China?), and so forth. I think this is crackers, as I said. But that doesn't matter. The point is to reference and source expert interpretations, is it not? We can obfuscate. We can set up straw men, as you did when you attempted to draw me into a semantics debate on the word "caused". Note that nowhere in my original post did I mention the word "caused" as you claimed. We can say that "what she really meant was..." and so forth, but she still had some fantastical notion that Kant's philosophy was in some large way responsible for the horrors of the 20th century. This is an eye-brow raising and interesting fact. CABlankenship (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You make two claims, but only cite a source for one of them. You claim she said Kant is to blame for Hitler and Hitler's actions. You claim she said Kant caused an intellectual climate that was acceptable to Hitler. I've seen no evidence to support your first claim, and the ambiguity of your quoted source does not help - ie, what is meant by "unleashed"? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2009-01-22 17:54Z
 * I consider this to be unreasonable semantics, but I acquiesce from the word "blamed". It's not important. Just out of curiosity, do you think she was wrong on this score? CABlankenship (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is not nit-picking on my part, but the ambiguity of the word "unleashed". That word could be used to justify any variety of opinions on what she meant, so the quote should be avoided as a reference. As for my opinion - I don't know enough about Kant or the history of world culture to say for certain if I can trace a connection between the two. Hitler is responsible for his own actions, as are anyone else who was involved with his campaign. It is certainly true that, for example, the selflessness/charity preached by Jesus and his followers has had a huge effect on the acceptability of certain philosophies to the public, so I think it is certainly possible that Kant could have had a similar effect on society. Everyone is still accountable for their own actions, though. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2009-01-22 18:11Z
 * So you think it's possible that she was correct in calling Kant the most evil person in history, worse than Stalin and Hitler? CABlankenship (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Where did I say that? Were we even talking about that??? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2009-01-22 18:14Z
 * (In response to comment before change by Brian) What do you think she meant? Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kant...to Rand, Kant is easily the most "evil". I think she meant that Kant was "worse than any killer" because he "denied reality", thus — in the deranged opinion of Rand — somehow made "possible and necessary all the atrocities of our age." I'm frankly astonished that you even hold this out as a possibility. CABlankenship (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you're getting this from... It's certainly true that Jesus' teachings paved the way for the Crusades. All that says is that ideas influence people. It's likewise possible that Kant's ideas influenced people to the point that Hitler's opinions were more acceptable to them. Regarding what is most "evil", if violation of individual rights is the standard, then Hitler is definitely the more evil. I don't know what Rand meant by "evil", and there are at least 10 definitions for the word in the dictionary. Again, you're wallowing in ambiguity. Unless you can determine exactly what was meant by words like "unleashed" and "evil", this is all an exercise in futility. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2009-01-22 18:37Z
 * Agreed. Still, the part on Rand vs Kant should elaborate on her extreme position. CABlankenship (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree provided that it is more specific than we have been so far. We should avoid ambiguity at all costs in an article. If her opinion is only extreme when taken out of context, or it is not clear what the context of her opinion is, then it only degrades the article to include it at all. We should instead stick to explaining why exactly she disagreed with Kant, and how she believes Kant's views spread and influenced society. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2009-01-22 19:15Z
 * By the way, I wasn't agreeing in any way to the idea that it's plausible that Kant's philosophy had anything to do with the holocaust or other 20th century atrocities. I think it's quite a mad idea, actually. I was agreeing with you that we should avoid ambiguity. I think that it's relevant that she said crazy things about Kant. For instance, Ben Stein recently made a film suggesting that Darwin paved the way for Hitler. Rand's accusation seems similar as regards Kant. Unless you just don't take Rand seriously at all, or think that she was being a joker, I think her astonishingly extreme language in attacking Kant should be discussed. Very rarely do we see such a thing between academics or philosophers. CABlankenship (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In that respect, it is best if we defer to a third party analysis of the veracity of her claims. Continuing to call her opinions "crackers" on the article talk page distracts from the discussion. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2009-01-22 19:27Z
 * Yes, my quandary is in how to introduce such a matter. In this sense, I am introducing something into consideration for inclusion on the grounds that it seems crackers. So I think in this case, it was relevant for me to include why I thought it noteworthy. I did specifically ask for your opinion on the matter, and should have done that on your talk page. But you see, her mental condition is one of the factors we're discussing. For instance, one of her closest followers, the psychotherapist Allan Blumenthal, says that she suffered from "several personality disorders". Similar things are heard from other sources, including Rothbard, Branden, and so forth. Maybe there is a more gentle way to introduce this for discussion, and in such a way as to not offend her fans, but this can be difficult. Regardless, just as with a figure like Nietzsche, their relative sanity and mental conditions are relevant to a page about them. CABlankenship (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Such content would be relevant under a "Personal life" section, but certainly not under a "writings", "philosophy", or "Objectivism" section. The soundness of her arguments is not dependent upon her personality. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2009-01-22 21:35Z

Well a broader section on her philosophical views would make sense but we really need third party plus some quotes and we are then back to the problem of the limited number of sources and nearly all the philosophy ones coming from Rand related institutions or Rand type instituted funded seminars or research fellowships. Outside of the US you see nothing really, well maybe a funded seminar at Warwick University but that is nothing. No one denies she created a philosophical position which some people have taken up almost exclusively in the US. But that is not the point. -- Snowded  TALK  16:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I despise the works of Rand but to argue she is not a philosopher is arrogance. That she may be considered laughable by the academic community is irrelevant. What is accepted in the academic community is NOT the standard. I will prove this. I can state that Kenny G is not a musician. I dare anyone to find an academic that takes him seriously as one. Ergo, he is not a musician on WP? That Ayn Rand is known POPULARLY as a philosopher is enough. Almost anyone with any awareness of Ayn Rand knows that she is considered to be a novelist and philosopher, however untalented and misguided. If a million hacks consider someone a philosopher then that is what they deserve to be called in an encyclopedia. Let the academic world take care of its own. Stevewunder (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with you Steve(wunder). However I would be happy with a compromise saying she created a philosophical system. That's what Britannica does, and it gets us around the controversy. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no real controversy. There are some people who hate Rand and want to diminsh her.  Anyone who accepts valid sources for material doesn't even question that she is a philosopher.  She has journal articles written about her philosophical works.  She is called a philosopher by some encyclopedias (and only one is enough).  As to the Britannica... If someone is the creator of a philosophy, they are a philosopher.  If that philosophy spawns a movement that results in the sales of hundreds of thousands of books, and they are mentioned in philosophy text books as a philosopher... they are a philosopher.  When professors of philosophy write scholarly books on her philosophy, she is a philosopher.  When the professor emeritus of the department of philosophy, in a major school like Univ. of Calif. Berkley says in an article on Epistemology, that, though he disagrees with some of her position on universals, he considers her work worthy of study, she is a philosopher.  Those who keep arguing against this position, after seeing these sources, prove they only want to edit from a negative POV. --Steve (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The Criticism section should mention that many academics do not consider Rand a philosopher. That way we cover different external POVs and remain N here. But to not call her a philosopher in the beginning and mention later that many consider her a philosopher would be awkward. It is not relevant that she is not an IMPORTANT philosopher. She is not an important novelist either. Stevewunder (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

But if we must compromise here is my olive branch: if she isn't called a philosopher, she shouldn't be called a novelist either, because she does not write proper novels, but novelistic propaganda. Stevewunder (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, I've seen her referred to as "novelist-philosopher" or "writer-philosopher" in a few places. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia Stevewunder, and its a brave wo/man who enters a controversial page on only their second day as an editor! We had a position which qualified all mention of her being a philosopher with a note to the effect that she was not so considered by the bulk of academic philosophy and it was OK but clumsy. Remember we are talking about two entries here, the info box and the lede. The compromise solution as t recognise that she was an author and script writer who founded and/or was the inspiration for a philosophical movement. This followed another encyclopaedia which means we are using a third party source. I don't think you can say she is not an important novelist by the way, but the quality of any philosophy that she produced was dismissed even by fellow libertarians (recognised as philosophers). SteveWolfer (we cant just say Steve any more or even SteveW!) has previously produced a long list of philosophers who he says endorse his point of view, without telling us exactly how. I checked a couple and they has simply turned up at a seminar sponsored by a Rand institution of some type. -- Snowded  TALK  09:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I just don't see how, by the same standard, she can be considered a novelist. I don't think you will find many in the academic community who take any of her novels seriously. And I don't think an encyclopedia makes a good source for another encyclopedia, otherwise what is the point here? If Rand considers herself a philosopher and novelist and her millions of fans do the same, then she deserves to be called that -- then we can sling all the mud we want at her in the Criticism section. I think that is a NPOV, even if it is only my second day as an editor! Stevewunder (talk) 11:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You might want to check out WP:CITE to get a sense of what is involved here. Our opinion of her as a novelist does not really matter.  Slinging mud would be entirely inappropriate.   Personally I rate her less than Dan Brown but that is irrelevant and a quick check around a cocktail party in Connecticut last night revealed that most people had read Atlas (and in many cases enjoyed it) as adolescents but could not imagine an adult taking her seriously.  None of those statements would be appropriate for the article unless they were made by a notable critic and published (even then they would be questionable.


 * That she is a novelist can be established by citation and book sales. The question of her being a Philosopher however is more problematic, especially given the way that word is used.  She is simply not mentioned in the vast bulk of the literature.  If you then eliminate Rand Institute funded positions and seminars (which I think you have to) there is precious little left.   Its also difficult to know how many fans of her as a novelist are even aware that there are people who consider her a philosopher (a minority group even within US Libertarians).  Other Encyclopaedias can provide guidence, as can other articles in the WIkipedia.  So given her primacy as a novelist, we need to look to other novelists with a philosophical bent to see how they are treated and I haven't found one yet who is designated as a philosopher.  Hence the compromise to say that her ideas founded a philosophical position called Objectivism by its adherents.   I can also imagine by the way (In response to the other Steve) even a Professor of Philosophy suggesting that her novels be read in connection with understanding political extremism of various types.  When I read Philosophy back in the 70's we were encouraged in Ethics and Political Philosophy to read all manner of material which did not originate from Philosophers.  In fact that reflection is part of the philosophical process.  -- Snowded   TALK  12:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi ya'll. Why is it so important to have 'philosopher' in the Infobox? Isn't mostly everybody, philosophical? GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You are using the word "novel" in the loosest sense, considering a novel as simply a work of fiction. In a narrower sense her didactic fictions are outside the tradition of the Western novel, just as her philosophical non-fiction may be outside the tradition of Western philosophy. She is not listed as a novelist in the vast chunk of literature having to do with literature. Try to find a citation of Atlas Shrugged by a respected literature professor! I don't see why the title Philosopher here has to have a capital P, while the title novelist gets thrown in the shit bucket. If book sales of her fictions have meaning, then book sales of her philosophical non-fiction should have meaning as well. My argument is that it is obvious that she is popularly considered to be a Novelist and Philosopher -- there are many citations of both (however lowbrow)-- and that not referring to her by what she is popularly considered to be is not a NPOV. What the academic field thinks doesn't matter on these labels, otherwise we shouldn't call her a novelist either. A hundred years ago we could have been having this argument over whether Nietzsche should be considered a Philosopher.

Other persons on Wikipedia called Philosophers include: Karl Marx, Alan Watts, Robert Anton Wilson, and Kahlil Gibran. Stevewunder (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I do agree it should be OK to simply say "writer" in the info box, as it currently does. Stevewunder (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

An aside: Rand has a huge following among many Wall Street execs who fancy themselves heroes out of Rand's novels. These people take her seriously to a degree that is scary. They name their children after Rand characters, etc. They will quote her constantly in their own rhetoric. If you make the mistake of suggesting to one of these (highly educated) people that Rand is not a philosopher, the response is like that of a Muslim who has seen a cartoon of Allah. I realize that this alone does not qualify her as a philosopher, I merely point it out as an example of how many people take seriously the notion she is a Philosopher, albeit outside the academic world. It is representative of popular culture. I think thus her status as philosopher is analogous to Kahlil Gibran or Alan Watts, neither of whom are philosophers in the Western tradition. Stevewunder (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And what about all those Rush lyrics? Don't they mean something? Stevewunder (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Who is John Galt?
How about placing this picture in the section 'Atlas Shrugged'.
 * The contrast of the text on the wall is really pretty poor, so I'm not sure. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The page is not protected. Ruslik (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad citation
Note 2 ("A survey jointly conducted by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club...") should be replaced with a proper citation that actually gives the name, date, etc. of the article referenced. --Nog lorp (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged
The following passage was recently added to the end of the Atlas Shrugged section:
 * In the novel, the author achieved a consistency of vision and depth of execution unparalleled in the freedom movement for individual's rights. Theme and plot consonance, the agreement of character and action create a symmetry of structure, a unity of purpose and its achievement that has rarely ever been accomplished

I think this passage should be moved into the Literary Criticism section, as that is where we currently have the reviews of Rand's books (both positive and negative). I think we also need to cut this passage down to one short sentence, as the majority of the reviews are negative, so giving so much space to a single positive review would be undue weight. Idag (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the article should really be left alone until after ARbcom have ruled. But overall I agree the edit you reference above is excessive and some the other additions although cited don't really seem to make sense, although ironically the editors other main interest seems to be Scientology! -- Snowded   TALK  22:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Please Protect Article
I agree that the article should remain unchanged pending the arbitration. Can someone contact an admin? <span style="color: rgb(0, 72, 55); font-weight: bold; font-family: times cy;">Kj<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">a er (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We are agreed on this at least - I will reverse recent edits with that suggestion. -- Snowded  TALK  23:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. Idag (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I reversed the last two and added a note on the editors page - you guys might want to reinforce this. -- Snowded   TALK  23:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I put in a request for protection from the admins and it was declined. Hopefully Arbcomm will protect it. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like all sides in the dispute are agreed on this so we can act collectively! -- Snowded   TALK  08:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Power to the people! Overthrow the evil capitalist bourgeois running-lackey admins! Or something. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I hear tell she liked to kick puppies too
Yeah, sure looks lots better now. This article is a testament to what's wrong with Wikipedia.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Content removal
This edit removed several sourced pieces of information that seem entirely appropriate to include. Is there any reason this content shouldn't be added back? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They were fairly major changes posted without any discussion. Apart from that, everyone seems to be in agreement that we should hold off on all major changes until the ArbCom thing finishes. Idag (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"Well-sourced"
I've said this before, but I think I need to say it again: "That section is well-sourced" is NOT a reason to keep it. Many of these "well-sourced" sections are overlong, and violate WP:UNDUE among other guidelines. Rand's views on homosexuality are of minimal importance; a full subsection describing them is unnecessary. Similarly, FOUR subsections discussing the various schismatic groups is unnecessary. Two paragraphs discussing her beliefs about gender... unnecessary. This article needs to be trimmed. Wikipedia articles are NOT intended to give a subject deep coverage, but to summarize the important information in a balanced manner--in other words, to provide an introduction. People who are more interested are perfectly capable of reading her books themselves, or following any of the sources we cite or links we provide. I am deleting the homosexuality section again, because currently only one person objects. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This makes sense. The article should fairly represent its subject. In an article about a subject (in this case, Ayn Rand), certain things are distinctive about them and fundamental to their importance.  That Ayn Rand was a popular novelist is in this category, as is an accurate description of the unusual content of her novels.  That Ayn Rand had a distinctive philosophy is in this category, as is a summary of the basic and distinctive elements of that philosophy. That, e.g., Rand was born in Russia and emigrated to America is valuable but less distinctive or consequential. But her views on homosexuality, on gender realtionships, and many other matters are derivative of her basic ideas, less-consequential, or less distinctive, and should receive proportionally less space, if any. Gyrae (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and accusing anyone who removes material of vandalism is not helping your case, either. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest we use the featured article James Joyce as a template and model for this article. CABlankenship (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I further suggest merging the 'criticisms' and 'legacy' sections into a few summary paragraphs under the title "Legacy", similar to the Joyce article. Contentions claims should be removed (such as polls where the validity is in question). CABlankenship (talk) 10:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Philosopher
Most sources refer to Ayn Rand as a philosopher including her obituary in the New York Times. Everyone agrees she developed a philosophical system, so that would seem to be a good indication that she was a philosopher. If you support referring to her as a philosopher, please indicate by saying Support, and if you oppose please indicate that by saying Oppose and provide your reasoning including sources (numerous have been supplied that use philosopher and can be viewed above).

Support This comes down to the same damn thing time after time. Why the resistance to identifying her as a philosopher? What are we supposed to do when a "real" philosopher, like Quine, rhymes with Ayn about Identity? Should we re-evaluate Quine's status as a philosopher because he agrees with Aristotle too? Who is this Aristotle fellow anyway, was he a "real" philosopher? You see where such pathetic pedantry leads. Yeah, this is probably AGF violation and whatever, but the most idiotic people in the world are those who hate hate hate hate Ayn Rand.User:Philosopher

ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The last time we had this debate, JReadings and I spent a great deal of time looking at sources to see how Rand was described.  Roughly half the sources call her a philosopher while the other half omit that adjective (I'm not hunting down those sources again, the relevant discussion is in the archives).  The current compromise is the best way to balance this use of adjectives as it omits the word philosopher while at the same time acknowledging that she developed a philosophical system. Idag (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to even bring this up again. She IS a philosopher and there are a very, very long string of citations that can, and have been put forth - including encyclopedias, academic journals, and published statements by other notable philosophers. These sources take it beyond anything subject to honest questioning. There is no consensus to the contrary - only Orig. Research and bald opinion. One doesn't compromise a cited fact to suit a personal opinion of an editor - and remember, Idag, some of these editors have been very outspoken in their angry statements of dislike for Rand. --Steve (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Steve supports. I'll ignore the rest as an AGF violation. Idag (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I agree that she can credibly be called a "philosopher". Even L.Ron Hubbard is often referred to as such.  She started her own cult which was based upon philosophical concepts.  CABlankenship (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Idag, there is no AGF violation. I did nothing but point out that some editors have made extrememly strong anti-Rand opinions known, put forth origonal research and their personal opinions and have deleted statements about Rand being a philosopher despite their very solid cites. --Steve (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And that just happens to violate WP:AGF. Attack the argument, not the editors. Idag (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * CABlankenship, the problem is that a number of sources don't call her a philosopher, but, rather, a novelist. Many authors use philosophical concepts in their work and have a devoted following, that doesn't necessarily make them philosophers.  My point is that we can acknowledge that she made a philosophical work without making a value judgment that she's a philosopher (currently the article does not say that she either is or is not a philosopher). Idag (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose calling her a philosopher; support saying she developed a philosophical system. We had a similar issue at Lyndon LaRouche, who sees himself as an economist because he writes about economics. But we should only identify people as members of a profession when that profession actively admits them by employing them, promoting and referencing their work, or awarding them academic or professional qualifications. None of this is the case with Ayn Rand. That situation could change, of course, and according to some sources it is changing, but we're not there yet. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 05:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, SlimVirgin, maybe you aren't aware, but her income from sales of philosophy books and her fees for public speaking on philosophical issues was extremely high. If you are talking about making a living, being paid, for philosophical work, (which, incidently, is not a good way to rank philosophers), but if you did - she would rank extrememly high.  If you are talking about her work being referenced, then again, for someone whose philosophy is disliked by many academics, and is herself, disliked by many in academia, she is referenced quite a bit - as a philosopher.  There are many books written about her as a philosopher.  Let me ask you, are you personally familiar with this issue?  Have you seen the citations?  --Steve (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have seen some of the citations, but there aren't many, not from professional philosophers, though if you have a list anywhere, I'd be glad to look through it. The point is that the profession does not, by and large, regard her as a member of it. Anyone who has studied philosophy (Western analytic philosophy, anyway) would not, in my view, read Rand's work and regard it as philosophy. A case could be made for it, of course, and people have tried to make it. If you can recommend any reading that would show I'm wrong, I'd be happy to read it. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 06:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On background reading I recommend this which has huge chunks of her work. She has thoughts about number which clearly supersede anything which Frege or Cantor could have said. And here are some profound thoughts about thinking itself.  "Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. " Indeed. Or on the Analytic-synthetic distinction. Good luck.


 * Oppose per Slim. Peter Damian (talk) 08:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are enough academic references to Ayn Rand as a "philosopher" to warrant describing her as such in the article. Adding to sources already mentioned previously by others, Rand is included in A History of Women Philosophers - Volume IV: Contemporary Women Philosophers (see excerpts of chapter), edited by Mary Ellen Waithe, a philosophy professor whose work is amply quoted and respected.  More important than applying the label "philosopher", however, is to make sure the article reflects why Rand, and women in general are marginalized in academic philosophical circles.  Camille Paglia includes Rand in her list of ten great female philosophers,  though she feels "female philosopher" doesn't really make sense.  She explains that philosophy is a male genre because women thinkers tend toward more applied approaches that provoke cultural change, whereas traditional philosophy is occupied with rhetorical manipulation of terms and concepts that is removed from everyday concerns.  Rand believed that the true test of the value in philosophy is its ability to affect the lives of the common man.  In essence, Rand's *very philosophy* challenges the values and approach of traditional philosophy; hence, the ensuing conflict between Rand and academic traditionalists. -- M P er el  08:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I'm taking you at your word that you wanted some reading that would be relevant. This is on the rough side, it is decidedly incomplete, and it is a mix of lay material and work of academic philosophers: --- Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics: the Virtuous Egoist (2006, New York: Cambridge University Press.)

Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies (1991, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.)

by Chris Mathew Sciabarra, PhD
 * Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical (1995, University Park, PA: The University of Pennsylvania Press.)
 * “Ayn Rand’s Critique of Ideology,” Reason Papers 14 (Spring, 1989): 34-47.
 * “The Rand Transcript,” Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, (Fall 1999.)
 * “Investigative Report: In Search of the Rand Transcript,” Liberty (October, 1999.)
 * Ayn Rand, Homosexuality, and Human Liberation (2003, Cape Town, South Africa: Leap Publishing.)

by David Kelly, PhD.
 * The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand: Truth and Toleration in Objectivism (2000, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.)

by Douglas Den Uyl, PhD, and Douglas Rasmussen, PhD
 * [editors] The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand (1984, Urbana and Chicago, ILL: University of Illinois Press.)
 * “Nozick on the Randian Argument,” The Personalist, April, 1978, 186-187, reprinted in Reading Nozick, J. Paul, editor, (1981, Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.)

by Tibor Machan, PhD, Prof. Emer.
 * Ayn Rand (2000, New York: Peter Lang.)

by John Hospers, PhD, Prof. Emer.
 * “Conversations with Ayn Rand,” Liberty, July, 1990, 23-36, and September, 1990, 42-52.)

by Louis Torres and Michelle M. Kamhi
 * What Art Is: Ayn Rand’s Philosophy of Art in Critical Perspective (1996, Chicago, Ill.: Open Court.)

by Mimi Gladstein, PhD
 * The Ayn Rand Companion (1984, Westport, CN: Greenwood.)
 * [and Chris Mathew Sciabarra, editors] Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand (1999, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.)

Philosophical Books, Volume 44 Issue 1, Pages 42 - 52, "Recent Work On Truth: Ayn Rand" Discusses an explosion of academic interest in Ayn Rand

The Journal of Ayn Rand Sudies - a nonpartisan, semiannual interdisciplinary, double-bind peer-reviewed scholarly periodical.

Necessary Factual Truth, by Gregory M. Brown, University Press of America - a notable publication discussing Rand's epistemology

Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge; 2000. ISBN 0-415-22364-4 - lists her as a philosopher Encyclopedia of Ethics by Lawrence C. Becker (Routledge 2001), p. 1440. (lists Ayn Rand as philosopher) Philosophy of Education: An Encyclopedia, edited by J. J. Chambliss (Garland 1996), p. 302. (lists Ayn Rand as philosopher) Gale's American Philosophers, 1950-2000 (lists Ayn Rand as philosopher) History of American Thought (lists Ayn Rand as philosopher) The Wadsworth Philosophy Series (lists Ayn Rand as philosopher) Ayn Rand, Objectivists, and the History of Philosophy by Fred Seddon The Logical Structure of Objectivism by Thomas and Kelly

Wallace Matson: Professor Emeritus, Univ of Calif Berkley - https://itunes.berkeley.edu/people/detail/27 author of A New History of Philosophy, Volume I: From Thales to Ockham He produced a journal article reviewing Rand's position on universals. He disagreed with some of what she wrote, but stated that her work in Epistemology merited more study.

Here are three books that mention Rand as a philosopher and include Rand's response to Relativism, Rand on free will, and Rand on selfishness. Two are texts that are collections of primary texts and include excerpts from Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness." (...and she crops up as a philosopher in a wide variety of other recent philosophy textsbooks)
 * Invitation to Philosophy: Issues and Options 2006, 10e 4 authors
 * Twenty Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy, 2007, 6e 3 editors
 * Voices of Wisdom: A Multicultural Philosophy reader 2007, 6e Gary Kessler - Kessler's brief bio of her before her excerpt says "Rand was a novelist and a philosopher who began a movement called Objectivism."

A Rand Primer by philosopher Allan Gotthelf

Reason and Value: Aristotle vs Rand

Professors (mostly professors of philosophy) who consider Ayn Rand a philosopher:

--Steve (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Aeon Skoble Bridgewater State College
 * Allan Gotthelf, (University of Pittsburgh), (who is also Secretary of the Ayn Rand Society, an official 'group' of the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association).
 * Andrew Bernstein Pace University (or Duke - not sure which is the up to date position)
 * Darryl Wright Harvey Mudd College
 * David Schmidtz University of Arizona
 * Douglas Den Uyl (Bellarmine University, Louisville, Kentucky)
 * Douglas Rasmussen (St. John's University, New York)
 * Eric Mack (Tulane University)
 * Fred Miller, Jr. Bowling Green State University
 * Fred Seddon (University of Pittsburgh or Duquesne University? (I'm not sure of this affiliation)
 * Gary Hull, (Duke University)
 * George Reisman Pepperdine University
 * George Waslh Salisbury State University
 * Harold Bloom Yale University
 * Harry Binswanger CUNY–Hunter
 * Irfan Khawaja University of Notre Dame
 * Jaegwon Kim Brown University
 * Jan Narveson University of Waterloo
 * John Cooper Princeton University
 * John Lewis Ashland University
 * John Ridpath York University
 * Jonathan Jacobs (University of Pennsylvania or Colgate University - not sure which is most current)
 * Julia Driver Dartmouth College
 * Leonard Peikoff New York University
 * Lester Hunt (University of Wisconsin, Madison)
 * Lisa Dolling (head of the honors program in theology at St. John's University in New York)
 * Madison James Lennox University of Pittsburgh
 * Michael Berliner Cal-State University, Northridge
 * Michael Huemer (University of Colorado, Boulder)
 * Neera Kapur Badwhar University of Oklahoma
 * Paul Griffiths University of Pittsburgh
 * Randall Dipert (C.S. Peirce Professor of American Philosophy, SUNY Buffalo)
 * Richard Janko University of London
 * Richard Kamber Trenton State College
 * Robert Hessen Stanford University
 * Robert Mayhew Seton Hall University
 * Robert Nozick Harvard University
 * Robert Pasnau University of Colorado
 * Roderick Long (Auburn University)
 * Shoshana Milgram-Knapp Virginia Polytechnic Institute
 * Slavoj Zizek (The European Graduate School)
 * Stephen Hicks Rockford College
 * Stephen Parrish (Concordia University, Ann Arbor, Michigan)
 * Stephen R. C. Hicks (Rockford College, Illinois)
 * Susan Haack University of Miami
 * Tara Smith (University of Texas at Austin)
 * Tibor Machan, (professor emeritus in the department of philosophy at Auburn University)
 * Wayne Davis (Chair of the Philosophy Department, Georgetown University)
 * Willaim Bechtel Georgia State University

Philosopher[footnote] was the consensus for as long as I have edited this article. It is interesting that NOW after the RFC to confirm your supposed "consensus" you ask for a vote. There was never any consensus to chanve the attribute, and I stick by the status quo ante. It is a bit late to start looking for consensus in a panic to support edits which are about to be reverted to the status quo ante. I suggest we drop this charade, and move onto something actually helpful, like dicussing why we need a fleshed out Objectivist Movement section as well as sections on ARI and TAS when these have there own articles? <span style="color: rgb(0, 72, 55); font-weight: bold; font-family: times cy;">Kj<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">a er (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried to. It was reverted. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Steve, thank you for that list; it's very much appreciated. One thing that would be helpful is to compile a list only of professional philosophers who have referenced her. Also, the list you provided includes people who themselves have written about how philosophy departments don't take her seriously. Douglas Den Uyl, for example, who wrote a book about her, says, "There’s a kind of "catch 22" here that is hard to overcome: more serious scholarship on Rand is needed, but is not a ticket to promotion in most departments. Yet because Rand is still not acceptable, it is likely that only those who are promoted will be able to work on her" (my bold).


 * People can have a personal philosophy, and can even produce philosophical works, without being philosophers, except in a very loose sense. But to read her writing on Kant, for example, is to realize that she almost certainly didn't read him herself. I know that one of her close associates makes that claim too, but even without that, it's pretty clear. So here we have a woman who makes exceptionally strong statements about Kant (he is evil etc), and yet who either hasn't read him, or clearly hasn't understood him. It's the very opposite of the way a philosopher would behave. One of the things you come away with, if you read Kant (especially the Critique of Pure Reason) is respect for him, even if you disagree with it all. In addition to which, she had no qualifications in the subject, was never employed as a philosopher, is nowadays not regarded as one by most philosophy departments, isn't read by philosophy undergraduates, isn't even heard of outside the U.S. And so on.


 * Given that she's a woman, philosophy departments would normally seize on her, because there's a dearth of woman philosophers. But it would be extremely difficult to teach Ayn Rand &mdash; I mean teach her qua philosopher in any kind of rigorous way &mdash; because so much of what she wrote is just ... odd. Her writing reminds me of Charlie Chaplin playing Hitler in The Great Dictator, when he's speaking what sounds like German, but what is in fact just noise. What she writes looks like philosophy, and sounds like philosophy, but when you try to work out what she's saying, you realize that it just doesn't go anywhere, and most of all, you realize that she hasn't read any other philosophers, or hasn't read them carefully. You have to be a student of philosophy before you can be a philosopher. It's not just a question of sitting down and thinking. You have to understand the history, the context, who has said what before you, and what was wrong with it, what was right about it. It's difficult. You can't do it in a vacuum. You can't say, "I despise professional philosophers, so I'm just going to ignore them, and write my own thing." You can say that after having spent 40 years reading them, but not before.


 * Having said that, I'm open to persuasion that her work has value. I'm currently reading it, and I intend to read more, so I'm not dismissing it as unimportant or uninteresting. I'm just saying it's not philosophy. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 09:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This list is not to be ignored. Jaegwon Kim, Susan Haack, Nozick are names to be reckoned with.  I know Robert Pasnau (medievalist and latinist and expert on late scholastic philosophy).  I think I will email him.  I find it hard to reconcile those people with what I have read of Rand. Peter Damian (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Peter, the Anthem Foundation for Objectivist scholarship is an organization that funds research and scholarship on Ayn Rand. Peter Railton, Geoffry-Sayre McCord, and Nicholas Rescher, are among the many mainstream, well known philosophers who have participated in Anthem conferences. I think it is fair to say that if they are presenting their work to a conference sponsored by an Objectivist advocacy organization they take Rand to have some legitimacy as a philosopher, even though they don't agree with her. Here is a link to info on a recent Anthem conference: http://www.pitt.edu/~hpsdept/news/news/ConceptsObjConf2006.pdf Here is a link to a more recent conference on the philosophy of law: http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/content/news/COIL.pdf Notice Michael Moore presented a paper. Leading philosophers certainly don't agree with Objectivism. But they consider it philosophy. Endlessmike 888 15:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Support: In addition to the sources Steve cited, the Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers published by Thoemmes Continuum lists Rand as a philosopher. Also, Ayn Rand: A Companion to Her Works and Thought will be published in 2009 by Blackwell (a leading philosophy press). Endlessmike 888 15:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlessmike 888 (talk • contribs)

Oppose: I remember spending days reading through literally hundreds of newspaper, magazine, journal, encyclopedia and book references of Ayn Rand produced by LexisNexis, Factiva, JSTOR and Worldcat. The search results can be found in Archive 14 here, including an interesting discussion surrounding how the Encyclopedia Britannica handled the Ayn Rand label. For every citation Steve, for example, can find labeling Rand as a philosopher, Idag and I can honestly produce 2 others that omit the imprimatur. Where does that leave us? Some might call it original research by way of synthesis, but that would only be true if we sought to cite some form of synthesis as a footnote. An equally important policy, overlooked in this discussion, is Undue Weight (WP:UNDUE)). As we all know, it was designed to avoid excessively promoting a fringe interpretation of any subject (especially when the interpretation is prominently displayed in the lead section). SlimVirgin and Idag indirectly mentioned this already above. I agree with them. Given the preponderance of verifiable sources, we cannot simply label Ayn Rand as a "philosopher". A compromise will be needed given the preponderance of sources. J Readings (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The lack of the description "philosopher" in some articles is meaningless. Do a JSTOR search for any random philosopher. What percentage says "as the philosopher Bertrand Russell argued" vs "as Russell argued"? You say Steve is using Undue Weight to prop up fringe interpretations. Jaegwon Kim and Peter Railton are not fringe sources for what is and is not philosophy. If there is reason to think that two of the most influential philosophers of the last 30 years consider Rand a philosopher, that should outwiegh the fact that some people simply write "Ayn Rand" instead of "Ayn Rand the philosopher." Endlessmike 888 20:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlessmike 888 (talk • contribs)


 * Not "some","many." Many label Rand simply as a novelist or writer. I'm simply conveying to the talk page what the sources say in a readable fashion. Academics and students (among others) who have access to these database resources can verify the work Idag and I have already done. As for Jaegwon Kim and Peter Railton, I doubt anyone here would base a lead section label on a handful of opinions, regardless of whether or not someone personally opines that they are "two of the most influential philosophers of the last 30 years." It has the potential to become a double-edged sword for all involved. J Readings (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * But do you see my problem with your method? You are taking lack of discussion of the issue as evidence an author picks a side on the issue. That doesn't make sense. The evidence we should consider are those who consider Rand a philosopher, and those who reject her as a pseudo or amateur. Sources that remain silent on the issue should be discarded. As for Jaegwon Kim and Peter Railton, I suggest you ask someone in the profession about their reputations; I'm not just opining. --Endlessmike 888 14:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. If something were never an issue for independent third-parties, there would never have been a need to discuss or label it, would there? To take an extreme example, suppose a small handful of religious followers were to consider someone to be a saint -- yet, the majority of sources neither discuss the person's sainthood nor suggested the person was considered by a few to be a saint. Should the lead still insist that the person was a saint? Of course not. That method would constitute undue weight. Indeed, you seem to be asking me to prove a negative -- that Ayn Rand is NOT considered a "philosopher." No one can prove a negative and, in fact, proving negatives are not a terribly useful way to resolve disputes. For the purpose of this encyclopedia entry, what counts are (1) verifiable sources, (2) the preponderance therein, and (3) the context in which those sources were being used as stipulated in undue weight (see WP:UNDUE)). If you were to carefully re-read the linked Archive 14 I mentioned above, you'll notice that several keyword searches looked for several labels of Ayn Rand. Articles in which Rand was only identified as a "novelist" or "writer" excluded the label "philosopher." Surely, we need to look at the preponderance of sources that simply identify her occupation as a useful method. To cherry pick a very small sample of sources to confirm one occupation or another would be terribly dishonest and misleading -- something I don't want to promote. What I do want to encourage is hopefully something that looks at as many sources as possible (not only a few) in order to confirm that no one here is trying to promote a single agenda either for or against the subject. That, to me, is honesty without an agenda. J Readings (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You premise your last post on a disanalogy. It is not a small group of marginal people who consider Rand a philosopher. On the pro-philosopher side, we have cited mainstream leading philosophy encyclopedias, recent books published by leading philosophy presses, and several leading philosophers, all of which consider her a philosopher. This is prima facie reason to consider her a philosopher; no one on my side of the debate is cherry picking. When leading sources from within the profession itself refer to her as a philosopher, this should outweigh some newspaper or magazine articles that simply calls her a novelist and omits the philosopher label. --Endlessmike 888 20:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlessmike 888 (talk • contribs)


 * Not when we already have verifiable sources which also acknowledge that Ayn Rand is not taught in most philosophy departments in the United States and that her work was (and probably still is) largely ignored in academia. Those citations, in conjunction with the preponderance of other citations I already mentioned collated from LexisNexis, Factiva and JSTOR (not to mention the Encyclopedia Britannica among others), call into question your good-faith assumptions about who is misunderstanding whom in this discussion about undue weight. J Readings (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you point me to the source that states Rand is not taught in most philosophy departments? --Endlessmike 888 01:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlessmike 888 (talk • contribs)


 * Endlessmike 888, I have to apologize for not responding right away. A close family member passed away unexpectedly and, as you can imagine, I haven't really been paying attention to these discussions over the past few weeks. I just noticed your question right now.


 * The comment above was not mine, but those found in various reliable sources authorized in the reliable source guidelines. What I can do is paste a sample of some of the relevant passages here. Here are a couple, for example:


 * (Quote begins) The "Objectivism" class [at Stanford University] is led by junior [student] Jason Rheins, who also came up with the idea.


 * "I want to become a professor of philosophy," Rheins said. "I wanted to experience teaching."


 * Rheins said he discovered objectivism at about the same time he entered Stanford as a freshman and has been president of the Stanford Objectivists club since the beginning of his sophomore year.


 * "Objectivism is all about reason and happiness and freedom," Rheins said.


 * The class meets weekly and alternates between lectures from guests, who are mainly from the Ayn Rand institute (emphasis added), and a discussion section led by Rheins. According to Rheins, about 10 students have enrolled for credit in addition to a number of auditors.


 * "The class is not sponsored by the philosophy department because, he explained, 'all modern philosophy and objectivism are diametrically opposed.' (emphasis added)"


 * Jennifer Nuckols, "Five student-initiated classes satisfy niches at Stanford," University Wire, January 24, 2002.


 * I cited a couple other examples below. There are others, of course. J Readings (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Support calling Rand a philospoher. We had this debate before (more than once), and when I checked the dictionary definitions, Rand definitely qualified under several of the definitions. Quite often, she has been described by neutral third parties as "novelist/philosopher" which makes sense since she is famous in both capacities. So far as I have seen, opponents to calling her "philosopher" are also opposed to her philosophy, to the extent that they understand it. (Some have admitted that they don't.) I have no problem with the general idea of the introduction saying more or less that Rand was a fiction writer who developed a philosophical system etc. (And it is a genuine philosophical system, addressing all the traditional areas with an integrated approach. Whether you can find flaws in it is secondary.)  Her philosophy has had substantial impact on the culture, and pretending that it is insignificant is counterfactual. — DAGwyn (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with that sentiment, which is why the current compromise does not mess with adjectives and simply states that she developed the philosophical system of Objectivism. Do you agree with that compromise? Idag (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Support for reasons previously mentioned. Retract my previous support of the compromise sentence in the lead, as it seems that was taken as support of removing the description "philospher" entirely. What exactly do you call one who creates a philosophy? Jomasecu talk <sub style="margin-left: -4.3ex">contribs 21:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - whether she is to be called a philosopher is an issue about which there is no consensus here, nor in academia, nor even in the general public. It is an issue that should be dealt with within the article (perhaps as its own section). It is not up to wikipedia to make a declaration one way or the other. --JimWae (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

attempting to create a compromise again
The old text said that she was a philosopher, but then qualified that with a reference to cited material that her status as philosopher was disputed. There is no question that (i) she was a successful novelist and screen writer and (ii) that she created a philosophical movement which she called objectivism (although that term is also used in a very different way elsewhere in Philosophy). We now have a long list of names but no links to citable material and its unclear if the reference is to dismiss her status or to accept it. At least one notable libertarian philosopher accepted her political ideas but dismissed her as a philosopher. So overall its not clear. I was not wild about the compromise but it did seem to serve all parties. It made her primary occupation clear and acknowledged that her work created a philosophical school of thought. That makes the article comparable with that of other novelists. I make no literary or intellectual comparison here but if we look at the page for Dostoyevsky he is not listed as a philosopher. His work however is used on philosophy courses (101 ethics when I read Philosophy was all based around Crime and Punishment). He like many other novelists uses literature to express a clear Weltanschauung. Rand does the same with the model of a hero etc. from which an approach to philosophy was generated. The compromise proposal recognises this, and avoids clumsy references to disputed terms. Maybe we can look at that wording and improve it so that those for whom her status as a philosopher seems of paramount importance can be happy. For example we might state that she was employed as a screen writer, was a successful novelist who articulated an approach to life and politics which became objectivism. I know thats not perfect, but how about trying to find a way to do this? -- Snowded  TALK  13:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "We might state that she was employed as a screen writer, was a successful novelist who articulated an approach to life and politics which became objectivism." You strike me as a very reasonable chap, Snowded, and your suggested compromise is something I'm personally okay with. Whether others will accept your compromise is a separate matter. Incidentally, if you were to read the Ayn Rand entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Rand author takes a similar tact. J Readings (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Idag (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

An "amateur" philosopher - while an indistinct & biased qualifier - is still a philosopher. Find a primary definition of "philosopher" or "philosophy" that her work doesn't fit. Such as the Wikipedia article on Philosophy. Do the definitions indicate one must be employed in the Philosophy Dept. of a college or university or hold a degree in Philosophy? Is the debate going to be decided on a numerical tally of academicians who do or don't call her a philosopher?

Years ago I was attending a university and decided to stop by the Philosophy dept. I mentioned Atlas Shrugged. This prompted one of the professors to make a comment to the effect of "oh, yeah that Ayn Rand crap..." Further inquiry revealed that she'd never actually read the book - or any others of Rand, but was simply reflecting word-of-mouth bias and had concluded it wasn't worth her effort to investigate any further. Yet her contempt was absolute. This was a paid "professional" in Philosophy.TheJazzFan (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone earlier brought up a comparison to Dostoyevsky, who happens to be one of my favorite authors. I will put aside my extreme distaste for comparing the 'sophomoric' work of Rand with the profound genius of Dostoyevsky in order to make a point.  Dostoyevsky was a novelist whose work touched extensively on philosophy.  His novels were constructed in such a way as to explore philosophical and psychological concepts: The Idiot was a mocking commentary of what would happen were one to live a near christ-like life, Crime and Punishment is essentially the hero's attempt to disprove the existence of absolute morality, and The Brothers Karamazov deals heavily with Christian philosophy.  Rand attempted a similar style, and although I find her characters uninteresting and her fiction strained (I literally burst out laughing at several points reading Atlas Shrugged because of the inanity of the social situations she creates), she nevertheless structures her novels in a way that deals with stating her philosophical views.  While Dostoyevsky was an explorer who ultimately drew few conclusions, Rand was a dictator who presented her work as what N.Branden called her "immutable truths"—she believed that her work was absolutely true and necessary by demand of reason and rationality.  Dostoyevsky was not so vulgar, but this is beside the point.  I type all of this to make a simple point: we cannot view Russian philosophy by our western standards.  Rand's style, more than anything else about her, was entirely Russian.  Although I dislike Rand, I believe that she, like Dostoyevsky, was a philosopher in the "Russian style", and while it's true that she's not much of a philosopher in the European sense (Branden states that she only ever produced two works of actual technical philosophy), her work still touched on enough philosophy to deserve the title of philosopher in my opinion.  I should also point out that Dostoyevsky, like Rand, was a monster.  One of his closest friends called him "The most evil Christian I have ever known." He used to beat his slaves mercilessly.  Dostoyevsky was an evil genius, who nevertheless wrote sublime works on morality, philosophy, psychology, and religion.  Perhaps Rand was just evil.  But she attempted to write on the same subjects, and is a philosopher for similar reasons. CABlankenship (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, at least you recognize she was a philosopher. However many "technical" works of philosophy she wrote, she expressed and outlined her philosophy in her novels as well. Don't know whether she was a "monster", from what I gather she was something of a control freak, probably a good thing she never had children.


 * "she believed that her work was absolutely true and necessary by demand of reason and rationality" And the argument against her usually goes something like yours - "it's not true...because it makes me uncomfortable, flies in the face of what we all 'know' and it just isn't correct...well, because it just isn't."


 * "I type all of this to make a simple point: we cannot view Russian philosophy by our western standards." What do you perceive as the difference between Western Standards and Russian standards? To say we can't view it by a certain standard is also saying "We can't view various barbaric acts within societies steeped in mysticism and superstition by our standards." So we can't view the Holocaust as "wrong" because it stems from a philosophy as it most certainly did. The execution of raped girls in Islamic countries, ethnic slaughter, etc. According to you one can make no value judgement, reach no conclusion. We must simply say "this is what happened because it did". And when someone here decides we should start throwing political dissenters into gulags, or turn America into a Christian theocracy, or reinstitute slavery we can make no judgement.


 * Seriously, I'm curious what you perceive as the essential difference between Russian and Western standards.TheJazzFan (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not believe CAB is advocating moral relativism, nor do I believe that it is relevant or constructive to discuss that on this talk page. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe you to be incorrect on both points.TheJazzFan (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Jazz, I'm really unsure how you came to the conclusion that the phrase "we cannot judge Russian philosophy by western standards" would lead to holocaust relativism. In fact, that conclusion is rather bonkers.  CABlankenship (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Since you're unsure I'll clarify it for you. Mankind-orchestrated events like that happen for a reason. There's some motivation, some framework of thought behind them. The Holocaust happened because of the particular philosophy held by the perpetrators. As did the Crusades, The Inquisition, etc. Do you feel the Holocaust was wrong? Or do you just see it as something that "just happened", divorced from any causality? Was it evil? Why? What makes it evil? You can't say it was wrong without condemning the underlying philosophy. One results from the other.
 * Yet you say we can't judge Russian philosophy by Western standards. Why not? To even state this presupposes that you believe there to be differing standards and have an idea what those differences are. You still haven't clarified what you believe to be the distinction.TheJazzFan (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent point Jazz. It's not "bonkers" when you look to the roots of man-made events. Ethan a dawe (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The distinction is that Rand was a novelist who incorporated philosophy into her stories, similar to Dostoyevsky, as apart from what we typically consider a 'philosopher' (Kant, Hume). My point was that we often discount novelists as not being 'true philosophers', and I was arguing that this might be a mistake. As for your holocaust argument...well, it's no less bonkers after your clarification I'm afraid.  Somehow you decided my argument — that novelists are classifiable as philosophers — was equivalent to condoning the holocaust, rape, and sharia law.  Quite odd. CABlankenship (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * CAB - You already previously asked "Jazz, I'm really unsure how you came to the conclusion that the phrase "we cannot judge Russian philosophy by western standards" would lead to holocaust relativism." which mentions the point but evaded the question regarding it that I posed to you and now you appear to be evading the point altogether (what you declared as your central point) and attempting to substitute something else. The question wasn't how are Ayn Rand and Dostoyevsky similar and how they differ from what "we" supposedly consider to be a philosopher. Your statement that I addressed was "we cannot view Russian philosophy by our western standards". And, once again, my question is - what do you see as the distinction between Russian and Western philosophy? While you're at it, do you believe the Holocaust was wrong and why?TheJazzFan (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This entire conversation is irrelevant to the topic at hand--namely, the improvement of this article. Jazz and Ethan, I understand that Objectivism has a tendency to obliterate one's capabilities for understanding nuance, but allow me to explain this to you: saying that Wikipedia should not necessarily judge who is and is not a philosopher based on Western standards is not moral relativism. This is a flagrant violation of WP:CIVIL and for that matter of Godwin's Law. And although this probably qualifies as violating WP:DNFT, I'm going to go ahead anyway. When Blankenship writes that "we cannot view Russian philosophy by our western standards," I assume he means that to analyze and understand Russian philosophy, to get anything useful out of it, we cannot look at it from a western point of view. To really understand it, we have to look at it from a Russian point of view. That does not mean that, after having studied it and understood it, that we cannot criticize Russian philosophies from a Western point of view, or judge it using a Western moral code, whether relativist or absolutist. This should be a simple distinction, one that even an Objectivist should be able to grasp, despite the well-documented ill effects that philosophy has on the human mind's capability to comprehend nuance.


 * Finally, this issue has nothing to do with the Holocaust, and frankly as someone who lost family to the Nazis--yemach shemam--it is extraordinarily rude and offensive for you to claim that it does. You have no business attempting to usurp their memory for your own ends--especially not in some petty attempt to prove a point. Your attempt to do so is unacceptable and insulting, and you owe everyone here, especially CABlankenship, an apology. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * TallNap - "this entire conversation is irrelevant to the topic at hand" First off, you're wrong and second, it's hypocrisy to make such a proclamation and then proceed to make a long-winded addition to the very conversation you've declared improper.


 * "saying that Wikipedia should not necessarily judge who is and is not a philosopher based on Western standards is not moral relativism." Whether it is or isn't, that's not the point in question. Go back to "I type all of this to make a simple point:" and rediscover what he said his central, simple point was and which I picked up on to discuss further, but which he's thus far avoided doing.


 * Additionally, while I'm sorry that members of your family as well as millions of others were victims, in this context you're simply attempting to use heritage as a blanket claim to declare indignance when no such indignance is justified. The assertion that mentioning the Holocaust and its root causes is somehow offensive is non-intellectual nonsense. I haven't denied that it occurred nor that it was an atrocity. My "own ends" are to illustrate the results of bad philosophy. I also mentioned the Inquisition and the Crusades. I imagine many had ancestors involved in those too. I'm sorry that you don't grasp why it's crucial to understand why philosophy matters in relation to the Holocaust or any human tragedy. The fact that you blatantly state it has nothing to do with the Holocaust is a stark admission that you don't grasp the connection. It's not enough to simply see newsreels of piles of bodies and starved prisoners and hear account after account of victims. Yes it was horrific, but WHY did it happen? How it relates directly to this article is that Ayn Rand dissected these kinds of things explicitly to their root. How dare I discuss it? How dare you NOT seek to understand it? Your knee-jerk, un-analytical reaction isn't my fault or problem and I don't grant it any validity.TheJazzFan (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * JazzFan, questions of moral relativism, social constructivism etc. really are complex issues that can not be reduced to your either/or type approach above.  You suggestion that human events (tragic or otherwise) happen as a direct result of certain types of philosophy makes assumptions about causality in human systems which are increasingly under challenge from biology, complexity adaptive systems theory and the cognitive sciences.  All of this is a part of the richness of the discipline that is philosophy. The statement that Ayn Rand "dissected these kind of things explicitly to their root" illustrates one of the reasons why she is not taken seriously within the bulk of that discipline (aside from Rand-institute funded fellowships and the odd exception.  Now while this might become an interesting discussion its drifting off the point. What we have here is a literary figure who also engaged in philosophical speculation and the movement she established is needs recognition.  That does not make her profession/occupation a philosopher.   One of the reasons for bringing up a series of other literary figures is to try and find a featured article that can act as a role model for this one.  -- Snowded   TALK  10:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowded "...complex issues that can not be reduced to your either/or type approach above..." "...assumptions about causality in human systems which are increasingly under challenge..." Do tell. And what conclusion do you envision these challenges reaching that ultimately vindicates the perpetrators of the Holocaust, not to mention the various international slaughter committed by Nazi Germany via their military and ultimate totalitarian goals? Either/or not valid? Was the Holocaust wrong? Yes or no? What 3rd option do you suppose there to be that doesn't involve evasion and equivocation? How 'bout the shenanigans within Stalin's regime?


 * Perhaps an individual who's profoundly effected by a specific disorder like schizophrenia or the like might be held to be not responsible for his actions. (And it's considered a disorder because there's some frame of reference to measure it against) But you apparently don't see the absurdity of what you're suggesting - that something that required long-term planning, technological skill and systematic implementation on a national level as well as the political installation of the regime that oversaw it was rooted in something other than a conceptual framework. Whether all involved wholeheartedly supported it or not or even understood exactly what they were participating in, it was still rooted in a conceptual framework. Or landing a man on the moon, or the development of the period table. What you're calling "the richness of the discipline that is philosophy" is an attempt to say "nothing is really anything", that there's no such thing as human responsibility for actions or that we can ever assert value judgements regarding human actions. You're evading the point that there can be bad philosophy. Rand not taken seriously? And krakens rule the seas on the flat Earth, the concept of microbes is absurd, bleeding is an effective way to remove evil humours, magnetism is witchcraft, heavier than air flying machines are impossible. Others here have documented those who do take her seriously. If you've ever read anything by Ayn Rand you didn't grasp what she said. It's also no wonder that you don't understand that she was a philosopher. No, she wasn't employed by a university philosophy dept. vying for tenure and on their dental plan, but she was nonetheless a philosopher.TheJazzFan (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose I should take offence at this rant, but to be honest my feelings are more of sympathy. -- Snowded   TALK  16:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "I suppose I should take offence at this rant" since you're not sure I'll clarify that you have no valid reason to feel offended. Disputed, definitely. I've outlined that I disagree with you and why in specific terms. You've failed to do the same. "but to be honest" Not hardly. If you were honest you'd say you're adopting a dismissive facade in lieu any reasoned response to offer. You, like CAB, can't even declare whether you believe the Holocaust to have been unequivocally wrong.TheJazzFan (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop, you are bringing out the anthropologist in me -- Snowded  TALK  18:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Right. Jazz, your last post was outrageously offensive.  I won't be responding to you again.  Snowded, it's worth noting N.Branden says that Rand was an evolution doubter. Branden says that Rand was extremely ignorant of modern science and psychology.  Napoleon: you are quite right in what I meant (I thought it was obvious, but Jazz still seems confused), perhaps it would be more clear if I had said "We shouldn't judge Russian philosophy by Western standards." I don't have any strong feelings on this opinion, and I think the arguments against classifying her as a philosopher are still quite strong. I simply wanted to suggest that it's possible that we are ignoring her culture of birth, and the style of Russian novelists in combining philosophy with fiction.    CABlankenship (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You won't respond because clearly you can't provide a coherent answer to the question I posed. No "confusion" on my part. You're engaging in obfuscation and backpeddling and now joining this absurd indignation conga line that someone else started and that you see as a convenient out. Your words are quite clear. You specifically identified a statement as your central point. Whether it's "can't" or "shouldn't" judge Russian philosophy by Western standards still presupposes some grasp of the distinction but probing that point reveals you're unable to articulate anything of substance about it let alone a reasoned explanation why we can't make any value judgements. You in fact categorize reaching conclusions as "vulgar", so no wonder you're also unwilling to commit to a declaration as to whether the Holocaust was wrong. And you say *I'm* being offensive?


 * "I'm not sold on the argument I put forth." Me either.  "I was simply offering up a different perspective for consideration." Why? To what end? What's the point when there's to be no outcome of such consideration, no conclusion to be reached, that to actually to do so is "vulgar"?


 * "A convincing argument could be made that she is more of a self-help guru than a philosopher." Really? The validity of the particular proposition aside, convincing means reaching one of those vulgar conclusions you find so distasteful. Why not present an argument that Ayn Rand was a codfish or could turn seawater into basketballs that sing Broadway tunes. What the heck since it's all just so much random conceptual flotsam that we don't dare put to any actual use.


 * What many here seem to be simply bypassing is the obvious step of examining the definition of philosophy and of a philosopher. There are such definitions to be found. Wikipedia has an article on Philosophy. Whatever Rand's culture was or wasn't has no bearing on whether she was a philosopher. I haven't seen a definition that requires that one meet some standard of infallibility or particular venue of employment to be considered a philosopher. The most common motivation for naysaying seems to be simply they don't like her, of course not necessarily tied to a demonstration of any understanding of her ideas.TheJazzFan (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Jazz, you're going off on irrational tangents and creating absurd straw men. You're attacking arguments that nobody has put forth.  I'm unsure whether this is because you somehow failed to understand where I was coming from, even after repeated explanations from myself and others as to your error, or whether this might simply be some sort of silly debate ploy.  Perhaps you feel this is a debate, and you're trying to 'win' the argument in some fashion, hence your repeated distortions and mischaracterizations.  You're all over the place with your reasoning: triumphantly challenging me to state my position on the holocaust(?), demanding that I answer your absurd straw men, and mocking me for my refusal to do so with the laughably self-congratulatory conclusion that your logic is simply overwhelming us.  Needless to say, I find this sort of thing highly distasteful and silly. CABlankenship (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've challenged you to substantiate and demonstrate you have an understanding of what you say. Artificial haughtiness doesn't hide the cowardice you've displayed in failing to even attempt to address a specific point. Since you used certain terms as part of some alleged point, what's the difference between Russian and Western philosophy? -silence- Why do you feel it's proper to avoid reaching a conclusion, "vulgar" to do so? -silence- Do you feel the Holocaust was wrong? -silence- Do you even understand that there IS a connection between an event like that and philosophy? -silence- How ironic and absurd for you to hurl accusations of erecting straw men. You've been erecting air men. I note that you couldn't even hold to your own original commitment to not respond to me again, albeit only to engage in more non-specific mewling. Debate? Hardly. I wish your responses were that substantial. They don't even amount to the most meager attempt, being in essence repeating "you're wrong...um, cuz you are." over and over.TheJazzFan (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I will suffer a brief review of your "substantial" claims. You assert that I have not answered you regarding the difference between Russian and Western writing styles.  I can only assume that you either ignored my clarification on this issue (that Russians have historically used the novel to express philosophy, where Western philosophy rarely makes use of fiction), or that you somehow failed to realize that this was addressing your claim.  You accuse me of ducking your question on whether or not the holocaust was wrong. I believe every sane individual would say that it was one of the most horrible events in all of history.  I found your invocation of the holocaust to be distasteful, hence my refusal to comment, as it's beyond banal to have to say that I strongly disapprove of genocide. You interpreted this as a triumph on your part — a testament to your logic perhaps.  Such conclusions are easier than facing reality, and more pleasing to oneself.  Your final accusation is that I fail to understand that there is a connection between "philosophy" and the Nazis.  Indeed, I do not 'even understand' your point on this, as I find comparing the holocaust with philology to be disturbing and 'bonkers' as I said before.  This exhausts your "challenges".  CABlankenship (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "(the difference is that) Russians have historically used the novel to express philosophy, where Western philosophy rarely makes use of fiction" This doesn't address the difference in the substance of the philosophy, only the medium of delivery. You said "we shouldn't judge Russian Philosophy by our Western standards", you still haven't addressed what you believe to be those standards. I.e. "Western philosophy says that...while Russian philosophy says that..."


 * "You accuse me of ducking your question on whether or not the holocaust was wrong." No response = ducking. Not declarations of triumph, expressions of aggravation at your non-participation. Okay you feel the Holocaust was wrong. Based on what? You stated by inference that it was "vulgar" for Rand to reach any conclusions - such as that people are entitled to live free from the unprovoked initiation of force by others. You have to - as Rand did - reach certain conclusions to say the Holocaust was wrong. There has to be a conceptual standard by which you make such a judgement. Hitler obviously felt no qualms about his actions. Whose philosophy is correct? The philosophy that says mass-murder based on ethnicity/religious heritage etc. is justified or the philosophy that says that it isn't? Hitler felt that men should live their lives to devotedly serve the state and the will of the Fuehrer - including gleefully exterminating those he deemed not fit to live at all not because of any criminal act but because of their heritage or other characteristics decided on his whim. Individual rights are a non-issue to be subordinated to this end. Ayn Rand said people should live for their own lives, to achieve their own happiness, that the state exists to protect the rights of citizens. Who's right? You claim to hold contempt for Rand - implying that you actually have a grasp of what she said, but it's not clear that you do.


 * Elsewhere I notice you stated it was banal for Ayn Rand to state that there is a perceivable reality and that man perceives this reality with his senses. Maybe you'e not aware that there are those that claim otherwise and that this isn't a minor point. Or are you in the camp that insists that man's mind is impotent to perceive reality and that reality is just an illusion to begin with?TheJazzFan (talk) 09:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thing is, there's plenty of Americans who use similar styles who are not considered philosophers. For example, would we classify the Wachowski brothers as philosophers because they made "The Matrix"?  That movie certainly explores and develops lots of philosophical concepts.  There's also Terry Goodkind, who uses and develops Objectivist concepts heavily in his novels.  There's probably other writers that I can't think off of the top of my head, but many choose to use philosophical concepts in their works of fiction, that doesn't necessarily make them philosophers. Idag (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * CAB, Jazz isn't the one evading and setting up straw men. Nice try at a dodge though. Still, this just illustrates what's wrong with this whole discussion here. Ethan a dawe (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah..what he said. ;-)  TheJazzFan (talk)   21:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ooops, that delete was my bad! Thanks for the fix Napolean. Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * True. Like I said, I'm not sold on the argument I put forth.  I was simply offering up a different perspective for consideration. In truth, Rand is far more similar to a religious guru than a philosopher.  This point has been made by Branden, Rothbard, and many others.  What she basically offered was a self-help system: a model for how to live.  In this she is similar to basically any religion, including Scientology, Christianity, and so forth. A convincing argument could be made that she is more of a self-help guru than a philosopher.  CABlankenship (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is also perhaps why her followers are so fervent. Anytime someone bases their lives around living in the style preached by a guru, they are going to be defensive about that philosophy. Most people are defensive about their religious beliefs, and in a sense, Objectivism is simply another self-help religion.  CABlankenship (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The entire discussion above is largely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if everyone here thinks she's a philosopher or if everyone thinks that she isn't a philosopher. All that matters is what do the sources call her. Some call her a philosopher and some simply call her a novelist. We have to find a way to reconcile those. The debate on philosophical relativism is interesting, but irrelevant to making actual improvements on this article. Idag (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That is a comparison I had been considering myself - but, while D is often considered a proto-existentialist, even read in a few philosophy classes (usually introductory), his categorization as a philosopher is also questioned by many. I know of a philosophy class that regularly had Jonathan Livingston Seagull as the first reading assignment--JimWae (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Support:  Rand is clearly a philosopher and has a recognized philosophy, objectivism, to prove it. She (or it) may not be liked or respected, but that cannot change that basic fact. That some of her followers display cult-like attitudes changes this in no way, as there are other recognized philosophers who have (had) similar devotees: Socrates, Marx, and Shaw spring immediately to mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R.scipio (talk • contribs) 19:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Those examples are unfair. Socrates, Marx, and Shaw didn't teach their pupils that they were infallible in matters of philosophy. It is true that figures such as Marx and Aristotle have been held in divine reverence by their followers, but neither demanded such reverence from their followers during their own time. In this, Rand is more similar to an L.Ron Hubbard or Elijah Muhammad. In the words of N.Branden, she started a "dogmatic religion", and her teachings are more similar to a religion in the sense that they are preaching a certain life style and a way-of-living to follow. CABlankenship (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Merged threads by moving recent material to the contemporaneous thread at the (current) end of Talk.Gyrae (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)