Talk:Objectivism/Archive 12

Metaphysics
The metaphysics article now re-directs here --Karbinski (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary rebuke
From the article:

Rand is not found in the comprehensive academic reference texts The Oxford Companion to Philosophy or The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. A lengthy article on Rand appears in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy; she has an entry forthcoming in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, as well as a brief entry in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy which features the following passage: "The influence of Rand’s ideas was strongest among college students in the USA but attracted little attention from academic philosophers. … Rand’s political theory is of little interest. Its unremitting hostility towards the state and taxation sits inconsistently with a rejection of anarchism, and her attempts to resolve the difficulty are ill-thought out and unsystematic."

Allan Gotthelf (chairman of the Ayn Rand Society) responded unfavorably to this entry and came to her defense. He and other scholars have argued for more academic study of Objectivism, viewing Rand's philosophy as a unique and intellectually interesting defense of classical liberalism that is worth debating.

(end of excerpt) Why is Allan Gotthelf's rebuke necessary to include in the text? Why is it noteworthy that an Ayn Rand Society chairmen opposed the description of a philosophy he is attempting to promote as "of little interest"? Please provide a source showing why this is noteworthy. This isn't supposed to be a debate whether Objectivism is interesting or not, it's an encyclopedic article. Every point of criticism doesn't have to be answered by one of the philosophy's preachers - unless it is actually notable. An article built on a "right of respond" to criticism will end up farcical. 81.170.235.35 (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If math prof. A says problem x is not worthy of study, and then math prof. B counters that problem x is indeed worthy of study, and then wiki-editor C says math prof. B is a preacher of problem x, would it be reasonable to stick with what prof. A and prof. B had to say about problem x? --Karbinski (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are comparing Apples and Pears and out of context at that. This is a criticism section, it is not noteworthy that the Chairman of the AYn Rand society responded to criticism, it would be noteworthy if he supported the criticism.   Every criticism does not have to have a counter criticism, unless the purpose of the article is to advocate Objectivism and argue that Ayn Rand an intellectual hero.   --Snowded (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. 81.170.235.35 (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed every crticisim does not have to have a counter criticism. However, the purpose of the article is not to criticize Objectivism and for sure not to argue what Ayn Rand was or wasn't.  Intellectual impact is the topic of the section, and the AG content is on topic, as it would be under the Criticism section. --Karbinski (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We have been through this already. The purpose of the article is to reflect the opinion of reliable sources.  If reliable sources are uniformly critical, then the article has to reflect that. Peter Damian (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Karlin
If Karlin is a reliable source, then it doesn't need to say "according to Rick Karlin". Indeed it would actually constitute the use of weasel words. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Karbinski (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism
Is there any point in having separate criticism and intelectual impact sections? Shouldn't criticism be distributed throughout the article as per recommended practice?

1Z (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I second that criticism would be better severed integrated in the article. However, my main concern is the use of the Criticism section to dismiss Rand's critics. The paragraph about Ellis and Branden establishes they were expelled, they retaliated with criticism, and that their criticism was actually Rand's warnings to them (which bordered on plagiarism). If their criticism is so unfounded it should not be included.

24.147.48.94 (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Trimmed some fat
I cut down some of the bloated writing in the ethics section. A lot more needs to be done on the epistemology section. How exactly did Rand disprove scepticism? Why has her proof not been mentioned in any of the books in my large library devoted to scepticism, include a great deal of recent work? Surely such a proof should have brought its author into great fame and renown and honour, given the problem is more than 2,000 years old, and reckoned to be of great difficulty and subtlety. Oh well. Peter Damian (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Facetious comments are not discussion - most of what was characterized as bloated writing wasn't. --Karbinski (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. scepticism artcile is here --Karbinski (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It was indeed bloated writing. Trust me. Peter Damian (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The evidence for trusting you is: personal attacks on talk pages and blatant POV pushing on article pages. Karbinski (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * rand, n. An angry tirade occasioned by mistaking philosophical disagreement for a personal attack and/or evidence of unspeakable moral corruption. "When I questioned his second premise, he flew into a rand." Also, to attack or stigmatise through a rand. "When I defended socialised medicine, I was randed as a communist." Peter Damian (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Parenthesized Redundancies
While reporting that rand maintained that only one's own life is an end in itself, there is no need to add POV statement that rand assumed only one's own life is an end in itself, and that she took this assumption for granted. But of course, some people are so biased they can't even believe Rand for what Rand said, they need to hear it from some other source. As well, this is exposition, not argument, so the second POV statement in parenthesis is also nothing more than POV. --Karbinski (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted back. Can you please show where Rand is explicit? Peter Damian (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * [edit] You also need to report the implicit assumption exactly as specified, namely "there is nothing else [an entity] gets or maintains for its own sake". Not 'an end in itself'. Peter Damian (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * [edit] "that rand assumed only one's own life is an end in itself" [sic]. The point is, the argument is not valid unless you supply the premiss (which Rand did not give, apparently) that "there is nothing else [an entity] gets or maintains for its own sake".  Peter Damian (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * lol, this isn't JARS. And if it was, everyone would know that if there is only one thing, that there is well, ummm, how do I explain this without begging the question, hmmm, lets try there is only one thing. --Karbinski (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted back until you can clarify your statements above. The point I was making was simple. Rand believes that we can get from

(A) Every living thing maintains its life for its own sake

to

(B) for any living thing, nothing apart from its own life is valuable for its own sake

It logically follows from this that she was assuming that there is nothing else that any living thing gets or maintains for its own sake. I say 'she took this assumption for granted' because, as well as making it, it is not documented that she said it. Does that explanation help? As I said before, you have considerable intelligence but you need to organise your thinking. I am trying to help you. Please don't interpret every slight criticism as a 'personal attack'. Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The personal attack evidence is on the Ayn Rand talk page, not this one. As for your Original Research, it doesn't belong in the article.  As for clarifying my point: we know what Rand posited, we don't care what you think about it.  Maybe JARS would? --Karbinski (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked if you could clarify your claims above. You have not done this. You have reverted a substantial change to the introduction (which is merely a re-arrangement of existing material). Please stop this.  I am reverting once again.  Peter Damian (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's get this straight
Karbinski, you are presumably happy that we say Rand claimed

(A) Every living thing maintains its life for its own sake

because Rand says this. And pari ratione you would be happy if it says that Rand claimed

(B) for any living thing, nothing apart from its own life is valuable for its own sake

But what you are not happy with is the statement that this requires the assumption that there is nothing else that any living thing gets or maintains for its own sake, even though this statement is logically implied by (A) and (B). Can you please at least confirm what you are objecting to. Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Its not logically implied, its _right there_ in (B) --Karbinski (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. Rand is trying to derive (B) from (A). It follows that she is making the implicit assumption. The edit you are objecting to reads "Since every living thing maintains its life for its own sake (and assuming, which Rand takes for granted, that there is nothing else it gets or maintains for its own sake) it follows that for any living thing, nothing apart from its own life is valuable for its own sake". You see the words 'it follows'.  If (B) is to follow from (A), then the assumption has to be made.  That is all.  Peter Damian (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "... the fact that living entitites exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life." (Ayn Rand) She is, previous to saying this, explicit about what is meant by ultimate value. To represent her presentation as comming to a full stop at (A) and then picking-up again at (B) is at best OR, and at worst POV pushing.  Either way it isn't suitable for the article --Karbinski (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You keep returning to the conclusion of the argument (B) which is on p. 17, which you have quoted above. But this conclusion does not follow from the premiss (A), that every living thing acts to maintain its life, for its own sake, unless we supply the (implicit) premiss "There is no other thing that it acts to maintain or get for its own sake".  Where does Rand explicitly state this premiss?  You are going to say 'it's in the conclusion', I expect.  But that's the whole point of the fallacy in question, which is the invalid from 'p' to 'p&q', without a further premiss 'q'.  You seem deeply confused about some elementary principles of logic, without knowledge and understanding of which this discussion is not going to proceed very far.  How are we going to resolve this? You need a basic understanding of the terms used in logical and philosophical discussion, such as 'premiss', 'conclusion', 'follow from' and so on.  You need to understand, in particular, why logicians consider that 'p&q' does not follow from 'p'.  Can you agree to do some basic reading on these subjects before we go any further?  This is not original research, just elementary preparatory work. Thanks.  Peter Damian (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * While on the subject of what she did and did not explicitly say, where does she say (B) follows from (A)? Certainly not page 17. --Karbinski (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if it doesn't follow, then she is not giving an argument. Rather a series of unsupported claims.  But that is precisely the criticism that the section you deleted was suggesting.  You seem to be agreeing with me.  So why delete my edits? :-) Peter Damian (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * First, we are talking about only one edit here, and that is the paragraph you want at the top of Ethics. Correct? --Karbinski (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Second, I am not agreeing with you. This (A) thus (B) presentation is not of Ayn Rand's creation.  I'm not saying that she doesn't make her case, only that its her case that gets reported in this article.  In wiki terms, the (A) thus (B) presentation isn't verified by the cited source (The Virtue of Selfishness) --Karbinski (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the paragraph in question. So you agree that Rand thinks she is making an argument and therefore thinks that (B) follows from (A). You also now follow the elementary logic and you agree that (B) does not in fact follow from (A), which is a matter of logic.  But you refuse to allow any comment on this, because this is original research?  Even though it is logically deducible from reliable indepdendent sources? Peter Damian (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Post the claim, identify specifically which references support which clauses, and let's see if it can be verified. Skomorokh 16:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, K is happy to attribute "Every living thing maintains its life for its own sake", and to attribute "for any living thing, nothing apart from its own life is valuable for its own sake". For she says this. What I am not allowed to note that this is a blatant non-sequitur, even though it is a blatant non-sequitur.  Peter Damian (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * User Peter Damian has noted "The edit [Karbinski is] objecting to reads 'Since every living thing maintains its life for its own sake (and assuming, which Rand takes for granted, that there is nothing else it gets or maintains for its own sake) it follows that for any living thing, nothing apart from its own life is valuable for its own sake'. You see the words 'it follows'. If (B) is to follow from (A), then the assumption has to be made."  Karbinski (thats me!) is saying "In wiki terms, the (A) thus (B) presentation isn't verified by the cited source (The Virtue of Selfishness)" user Skomorokh has asked "Post the claim, identify specifically which references support which clauses, and let's see if it can be verified."

I thinks this summarizes the discussion so far... --Karbinski (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The paragraph under discussion here is in the article and discussion has stalled with the ball in user Peter Damian's court. This situation is an edit war - the peaceful process is that its reverted once, and then discussed.  The situation arose from the misunderstanding that only the parenthetical content was being contested here, but I have pointed out in discussion below that isn't the case.  So can the paragraph be reverted and discussion resume? --Karbinski (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The summary just above is clear. Just a note, spreading the discussion over three or more threads is a kind of 'anti-discussion'. --Karbinski (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring
I would like to remind both of you that, per the latest Arbcom ruling, you should not be edit-warring--by which I mean, reverting each other's edits. Settle down and try and get a consensus... I would help with that but right now I'm in major academic crunch time, so vOv... TallNapoleon (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So long as K doesn't revert mine, this is fine. It really is impossible, and he refuses to have any kind of reasonable discussion. I wasn't involved in the recent 'ruling' anyway. Peter Damian (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I restored some deleted content - not even all of it - I contested the assertion that this 'trimming of fat' was just removal of bloated writing - and without further discussion (other than a nice condecending 'trust me') my restorations were reverted. I'm not sure why user 'Peter Damian' doesn't want to discuss his re-writing of large chunks of the article, perhaps he does, but bundling it up as trimming some fat isn't it.  I may be stubborn or aloof about reverting these re-writes until they are actually raised in discussion.  --Karbinski (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * this isn't it either --Karbinski (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I have corrected the problem with the references. I think your objection was due to a misunderstanding - see above. There was a lot of research involved in the latest rewrite, please can we have some serious and informed discussion if there are to be any further reversions. Thanks again. Peter Damian (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless there is consensus that a section on the academic reception of Rand belongs in this article, I will move it to the talkpage of the Rand article to discuss how it could be used there. Skomorokh 21:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Academic reception of Rand's philosophy does not belong in an article on her philosophy? Peter Damian (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Objectivism is not equivalent to the personal philosophy of Ayn Rand. I should have thought that anyone who has read into the topic to any significant degree would understand that. Skomorokh  21:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Karbinski's edit here fails to spot that the section he tries to replace was simply moved. Please stop this foolishness. Peter Damian (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And he has reverted again. Now the article contains the same section twice. Good night. Peter Damian (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note I have removed a section that Karbinski inadvertently duplicated. I have not deleted anything in that edit. Peter Damian (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Academic Reception Section
As a minor logistical point, the guideline for citing a website should be properly followed. --Karbinski (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the section relies on Heumer's personal website posting. Having the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies affords Heumer plenty of opportunity to publish his critique on Ayn Rand's ethics.  Considering he has published there many times before, it is clear that neither the topic (Objectivist Ethics) nor the author(Heumer) are so obscure that we need to resort to self-published web pages.  Besides JARS, Cambridge University Press has published a book on the subject.
 * Most of the section is weasel and peacock
 * Here is the text of the proposed section. --Karbinski (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

"Ethics: rational self-interest" section
Currently the section on "Ethics: rational self-interest" is somewhat disjointed.


 * The first para is meant to explain how Rand tackles the is-ought problem, but the explanation doesn't make sense.
 * The second one-sentence para is the disjointed claim about reason being connected with virtue, commenting that all of this is explained in some detail in Rand's book. This is unhelpful in an encyclopedia (which is meant to be explaining in a summarised but accurate way what is in the book).
 * The third para begins with the idea of the conceptual faculty which is the tool for survival in Man. Sure, but how is this connected with the rest of the section?
 * The fourth para is about the pursuit of happiness. All very interesting, but how does this fit into the whole thread?
 * The fifth para (including the quotation 'To live....' and the following para ending 'fundamental difference between them') looks like an explanation of Rand's concept of selfishness - useful but should come much further up - probably right after the opening sentence of the section. Thus, open the whole section with 'Rand's ethical egoism, her advocacy of "rational selfishness," is perhaps her most well-known position.', then immediately follow this with an explanation (not quite so long-winded as the fifth para) of what she meant by that.
 * The sixth para 'Rand defined a value...' oddly returns to the idea of value. This should be connected with her attempt to resolve the is-ought question.  And it should be cut down as it is quite rambling and disconnected.

I am happy to fix these problems but can I do so, please? Peter Damian (talk) 07:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You have made edits that have improved the article, and you have made edits that have been challenged - I don't think the concensus on WP:BRD will change anytime soon. I agree the ethics section may be written better, as is usually the case with most articles on wikipedia. --Karbinski (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally, while agreeing that Rand's ethics is largely incoherent, I think we need to find a source which says so (I thought we had one) rather than try to demonstrate it ourselves. The real problem is providing a summary of her views which is both accurate and makes sense. I am not familiar with the secondary literature - would we be better off relying on Peikoff just for the sake of a clear exposition?KD Tries Again (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * The first para indeed makes no sense. It can be dealt with as a drafting problem: whether Rand successfully showed how to derive values from facts or not, this para doesn't even attempt to explain how she tried to do it.  Either lose the "Is-Ought" reference, and just start the para with some language about Rand attempting to clarify the meaning of values; or someone needs to find her argument about "Is-Ought" and summarize it.  Right now, the para just changes the subject after first raising it.
 * "all of the principal virtues are applications" - I think "all of the principle virtues reflect the application" would be clearer, and better English.
 * I just don't understand the passage about happiness not being "primary", and yet being a biological faculty, and yet further being needed as a principle or standard or instrument. Anyone able to improve this?

I drafted (and put into the section) a paragraph that attempts to make Rand's argument coherent. See below. Karbinski objected on the grounds of the parts I have put in bold, which identify the hidden assumptions in her argument, which he regards as original research. Would it be acceptable to omit these parts and leave the Wikipedia reader to work out the flaw in the argument themselves? (It is of course obvious how she attempts to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'). I have

"Rand's ethical egoism, her advocacy of "rational selfishness," is perhaps her most well-known position. In The Virtue of Selfishness she attempted to derive this from first principles, as follows. Value is relative: something can only be valuable for a particular being, and it can only be valuable if that being has a choice. Only living things are able to choose, therefore values only exist for living things, and whatever a living thing acts to gain or keep is a value for that thing[16]. Since every living thing maintains its life for its own sake (and assuming, which Rand takes for granted, that there is nothing else it gets or maintains for its own sake) it follows that for any living thing, nothing apart from its own life is valuable for its own sake[17]. On the assumption (which Rand also did not make explicit, and which begs the question, because it is equivalent to the conclusion of her argument) that every living thing should do or ought to do whatever is valuable for itself, it follows that it ought to do whatever promotes its own life. But people can only live if they are rational[18]. Since reason is man's means of knowledge, it is also his greatest value, and its exercise his greatest virtue. "Man's mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive he must act and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch––or build a cyclotron––without a knowledge of his aim and the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think."[19]. Therefore everyone ought to be rational." Peter Damian (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The bold comments are correct, but arguably they interrupt the flow. Would it be fair to state Rand's position without comment, then add a closing couple of sentences pointing out the flaws with a cite to Huemer? It's an intrinsic WP problem, of course, that pointing out errors will be pilloried as OR, no matter how obvious the errors.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Metaphysics Section
This is not as hard to follow as the Ethics section, although I wish there was a source which pointed out that the axioms are trivial, in the sense that (with the exception of identity, which is somewhat controversial) nobody really denies them. I can't puzzle out the last para though: Objectivist philosophy regards the Law of Causality, which states that things act in accordance with their natures,[citation needed] as "the law of identity applied to action."[5] Rand rejected the popular notion that the causal link relates action to action. According to Rand, an "action" is not an entity, rather, it is entities that act, and every action is the action of an entity. The way entities interact is caused by the specific nature (or "identity") of those entities; if they were different there would be a different result.[4] I can't see that the "popular notion" (whatever that is) denies that it is entities which act and are acted upon, or that the actions of entities somehow relate to the nature or properties of the entity, so I can't see what Rand is trying to say here. Again, I hope someone might be able to take a look at Peikoff.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * This is a report on what Objectivist Metaphysics is, that would include the axioms. Who accepts all three axioms as absolutes?  The answer has nothing to do with answering the question 'What is the Objectivist metaphysics?' --Karbinski (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some would like to devote entire scholary works to the sentence 'Rand rejected the popular notion that the causal link relates action to action.' Some may think there are many fascinating questions to research; however, for the task of reporting on Objectivist Metaphysics the notable idea for Rand is a rejection of any notion that a causal link relates action to action. --Karbinski (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's KD's point. The point is that if a writer says something obviously false, how do we report that?  And if there are no reliable sources that identify the error, do we report it at all? Peter Damian (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The point is that I am not arguing with Rand about this. I am a reasonably bright reader, and I honestly don't know what it means.  There's a cite to Peikoff, which I don't have, and a cite to Atlas S, which is useless without a page number.  My best attempt is that Rand rejects the popular notion that ball A striking ball B (an action) is the cause of the motion of ball B.  Instead, it is ball A (the entity) which acts, and its action is the action of the entity ball A.  I can't see how the popular notion denies that the action is the action of an entity.  Makes no sense as stated.  I imagine the version in Peikoff is clearer, and I hope someone will check.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * I found a summary here. Again, this seems to be a drafting problem.  If we just take out the comments about what the popular notion of causation is and just state Rand's position, the problem goes away.  What is then lacking is any indication that Rand's position is original or interesting or different than anyone else's (I suppose it's meant to be a denial of Hume's position), but unless someone has a source which explains all that, we're stuck.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * Just a brief aside; Rand's metaphysical stances mentioned in the article don't have to be original or interesting, all that matters is that the metaphysics section clearly and comprehensively describe what the Objectivist positions on metaphysics are.  Skomorokh  16:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure. The common problem I'm seeing today, however, is that where the text appears to compare or contrast her views with others (she closes the is-ought gap, she rejects the popular notion of causation) it actually doesn't.  These are (probably inadvertent) ways of signaling that Rand is saying something important, but then one struggles to see what it is.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * KD: "If we just take out the comments about what the popular notion of causation is and just state Rand's position, the problem goes away." I fully agree on this specific point as per "...for the task of reporting on Objectivist Metaphysics the notable idea for Rand is a rejection of any notion that a causal link relates action to action." --Karbinski (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This critique of Rand's views on causality is useful. And the author really is a philosopher. Peter Damian (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. I've tidied the statement accordingly.  I haven't succeeded in capturing Karbinski's point, though: is she saying that action A never causes action B, but that every action is directly produced by an entity?  That sounds counter-intuitive.  I don't know if we need to get into the determinism debate.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * My only point here is to agree with "If we just take out the comments about what the popular notion of causation is and just state Rand's position, the problem goes away." And I suppose that the axioms need to be reported, but I don't think that is a point of contension. P.S. I posted some personal OR on my user page. --Karbinski (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the OR. You haven't understood Kiebeken's point at all, though. Peter Damian (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

-- By the way, I don't think these 'axioms' are clear at all. Vallicella has already pointed out that 'Existence exists' can be understood in several ways.

(1) That in virtue of which existing things exist itself exists. For example, if one thought of existence as a property of existing things, and one were a realist about properties, then it would make sense for that person to say that existence exists.

(2) Existing things exist. Instead of taking 'existence' as denoting that in virtue of which existing things exist, one could take it as a term that applies to whatever exists.

(3) That the things that exist exist and have the attributes they have independently of us. Rand: "The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity."

The other two axioms (as she formulates them) are no less confusing. For example, she justifies the so-called Axiom of Identity saying "A leaf cannot be all red and green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. But that is of course the Law of contraries. Peter Damian (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms of Objectivism
Sometime during the past several months, the informative Criticisms of Objectivism or as it was formerly known Criticisms of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) was redirected to the main Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article; however, the text of the criticisms does not seem to have been merged into the main article. (And I would recommend against doing so, since it obscures the exposition of the philosophy.) Please put back the Criticisms article, which served a useful function. — DAGwyn (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There has been some discussion of whether to redirect a whole series of articles about aspects of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) to the main article, and the consensus has so far been that this is the right thing to do. It would be most unusual on Wikipedia to have a main article on a writer or philosopher, and then a separate article dealing with the critical reception of their work.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Other Objectivists?
Although it's been pointed out that Objectivism is not just the philosophy of Ayn Rand, it's striking that the article seems to deal only with her views - Peikoff being cited for purposes of exposition.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * That is a long-standing bias on Wikipedia unfortunately. It's actually something of a theological question, given that Peikoff and his camp believe that Objectivism is a "closed system" limited to what Rand said and what she approved of what others said in her lifetime, which would largely restrict it to Rand, Peikoff, Branden and Greenspan, the major contributors to the Rand-era book-length treatises. It seems that much of the Wikipedia content was written by editors of this persuasion. Skomorokh  14:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite
I have rewritten the ethics section. I rearranged the paragraphs so they have a more logical order, and trimmed where necessary to maintain the sense. I did add the section that Karbinski deleted the other day, but I have removed the two offending parenthetic sentences. I hope this is acceptable. It is as true as I can get to Rand's position, and it exposes the main fallacy in her argument without spelling it out. Peter Damian (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That is much clearer. The difficult sentence must be this one: "Since every living thing maintains its life for its own sake, it follows that for any living thing, nothing apart from its own life is valuable for its own sake..."  I think Rand is committed to that inference, and it is indeed fallacious, but are we imposing it on her too explicitly.  How about: "Since every living thing maintains its life for its own sake, and - according to Rand - for any living thing, only its own life is valuable for its own sake..."  I don't mean to sugar the pill, but I assume this is a case of Rand not noticing the fallacy rather than expressly stating it.  I don't have that book, though, so I may be wrong.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * Done. I have also corrected some other minor errors, such as calling rational egoism 'ethical egoism' (they are distinct). Peter Damian (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with the paragraph discussed above is not solved by removing the offending parenthetic sentences - that discussion is still open. A number of your trims have zapped important points.  --Karbinski (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you be precise please. Why does removing the parenthetic statements not resovle the problem? And which trims have zapped what important points? Peter Damian (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm specific about the paragraph in the above discussion. As for the trims, I havn't reverted anything, so I guess discussion was pre-mature (that is, I don't have time for it right now). --Karbinski (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your objections above were about the parenthesised statements. Now they are removed,  what is your problem?  Peter Damian (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Aristotelian logic
The article refers to "the names of three axioms used in Aristotelian logic: "A is A," "Non-Contradiction," and "Either/Or". Aristotle barely mentions "A is A".  Nor (I am sure - I will check) do the other two occur in his logic, i.e. the Organon. The second famously is discussed at length in a famous chapter in the Metaphysics.  I will check on the third. Peter Damian (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Here we are. From the SEP:
 * Aristotle's main and most famous discussion of the principle of non-contradiction occurs in Metaphysics IV (Gamma) 3–6, especially 4. There are also snippets of discussion about the principle of non-contradiction early in the corpus, for example in De Interpretatione, and there is the obscure chapter 11 of Posterior Analytics I, but none of these rival Aristotle's treatment of the principle of non-contradiction in Metaphysics IV. Below is a summary of the main interpretative and philosophical issues that arise from reading Metaphysics IV 3–6.

And of course he discusses the Law of Excluded middle at length in De Interpretatione 9. But there of course (on one interpretation) he denies it, since on that interpretation he holds that statements about the future may be neither true nor false. (For the statement that a sea-battle will occur today is true now, then it is true for all time, thus necessarily true, thus there is no choice and free-will. For the same reason, it cannot be false now. Ergo &c). Thus in summary


 * The Principle of Contradiction is not a part of Aristotle's logic, but his first philosophy or metaphysics.
 * The Principle of Identity is not part of his philosophy at all
 * The law of excluded middle is (on one interpretation) denied by him altogether.

Great guns, eh. Peter Damian (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You know the score, the only thing we can say about the relationship between Rand's axioms and Aristotle's work is that which has already been said in the sources. There's no real need for you to waste your time opining on it. Some discussion on the topic here here and here.  Skomorokh  20:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. Rand may have said things that were wrong, but here the article is saying things that are wrong.  Peter Damian (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong according to whom? You, or a reliable source? Skomorokh  21:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article says "A strong advocate of Aristotelian logic, she titled the three parts of Atlas Shrugged with the names of three axioms used in Aristotelian logic: "A is A," "Non-Contradiction," and "Either/Or", three Laws of Thought known to the Ancient Greeks. " The article itself is claiming that these 'axioms' are part of 'Aristotelian logic'.  And it is not for me to prove Aristotle did not say these things, but for you to find a reliable source that says he did (which you won't be able to of course.  And note I have already given several sources as evidence of my positive claim, such as the SEP  Peter Damian (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note also the third link you provide supports my assertion that the Law of Identity originated with Antonius Andreae. Peter Damian (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The ref states, in direct contradiction of your second bulleted claim above, that Andreae formalised the law which was implied in Aristotle's PNC, which in turn was the source of Rand's Law of Non-Contradiction, quibbles about which sphere of Aristotle's work that belongs in notwithstanding. So not only is your original thought in this area without relevance to this, a tertiary reference work, it's contradicted by the sources. I strongly suggest you revisit your approach. Sincerely, Skomorokh  22:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahem, there are two claims by Peikoff in there. One is that Antonius 'formally enuntiated' the Law of identity.  The other is that 'it is implicit in the Law of Contradiction'.  If that is correct (disputable) it is neither a principle nor an axiom.  As to the irrelevance of my thought here, on the contrary.  The article implies that the principle of Identity is an 'axiom of Aristotelian logic'.  It is surely relevant that I point out this factual inaccuracy. No?  Peter Damian (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And on reliable sources for the Law of excluded middle, the ‘ sea-battle problem’ is one of the most discussed parts of Aristotle’s philosophy and there is a considerable literature on it. As mentioned above, on at least one interpretation of De Int. 9, this Law is not part of philosophy, indeed, is something he appears to have denied.  Thus – based on reliable sources - it is not correct for the article to suggest that it is an ‘axiom of his logic’.  I don’t know why you keep calling my comments ‘original research’.  Peter Damian (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I took the rash step of looking to see what Rand actually said in the relevant afterword to Atlas. She praises Aristotle's "definition of the laws of logic and of the means of human knowledge..." and then states "You will find my tribute to him in the titles of the three parts of ATLAS SHRUGGED." So in fact Peter has been put to some unnecessary trouble showing that the summary in the article is wrong based on third-party sources. It's wrong anyway:
 * She doesn't claim that the three parts of Atlas are named for Aristotelian axioms at all. Absent any alternative sources for the claim that Rand's axioms derive from Aristotle, the claim must surely go.
 * I think her remarks are sufficiently broad to show that she is not referring to Aristotle's logic as such, and thus the correct observations about where these discussions occur in Aristotle's corpus probably don't matter.
 * I also think "advocate" is the wrong word here - I am not aware she advocated Aristotle's logic in any detail anywhere.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * I did leave a in there, because it looks like we are relying on a dictionary of philosophy for the claim that Rand's titles represent three laws of logic.  Maybe it's so clear that they thus refer that we don't need a cite?KD Tries Again (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * The tribute to Aristotle in Atlas Shrugged is really the stuff of the Atlas Shrugged novel. That she praises Aristotle's logic (ect.) is the relevant point to report - that she paid tribute to him in her boldest work is a way of telling the story, but admittedly not the only way.  --Karbinski (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Section in dispute
Karbinski, I am genuinely perplexed by your objection to the new material in the ethics section. Your objections above seemed entirely about the bracketed sections, which have been removed. For the sake of clarity, can you please identify which of the 5 sentences below you object to, and more importantly, why. Thanks

Peter Damian (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In The Virtue of Selfishness she attempted to derive ethical egoism from first principles.
 * Value is relative: something can only be valuable for a particular being, and it can only be valuable if that being has a choice.
 * Only living things are able to choose, therefore values only exist for living things, and whatever a living thing acts to gain or keep is a value for that thing.
 * Every living thing maintains its life for its own sake, and - according to Rand - for any living thing, only its own life is valuable for its own sake.
 * On the assumption that every living thing should do or ought to do whatever is valuable for itself, it follows that it should do whatever promotes its own life.
 * "User Peter Damian has noted The edit [Karbinski is] objecting to reads 'Since every living thing maintains its life for its own sake (and assuming, which Rand takes for granted, that there is nothing else it gets or maintains for its own sake) it follows that for any living thing, nothing apart from its own life is valuable for its own sake'. You see the words 'it follows'. If (B) is to follow from (A), then the assumption has to be made."  Karbinski (thats me!) is saying "In wiki terms, the (A) thus (B) presentation isn't verified by the cited source (The Virtue of Selfishness)" user Skomorokh has asked "Post the claim, identify specifically which references support which clauses, and let's see if it can be verified."

That sentence is the worst, but the entire content of the paragraph does not come from the cited source. So my problem with it is that it is WP:OR--Karbinski (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

But you're objecting to an earlier version. It was changed in response to comments here. The most recent version, which you reverted, read:

"On the assumption that every living thing should do or ought to do whatever is valuable for itself, it follows that it should do whatever promotes its own life."

Are you claiming Rand doesn't say this? It's important that we are all discussing the same edit.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * I have reverted until K can explain which of the bulleted sentences above (which are the sentences in the current version) are the ones he claims are not supported by the text. Peter Damian (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I will supply exact quotations from Rand when K answers this question. Obviously my words are a paraphrase.  But I want to understand what it is that K is objecting to.  Or is it that he hasn't read or understood Rand, and is merely being obstructive?  If so, we will take this to mediation. Peter Damian (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm objecting to almost the entire paragraph, you say its paraphrasing Rand - but its not - lets see the support --Karbinski (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC).

Peter has provided precise, page-numbered sources for the summary. I don't have the book, and the full text isn't available online. He can hard;y be expected to copy type the pages here for everyone's review. Karbinski, if you have a copy to hand, could you just take one of Peter's sentences and show that Rand says something different? I think the burden is on you to show that the cites don't support what the article says.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Exact citations
Given I have reverted again and there is now danger of blocking or banning, here are the exact citations:


 * Value is relative: something can only be valuable for a particular being, and it can only be valuable if that being has a choice.
 * "15,6: The concept of value "presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what?"
 * Only living things are able to choose,
 * 15,7: "There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or nonexistence, and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not..."
 * therefore values only exist for living things,
 * 15,7: "It is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil."
 * whatever a living thing acts to gain or keep is a value for that thing.
 * 15,6: "'Value' is that which one acts to gain and/or keep."
 * Every living thing maintains its life for its own sake, and - according to Rand - for any living thing, only its own life is valuable for its own sake.
 * 16,3: "Only living things have goals, and "the functions of all living organisms ... from the nutritive function in the single cell of an amoeba to the blood circulation in the body of a man--are actions generated by the organism itself and directed to a single goal: the maintenance of the organism's life."
 * On the assumption that every living thing should do or ought to do whatever is valuable for itself, it follows that it should do whatever promotes its own life.
 * [implicit premiss, conclusion]

I am happy to rewrite the paragraph so that it is more or less in Rand's words, but why? Peter Damian (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Write for the enemy would be the main reason. While the points about are substantially verified by the quotations, the emphasis varies significantly. And the introduction of "should" towards the end ought to be treated with very carefully, as close to the source's wording as possible, given the controversy of that particular deductive move. Thanks very much for providing citations (thought I'm not familiar with the convention you're using), it's very helpful. Regards, Skomorokh  21:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's called deriving 'ought' from 'is'. Time for bed. Good night. Peter Damian (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the "15,6" citations, having already referred to the is/ought derivation in the previous sentence. Would you care to give the ISBN of the edition you're citing, and to clarify whether these refer to chapters, footnotes, or pages? Skomorokh  22:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The edition is "The Objectivist Ethics" in The Virtue of Selfishness, (New York: Signet, 1961), pp. 13-35. The first number is the page, the second is the paragraph. Peter Damian (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * On the assumption that every living thing should do or ought to do whatever is valuable for itself, it follows that it should do whatever promotes its own life.

[implicit premiss, conclusion] To recall my objection, the (A) thus (B) presentation is OR. As well, why is it referred to as a conclusion here, but in the article its presented as a structural component of Ayn Rands argument? To be clear, 'it follows' is OR. Its gaming the wiki process to structure the paragraph one way and then discuss it as if it is structured otherwise. --Karbinski (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

3RR
Here are my three reverts revert 1, revert 2, revert 3 which are prompted by a fundamentally unreasonable editor. I want to test this principle that someone with a reasonable expert grasp of the subject will be blocked or banned for 3RR, in preference to someone who simply cannot grasp the basic principles of reasonable discourse. (I have left this message on Connelly's page (who likes to block me for this sort of thing, in Wales page, and on ANI. This is fundamental. ) Peter Damian (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:POINT--you shouldn't do things to test the rules. As a personal anecdote, I got banned largely for attempting to prevent a pair of tendentious editors from reverting a month's worth of edits. Basically, 3RR says that the only valid excuse is to revert obvious, indisputable vandalism. Otherwise, the correct response to tendentious editing is to leave it be, discuss it on the talk page, and if the user insists on going against consensus or what have you, seek administrative intervention. In this case, the correct response is to follow WP:BRD. This means that you make a bold edit, like you did, Karbinski reverts it, which he did, and instead of going round and round reverting each other, like you both did, you discuss it amongst yourselves and other editors and hash it out point by point. It's tedious, but it's ultimately much better than revert warring. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. All of this is tedious, but it's a step up from the alternative: edit warring and chaos. Let's try to talk about things. I enjoy the talk page contributions from both sides provided that the discussion links to verifiable sources and good-faith assumptions about improving the quality of the article. J Readings (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's like software design... you can just jump in and start coding, in which case you get shit, or you can sit down and talk about it beforehand, hash out some kind of plan and some kind of consensus (if it's a group project) in which case the result is invariably better. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes but you don't discuss your code with someone who doesn't know how to code. All my edits are carefully researched and most of my articles have 'stuck'. I have been editing here for 6 years. Peter Damian (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of edit wars, our anon IP is back, and CAPPIER than ever. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Peter Damian has also posted at ANI his above issue about the 'fundamentally unreasonable editor'. Since I know nothing about this except the ANI posting I don't quite see what is so unreasonable. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The fundamentally unreasonable editor is Karbinksi. For example, he objected and reverted a paragraph repeatedly on the grounds of 2 statements.  When I removed the statements, he continued to object to the same statements.  That is fundamentally unreasonable.  Many other of his objections are tedious, ground-shifting, miss the point in various ways.  We now have an non IP doing the same. Peter Damian (talk) 05:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The difficulty, of course, is that some editors are disappointed that a fairly clear and accurate summary (it appears - I don't have the book) of what Rand says leaves her argument looking weak. The solution is not to revert to a previous summary which was certainly not clear, and much less well-supported by citation than Peter's. If there's a solution, it's for those editors to propose (or make) revisions to Peter's version where they feel his summary is tendentious, but only in so far as those revisions can be supported by the kind of close reading of the text he has been willing to undertake.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * Its gaming the wiki process to turn the table on me. As well, I'm not the only editor who asked for some support of the edit in discussion.  Finally, only user Peter Damian is ranting about how another editor is supposedly incompetent, and I have to say amusing, claims superiority.  Well, in terms of edit warring, there can be no doubt. --Karbinski (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful to get more clarity about what you're objecting to. I see above that you believe the following sentence is OR: On the assumption that every living thing should do or ought to do whatever is valuable for itself, it follows that it should do whatever promotes its own life.  Here's my problem: if that's something Rand didn't believe, or would have rejected, I need to know what argument she did have for rational/ethical egoism.  The earlier version and Peter's version both begin by stating that this egoism is perhaps Rand's best known position.  I strongly recommend looking at the diff.  The earlier version immediately changes the subject, and starts discussing rationality, returning later to say that Rand uses the term "selfishness" in a special way.  Just as the earlier version doesn't attempt to show how she bridged the ought-is gap, it doesn't offer any explanation of rational/ethical egoism, what it is or how she argues for it.  Nothing.  The comments about value in the earlier version are wholly consistent with altruism.  If what he says is OR, what should the new version say?  Reverting to the old version just erases the issue.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * There are some interesting policy points here, for example about whether to assert logical truths in Wikipedia violates WP:OR. Can we only assert a logical truth p if there are reliable sources stating that p?  If q logically follows from p can we say 'p therefore q'?  Or is that original research, and should we confine ourselves to the NPOV 'p and q'?  My view is that we should not be so stringent.  In any case the issue is not relevant because Rand certainly thought that an 'ought' follows from an 'is', and indeed Karbinksi knows this.  The issue is whether an editor should be charitably supplying hidden premisses to her argument that excuse her from the fallacy.  If K wants to take the hard road, then let's do that. Peter Damian (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Karbinksi's objection
OK first of all thanks to Karbinski for now specifying what he feels is wrong with the paragraph. Rather than saying 'I hate the whole paragraph', it tremendously helps so say exactly which statements in the paragraph are the issue and also to say why. Karbinski has now specified that it is the 'it follows' part he dislikes, i.e. he objects to my imputing the logical implication on Rand's part. Some points, then.


 * 1) The 'it follows' is actually not what he should be objecting to. The real bit of OR is the part "On the assumption that every living thing should do or ought to do whatever is valuable for itself". Given that, the rest really does follow.  Rand never actually made this assumption.
 * 2) I supplied this assumption because it is charitable to Rand.  The is ought fallacy is generally recognised as a logical fallacy. If I presented Rand's argument as she presents it, it would obviously be a fallacy.  As I actually presented it, I have put in the assumption (without being explicit about whether the article is making it, or Rand herself).  This effectively clears Rand of the fallacy. I did this after K made a complaint about an earlier version where it explicitly says Rand did not make the assumption (which is true, for she didn't, but it is hard to prove a negative and life is short when faced with people like K).
 * 3) Did Rand think that prescriptive premisses follow from non-prescriptive ones?  The text suggests she did and, ironically, this very edit by Karbinski shows how well he recognises that.

Peter Damian (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to become involved with article because I"m not knowledgeable on the topic, but I wanted to raise WP:NOR and primary sources in particular. I quote from the policy:

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source.


 * There are many places in the article where Rand's work is referenced directly (primary source). While some of this is fine, it must be done cautiously and without interpretation.


 * wp:syn is also of concern, and as I understand it says essentially that we cannot use logic to connect the dots for the sources. I would suggest, particularly where there are points of contention, that we stick to describing what has been said about Rand's work by reliable secondary sources and not add our own interpretations.  It should largely be unnecessary for editors to argue about what Rand did or did not believe.  Her works have been analyzed enough that there should be plenty of secondary material to cite.  If various analysts form varying opinions, then those differing opinions can be described.  Best of luck with the article. Mishlai (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:BRD and the paragraph

 * Please revert the the thing until discussion is over.
 * Please, lets only discuss it in one place, I propose this section.
 * For the purposes of establishing if content is verifiable from its sources, we must proceed not as Rand scholars, not even as editors, but as users/readers.
 * "User Peter Damian has noted The edit [Karbinski is] objecting to reads 'Since every living thing maintains its life for its own sake (and assuming, which Rand takes for granted, that there is nothing else it gets or maintains for its own sake) it follows that for any living thing, nothing apart from its own life is valuable for its own sake'. You see the words 'it follows'. If (B) is to follow from (A), then the assumption has to be made."  Karbinski (thats me!) is saying "In wiki terms, the (A) thus (B) presentation isn't verified by the cited source (The Virtue of Selfishness)" user Skomorokh has asked "Post the claim, identify specifically which references support which clauses, and let's see if it can be verified."
 * Okay, I apologize if my statement just above statement is not clear.
 * The 'it follows' is OR, and is used in the paragraph to indicate that (A) thus (B) is a structural component of Rand's ethics - its not - its not in the cited source - it makes the paragraph OR. --Karbinski (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, this may all be moot after 160 is finished with it. --Karbinski (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Stuck in the mud, aren't we? Sure, get rid of Peter's attempt at a charitable summary, and you're left with no explanation of Rand's position on rational/ethical eogism whatsoever.  Fine.  As for the well-intentioned intervention above by Mishlai, it certainly needs to be applied to any version of the section which might be offered.KD Tries Again (talk) 04:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * I raised the question of our non-communicative IP with the admin who blocked Peter. I think their persistent refusal to discuss anything under any circumstances for months means that reversing them comes under the vandalism exclusion of 3RR.  Karbinski is editing in exactly the same way as he did on Philosophy and the Is/Ougth problem.  One topic editors tend to be like that, but at least this one will talk, and will back off if enough editors are persistent enough. --Snowded (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Karbinski has made positive contributions on the set of Rand articles, including supporting my efforts to turn Bibliography of work on Objectivism into a bibliography, and redirecting the duplicative sub-articles on Rand's philosophy here. We may be banging heads together on this point, but we'll find a solution.  (In fact, thinking seriously about Mishlai's points, the result of all this might be to lose all summaries of primary sources in these articles, because they will always be viewed, rightly or wrongly, as pro or anti, leaving us only with the secondary literature, which is scant.) The IP editor is not willing to collaborate with other editors, and I agree with Snowed's comments.KD Tries Again (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

What I've done (if I was successful) is revert the article to the version before IP 160 made dozens of undiscussed edits. I did not do this to endorse Peter's version in complete disregard of Karbinski's objections. I am happy to continue discussing K.'s concerns here.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * Note that Objectivism (Ayn Rand) is only semiprotected. Anyone with a registered account is welcome to edit. If the consensus here on Talk is to lift the semi, that should probably be done. You would then have to decide how you want to work with the non-communicative IP,, who made 25 edits to this article on May 8. His edits don't qualify as vandalism, though you could say he is edit warring. Since he makes controversial edits, doesn't listen to consensus and won't participate in discussions, you could justify keeping the semiprotection for a while, if you want it. Even with semi on the article itself, IP editors can still participate on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked before I'd had my coffee this morning, and thought it was wholly locked. I think we can work with semi-protection, briefly at least.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * Semi-protection is probably the only thing that might bring IP160 into communication. Can we have the same on his other main area of activity namely Ayn Rand? --Snowded (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Semi is undesirable on the Ayn Rand article, since there is at least one good-faith IP editor working there. But a one-week block of for edit-warring might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

As there has been no further discussion, I restored the article's last stable version. I'm sad to see user Snowded is here attacking me despite his obligation to be contructive as per Requests_for_arbitration/Ayn_Rand. --Karbinski (talk) 14:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * IN the context of this article and the discussion around Peter I thought my comments were entirely constructive. --Snowded (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Taking advantage of the fact that Damian was blocked to revert his work is not, in my opinion, appropriate. I would strongly suggest you self-revert to Peter's version and then we can go through it line-by-line to edit it and deal with any concerns you may have. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When did user Peter Damian's edit gain an exception to WP:BRD? He injected a criticism paragraph at the top of the article, made a shotgun blast of edits in the style of IP 160 - mostly deletions, and inserted this paragraph.  I reverted the paragraph and started discussion.  Hence he has edit-warred.  In terms of dicsussion, as soon as a third editor, user Skomorokh, chimed in to ask user Peter Damian to support his edit he abandoned that thread and started two more threads, never once returning to the original thread despite my attempts to return to the root with him.  My revert to the stable version is a return to WP:BRD. --Karbinski (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

To return to discussion of the paragraph, user Peter Damian tells us what the real OR is in his paragraph. As well, he reports things like you have to be rational to live or everyone ought to be rational in short sentences devoid of the context Rand supplied to support them. My objection to OR in the paragraph plus user Peter Damian's claim to OR in the paragraph is more than enough to establish it makes things worse for the article, not better. The short, contextless, sentences is poor prose, and works towards user Peter Damian's POV. The structure of the paragraph itself is user Peter Damians POV, and is definitely not a summarized report on what is found on pages 15 and 16 of the cited source The Virtue of Selfishness. Everything the paragraph purports to cover, is already covered without these problems in the stable version.--Karbinski (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks to the user above for pointing out that wp:syn is a concern. Yet another problem with user Peter Damian's paragraph is its structured not as a summary of the source(s), but as his own personal WP:OR take on it. His insistence that any intelligent reader will realize such and such, means we can let the facts stand as they are, and let intelligent readers think of them as they may, without the guidance of user Peter Damian's POV. --Karbinski (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Karbinski, you're mixing up the versions again. It was after user Skomorokh made his points, and I made some suggestions, that Peter revised the sentences you'd originally complained about.  We are still trying to find out exactly what's wrong and what you want changed.  The version to which you reverted, far from being stable, doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense.  If you insist, we can go through your preferred version line by line, but that which is nonsensical or unsupported can't survive.  Given the precise page/paragraph references offered by Peter, there's no point beating the POV/OR drum over this.
 * Example:

Rand's ethical egoism, her advocacy of "rational selfishness," is perhaps her most well-known position. In The Virtue of Selfishness she gave an original validation of her moral code, claiming to have bridged the infamous gap between "Is" and "Ought"—or between facts and values. Beginning by asking "What are values?" and "Why does man need them?", she argues that the concept of "value" implies an answer to the questions, "Of value to whom and for what?" Thus, the existence of values depends upon the existence of an alternative in the face of which a being must act. "Where no alternatives exist, no goals and no values are possible."(emphases added) This does Rand no credit. It's a series of unconnected claims. That she "gave a validation" - i.e. validated? - her moral code is pure opinion, overwhelmingly unsupported by independent readers of her work. She might have claimed to show how an ought can be derived from an is, but there is no explanation here (as there was in Peter's version) of how she might have gone about it (I am going to delete "infamous" which is extraordinary and quite unsupported). The sentence in italics - meaningless to anyone who hasn't already mastered the material. The existence of a value depends on alternatives? Why do you want to make Rand sound so trite? At least Peter extracted an argument from the pages.KD Tries Again (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again


 * User Peter Damian is on record for having a "real bit of OR" in his paragraph. As well, he is on record that the "it follows" sentence is WP:SYN.  He has not extracted her argument from the pages.  He jams a bunch of facts into four or five sentences, then gives a contrived presentation devoid of the required context, then quotes Rand using concretes to illustrate an abstract idea user Peter Damian has not yet reported and then says "therefore" and presents a very high level abstract idea.  I'm sure its much easier to follow: yada, yada, yada, x follows from y, Rand concluded big idea z from a small number of concretes.  This is not a summary of what Rand wrote.  Its not an extraction, its a fake.  As for the version that happened to be in place before this POV push, it covers a lot of bases, is poorly written in a number of places, inadequately covers the principle virtues, stumbles badly leading into how egoism is not hedonism, is covers happiness very poorly.  I have not read IP 160s edits --Karbinski (talk) 12:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Karbinski, please take on board the fact that Peter removed the phrase he described as "OR" following other editors comments. You are still debating a version which was taken off the table long ago.  Do you have any response to my criticisms of the so-called "stable version," or any other suggestions about how to proceed?KD Tries Again (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Topic-Specific Ban Request
I filed a detailed analytical complaint against anon IP 160 at WP:ANI. You can view it here. J Readings (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization
User:Skomorokh said that: "The philosophy of Objectivism is almost always referred to in capitalised form, as the lower case form refers to an entirely distinct position. An online search for "ayn rand" "objectivism" will show this very clearly."

However, Naming conventions (capitalization) states that we only capitalize proper nouns, and Manual of Style (capital letters) has "Philosophies, theories, doctrines, and systems of thought do not begin with a capital letter, unless the name derives from a proper noun..."

So, I am inclined to stick to my guns in my initial feeling that "objectivism" ought not to be capitalized (unless, obviously it is the first word in a sentence). What do others think? --John (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're right about what the policy is. A very quick search led me to articles where it is not applied, e.g. Situationist International, but that's not dispositive.  Actually, as a reader, I find the capitalization of "objectivism" useful because it does alert me that it's probably Rand's philosophy which is the topic; but that's obvious anyway in the context we're discussing.  I guess we should apply the policy.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * When capitalized, Objectivism refers to Rand's philosophy specifically. When it is not, it refers to more general ideas of objectivism, such as moral objectivism (i.e., the idea that there is an objective morality). Regardless, Rand always capitalized it. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would agree that MOS:CAPS is clear on the issue, but it is direct conflict with one of the three general principles of the MOS, namely "follow the sources":

"Many points of usage, such as the treatment of proper names, can be decided by seeing what other writers do about the problem. Unless there is some clear reason to do otherwise, it is generally a good idea to follow the usage of reliable secondary sources in English on the subject; the sources for the article itself should be reliable. If the sources for the article can be shown to be unrepresentative of current English usage as a whole, follow current English usage instead — and consult more sources."


 * Again, I'd argue the sources are unambiguous on this point. Skomorokh  17:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fairy nuff. The sources trump our MoS on this one. This is then an exception to the usual rules. Existentialism and most philosophical "schools" are not. --John (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

"The Fountainhead Cafe"
Why is that picture here? What does it add to the article, except a bit of free advertising for the owner of the place? TallNapoleon (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There used to be a cultural impact section where it resided. Its simply survived a previous restructuring (not to say it belonged in the article at any point in time).  I think it should be removed. --Karbinski (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Western Civilization
I do think that Objectivism's extreme admiration of Western civilization is notable and should be mentioned. The quote from Rand at West Point about the colonization of the Americas is also relevant here. However, it should be dealt with in a more systematic way than just quoting Berliner. TallNapoleon (talk) 02:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is off-topic. We have Ayn Rand's political views and an entire series of Objectivist Movement articles for this - but thats not the ponit.  Berliner and Rand would have nothing notable to say related to Objectivist Politics if not for the existence of Objectivist Politics.  The root of all such political views is Objectivist Politics, which is the only relevant thing here.  The easy red flag here is the article now reports a fringe view on the philosophical roots of the US constitution - Objectivism hadn't been concieved back then. --Karbinski (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hold on just a second. I don't think it should should have been removed, just that it needed to be dealt with more systematically. The problem with the section wasn't that it was off-topic, it's that it was not integrated into the rest of the article. Objectivism places a huge amount of emphasis on Western civilization and admires it tremendously. Similarly, Rand's writing reveals a great deal of contempt for non-Western civilizations (she really had it in for Eastern religions, for instance). This has survived into the modern Objectivist movement, and is manifested, for instance, in the extreme hawkishness of ARI. Now maybe it doesn't belong in the Objectivist Politics section (although wouldn't this be a political view widely held by Objectivists?), but I think it does belong somewhere. TallNapoleon (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It should not have been removed, and should be restored pending discussion. Its an implication of objectivist politics and as stated the emphasis on the West is a part of Rand et al.  This smacks of an attempt to remove an inconvenient truth.--Snowded (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict ]This smacks of disregarding any consideration of relevance for the article just because it showcases something "politically incorrect." --Karbinski (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree with both Tall and Snowded.   Red thoreau  (talk)RT 15:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Removing it is inline with WP:BRD which enjoys overall community concenus. The defense of its notability lands squarley in the realm of the Objectivist Movement - not the principles of objectivism. Does anyone have a suggestion for weaving these facts into the article, or are you content that we just pile in the edits. How long should an article on Objectivism give prominence to a fringe position on the history of the writing of the US Constitution before its removed? --Karbinski (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with being bold, but now you have dissent then you should revert to allow discussion to take place. If Objectivism is a coherent philosophy, with an ethical or political strand then the consequences of that philosophy are significant and notable.  --Snowded (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Being bold, reverting, and ongoing discussion:"Does anyone have a suggestion for weaving these facts into the article, or are you content that we just pile in the edits. How long should an article on Objectivism give prominence to a fringe position on the history of the writing of the US Constitution before its removed?" --Karbinski (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You know, I could have sworn I entered a reply here, but it appears it never sent. Anyway, Karbinski makes two good points. One, Iroquois have nothing to do with Objectivism (although tangentially the Iroquois federation may well have had some impact on the Founding Fathers)--although including criticism within the body of the article is what we are supposed to do. Two, this does not appear to be fundamental to the philosophy or politics of Objectivism, even though deeply held admiration for Western culture (and typically contempt for non-Western cultures) are almost universal within the Objectivist movement. But I don't think this really fits into the Objectivist movement article either. So, this leaves us with valid, sourced, interesting information, and no real good place to put it. It sounds like we need an article like "Objectivist social, cultural and political views," but that also sounds clunky. Thoughts? TallNapoleon (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose more spin-off articles. If there is useful material which can be gathered under "social and cultural," simply create another sub-section under 1. Philosophy, alongside ethics, politics, aesthetics.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * How about 'Objectivist Thought'? --Karbinski (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To KD: Normally I'd agree with you, but I would argue this isn't part of the philosophy per se. Maybe, though, that's the best way to go.


 * To Karbinski: It's a bit vague, is all. My fear is it would turn into a grab bag. Also, how is objectivist philosophy not objectivist thought? TallNapoleon (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Its a broader concept than just the philosophy proper, which is the aim, right? As for things turning into a grab bag, things really need to be notable enough that secondary sources are talking about them in the context they are raised.  Take Berliner's talk, a great talk, no doubt he gave it, but exactly which secondary sources discuss Berliner's views?  Whatever the answer, that is the form of the question for inclusion. --Karbinski (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Blurts
In a number of places, you'll be reading the article and suddenly be accosted by a sentence of the form "Mr. X said|argued|... Y." Most often X = Peikoff. Such blurt-outs need to be integrated into the prose, and not stuck in the article as if its a conversation between Objectivists. I think they should all be snipped. Any comments? Karbinski (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Needs tightening up, but some of the qualifications are there because the entries themselves have been disputed. A spring clean would be good, but its a mixture of changing the qualifications and also removing some in their entirety.-- Snowded  TALK  19:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Some specific examples would be nice, or just make edits with the recognition that some of them might be reverted. There are a lot of quotes, and I would even agree that it is an excess, but Snowded is right that this is often because of disputes. It is hard to give a non-quoted summary of a position if different editors can't agree on how to paraphrase it. --RL0919 (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Snowded and RL0919. I was also taken aback at first by the number of quotes, but it makes sense given what RL0919 has stated. When you can't agree on how to paraphrase something, simply quote it. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2010-03-12 17:04Z

Merge_discussion
Is doesn't make sense to have 3 articles overlapping each other. An article about the person and life on Ayn Rand and an article about objectivism should be enough. Spreading this subject over 3 pages, seems an artificial separation. This separation has a tendency to hide the cult-like aspects of this philosophy (it's not general acceptated as a philosophy). Linking objectivism directly to Ayn Rand, confirms the cult-like aspects of objectivism. Complicating is the fact the articles seem to be edited by objectivists themselves, which is in violation of Wiki policies. 05:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Placelimit (talk • contribs)  (Was signed by me, as is viewable by time stamp, seems to be a bug in the beta? Placelimit (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The three subjects are conceptually distinct: Rand is a person who had a life and career before Objectivism; Objectivism is a philosophy that has been expounded upon by people other than Rand; the Objectivist movement has outlived Rand and has aspects that are not philosophical. Importantly for Wikipedia, all three subjects are notable. Finally, there is more material than is desirable for one article. Ayn Rand is 75K of wikitext; Objectivism (Ayn Rand) is 61K; Objectivist movement is 51K. To have overlapping articles in this situation is a common Wikipedia practice; see Summary style for explanations. As to editing of the articles by Objectivists, that undoubtedly does happen, but I know of no policy that forbids it, any more than Christians are prohibited from editing Christianity or Freudians are prohibited from editing Psychoanalysis. (Perhaps you are misunderstanding WP:COI?) The key is to maintain a neutral point of view for the articles, regardless of who edits them. --RL0919 (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed "Rejection of indigenous primitivism" section focused on a few concretes
including the full section as it once stood ...

What reason is there to expand so heavily on anti-primitivism and anti-tribalism? If any position within Objectivism is to be given such luxurious weight within the article it would have to be one of: reason, egoism, or capitalism (qua Objectivism). Anything else is just being given undue-weight. -Karbinski (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "concretes", however the solution is to expand the sections on "reason, egoism, and capitalism" not to Wp:Censor or blank the material on primitivism.   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say that the amount of material on Objectivist views of primitivism necessarily has to be zero, but a four-paragraph section filled with quotes of primary source material (mostly little-known Q&A and op-ed stuff) is way out of line with the importance that this topic is given in sources. Extending other sections to give them appropriate weight relative to that would require a massive expansion, beyond anything that is reasonable for an encyclopedia article, because those other topics have vastly more weight in the literature on Objectivism. For example, there are several entire academic books about the Objectivist ethics, but not even a single chapter in any book (academic, commercial, or even vanity published) about the topic of this section. Since the burden of evidence is normally placed on the editor(s) wanting to include material, I would ask you: what evidence do you have that this is a prominent topic in secondary source discussions about Objectivism, such that it merits an extended discussion? Please note that the question is not whether there are one or two secondary sources that briefly mention it, because that would justify a few sentences at best. The question is whether this is a significant topic within the literature on Objectivism. --RL0919 (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Removing the section is not censor, by all means integrate the point that Objectivism is anti-primitism into the article . However, don't push a POV by giving this sub-topic grossly undue weight.  Trying to overwhelm the article with treatments of politcal concretes destroys the article.  A section on anti-communism would be just as bad and have plenty of primary sources.  The section is being removed for both undue weight and lack of notability - as evidenced by no secondary sources that discuss the sub-topic. --Karbinski (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well there are some third party references in there. It is probably too long but just deleting it smacks of I DONT LIKE IT.  A paragraph with links to the full quotes would work.  No need to quote in full.  The moral implications of anti-primitavism is important to an understanding of Objectivism.  -- Snowded  TALK  18:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If someone could write an appropriately brief summary (no more than a few sentences, not several paragraphs) based mostly on secondary sources, I would consider that a welcome addition to the article. But thus far Redthoreau has been insistent about including extensive primary source quotes (the original version had a large block quote as the majority of its content) and giving the material its own section header, neither of which is helpful IMO. --RL0919 (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There are third party references as Snowded has alluded to. Understanding Objectivism requires a section on the rejection of primitivism.  This smacks of censorship which I think we can all agree is not in our best interest here.  RL0919, your statement that "all but one editor" supports it is incorrect, as I and Snowded seem to feel that we should keep the section.RandPhilo (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * [1] Karbinski, I always WP:AGF, but it does require at least a slight degree of chutzpah for someone who self-proclaims on their Wiki user page to be an "advocate of Objectivism (who) considers Ayn Rand an intellectual hero" - to accuse another editor here of POV pushing. I have not inserted any of my own personal "POV" on the topic, and everything utilized has been the words or work of others per Wiki policy. This section is not comprised of my own "hunch" on what Rand or Objectivism thinks of "primitivism", but rather a litany of sources bearing her and their own remarks. I have always believed that despite Rand being your "hero", that you can be fair and objective (pardon the pun) when it comes to editing the article, all I ask is the same assumption from you. [2] Randphilo, I also believe that the section merits inclusion. An additional solution I would support would be a shortened paragraph here - with an article Objectivism and primitivism in the same way that there is Objectivism and homosexuality. Is there any support for this solution?   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Snowded said "A paragraph with links to the full quotes would work," and I left a paragraph with citations of the main quotes. That is the reasonable level of attention to give this topic. The only secondary sources provided at all have been a reference to Rand's not being primitivist in her fiction and a book about native American ideas that quotes an ARI op-ed. These are used to prop up a four-paragraph exposition about Objectivist philosophical views on "primitivism" based on primary source quotes. This despite the fact that no survey of Objectivism, either by Objectivists or critics, quotes these passages or gives any significant attention to Objectivist views on "primitivism". The idea that these scraps could support a full article is ludicrous. I have yet to find the term 'primitivism' in the index of any book about Objectivism (I have dozens) and it does not appear in The Ayn Rand Lexicon. That the long version of this is a violation of WP:UNDUE is clear, but any attempt to shorten or de-emphasize it is met with reversions claiming censorship (even when material about the subject is left in the article, just not as long and prominent as you prefer) and failure to provide a "demonstration" of undue weight (even though the burden of evidence falls on the editor who wants material included). --RL0919 (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It has been my experience that a scholarly article should discuss the salient points. The beauty of Wikipedia is that we don't have to worry about costs associated with printing.  This section is well organized, clear, correctly referenced and and most importantly helps provide context to the study of Objectivism.  Just because you have several books that don't mention primitivism is not a reason to discard the topic.  The burden of proof is inherently on you to delete information that other scholars have deemed important, otherwise it seems to be in violation of WP:Censor.RandPhilo (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * RL0919, you claim that Objectivists do not give "primitivism" significant attention, however the aforementioned section has referenced remarks by Ayn Rand herself, the Ayn Rand Institute, the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, and from Michael Berliner (senior advisor to the Ayn Rand Archives) on the specific issue of "primitivism" and Objectivism’s unequivocal rejection of the "savage"/un-evolved traits that they deem accompany it. Perhaps you should look up the phrase "primitive" as well? You clearly know a lot about Objectivism and have read Rand's works, which is why I can't figure out why you don't believe she supported an anti-primitivist stance. Moreover, Rand’s disdain for "primitivism" extended out to her views on environmentalism, religion, urban & industrial development, technology, civilization, communitarianism/egalitarianism, mysticism, colonialism etc. All of these matters could be expounded on with a separate article.   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It is significant, but its worth a paragraph at the most -- Snowded TALK  22:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * RandPhilo, If scholars had deemed this important by publishing about it, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The long-form version of the material is almost all primary sources. There's a sentence about Rand's fiction, and a book that is not about Objectivism at all (doesn't even mention the word) quoting some comments by Michael Berliner as an example of "the cultural myths of North America". This is not significant secondary source coverage. Redthoreau, I have not said that Rand or other Objectivists do not oppose "primitivism". I have said that the literature on Objectivism, most importantly the secondary sources, provide little discussion on the subject, and therefore it should be given little weight in the article. If you believe otherwise, then pick any book from this list and tell me how much space it devotes to the topic. --RL0919 (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * RL0919, of note, I only increased the amount of article coverage on the topic in response to the initial claim that there wasn't enough material to meet the threshold of inclusion (hence the whole "paradox" I mentioned above). I am open to Wp:Collaboration and Wp:Consensus on the amount of material that should be included; my primary objection was the complete blanking of the section altogether, as happened at the top of this thread.   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thus far every attempt to trim the material has been met with reversion or further expansion. If it is 5800+ characters or nothing, then I would indeed vote for nothing. But if we can have a reasonable one-paragraph explanation of the viewpoint (preferably based more on secondary sources if they can be found), then I am happy to settle on that. --RL0919 (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * RL, I have not reverted any "trimming", only the outright blanking once. I have added back in a few of the refs and am content with the 1 paragraph currently present in the article.   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The amount of material seems reasonable. I'd still prefer less reliance on primary sources, or if it must be primary sources, at least better known ones such as her published essays. But that is the sort of problem that can be cured over time. --RL0919 (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A View of Primitivism section? Think about this, there is a short section on Views of other Philosophies - a very notable sub-topic for Objectivism.  The primitivism content isn't notable for the *Philosophy of Ayn Rand* article.  Sounding off about the requirements of the article to understand Objectivism - go ahead and write a sentence on *the Objectivist view of primitivism* - as it is we have the point that Objectivism is anti-primitivism emblazoned with example after example with no integration with any other part of the article such as ethics or politics.  As has been pointed out, you won't find sufficient secondary sources to cover the Objectivist view of primitivism - in terms of what Objectivism is.  The POV being pushed here is to highlight denunciations made by Objectivists without any accompanying context (such as history or foreign policy).  No version of the section integrates anti-primitivism with other principles of Objectivism.  Therefore it has no place in this article. --Karbinski (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ^^Agreed, this seems irrelevant to Objectivist philosophy. It should probably be removed. Ink Falls   22:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Integrating it to the section on ethics makes sense, removing it does not. If it is a personal view of Rand (which would imply rejection by a dominant range of Objectivist thinkers) then it could go onto the Rand page. -- Snowded  TALK  22:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

After this paragraph: Objectivism views government as legitimate, but only "a government of a definite kind."[71] Rand understood government as the institution with a monopoly on the use of physical force in a given geographical area, so the issue is whether that force is used to protect or to violate individual rights. The government should use force only to protect individual rights.[72] Therefore, the "proper functions of a government" are "the police, to protect men from criminals—the armed services, to protect men from foreign invaders—the law courts, to settle disputes among men according to objectively defined laws."[73] In protecting individual rights, the government is acting as an agent of its citizens and "has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens."[74] It is also important that the government act in an impartial manner according to specific, objectively defined laws.[75] A paragraph that flows something like:

Consequently Objectivism holds that governments that do not respect individual rights do not have the right to exist - as they don't have the right to enslave men. . Nor does a tribal culture that doesn't even conceive the idea of individual rights have the right to exist. . This doesn't mean any semi-free nation is fair game for invasion. .

Would be unnecessary, but possibly satiate a certain editor's need (what has it been now, two or three years?) to list this denunciation within this article. And best of all, it would be, potentially, NPOV. --Karbinski (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Given a vote of confidence from Ink Falls, and that Snowded thinks that if it has any place it it ought to be integrated (I say politics as above instead of ethics) in some way versus being a subsection --> I've removing the section again (apologies in advance if I've misunderstood Snowded). --Karbinski (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Integrated sort of implies being moved not removed you know ...-- Snowded TALK  22:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Integration implies more work - that has not yet been done. --Karbinski (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Karbinski, I am tired of you repeatedly implying that I am the one "pushing a pov" and acting in bad faith, when if anything it could be you protecting the page of your self-proclaimed "intellectual hero". This would be the equivalent of allowing the Ayn Rand fan club to solely write her Wikipedia article. You seem to imply that I have been trying for "2 or 3 years" to insert the above material, not realizing that I could (if I took your tone) just as easily assert that you have been protecting Ayn Rand's articles from most potentially unflattering material for just as long. This time, just as in the past, you have attempted to WP:Game the system and chop away at the material until you feel comfortable to just remove it altogether. The process usually goes:

"::::: 1. Claim that there needs to be more info to merit inclusion
 * 2. Once section is expanded per request, claim that it now gives Wp:Undue weight to the topic.
 * 3. Ask that the topic then be trimmed to a bare minimum which it deserves.
 * 4. Then claim that it is such a minor issue as not to merit mention and remove it.
 * 5. Cycle and repeat if needed."
 * All I have done is attempt to insert the words of Ayn Rand herself, and related Ayn Rand organizations & institutes. I am not pulling material from AynRandSucks.com or a biography entitled "Why Rand Sucks: A Chronology" - which would clearly be POV. All I am asking is that ALL of Rand's ideas and those of her intellectual-heir organizations be included without selectively cherry picking and eliminating those views that some of her fans may be uncomfortable with. Moreover, I am not even trying to skew her overall article, but merely requesting that her position vis-à-vis "primitivism" and "indigenous" people (with the philosophical implications) be included - which I feel is necessary in order for this article to be WP:NPOV.   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Karbinski while I think it would be better in another section, I think the content is fine and there is no justification for its deletion. Redthoreau's five step summary matches my own experience and tag teaming reverts with another avowedly objectivist editor is not helpful.  -- Snowded  TALK  05:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Who is an Objectivist and who isn't should not be an issue here. I am not an Objectivist, as I say on my user page; however, I happen to agree with Karbinski that this article is better without the primitivism section. UserVOBO (talk) 08:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It should not be, but with regret it often is. We now have slimmed down content but no firm agreement.  My suggestion would be to place it in the ethics section in a more summarised form, although I am open to politics as an alternative.  -- Snowded  TALK  16:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not the only editor saying the section doesn't belong in the article. Read UserVOBO and InkFalls comment that they agree with me that the article is better without the section.  Thoreau's inclusion of unflattering material, for the sake of highlighting unlfattering material - as evidenced by *zero content about Objectivist principles and how they relate to the material* - doesn't belong.  I've removing the section based on consensus.  Thoreau's objections have already been noted.  --Karbinski (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC).


 * On a different note. I've suggested above a proper avenue for the NPOV inclusion of this material.  --Karbinski (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this some new definition of consensus that the rest of us are not party too? I count more for the inclusion than against.  I note that you think the material is unflattering - I agree, but the function of wikipedia is not to whitewash your heroine.  -- Snowded  TALK  18:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My count is correct. The material presented out of context is indeed unflattering - that is the POV being pushed here.  However, presented within context, its nothing more than supporting information.  The context, the relevant Objectivist principles, is all that matters within this article.  --Karbinski (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) Karbinski, the count as I see it is (4) "for inclusion" (Myself, Philo, Snowded, and RL) and (3) against (You, Ink Falls, & Vobo). Since when did 4-3 in favor of something become "WP:Consensus" against it? In addition, the only Point Of View being pushed here is Ayn Rand's POV on Native Americans and Arabs along with the Ayn Rand Institute, Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, and Michael Berliner (senior advisor to the Ayn Rand Archives). If you find their content "unflattering" then maybe you should re-evaluate whether Rand deserves your unconditional admiration (like all theorists her ideas had both strong points and fundamental flaws). Not having mention of this material is a = [glaring omission]. An analogy ~ Can you imagine if philosopher John Doe publicly decreed that Eskimos were "savages" and deserved to have their land confiscated because they were nearly sub-humans and then the John Doe Institute backed up this view, along with the John Doe Center for Arctic Property Rights and the senior advisor to the John Doe library - but yet there was NO mention of the matter on John Doe's Wikipedia pages (including "Doeism") because it was erased by non-Eskimo posters who found John Doe to be their philosophical hero and wanted the matter brushed under the rug? This matter will not just simply go away and cease to exist because it is not included in Rand's articles. Moreover, I could understand if her views on the matter were nuanced or disputed, but there is NO contradicting evidence present to challenge that this was Rand's view at all; the other side of the scale is literally empty with evidence. It is not a matter of debate if Rand or her institutes feel this way. Red thoreau -- (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you imagine if every editor with a POV to push was granted carte-blanche on wikipedia? I'm not challenging Rand's view, and your section isn't about Rand's view - your section is simply a poster of that view - emblazoned into the article out-of-context.  Its called POV pushing.  I've already sketched for you how these views flow from Objectivist political principles - it is in that context that your points can be presented NPOV.  Was it a mistake to count RL as for removal of the section - RL? --Karbinski (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Karbinski, obviously RL can answer for himself, but after consolidation above he stated "The amount of material seems reasonable" - I'm not sure how you interpreted that to mean "delete all of it". Secondly, how is the section not Rand's view or "out of context". At varying times I have included the full answer, video of Rand making the remarks herself on Donahue, and a litany of first-hand sources from her philosophical centers reiterating and unequivocally backing up her earlier views. I am not pushing my own POV here, and you have yet to show how I have taken any editorial license with the section in question. In fact, I have been very careful not to rely on outside (potentially biased) sources or reviews of that material, and go right to the sources themselves (hence why we had the initial issue of secondary sourcing i.e.). I am not quoting ideological opponents of Rand's with an axe to grind, I am quoting and utilizing Rand herself and her institutes.   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just for the record I am not in favour of a stand alone section, but for inclusion of the material in the section on ethics along the lines of RLs earlier suggestion. Pending agreement on that the material should stand.  On the content it seems to me that Rand's statement of a more or less identical position in respect of two indigenous groups is a clear indication of how the founder of Objectivism sees ethics working out in practice.  As such it is relevant and not POV pushing.  -- Snowded  TALK  20:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @Red - Stop telling me that you are trying to include Rand's point of view, I can see that. Start writing how that point of view relates to Objectivist principles.  All those people and ARI also may be found praising Ayn Rand as the absolute greatest thinker EVER.  This is founded on the fact that her philosophy is true.  A section that just blurts this out without *any* integration with the philosophy would be POV pushing just like yours.  You don't understand how just blurting out that Ayn Rand and other objectivists think European colonization of America was a good thing without reference to anything else is out-of-context?  Bet you'd think different about a full-stop section header "Ayn Rand was the greatest thinker in human history" with lots of Objectivist quotes and ARI supporting publications on this major view held by Peikoff and all the other "names" in Objectivism.  The POV you are trying to push is that Ayn Rand and other Objectivist are racists.  The method you are employing is to just get the quotes out there, without reference to the political thought behind the view.


 * @Snowded - The only valid arbiter on where these points would belong is reliable secondary sources. No such discussions exist, do they? I know there are discussions that cover the status of societies that don't concieve of or have no respect for property/individual rights.  If Red wasn't just pushing the POV that Objectivists are racist, its these Objectivist principles he'd be writing about, instead of just blurting out cherry-picked quotes.  Anyhow, the POV push doesn't belong, regardless of the possibility of some potential future content that may or may not come into existence.  --Karbinski (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure why you think that it implies that Objectivists are racists, it does make a moral statement about the consequences of Objectivism hence its relevance. Quoting the "fountain" allows her words to speak for herself.   So tell me, what additional information or quotations are required to place this in context?  They don't look cherry picked to me.  -- Snowded  TALK  21:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I beg of you, please tell me what moral statement it makes about the consequences of Objectivism? Then if we can find reliable secondary sources to verify that, we can enhance the article! --Karbinski (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Answer the question Karbinski, what additional material would place those direct quotes in context?  At the moment the quotes stand by themselves without commentary (I don't propose to add any). -- Snowded  TALK  21:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Karbinski, nowhere have I stated that these comments were "racist" nor have I tried to add such a description into the section. In fact I noted on the main Ayn Rand talk page to Philo how I would not support calling these remarks "racist". Rand was not against their "skin color" per se, but their cultures. However, my own personal view of them shouldn't be relevant, nor should yours. Once again, you can call them "cherry picked" but you have yet to display how that is so. I have provided more than ample evidence to contradict your claim, as this was not something Rand mentioned one time in private - this was something she twice publicly spoke on and that her institutes have continued to expound on since her death. I am sorry that you as an Objectivist armed with the unvarnished "truth" may be embarrassed by her & her institutes remarks, however offending your sensibilities is not the barometer for Wiki exclusion.   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Fallacy of quoting out of context. Search the archives for how un-embarassed I am about Mike Berliner's speach.  Snowded, I'm still hoping against hope you'll name the "moral statement about the consequences of Objectivism" this section makes.  Red, if all you want included is the fact that Objectivism is anti-primitivism, and the quotes aren't cherry-picked, then lets just say the former without the latter then.  Don't be upset, we are just laying the facts out bare for our reader audience.  --Karbinski (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Fully agree one should never quote out of context. So please tell me what additional material would provide a context?  As far as I can see the quotes are fairly clear, and repeated in two separate cases.   I am content for the reader to interpret the material and see the consequences for themselves by the way.   However I want to be fair, what is the missing context? -- Snowded  TALK  21:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

How the hell should I know? None was given. I've taken it upon myself to add context by moving the section into the Politics section, so that it contrasts what government ought to be. The first part works well enough, but the second part about Arabs reads like a journalist report. That needs to be re-written to emphasize *why* Rand held the views she held. @Snowded, the general answer to your question is to provide the why someone held the views being reported. @Red, the criteria for inclusion is notability - primary sources do not establish notability (if they do, please show me the community consensus on that). --Karbinski (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @Snowded, you forgot to tell me the "moral statement about the consequences of Objectivism" this section makes. --Karbinski (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Moving it into politics is fine, I would prefer ethics but its not a major issue. As to why she held those views, its not my place to speculate although she obviously thought that such a position was a logical outcome of Objectivism.   I didn't forget to tell you by the way, I said we should let her words speak for themselves. -- Snowded  TALK  06:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But what you refuse to name *is* your case for its relevance to the article. Not any reliable secondary source. --Karbinski (talk) 06:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Karbinski's version
provided here in full ...

I must say that this is an almost Orwellian rewriting/scrubbing of the section which completely alters and obfuscates Rand's own words. The WP:Synth in the section which connects Rand's beliefs towards the "primitive" and "savage" Native Americans/Arabs, is now somehow connected to Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and the hordes of Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan. Where does Rand ever tie these altogether? What I would contend Karbinski has done here, is take Rand's own words on Native Americans & Arabs and tried to neatly tie it (Wp:OR) to her rejection of other industrialized statist societies, when she never branched the two. By slowly WP:TENDentiously deleting the remarks (by philo, collector, myself etc) and trying to Wp:Own the article, I believe that Karbinski has severely mischaracterized the material, doing a disservice both to potential readers and the accuracy of the article. The current wording was not agreed upon by ANY of the above editors, and Karbinski has completely chopped away at the version that several of us even did agree on. Red thoreau -- (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As per wikipedia policy, establish notability by reference to secondary sources! Injecting quotes into the article to let them speak for themselves isn't the writing of an encyclopedia article, its using wikipedia to repeat primary sourced material - for the sake of repeating it. Its pure Synthesis to presume *unverifiable* relevance to Objectivism.  Snowded insists we just repeat her words and let them speak for themselves - like it doesn't matter what the quotes are.  But it does matter, somehow, in a way Red and Snow won't name, because if we just replace the quotes with different quotes - allowing her words to speak for themselves - that won't fly with either Red or Snow.  Well, the wider consensus is policy - not to be overriden by a few editors here - so *name* how these quotes matter and *verify* it.  --Karbinski (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In simpler terms, is there a single reliable secondary/tertiary source that comments on any of these views? If yes, then get it over with already and write something appropriate.  If not, stop trying to write against policy. --Karbinski (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Its perfectly legitimate to include a direct quote or two Karbinski. I suggest we agree which one here.  In the meantime I have restored the paragraph that you deleted against clear consensus.-- Snowded  TALK  03:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What does that mean Snowded? It is *not* perfectly fine to disregard notability, verifiability, and NPOV.  That is the consensus. --Karbinski (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It means what it say K, inclusion of quotes if fine and the fact that you don't like does not mean that it fails notability etc. You should calm down your edit summaries a bit as well -- Snowded  TALK  03:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Inclusion of quotes has to pass certain criteria, such as notability, verifiability, and NPOV. So inclusion of quotes without showing how they meet those criteria, is, well, *not* fine, never mind being pefectly fine. That I like the quotes doesn't mean they pass notability etc. --Karbinski (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Since the Native American and Arab's examples were not related to Rand's remarks on pg 104 of Virtue of Selfishness I removed them. In addition, I went ahead and created the article Objectivism and primitivism where the topic can be expanded upon.   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 06:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Nominated for deletion. I'm fine with a brief mention of Rand's views on Native Americans and Arabs, either here or in Ayn Rand, because that is what those topics are due based on the very limited coverage in secondary sources. But combining them together as an Objectivist view of "primitivism" is Redthoreau's own personal theory (not how they are discussed in secondary sources) and the amount of secondary source coverage is far too light to justify a separate article. --RL0919 (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I obviously disagree RL, and have responded there.   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * With the inclusion of a brief 6 line paragraph in the main Ayn Rand article, I now consider mention of the issue in this article a resolved matter.   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 08:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)