Talk:Objectivism (disambiguation)

Neo-Objectivist Ideas "Claim to be" Descended from Objectivism?
Even if Rand or another authoritative objectivist would have disagreed vehemently with any particular neo-objectivist idea, the idea still is "descended from" Objectivism if Rand's thoughts inspired the neo-objectivist. I removed the qualifier from the description of neo-objectivism saying that it is a body of ideas "claiming to be" descended from Objectivism. 'Descended from' is not the same as 'follows directly from', and a descendent philosophy can differ from an ancestral philosophy. 71.217.2.132 (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC) (Ventifact)

Title
I have moved Objectivism (Ayn Rand) to Objectivism as this is the proper title. Objectivism generally means Ayn Rand's philosophy. Madhava 1947 (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not know how to move this back but I will try. You have hijacked the word "objectivism." I just checked the latest Merriam-Webster on line - nothing to do with Ayn Rand. I describe her description of her own ideas (hardly a philosophy) as: "Be objective - look at it my way." Carrionluggage 20:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You guys have managed to completely lose the "Objectivism (Ayn Rand)" article. That now redirects to the "Objectivism" disambiguation page, and the link therein has now become self-referential.  I don't know how to fix this. — DAGwyn 21:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I also note that Carrionluggage doesn't seem to understand Ayn Rand's ideas (which definitely constitute a distinct and unique philosophy). However, the disambiguation page seems to be appropriate given that the Wikipedia lookup doesn't distinguish between big-O Objectivism and little-o objectivism.


 * I have restored the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article and talk page material which Madhava blanked. Madhava is a new editor whom I presume was acting in good faith. The current arrangment of Objectivism being a disambig has consensus support, and discussion should of course generally be held BEFORE making any changes to article titles. --Matthew Humphreys 23:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for not letting the title or entry point be changed willy-nilly.
 * I understand her ideas pretty well. I saw The Fountainhead in 1949, read the book of that title as well as most of her other works in the early 1960's. One ought to realise that a lot of her moral and social opinion were an extreme reaction to Communism, from which she had escaped. But George Orwell, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and Mikhail Bulgakov wrote better, and most analytic philosophers thought better. Rand's appeal is to down-and-outers, losers who feel almost beyond help or hope. She tells them "stand up, you can do it" (and sometimes that their failures are because they tried, like Atlas, to carry other's burdens on their shoulders.) It is all dressed up with a lot of pap about "existence" but Objectivism's virtue is as a pick-me-up to these people. For understanding existence see Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and Critique of Practical Reason, or Bertrand Russell or C._I._Lewis, or Ludwig_Wittgenstein or Hans_Reichenbach. Rand did not understand or did not heed Kant's argument for the Categorical Imperative, perhaps because responsibility towards others had been so misused by the Communists. Kant is virtually a saint, Rand a shrill organizer and apologist for those who wish to ignore debt to society. Carrionluggage 05:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Carrion, You are incorrect on many levels here. Rand's appeal is to people who want live their lives in accordance with reality. The part about appealing to mostly down and out losers...where is your evidence on this? As far as "debt to society goes, what do you mean? What debt, to whom, and why? Do you have any substantial arguemnts or are you just posting this to insult people?Ethan a dawe 14:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Ethan_a_Dawe14:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I got enthusiastic in the 1960's, until I talked with a few people. I then noted that they appeared to be right - those who had recommended the book were - say - not far along the ladder of success, and it gave them hope. So far as the "debt to society" - the arguments for the Categorical Imperative prove that we should take care of others. You can see much of the argument in that heading in Wikipedia. Perhaps most "Objectivists" would not ignore a Kitty Genovese being murdered outside their window, but the "philosophy" seems to say one is free to ignore this kind of thing (depends how firmly and finally an emulater of Atlas shrugging shrugs, I guess).  Maybe my remarks are dated a bit and are historical.  It is possible that originally "Objectivism" appealed to those who had little and felt forced by the mores of society to help a poorer person or a lost child - it made them free to walk away. Today the base has no doubt spread. It does pay to look at what she says, however, to see if it is pap or not.  For example, (from the Wikipedia article): "Objectivism maintains that which exists does not exist because one thinks it exists; it simply exists."  Now, that's not a big contribution to human thought, I'd hazard; only the  solipsists ever argued otherwise, and they are pretty much ancient history. The Solpisist position was later discussed by some substantial philosophers, but mainly for contrast or completeness. Next look at this section (below) and compare to the analyses of H._H._Price (the article is short but his books are pithy). The section of more pap:

"Rand's answer is that the axioms can be validated by using sense perception. One determines that existence exists merely by seeing, smelling, touching, tasting, or hearing something that exists. That our senses are being activated, proves to us that there is something that exists. Validating that consciousness exists rests on sense information as well, by noting that one is aware of sensations. Likewise for validating the law of identity; one validates this by seeing or touching a thing and noting that any entity has particular attributes or characteristics that distinguishes it from other entities, and thereby realizing that that is what makes a thing what it is. This leads one to recognize that a thing cannot be of a nature that is contrary to its nature or it would be something else (or A=A). Rand believes that individuals already hold these axioms implicitly, but that it is helpful to make them explicit to avoid philosophical errors. According to Peikoff, if individuals "[lack] explicit identification of this knowledge [of the axioms], they have no way to adhere to the axioms, consistently and typically fall into some form of contradicting the self-evident, as in the various magical word views, which (implicitly) deny the law of identity" or philosophers "who reject the self-evident as the base of knowledge, and who then repudiate all three of the basic axioms.." To see it's pap, you have to read H. H. Price or Wittgenstein or Carnap or Reichenbach or C._S._Pierce. They reasoned it all out - Rand spews out her beliefs with little context or defense. And yes, I do have a better reason than to insult people - it is to direct readers to better reading. Rand never recovered from her experiences with Communism, which color her approach. Carrionluggage 19:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Double disambiguation
There are currently both an Objectivism dab page and an Objectivism (disambiguation) dab page. This needs to be fixed. Dekimasu 11:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * May I ask: why is this a disambiguation page when the only thing listed among the disambiguations that is called (just) Objectivism is Ayn Rand's deal? Shouldn't Objectivism by itself just redirect to Rand's stuff if that's the only thing called (just) Objectivism in the Wikipedia?  If so, why so, if not, why not?  Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.69.160.1 (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Substantialism redirect
I'm curious why Substantialism redirects to the Objectivism disambiguation page. Dictionary.com refers to Substantialism in philosophy as "the doctrine that substantial noumena exist as a basis for phenomena." Especially in the sense of noumena which are themselves inaccessible to direct experience, this seems to go against the materialism generally defined by Objectivist philosophy--and against Ayn Rand's general dislike of Kant. I'm thinking that Substantialism merits its own article, separate to objectivism. Unfortunately, I'm not an expert on the topic. Any thoughts?--Pariah (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Objectivist movement
My major concern:

Ayn Rand picked the name Objectivism for her philosophy, but then again so have other philosophers before her. To simply give Ayn Rand the article Objectivism (which in all honesty should go to Gottlob Frege's use of the word considering he is the one who first used the term even if its a small "o", contrary to Ayn Rands capital "O".) while the real article on the general and primary definition of objectivism is called objectivity does strike me as rather odd. It implies that the real objectivism is Ayn Rands philosophy and that people might call objectivity for objectivism but that it isn't correct. And that is plain wrong.

"Objectivism, the support of philosophical objectivity" -- would simply be better. :)

Honestly someone should make a page on Gottlob Frege's objectivism - and call it objectivism_(Gottlob_Frege). Sadly I am not good enough at english for it, though I have read quite a bit of Gottlob Frege's works - quite interesting I might admit even if I have my own objections and I haven't understood all yet ^^

While I agree with some of Ayn Rands ideas, its important to point out for Objectivist zealots that objectivism and objectivist are valid for other people than just randians ^^

My minor concern:

Can someone please explain why there is a specific link to the Objectivist movement? Because honestly, if people are searching for the Objectivist movement it would be reasonable they find it through the page on Ayn Rand's philosophy - such as Communist movements are mentioned on the communist page.

Just think it would be better mentioned on the page for her philosohpy than here. In short, if it makes it clearer and easier to find your way around, keep it that way. If its a rare exception, then change it :)

As I said, I am sadly not good enough to make changes myself, since I haven't mastered the english language, so I will simply voice my opinions here and hope that better people agree with me and can make the necessary changes.

Mandarni (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Moral Objectivism

Moral objectivism, as described and linked-to here: is it an "ethical philosophy" as the text here claims or a meta-ethical one? --Christofurio (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
See Talk:Objectivism (Ayn Rand), and suggest in the first instance comment there rather than here. Andrewa (talk) 13:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Objectivism (Ayn Rand) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)