Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Yevgeny Zamyatin

I added a passing mention of Yevgeny Zamyatin and his book We to the article. I sourced it from the Rand journal. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

While its a useful addition it needs modification. Firstly the source specifically states that the link is SPECULATION so it can't be stated as fact. Also you have have simply cut and pasted the first paragraph of the article which is unnecessary in a reference, or if it is then it should be in quotes. --Snowded (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Getting comical

Plato a communist mystic! What was this about? its getting worse "anti-mind materialist Marxist-Leninist detractors", starting to read like a student political leaflet--Snowded (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Such language is totally unacceptable and should be removed. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's hilarious, but sort of true. The Republic is quite similar in structure to totalitarian communist states, and Plato was certainly somewhat of a "mystic". Still, pretty inappropriate language. CABlankenship (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Brushcherry (talk) 09:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Pat Boone Anthem reference

This really, really seems like trivia to me... does anyone else agree? TallNapoleon (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved to the Anthem article. Skomorokh 22:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

glad tallnapaleon and skomorokh agree, guess there is no need for consensus.Brushcherry (talk) 09:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

How can we move past the Philosopher debate?

any ideas? just asking. don't like my idea of a "ayn rand status as a philosopher" section, with both sides limited to a paragraph or two? what is your idea? we can't have the main page be a re-hash of the ayn rand talk page. i was a little disappointed all i got was feedback from banned editors. (yes i know you are banned from editing the "ayn rand" page not from the talk page).Brushcherry (talk) 09:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

You know I just don't think I am going to put myself through working on this article, I don't see this arrangement as a working arrangement. Why try to gain consensus from banned editors? Why should anyone put themselves through such an experience. I added in a link to an article I created one that is sourced and it was instantly called into question. I was then told that my contributions would get a "push back" by another banned editor on the talkpage here before I had even begun. This is about politics and not establishing a environment that fosters contribution. The article is lacking allot and I have sources that I could reflect into the article to give sourced dates and times for Rand's time in Russia and for the influence on her of the Russian Silver Age but I just don't have the time to fight about it. I think other editors would also rather not be bothered so they won't even reply to you. I stand up for myself and get told I can be banned. Just not worth the hassle. Note also how little the article has about Rand's time with Paterson and her time as a journalist. But sobeit. I could add allot but it's just not worth it.

LoveMonkey (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

i'm trying gain consensus from non-banned editors. but you are one of the few ones here, help me out here pal. tallnapoleon, snowded, and Idag are banned from editing the article but not the talk page. stevewunder, should not be here.Brushcherry (talk) 09:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

[Comments from User:Stevewunder removed per topic ban by Skomorokh 07:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)]

Banned editors have a place already Talk:Ayn Rand/SandboxBrushcherry (talk) 09:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Ignored by academia

How should this be phrased? This was recently changed from "largely ignored by academia" to "ignored by some in academia" (paraphrasing). How should this be phrased? TallNapoleon (talk) 06:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be in the article at all; all the cited ref says is that one philosopher considers Rand an "amateur philosopher". Not even a proper reference at that. Skomorokh 07:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

But now we get to the core of the philosopher issue and others, the question of negative evidence. With the odd exception no one even mentions her. The reference isn't brilliant, but there are a lot worse in this article. I agree it should be removed as is, but the issue can't be ignored and needs a sensible and structured discussion --Snowded (talk) 07:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that we get to the core of the philosopher issue...how do we deal with it? piecemeal? "largely ignored by academia" vs "ignored by some in academia"? deal with the core of the philosopher issue.Brushcherry (talk) 08:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

We take it to the Reliable Sources noticeboard instead of continuing to bash our heads against this wall ourselves. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that makes sense, but we probably need to get to a statement of fact and issues to present first, its mostly there but submerged. Its not the only issue in effect we have three (i) should she be called a philosopher (ii) how to treat 'ignored' in criticism and (iii) the sources for philosophical claims. They are not all the same issue. --Snowded (talk) 08:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Was Arbcom not enough for you? The reliable sources board is not going to decide if ayn rand is a philosopher. neither will (or have) the multiple conflict resolution forums. make a "ayn rand is not a philosopher" page...others can make a "ayn is a philosopher" page. just make a small section " ayn rand as a philosopher" both sides give a paragraph or two, and fight it out on your own pages. let the person searching for ayn rand for whatever reason on wikipedia, find their own path to your argument.Brushcherry (talk) 08:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Brushcherry, Arbcom specifically said that those were the places we should take that debate. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You also need to realise Bushcherry that part of the interest/concern here is a wider issue on Wikipedia. It hits articles on pseudo-science as well articles such as this which attract cult like followings. Such matters need discussion in the community as a whole. Your idea (which has attracted no support) is not really the wikipedia way. The contention about her status will need coverage, but the debate is about a label in the introduction paragraph and the information box. I'd recommend you take Arbcom's recommendation to broaden your interest a bit and look through some of the guidance articles that were in your welcome notice. --Snowded (talk) 09:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

you also need to realize Snowded, the talk page is about content issues. not threatening people with this or that wikipedia policy. while you are good at quoting wikipedia policy, i have seen no evidence of you following it. hence you being banned from editing the ayn rand page. the few new editors i have seen since arbcom have been scared aware.

the debate is about her status as a philosopher, not the label in her introductory paragraph and the information box. you can not prove she is not a philosopher. others can not prove she is a philosopher. arbcom is never gonna decide on this content issue, reliable sources is never gonna decide it either, or any other wikipedia forum. get over it. Brushcherry (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

No one is threatening you Brushcherry and I'm more than happy to stand by my edit history on many wikipedia articles. The debate is actually about wikipedia policy, there is little dispute on the facts per se, its how they are interpreted. Oh, and if I have "scared aware" a few new editors then I will take it as a task well done. --Snowded (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

debates about wikipedia policy should be directed to the appropriate venue. debates about content issues such as ayn rands status as a philosopher should be taken up in the ayn rand talk page.Brushcherry (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

Such as the "Reliable Sources notice board" for example? Whether Ayn Rand is a philosopher or not depends on policy in respect of sources. I don't think there is much new evidence to gather, hence TallNapoleon's suggestion. --Snowded (talk) 10:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, for example the "Reliable Sources notice board" Yes, there is no new evidedence. we, you, i, they, have beat that horse to death. Arbcom for example?Brushcherry (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)brushcherry

She is called a philosopher in the New York Times. I have qualms about that particular paper's reliability, but as far as Wikipedia is concerned it generally passes muster. ;) I haven't seen a source for her being ignored by academia and that type of statement seems rather POV. I think her ideas and significance are certainly controversial and that shoul dbe covered based on reliable sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to repeat the counter argument to that and there is no point in going through the debate yet again. What is needed is some type of summary of the issues (and arguments) then take it to some form of review (possibly reliable sources). --Snowded (talk) 02:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

[Comments from User:Stevewunder removed per topic ban by Skomorokh 07:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)]

Why is the The Oxford Companion to Philosophy not considered a reliable source?

So the reference to 'amateur philosopher' has been removed. The chief editor of the encyclopedia is Ted Honderich, who is a luminary of British philosophy, and he was helped by a team of sub-editors and article writers who hail from the great and good of the Anglo-American philosophical establishment. The reference to 'amateur philosopher' was by Anthony Quinton, who was made a peer of the realm for a lifetime of service to academic philosophy. Whoever removed this is a complete WP:DICK.

Note that Rand is only mentioned once in this comprehensive work (namely as an amateur philosopher). Peter Damian (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly a reliable source, and probably belongs in the article. Could you provide the full citation (ISBN and page number is fine) if you have access to it? And, it it is a brief mention as you say, would it be too much trouble to quote the relevant sentence(s)? Thanks in advance, Skomorokh 13:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to steer clear of this farce. Peter Damian (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but if we neither have access to a work nor the means to do so, we cannot responsibly include it in an encyclopaedia article. Skomorokh 13:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

p. 704 in a section by Quinton on "Popular Philosophy" and specifically about the kind of popular philosophy that is the "amateur consideration of the standard, technical problems of philosophy;" p. 703. "In this century, amateur systems increasingly fail to find their way into print: most languish in typescript and photocopy. One arresting exception is the "Social Contract of the Universe", by C. G. Stone a most ambitious piece of deduction. There are also the works of LL White and George Melhuish, and in the United States, Ayn Rand, strenuous exponent of objectivism and self-interest." It is available on Amazon's look inside, [1]. --Slp1 (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! So I suppose the Rand-relevant claim would be something like "In a discussion of amateur philosophical systems, [adjective here] Anthony Quinton cited Objectivism as one of the few examples from the twentieth century which made their way into print". Cite: Quinton, Anthony (1995). "Popular Philosophy". In Honderich, Ted (ed.). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford, Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198661320. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |separator= ignored (help). This would seem most relevant to the Philosophy and Legacy sections. Thoughts? Skomorokh 13:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Amateur is not accurate because Ayn Rand was paid for her work. If we need say anything at all, then Popular follows the source in a more accurate way. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That seems a strange statement given that Quinton specifically uses the term amateur twice. Amateur does not imply payment/non-payment; as an adjective it means something coming from a non-professional and/or one lacking in experience or competence.[2]. --Slp1 (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I can see both sides of the argument here, but note that in my proposed wording above, Wikipedia is not calling Rand amateur, all we are saying is that Quinton discusses Rand in the context of amateur philosophy. If we put this in the Legacy section, the reader ought to already know very well from the biographical sections Rand's degree of amateurishness or lack thereof. Skomorokh 14:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no logic in this. Quinton does not merely discuss Rand 'in the context of amateur philosophy', he gives her as an example of an amateur philosopher. Earlier in the section he makes clear that by 'amateur' he means self-taught, a product of mass education and mass literacy. He also says that Coleridge is 'too substantial' to count as an amateur. So it is clear what he means. Peter Damian (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear from the quote provided above that Quinton "gives her as an example of an amateur philosopher"; if you can supply a citation where he does this, then by all means we can put it in. Skomorokh 18:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Its surely clear that the quote states that she is an example of an amateur whose work got published. --Snowded (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

As a reply to those who say that Rand earned money for her work. Not correct: she earned money for her romantic fiction. This is not the same as philosophy.Peter Damian (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Her non-fiction philosophy books and collections earned her quite a significant amount of money, without doubt. Skomorokh 18:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

⬅ I think it is reasonable to state that Quinton uses her as a illustration of an amateur philosopher who made it into print (the word amateur is not necessarily linked to be paid), it is not reasonable to remove the material as it is one of the very few references to Rand in any of the various encyclopaedias and directories of philosophy. Quinton is clearly calling Rand an amateur by the way. --Snowded (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Snowded is mistaken as a brief search indicates that there are better sources to be found in works of this sort. For example, see the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy which contains a good entry for our topic. We need not glean other sources for passing mentions when we have better material to work from. This source talks of her popular success and says nothing of amateurism in any sense of the word so our presentation should state the former, rather than the latter. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If you check back in the history of this talk page you will find a large number of ones where she is not referenced (and where if she had any international recognition you would expect her to be listed). The Quinton quote is reliable and provides balance (I trust by "better" you do not intend "more favourable"). The Routledge one you reference makes the point that her novels are the primary way in which any philosophy is expressed. --Snowded (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Snowded. Ask yourself why Rand only gets 'passing mention'? Could that be because her work is in fact largely ignored? However the Routledge is no less objective. Routledge "Rand's political theory is of little interest .. her attempts [to solve her rejection of anarchism with her hostility to the state] are ill-thought out and unsystematic". "Of more enduring interest is her fiction, belonging to a genre she labelled 'romantic realism'." It says that her work "has attracted little attention from academic philosophers". Peter Damian (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

As academic philosophers take little interest in our topic, it follows that, in general, they are not a good source for it. We may thus dispense with the The Oxford Companion to Philosophy which does not address the topic directly. Are we done with this section now? Colonel Warden (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, just make the article about her as a novelist and its done, otherwise all the points above stand. --Snowded (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"As academic philosophers take little interest in our topic, it follows that, in general, they are not a good source for it. " This is easily one of the stupidest things you have said. Which is something in itself. Peter Damian (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

removing more rubbish

I removed this sentence and the long incoherent and rambling citations that were meant to support it.

Rand held her metaphysical, epistemological and ethical views to be fundamental, saying "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason."

The sentence gives no explanation of what 'metaphysical, epistemological and ethical' means, and it does not say why they are fundamental. It mentions 'egoism' but without any explanation of what egoism is. Peter Damian (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone (an IP) asked for more discussion on my removal and reversion. I don't think we can say anything in the introduction about Rand's belief that her political views could be derived from basic and fundamental principles (identity and existence and so forth) without also mentioning the view held by all serious philosophers that her belief was simply mistaken. By all means say that she believed her views could be founded in this way. Peter Damian (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"She continues to be influential and Atlas Shrugged continues to sell well, especially since the Financial crisis of 2007–2009."

What is this sentence supposed to mean? Influential with whom? If she has sold well because of the financial crisis, then the reason should be explained. And why is this sentence in the introduction? Peter Damian (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's an example of recentism and does not belong in the introduction, though a line might not be out of place in the legacy or Atlas Shrugged sections. Skomorokh 18:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to summarise the topic. The point being made here is that Rand's views are not just historical but still have a significant following. User:Peter Damian asks who she is influential with. The Routledge source above tells us that she is or was influential with college students, while other sources indicate that she has a following among significant people such as Alan Greenspan and Brad Pitt. The Economist and other journals recently reported that sales of Atlas Shrugged have spiked since the credit crunch and even outsell Barack Obama. The contemporary nature of her following seems significant and so the lead should summarise this - currently it says nothing. Her lack of standing with academic philosophers might be mentioned too but we should not give this undue weight as they do not seem to command the field of political philosophy in which there are many players. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Since we need some citations for these kinds of suggestions, here are a few The Guardian]; the Daily Telegraph;The Village Voice (which contains an interesting caveat); another Guardian article--Slp1 (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The references are useful, looks like they pick up on a Ayn Rand centre press release and speculate about "The Strike", interesting three of the four are left wing and have an ironic or satirical tone. Interesting also that the edit translated briefly "outselling Obama" to "outselling Obama" (repeated by the Colonel above) which is par for the course on the use of evidence. Concur with Skomorokh on this. --Snowded (talk) 03:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yet more rubbish

I haven't deleted the most recent version yet, but here it is (the three consecutive sentences separated by bullets)

• Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism, is derived from the Aristotelian tradition; naturalist in metaphysics, empiricist in epistemology, and promoting self-realization in ethics.
• Objectivism is firmly individualist, emphasizing an ethical egoism of rational self-interest and self-responsibility.
• Rand's political views, reflected in both her fiction and her theoretical work, emphasize individualism, laissez-faire capitalism, and the constitutional protection of the right to life, liberty, and property.

The first sentence is drawn from Hicks, but that is not an independent source. I think a lot of homework is needed to derive Objectivism 'from the Aristotelian tradition'. Particularly as Rand probably never read Aristotle (or at least seems consistently to have misunderstood him). The second sentence seems to say the same thing in slightly different ways, without adding anything to our understanding of Rand's philosophy. The third sentence is also drawn from Hicks - indeed it is a remnant of the original intro I wrote in January, minus the label of 'classical liberalism'.

As I said, I refuse to contribute to this train wreck, I am just going to hack it to pieces from the sidelines until someone decides to write something clear, sensible and well-sourced. Peter Damian (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Peter - the changes should be reverted and discussed here first. --Snowded (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but anyone who claims that "a lot of homework is needed to derive Objectivism 'from the Aristotelian tradition'" is profoundly ignorant of the topic at hand and without question unfamiliar with the secondary literature. The lead as it stood described nothing of Rand's philosophy; the addition was entirely taken from reliable sources. Skomorokh 03:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Rand's metaphysics may be firmly Aristotelian, however the ethics and other philosophy she "derives" from them definitely are not. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

As for Rand supporting "the constitutional protection of the right to life, liberty, and property," is it really a sufficiently distinctive position to be mentioned in the introduction?KD Tries Again (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Yes. Absolutely. It's critical to her philosophy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

My point is that the fifth amendment offers constitutional protection precisely to "life, liberty, or property" - so what's critical about her taking that position?KD Tries Again (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Much of the article is little more than crass sloganeering.CABlankenship (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe this is justified in the introduction, as Rand did not emphasise this point as an integral belief of hers. Skomorokh 03:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

She certainly advocated those ideals. But the wording should be based on the best sources. Individual libery rather than liberty might be more accurate, but certainly property. Life is a bit abstract I suppose. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Skomorokh is right Rand was most specficially for the individual as the determiner of truth. You can call that Aristotle if you want (which would be correct). The tools Rand uses to arrive at truth is an objective view (one without emotion per se) and then an integral take on "common ground" between the opposing positions. This is dialectical yes but also syllogism. Rand is a syntheists philosophy is sobornost just like Sciabaara showed in his book Ayn Rand the Russian Radical. Rand was using very Russian cultural philosophical approachs to "create" a philosophy that was a logical argument to the socialism of Russia. Sobornost was a democractic idea in Russia during the Tatar occupation for example that taught the rule of individuals who could collectively and spontaniously organized to attack and defeat big problems that faced the collective. You only needed sobornost when you needed it. You'll find allot of her ideas came from Dostoevsky, Lev Shestov, Illyin and of course Nikolai Chernyshevsky's What Is to Be Done? (though Notes from Underground pulls all of her romantic teeth and undermines the idea that logic or reason is the absolute litmus for the truth). Russians today will tell that Rand was very much in the vein of the socialism that they endured in Russia. If you read Chernyshevsky and Zamyatin you'll see that socialism was supposed to the logical or ration and reasoned approach to reality while any opposition to it was considered slavophile conservative and mystic. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There's the introduction right there! I regret to say that the central tenet of Shestov's philosophy, repeated throughout his works, is that A does not necessarily equal A. Are you arguing that Rand should be treated as some sort of covert irrationalist? This page is endlessly diverting.KD Tries Again (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

!Bah! Shetov was nothing but someone who tried to say Dostoevsky and Nietzsche where the same- which is completely wrong. Sciabarra shows how Nietzsche got most of his irractional premise directly from Dostoevsky's Notes from underground. Syllogism is axiology. A is A is no different then the one who started it, which was Dostoevsky!

2 + 2 = 4 but 2 + 2 = 5 is sometimes just as nice. Propaganda is rubbish!! Propaganda is filthy poshlust!

LoveMonkey (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No, Sciabarra shows an extensive influence of Nietzsche on the Russian symbolists, but suggests that the neo-Idealists were more likely directly influenced by Dostoyevsky, who himself influenced Nietzsche. That's rather more subtle. As for Shestov, he certainly regarded Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche as "kindred spirits" but also drew a sharp distinction between their responses to the "underground man" problem (see section 29 of Dostoevsky and Nietzsche : The Philosophy of Tragedy). I'm afraid I don't follow the rest of your comments; A=A is hardly a syllogism, and I suspect you may be conflating axiology with the study of logical axioms - which it isn't.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Sciabarra wrote that Nietzsche wrote on Dostoevsky how you can comment what you wrote on what I posted makes no sense. Here a fun one-[3] what does this from the blood mean? At best your response will be that you still don't understand. Lets start here for clarity.[4] As for the underground man, why did I mention it? Shetov can be disregarded one does not have to agree with him. And Nietzche quite clearly disliked Dostoevsky's christianity and made comments to that effect[5]. No one can accuse Nietzsche of taking the high ground. As to here is one of the conflicts I am relating to in my comments. [6]As for your comments that axiology is not the study of value and existence I can only say "all is immanent in all".[7] Value and existence is still value and existence. Rather that be a painting or a pickup truck. A=A is as much logic as trying to talk to people on this talkpage in that it shows just how much as waste of time such an activity is. As we can try to address it as N. O. Lossky did [8]. Or "my mother's mother is my grandmother" is not subjective it is not opinion is an axiom of logic.

LoveMonkey (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
P.S. here is my response to the cultish comments about Rand. [9]. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that axiology was not the study of value; that's exactly what it is. You had said that "syllogism is axiology," a claim I certainly still do not understand. I am happy to disregard Shestov; you cited him as someone from whom Rand derived "a lot of her ideas;" since Shestov utterly rejects the concept of objective truth and the universal validity of identity judgments like A=A, I was expressing amazement. Of course he should be disregarded, as should Chernyshevsky and Zamyatin, not to mention the nihilist Pisarev. It's worth noting that Sciabarra's interpretation of some of these figures is questionable, and if we have to start introducing balance to his views - on Russian philosophers - the article will become quite unwieldy (you should hesitate to have too much confidence in an author who can describe Schiller as a "nineteenth century romantic"). Who accused Nietzsche of taking "the high ground"? With all due respect, I think this discussion probably is a waste of time. A section on Stirner would be more appropriate, if anything.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Sure you did stop projecting. Axiom is axiom. The study of axiom is axiology. A=A. As for Nietzsche and Dostoevsky here's one without Professor Sciabarra. [10] LoveMonkey (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you were confused then. Axiology is not the study of axioms, despite the common Greek root. It's the study of criteria for value judgments, especially ethical judgments. A=A is, of course, the principle of identity, and not a topic in axiology. All I have said about Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche is that Shestov didn't claim that they "where the same" (sic); so I think you're arguing with yourself there. Unless there's a practical proposal here for editing the article, I fear we are wasting space.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

More Projecting I did not introduce A=A thats you nor did I say the axiology is syllogism thats you projecting and putting words in my mouth. [11] Again "all is immanent in all". Now if we can show how Aristotle and Rand proposed that the individual was the determiner of truth this discourse might redeem itself. Here a better example of axiology

For all things A, B, and C, A is better for C than B is just in case the set of all of the right kind of reasons to choose A over B on C's behalf is weightier than the set of all of the right kind of reasons to choose B over A on C's behalf.

LoveMonkey (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Since I assume you are in good faith, I can only suppose you are a little absent-minded today. This was you:

"!Bah! Shetov was nothing but someone who tried to say Dostoevsky and Nietzsche where the same- which is completely wrong. Sciabarra shows how Nietzsche got most of his irractional premise directly from Dostoevsky's Notes from underground. Syllogism is axiology. A is A is no different then the one who started it, which was Dostoevsky! 2 + 2 = 4 but 2 + 2 = 5 is sometimes just as nice. Propaganda is rubbish!! Propaganda is filthy poshlust! LoveMonkey (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)"

Emphasis added.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

What do you think I am saying when I posted?- Propaganda is rubbish!! Propaganda is filthy poshlust! As in who determines the truth?

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Again-Now if we can show how Aristotle and Rand proposed that the individual was the determiner of truth this discourse might redeem itself.

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You tell me.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again.

N.O. Lossky wrote on Rand's philosophy. Lossky stated that the philosophy of selfishness does not work. It does not work because it's axiology is selfishness. Look at the Stanford link for the def of Value theory. OK... Now lets start here.

3.3 Agent-Relative Value?

3.3.1 Agent-Centered Constraints Plausibly the most central, in-principle problem for classical consequentialism is the possibility of what are called agent-centered constraints. It has long been a traditional objection to utilitarian theories that because they place no intrinsic disvalue on wrong actions like murder, they yield the prediction that if you have a choice between murdering and allowing two people to die, it is clear that you should murder. After all, other things being equal, the situation is stacked 2-to-1 — there are two deaths on one side, but only one death on the other, and each death is equally bad.

So here is what is right or what is truthful consequentialism?

Are Aristotle's ethics deontic, consequential or noetic? [12][13]LoveMonkey (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Now is eudemonia and Entelechy what Rand was purposing?

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A general discussion of ethical theories is not an appropriate use of the talk page. I thought you were proposing incorporating some statements about Rand's relationship to certain Russian thinkers and schools of thought.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I am purposing that Rand's philosophy draws it's ethics from Aristotle. I am purposing that what you have been saying is inconsistent with what N.O. Lossky taught. I believe he taught this to his students about Aristotle and I believe that one of those students was Ayn Rand. Eudemonia and Entelechy. Rand's philsophy has ethics those ethics are based on Aristotle. N. O. Lossky taught this as well, (about Aristotle).

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've said that axiology is not the study of axioms, that Shestov rejected the principle of identity, and that he did not state that Dostoyevsky and Nietzche were "the same". If Lossky disagrees about any of this, I'm awfully sorry (look up "axiology" in a dictionary). I haven't taken any position on Aristotle. Now you draw my attention to it, I do see that the noesis article is another Wiki philosophy horror story.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Here is the second half of the axiology part I asked you to consider.

But the problem is very closely related to what is an in-principle problem for consequentialism. What if you could prevent two murders by murdering? Postulating an intrinsic disvalue to murders does nothing to account for the intuition that you still ought not to murder, even in this case. But most people find it pre-theoretically natural to assume that even if you should murder in order to prevent thousands of murders, you shouldn't do it in order to prevent just two. The constraint against murdering, on this natural intuition, goes beyond the idea that murders are bad. It requires that the badness of your own murders affects what you should do more than it affects what others should do in order to prevent you from murdering. That is why it is called “agent-centered”.

If Rand taught Aristotle's eudemonia (which she did) then why is she supposed to be thought of "as Rand probably never read Aristotle (or at least seems consistently to have misunderstood him)." I think that was what started my endorsement of Skomorokh but now your onto somrthing else. If you want to clean up the noesis article please do.. But cleaning it up - is off topic HERE. Like I am saying Dostoevsky stated 2 + 2 =5 as a response to propaganda. Shitov doesn't own it and Rand was not first, it is a staple of Russian philosophy even before Victor Hugo...

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The limits of Aristotle also relate to the limits of Randian Objectivism. If one be not a psychopath or sociopath then one must know that what is good for their self interest[14] is also to include noesis. Noesis means sometimes our goals hurt or destroy and all of the logic in the world will not silence that noetic understanding that exploiting people is harming or damaging them. This is a very loose interpretation of Lossky. This Noesis is missing from Rands' Eudaimonism.

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Russian philosophy before Victor Hugo should be an article all to itself. Shestov - is there a problem spelling his name? - was citing Dostoyevskyt, of course. But let's by all means not interrupt Lossky. Part of me would love to know whether you are claiming that Rand followed Dostoyevsky and Shestov in questioning the principle of identity, but someone change the subject, please.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Yes or put a T at the end of Dostoevsky.

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Full circle. I found the passage I was referring to in Professor Sciabarra's work.. The Rand and Aristotle connection. In Ayn Rand the Russian Radical-[15] So Rand's philosophy is related to Aristotle. So why the sarcastic comments and wasteful fighting?

LoveMonkey (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"This is not a forum for general discussion about Ayn Rand; any such comments will be removed."

1. Read.
2. Understand.
3. Post.
   

TallNapoleon (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

OK now that is being disruptive. I am discussing if Rand can be logically shown to have been influenced by Aristotle. To also show if there is evidence she even read Aristotle to including comments into the article to that effect. That it is valid that she read Aristotle and that she understood him. Your behaviour is disruptive and counter productive.

LoveMonkey (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, please seek help about this. This is not the place Peter Damian (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I left another message on Wales' talk page. Not that it will help, he will do f--- all, but it relieves the pain and the agony. Peter Damian (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

So did Rand read Aristotle?

There evidence that Rand did not read Aristotle (or at least did not understand him) are as follows:

• She claims that the celebrated principle 'A = A' is Aristotelian. It isn't. Certain nineteenth-century popular works about Aristotle did claim this, which suggests (possibly) where Rand derived her ideas about Aristotle.
• This excellent critique by Michael Huemer also claims that Rand probably did not read (or did not understand) Aristotle. Rand's claim that Aristotle "left unanswered the questions of" why noble & wise people do as they do, and "why he evaluated them as noble and wise." completely overlooks Aristotle's discussions of the function of man and of the nature of the virtues in the Nicomachean Ethics. "Perhaps Aristotle's answers to the above questions are wrong, but it is grossly inaccurate to imply that he had nothing to say about them. " "I do not think Rand was openly dishonest: she was not deliberately trying to manipulate an ignorant reader by lying about the history of philosophy....I do not see how to avoid concluding that she was very ignorant of the history of her subject. I believe that this explains, in part, why her ethics is so flawed."

Peter Damian (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

From above. I found the passage I was referring to in Professor Sciabarra's work.. The Rand and Aristotle connection. In Ayn Rand the Russian Radical-[16] If Rand took a course from N. O. Lossky then she has to have read Aristotle. Guess what- Rand is documented to have taken a course from N. O. Lossky. Here's just something in passing[17].Joseph Rowlands

LoveMonkey (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You are severely deranged. Perhaps you should go and seek help. Meanwhile, keep off this page. Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about and also why are you engaged in personal attacks. Also why are you being allowed to be hateful and disrespectful and post comments like this? LoveMonkey (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about you. You clearly have a serious problem and I'm afraid there is nothing I can do to help in this virtual world - can I ask you politely to leave this talk page? Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The person screaming and yelling and having an emotional breakdown all over wikipedia including JimmyWales talkpage as well as DGG's and calling content rubbish and threatening to tear this article to pieces is not me BUT YOU. You are the one who has repeatedly engaged in hateful and disruptive conduct. The other editors here egging you on with comments on your talkpage and here, are also contributing and justifying your behavior. They have already gotten banned as you keep pointing out. You dont know me and you have no justification for your comments, harassment or behavior. My comments are sourced, I have not behaved as you did and then called you a lunatic or deranged.

LoveMonkey (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Peter's comments are highly inappropriate. I highly recommend that he retract them. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, it was you that posted about Shestov, Chernyshevsky, Zamyatin, etc - I am still not sure why or what you intended to say. I was responding to that, and to your odd comments about axiology. You have been busy creating plenty of content on Wikipedia about Lossky, his concept of noesis, and the faults of positivism - which you even brought to the existentialism page. I have no objection to the Rand article mentioning that she studied, however briefly, under Lossky. It does not follow that she read Aristotle. Plenty of students I taught didn't read what I assigned them. Rand's superficial remarks about Aristotle are what they are. What do you want to add to the article (other than yet more material on Lossky)?KD Tries Again (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

OK that seems a step in the right direction.. But it seems that both Lossky and Sciabarra disagree. I will try to address this further before adding it to the article, it appears however that I can not count on this talkpage to be civil. You will at least admit that N.O. Lossky read Aristotle, no? I am courious about the A=A as a comment as not being the same as 2 + 2 = 5 as an anti-authority statement consistent with Rand.

LoveMonkey (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing against Lossky, and am willing to believe he read whatever he says he read. That he taught Rand is interesting (whether or not true, I acknowledge there's a source for the claim). I would strongly caution about bringing an undue emphasis on Lossky's own thought to this article, which is already sufficiently bogged down. I applaud your interest in Lossky - anyone can see that you have been editing the Wikipedia article on Lossky for the last three years!KD Tries Again (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Yes this is fair. Lossky bitterly disagreed with selfishness he proclaimed it satanic. But he was very respectful and still loved freedom and free will. His socialism is equality under the law only (well sort of). Yes you are right undue weight would be to push Lossky's conservative position (slavophile) over Rand's liberial position (in the Russian paradigm). LoveMonkey (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Books Ranking

Typically book ranking information doesn't appear in articles. Furthermore, it doesn't say whose rankings. Are they Amazon's? The NYT's? Whose? TallNapoleon (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Do these book rankings matter? Should they be kept? It sounds more like advertising than anything else. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wundt is A=A

Considering the shameful, disruptive, hateful and disrespectful display by Peter Damian I would like to request that a link I have noticed and came to the talkpage here to address might be addressed by editors other the Peter Damian. I think that is completely reasonable. Since any logical or historical proof which links Rand with Aristotle will cause Peter Damian to become offended and march off to Jimbo's talkpage and make all kinds of absurd and hateful personal attacks I am hopeful that he would follow his own advice and stay away from the talkpage. Now in the N. O. Lossky article it is noted that Lossky worked under Wilhelm Wundt. Did he or didn't he, my sources (including Lossky himself say he did). Now why can N. O. Lossky and Rand not use Wundt? Is there any clear logical objection to Wundt's work on Law of Identity? Please clarify. Clarify please without hostility and harassment. That way Lossky's "all is immanent in all" can then be properly addressed and added into the section here. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR, and WP:WEIGHT. If there's a connection between Wundt and Rand, there will be sources that talk about it. If that connection is discussed widely in the sources, then we can include it without violating WP:WEIGHT. Otherwise we would be violating numerous WP guidelines. Furthermore, Lossky's relationship to Wundt is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand, namely Ayn Rand. Frankly all of this discussion of Lossky is largely irrelevant; at most it should be mentioned that Rand studied under him at college. Look Love, if you want to show that Rand read Aristotle, you need a source SAYING she read Aristotle. Anything else is synthesis. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are inconsistent with what is being discussed. You maybe are not following the discussion? A=A is Wundt, Wundt taught Lossky Lossky taught Rand. Because A=A is not explicitly stated by Aristotle does not mean Rand did not read and or understand Aristotle. This comment below from User talk:KD Tries Again is what I am addressing..

"It does not follow that she read Aristotle. Plenty of students I taught didn't read what I assigned them. Rand's superficial remarks about Aristotle are what they are."

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Again so what is the reason behind making such a statement SPECIFICALLY what logic is behind User talk:KD Tries Again stating -

"It does not follow that she read Aristotle. Plenty of students I taught didn't read what I assigned them. Rand's superficial remarks about Aristotle are what they are."

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No, my point is that this entire discussion is a pointless tangent. If you want to show that Rand read Aristotle, find a source that says so. Wundt does not matter, unless you can find a source detailing his influence. Lossky matters only slightly more. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And now I repeat such a source FOR THE THIRD TIME.

Full circle. I found the passage I was referring to in Professor Sciabarra's work.. The Rand and Aristotle connection. In Ayn Rand the Russian Radical-[18] So Rand's philosophy is related to Aristotle. So why the sarcastic comments and wasteful fighting?

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
This comment and posting above with the sourcing in it is what got me called insane by Peter Damian.. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC) The entire discussion has been that even with sourcing Peter and KD are stating that Rand did not read and or properly understand Aristotle and then Peter is calling me insane for posting that sourcing states Rand read Aristotle and understood Aristotle (albeit from a Russian cultural perspective). LoveMonkey (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wundt is mentioned only in the briefest passing, and then only as an influence on Lossky. Furthermore there are issues of weight, and the fact that Sciabarra is NOT an objective source; he is an objectivist himself. Furthermore the source provided only attempts to place Rand within the Aristotelian tradition, not, as far as I can see, state whether she read or understood him. Again, if you want to say Rand read Aristotle, you need a source that says so explicitly. Frankly I don't think it is necessary to state that explicitly at all. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope- source -Sciabarra was peer reviewed by SUNY, source if you read also names another source for the belief that Rand read Aristotle. You are being disruptive and appearing to create frustration by constantly changing your criteria once the already established WP:SOURCE has been met. You are appearing as if you can make Wikipedia policy. And your policy is that you are insatiable. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Then why are you wasting our time with Wundt?! If the source said she read Aristotle (which I didn't see in my five minute skim of the pages you provided) just cite it and be done with it. I don't even see why it's necessary to include that. All one needs to say is that Rand claimed intellectual kinship with Aristotle. All of this runaround about Lossky, Wundt et. al. is totally irrelevant to the question at hand and frankly exhausting. TallNapoleon (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Then why are you wasting our time with stating the source is invalid and then making me argue with you that it is not?! Why do you think I asked for clarification? If it so obvious to you then why are you even responding with opposition AT ALL? You should not have to wonder why you are banned from editing this article by the behaviour you have just exhibited. What are you doing? Projecting on my that I'm wasting time...

LoveMonkey (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I repeat what opposition is to the source I provided?? Again without posting on Jimmy Wales talkpage that I am insane. What is the opposition? What is the criteria or logic behind the comment

"It does not follow that she read Aristotle. Plenty of students I taught didn't read what I assigned them. Rand's superficial remarks about Aristotle are what they are."

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
As this from the Lossky BIO article states.

"Lossky undertook post-graduate studies in Germany under Wilhelm Windelband, Wilhelm Wundt and G. E. Müller, receiving a Master's degree in 1903 and a Doctorate in 1907."

Rand is justified in using Wundt's A=A and this does not invalidate her position or show that she did not read Aristotle and that if she did she did not misunderstand Aristotle. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Frank O'Connor Link

This links to a different Frank O'Connor, so it should be delinked. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)