Jump to content

Talk:Objectivism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeObjectivism was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 3, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed


Ignored - Bias

[edit]

"Academic philosophers have mostly ignored or rejected Rand's philosophy." This is a clear well-poisoning propaganda technique. If you want to put that into a criticism section, that's one thing, but to conclude the introduction of the article with "well it's basically bullsh!t, but those crazy lolbertarians believe in it anyway!" is blatant duplicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.191.15.34 (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but with that many high quality citations it's unlikely to be just an opinion. Noting its influence is absolutely fine for a lead. Prinsgezinde (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. I believe a middle ground would be to start the sentence with "many" rather than globalize unfairly. 66.87.134.225 (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That would be WP:WEASEL. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since various editors (or maybe just one using multiple IPs/accounts – it's hard to tell) continue to try to whitewash and deny what the sources say, I am going to lay out the statements from multiple academic secondary sources:

  • Sciabara, Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical: "academics have often dismissed her 'Objectivist' ideas as 'pop' philosophy"
  • "Ayn Rand" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "only a few professional philosophers have taken her work seriously". Later, after describing Rand's critical attitude towards most philosophers, they add: "Some contemporary philosophers return the compliment by dismissing her work contemptuously on the basis of hearsay. ... she is either mentioned in passing, or not mentioned at all, in the [SEP] entries that discuss current philosophical thought..."
  • Gotthelf, On Ayn Rand: "she still gets little attention in academic philosophical journals and courses"
  • "Ayn Rand (1905–1982)" in Contemporary Women Philosophers: 1900–today: "Objectivist philosophy is regularly omitted from academic philosophy"
  • Machan, Ayn Rand: "Ayn Rand is a popular novelist but not popular among philosophers, and not even given due respect"
  • Burns, 1957: The Year that Launched the American Future: "nobody in the academe pays any attention to her, neither as an author nor a philosopher"
  • Brühwiler, Out of a Gray Fog: Ayn Rand's Europe: "academia ... tends to treat Rand as a fringe phenomenon not worthy of further consideration. ... neither author nor oeuvre has received much attention from scholars in literary criticism, philosophy, or political science"
  • Cocks, Questioning Ayn Rand: "a stubborn resolve to ignore or ridicule [Rand's] work has long been established as an acceptable critical response"

These sources show how academics describe the way other academics regard Rand and Objectivism, and they support the phrasings of "ignored" ("not mentioned at all", "little attention", "nobody ... pays any attention", "ignore", "not worthy of further consideration", "little attention") or "rejected" ("dismissed", "dismissing her work contemptuously", "ridicule"). Some of these authors indicate that academic interest in Objectivism is increasing, but from a small base that is not close to being a majority. I've updated the sentence in the article with some of the more recent sources, as well as adding sources specific to the other part of the sentence (about the existence of some pro-Objectivist academics). --RL0919 (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, many of those sources are ironically written by academic libertarians, inspired by her and writing books about her, using victimization tactics hinting that she gets undue weight. Nuances that aren't taken into account in the Wikipedia article. It's also weird to suggest that someone with an entry in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is ignored at all. She is found in many encyclopedias, by the way. You are of course also failing to take the nuances into account in that very source that uses the word "ignore". Cocks describe it as a "stubborn resolve to ...". Anyway. It is in all instances too simplified. We should try to reword it something alike those lines that you can find on the Ayn Rand Wikipedia page.
"Although academic interest in her ideas has grown since her death, academic philosophers have generally ignored or rejected her philosophy because of her polemical approach and lack of methodological rigor. Her writings have politically influenced some right-libertarians and conservatives. The Objectivist movement attempts to circulate her ideas, both to the public and in academic settings."
It appears like that her ideas were mostly rejected in its native form, but inspired academics to develop it into something worth to consider in the following years from 80's. It's the same story you can read in the article Objectivist movement - Wikipedia below Objectivism in academia.
But I don't have time, but I hope there are people out there taking NPOV seriosly. I will remove "ignore" because it's redundant and misuses the soure. But it isn't enough. 213.237.93.149 (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's by the way a bit strange to argue this on Wikipedia whose founder has described himself as an objectivist. 213.237.93.149 (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not strange when people working on a project have another viewpoint than the founder of that project. It is strange that you think that variety of opinion is strange - maybe you live in a dictatorship with an ideological monoculture, but most of us do not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You ignore the entire point I was making. I agree, it wasn't very relevant, but
Jimmy was 'in September 2017, he was awarded the President's Medal of the British Academy "for facilitating the spread of information via his work creating and developing Wikipedia, the world's largest free online encyclopedia'. Anyway. 213.237.93.149 (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You also hint that I'm against different viewpoints, but my effort is only increasing the nuances and NPOV. I haven't even removed any viewpoints, just reduced the reduncancy. 213.237.93.149 (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I ignore lots of things because my time is not infinite. My response was a response to that one line, as you can see from the indentation. I did not respond to other stuff you have talked about because I had no reason to. I also have no duty to respond to everything everybody writes. And I do not hint at what you claim I hint at. Please stop this. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy Sup. Do you have any inputs to what I have already written? Let's enter a dialogue. The sources use many different words for "rejection", but what's the point of going through every synonym? I will go the other way - keeping "ignore" and removing "rejecting" - if no one disagrees. Under all circumstances it's flawed as it is now because servere nuances are lacking as explained. I hope you find a solution. Cheers 213.237.93.149 (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My input is this: on Wikipedia we go with what the sources say, so what you need to provide to support your edit is sources that show that this is, in fact, taken seriously by a mainstream of philosophers. I don't see any of those above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find it strange that the IP editor encourages using the wording in the Ayn Rand article, then immediately proposes removing words that are used in that article. Also, 'ignore' and 'reject' are not redundant since they describe different reactions. Which is actually another oddity in the argument: saying that "nuances" are missing, while trying to make the wording less nuanced by reducing the range of reactions described. One could get the impression that the argument is secondary to the desire to remove the offending words. --RL0919 (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, @RL0919, @Sirfurboy. But you misunderstand Wikipedia policies. Sources are only reliable within its area of expertise. What we are talking about isn't a discussion of philosophy, but how much ideas have been spread (within academic settings btw) - something akin to survey research or intellectual history. With regards to nuances, we should talk about how she had no academic influence from the beginning, but received more after her death because that appears to be the story. It could also be nice if RL0919 could give us insight into the entire paragraphs where he found those passages, so we could capture the nuances - many of those passages don't even show the entire sentences which make them kind of useless.
Anyway, I understand your concerns, and I will show good-faith, so I will use the wording that appears to be most common according to your sources. That is "paid little attention to" ish and "dismiss". 213.237.93.149 (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

[edit]

Why is it felt that the statement about how academics often rejected her seen as a biased statement? As an objectivist one should desire your information be delivered objectively and that statement is completely objective. Despite completely agree with Rand's work, it is an objectively true fact that many scholars did in fact reject her work, so how is it biased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartysGospel (talk • contribs) 01:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 February 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


– This use of "Objectivism" is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as demonstrated by the page view stats of the uses listed at the dab page currently at Objectivism, not to mention that the only other significant use of "objectivism" covered on WP, Objectivity (philosophy), is arguably better known as objectivity, not objectivism. In any case, use of the Randian philosophical "objectivism" garners far more interest on WP, making the Randian use the primary topic, since page views of all other uses are negligible. This finding is bolstered by the WP:GOOGLETEST: searching for "objectivism", putting aside the dictionary definition per WP:NOTADICT, yields pages full of references to the Rand connotations, with very few others. The reflected titles should accurately reflect that this use is the primary topic. В²C ☎ 21:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)--В²C ☎ 21:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

This move was a bad idea, made with very little input. I don't have the time or energy to fight for a return to the status quo ante but if anyone in the future wants to fight that fight, this is me registering my support for them. I see Snowded made many good arguments in the last discussion about it 12 years ago, and I pretty much agree with him about that. --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Development by other authors" needs rework

[edit]

The title is highly dubiously worded, considering Objectivism is defined as "the philosophy of Ayn Rand" and as such is a "closed system". It is fully valid to work "on" or "developing" philosophy in the vein of Objectivism, in any other sense than to fundamentally change it, but none other than Rand could create it and in such ways lay down the content of the philosophy itself. It is capital "Objectivism", after all, rather than merely a working theory still being formed or that could take any contradictory or random turns. 83.255.180.77 (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Objectivism&oldid=1233707347"