Talk:Objectivism

Article Cross Talk

Use of cross-talk page

There doesn't seem to be much use of the Objectivism cross-talk page lately. I'm the only one who has used it since February. Is it still relevant? --RL0919 (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps not. Although I love it, I have to say it now seems like an esoteric feature. Karbinski (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

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)

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

• 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

As a minor logistical point, the guideline for citing a website should be properly followed. --Karbinski (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

• 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?

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

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. [1]

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)