Archive 1: October 2002 to August 2004

Quote : "She also encountered the philosophical ideas of Nietzsche, and loved his exaltation of the heroic and independent individual in Thus Spake Zarathustra. However, her enthusiasm soon waned due to Nietzsche's nihilism and psychological determinism; and she condemned his attack on rationality."

Sorry im going to have to remove the sentences after "Thus Spake Zaruthustra". It is incorrect because 1) Nietzsche was not a advocator of nihilism but rather despised it and condemned Christianity as being a 'nihilist religion'. However, he was the first to encounter nihilism and explore it, his beliefs on the 'ubermensch' have often been skewed as being called 'the nihilist philosopher' when actually it was the 'life affirming philosopher' who first used a nihilistic deconstruction of values and morals and formed his own free from influence. I don't believe Ayn Rand slated Nietzsche's "Psychological Determinism" as this would be quite contradictory from her own philosophies (which was largely influenced by Nietzschean philosophy and the Crime and punishment book which isn't to far off the mark from Nietzsche). --Raddicks 00:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About my edit of September 3, 2004.

In the documentation included with the deluxe edition of the 1988 VHS release of the re-edited We the Living (1942) films, the story of the Italian version was told with considerably more first-hand information than I have seen elsewhere. According to a letter to We the Living (1988) co-producer Duncan Scott from Massimo Ferrara-Santamaria, the producer of the 1942 films, he chose to produce We the Living after the book was suggested to him by his cousin Bruna Scalera. He hired Orio Vergani and Coreado Alvaro to write the screenplay.

Naturally all films produced in Mussolini's Italy were subject to prior censorship, so the project documentation was submitted to the Ministry of Culture. Authorization to proceed could hardly be equated with "the endorsement of the Italian government under Benito Mussolini". Even so, authorization was refused on the grounds that the screenwriters were "old-fashioned intellectuals outside of the Fascist ideology". This alone should be enough to bury the notion that somehow this was a government project. Ferrara-Santamaria managed to pull strings with film producer Vittorio Mussolini, son of the dictator, who "convinced Minister Pavolini to authorize this film production." Perhaps Vittorio told Pavolini that it was good anti-communist propaganda, and that is how the story of the purpose of the production got started. Or perhaps someone knows of better sources for this story than second- or third-hand accounts.

Another document in the deluxe VHS edition, "A Film Discovered" further verifies the fact that We the Living (1942) was made despite resistance from the Italian government. Another screenwriter on the project, Anton Giulio Majano, said that an official from the Ministry of Culture arrived on set during the filming and announced that the film would have to be screened that night at the Ministry. As Majano remembers, "We rushed to the editing room and spent all day cutting out the dangerous scenes - all the anti-Fascist scenes - for that screening. That night it looked like an inquisition, They kept asking, 'Is that all there is? Is that It?'"

Five or six months after the Italian release of We the Living(1942), the Fascist Party ordered the seizure of the films, and Ferrara-Santamaria was ordered stripped of his party membership, university post, and position at Scalera Films. Considering the effort and risks taken by the creators of these films, anti-totalitarian oases inside the propaganda wasteland of Fascist Italy, I would call their efforts heroic. Perhaps the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies can find a researcher to track down and tell the whole story of We the Living, the motion pictures.

I see other corrections that need to be made to the September 2, 2004 "general edit" of 83.103.230.117, but I will need time to justify them properly as this "Editing talk" does. I invite others to help. It would appear that reviser 83.103.230.117 is working a little too hard to associate Ayn Rand with ideas that can carry negative connotations. I've done my part to improve the situation in this small matter. But cumulatively, the insertion of terms like "rugged-individualism" (If Rand ever use this term, I didn't see it.) and putting "scare quotes" around "rational selfishness" and so on, serves the purpose, not to clarify who Ayn Rand was and what she thought, but to interpret Rand in a way that Rand herself would hardly recognize. There are many opportunities to make such interpretations or criticisms elsewhere and add pointers to them in the Criticism of Objectivism section on the Objectivist philosophy Wikipedia page, and so on.

When attempting to present anyone's ideas with a neutral point of view it is a good idea to ask yourself "Would this author agree that I have presented his or her ideas accurately?" We owe that to the person and work we are presenting and we owe it to the readers of this encyclopedia.

Blanchette 19:02, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I removed the term "rugged" from "rugged individualism" in two places because I have never seen Rand use this word to characterize her concept of individualism. "Rugged individualism" was the term used by Herbert Hoover to characterize his concept of a traditional American virtue. Later it was used as a term of derision by FDR and is still used with a mild sneer by the political left. To Rand, specifying the meaning of individualism by modifying it as "rugged" would be an instance of definition by non-essentials. Rand's concept of individualism emphasized the fact that values must be self-chosen by an individual human mind through a process of reason. See The Fountainhead, for example.

I fixed the sentence: She exalted the "heroic" "American values" of egoism and rugged individualism.

Those scare quotes are an exceptionally ugly way to announce that not everyone agrees with Rand's concept of what is heroic or an American value. Their use may leave the impression that Wikipedia thinks the concepts of the heroic and of American values are themselves suspect no matter how they are conceived.

I rewrote it as: She exalted what she saw as the heroic American values of egoism and individualism.

Blanchette 18:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I reverted back to my version of this page after a revision by an anonymous user. The reason is that the user removed all reference to the fact that there was a split by David Kelley with Objectivism and basically attempted to remove anything that may make the ARI or Leonard Peikoff look bad. While I am inclined to lean more towards the ARI posistion on Ayn Rand's philosophy, it is improper to remove all mention of a schism just because you don't agree with it. It would be equivalent to a Democrat removing all references to Republicans in articles. Redfarmer 05:28, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've rolled back several changes that were made by 24.127.135.189. This user's changes consisted of removing the following items from the "External Links" section: The Atlasphere, Sense of Life Objectivists, Analysis of Rand's Leningrad University coursework, Nathaniel Branden, The Objectivist Center, Philosophical criticisms of Ayn Rand and Objectivism, and Thomas Gramstead's POP Culture.

There is a common denominator to these items, which is that they are unsupported (or actively opposed) by policymakers at the Ayn Rand Institute.

It seems important that the Wiki entry should reveal the diversity of perspectives and scholarship surrounding Ayn Rand's ideas, and not just a set of orthodox policies by an individual organization.

I would encourage future editors to bear in mind the need for editorial objectivity, rather than attempting to enforce institutional biases.

Jzader 17:14, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I (Translator) tried to remove "Her novels were based upon the archetype of the Randian hero, a man whose ability and independence leads others to reject him, but who perseveres nevertheless to achieve his values. Rand viewed this hero as the ideal and made it the express goal of her literature to showcase such heroes" Because every statement therein is dubious or false and the thrust itself misleading. Her novels were based on ideas, ethics and values, for which heroes - male and female - were protagonists. The hero was a woman, not a man, in "We the Living" and "Red Pawn." The assertion that ability and independence are reason enough for rejection by "others" is unsupported. Rand's heroes embodied ideals; this is different from being an ideal. Nor do we have a source telling where showcasing heroes is the "express" goal of her literature. I also put in the three points because a previous incarnation of the page struck me as a smear job and attracted my notice. A programmer friend improved it and I now seek to improve it further by laying out those things she taught and which are at the bottom of the controversy. Disproving those three claims would suffice to prove her wrong, yet nobody dares try. I also added to the relevant link a terse note on Red Pawn, with chapter and page, and it vanished. Translator, May 6, 2005. Another edit: I added to the objectivism page a few words about the meaning of sacrifice, which has been a point of contention in radio debates. Briefly, there is confusion between sacrifice and making a tough choice, but they are two different things. --Interpreter, May 22, 2005

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Ayn_Rand article:

• Can link individualism: ...phy and her fiction both emphasize above all her notions of individualism, egoism, "[[Objectivist philosophy#Ethics: rational self-in... - already done
• Can link egoism: ...tion both emphasize above all her notions of individualism, egoism, "[[Objectivist philosophy#Ethics: rational self-interest|r... - already done
• Can link political views: ...rtly to avoid Soviet retaliation against her family for her political views (she assumed her name would appear in the credits of films ... (link to section)
• Can link non-fiction: ...h both her fiction [http://www.aynrand.org/books.shtml] and non-fiction [http://www.aynrand.org/books_nonfiction.shtml] works.... (link to section)
• Can link rationalism: ... day (e.g., as developed by [[Rudolf Carnap]]) and Platonic rationalism (as exhibited in the writings of [[Gottlob Frege]] and [[G.... (link to section) - This text has been edited out.
• Can link schism: ...oped once her own life was over. In [[1989]], yet another schism in the movement occurred. Objectivist [[David Kelley]] wrot... (link to section)
• Can link libertarian capitalism: ...n positions - egoism in behavioral ethics and rights-based, libertarian capitalism in politics - are false. Others disapprove of her practice ... (link to section) - This text has been edited out or changed to a different wording
• Can link even worse: ...as been alleged that Rand's portrayal of her antagonists is even worse (they are predictably weak, pathetic, full of uncertainty, ... (link to section) - This text has been edited out or changed to a different wording
• Can link dating service: ...lasphere: Rand-related news, columns, member directory, and dating service... (link to section)
• Can link CD-ROM: ... [http://www.objectivism.net Objectivism.net] - Ayn Rand on CD-ROM, and good links... (link to section)
• Can link Leningrad University: ...dt2.htm Ayn Rand's College Transcript] - Analysis of Rand's Leningrad University coursework... (link to section) - This text has been edited out or changed to a different wording
• Can link feminism: ...etations of Ayn Rand''] - Controversial anthology on Rand & feminism... (link to section) - This text has been edited out or changed to a different wording

Updated the list above based on the current article text. The remaining items strike me as trivial (dating service) or even misleading (schism), so I didn't do anything to add those links. (Don't get me wrong: I think automated link suggestions is a great idea, just not some of the particular suggestions.) --RL0919 14:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, there are some other articles which may be able to linked to this one (also known as "backlinks"):

• In Epicurus, can backlink Ayn Rand: ...ry moral good. There are connections to the philosophies of Ayn Rand and Osho ( Bhagavan Rajneesh ) as well as Zen....
• In The Great Escape, can backlink Ayn Rand: ...) [[Maggie Simpson|Maggie]] plots a "Great Escape" from the Ayn Rand School for Tots....
• In Serial comma, can backlink Ayn Rand: ...of the serial comma can remove ambiguity. "To my parents, Ayn Rand and God" creates ambiguity about the writer's parentage. A ...
• In List of people by name: Bra, can backlink Ayn Rand: ...n, Nathaniel]], (born 1930), [[psychologist]], philosopher, Ayn Rand fan...
• In Patrick Moore (environmentalist), can backlink Ayn Rand: ...tion published in ''[[Return of the Primitive]]'' edited by Ayn Rand. “In it, he warned that the new movement's agenda was...
• In Clubs and Organizations of Columbia University, can backlink Ayn Rand: ...ts * Athletes in Action * Augustine Club * Autumn Calling * Ayn Rand Discussion Group...

The backlinks have all been done except the ones for Patrick Moore (she isn't mentioned in the article anymore) and the Clubs list. This last is a huge list of CU clubs of all varieties, none of which have links. Linking items on this type of list might not be a good idea, considering it would make the page look like a huge link farm. --RL0919 15:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.
Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link to — LinkBot 11:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm trying to copy edit this article, and I'm finding it difficult, because it's hard to see what's being said sometimes. For example, I've just deleted the following paragraph, rather than struggle to edit it: "There are also many more complicated objections to Rand's philosophy on the basis of epistemology and metaphysics. In addition, most theistic religions object both to Rand's characterization of religion as an evil that held people back, and to Rand's moral scheme, in which selfishness is the basic virtue, and altruism is evil (it should be noted that Rand's definitions for the words "selfishness" and "altruism" is somewhat different than that used by most people.) Rand's characterization of women in several books has been a source of contention, as it is felt that women are often portrayed as secondary or adjunct to the heroic men of the stories. Finally, Rand's personal life has been the source of much controversy."

My objections: 1) There are no references and no quotes, 2) There are more complicated objections than what? 3) What does "objections . . . on the basis of epistemology and metaphysics" mean? 4) Most theistic religions? Which ones? Which thinkers? References? Quotes? 5) Her definition of selfishness and altruism were different. In what way? Reference? 6) It is felt that women . . . It is felt by whom? Reference. 7) Her controversial personal life -- but in what way controversial?

Much of the article is like this. Factoids are delivered but not developed; with too many generalizations. The whole article would benefit from a re-write with more scholarly citations, and lots of quotes from Rand supporters and critics. Is anyone up for it? Slim 23:21, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I feel my tone was too harsh in the previous comment. What I meant to say is that sections of the article appear not to do Rand's ideas justice. I didn't mean to sound so critical. My apologies. Slim 03:50, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

More Sources

I just added a bunch of new reference sources, which future editors hopefully will be able to cite regarding any biographical controversies. (I think any detailed discussion of controvery over her ideas belongs in the Objectivist philosophy article.) Since the number of new sources is so substantial, but not a comprehensive bibliography of possible biographical sources, I wanted to be above-board about how I chose them:

• Every source I added is a primary or secondary source. I think I got every book-length biographical source, plus some major articles. I avoided tertiary sources.
• The sources all contain biographical or literary information/comment about Rand. I left sources related to her philosophy to the existing article on that subject. Some of the sources I listed also discuss her philosophy, but I did not choose them for that portion of their content.
• I did not include sources that focus on a particular novel, such as Gladstein's Atlas Shrugged: Manifesto of the Mind or Mayhew's Essays on Ayn Rand's We the Living. I assume those belong with the articles about those specific books.
• The individual citations are as complete as I could make them. For example, on the three "book" items with no ISBN numbers, it is because they don't have any. (Two were privately published, the other was published before ISBNs were standard issue.)
• The list reflects both positive and negative views of Rand's life and work.

One thing I didn't do, however, is go back and incorporate citations of the sources to back up any specific claims in the main text. I might get to that in the future, or others can take up the task.

If anyone has any questions or concerns about any of the additions, I'm happy to discuss it here. --RL0919 08:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If one is to disagree with Ayn Rand's philosophy and entertain any serious discussion of philosophy (the science of thought), one should offer more than the baseless and juvenile argument which says in essence "Ayn Rand is wrong because academic philosophers disagree with her." Why waste anyone's time with this "non-argument"? I'd expect that anyone serious about the science of thought would be able to offer at least a somewhat substantial and logical position. Please take a look at the Ayn Rand Institute web site for more detailed information about Ayn Rand's ideas - http://www.aynrand.org. --Frncisco 03:07, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. This article is supposed to document Rand's views and the responses to them, not decide which is correct. Gazpacho 03:12, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see your point - my comment was in response to what I did read on another page - I was confused as to where it was appropriate to make it. I do have a strong belief that Ayn Rand's philosophy is one of the largest and most under-recognized gifts ever given to mankind and I am troubled when people discount it without even an attempt at a valid argument --Frncisco 00:40, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A gourmet chef might take a bite of a student's quiche and make intelligent, critical comments, but they'd just spit out an Egg McMuffin without bothering to explain in detail why it's garbage. In the same way, academic philosophers see so much wrong with Rand's ideas that they discount them without bothering to itemize the errors. They don't take her 'philosophy' seriously enough to think it's worthy of careful criticism. They're deeply unimpressed by her. Does that help you understand their reaction? Alienus 18:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say or imply that Rand was wrong because academic philosophers disagree with her? In any event, such a statement would not constitute an argument, juvenile or otherwise. Also note: this is a page about Rand, not about her philosophy, even though this page does mention her ideas. See the page on Objectivism for more on the latter. Slim 03:15, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

The site provides conclusive evidence that this was not the case, and assuming that they aren't out-right lieing and making fake evidence for no reason, it was safe for me to change 'recent evidence has suggested' to 'recent evidence has proved'.

And not one Randian hero has ever rated themselves relative to others, and that part should be taken off.

Typewriter Redux

I substantially revised the following text that was recently added under the "Early Life" sub-head:

A possibly more correct theory for her last name is that it has the same source as her first name, from a favorite Finnish-Estonian, female, liberated author Aino Kallas and her typewriter (Sperry-Rand). Ayn is the Anglicized version of the Finnish, additionally mythologic, Kalevala name Aino (the one and only) and Ayn is thus pronounced Ein (eye + n).

Sperry-Rand was a 1950s-era name for the already-discussed Remington-Rand. If Rand couldn't have had a Remington-Rand typewriter in 1926, she even more certainly couldn't have had a Sperry-Rand typewriter. Rand did say she got her first name from a Finnish writer, so I left that part in, but trimmed the biographical details about Aino Kallas (which are irrelevant and can be accessed on the page about her) and the reference to mythology that Rand did not mention as a source for her name. Finally, the pronouciation of her name is already provided at the top of the article. --RL0919 19:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I got that sperry-rand wrong. However, I remember something on some C-SPAN (re-aired) interview with either Barbara (?, I'm no top-of-myhead-Ayn expert) or her husband, when something was said about all of this?? C-SPAN, maybe 1991-94??

It's a simple fact that Rand is largely unknown outside North America. That's not of course to say that no-one has heard of her, and with her followers' large Internet-presence the situation may well change, but I know of no University in Europe that includes her in philosophy courses, and until recently her books weren't easily available here. I've been teaching philosophy for nearly twenty years, in three English Universities, and I hadn't heard of her until 'Objectivism' came up in a Usenet group. When I've mentioned her name to colleagues, only those from the U.S. or Canada have known who I was talking about. She isn't mentioned in any of the reference books I have to hand (for example: Robert Arrington [ed.] A Companion to the Philosophers (Blackwell, 2001), Peter J. King One Hundred Philosophers (Apple, 2004), Mary Warnock [ed.] Women Philosophers (Dent, 1996), and many others), and most non-U.S. Web sites either don't mention her or point out the geographical limitation of her appeal (e.g., [1]). Please don't just remove the section explaining this unless you can show good grounds for your claim that it's "non-factual". Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here some examples of Ayn Rand’s growing and global influence that contradicts the above paragraph:

Ayn Rand in philosophy departments:

There are currently fellowships for the study of Objectivism at the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Texas, and the business schools of universities such as the University of Southern California. A number of other schools are using Ayn Rand’s books in business departments. See

Peer-reviewed Academic Journals Featuring Ayn Rand: Journal of Ayn Rand Studies (since 1999)

Recent publications on Objectivism by PhD philosophers in major universities include:

Lisa Dolling (head of the honors program in theology at St. John's University in New York), Tibor Machan (Chapman University, Emeritus of Auburn University, The Hoover Institution), Douglas Den Uyl (Bellarmine College, Louisville, Kentucky), Douglas Rasmussen (St. John's University, New York), Eric Mack (Tulane University), Aeon Skoble (Bridgewater State College, Massachusetts), Tara Smith (University of Texas at Austin), Lester Hunt (University of Wisconsin, Madison), Randall Dipert (C.S. Peirce Professor of American Philosophy, SUNY Buffalo), Roderick Long (Auburn University), R. Kevin Hill (previously Assistant Professor at Northwestern University), Slavoj Zizek (The European Graduate School), Michael Huemer (University of Colorado, Boulder), Jonathan Jacobs (Colgate University), Wayne Davis (Chair of the Philosophy Department, Georgetown University), Stephen Parrish (Concordia University, Ann Arbor, Michigan), Stephen R. C. Hicks (Rockford College, Illinois), Fred Seddon (adjunct professor at Duquesne University), J. G. Lennox (History and Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh), Allan Gotthelf (Professor Emeritus of The College of New Jersey; Gotthelf is Secretary of the Ayn Rand Society, an official 'group' of the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association), and Gary Hull (Business School, Duke University).

Ayn Rand is a now regular topic at mainstream philosophy conferences. See the “Ayn Rand Society of the American Philosophical Association, Eastern Division”.

Academic publications by Objectivist philosophers that were reviews by mainstream academics: Viable Values by Tara Smith The Evidence of the Senses by David Kelley The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts by Harry Binswanger. Objectivism the Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff Amazon.com has many more.

Ayn Rand in government:

Chairman Greenspan, arguably the most powerful man in the world was once a member of Ayn Rand’s inner circle. The Bush administration has many fans of Ayn Rand. See: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/11010097.htm?1c

Ayn Rand in popular culture:

• Current publications with articles of Ayn Rand:

The Monist, Catholic World, Germano-Slavica, College English, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Journal of Popular Culture, and the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy.

• Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Encyclopedia of Ethics, American Writers – now list Ayn Rand

• Ayn Rand on the web:

There are dozens of popular communities dedicated to Objectivism. For example, www.objectivismonline.net or www.theatlasphere.com There are over 1200 Amazon reviews: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0451191145/104-8455234-5623111?v=glance

• "Atlas Shrugged" was cited as the "second most influential book for Americans today" after the Bible, according to a joint survey conducted by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club. "

• Ayn Rand was commemorated on a US postage stamp http://www.usps.com/images/stamps/99/ayn_rand.htm

• Ayn Rand's theme of "The Concerto of Deliverance" in Atlas Shrugged inspired a large musical composition of like-name, Concerto of Deliverance, commissioned in tribute to her Centenary.

Ayn Rand in editorials:

See Google News: http://news.google.com/news?q=ayn+rand&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d

There are 99 hits for Ayn Rand, but just 2 hits for Emmanuel Kant: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&q=Emmanuel+Kant&btnG=Search+News

Also see: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/02/13/ayn_rands_campus_radicals?pg=full http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2002-09-23-ayn-rand_x.htm

Ayn Rand in foreign culture:

Ayn Rand is a major influence in Bollywood, the Indian Hollywood, as well as in Indian popular culture. My Chinese acquaintances tell me that there is an underground Ayn Rand movement in China as well.

For Indian references, see: http://www.screenindia.com/fullstory.php?content_id=10174 http://www.theatlasphere.com/metablog/000058.php

Ayn Rand’s books have been translated into dozens of languages: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_FAQ

Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_work_on_Objectivism

--GreedyCapitalist 08:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's difficult to see how a huge list of references that are almost all to U.S. universities, journals, etc., contradicts what I said. The only “foreign” references are to Bollywood(!) and hearsay about China. One of the links concerning India suggests that Rand's novels are popular in India; if true, that would require a slight alteration to the article — not its complete deletion. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, there are many proofs above saying that Ayn Rand is a very famous person, even more than "Emmanuel Kant". She may be more famous than "Emmanuel Kant", but not more than Immanuel Kant. Look at "googlefight.com" and try "Immanuel Kant" vs "Ayn Rand" in qmarks, see who is more famous even in internet. As a second point there are many internet communities on very foolish subjects, look for harry potter communities. As a third point, I don't know how these "second most after Bible" citations are counted, if the academicians don't cite her so much. But if the case is popularity around the non-academic people Ayn Rand has sold about 20 million books in worldwide total. Danielle Steel's books are sold 530 million copies, Stephen King's books are 350, in less years than Rand's. Or should we narrate our search more, the ones who are popular, and not academical, but philosophical...: Sartre. And Russian...: Dostoevsky, Tolstoy... And... And... So yes, she is the most famous American libertarian woman in 20. century who has an origin as an atheistic Russian Jew.

In Finnish and Swedish libraries, Ayn Rand's books belong to the shelf for "romantisism, poetry and prose".

An 2001 Estonian description of [Aino Kallas] can be found here

http://www.einst.ee/literary/spring2001/12_01.htm

"These were heroic times, full of hope. "

This isn't a summary of her Objectivist philosophy, which there is a page for. The basic ideas she had were already in the intro prior to when "She believed..." was added. I took that 3-point summary out and moved it to the page on Objectivism which would otherwise be useless without people who already study it.D prime 14:54, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, there's nothing wrong with having it in both places, so I've replaced it (for the moment, at least). I've also removed the qualifier 'fiction' — that's what a novel is. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does any one oppose having it in two places? Is there any thing about this subject in the articles about Wikipedia?D prime 21:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nothing in Wikipedia is copyrighted, so copy-pasting something in two places isn't illegal or anything. It seems to be accepted by many wikipedians. For example, when I wrote a bit on the Agence France Presse page about a dispute with Google, the consensus was that it would be okay to put the same section (with any needed modifications) in the Google page as well.

Ideally, we'd have brilliant and original prose on every page, but it's probably not a good use of our time to rewrite perfectly good articles just because they're duplicated somewhere else. The two copies will probably diverge over time, anyway. It should be fine. Dave (talk)

Didn't Ayn Rand and God have a child who received some sort of famous award? Or have I misunderstood something? — JIP | Talk 10:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You've either misunderstood something or have expressed yourself badly. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I seem to remember someone saying "I want to thank my parents, Ayn Rand and God" in his/her award speech. — JIP | Talk 11:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very good (and a demonstration of the need for the serial comma). For once I don't mind being used as the straight man. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd love to know who that was, because it seems to me that anyone who had Ayn Rand and God as major influences is living a very mixed-up life. DJ Clayworth 17:31, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That did make me laugh. According to [2], it's an "apocryphal book dedication" used to illustrate the need for that comma. I don't know if anyone actually said it.Palefire 15:07, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a modification of a story about a real book dedication, presumably by some Scientologist, which read "I would like to thank my parents, God and L. Ron Hubbard." Google on that for more info. --Saforrest 00:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In The Simpsons episode A Streetcar Named Marge, there's a really strict daycare owner named Ayn Rand. Possible reference to the real one? MessedRocker 13:03, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Difficult to believe that it's a coincidence. It doesn't warrant a mention in the article, though (and I say this as one who has no time for Rand but is a fan of the Simpsons). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The book the woman is reading is 'The Fountainhead Diet' and there's an 'A = A' poster. It's probably named after Ayn Rand, opposed to that being the name of the owner.69.192.139.156 00:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The day care center is called the Ayn Rand School for Tots, the woman who runs it is an Objectivist, and she doesn't tolerate pacifiers.

I've recompleted again the information about Rand's early life. Sorry, but couldn't get why they were deleted by "Mel the reverter". Rand herself declared she had classes with prof. Losky and were under the influence of Nietzsche. Then in 1958 she rejects him (actually rejects in 1943 in "The Fountainhead", but it was not formal.) and corrects her former books, as written in the "Philosophical influences" in this Wiki Article. The beginning of this revision story is explained in those sentences were deleted, but why? Or is it wrong that she studied in Institute of Cinema Arts? How can we delete such clear information, for what purpose? Joshua27

1. Could you 'sign' your comments (with four tildes)?
2. The information might seem clear to you, but you gave no justification for it, no citations — you just changed the article.
3. Aside from this, the English is rather odd, and it's not clear what you wanted to say (especially the first part); I've moved it here, until it can be clarified:

   "She studied philosophy and history at the University of Petrograd, in the lessons of known Russian political theorist professor Lossky, Nietzschean influence firstly attracted her; the roots of her later thought on the "ethics of power" in first editions of "We the Living" and "Anthem" can be found there."

4. I know little about Rand, and there's of course nothing by or about her in College libraries here, so I had no way of checking the information for myself. Could you provide some evidence for your claims? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. 1. The criteria about the truth is not bounded by "your" knowledge. You may correct the odd english, but you have no privilege to delete an information saying that you don't know or can't verify it.
   2. Wiki is not an academic paper, so you don't have to show any citations. Because if you know that some knowledge written by another contributor is false then you can simply delete it. But if you know "little" about a subject, then you morally should let it "be" until somebody change it who knows "more" about the subject. The deletion reason you've given is not acceptable.

      These are some of the citations you've requested.

      http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/biofaq.html#Q0

      http://www.atlassociety.org/tas/rand_chronology.asp

      http://www.ayn-rand.com/ayn-rand-chrono.asp

      I think that's enough now, and that's why I'm changing it again using a clear english addition. Joshua27

1. Please sign your comments.
2. You need to read up on Wikipedia policy and guidelines, especially Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:No original research.
3. I've tidied part of what you've added, but I'm not sure what this means: "(This influence formed the roots of her later thought for "ethics of power" which can be read in the first editions of "We the Living" and "Anthem".)" --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1936 and 1959 editions of "We the Living" are different, like "Anthem". There are many Nietzschean sentences and opinions there in the first editions of the two books which are not changed until 1959. These sentences and opinions describe the "Randian hero" as the Zaradusthra of Nietzsche. You can see some discussions about the differences between books in http://www.objectivistcenter.org/articles/shicks_review-ideas-of-ayn-rand.asp In the Web page of TOC there are many articles discussing connections between Objectivism and Nietzschean thought. Rand accepts the Nietzschean influence, and after some years changed her books and declared she had changed her thought also. This is a very exact information which no objectivist deny. You can look to the other links I've given. Joshua27

1. Sorry, you misunderstand; I'm not challenging what you want to say, I'm trying to undrestand the sentence — it's simply that the syntax is obscure. What do you mean by "former the roots of her later thought for 'ethics of power'"? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   1. Sorry for the misexplaining then. English is not my motherlanguage, so that may cause some misplaced or misused word groups. First of all the sentence is this:

("This influence formed the roots of her later thought for "ethics of power" which can be read in the first editions of "We the Living" and "Anthem".) " You see no "former", but "formed".

1. 1."This influence": Nietzsche's influence on Rand

   2."formed": gave a form, shaped, created,

   3."the roots of her later thought": basics of the arguments which will appear later, which will be noticed later.

   4."thought for "ethics of power"": way of thinking which defend "ethics of power"(for something-against something), which is argumenting for "ethics of power"

   5."ethics of power": the philosophy of Nietzsche, the man which is beyond good and evil, the ethics which depends on an individual of "strength"

   6."which can be read in": which we can notice, which we can discover becuse of

   7."the first editions of": the printings before the current version of a book

   8."We the living": A book by Ayn Rand

   9. "and": an expression in English which means "with" or "together" used for similar things

   10. "Anthem": Another book of Ayn Rand, (not in the meaning of "national song"; maybe this was the most confusing part, sorry; but it was Rand's choice)

It is known that Rand is influenced from Nietzsche and there were some Nietzschean parts in the two books before 1959. If you had only corrected the English of my sentences, be sure then it wouldn't be a problem to me. But after your type of bureaucratic way of preventing, it is obvious that you are a Randian fanatic, who tries to annoy and bore people. The sentence which is absolutely true is a problem to you, because you "cannot understand it's meaning"; but a much longer "paragraph" which is perhaps the most constructivistic analysis on Rand's thought, flies over from the Controversy part of the article, but I cannot see any disapproval from you. Is it because the Blanchette is another fanatic thinking like you? Joshua27

I've removed this for the moment, until I can see how to make it make sense:

"(This influence led her to a thought depending on "ethics of power" which can be noticed in the first editions of "We the Living" and "Anthem")."

I'll try to use your explanation above.

I haven't thoroughly copy-edited the article, so there may well be equally obscure passages elsewhere, As it's on my watch list, I 'm alerted to new material like yours. Note also that I'm not concerned with content in this article (except for the disclaimer that I added), only with Wikipedia policy and clarity. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:46, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. 1. It is not important you are concerned or not about the content. But the sentence connects two important data in the article, that's why it's worse if the sentence is missing. I explained the first version of the sentence, and then placed another simpler version of the same meaning, because I thought you may be right about the clarity. But now it is known to me that the problem is not the sentence, but your persistence. Anyway, the people surfing in Wiki are clever and it is enough the important part of my additions are there now. The ones who read the whole article can still bind the knowledges themselves. Joshua27

The statement 'she first became interested in Nietz..' intends that she at any time was actually interested in him as a valid philosopher, that it lasted (first became,) etc. She didn't 'later reject him,' but that is simply the first record of her explicitly denouncing him.

But she was interested in him during her university years and in later years she has many positive quotastions from Nietzsche in her journals, where she accepts the view of Nietzsche is right. http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/biofaq-notes.html#n5.6-2 She firstly was attracted to him, but then rejected. She did not defend the same thing from her baby ages until her death. Anyway I've read the 1936 print of We the Living and there are obvious things showing she was deeply influenced from Nietzsche. Have you ever read it? Joshua27

The words 'first attracted to N- views' intends more of a connection and advocation than she actually had. Can we find a away to acknowledge her interest in him without intending that her ethics are primarily based on N- and not reason?69.192.139.156 1 July 2005 05:10 (UTC)

In so far as I follow you, I think that you're wrong, I'm afraid. "Attracted to" is weak, and implies no particular degree of advocacy. You're reading much more into the words than is there. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 1 July 2005 10:28 (UTC)

Even if her ethics and N-'s coincide some what or mostly, she never directly advocates his ethics because they have no rational base and are according to her, because of other parts of his philosophy, baseless and useless. 'First attracted to,' intends that she is ever and much worse always an advocater of him. Why not read into words? Isn't that what you're supposed to do with them? How about we change it to a more objective account of what happend at the college, with a line like 'where she was interested in n- views,' which doesn't intend that she advocated n- but doesn't explicitly point out that she didn't. The whole relationship between her and n- is contraversial and shouldn't be referenced other than through actual objective events. 69.192.139.156 1 July 2005 16:35 (UTC)

I changed it in a way that accounts for things that actually happend to let the reader decide how much he/she thinks the influence was.

You're simply wrong on this; take it from a native speaker that the text didn't suggest what you think that it did. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 2 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)

Please try to remember that this is an encyclopedia article with a neutral POV, not a forum for personal gripes. I deleted the following sentences:

> One of the most cited criticisms is that her philosophy derives from her own life and cultural background.

Who cited this 'criticism'? It's virtually a truism that one's thought is influenced by one's experiences. The same can be said of every philosopher and therefore tells us nothing specific about Rand.

> Thus, the nationalization of her father's shop in Soviet Russia led her to the untouchable property rights, and so she became a defender of pure laissez-faire economics.

Plausible, but actually sheer guesswork. We want facts.

> Another often-cited example is that all of her three novels were constructed on a very dominant unique female figure's existing who chooses the most "Randian" one among the males and has a relation with him, though it always requires cheating.

Who cited this? Was Kira's affair with Andre 'cheating' considering it was done to save Leo's life? Again, neither Dominique nor Dagny can be considered to be 'cheaters' on their true loves, so this is unintelligible. Perhaps this 'cited' critic has a problem with women who have had more than one sex partner?

> This bears notable similarity to her own long-time affair with editor and scholar Nathaniel Branden, who was 25 years her junior. She never divorced from her husband, actor Frank O'Connor, who was aware of the relationship.

Hardly similar. And since O'Connor knew about and accepted the affair, also not "cheating". But it is a juicy piece of gossip. So, you think she had the affair with Branden in order to live out the fantasies in her novel? Interesting, highly speculative, and a very foolish topic in an encyclopedia article. We want facts.

> It is also claimed that she secularized her mildly-internalized Jewish roots, thus justifying her support of ideas like "abortion rights"...

Huh? I guess it's common knowledge that those who secularize their mildly Jewish roots support (note the revealing scare quotes) "abortion rights"?

> or her widely-written hatred of Immanuel Kant, whose views she often misrepresented.

So I guess this writer likes Kant, and thinks Rand's views misrepresent him. Any other opinions?

> Most of these criticisms surfaced after her death, and thus she could not answer them herself.

I'd say most of these criticisms surfaced in someone's fevered and unhappy imagination. --Blanchette 00:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about "who cited" the arguments, because I did not see such an article showing exactly these points and examples, too. But you can find Chris Matthew Scibarra's "The Russian Radical", the book is about her life, and the main argument of the book is her ideas are influenced by her early life in Russia and in university in Petersburg. Whole the philosophers are accused because of the influences of their life on their ideas. But that's an acceptable critic. You may be an objectivist and a defender of Rand's ideas, but you cannot select the critics part of the article according to your wishes.

I personally read many of Rand's books, and liked them. Many of my friends too, and when we talk about Ayn Rand, numerously, we ended with the result that Rand talks about her own life in her novels. Actually it is clear that Dagny, especially Kira, and Dominique are Rand herself in reality, and there are similarities with her own life. I really don't know any people who has not noticed this. So I am not sure if it is cited in academic research papers, but it is spoken by many people and i am sure even "you" cannot say that you did not think about it.

In addition to this "misrepresentation of Kant" is a common knowledge. You can find even books about this. e.g. George Walsh, who is an objectivist, has a book named "Ayn Rand and the Metaphysics of Kant" making it clear what is wrong with Ayn Rand about Kant. I've just read another article of another objectivist Fred Seddon and it was about the misrepresentation, too. No one other than some of the objectivists believes that she could understand Kant well. Look at the pages for the word "Kant":

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/critics/index.html

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/index.html

But here the wiki article means the jewish roots, and the abortion rights which is legal according to the belief of Judaism, and the hatred of Kant becasue of Kant's hatred about "jews". Rand wrote in many articles that Kant is responsible for the Holocaust, and Kant's ideas create peoples like Eichmann, who was a Nazi general. (That's another example of misrepresantation by the way, you can see).

So I think you are wrong especially Kant, exceptionally the missing citations. The paragraph is a deconstructivistic explanation of Rand, but obviously written by an amateur including personal ideas, or more possibly the parts are written by different people. In any case it was original and interesting. So it should be there.

The Controversy part is a very functional discovery, which I cannot see in most pages. That's why many of them can have NPOV banners, because there are editing wars among the defenders of different ideas. But it is much better to show a place for the Controversy. "This is the main idea, and these are the controversy part, write your idea as you wish in a clear way." But if you delete the critics saying that "I don't like this critic, I did not read it before, the philosopher doesn't deserve it." so the editing wars begin. You like it or not, but there above the critics part, it has been already written the word "Controversy" as the title, not "the secret reality about Rand". So everyone knows that the sentences are not the main case, but alternative arguments. That's why you should not delete them. Joshua27

Okay, Joshua, I agree that Professors George Walsh and Fred Seddon have presented respectable arguments against Rand's view of Kant. If you want to include that, why not put it in the Objectivism article where it belongs? Of course you ought to maintain a NPOV and also mention, for example, Professors Stephen R. C. Hicks and Fred D. Miller, Jr., who defend Rand's reading of Kant. I have no problem with criticism, but give the readers of Wikipedia enough information to figure out how to search for more in-depth information on both sides of controversial issues. Make sense? --Blanchette 00:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why would a discussion about Rand's view of Kant belong in the Objectivism article rather than in the Ayn Rand article? For that matter, how is crticism of Rand's reading of the history of philosophy relevant to Objectivism? Shouldn't that section by in the Ayn Rand article, rather than in the Objectivism article? Or maybe a 3rd article about her views outside of Objectivism. --Serge 20:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's an excellent question, Serge, but the fact is, right now the Objectivism article contains a six-paragraph section on the subject. If I had the time I might move it to a separate "Critics and Defenders of Objectivism" article, but that might not be popular either, because the critics like to get their hits in as close to home as possible, I think. Why not try to fix it? --Blanchette 06:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My point is that criticism of Rand's view on Kant is a criticism of Ayn Rand, and has nothing to do with Objectivism per se, since Objectivism (so far as I know) has no relation to the views of Kant. So if you did move it to a new separate article, I would suggest an article entitled "Critics and Defenders of Ayn Rand", or "Critics and Defenders of Ayn Rand's views", rather than "Critics and Defenders of Objectivism". It would be like criticizing Einstein's political views in an article about his Theory of Relativity. --Serge 18:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your point. Now who will bell the cat, so to speak, and start the "Critics and Defenders of Ayn Rand" article? ("Critics and Defenders of Ayn Rand and Objectivism"?) Putting links in the Ayn Rand and Objectivism articles with a few lines to identify the subjects discused there should make all sides happy and give everyone more space, especially for the purpose of identifying where the criticisms and defenses are coming from. Useful citations are often missing from 'pro and con' material. (See Cite your sources.)

After seeing the Ayn Rand biography, "A Sense of Life," I think we should work into the article her love of cats.

MSTCrow 00:38, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Joshua27: Please be more careful when reverting. Your edit summary said that you were reverting my deletions (and the rest of your edits had no edit summaries — note that these are required); what you in fact managed to do (apart from replacing material that I hadn't in fact deleted) was to remove the link to Petrograd University, and revert another editor's correction of a category. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How far is this article on the road to a featured article? --Mexaguil 2 July 2005 23:17 (UTC)

My take is that the article is in pretty good shape, but needs a little brushing up before it meets my personal standards for a featured article. The material is largely accurate, nothing major is missing, and it is well wikified. However, a few spots are awkwardly written, the bibliography needs cleanup, and there is a general absence of any specific source citations in the text, even for areas of controversy. Still, barring any major controversies over fixing those defects (or edits to introduce new ones), it could be feature-ready pretty quickly. --RL0919 14:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two things to discuss: one specific and one more general.

First, I just deleted a duplicate link for ARI Watch. Someone else did this earlier, and it was restored with a comment that the link had been "vandalized." I don't see any vandalism -- the identical link was on the list twice, so it is entirely appropriate to remove one of the two instances.

Second and more generally, I'm not sure if "ARI Watch" should even be on the list for this particular page. That site is about the Ayn Rand Institute, which was formed years after Rand was dead and buried. There is a separate page for the Institute, as well as one for the Objectivist movement. The ARI Watch link seems appropriate for those pages rather than this one. There are some other links that would also seem more appropriate for related pages rather than this page in particular.

Any thoughts on this from other Wikipedians are appreciated. --RL0919 21:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After some thought, I've come to the conclusion that the link ought to be deleted from THIS page, and put on the Objectivism page. I believe that a page on a specific person ought to exclusively discuss that person's life, work, and influence. Ayn Rand certainly influenced the Ayn Rand Institute, and as such, the Institute ought to be (and is) discussed on this page. But the "ARI Watch" page was influenced far more by the ARI than by Rand herself. Another example of the same principle: Peter McLaren promotes Che, but that's no reason for an article criticizing the latter to appear on the former's page. --zenohockey 03:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment dated 18 Aug 2005: I will try to argue the following point:

  If the website of the Ayn Rand Institute -- 
  call it ARI -- is listed, then "ARI Watch" 
  should be listed as well.  

The reason is that ARI is not an honest representation of Ayn Rand's thought. Far from it. To make readers aware of this, "ARI Watch" reviews ARI using Ayn Rand's ideas.

I'm not saying remove ARI. But if it is kept, "ARI Watch" provides the necessary balance.

Another reason to include "ARI Watch" is that it features many quotes of Ayn Rand that are either not on the web or hard to find there.

ARI Watch is self-described as "The ‘Ayn Rand Institute’ under review." Its primary purpose is not to promote Ayn Rand's philosophy but to criticize ARI. ARI Watch does not belong in this article. Mwickens 13:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply (19 Aug 2005 About noon EDT): 'ARI Watch' cogently argues that ARI undermines Ayn Rand. If Wikipedia presents ARI as promoting Ayn Rand then Wikipedia ought, I think, to include 'ARI Watch' which truly promotes Ayn Rand.

If this is controversial, that is yet another reason why both views should be given an airing on Wikipedia.

Putting ARI Watch under the "Organizations promoting Ayn Rand's philosophy" heading is simply inaccurate. Its purpose is only secondarily to promote that philosophy. If ARI Watch is there, so could most of the other links under other headings.

It sounds like the real argument of the anonymous ARI Watch advocate(s) is that the Ayn Rand Institute itself does not belong on the list. If that's the point, they should argue for it rather than for fixing the alleged problem by demanding in-line refutation of the organization they think is illegitimate. Mwickens 18:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply (about 4:30 pm EDT): Yes, I don't think ARI belongs on the list. But ARI is there now, an accomplished fact. While ARI is there 'ARI Watch' ought to be there. Shall we allow ARI to get away with corrupting Ayn Rand's ideas without our providing some handy corrective, a corrective that goes right to the source: Ayn Rand herself?

Take for example two pages from 'ARI Watch': "Ayn Rand on Torture" and "Ayn Rand on Past Wars." These pages mention ARI only briefly, practically all their text is about what Ayn Rand wrote on these timely subjects or how her ideas apply to them.

Even if ARI is taken down, the fact that 'ARI Watch' promotes Ayn Rand's ideas still makes it a good link. But I don't see ARI being taken down, and staying down, soon. And even if it could be taken down permanently, I'd rather see ARI corrected with argument rather than eraser. -- Mark (author of all the replies so far)

Congratulations; you've convinced me. After studying the webpage more thoroughly, it seems that ARI Watch doesn't just criticize ARI, it also (or, perhaps, even primarily) defends its own reading of Rand's thought. It should be kept, but right under the link for ARI, and tabbed, so readers are aware that ARI Watch is largely a response to ARI's reading of Rand. --zenohockey 23:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is ARI Watch an organization or a website? If the latter, even if it belongs in the article, it doesn't belong where it is now. Mwickens 19:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncomfortable with the recent anonymous edit that added the following text to the introduction: "She was one of history's most vehement advocates of minarchism." First of all, referring to someone as "one of history's most vehement advocates" of anything strikes me something other than a neutral fact — it is an evalutation or opinion. Also, "minarchy" and its cognates are not terms that Rand ever used to my knowledge, certainly not for self-description. Some of her admirers disclaim the term for that reason. This strikes me as closely related to the contentous question of calling her a "libertarian," which was placed into its own article. Finally, even with a more neutral wording (to reflect this as a category others place her in), I don't see a need for this point to be in the introduction, which was already quite long enough.

I don't want to take a sudden action on a potentially touchy political topic, but what I would like to do is cut this sentence from the introduction, but place a related mention in the "Politics" section farther down the page. It would go something like this: "She is often classified as an advocate of minarchism or libertarianism, although she did not use these terms to describe herself or her views. (See the article on Libertarianism and Objectivism for further discussion.)"

Feedback, please. I don't want to stir up a hornet's nest, but the sentence as-is strikes me as inappropriate. --RL0919 22:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd edited it before noticing your message; as you'll see, I agree that the wording was unacceptable, but I didn't move or delete the basic claim because I'm in position to judge. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing some additional research now to see if I can find any non-internet reference applying this term to Rand. The results thus far have been entirely negative — if authors are using this word, they aren't indexing it. The word is of recent coinage as well, so I'm not sure if it was even in use when Rand was alive. I can't find the word in dictionaries of that era, nor can I find a historical etymology of it. Based on internet discussion groups, I believe the term was coined by anarchists to describe an opposing group of libertarians, which would be a hit against its neutrality. Once I finish checking sources, odds are I'll move the mention of the term as I suggested above. --RL0919 18:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

She was an advocate of complete, UNCONDITIONAL, laissez-faire capitalism. Minarchism promotes the government being 'as small as possible,' which is incredibly vague. Considering the absoluteness/objectivity she used approaching what she supported, and consdiering her recorded distaste for libertarianism, I highly doubt she would have considered her self as 'minarchist.' I'm taking it out.69.192.139.156 23:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, minarchists also advocate "complete, UNCONDITIONAL, laissez-faire capitalism", so what's your point? Yes, as small as possible is vague, but, since she most definitely was not an anarchist, and she did advocate some (minimal, as small as possible) government, she was a minarchist, by definition. Minarchism is not a movement, so far as I know. It's just a term used to differentiate believers in reducing government involvement from most aspects of our lives, which Rand most clearly was, from total anarchists, which Rand most clearly was not. Rand was the quintessential minarchist, even if the term was not yet in use during her lifetime. --Serge 01:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You ignored: "Considering the absoluteness/objectivity she used approaching what she supported, and consdiering her recorded distaste for libertarianism, I highly doubt she would have considered her self as 'minarchist.'" She never said that the government should be 'as small as possible.' This gives the libertarian impression that you should be 'reasonable' and be willing to not have it be 'too extreme.' She said that the government should be one, spacific, particular way, which was lassiez-faire capitalism.69.192.139.156 22:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see two important questions here: First, is the idea that Rand is a "minarchist" a generally accepted fact, or a specific perspective? Second, is this particular important enough to belong in the summary at the top of the page, as opposed to being part of the later discussion? On the first point, the best evidence I have is that Rand never used this term herself, and professional scholars do not typically use it to describe her. The term appears to have originated in anarchist/non-anarchist disputes among libertarians, and "orthodox" Objectivists, who reject the labelling of Rand as a libertarian, typically also reject the use of this term. So I would treat it as a perspective about her, rather than simply describing her with the term. (That doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned, just that the wording needs to be adjusted.) On the second point, I would note that her politics is just one part of her philosophy (and an even smaller part of her overall life and career). Her political views are already (without the part about minarchism) described in the intro to an extent similar to the descriptions of other aspects of her philosophy. Therefore, I would say that this particular detail belongs in the more extended discussion of her political views later in the article. Serge's new version is far superior to the version I complained about initially, but I still plan to move it unless someone has a good argument for why this particular issue needs to be in the brief introduction of the article. --RL0919 02:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your first question, whether Rand being a "minarchist" is a "generally accepted fact", I really don't know. But to me, it seems obviously to be true by definition, and not even a matter of opinion. While she distanced herself (to put it mildly) from the term "libertarian", which carried a lot of emotional baggage for her (i.e., Nathaniel Branden), in its purest sense a libertarian is simply anyone who believes the NAP should never be violated, including by the state. In that sense, Rand clearly was a libertarian.

Now, among libertarians there is disagreement about the question of whether it's even possible to have a state that is not in violation of the NAP. So, libertarians are neatly divided into two camps: the anarchists and the minarchists; all libertarians must be one or the other. The anarchists believe the existence of any state is inherently a violation of the NAP. The minarchists believe that some "minimal" state is not only possible, but required, to maximize the protection of individual liberty within a society.

Is it important to label Rand as a minarchist in the opening paragraph? Probably not, but I think it is important to convey her beliefs regarding the proper role of government, and I know of no more clear and concise way to do so than to refer to her as a minarchist.

By the way, thanks for the complement about improving the wording. I believe I also improved the definition of minarchist at the minarchism Wiki, but it still has a ways to go. At least it no longer vaguely says "as small as possible". As small as possible to accomplish what? Here's the current opening sentence:

In civics, minarchism, sometimes called minimal statism, is the view that the size, role and influence of government in a free society should be minimal - only large enough to protect the liberty of each and every individual, without violating the liberty of any individuals itself.

Let me know what you think. --Serge 17:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See? The term libertarian CAN be used to define her, but to avoid confusion and false affiliation, she didn't want it. We should not apply terms to people, when other terms are available (lassiez-faire capitalist) and they never used it themselves. I think it's obvious that this should be taken off 69.192.139.156 00:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But a laissez-faire capitalist could be an anarchist. So can a libertarian (which is one reason Rand gave for not liking the label). But a minarchist, by definition, cannot be an anarchist. --Serge 00:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that she choose to be called a lasseiz-faire capitalist. It is questionable whether or not she would consider herself a 'minarchist.' Wikipedia is supposed to document fact only, is it not? D prime 04:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims:

One notable exception to the general disregard for Rand in the analytic philosophy community is the essay "On the Randian Argument" by philosopher Robert Nozick, which appears in his collection Socratic Puzzles. While some have suggested that Nozick's own somewhat libertarian views were influenced by Rand's work, Nozick's essay is strongly critical of Rand.

These two sentences contradict each other: the first sentence says that Nozick was an "exception to the general disregard for Rand", while the second sentence states Nozick was "strongly critical of Rand." This needs to be fixed. —Lowellian (talk) 19:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

The sentences are not contradictory. "Disregard" means ignoring, not low regard. Perhaps "disregard of" rather than "disregard for" would avoid any potential confusion. Mwickens 20:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yes — "disregard for" certainly implies a positively negative (?) view; "of" is grammatically correct if you want to describe neglect. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, I see. I was considering the wrong one of the two definitions of disregard (from dictionary.com):

1. To pay no attention or heed to; ignore.
2. To treat without proper respect or attentiveness.

While, changing from "for" to "of" would improve the situation slightly, I think it is better yet to simply substitute another turn of phrase. I have rephrased to avoid the word "disregard." —Lowellian (talk) 23:19, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Leo Strauss

Pavlov

I have always been fascinated on the possibility that they met each other, in person or by hearsay.

Did they??

What about Freud, plus Jung??

What about Skinner and John B. Watson??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner

But nonetheless, have corrected typo, line 4 controversy "acquaintance"

Some suggest that much antagonism toward her philosophy in the academy is due to the political stance of her philosophy; specifically, the embrace of capitalism and denunciation of altruist ethics which they annoys what they see as a traditionally leftist academia.

Who are these some, and where did they do their suggesting? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and deleted more unattributed claims:

• "These critics argue that the real reason Rand avoided academic publications was that she knew her writing would not stand up to serious scrutiny by trained thinkers"
• "Her critics point out that the accessibility argument does not justify her wholesale refusal to write for academic journals"
• "Indeed, her work is generally held in low esteem by professional philosophers, who find her expositions to be inadequate in their treatment of seminal issues in metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics."
• "These critics argue that the real reason Rand avoided academic publications was that she knew her writing would not stand up to serious scrutiny by trained thinkers"

RJII 18:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but play fair. The comments attributed to "Rand's defenders" on the subject of peer-reviewed journals are equally mysterious and unscourced, so I've removed this too. In addition, this Darryl Wright fellow hasn't published anything on Rand that I can find, and so if you cite his views, also cite a publication which can be found. --Ben golub 20:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, I did a little clean up and expansion of Yaron Brook, the current director of ARI. I'm hoping that some people with more experience than myself might be able ot take a look at this page and expand it a bit. Klonimus 15:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a content dispute on the coercive monopoly article. If this subject is of interest to you, please reply to the straw poll at Talk:Coercive_monopoly. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 16:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In this dispute note Ayn Rand's, Nathaniel Branden's, and Alan Greenpsan's explicit definition of coercive monopoly. Be aware of nature of their argumentation that proposes that a coercive monopoly can only be the result of government intervention. Please note the distinction between the definition of coercive monopoly, and the alleged causes of it. These essays are responses to the mainstream position that laissez-faire is the cause of coercive monopoly, coercive monopoly being explicitly defined as a monopoly that is immune from competition. RJII 16:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The major works section strays into a book report on The Fountainhead. It's not even very NPOV: "Peter Keating may be one of the most brilliantly portrayed conflicted characters of literature."

Most of the stuff about the Fountainhead's characters should just be outright cut. --Starwed 06:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I cut all the character descriptions to make that section more in line with the details of Rand's other novels. --zenohockey 17:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is mostly to Serche: I have done my best to combine the recent fighting over this section into a compromise. I object to Serche's "like all controversial philosophies" sentence because it adds no content -- controversial means critized so it adds nothing to say that "Like all criticized philosophies, Rand's has been criticized." There is also no excuse for removing the data about Leiter's survey, which substantiates the claim about Rand being ignored. If you're going to refer to anthologies, I have no problem with that, but cite some so people can gauge exactly what anthologies you're talking about. The most prestigious ones still tend to exclude Rand, and that shouldn't be hidden in some vague unattributed wording.

Most of your changes to the Nozick paragraph have been completely unobjectionable so I have worked them in where appropriate. Thank you for the improvements.

The claims attributed to "Rand's defenders" in the section about not writing in peer reviewed journals need to be sourced if they are to be used. Wikipedia is not a debate forum, so presenting your own opinions about why it was legitimate to publish this way do not count unless they have been promulgated in the literature. It should be easy to find.

The edits about one-dimensional characters have been great, so I have left them.

Please do not revert mindlessly to your pevious version -- if you have issues with my compromise, let us discuss them. --Ben golub 19:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Serche: Regarding the "Controversy" section. I edited it with two things in mind.

One was to eliminate the occasionally turgid prose. Wikipedia is a general resource so high academic phrasing is inappropriate.

The other was to make sure that both sides of the controversies are included. Rand is criticized for x, y, and z, and there are standard replies that readers should know about. So, Ben (or whoever), I do not see why your re-editing keeps eliminating the replies.

That said, there are legitimate issues about how much referencing and elaboration of arguments is appropriate without losing the flow and bogging down in details.

For example, one sign of Rand’s entering the mainstream is that she now appears in textbooks and anthologies. Here’s a very partial list: Louis Pojman’s Philosophy: The Quest for Truth; G. Bowie, Meredith Michaels, and Robert Solomon’s Twenty Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy; Joel Feinberg’s Reason & Responsibility; Judith A. Boss, Perspectives on Ethics; John Burr and Milton Goldinger’s, Philosophy & Contemporary Issues; Gail M. Presbey, Karsten J. Strul, and Richard E. Olsen’s The Philosophical Quest: A Cross-Cultural Reader; and many others. But I will not include that list in the article because it is stylistically turgid, not likely to be of interest to the general Wikipedia reader, and it detracts from the flow.

I do not understand why the mention of the Ayn Rand Society at the American Philosophical Association has been deleted repeatedly. For almost two decades there has been a professional association of philosophers in the profession’s major academic organization—that is relevant to judging Rand’s reception in the academic world.

About the Leiter survey. I’m a fan in general of Leiter’s number-crunching, and including his survey is arguable. But the important point is already in the Wiki text: there is not much engagement with Rand in analytic circles. That is not controversial, so there’s no special need to add an awkward sentence about Leiter—just as there’s no special need to list the textbooks in which Rand’s writings appear.

And about Rand’s not writing for peer-reviewed journals. That is a standard criticism—and there’s no need to reference that widely-made criticism. The same holds for the standard response to the criticism: many important philosophical writers didn’t write for peer-reviewed journals or the academic organs of their day. Both the criticism and the response should be included in the Wiki article. But here is where the judgment call comes in: either both the criticism and the response should be referenced, or—since this Wiki entry is for a general reader and these are both obvious points—neither really needs footnotes or interspersed sources. I favor the latter.

If you're going to include the Ayn Rand society, it's only fair to include Leiter's data. It would be a violation of NPOV to substantiate the claims that she is entering the mainstream, but not to substantiate the opponents' claim that she is still irrelevant. --Ben golub 02:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Rand has sometimes been viewed with suspicion for her practice of presenting her philosophy in fiction and non-fiction books aimed at a general audience rather than publishing in peer-reviewed journals."

Has any notable person pressed this as an objection? I view with suspicion suspiciously vague phrases like "viewed with suspicion." I think this graf superfluos. Anyone disagree? --Christofurio 00:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe replace the "viewed with suspicion" words with "criticized." --Anagnorisis 05:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With so many things that went around her, wouldn't it add flavor to the article having a trivia section? We could add comments about miscellaneous anecdotes surrounding her life. --Anagnorisis 05:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]