Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:40, 26 September 2008

Philosophy Redirect‑class Low‑importance

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Redirect This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Reason Template:Moveoptions

Article charter

This article is intended to describe only coherent, reasoned criticism of Objectivism, not polemic rants (to which category an unfortunately large amount of criticism has belonged) or political debate. Also, the article does not and should not take a position pro or con the criticisms or Objectivism. When there is directly relevant counter-criticism, counter-counter-criticism, etc. then it should be included in an intelligible manner. If you can't express a criticism neutrally and factually, then it probably doesn't meet these guidelines (which are compatible with general Misplaced Pages guidelines).

I think that this charter belongs in the lead, but at any rate it should be taken as an important guiding principle by the editors. Otherwise, the article will end up full of the kind of noisy, useless, counterproductive crap that we've seen in the related Talk pages. — DAGwyn (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of this POV fork

This article is a blatant POV fork, intended to hide away criticism of Objectivism. It should be deleted ASAP. -Bert 19:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That is utterly false, and comes from a POV pusher in his own right (see Talk: Ayn Rand). The intent, as is clearly stated in the intro, is to provide an appropriate place to summarize (thoughtful) criticism of Objectivism. I have planted links in the relevant main articles to make it visible and easily accessible. The main motivation was that numerous editors have continually warred over attempts to burden what were meant to be biographical or descriptive articles with various complaints against the ideas being described. Since the factual content of the article was generally not in dispute, this was not a NPOV issue, but rather an attempt to exploit a neutral article as a soapbox to present a POV contrary to the subject matter. This new article gives people a place to expound upon their POV without detracting from the quality (especially the cohesiveness) of the main articles.

We did the same thing quite some time ago for criticism of the C programming language, and that was very successful at improving both articles. The key is to keep the criticism article focused on rational arguments rather than mere flamage. — DAGwyn (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

DAGwyn is correct about the usefulness of this article. It serves as a better and longer form for criticism and hardly hides it away, it's linked to directly and clearly. He is also correct that "Bert" is a POV pusher. Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, both of the edit-warring POV pushers agree. This surely indicates that I am in the right. - Bert 20:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Freddy Ethan a dawe (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

expansion or merging

This entire page is jumbled, incoherent, and poorly written - much like Rand's 'philosophical' works. I suggest it should either be expanded to provide more detail on the central points (at present the largest section on any single thinker is given over to Nozick, not a critic of Rand at all), or else pared down and merged with the main article on Objectivism. On balance - especially given the polemical nature of this subject - I suggest the latter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.220.6 (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the comments expressed above. This article was created in the first place to move the distracting argumentation out of the simple descriptive article, where its presence itself had been hotly debated. Because as a "starter set" it contained only the fragments of existing critical text that had been hacked in and out of other articles by various editors, it isn't initially especially well organized, and doesn't go into much detail yet. That simply means that there is more work to be done here. Nozick's critical comments are certainly criticism; you seem to have confused "criticism" with "condemnation". Polemics should certainly be excluded from this and the main Objectivism article. — DAGwyn (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

As a person hoping to find both the basic ideas and criticisms of Objectivism on Misplaced Pages, I agree that this article is terrible. I've read it three times now, and I still have no real sense of the substantive criticisms, though I know they exist. It would be nice if someone would put something meaningful here. 128.195.57.235 (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is well-referenced and covers the main criticisms and that the writers should be commended, but and it does need to be more expansive and go into a little more detail. Skomorokh 18:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Replace 'but' with 'and' and I am in full agreement with Skomorokh's comment above. Karbinski (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Amended. Skomorokh 00:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Article name

So why was the article name changed without advance notice or discussion? "Criticism" was correctly used in its title. — DAGwyn (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, you didn't change the links to the article, thereby making more work for others downstream. How about moving the article back to its original name? — DAGwyn (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Category:Criticisms there does not seem to be a dominant convention, though the singular form seems more popular. No need to worry about the links, they are automatically redirected here and any double redirects are soon fixed by a bot. Skomorokh 00:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I should have preceeded the move with discussion, so I will back out my changes here and in the template if the objection still stands. Karbinski (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The difference is subtle, but I think the plural fits the article better - so I made the edit. I tested the links and did a check for double redirects, I'm glad to hear there is a bot to back me up on that. As well, I updated the template as even though the link works, the link has to be a percise match for the link of the currently open article to be disabled in the template. Karbinski (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If a bot fixes the links (now redirecting) then I won't argue for restoring the original name. The essential difference between the collective noun "criticism" and the plural noun "criticisms" is that the former connotes a whole category of activity while the latter connotes a set of individual activities. — DAGwyn (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Denial of indigenous land rights

This recent addition states a fact (albeit with a lame reference), but doesn't say what the criticism is. — DAGwyn (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That particular statement is present in a score of references, if you would prefer to use another one.    Redthoreau (talk) RT 01:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I've also expanded the section somewhat and attempted to add more clarity, per your comments.    Redthoreau (talk) RT 02:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The entry is OR, so I'm removing it. If you disagree, please cite your source. The Ayn Rand quotes are a display of what has been alledgedly criticized - all they verify is what Ayn Rand was critical of. Karbinski (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The passage is referenced in more than one place. I have reverted your revert of cited material, as such an action (without discussion) may constitute vandalism. You seem to be displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes "original research". All of the aforementioned material was derived from cited sources.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 23:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added further references as well. With respect to 'Undue Weight' I don't want to make this particular section too long, but I will gladly continue to add material if you believe there are not enough references.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 00:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

x is true (no verifiable source). a number of sentences supporting x is true. <--- OR on Misplaced Pages. Karbinski (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Having fixed the OR problem doesn't change the original concern raised by DAGwyn. The section doesn't offer up a criticism - simple to fix? Karbinski (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is "simple to fix", even though I dispute that it is indeed 'broken'. You have yet to answer my question below Karbinski: Is it your contention that Objectivism has NOT been criticized for their stance on land rights as they relate to pre colonial inhabitants / Native Americans etc ? If so then we can begin discussion with that point - and expand the section with the dearth of material which in fact does just that. However, if it is your contention that the section merely doesn't chronicle effectively such criticism, then I would note that you are also welcome to add to it, that I do intend to add to it, and that you shouldn't be attempting to "strangle the proverbial baby in the crib" by hastily removing recently added material with 'construction still in progress.'   Redthoreau (talk) RT 18:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I am going to call attention to the above question to Karbinski again --- that continues to go unanswered. If this query remains unanswered, I am going to re-include the section on "Denial of indigenous land rights" which was hastily removed by Karbinski without discussion or consensus.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 17:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant that it is broken. State the criticism, that will be your 'proverbial baby in the crib'. Blurting out that Objectivism has been criticized over whatever issue is not notable or relevant. As a work in progress can live off-line or in your personal sandbox, there is no need to expose the public to broken content. If the section stated a criticism, then it would no longer be broken. Karbinski (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

To re-emphasize my original point: Disagreement and criticism are not the same thing. One can disagree with a position without having any semblance of a reason to justify the disagreement, but criticism requires that some argument against the position be provided. The original text on "indigenous Americans" stated (more of less correctly) what Rand believed, and some of Rand's reasoning for that position was given, but no reasons were given for a contrary position. Absent the latter, it's simply not "criticism of Objectivism". — DAGwyn (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Modern Science

Objectivists have opposed basically all accepted tenets of modern science: quantum mechanics, general relativity, the hypothetico-deductive model, falsificationism, and the notion of spacetime while hoping for a return to Newtonian Physics. Aren't there are single criticism of their being anti-scientific and/or out-dated? 24.200.59.46 (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It is true that Rand's own comprehension of science was essentially Newtonian, that being the norm for education at the time. I don't recall Rand herself objecting to most of the trends you cited, and certainly some self-identified Objectivists have worked in those fields; for example, Andrew Little tried to resolve some of the issues in the basis of quantum theory by casting the theory in terms of "reverse causality", which done carefully seems to yield the same results but with an improved model for particle interactions. However, it is not just Objectivists who have been critical of the philosophy behind developments such as those you listed. For decades, quantum mechanics was dominated by the "Copenhagen school" of Bohr, the main tenet of which was that there was an essential disconnect between the laws governing evolution of a quantum system and the laws governing interactions involved with measuring the state of such a system. That lent considerable support to subjectivist views of physics, e.g. Penrose's buying into Searle's "Chinese box" argument. There is a lot to be critical of about those notions and methodology, and notables such as Einstein have expressed such criticism; Feynman has said that nobody understands why the basic underlying principle should be the composition of probability amplitudes rather than probabilities. (The Copenhagen problem now appears to be fixed by the recent quantum theory of measurement.) General relativity is inherently a classical field theory, and thus quantum physicists in general have a problem with it, although no suitable replacement has yet been found. (I suppose that whatever criticisms of GR you were referring to had other objections; without references it's hard to respond specifically.) By the "hypothetico-deductive model" I suppose you refer to the so-called "scientific method" that is taught in school; many of the best scientists have observed that that model does not fit a large portion of actual science activity. Certainly Objectivism has as a tenet the validity of deductive methodology, although Rand didn't appreciate symbolic logic (the value of which should now be evident since it underlies computing). By "falsificationism" I suppose you mean Popper's notion; the objections to that are similar to the objections to the much earlier "operationalism", and while both have some value taking them as dogma to restrict what can be talked about cripples our ability to understand rather than simply describe phenomena; obviously that is objectionable (and not just to Objectivists). I don't know what criticisms of space-time you refer to that differ from criticisms of GR. So criticism of several generally accepted beliefs in science is not inherently wrong; a good scientist needs to remain skeptical of accepted beliefs, and seek supporting evidence, proofs, and plausible explanations. It is of course possible, even probable, that some of the criticism you refer to is indeed unfounded, but Objectivism does not necessitate Newtonian physics. Since the article is not for criticism of individual beliefs of some Objectivists but rather for criticism of the philosophy itself, I don't think there is much ground for a section on this issue. — DAGwyn (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Karbinski's removal of sourced material

Has been reverted. The criticism in popular culture is relevant, as even the editor of Reason points out (seeing as how Rand has become a punch line in contemporary culture). As for the denial of indigenous rights, I will continue to add to this section, as apparently the criticism is not clear to some readers. Karbinski, is it your contention that Objectivism or Rand has not been criticized for denying the land rights of Native Americans? Is that really what you are arguing?   Redthoreau (talk) RT 21:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The criterion for content inclusion in this article, being the _Criticisms of Objectivism_ article, is that the content be one or more criticisms of Objectivism. The article is encyclopedic and is not a dumping ground for just anything - sourced or unsourced - that refers to Objectivism or Ayn Rand.

Examples that are criticisms:

• Rand's theories are out of sync with the complex interrelationships and interconnected systems of modern life.

• Objectivism's claim "that there are objective truths and realities, particularly in the moral realm dealing with values" contributes to manifestations of cultism ... within the Objectivist movement, including slavish adherence to unprovable doctrine and extreme adulation of the founder.

• Adherence to Objectivism can result in hazardous psychological effects.

• "Rand’s is a tortured immortality, one in which she’s as likely to be a punch line as a protagonist" ... with "jibes at Rand as cold and inhuman, running through the popular culture.

• I think user Redthoreau's new sections fail to meet the inclusion criterion of being relevant for the article.

Examples that are not criticisms:

• User Karbinski has criticized user Redthoreau's recent edits to the Criticisms of Objectivism article.

• Objectivism has been criticized for its denial of indigenous land rights, particularly in reference to American natives.

• In the movie Dirty Dancing, a character justifies cruelly dumping his pregnant girlfriend, by citing The Fountainhead.

• In an episode of The Simpsons called "A Streetcar Named Marge", the infant Maggie is remanded to a prison camp entitled “Ayn Rand School for Tots” where pacifiers and bottles are banned.

• In the Futurama episode "I Second That Emotion", the library in the mutants village is a lone bookshelf stocking literary items flushed down toilets from above. When Bender peruses the available reading, he finds Atlas Shrugged and remarks "nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand."

• In the South Park episode "Chicken Lover", Officer Barbrady reads Atlas Shrugged after overcoming his illiteracy. He later proclaims to the town that he "read every last word of this piece of garbage" and "because of this piece of shit" will "never read anything ever again."

• In the non-fiction memoir A$$hole: How I Got Rich and Happy by Not Giving a Shit About You, American writer Marty Kihn claims to have found inspiration in the philosopher Ayn Rand, who he decrees “The asshole’s philosopher.” He goes on to pontificate that “any aspiring asshole could learn a lot from The Fountainhead or The Virtue of Selfishness.”

All but one item do not belong in the article. Karbinski (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I see now that the listed references support the opening item. The section is still crap. Nothing noteworthy has been spared being the punchline of jibes within popular culture on account of nihilism. That Objectivism isn't spared either is hardly worthy of pointing out unless you want to highlight that Objectivism is cropping up within popular culture. Karbinski (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Your usage of "crap" I find to be unwarranted pov (noting the existing tone of our remarks), and unbecoming of a serious discussion on editing an encyclopedia entry.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 18:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the tone it sets was unwarranted, but the point of view remains. Karbinski (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with removing the pop culture references, per WP:TRIVIA. They detract from the quality of the article, and don't relate to the subject of the article (notable criticisms of Objectivism). No, "Rand is an asshole and her books are really long" is not a notable criticsm of Objectivism. The Native American issue seems a stretch - for whatever its faults, Objectivism makes its ethical claims universally, so unless there is evidence to suggest its universalized ethics systematically discriminate against some group, such criticism does not really belong. the skomorokh 16:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent points concerning the pop culture references. They are not notable criticisms, on thier own or considered against the backdrop of how such pop culture sources "make jibes" at everything, and it is simply a trivia list. The section should be deleted. Karbinski (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I read the word immortality as immorality, so despite my mistaken belief, in fact the editor wasn't criticizing any idea of Ayn Rand. That is, the entry is not a criticism of Objectivism. I am removing the section for the same reasons I removed the other section. Karbinski (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If there is consensus to remove the popular culture criticisms - fine (even though I think they are relevant) as sadly more people have probably heard of Rand through those episodes (which millions of people saw) than have read her books (note I am not thrilled with the pervasive role of popular culture, but do believe that Misplaced Pages has a role in chronicling its impact/existence).   Redthoreau (talk) RT 18:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is not a chronicle for the impact of pop culture. It is for reporting _criticisms_ of _Objectivism_ for the encyclopedia user. As per having read her books, her books show up in pop culture because millions have read them, not the other way around. Karbinski (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is for "criticisms" of Objectivism -Or- Ayn Rand. Now the fact that a syndicated show seen by 10 million + people criticizes the seminal work regarding the philosophy as "shit", or that in the future it will be "flushed down the toilet" - is notable. Nevertheless, I realize the futility in arguing this point, and am willing to concede to your removal out of a desire to avoid endlessly debating these points.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 18:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Mockery and derision are just that, and there is nothing notable about them - no matter how much publicity they recieve. A critique of an idea or set of ideas is different than jeers, taunts, jibes, ... Karbinski (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting Karbinski, that you not only have altered the word from "criticism" to "critique" (which the article it not labeled as), but somehow view "mockery" = separate from "criticism". I have always understood "derision" as criticism, but apparently you believe that as soon as someone crosses an imaginary line of decorum in their vernacular, that they cease being "critical" and become something else.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 17:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Lets pretend I never changed from criticism to critique (not that my usage was some kind of diversion). A criticism in the context of an encyclopedia article on a set of philosophical ideas is a serious examination that points out flaws or shortcommings. Ad hominem snippets or expression of unsubstantiated opinion has no intellectual merit and no place in the article. You might be able to discern the difference given my lists of examples of what are and what are not criticisms. Karbinski (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep cool and focused on improving the article. Red makes a good point that Misplaced Pages has some role in chronicling popular culture, an given that Rand is such an iconoclastic figure who has a strong and distinct public persona, there may very well be a case to be made for a Cultural depictions of Ayn Rand article or similar. But pop culture content typically damages the content of articles on serious subjects, such as this one, and Objectivism itself (never mind the criticisms of it) has little traction in popular culture. This encyclopedia article is the better for being rid of it. the skomorokh 18:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Scope of the article

Red raises the point of scope above, opining that this article is for criticisms of both Objectivism and Rand. I think that we should stick to criticisms of Objectivism, and to that end we could do better with this article by refocusing the sections devoted to Rand herself, her manner and practices, to her philosophy. For example, the History of philosophy section, while very relevant to the topic of Ayn Rand, seems somewhat out of place here. Do any critics allege that ignorance or idiosyncratic interpretation of the history of philosophy is a problem Objectivism itself or Objectivists generally have? If so, this would be the type of criticism we should include. Jean Paul Sartre was an ugly motherfucker, but that's not a criticism of existentialism, is it? the skomorokh 18:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is possible confusion because of the use of "Ayn Rand" in italics (in the articles official heading). Thus yes it becomes an article chronicling philosophical criticisms of Objectivism, and criticisms of Ayn Rand. If this is not the desire of editors, then that should be revised. Per your humorous Sartre question ... if there was an article chronicling criticisms of Jean Paul Sartre (the man), then I necessarily wouldn't deem his appearance of relevance (although I guess one could make the case that it may have affected his world view) ... but would possibly find it relevant if a popular TV show described "Being and Nothingness" as "worthy of wiping your ass with" or described Sartre as a the "philosopher for alienated douchebags" etc.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 19:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The parenthesised Ayn Rand is a problem, but it is there solely to disambiguate (i.e. so that readers don't think the article is about criticisms of 1930s poets). I think a move to Criticisms of Objectivism would be unproblematic as long as the lede makes clear its about the Randian philosophy. Do you think it's a good idea in principle to bundle criticisms of Rand and Objectivism together? I'd prefer to keep the former at Ayn_Rand#Criticism and the latter here. the skomorokh 19:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 16:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So no-one has a problem with me removing or refocusing the material in this article that currently only addresses Rand, her work and her attitudes, and not Objectivism? the skomorokh 17:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The intent of the article (see section on Charter above) is to document criticism of the philosophy, i.e. the body of ideas. Only to the extent that the founder's personality is embedded in the practice of the philosophy would it be relevant. (Thus the "cultism" section is appropriate.) — DAGwyn (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Proposal stalled pending the resolution of the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) discussion. On behalf of WikiProject Objectivism, the skomorokh 18:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No need to stall this

I don't think this really needs to be stalled until the other discussion is resolved. I know the guideline you are using—that split articles should follow the naming convention of the parent article—but this has exceptions. If we have an article on Foo (band), we wouldn't create an article called Foo (band) discography, nor Members of Foo (band). We would simply have Foo discography and Members of Foo. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see how the other discussion resolves before proceeding further with this one. If you like, think of it as me withdrawing my proposal. Your example is interesting, but in this case it's as if there were several bands called Foo and it wasn't agreed which was the best-known one; disambiguation of some kind may still be necessary for the sub-articles (although I argue that it isn't needed here). Regards, the skomorokh 17:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The article name merely reflected the original parent article name, and if disambiguation is recommended for the latter then the same argument applies here too. — DAGwyn (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect-Class Philosophy pages
• Low-importance Philosophy articles