Misplaced Pages

Talk:Ayn Rand

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) at 03:15, 5 January 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:15, 5 January 2005 by SlimVirgin (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Quote from the article: "Her novels were based upon the archetype of the "Randian hero", a man whose genius leads others to reject him, but who nonetheless perseveres to prove himself superior." Unquote

Can anyone provide any evidence of the boldface part? Having read all of Ayn Rand's fiction, I am unable to find a single "Randian hero" who tries to prove their superiority to anyone. Personally, I think the best way to characteize her novels are her own statements, to the effect that her novels aim to portray heroic people as "ends in themseleves".
If no one can provide evidence to the contrary I will change the article text in about a weeks' time.

For the record, regarding the "second most influential book" claim for Atlas Shrugged, here is what the FAQ from the Objectivist Reference Center says:

No one knows exactly how influential Atlas Shrugged is, because there has never been a proper study done to check. The "second most influential" claim comes from a Survey of Lifetime Reading Habits conducted in 1991 by the Book-of-the-Month Club and the Library of Congress. Printed surveys were sent to members of the Club, asking them what books had most influenced their own lives. A little over 2,000 responses were received. The Bible ranked first, and Atlas Shrugged ranked a distant second. Because the survey targeted an audience of book lovers (members of the Club) and an active effort was required to mail in a response, it is likely that the results were skewed towards people who were influenced especially strongly by a particular book. Such a result cannot be reliably interpreted as reflecting the entire US population, although enthusiastic promoters of the novel sometimes make such claims. (The survey is also often inaccurately described as a "poll" or "study," and various incorrect sources are cited for it.) {Link}

The phrase "While he claims to be promoting and naturally extending her philosophy, some scholars see him as espousing his own philosophy, one that some argue Rand herself may not have agreed with were she still alive." should be removed in its entirety unless someone can provide actual references which would support the statement as fact. This appears to be a smear attempt on Peikoff and nothing more, given the context and the content of the following paragraph. Those who pay attention to the placement of this and the following argument might agree that it may only serve to coerce the reader into believing that Peikoff is in the wrong, and many who have read Ayn Rand works work would readily say otherwise.

I have heard this accusation made before, but don't recall where. I don't think including this in the article is a smear attempt, but is factual, reporting a valid POV that somebody has said about Peikoff. Just giving my input, I didn't write the article material. ChessPlayer 01:57, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
I don't think it's a particularly controversial accusation—among philosophers who follow in a vaguely Objectivist tradition, many feel that Peikoff is extending Rand's philosophy in one possible way, but obviously not everyone agrees it's the proper way. He obviously does something other than merely restating exactly what Rand said, and this is a controversial enough area that anything he does is going to be challenged by others. So I think it's fairly neutral to say that he claims to be the heir to her intellectual tradition, but that many scholars see him as more of as independent philosopher who happens to be greatly inspired by her. --Delirium 02:00, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

I've noticed Ayn Rand works being modified, including the original tenets of Objectivism. has anyone considered documenting "Objectvism: Original Philosophy" ? SEWilson

The claim that Dr. Peikoff somehow differs in his philosophy is refuted by Ayn Rand’s own statements and actions. Dr. Peikoff posthumously gave a speech in her name and at her request (“The Sanction of the Victims”, 1982) worked on a number of her papers, also at her request, and inherited all her works, with instructions to dispose of them as he wished. This is from Ayn Rand’s introduction to Dr. Peikoff’s “The Ominous Parallels,” written two years before her death:
"It gives me great pleasure to introduce the first book by an Objectivist philosopher other than myself. Perhaps the best recommendation I can give this book- and its author, Dr. Leonard Peikoff – is to say that it and he are not of today’s cultural mainstream. They will be part of tomorrows.”
The fact that Ayn Rand only used the term “Objectivist” to refer to someone who agreed with her philosophy in it’s entirety, and the fact that Dr. Peikoff has delineated his original philosophic work from Ayn Rand’s is a good indication that neither claim should be made without a link to factual references for any such claims.

--GreedyCapitalist 06:37, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I suggest the external links for the books etc. should be moved to the page on those books (for those which there are pages for). -- Sam

Regarding the statement that it is "widely but falsely believed" that Rand used the term "intellectual heir" to describe Peikoff: a reference or external link to material indicating why a popularly held view is false would be helpful. -- Rethunk

Copied over from Pages needing attention

Discussion taken from Votes for deletion

  • Atlas Shrugged/United States
    • Basically states that the action in Atlas Shrugged took place in the US. BTW, does every chapter of Atlas Shrugged really require a separate wikipedia entry??? Chas zzz brown 22:25 Nov 2, 2002 (UTC)
    • Holey Moley! There are 209 articles on Atlas Shrugged, including separate articles on each section of each chapter; plus endless stub reference articles such as Atlas Shrugged/Atlantic Ocean and Atlas Shrugged/Food (liverwurst, canapes, and something else). Looks like a project someone started, then (naturally) got tired of. Can't imagine anyone filling out any of the stubs.
      • Can't imagine anyone refactoring this mess either. Ortolan88
  • look kinda interesting to me, be a shame to delete what appears to be a pretty good breakdown of the book Lir 15:55 Nov 3, 2002 (UTC)
      • Nobody's really suggesting deleting anything, just commenting on what a mess it is. When little fragments of an article go flying off into their own articles, the reader is not being well served. Here, an important point about the novel, its setting and what it means, has turned into an separate independent article. The article on the novel is made less informative; the separate article is nearly worthless outside the context of the discussion of the novel. I thought reading Ayn Rand was supposed to make one ruthlessly logical. Guess not. Ortolan88
  • This complex of articles about a cult novel needs a lot of work to reduce it from its 209 articles. The only information on Atlas Shrugged/Waiter is that he served drinks. Does that qualify him to be a brain surgeon? Eclecticology

Also (moved from below)

  • Atlas Shrugged - the entire set of Atlas Shrugged/... articles need to be sorted out.
    • This set should be debated: what to do with it? There also seem to be very funky links from this set, made by the original author. For instance, the link "Lilan" in Atlas Shrugged/Section181 links to Lillian Todaro. olivier 09:50 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)
  • I will help sort this mess out when/if we agree what to do about it. Koyaanis Qatsi
  • I've consolidated all the Character stubs into Characters in Atlas Shrugged and Minor Characters in Atlas Shrugged. Catherine
  • If my counting method is correct, there's now about 80 non-redirect Atlas Shrugged articles. Was it really my namesake Tim Shell who created all those articles? -- Tim Starling 11:48 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's Tim Shell's baby, but don't be hard on him. The Atlas Shrugged pages date back to the very beginning of Misplaced Pages, before anyone really knew how things would shape up. They were an experiment, and proved difficult for Misplaced Pages to digest. And, that reminds me of another set of pages to be added here... -- Stephen Gilbert 18:42 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Ayn is not obvious from the spelling. So does it rhyme with "pine" or is it "eye-unn"?

I've never heard it pronounced any other way than exactly like "Ann". But then again I have no reference to back that up. - Hephaestos 21:58, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Ayn is pronounced like it rhymes with "mine". Bedevere 05:27, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I was just curious where you learned that. It's not that I don't believe you, it's just that I've usually heard "ann", although clearly it is spelt differently. M123 05:33, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
That can be found in many places. --Wik 05:39, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)
I originally heard the Ayn/Mine thing on NPR, but I know that it's true because this is how everyone who would know pronounces it from Nathaniel Branden to various ARI lecturers that I've heard. Bedevere 21:27, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Or like the German "ein". orthogonal 01:46, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

From article: "Branden's relationship with Rand eventually took on romantic aspects, though they were both married at the time."

Ayn Rand would hardly respect such euphemism. According to Barbara Branden's book, Rand regularly ordered O'Connor out of their apartment so that she and Nathaniel Branden could have sex, with the explaination that to O'Connor that her ideology required it. orthogonal 01:46, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This parallels http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/atlasshrugged/context.html a lot:

In 1925, she was permitted by the Soviet government to leave the USSR briefly to visit her relatives in America. Although she was only allowed a brief visit, she was resolute never to return to Russia. When she arrived in America, at the age of 21, she stayed with relatives in Chicago for 6 months before moving to Hollywood to become a screenwriter. (Misplaced Pages)

vs.

In 1925, Rand obtained a temporary visa to visit relatives in the United States. She intended never to return to her homeland. After living for six months with relatives in Chicago, she obtained an extension of her visa and went to Hollywood to pursue a career as a screenwriter. (sparknotes)

Coincidence? Kwertii 11:38, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

While I was in the mind to do the edit myself, it seemed a little presumptuous. But I do think it's important to add a note somewhere that many people, including just about every philosophy professor I've ever had, think that Ayn Rand is an entirely unimportant philosopher, that Objectivism, at its best, is watered down Nietzche, and at its worst, is dangerous for its readers...

And as far as I'm concerned, philosophy aside, Atlas Shrugged is not a particularily good book.

Now, I'm not suggesting that we deface Ayn Rand here, but only add a few notes as to her position in a community (the philosophic/academic) which many might be confused into thinking she was an important part of.

I don't know enough philosophy to know if you're right, but go ahead and make the change. The worst thing that happens is that someone disagrees with you, and then you two can work things out. It would be helpful if you created an account, just so people would have a pseudonym to attach to your edits--it's quick, free and anonymous. Best, Meelar 16:54, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
P.S. We encourage you to be bold in editing.
By all means please be bold in editing. I have gathered the same impression as you have, but I wonder if it is not perhaps influenced by a dislike for her philosophy? I know it might be difficult, but it would be helpful if you could cite some sources to whatever you decide to write, instead of being vague. That would help the page become more NPOV.ChessPlayer 22:42, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
There will always be professors who disagree with Rand but the fact is that most of their reasons are superficial. I would read the section on Rand under pseudophilosophy for an overview on why they disagree with them. (Some do so simply because she set forth a philosophy in fictional novels.)
In addition, there is an Ayn Rand branch of the American Philisophical Association, a Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, and prominent Objectivists holding chairs at colleges (i.e. Tara Smith of the University of Texas, among others). Any attempt to discredit Rand's philosophy based on the fact that professors don't agree with her is subjective at best and a fallacy in logic and deserves to be treated as such if it is to be mentioned in the article at all. Redfarmer 05:28, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think it would also be helpful to note her writing style: verbose, tedious, and frequently inscrutable. Brevity was not one of Rand's virtues, and the validity of Objectivism aside her works were frequently far longer and more self-important than they otherwise needed to be. I went back and re-read "The Fountainhead" a couple of years ago, and was amazed when I realized that Tooey's final monologue is something like 60 pages long. Even assuming that she wasn't shooting for a realistic situation, the points she make therein are tortuous, poorly constructed, and are more often than not endless variations upon the same theme.

That's clearly your POV, though -- a lot of people (not necessarily myself) would disagree with you. Neilc 14:37, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On the We the Living films

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

"Rugged" individualism and scare quotes.

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Suggest 12 possible wiki links and 6 possible backlinks for Ayn Rand.

An automated Misplaced Pages 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...
  • Can link egoism: ...tion both emphasize above all her notions of individualism, egoism, "[[Objectivist philosophy#Ethics: rational self-interest|r...
  • 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 and non-fiction works.... (link to section)
  • Can link rationalism: ... day (e.g., as developed by ]) and Platonic rationalism (as exhibited in the writings of ] and [[G.... (link to section)
  • Can link schism: ...oped once her own life was over. In ], yet another schism in the movement occurred. Objectivist ] 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)
  • 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)
  • Can link dating service: ...lasphere: Rand-related news, columns, member directory, and dating service... (link to section)
  • Can link CD-ROM: ... - 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)
  • Can link feminism: ...etations of Ayn Rand''] - Controversial anthology on Rand & feminism... (link to section)

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

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)

Sources

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)

Please Avoid Logical Fallacies

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)
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)