Jump to content

Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

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 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)

"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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)

Rand from a typewriter

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)

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??

Fame

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), 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'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://wiki.riteme.site/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. "

Removing the summary of Objectivism

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)

Ayn Rand has affair with god?

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)
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)

Ayn Rand + The Simpsons?

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)

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.

Rand also figured into a South Park episode, about the chicken-lover, and showed up in Futurama, but neither of these amusing pop culture references really deserves a place on this page. Alienus 21:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
By themselves maybe not, but together they might mention a brief subsection "Ayn Rand in popular culture." Or something of the sort.

Nietzschean Influence and Institute for Cinema Arts part

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. 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. 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)

Criticisms: That Foolish Paragraph

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.)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ayn_Rand/Archive_2&oldid=1136541321"