Talk:Objectivist metaphysics

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:  • Objectivism Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:  • Talk:Objectivism

	Objectivism Unassessed (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Objectivism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ObjectivismWikipedia:WikiProject ObjectivismTemplate:WikiProject ObjectivismObjectivism articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 April 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

In the essay "Philosophical Detection" in Philosophy, Who Needs It? Rand says, "Nothing is self-evident except the material of sensory perception." I am removing the reference to self-evidence as an aspect of an axiom. Nine9s (talk) 05:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps somewhere near the beginning, we could include Dr. Peikoff's statement in OPAR that the purpose of the Objectivist Metaphysics is to deduce the further axioms and corollaries of the "existence" axiom. I don't have OPAR on me at the moment, but maybe someone else could include that bit of information. Rodfitts 18:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consciousness is not an axiom of objectivist thought! Rather it is an observed fact!

• Object We need to check how much of this is Ayn Rand's work and how much is objectivism in general. See also Epistemology. --Salix alba (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object !! This page has nothing whatever to do with Ayn Rand and her 'thoughts'. 82.152.225.137 08:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No. As numbered user.Lapaz

• Strongly object. Objectivism (lower-case) is much older, broader, and more reputable than Rand's Objectivism. They need separate articles. --zenohockey 02:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object Rand's Objectivism is only tangentially related to objectivism. At best, it's a special case. At worst, it's incompatible and misnamed. Alienus 05:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mind and Body section is uncited and rather inaccurate. Are we going to let it stand as is or clean it up? Al 04:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little bit baffled by the claim in the law of identity section: that, if William F. O'Neill and not Rand has the correct take on what Aristotle intended with the law of identity, it "may cause considerable trouble for the whole of Objectivist philosophy".

Who decided that whatever Aristotle originally meant has to be the absolute limit of what can be legitimately termed the "law of identity"? After all, it isn't like Rand is claiming to be a mouthpiece for Aristotle. Why can't Rand be wrong in her interpretation of Aristotle and it still be the case that the law of identity is valid in the ontological sense in which she applies it? 97.112.130.182 (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An objectivist group is canvassing its members to edit Ayn Rand related articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turnsmoney (talk • contribs) 18:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading the article after the decision to keep it, the impression that it's an original essay interpreting aspects of Rand's thought is unavoidable. There are a handful of references to one third party souce - Peikoff. Maybe the whole article is reproduced from Peikoff, but if that's the case, he should be more thoroughly credited. Although the novel Atlas Shrugged is quoted, many of the doctrines attributed to Rand are not stated in Atlas Shrugged (example: that she challenged induction). As a reader with no claim to expertise in this area, I particularly expect to see citations when the position described is deeply implausible, e.g. that the positivists believed existence depended on consciousness, or that "Whatever thing one perceives, it exists...", or that axioms are to be validated by perception. I think it's important that a curious reader can confirm for him or herself that Rand actually said such things, and that they are not (however well meaning) misinterpretations by a Wikipedia editor.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Given that the request for citations is from Sept. 2007, can't we do with this article what was done with the politics article? (blanked and redirected?) --Karbinski (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am totally in favor of that, as with the Epistemology article (I was away when the deletion discussion took place).KD Tries Again (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]