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

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

Administrative query

This page is frequently defaced by an anonymous individual (or, less likely, individuals) who gets here from various public-access IP numbers and erases key contributions to the article. Would it be possible to restrict editing of this page to registered users? This would require the unidentified vandal to do more work, and thus might have a discouraging effect.

Attributions

"Reason consists in forming concepts through the use of logic, what Objectivism defines as "the art of noncontradictory identification"."

In actual fact, that definition was originated by Aristotle.

Contradiction?

These two paragraphs seem to contradict each other:

It is also an error to identify a concept too fully with one of its referents, i.e., to fail to generalize properly. In the Objectivist view, one who is thus "concrete-bound" (i.e. whose thinking is fixed at the level of concrete entities) is unable to use concepts properly. To be concrete-bound is to fail to achieve a fully conceptual consciousness.

Many contemporary philosophers claim that, while the proposition "1 + 1 = 2" is "necessary" because true in all possible realities, the proposition "the atomic mass of hydrogen is 1" is "contingent" because it is not constant across possible worlds. Objectivism would reply that the second proposition is just as "necessary" as the first: if the atomic mass differed, the substance in question would not be hydrogen.

Specifically, Objectivism seems to be “concrete-bound” with regard to the atomic mass of hydrogen. I’m not criticizing Objectivism, but rather pointing out that the article in my opinion fails to address this contradiction (or apparent contradiction), leaving me wondering which part I have failed to understand. — Daniel Brockman 06:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC) (point addressed in subsequent edit by Adam Reed.)[reply]

It doesn't address it because your question isOriginal ResearchWikipedia:No_original_research of a sort I highly recommend finding a webforum full of Objectivists who will be all too happy to have fun with it (lemme know, as I was highly tempted to address it before I remembered that policy)Darkmusashi 03:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bold text

Criticism?

Given that this entry was probably written by objectivists themselves, wouldn't a criticism section be helpful? Acumensch 21:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably would, but as an Objectivist who is constantly on the lookout I've never really come across any criticisms that directly address the episeomology of objectivism. Ethics, politics, metaphysics yes, but not much for epistemologyDarkmusashi 03:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing alert

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]

How 'bout that.TheJazzFan (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blank-out and re-direct to section in Objectivism (Ayn Rand)

See Objectivist politics and Objectivist metaphysics. Any objections? --Karbinski (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely happy with the redirecting of Objectivist metaphysics – I think these articles could be valuable once referenced. This is of the same standard (in terms of citations) as Objectivist metaphysics , however, so for consistency's sake I don't object. Skomorokh 21:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am very much in favor of blanking and redirecting these articles. I know Wikipedia has unlimited space, but since the material, even if properly referenced, can only be repetitive (unless we blank Objectivism), I feel they just waste the reader's time.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

The idea is that, having read the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article and its short epistemology section, the reader can proceed to the Objectivist epistemology article for a more detailed account of the sub-topic. The latter article has twice as much readable prose as the former, so I don't think it's accurate to say that it is redundant. For comparison, see individualist anarchism, which is summarised in anarchism. Skomorokh 16:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]