Talk:Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand

Systematicity

"It is considered to be the only systematic presentation of Objectivism that Ayn Rand herself authorized, though it wasn't per se. Rather, it is actually based on a series of lecture courses by Peikoff himself, which Rand approved of. "

The only really problem with this statement is that it ignores the 20-lecture "Basic Principles of Objectivism" series done by Nathaniel Branden, who at the time was Rand's intellectual and legal heir, and was ALSO approved by Rand, etc. etc. Peikoff's work came later, and AFAIK, while Peikoff was Rand's legal heir, he was never her intellectual heir. --Emb021 15:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash^talk 18:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Books by Ayn Rand?

I have removed the category "Books by Ayn Rand," as Leonard Peikoff, not Ayn Rand, wrote the book. LaszloWalrus 21:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy

I've reverted LGagnon's Aug. 15 edit, which removed all references to Objectivism as a philosophy. Whether or not it's flawed, juvenile, or ideologically motivated, it is a purportedly logically derived system with positions in metaphysics, epistemology, etc. Calling it an "ideology" implies it's something loose and politically based. --zenohockey 02:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Reviews and Responses

This article would benefit considerably from including responses to Peikoff's book—whether in the form of book reviews or articles that address portions of his presentation.-RLCampbell (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Among the reviews quoted on Peikoff's website (http://www.peikoff.com/opar/reviews.htm), at most two are from sources not affiliated directly with him or with the Ayn Rand Institute.-RLCampbell (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The section on "Reception" states that "non-orthodox Objectivist philosopher David Kelley wrote that Peikoff's introduction of the book as both a 'definitive statement' and 'interpreted' was 'a tortured effort' based on fallacies." These quotations presumably from David Kelley are not sourced. Two chapters of Kelley's "Contested Legacy" are online (the book mentioned in the footnote to this sentence), and Kelley's review of Peikoff's book on Objective, "Peikoff's Summa," is no longer online. But I have both works in my library, and I don't remember that Kelley characterized Peikoff's view of the aim of the book as a "tortured effort." The way the section quotes a few words purportedly by Kelley in isolation and separately from each other is suspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.147.170 (talk) 00:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I added this text back in 2011. To confirm that I hadn't mis-stated anything previously, I just checked the cited page in a print edition of the book. Both the specific words and Kelly's general tenor appear to be accurately represented. He uses the word "tortured" at least three times to describe Peikoff's views. --RL0919 (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Reverts

Samaritanismjew, I don't know what you think you are accomplishing by reverting all my edits to this article without explanation, but you need to stop doing that immediately. Among other things, your reverting of my edits has the effect of ruining the article's infobox, removing the picture of the book. There is no way that is a constructive thing to do. It can be seen as vandalism. Please read WP:VANDALISM. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)