Humanities desk
< September 22	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 23[edit]

Shanty houses in Hong Kong[edit]

Has this slum been demolished already in that area or does it still exist? --112.198.82.85 (talk) 01:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The file description includes the photographer's name and a link to his "personal website". You might be able to contact him there. Btw, here is an internal link to file page: File:Shanty housing in Hong Kong.jpeg —71.20.250.51 (talk) 04:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...burgh[edit]

In the late nineteenth century, the United States Board on Geographic Names decided to standardise toponyms throughout the United States, a process that resulted in places such as Gettysburgh, Pennsylvania and Alburgh, Vermont losing the "h" on the end. It provoked a particularly strong response in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, which unlike the other Pittsburghs, decided that it wanted to keep the "h". Do we have an article on this process? I didn't see anything in the Newburgh articles that I consulted (Indiana and New York), and while Etymology of Pittsburgh addresses the situation, it doesn't link to any articles. Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about WP articles, and I'm away from my books; but as I recall, there's a fairly extensive treatment of the Board on Geographic Names's principles and their implementation in George R. Stewart's very interesting book Names on the Land. Deor (talk) 03:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Originally, "-burg" was actually a German spelling, not the ordinary or usual English spelling. However, if such names were pronounced with [bɜrg] (and not as in "Edinburgh"), then dropping the "h" in the spelling made sense. Nowadays, most American placenames with original "-burgh" pronounced as in "Edinburgh" are spelled with "-boro"... AnonMoos (talk) 07:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which is not how the Scots or most other anglophones say it, but that's neither here nor there. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So how do Anglophones pronounce "Edinburgh"? Americans may tend to pronounce the ending like "burrow", but isn't it more like "burruh" or maybe even "bruh"? Keeping in mind that the trailing "gh" might have originally been more of a guttural sound, in which case everyone is mispronouncing it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, at last we have confirmation that Americans are not anglophones! :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That aside, Bugs is right: No-one pronounces it the way it would originally have been pronounced, with a guttural ending. Brits use either of the two versions Bugs suggests, although I'd say '-bruh' is more prevalent, and is also common across a lot of other UK placenames with the same ending. (I believe Happisburgh is prounounced Hayzbruh. Go figurgh.) AlexTiefling (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly; I'm just trying to discover whether we have an article that's about the spelling-change process, rather than one that just mentions it, rather than one that supports it, and rather than a book by someone who studies it. Nyttend (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I scrolled through all of the articles that link to U.S. Board on Geographic Names, including articles that link to its redirects, and did not find such an article. A competent article on your subject would have that link. So, the answer seems to be that we do not have a competent article on this subject, and probably there is no article. Marco polo (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American birthday or lunar birthday[edit]

For Hu Jintao It cites his birthday is December 21, 1942, is that his lunar birthday or is that his American Gregorian birthday. Also Yasuo Fukuda's birthday is cited July 16, 1936 do they do lunar calendar in Japan. Is July 16 Fukuda's American Gregorian birthday or it is his lunar birthday? Because I found a website you can convert American Gregorian to lunar birthday. Can we legally define our birthday to be lunar birthday instead of American birthday in USA? Lets say somebody's American birthday is June 18 then can they use their birthday as lunar birthday documenting May 3 (If that is the right match)? Can I use my lunar birthday as legal birthday in USA instead of American Gregorian birthday? For East Asian Politics do WP present them as American Gregorian birthday or lunar birthday?--107.202.105.233 (talk) 06:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as an American birthday. Birthdays are defined in the Calendar System that is used. Your question should be "Is the birthday for Hu Jintao given in the Gregorian Calendar System". Or prehaps you are asking if Hu Jintao celebrates his birthday in the Chinese Lunar Calendar System. If you want to use a converter, you can do it at [1] 202.177.218.59 (talk) 06:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the official calendar system in used in China is the Gregorian Calendar System, I think the answer is pretty obvious. 202.177.218.59 (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

107.202.105.233 -- I think you're a little confused between "birthday" and "date of birth". In the context of China, a date like "December 21, 1942" can only be a Gregorian calendar date. The time of actual birth will be the same day in any calendar system (only the names and numberings of the relevant chronological periods in each calendar will be different). It's the annual recurrence of the date of birth which will be different for different calendars. The annual recurrence of Hu Jintao's date of birth according to the traditional Chinese lunisolar calendar will vary about a month in terms of Gregorian calendar dates, depending on the alignment of lunar phases in any particular year (just as Jewish Calendar dates of religious celebrations, such as Hanukkah and Rosh Hashana, vary by about a month in terms of the Gregorian calendar). NOTE: Traditionally in Chinese culture, people did not celebrate "birthdays" on the annual recurrence of their individual date of birth in the Chinese lunisolar calendar. Rather, everybody was considered to add a year to their age around the time of the Chinese-calendar new year (see East Asian age reckoning)... AnonMoos (talk) 06:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In Japan, the old lunisolar calendar was abandoned for almost all purposes in 1873, and is almost solely of antiquarian interest nowadays... AnonMoos (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also in traditional Chinese Culture, the very moment you are born, you are at the age of one year old. However this practise is no longer in vogue. Mathematically this does not make any bloody sense at all, anymore than Americans declaring the ground floor of their multi-story building First Floor instead of Ground Floor. 220.239.43.253 (talk) 11:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not nonsense at all; this is simply saying the child is in his first year of age, which is completely accurate. Nyttend (talk) 11:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are considered one year old at birth, then you have begun your second year. As to how floors are designated, that's a matter of individual choice. In some cases, ground floor = first floor (which to me makes logical sense). In others, first floor is one story up from ground floor. Then there's the situation where ground floor = basement; or where basement is one floor down from ground floor (and/or first floor). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When living in Hong Kong (admittedly as a child, many years ago) I was told that the Chinese "one year old at birth" convention was because the period of gestation was considered as part of one's life. (OK, it's only up to 9 months or so, but calculating the actual date of conception was historically rarely possible.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting because I was told something similar in Malaysia, and even found sources (see for example our article talk page), but others primarily from China have said they've never heard of such a thing and it's because of the first year thing mentioned above. This is the first I've heard the same claim coming from outside Malaysia/Singapore. Nil Einne (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because most of the Western world has arbitrarily decided counting ages must start with "1" designating 12 months from date of actual birth, the Chinese tradition that Lunar New Year's Day is everyone's birthday must be completely wrong . . . except for the Chinese. DOR (HK) (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Thoroughbred and Queen's Official Birthday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both China and Japan have officially followed the Gregorian calendar for 100 years or more. Japan adopted that calendar in 1872, while China's government officially adopted the calendar in 1912 but was not able to enforce it nationwide until 1928. For any dates after those, there is not even an issue of conversion from the lunisolar calendar, since the date would have been recorded under the Gregorian calendar. The traditional lunisolar calendar continued to be observed for certain holidays or religious rituals, much as the Christian liturgical calendar underlies moveable feasts in the West, but birthdates were recorded using the same calendar used officially in the United States and other Western countries. Marco polo (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

solar power plant[edit]

Been looking at the cost of solar panels for a house, there's some nice levels of income for selling the electricity, but the roof space I have isn't enough to get much. I was thinking, then, assuming I had plenty of money, could I buy a patch of land in the sahara somewhere, just to cover it in solar panels and sell the electricity? Reckon it'd pay for itself in about five years and we'd only need a patch about 150 miles a side to supply all the world's electricity.

Thank you,

86.24.139.55 (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transporting that electricity might be a problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue with the Sahara is that much of it is rather lawless. Even assuming your piece of land was near a power line so that you could sell the power, unless you were living on the spot and had good relations with the locals (which might entail sharing your profits in some way), you could face a serious risk of losing your solar panels to theft. On the other hand, this might not be a bad idea if you bought a piece of desert land near power lines in a country with more robust rule of law, such as the United States or Australia. Even then, the local power company would have to be willing to strike a deal. Marco polo (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of solar thermal power stations has information on many large-scale solar power plants around the world. --Jayron32 17:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Desertec is (or perhaps was) a specific project to set up a solar power scheme in the Sahara. The idea is also examined here and here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do men ever join the YWCA in the same way women join the YMCA today?[edit]

I notice that the YMCA is open to everybody. Men, women, boys, girls, Christian, non-Christian. But the YWCA is only open to . . . women? 140.254.227.48 (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YMCA and YWCA are independent of each other despite their names, iirc. Men can join YWCA as Associates, which, according to this site from greater Los Angeles, holds all the same benefits as regular members except they cannot join the Board of Directors ~Helicopter Llama~ 16:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Multiplier of covering a progression losses[edit]

Did it been acceptable to crediting a constant geometric or arithmetic progression of multiplier of covering a progression losses?--Alex Sazonov (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, that the Soviet Union (USSR) could used a similar national economic system to gross covering a progression losses.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 02:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All states had the raw materials losses, and the Soviet Union (USSR) as well as all states, had always the raw materials losses.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 05:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

why do few academics study ayn rand[edit]

Why are only a few academics interested in ayn rand? What is so controversial aabout her199.7.159.55 (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many academics study Ayn Rand. As for what is controversial, you can read all about it at the Wikipedia article titled Ayn Rand and follow links to other articles about her philosophy and find criticisms thereof. Immediately below me, you will find many people engaging in their own political diatribes either in support of or in opposition to Rand, and will include no links to information to be found at Wikipedia or elsewhere. This is against the policies of this board, you can pay them no mind. --Jayron32 17:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the impression i have is that most philosophers consider her to be fringe. And i don't know the reason why. But I could be wrong.199.7.159.55 (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She was a fourth-rate novelist. That's why no-one studies her. DuncanHill (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer is that she scares and enrages the left, the perfect example of that sort of reaction is directly above.

One relevant answer that avoids the POV issues is that she did not engage academics on their own terms, scorning them as a group, instead. She often referred to pieces from her own novels when making and argument (i.e., quoted herself) but while she would attack various philosophers like Kant, she never gave a book and page citation. There's also a huge problem with her "orthodox" followers associated with the Ayn Rand Institute not allowing access to her papers to people the see as personae non-gratae, and actual well-documented fraud in publication of her posthumous works (I'll avoid BLP, but you can google "rewriting ayn rand posthumously" for a perfect example).

There's also the problem that she did meet but often fell out with intellectuals, politicians and philosophers such as John Hospers and Isabel Paterson. She did not brook criticism and would not engage in debate.

I'd also contest the lack of interest. Plenty of people attack her. But she had two scholarly biographies published in the last decade, four unauthorized ones in total. This book published by Cambridge University Press is one of technical scholarly philosophy, and its Amazon listing links to dozens of others published by doctorates and in university settings. μηδείς (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, she also offended the contemporary right (particularly William F. Buckley, Jr.) for dismissing religion as useless, and for what they perceived as a dehumanizing focus on capital and lack of ethics on her part. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding from hearsay is that Rand told Buckley he was too intelligent to believe in God/be a Catholic. It's funny how much Rand parallels Aquinas, Rabbinic Judaism, and Jesuitry minus the supernatural element. μηδείς (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, what on earth makes you imagine that I'm in any way scared or enraged by a crap novelist? Is that something you just made up again? DuncanHill (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you resort to insults without evidence makes me know, not imagine anything. Yours is the same as the hissing growl of a cornered animal, and produced by the same fear-regulating primitive brain we share with reptiles. μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, if I was a crap novelist then maybe I'd feel threatened by her - after all, that can't be that many people willing to read such appalling prose. You need to stop sharing a brain with passing reptiles and get one for yourself. DuncanHill (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide evidence that anyone outside of the U.S. gives two hoots about Ayn Rand's 'philosophy'? Can you provide evidence that 'the left' outside of the U.S. has actually heard of her, in order to be 'enraged'? Personally, it is only through encountering her advocates online that I have become aware of her existence - and nothing that they have said has given me the slightest inclination to look into her ideas further. Just plain uninteresting... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's you who come across as "scared" Medeis - snapping and thrashing around with the "hissing growl of a cornered animal", as you put it, at the thought of such criticism of someone who has next to no influence on international political debate, and so is no 'threat' to anyone, on the political left or anywhere else. Paul B (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The article covers it, particularly the section Academic reaction. In short, those who find her fringe see her work as self-contradictory (particularly her ethics and politics) and incomplete (including her denial of obvious influence from Locke and Neitzsche). Even Michael Huemer, a libertarian anarcho-capitalist (so, similar politics) claims that her ethics lack logical coherence.

A bit of original research on my part to elaborate, but Rand said that her philosophy was based on the idea of A=A. She also decried selflessness (me<you, consistent so far), and further advocated selfishness (me>you). The latter part contradicts A=A unless one holds that human =/= human (which means that A =/= A) or that one is defined by their wealth ($ = humanity). Ubuntu (or at least the application of being charitable provided one can afford it) appear to be the ethical follow-through of A=A (me=you). There's also the consideration that her works feature the people paying the folks who pay the workers as the folks holding society together, nevermind what happens to society when you simply don't have any workers. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She's a so-so novelist, and is not generally taken seriously by professional philosophers. Pop-Nietzsche. Paul B (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rand was not an anarcho-capitalist or an anarchist in any way, although every satanist from Robert Nozick to Anton La Vey has misappropriated her thought in a very warped mirror. She fully supported a minimal government "minarchism" as per the US constitution, with a few changes, such as striking the interstate commerce clause. (She thought the US was freest between the Civil War and the railroad grants and anti-trust. She explicitly denies that people are to be judged on their wealth, see her interviews with Mike Wallace where she denies this explicitly, and says a man's value to others in friendship or love is based on his virtues, not his wealth. And A=A is a logical axiom from Aristotle, not the basis of her philosophy, and not a claim that any individual person is equal to his wealth or any other individual. Her notion of selfishness, or egoism, is that each person has a right to earn her own happiness, not that you can enslave or want to be enslaved by others or they you Thieves and lifelong government officeholders are not selfish--they depend on your productivity taken by them, ultimately at gunpoint. Misrepresenting Rand's philosophy and giving our personal opinion of her novels is not what the OP has asked for. μηδείς (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Medeis:Where did I say that Rand came up with A=A? I said that that was, for her, the basis of her philosophy. Did I say that Rand was a complete anarcho-capitalist, or that her views were closer to that? Especially when compared, to say, anarcho-socialism? Or fascism? Or communism? While she denied advocating money grubbing selfishness and by "selfishness" meant individualism instead of the negative opposite of selflessness, the conclusions even within her own love life, are ultimately the same. My post was an elaboration of common criticism. Whitewashing by her followers is no more factual than criticism by detractors, but the OP did ask why people either don't read her or have a problem with her, which means explaining the latter perspective. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is getting way off-topic, but I gotta know: Are you seriously calling Nozick a Satanist? Or is this just part of the Rand-thinks-libertarians-are-intellectual-property-thieves rubric?

Medeis, I hope you know, I admire Rand in a lot of ways. She threw a much-needed monkey wrench into the intellectual conformity of her times. But on this point (as on a number of others) she was way off-base. She was not nearly as essential to the intellectual basis of the American libertarian movement as she thought, and I don't recall that she ever acknowledged her own predecessors, like Auberon Herbert, or for that matter even John Locke. --Trovatore (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the allusion to Nozick as a Satanist was a semi-joke. He wasn't one obviously, but Rand's followers might see him as no better than a Satanist. And yes, I agree totally that she denied and downplayed her antecedents. That's why I mentioned Isabel Paterson. It's quite clear that Rand was educated in American politics and libertarianism by Isabel Paterson. Rand basically had a pattern of denying anyone with whom she ever came into disagreement. This was intellectual, with her excision of the explicitly Nietzschean parts of We The Living which were glossed over as grammatical corrections in the introduction to the second edition; as well as personal, with her tendency to "break" with people who had their own careers and to excommunicate her own followers if they came to question various tenets or opinions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 18:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OP asked why she is not studied - Rand was a crap novelist and that is why she is not studied. There are plenty of third-rate novelists that Eng Litt departments can pick the bones of before having to resort to her. No-one takes her "philosophy" seriously except for a few more-than-usually deranged Americans, in my experience. DuncanHill (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to DuncanHill and Paul Barlow's points, I suppose it'd be fair to make the comparison to psychologists studying Carl Jung but not George Lucas. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting you should bring up Lucas. Many have compared his first film THX 1138 to Rand's novella Anthem. --Jayron32 19:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you gentlemen did not find any of mysticism in the literature works of Ayn Rand in particular in her author's ideas?--Alex Sazonov (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. Could you define your term 'mysticism' more clearly or give a counterexample if you think there was any mysticism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 20:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OP 199's two questions are incommensurate. To be controversial (Q.2) would require many people to have read her, and to hold conflicting opinions about her. But the premise of Q.1 is that only a few have read her. Most seem either unattracted or indifferent to her writings. That's the antithesis of controversy. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anybody bother? For starters, hardly anyone outside of the US has even heard of her. Within the US it's a certain (distinct minority) group of obnoxiously vocal people who are obsessed with her for no good reason. Her writing is appalling (and yes, I've tried to read it to see just what the fuss was about), her politics offensively stupid/shortsighted, and self-contradictory. In short, nobody cares and there is not reason they should. I'll let Randall Munroe do the rest of the talking for me: [2] Fgf10 (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answers. How is ayn rand a crappy novelist though? i guess i would have to read for myself. The bottom point basically is that ayn rand is rejected by most academics mainly because of her personality, not so much her actual philosophy.24.207.79.50 (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to medeis, not to most of the otheres24.207.79.50 (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do think you should read for yourself and judge for yourself. Anthem is a very quick read and gives you the gist, so if you don't like the flavor, you're not out a lot of time. Similar remarks hold for Night of January 16th.

If you like classic Russian novels (not my personal cup of tea, but some like them), then We the Living is very much in that genre.

If you like pulp (which I do), Atlas Shrugged has that as a strong influence. Unfortunately, in my personal opinion, it drags a bit — could and should have been cut by about half. In particular, John Galt's speech, which goes on for sixty pages, could easily have been given in five.

In my personal opinion, her best work is The Fountainhead. If you don't want to commit to reading 700 pages — just start with the movie, which is very good, in spite of obviously not being able to treat intellectual issues in the same level of detail. --Trovatore (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't heard of her until someone mentioned the Fountainhead to me about 8 years ago. I tried reading it, but found it to be rather tedious, and then gave up part-way through due to the one-dimensional female character in it, which just enforced how terrible the writing was. I really don't see how anyone can enjoy it as a novel, even a trashy one. Snorgle (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree almost entirely with Trovatore's run-down of recommended reading. The only problem with Anthem is that it's extremely stylized (it's set in the distant future, the characters have numbers as names, and only use plural pronouns) so it is more experimental than typical of her work. As for The Fountainhead, it is definitely her best work as art. The problem is that it does take a willingness to read to about page 70 until it becomes quite exciting. I tried twice to start it and gave up, succeeding only on the third try, after I had read Atlas Shrugged which is a hoot from the first chapter.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 18:19, 24 September 2014

(edit conflict)No, there are plenty of people who have complaints about her philosophy, too. My mom's one of the few people who didn't mind her as an author (only skimming the giant speeches though), but (upon reading about Objectivism) decided she didn't like Rand. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But doesn't every philosophy receive complaints?24.207.79.50 (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The bottom point basically is that ayn rand is rejected by most academics mainly because of her personality, not so much her actual philosophy" could have been read to mean that they wouldn't have a problem with her philosophy, or that no one did have complaints about her philosophy. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course every philosophy is going to receive criticism from academics, even aristole and plato, i'm sure. But the main reason why most academics don't study her is because of her personality. Her philosophy does not seem like the main reason why she is considered fringe. If i'm correct. Do you understand?24.207.79.50 (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No philosophy is going to be "correct"24.207.79.50 (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that most academics don't consider Rand to be sufficiently original as a philosopher to be worth discussing. (I would compare her to Jack Vettriano - technically third-rate, hated by the critics, but still very popular.) "Why is Rand popular among people like Medies?" is a legitimate question for a sociologist, but a philosopher would study Nietzsche rather than Rand if they wanted to be taken seriously. Tevildo (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree with User:Trovatore above that The Fountainhead is Rand's best artistic work, and that Atlas Shrugged is a great pulp fiction novel. I am a huge fan of Rand's, as well as a big fan of Nietzsche, and a critic of both. But I find the nonsense about, "she's not big in Europe", and so forth speaks for itself NPOV is NPOV and the rest is useless.. Indeed, she's illegal to read in Cuba, and wasn't legal to read in the Soviet sphere of influence until the late nineties. What more could one want? 22:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) [reply]

It's not "nonsense" about her not being big in Europe - she's not big anywhere except among a small, excessively vocal, section of Americans. Unfortunately, they are not the sort of people to allow reality to interfere with their thought-processes. DuncanHill (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why medies is the only one who speaks positively about ayn rand?24.207.79.50 (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely accurate. I spoke somewhat positively about her, while not withholding my criticism. --Trovatore (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot about Medeis that is inexplicable. DuncanHill (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the wikipedia community is very biased against ayn rand24.207.79.50 (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In some ways Wikipedians actually are representative of the world at large. DuncanHill (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in the earliest days, articles about Ayn Rand made up a large part of Wikipedia. [3] Rmhermen (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel oddly prescient. --Jayron32 02:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that both medeis and tevildo gave the most helpful answers. They were the most relevant and neutral in my opinion.24.207.79.50 (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian thomson too was helpful24.207.79.50 (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Time for that immortal quote:

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
— John Rogers

I think the childish part is what turns most philosophers off Rand. She cheats in her novels (by which I mean that the story is unfailingly bent to illustrate her philosophy - a very cheap trick), and she does not suffer objective reality conflicting with objectivism, either. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful quote! Reminds me of Shaw's quotes comparing the Prince of Wales to a stream of bat's piss. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Tevildo, StS and others have said it well. Whatever μηδείς may say, Ayn Rand's work gets little interest from the substanial majority in much of the world. Even among academics in philosphy and similar fields, it's likely many barely known he works and don't care about them either.

And Tevildo had a good point that I'm not sure if the OP understands. For those who at least made some attempts to look in to her work (which probably isn't that many), they would often be quickly turned off by her writing (not so much her personality per se).

But this doesn't mean they wouldn't reject her philosphy or consider it fringe. From what little they learnt and knew, they probably already do so but also found it flawed and uninteresting enough that they would openly admit they can't give it fair comment since they haven't studied it enough. If they were to study it properly, they'd probably find their views reenforced. In other words, it's not that they wouldn't find much to criticise about her philosphy, it's just they never bothered to try because there was no reason partially because they find her writing so poor.

The idea that any of this is because they fear it, is as others have said, just dumb. There's little to fear because of the flaws and regardless of whether they agree with the philosphy or not, few actually care about it and there isn't much evidence that's changing. When these people find philosphies both pervasive or whatever enough to be interesting, but find them dangerous or harmful, they're much more vocal about it.

I don't particularly get the relevance of her works being illegal to read in the Soviet Union and Cuba. First, I couldn't find much evidence any of her written works were even banned per se, except for this [4] which sort of hints at it by suggesting her works were seen as poor enough that they were rarely smuggled. That said, Medeis didn't mention a ban and books don't have to be formally banned to be risky to own or read in such countries.

Which highlights the other point. Control in such countries is frequently strong enough that a lot of works are a risk. The work doesn't have to be something which is good enough or interesting enough or whatever, it just has to be something which goes enough against the party line (which includes a lot of conflicting things). And particularly in the case of Ayn Rand, her history was probably equally concerning to those in power in the Soviet Union. (Notably enforcement is often inconsistent and highly dependent on who is involved, what they think of you etc. And even without any direct action being take, it wasn't uncommon that life may be difficult if you're viewed as potentially subversive so it was best to be careful.)

BTW, in trying to find evidence for a ban, I did find this previous discussion Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 April 21#atlas shrugged where it's mention her most famous work was reviewed positevely by the editor on a state bookstore in China.

BTW, getting a few biographies and publications about something isn't surprising if there's a small minority very interested in the work. But in any case, I wonder how the level in philospy and related fields compares to someone like Gene Roddenberry or perhaps better something like Star Trek [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. Yet in this case, it's likely even among many who study such, Gene Roddenberry's work or in particular Star Trek isn't some ground breaking philosphical work, or even entirely consistent, but rather a popular work with enough to be worth a look at, perhaps as an introduction to more sophisticated work. (In fact the last source more or less says that.)

And yes I know George Lucas was mentioned before although not Star Wars in particular, but this seemed a better example because I think (and my searches also suggest), there's much more about Gene Roddenberry and George Lucas (which in itself is sort of telling).

Nil Einne (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. While researching the above answer, I came across another interesting factoid. According to [13], whatever flaws of the Ayn Rand Institute, in the US they're also heavily involved in promoting her work, particular in schools giving free copies, organising essay competition etc and also worked with a third party (BB&T) to fund course on her works in universities [14]. (Their funding requires these courses. It's not that they're funding in general and suggesting these courses.) While I'm not saying there's anything necessarily wrong with that, it does give you an idea or where some of the interest in her work is coming from. Nil Einne (talk) 12:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC) Since I'm sure someone else will say it, I might as well say it first. In answer to the original question, one of the reasons so few academics study Ayn Rand's works is because the ARI and supporters could only afford to fund said study in 25 universities, and even that only came recently. Nil Einne (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison with Rand, consider Robert_M._Pirsig: another philosopher widely read by those outside of academia, and little-studied within it. OldTimeNESter (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC) The Singing Butler by Jack Vettriano]][reply]

This site, Noble Soul (the name of which is an allusion to a quote of Nietzsche that pleased Rand) is pretty much the best on-line resource not affiliated with any organization and presented in an objectively neutral, not hostile or adulatory way. The link I have given is to the bibliography of books on Rand up to 2011, with several dozens listed, about half academic. μηδείς (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Vampire Cat, thanks. I had never heard of Jack Vettriano, but a perusal of his works show he is far above third rate, except with the piss-christ postmodernists. I've ordered two of his books. I can see why he's so popular; the vast majority of the public is not mentally ill. I think the real question of this thread is, what is wrong with the critics, the humanities, the intellectuals, and the intelligentsia? μηδείς (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an abridged version of what our article says of the opinions of critics of the Jack Vettriano, example at right:

According to The Daily Telegraph he has been described as a purveyor of "badly conceived soft porn and a painter of "dim erotica". According to Vanity Fair, critics say Jack Vettriano paints brainless erotica. Sandy Moffat, head of drawing and painting at Glasgow School of Art, said: "He can’t paint, he just colours in. The Guardian's art critic Jonathan Jones, described Vettriano’s paintings as a group as "brainless" and said Vettriano "is not even an artist. Richard Calvocoressi, when director of the Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art, said: "I’d be more than happy to say that we think him an indifferent painter and that he is very low down our list of priorities (whether or not we can afford his work, which at the moment we obviously can’t). His ‘popularity’ rests on cheap commercial reproductions of his paintings."

In 2013 in The Guardian art critic Jonathan Jones wrote, "Vettriano fixes on fetishistic, stylish objects and paints them with a slick, empty panache" and "The world of Jack Vettriano is a crass male fantasy that might have come straight out of Money by Martin Amis".

In The Scotsman George Kerevan wrote "He suffers all the same criticisms of the early French Impressionists: mere wallpaper, too simplistic in execution and subject, too obviously erotic." Alice Jones wrote in The Independent that Vettriano has been labelled a chauvinist whose "women are sexual objects, frequently half naked and vulnerable, always in stockings and stilettos."

μηδείς (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire? Thinking of Thuringwethil, are we? Admittedly, her origin is in one of my illustrious namesake's remarks, so the confusion is understandable. Tevildo (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

You do actually have a special place in my heart, Tevildo. Anyone with such a user name is my kind of person. I could have sworn Tevildo was a vampire-were-cat, but I haven't read any Tolkien since before the Fellowship of the Ring Movie, i.e., the nineties. I do keep hoping they make a greater Silmarillion as a Japanese Anime, since the live action films are so bad. I;d have had them do the same with Atlas Shrugged--the adaptations as so bad as to make a fan ill. μηδείς (talk) 00:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's legitimate to compare Vettriano and Rand - one is hugely successful with the public, the other almost unknown. DuncanHill (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Similar 'damned' artists (ie. ignored by critics and curators, but popular with the public) include Beryl Cook and (the great and hugely under-appreciated) John Wonnacott, which I pass on for your potential interest. Reading what passes for art criticism nowadays, I don't see quite how Jones' criticisms of Vettriano don't equally apply to Allen Jones or, indeed, any figurative artist who paints nudes; thus:

Titian - a purveyor of 'badly conceived soft porn' and a painter of 'dim erotica'.
Velazquez - 'women are sexual objects, frequently half naked and vulnerable'. *
Rembrandt - 'a crass male fantasy', 'too obviously erotic'.

* duh - that's surely point of painting nudes.

86.173.209.70 (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]