Talk:List of philosophers born in the 20th century

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

standard for inclusion[edit]

this list needs a standard for inclusion or else people will post their favorite pseudo-philosopher of the day to it. i suggest that it should be 50 citations in the philosopher's index if dead, and if alive it should be actively publishing in philosophy journals that are found in the philosopher's index. --Buridan 12:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should decertify the routledge book as a source in philosophy, it is too inclusive.--Buridan 22:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Buridan, why is it that I suspect your wish to "decertify" Routledge is just a thinly disguised continuation of your drive to remove all references to Rand? There is no Wikipedia "decertification" process. Your claim that Routledge is "too inclusive" constitutes origonal research. I believe your push to discredit a valid, verifiable source signals a reckless kind of personal POV editing. I'm coming to believe you would make any change in the "rules of inclusion" that let you get around WP policy regarding valid entries. Your relentless deleting of Rand despite valid, verifiable sources is a gross violation of primary WP policy. If you truly care about standards, the first ones to abide by are primary WP policy. Steve 22:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, we've had this discussion before steve, I remove rand because she is not recognized as a philosopher, except in places with very loose standards. if you check reliable encyclopedias, you don't find her as anything other than a novelist. if you check the philosopher's index, you don't find her cited any more than herman melville or george orwell. if we let rand on this list, then we have to let everyone on this list. she's a perfectly find literary figure, she even tried to write philosophy, but she isn't in the field of philosophy nor is she a philosopher. we've seen all of your citations in other arguments and there are only a few that even merit consideration and upon investigation, most of those, including this routledge book are problematic for other reasons. Now, you can keep adding her all you wish, I will keep trying to find a standard that excludes her, herman mellville, and melville dewey from lists of philosophers. all are perfectly fine people, but if you let one in, you have to list them all. --Buridan 22:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melville is a red herring - he is not an author who founded a philosophy that is well known - he didn't publish non-fiction works on political science, epistemology, ethics, etc. Your decision to call Routledge a source with "very loose standards" is your opinion and constitutes origonal research. I have provided a valid, verifiable source which makes your deletion much akin to vandalism - at the very least it is a severe violation of WP policy. Steve 01:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


blah blah blah, I am truly astounded that this argument is still going on between you two. Even if there were reasons that convinced the community to so-called "decertify" Routeledge, that would take consensus, and it occasionally seems that consensus is not taken into account in either of your edits. - Sam 05:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
there was consensus for not alowing rand on political philosophers and major philosophers, there is likely consensus here, but it seems very few people pay much attention to the lists. ~~---- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Buridan (talk • contribs) 13:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Actually there never was a concensus - either for or against. Often it was just Buridan and me going blah, blah, blah as Sam said. Sometimes there would be one or two people chime in for Rand and sometimes one or two against. But never a concensus. Take a look. The pages are still there or in archive. I've summarized a sample of the sections on Rand in the political philosophers talk page.
Section: "Is Rand a political philosopher?" (section created by Buridan)
Saying "No" (2) - Buridan, LotLEx
Saying "Yes"(3) - LaszloWalrus, Bmorton3, Dawn Abend
Section labled, "Ayn Rand" (section created by LazloWalrus)
Pro (5)- LaszloWalrus, Duke, SteveWolfer, 144.189.5.201, DawnAbend
Anti(3) - LotLEx, Buridan, GoodIntentions
Section labled, "RfC Feedback" (initiated for question, "Should Ayn Rand be included?" by Duke)
Pro (6)- A.J.A, SteveWolfer, Duke, Dev920, Bmorton3, Alecmconroy
Anti(3) - GRBerry, Buridan, Sam Clark
Even where the 'numbers' go strongly one way or the other it does NOT read like a consensus. Steve 17:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
seems pretty clearly that lack of consensus for, is consensus against. --Buridan 17:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"seems pretty clear that lack of consensus against, is consensus for." An absence of evidence for A doesn't constitute evidence for B. Not this side of Alice's rabbit hole. Steve 17:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia already has a standard for inclusion. It is called Wikipedia:Notability. Rand is notable as a philosopher, as evidenced by over 14,000 proximity search hits on Google, and due to her being referred to as such in mainstream publications such as Time magazine. Therefore, she is eligible for inclusion on this list. If thousands of people are calling her a philsopher, then she's notably one. The Transhumanist (AWB) 05:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Special pleading[edit]

User:LaszloWalrus is apparently a Randian, who has made a point since joining Wikipedia of scattering Rand's name in articles (especially lists). Most notably, the same addition was made over at List of political philosophers. I actually don't feel that strongly about the inclusion of the name in either the current list or that one. But as a really bad argument for his edits, LaszloWalrus claims that both EB and American Heritage dictionary call Rand a philosopher. I happen to have checked both of these claimed sources, and neither does so (nor do a couple other sources LaszloWalrus seems to have invented as support off the top of his head); citing a source that pointedly fails to say what you claim makes be think very poorly of the citational understanding of an editor. Just making up a source under that hope that other editors and readers won't bother to check is intellectual dishonesty of the highest degree. Not happy!. LotLE×talk 06:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you have accused me of lying, here's the source [1] for Britannica. Your attack on my character is misguided at best, intentionally dishonest at worst. LaszloWalrus 00:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that does not say she was a philosopher.. many if not everyone has a philosophy. should we include every printed author who writes along philosophical themes? no. i don't find his observation off course at all. you seem to be willing to count anything as merit to add rand to lists of philosophy even though almost every discussion ends up outside of consensus, without any real agreement that she is a philosopher. all you do is say, here is another bit of evidence, then it turns out to be utter crapola. if you keep up the revert wars without consensus building evidence, i think i'll turn you in for abuse of npov, because what you are doing is promoting an agenda instead of being objective.--Buridan 01:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the discussion on the Ayn Rand page; 90% of the people there believe she is a philosopher. What about the Ayn Rand division of the APA [2]? What about the book on Rand's ethics and politics published by Cambridge University Press and authored by Tara Smith? Please stop the personal attacks, by the way. LaszloWalrus 02:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The crapola really contributes to the problem. There is not "Rand division of the APA". Almost everything LaszloWalrus writes is entirely invented in his own head, or at least shows such a prevalent misunderstanding of very many things as to be of no merit. Likewise, he keeps indignantly pointing to the same sources that still' fail to say that Rand is a philosopher, no matter how many times the URL is repeated. LotLE×talk 05:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the rand page on wikipedia is probably a heavily defended bastion of opinion with no strong relationship to the world. i know many people have tried to edit that in the past to reflect that people do not agree that rand is a philosopher, and those tend to get wiped. it should at least be footnoted.--Buridan 12:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep in mind that the apa does have literature divisions too.--Buridan 12:48, 14

September 2006 (UTC)


Verifiable source of Rand as a philosopher: http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761579630 "Ayn Rand (1905-1982), American novelist and philosopher, whose championing of the gifted individual established her as a controversial figure in 20th-century literary and philosophical debate."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VERIFIABLE "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research."

So, please provide a reliable verifiable source that she is not a philosopher. 144.189.5.201 22:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.--Buridan Buridan, please do not use deceptive edit summaries. 75.24.182.42 03:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i did not, it was vandalism, minimally, and sockpuppet vandalism maximally. as for being a philosopher, it is clear she is not from most encyclopedia articles. she is not in the print version of the encyclopedia of philosophy, that was printed after her death, there is actually overwhelming evidence that she is not, and every time someone finds one tiny bit and thinks it proves she is, they re-add her without thinking, primarily because they don't understand that her philosophy of objectivism requires them not to do so. in any case, promoting rand is an npov issue. to include her is to promoter status as a philosopher, which is not generally accepted, we've had this argument before. non inclusion is neutral, given what it says on the rand entry. --Buridan 11:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
in the end, 2 things matter beyond verifiable, that is npov and the reality. the reality is that rand did not think she was a philosopher, the rand article says that, the other thing is that her status as a philosopher is disputed, the rand article says that too. if it is disputed, then there is evidence on both sides with pov. --Buridan 12:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Buridan, you are misquoting the Ayn Rand article. She did think she was a philosopher, but that she was a novelist first. In other writings she said that she became a philosopher in order to write the novels she wanted to write. You also are ridiculously selective in what part of that article you chose to quote, because it says she is the founder of a philosophy. The first sentence of the article describes her as a philosopher. In another paragraph it says, "Rand's Objectivist philosophy encompasses positions on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics." I maintain that the only non-neutral POV here is yours and your so-called reality is a collection of misquotes.
Buridan, your argument about "promotion" has problems. It is an attack on an editor instead of an issue and is based upon motives you assign to a fellow editor. And, it would be just as easy to say that you are attempting to "demote" Rand because of personal dislike - pushing your POV. Your tactic of labeling a fellow editor as a "sock puppet" and a "vandal" is just wrong. Worse still was the deletion of an argument that you didn't like from this talk page; censoring the debate, just like you are attempting to censor philosophy by deleting Rand’s name. That argument you deleted has been restored, but you have still not addressed it in an honest fashion so I'll repeat it. User 144.189.5.201 wrote, "Verifiable source of Rand as a philosopher: http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761579630 "Ayn Rand (1905-1982), American novelist and philosopher, whose championing of the gifted individual established her as a controversial figure in 20th-century literary and philosophical debate."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VERIFIABLE "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research."
So, please provide a reliable verifiable source that she is not a philosopher." We will wait for an answer that isn't a misquote, deletion of another person's argument, or personal attack. SteveWolfer 17:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the ayn rand page says she is not considered a philosopher for all and that she herself did not consider herself a philosopher. that's pretty much all you need.--Buridan 19:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buridan, again you are misquoting the Ayn Rand article. She DID think she was a philosopher, but that she was a novelist first. That article also says she is the founder of a philosophy. And the first sentence of the article describes her as a philosopher. In another paragraph it says, "Rand's Objectivist philosophy encompasses positions on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics." SteveWolfer 21:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i read footnotes.--Buridan 22:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability[edit]

This list and the accompanying lists of philosophers by century were initially compiled (by me) to be all-inclusive provided any legitimate source (of general philosophy) could be provided citing the person as a philosopher. By this criteria, Ayn Rand does meet the criteria for inclusion here, as the Routledge does give her an entry. KSchutte 21:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who made it and their intent doesn't matter so much on wikipedia, the citation matters of course as evidence on one side of the larger debate. I'll look into that when i have a chance. --Buridan 21:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, don't you trust me? (I can see why you wouldn't, amongst all these Randians.) KSchutte 21:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
you should check some of the other discussion, we've had over the last few months and the quality of evidence... some of it is ... questionable as to whether it even exists.--Buridan 02:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rand[edit]

This issue has been discussed on versions of this list going back more than two years. It was decided quite a while ago that even tangentially related figures to philosophy ought to be included on this list in order to be as comprehensive as possible. That means we're including figures such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Amílcar Cabral, Bruno de Finetti, Mircea Eliade, Kurt Gödel, and so on, even though these people would not be readily apt to the label "philosopher". At least some editors (i.e., the editor of the Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy) consider Rand to be just the sort of figure I've been talking about, so her place here is justified thereby. If you have some reason to challenge the inclusion of all of these figures (rather than just Rand), then please make your case here. KSchutte 21:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

actually that concise encyclopedia describes her as a political theorist and dismisses her work as philosophy.... i don't know the qualifications of the other people, Gödel is known as a logician, so he belongs. --Buridan 21:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that she oughtn't be recognized as a philosopher and I assent to the fact that the Routledge doesn't describe her as such. All I'm saying is that she meets the very minimal criteria for placement on a list that has such a wide range of figures that go far beyond the mainstream of philosophy and wouldn't, generally, be called "philosopher". Her place on a list this broad is unlikely to harm the minds of the uneducated masses who might happen to click to this page. There are a lot of questionable figures (theologians, speculative psychologists, mathematicians, political figures, scientists, etc.) on this list and its partners, but they are also all figures that someone with an interest in some area of philosophy or other might be inclined to know more about, which was the reason they were included in the works referenced, and the reason I compiled these lists initially. I'm not convinced that there's a good reason to depart from my initial intention. KSchutte 23:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. A smart person who stumbles across this list will notice the references and conclude (appropriately) that the important philosophers are those who were included in at least two or three of the references. KSchutte 23:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
wikipedia is for everyone KSchutte, smart and not. Our job as editors is to use verifiable sources to represent the material. The problem is that all rand sources provided so far either are completely biased, written by rand supporters, or poor. I would like to see this encyclopedia be at least as good as the print versions of the encyclopedia of philosophy. They do not include rand, and likely never will. Her ideology is significiant, her philosophy is not. --Buridan 13:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Buridan, your first job as editor is to restrain you personal POV and not engage in origonal research. You take it upon yourself to deny any and all sources provided for Rand. They "are completely biased" according to you. Or, they are "written by rand supporters" - Does that mean if any source says Rand is a philosopher, they are "supporters" and therefore disqualified? Or, they are "poor" - you have compared Rand to Snoopy, said her philosophy is insignificant, while other editors, who don't like Rand or her work have separated their feelings from their job as editors. When you trash the provided sources and delete sourced material you violating WP Policy. You told KSchutte that Wikipedia was for everyone - I wish you'd quit editing it as if belonged only to you. Steve 17:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Buridan, I'm not advocating all the rest of the Rand-hype that goes on around here. If you'd like, I could provide you with several documented occassions where I've actively resisted it (and similar insanities) on wikipedia. But, still, the challenge you raise can't adequately be handled by the editors here in any non-question-begging manner. As it stands, these lists are sourced, and her inclusion on this list is demanded by the sources. If you want to object to the standards for inclusion, that is an issue that goes far beyond Rand, and I think you'll find that it will be exceedingly hard to specify a more stringent criteria that doesn't succumb to edit wars and ideological fights. (I don't know if you were around to see the hilarity that was List of major philosophers.) You know as well as I do that there is no universally recognized standard "authority" in philosophy. This is one respect in which, due to the nature of the thing, wikipedia can never include everything that a print encyclopedia would have; it cannot accomodate distinctions of relative importance, for these will always have an arbitrary fine line that will be disputed. This list was never intended to only pick out significant philosophers; it would be futile to attempt such a thing on here. The list is intended to be as comprehensive as possible, to include anyone who has had any influence at all on philosophy however minor. I'm all for adding more sources to this list (provided they're as authoritative and as general philosophy works as those included), but such will only increase the number of individuals on this list, not decrease them. KSchutte 01:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensive is fine, when it is of philosophers. I was here for major philosophers and the same two or three editors seem to be the only people who want to add Rand, which is fine, if they have a reliable source that distinguishes philosophers from non philosophers, is not biased, and is verifiable as a source that actually calls the person a philosopher. all i want is a reliable unbiased verifiable philosophical source, and as of yet, there are none. that's a problem. there is a tendency to promote rand on wikipedia. however, if we cannot find any neutral sources in philosophy... then can we really call her a philosopher? be honest here, her greatest claim to being a philosopher is her own claim to be one. the secondary literatture, books in philosophy, are all by people who have participated in one or more of the rand/objectivism promotion groups. I just don't see that there is any legitimate claim. --Buridan 12:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read what I said? I agreed that she's no philosopher, but asserted that the scope of this list isn't (nor could it be) so narrow. You still have said nothing to justify such a narrowing. KSchutte 15:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
list of philosophers born in the twentieth century. and you say she is no philosopher?--Buridan 16:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She wrote extensively on philosophy, and even developed a school of philosophy, called Objectivism. Please stop removing her from the various philosophy lists. The Transhumanist (AWB) 04:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In an earlier post KSchutte said, "...there is no universally recognized standard "authority" in philosophy." That is a key point. It means the choice is between using WP policy of a valid, verifiable source OR unending, unresolvable conflicts over differing, specialized or made-up definitions of what constitues a philosopher. Buridan says, "all i want is a reliable unbiased verifiable philosophical source..." but of the many that have been put forth none are accepted. I see only three outcomes to this awful squabbling. 1) People speak up in numbers and say, like it or not sources have been provided - stop deleting Rand. 2) People speak up in numbers that provide a strong concensus against Rand. 3) The list is eliminated like the "major philosopher" list was. This last outcome would be very wrong. With the word "major" there was always going to be a problem that couldn't be solved. With this list people just need to speak out and be firm. Steve 18:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what certain "elites" from the Ivory Tower think or have to say on the quality of Ayn Rand's philosophy what cannot be denied is that Ayn Rand was and is a philosopher who created a system of thought for people to study on it's own merits. Yes she might not be the world's best philosopher and she didn't go to the best schools to study the subject but there is no doubt that she is a philosopher and to say otherwise is a reflection of your own stupidity and bias. The Fading Light 21:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes and so is frank herbert. --Buridan 22:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find me a work of philosophy that explains how relevant his work is (that's not in the genre of The Simpsons and Philosophy-type books) and Frank Herbert can go on the list. Good luck finding it. KSchutte 03:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ah, but all we need is one verifiable source that says he has a philosophy, right? i mean that's the standard fro inclusion? any philosopher? --Buridan 13:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided many sources that indicate she is a philosopher, including a number of academic books, articles, and anthologies. How many would satisfy you? Here is another: [3]. LaszloWalrus 00:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of your citations were dismissed earlier as 'bad faith' by someone other than me, or was that steve's citations, it was months ago. I think there are something like 40 citations or so, of which 35 are citations from biased sources....... and the unbiased ones are citaitons of biased sources, or problematic in other ways. now if there is new evidence that has not been dealt with yet, sure. but Tara Smith is very clearly getting monetary remuneration from various Rand-based investments, and has tied her career to asserting Rand is a philosopher, that's bias. --Buridan 15:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, I'm gone from WP for months, I peek my head back in, and what's going on in philosophy? More squabbling about Rand. Anybody want to fight about whether Allan Bloom counts as a philosopher or just a political theorist? What about Arthur Koestler, everytime I bring him up around academic philosophers half agree he should count and half think he shouldn't. But no its always Rand, again and again. Don't recall any citations for Rand that aren't bad faith? How about the one's Sam gave you in September, or the one's I did back in September. See Talk: list of political philosophers. I seem to recall that such bad faith and biased sources as the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and a selection of Wadsworth Introduction to Philosophy textbooks were among the examples. Oh and Robert Nozick. And my ex-colleugues at the philosophy department at Auburn University, oh and then there was the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which I beleive you dismissed by saying "I doubt that it counts as much as other distinguished publications, Routledge is not known for its fine philosophy publications." Ah yes bias and bad faith. Why not just admit that this is a topic of controversy but that there are reliable, verifiable sources in publication on both sides of the is Rand a philosopher debate (even when they don't have the kind of stake that Tara Smith does). Bmorton3 19:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a short note on the source submitted by LasloWalrus. The link he provided is to a review of a book by Tara Smith. The review is in the Notre Dame University's Philosophical Review. The reviewer, Hellen C. Cullyer, Ph.D. Yale University, is an instructor at the University of Pittsburgh. Her area of specialty is classical philosophy and in her review she finds merit in a rigorous philosophical comparison of Rand and Aristole's ethics. Tara Smith earned her Ph.D. in Philosophy from Johns Hopkins and is a professor of philosopy at the University of Texas. Charges that Tara Smith is enthusiastic about the ideas she finds in Rand's works FOR THE MONEY is unsupported, and maybe even libelous. If someone is hired by University X to teach Aristotle, whom they clearly adore (and have 'tied their career to"), are the papers and works of that professor to be discounted because they are a "supporter" and therefore "biased"? The review and the book it reviews are yet two more valid sources. Steve 20:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is yet another source, added to the many already given. Chris Matthew Sciabarra, Ph.D, visiting professor at NYU, writes, "Ayn Rand is one of the most widely read philosophers of the twentieth century." This is in Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, page 1. Steve 17:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buridan's systematic purging of Ayn Rand and Objectivism from philosophy lists[edit]

Buridan, please refrain from going around the philosophy lists and removing Ayn Rand, her philosophy, and her books wherever you find them. An analysis of your contributions show that you are highly biased, that you believe very strongly that Ayn Rand is not a philosopher, and because of this you have been trying to restrict access to her articles on Wikipedia. Your changes have been opposed by others on many of the pages you have been attempting this, yet you contintue to force the removal of links in the face of that opposition. Please stop. The Transhumanist (AWB) 04:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Buridan has been removing Ayn Rand, her philosophy Objectivism, and her books from various philosophy lists around Wikipedia. He has been rather forceful wherever he's done this. See List of basic philosophy topics, List of philosophers born in the twentieth century, Template:Philosophy topics, Timeline of Western philosophers, and List of publications in philosophy (he removed her books from the list), to name a few. The Transhumanist (AWB) 05:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes where-ever they have been added without discussion or consensus in the field of philosophy, outside of some clear and measurable standard, I remove them. would you like added to the list of people who do not want them removed, please comment on the philosophy project page where we'll decide this. --Buridan 13:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buridan, a number of people have provided numerous sources backing up the philosophy claims, and you arbitrarily dismiss them out of hand. I repeat the question I've asked elsewhere: What WOULD count to establish Rand as a philosopher in your mind? LaszloWalrus 23:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

neutral, unbiased sources outside of the field of rand studies that actually make that claim so long as they are not singular in nature. one paper encyclopedia would work, especially if it was well respected. even then she shouldn't be on lists that only have noted A-listers, are basic, or central to philosophy. I don't think anyone would be able to find a citation that supports her work as a philosopher as basic or central to anything outside of rand studies. we have 3 encyclopedias that mention her right? the routledge which apparently says she is a political theorist, not a philosopher, the online encyc. of philosophy which may have bias or incluion problems, and the online 'encarta', which would be fine, but it is the only major encyc. that mentions her in that light. if it were the case that she was, all encycs would say it. --Buridan 12:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is that Buridan considers anyone who says something positive about Rand to be part of "Rand Studies." As you can clearly see here such academic heavy hitters as Peter Railton, A.P. Martinich, and David Sosa think enough of Objectivism to engage with Randian theory as part of contemporary philosophic dialogoue. Cambridge University Press thinks enough of Objectivism to publish a book on Rand's ethics. The Review of Metaphsics thinks enough of Objectivism to publish a paper titled "Ayn Rand on Concepts, Definitions, and Essences" by Allan Gotthelf. Tell me, are Cambridge University Press and The Review of Metaphysics part of "Rand studies?" Are Railton, Martinich, and Sosa Randian partisans? You can also see from the website of the Ayn Rand Society that Jaegwon Kim, Susan Haack, Richard Janko, John M. Cooper, and Christine Swanton have all participated in Ayn Rand Society meetings. All of these well known and respected philosophers have considered Rand enough of a philosopher to risk damaging their good names by engaging Objectivism as a philosophy of merit. Are they Randian partisans? Is Rand mainstream, or highly influential within academia? Hell no. But she is considered a serious, legitimate philosopher, else why would the very respected persons and institutions I just listed risk their reputations by treating her as such? Endlessmike 888 00:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy and maintainability of this list[edit]

The concerns I have raised at Talk:List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy#Accuracy and maintainability of this list are also relevant (in part) to this list. In summary, it appears to me to be too widely cast to meet WP:BIO and WP:PROF. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then what seems to be the case to you isn't, in fact, the case. KSchutte 14:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl has a good point. It says that this list was restored through WP:PROD, but I can't seem to locate that archive. I'd like to have a look at the reasoning for restoring this list. Can anyone tell me where to find it? Sidatio 13:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I must have been looking at the wrong tab. What are the criteria for inclusion on this list - simply being a notable philosopher (or being a person who made a notable contribution to philosophy) born in the 20th century? That does seem awfully broad. Sidatio 14:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are five philosophers listed here who were born in 1900. That's not the 20th century. Before we spend time deliberating over Rand, do you think we could observe the perimeters of the bloody century itself. They need to be moved back a century. And if there are any prodigies born in 2000, we can pull them back here. Oh those 9 y-o wunderkinds! 71.98.73.82 (talk) 07:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

john searle[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Searle

...is not on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.136.36 (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

added to the list, though I didn't have the Cambridge / Routledge volumes to hand to check.Dsp13 (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Searle (and many, many other distinguished philosophers) were on the List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy which has since been deleted in a wikivote. I think there are still archived copies of it floating around on other websites (http://www.book-of-thoth.com/thebook/index.php/List_of_living_philosophers_and_academics_of_philosophy). 69.230.120.78 (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrections[edit]

I looked at the deleted content of the List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy (privilege of adminship), and there are a number of entries on it that would be appropriate additions to this list. I just added entries for A and U, and there are bunch more temporarily stored at User:RL0919/Philosophers that need to be reviewed and added to the list if applicable (that is, if they aren't already there and if the links really go to articles about philosophers, since there were a few from the old list that didn't). Some of the omissions are rather surprising, so this is a great opportunity to improve the comprehensiveness of this page. --RL0919 (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_philosophers_born_in_the_20th_century&oldid=1188686443"