Jump to content

Talk:Chris Matthew Sciabarra

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

Untitled

[edit]

I am removing Sciabarra from the Objectivists category. While he says that Rand has influenced his thought and is perhaps the most prominent researcher on Objectivism in academia, he says that he is not a "true believer" [1]. LaszloWalrus 21:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing Sciabarra from the "Objectivism" category because the category covers integral concepts and books regarding Objectivism. If we simply through in anyone even remotely associated with Objectivism, the category will lose all meaning. I would reserve it for people whose contributions are integral, like Rand and Branden. LaszloWalrus

As an alternative I have added Chris to the Libertarians category. Perhaps that is more appropriate? Although I'm sure many (including myself) would regard Chris' work as integral to their own understanding of Objectivism. - Matthew Humphreys 11:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea; I'm thinking of starting a category for people associated with Objectivism, but who are not Objectivists themselves. It could include people like Branden, Greenspan, Sciabarra, Hessen, etc. Any thoughts? LaszloWalrus 16:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given all the splits within Objectivism, I think there would be major problems reaching consensus on who should go in which category. For instance I would class the Brandens as Objectivists, while you seem to class them as "associated with Objectivism" but not actual Objectivists. -Matthew Humphreys 16:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you check out LasloWalrus' user page, you'll see that he publicly declares support for the ARI. As an "orthodox" Objectivist, he is likely to see Objectivism in narrower terms than, say, a Kelleyite might. That explains his stance.

My take on it is that excluding someone from the list just because he doesn't follow your favorite faction would be POV, which is why I've supported the inclusion of Nat Branden and others. Having said this, Sciabarra might be better classified as a non-Objectivist scholar of Objectivism. Contrast this with, say, Tara Smith, who's both a scholar and a member.

But if we don't mark his as an Objectivist, what do we do about the fact that he's the founder and editor of The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies and a member of the Ayn Rand Society? Shall we hide the fact that he's involved with Objectivism from a scholarly point of view by excluding him from any list that contains Objectivists?

If there were a category for people associated with Objectivism, he'd fit right in. But there isn't; there's just the Objectivist category, and while he's not a perfect fit for it, it'd be worse to exclude him.

Tha'ts my $0.10 worth. What's your opinion? Alienus 17:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alienus - Generally I agree with your stance, the problem here is that CMS doesn't regard himself an Objectivist (see LazsloWalrus' citation above). But his work does concern Objectivism, so I'd be more inclined to agree with putting him in an Objectivism category than an Objectivist category. Matthew Humphreys 17:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, that's what I did, but Laszlo removed that link. I think he was mistaken to do so, though, particularly since Nathaniel Branden is already in that category. I'm not sure we can get Laszlo to agree and I'm not a huge fan of voting, but we may well suffice to constitute a consensus. If so, we should restore the Objectivism category so that people can find CMS. Alienus 17:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like this voting stuff either, but yeah I'd support restoring the Objectivism categorisation also. -Matthew Humphreys 18:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's sit on this for a day to see if anyone can raise a relevant objection. If not, we'll implement it. Alienus 18:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about a "Neo-Objectivist" category? My problem with putting Sciabarra in the main Objectivism category is that it should probably be reserved for people who helped originate the system, (which I would limit to Rand and Branded) not merely commentators or interpreters. In addition, we could put Branden in the Neo-Objectivist category and people like Dr. Frank R. Wallace. Any objections? LaszloWalrus 23:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just add a category for Objectivism Scholars, which would apply to people like CMS and TS equally. The latter would also be listed as an Objectivist, of course. Alienus 23:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought I would say this, and I'll probably never say it again, but I agree with Alienus. LaszloWalrus 03:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sooner you realize that I'm always right, the better off you'll be. Alienus 05:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, we have to deal with the issue of who goes into the category; I would recommend Chris Matthew Sciabarra, Tara Smith, John Ridpath, George Reisman, and maybe Leonard Peikoff and David Kelley. Any suggestions or objections? We should probably limit the category to people who either did or are doing work on Objectivism in academia. LaszloWalrus

This is a reasonable starting list. Go for it. Alienus 05:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the category; it's called "Objectivism Scholars" and I've added everyone I could think of to the category. LaszloWalrus 06:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I've noticed. Your choices for inclusion are reasonable, although I suspect we may be able to dig up more over time. Nice to solve problems without getting admins involved. Alienus 07:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I think the Objectivism Scholars cat is a good idea also. And yes, it is good to see a dispute being sorted out without a bitching contest :-) Matthew Humphreys 09:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would critics such as Robert Anton Wilson, Jeff Walker, John Robbins, and Murrary Rothbard count as "Objectivism Scholars"? Chiok 11:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on these specific people, I have to say that someone can qualify as a scholar of objectivism even while being a critic. What matters is that they're not just critics, but scholars. So if you have a sound basis for considering any of the mentioned individuals as scholars of objectivism, go ahead and add them to the category. Alienus 21:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've included one critic so far, Robert Nozick who wrote about Rand somewhat in "Anarcy, State, and Utopia" and more extensively in "Socratic Puzzles." LaszloWalrus 04:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chris Matthew Sciabarra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chris Matthew Sciabarra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chris_Matthew_Sciabarra&oldid=1205884949"