Talk:Leonard Peikoff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Epistemology Related task forces (major fields): Philosophers

This article is supported by WikiProject Objectivism, which collaborates on articles related to this philosophy. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.

"As of 2004, Peikoff is writing a book called The DIM Hypothesis, where he explains the three alternatives of decision-making and solves the problem of induction."

Does he really solve "the problem of induction" once and for all or does he come up with some interpretable suggestions? Because if he really does solve it he would be a giant among thinkers, and if it's not quite so, the article will need an edit.

I have restored Peikoff to the "Atheist thinkers and activists" category; it is not quite the same as the "Atheist philosphers" category: not all atheist philosophers are also activists.

Oh fine. The category system is one of the places here on WP that really need some top-down direction, but...meh. --zenohockey 23:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 biographical information? 1.1 == 2 His political views 3 Whitewashing Peikoff's moral condemnation of non-democrat supporters? 4 Suggested additions

[edit] biographical information?

Is the lack of biographical detail intentional?

There is no mention of his first wife, Cynthia, of their daughter - Kira - or Amy, his second wife.

Details of this type are not uncommon on other pages and they do humanise the subjects.

The relevant dates of these relationships would add perspective to the progress of his life.

[edit] ==

Actually, before Cynthia, he was briefly married to Susan Ludel.

[edit] His political views

Before deleting a paragraph, please discuss the contents. I added the paragraph on Peikoff's views on foreign policy, and I would like to see how these views do not deserve attention. --User:mrjahan

They deserve attention—neutral attention, and unpolluted by name-calling. --zenohockey 17:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about bothering you guys while you were at your Bible Study. I did not realize that the faithful are incapable of finding faults with their Saints, living or dead, and they will wage a crushing Jihad against the infidel if they sully the image of the Saints. I leave you to worship St. Leonard. On a different note, try growing up. Maturity is supposedly a required condition of rational thinking, which I was under the impression is an important ingredient for writing in an encyclopedia. mrjahan 8:12, Nov. 21, 2006 (UTC)

I actually disagree with Peikoff's foreign policy views, but my opinion, or yours, is of no import here. What is important is that you said that Peikoff's opinions "strech[] credulity"; you called the Iraq war "disastrous"; and you said "Politically, he comes across as inexperienced, naive, and at times, ignorant." Each of these statements violates the WP:NPOV policy, the tag for which you put at the top of the article.

I will soon re-place the substantive, verifiable parts of your edits, along with my observation, subsequently removed by LaszloWalrus, that prominant Objectivists have come down on both sides of the R/D divide. You may, of course, do it first if you like, if you hew to the guidelines you have so far taken lightly. --zenohockey 04:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whitewashing Peikoff's moral condemnation of non-democrat supporters?

Peikoff wrote: "Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer [Democrats], and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer[Republicans], it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because “both are bad.” "

I don't know why the moral aspect of this claim keeps getting removed from the discussion of 2006 politics. This claim is unlike what Objectivists have had to say in earlier elections, but this article seems to keep losing that part.

I've re-added the quote. --zenohockey 17:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested additions

Quoting Wikipedia text (25 January 2008): “Peikoff revised his 1976 lecture course on Objectivism into book form, producing Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand ...” Comment: Consider adding that the organization of the material differs from lectures and is original with Peikoff.

Quoting Wikipedia text: “Rand had said that Peikoff knew and understood her philosophy better than anyone else.” Comment: This may be true, but it requires a citation.

Quoting Wikipedia text: “... Peikoff founded the Ayn Rand Institute.” Comment: Many people think that the “Ayn Rand Institute” belies its name, quite apart from the various splits. See the “ARI Watch” website, especially the Torture series of articles, e.g.  State Torture: A Question for Leonard Peikoff.

Brandywinenine (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)