Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rational objectivism: Difference between revisions

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''

<!--

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result of the debate was '''delete.''' [[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]^{[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]} 10:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

===[[Rational objectivism]]===

This is apparently a term coined by philosopher [[Michael E. Berumen]]. I have done some research on this person, and have failed to find anything establishing his notability. Hence, this article is non-notable at best, and original research at worst. ''Please be aware that there has been suspected sockpuppet-ish behaviour regarding articles that pertain to Mr. Berumen. Consider comments on this AfD page with this in mind.'' [[User:Ashenai|Ashenai]] ([[User_talk:Ashenai|talk]]) 13:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' per nominator and [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hs=7oU&hl=en&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=%22Rational+objectivism%22+%22Michael+Berumen%22+-wikipedia&btnG=Search&meta= this] Google result. --[[User:GraemeL|GraemeL]] [[User_talk:GraemeL|^(talk)]] 14:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

**So the only link is his blog. And ''rational objectivism'' links to the Wikipedia article. It seems our only source for the article is the article itself. '''Delete'''. --[[User:Optichan|Optichan]] 16:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' - pseudo-philosophy by nn person. --[[User:MacRusgail|MacRusgail]] 17:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' as neologism, term not widely used, and probable OR. [[User:MCB|MCB]] 19:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC).

*'''Merge''' brief notes into [[Michael E. Berumen]]; Berumen is notable enough to deserve a mention on Wikipedia, but he's not so notable that we need separate articles on all his theories. Of course, if the consensus decides that Berumen himself isn't notable (see separate AfD for Berumen above), this should be deleted too. [[User:Haeleth|Haeleth]] 12:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add, that Rational objectivism of Mr. Berumen, seems to be a copy(without giving credit) to R. A. Hirschheim uses of "Rational objectivism." And, contrary to Berumen, R. A. Hirschheim is a "real" published author, also, Hirschheim works on "Systems" are also importantly covering economics. I have not read Berumens book, but if he does not give credit to Hirschheim and al., I'd believe that we are facing intellectual dishonnesty, and this article in itself should get a speedy delete for this reason, because it tries to picture "Rational objectivism" as a movement and philosophy founded by Berumen. This is infirgingement to intellectual property and dishonnesty. [[User:Fadix|Fadix]] 01:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

It most certainly ''is not'' a copy of Hirchhiem, and it is a term that others have used as well, even some of the Randian objectivists combine these terms. It is not a unique combination of words, and Beruman does not in any instance that I know claim that it is. In the way he uses it, it is primarily an adaptation of R. Hare's outlook, to whom he gives ample credit in his book. He subscribes to some of the traditional points of so-called continental rationalists, and to the objectivism of Hare, whose outlook his most resembles, (which, by the way, Hare did not attribute to Rand, who also uses the term, objectivism, nor should he have, because he means something rather different by it....would you accuse him of intellectual dishonesty?) Really, these personal accusations against people, here, are beyond the pale. It is not a movement, nor does he ever describe it as such, but the words he uses to describe his own outlook, with a specific meaning that may or may not be original (he never claims it is, and in fact says he is not especially original other than in synthesizing several ideas from others, notably Russell, Hare, Kant, and Gert). The positivists of the 30s did not acknowledge earlier 19th century users of the very same term, positivism, but I would not therefore accuse them of intellectual dishonesty. There is a decided lack of perspective, proportion, and reserve when from the veil of anonymity we are so quick to lash out at real people who are not as protected. This is a major deficiency of fora such as these, I believe. By the way, Hirshheim's ideas are greatly influenced by Popper, who preceeded him, who was influenced by Russell. Berumen acknowledeges the influence of both in great abundance. I think it is advisiable to read a person's book before offering a critique of it.

Oh, '''Delete'''. Be done with it. [[User:Icut4you|icut4u]]

:What you are doing is plain simple intellectual intimidation. First, Hirchhiem systems analysis is also based on economic considerations, out of the blue moon, Berumen fish "Rational objectivism" and also, he's views are also influenced from economic considerations. What have you read from Hirchhiem, to claim, he has not been copied? [[User:Fadix|Fadix]] 16:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

:I have no idea what you mean by intellectual intimidation. I do not want to intimidate anyone. Secondly, among one or two other papers over the years, I have read H.'s Information Systems Epistemology: A Historical Perspective. He is clearly influenced by Popper, as is Berumen. There is no out of the blue moon, Berumen has been studying philosophy for many years and has no doubt been influenced by many...but principally the people I mentioned above, whom he cites often, and several of whom also influenced Hirshheim. Berumen's theories on how economics and ethics interesect, however, have much more to do with his understanding of Kant and Hare and Rawls and Nozick than Hirshheim, of that I am sure. [[User:Icut4you|icut4u]]

::By intellectual intimidation, I mean, your continual accusations. Besides, you just presented in your above post, a counter answer to your own article. I did not vote, delete, because for all I know, "Rational objectivism" may have some ground to stand, even though, just near what a fringe might be called. My problem is that, there are others who really worked around this term, like Hirchhiem, who are real published authors, but yet, you use this term, to further Berumen impact. [[User:Fadix|Fadix]] 20:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

: I have accused you of nothing that I can recall, other than not reading a book that you choose to criticize. If I have, I apologize. On the other hand, you did (above) accuse a very real person, not an anonymous editor operating behind a veil, of intellectual dishonesty, a serious charge, which I believe is at once incorrect (having read both of the authors in question, and being a pretty well-rounded student in Western philosophy) and, more importantly, unjust. Anyway, I have no axe to grind, so let's just move on. Best. [[User:Icut4you|icut4u]]

::My final answer is in your talk page. [[User:Fadix|Fadix]] 23:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

*Delete. There is no school or movement as such.[[User:Logic2go|Logic2go]]

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.</div>