Talk:List of rationalists

Ayn Rand?

Seriously? 31.124.115.86 (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

So many philosophers can be considered rationalists and someone decided to add an anti-Kantian Nietzscheanian? 31.124.115.86 (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Rationalism vs Rationality

People keep including notable rationality pioneers in the list of rationalists. Though colloquially they are used interchangalblly it is wrong nonetheless. Ayn Rand, Periyar and Wang Chong are pioneers of rationality, but in epistemological sense they are not rationalists. Dipserprep (talk) 05:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Article really necessary?

What kind of purpose does such an open-ended list even serve? I came across a "category" recently that had the same problem but was able to fix it by removing its very least appropriate entries. If I did that here, almost nothing would be left to make the article worthwhile. How to proceed? MutuallyAssuredDeduction (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Earlier this month on 2025 June 2 (UTC), Psychastes changed this list into a redirect page, due to its lack of citations to reliable sources. While I still wish that there was still some sort of similar "List of rationalists", I don't contest that edit because I agree with Psychastes that many of the people and philosophers in that list weren't rationalists and that there weren't enough reliable sources cited. In fact, I probably should've done what Psychastes had done myself when I first saw this page months ago, but I didn't think about it at the time, since I was still a relatively inexperienced Wikipedian and hadn't considered that action as a possible edit and improvement.

Of course, this raises the question about what it means to be a "rationalist" and who qualifies. It's very difficult to define "rationalist", most people would probably disagree on who counts as a "rationalist", and there's also a lack of reliable sources that explicitly identify people who are/were rationalists (depending on however it's defined). So, it's probably for the best that this page was changed into a redirect. Zero Contradictions (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Recently, one editor restored the old list version of this page, and another editor immediately decided to remove Ayn Rand from the list. While I think that Rand's philosophy has many woeful inaccuracies, I would still consider her to be more rational and more of a "rationalist" than many or most of the other so-called "rationalists" on the list. If this list were going to exist, then I would cite sources to support that characterization, but many people would inevitably disagree the sources anyway.

Some editors might want Rand removed from the list because they don't believe that Rand's beliefs are rational or rational enough. While I believe that they would be right about that, I don't believe that that should disqualify Ayn Rand as a rationalist, since I view her to be rational than most historical "rationalist" philosophers.

Like I've been saying, I don't think this page should exist as a list because it's unlikely that Wikipedia will come to a consensus about who counts as a rationalist or not. I think the recent edits are a great example of that.

In my most recent edit summary, I reverted the restoration of the list version, and I still welcome other editors to offer their thoughts on this page. Zero Contradictions (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I was checking up on the Assessments and making sure all the redirects were properly in NA. Rand is a difficult case as she is a "pop philosopher" at best. While she says she advocates Aristotle, she does little more than name drop him and seems to advocate Nietzsche. When she says Aristotle she means memes that don't even come from Aristotle like laws of thought. The same can be said for her rationalism. She would label her epistemology "Reason" it is true, but then again she wouldn't actually make any arguments defending rationalism. There is more to philosophy than just saying philosophical vocabulary. One must also make arguments, and there just aren't any in Rand. I would challenge those who defend her to name one the same way one can name the Ontological Argument or similar. It is also not clear she even means rationalism when she says reason. It is rather like new atheism or Skeptic Magazine using the word "skeptical" and "rationalist" when they are the opposite of skeptical and rationalist in philosophical terms, i. e. dogmatic empiricists. It seems to mean more "an intellectual disposition", "being reasonable or rational", than it does taking a stance on epistemology. All Stefan Molyneux does is repeat Ayn Rand and new atheism, and he (tries to) advocate "reason and evidence", i. e. he's just as much as an empiricist. In other words, no Ayn Rand follower ever thought they were doing something anti-Rand by being an empiricist. "My epistemology is reason" isn't actually taking a rationalist stance it's just saying something vacuous like "I support good epistemology." The same as when a new atheist says his epistemology is skepticism. That doesn't mean Pyrrho, and Rand doesn't mean Leibniz. Cake (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

It would be courteous to other editors if you formatted you text into multiple paragraphs, instead of leaving a text wall. Please keep that in mind for future replies.

Ayn Rand did not advocate for Nietzsche. Unlike Rand, Nietzsche did not believe in objective morality. Rand said and believed that Aristotle was her greatest influence.

Of course you're right that "no Ayn Rand follower ever thought they were doing something anti-Rand by being an empiricist". That's because Ayn Rand believed that rationalism and empiricism should be complementary to each other, not antagonistic:

[Philosophers came to be divided] into two camps: those who claimed that man obtains his knowledge of the world by deducing it exclusively from concepts, which come from inside his head and are not derived from the perception of physical facts (the Rationalists)—and those who claimed that man obtains his knowledge from experience, which was held to mean: by direct perception of immediate facts, with no recourse to concepts (the Empiricists). To put it more simply: those who joined the [mystics] by abandoning reality—and those who clung to reality, by abandoning their mind.

— Ayn Rand, "For the New Intellectual", For the New Intellectual (1961)

I agree that Rand did not clearly nor fully define nor defend "rationality" or "reason". Most people don't. I am not a follower of Ayn Rand, nor do I like her philosophy. However, I don't believe that Ayn Rand should be disqualified as a "rationalist" just because she didn't define or defend "rationality" very well. She at least had an intuitive understand of "rationality".

Wikipedia says that Rationalism is defined as the epistemological view that "regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge". If a List of Rationalists is going to exist, then it's clear that anybody included into the list must at least who satisfy this criterion. Ayn Rand clearly satisfies that criterion:

The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action. It means one's total commitment to a state of full, conscious awareness, to the maintenance of a full mental focus in all issues, in all choices, in all of one's waking hours. It means a commitment to the fullest perception of reality within one's power and to the constant, active expansion of one's perception, i.e., of one's knowledge. It means a commitment to the reality of one's own existence, i.e., to the principle that all of one's goals, values and actions take place in reality and, therefore, that one must never place any value or consideration whatsoever above one's perception of reality. It means a commitment to the principle that all of one's convictions, values, goals, desires and actions must be based on, derived from, chosen and validated by a process of thought—as precise and scrupulous a process of thought, directed by as ruthlessly strict an application of logic, as one's fullest capacity permits. It means one's acceptance of the responsibility of forming one's own judgments and of living by the work of one's own mind (which is the virtue of Independence). It means that one must never sacrifice one's convictions to the opinions or wishes of others (which is the virtue of Integrity)—that one must never attempt to fake reality in any manner (which is the virtue of Honesty)—that one must never seek or grant the unearned and undeserved, neither in matter nor in spirit (which is the virtue of Justice). It means that one must never desire effects without causes, and that one must never enact a cause without assuming full responsibility for its effects—that one must never act like a zombie, i.e., without knowing one's own purposes and motives—that one must never make any decisions, form any convictions or seek any values out of context, i.e., apart from or against the total, integrated sum of one's knowledge—and, above all, that one must never seek to get away with contradictions. It means the rejection of any form of mysticism, i.e., any claim to some nonsensory, nonrational, nondefinable, supernatural source of knowledge. It means a commitment to reason, not in sporadic fits or on selected issues or in special emergencies, but as a permanent way of life.

— Ayn Rand, "The Objectivist Ethics", The Virtue of Selfishness (1961)

In fact, supporting a commitment to rationalism (as it is defined on Wikipedia) may be the only criterion that has to be satisfied in order to be included into the list. If the page corresponding to this talk page is recreated, then there should be discussion about what the list inclusion criteria should be. Zero Contradictions (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

As above, she says Aristotle is her main influence, but it seems little more than namedropping the most famous philosopher. Most practicing philosophers regard her as a poor copy of Nietzsche. See for example Richard Brown, who has a PhD from CCNY, and had a Satanist (see: Nietzsche/Randian) phase. He has a youtube series on egoism that it won't let me link. I'll quote it instead: "Ayn Rand adopts and adapts the philosophy of Nietzsche."

The same for her commitment to rationalism, and to objective morality. She is a pop philosopher. She doesn't make arguments. To borrow from Wittgenstein, she might say all this but does not show any of this. She talks about philosophy, but she doesn't do any. Hence one would say she doesn't have an epistemological view.

To repeat myself, Michael Shermer and Skeptic magazine is not what a philosopher means by a skeptic. They believe knowledge exists. They think skeptical means "be clever". It is branding, not philosophy. Exactly the same. Not similar, but the same, as Ayn Rand's conception of Reason and Rationalism. New atheists read Rand and identify as "rationalists", "team smart", despite being empiricists. Carl Benjamin does this.

One must scoff at her pretending she ever applies logic. She makes no arguments and is one of the main reasons why the false laws of thought meme is repeated constantly online. She pretends that is Aristotle too.Cake (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

For the record, the only Ayn Rand book that I've ever read (and will ever have any interest in reading) is the The Ayn Rand Lexicon. Everything else that I know about Rand was read from a second-hand website that doesn't exist anymore.

Ayn Rand and Nietzsche agree on egoism, but not much else. I do agree that Ayn Rand and Nietzsche are both better described as literary artists, rather than actual philosophers.

Yes, Ayn Rand did make at least some arguments for rationalism and such. They just weren't very good ones, especially if you're only reading her fiction novels. Nevertheless, we can agree that she did a terrible job at defending her philosophy. I've said as much on my website.

Anyway, I honestly feel like you're trying to disagree to agree with me. From my perspective, it feels like you're trying to change the subject just so you can rant about how Ayn Rand's philosophy sucks, even though I already agree on that 100%. I'm really not interested in talking about Ayn Rand's philosophy or the quality of it. I've already written a very long webpage about why I hate it.

I was only arguing that Rand satisfied the most basic criterion for being included on a List of Rationalists. However, you didn't address anything that I said regarding that, even though that's what this discussion is supposed to be about. I don't want this discussion to be derailed any further.

If this list page were to be recreated, do you believe that there should be other criteria for being included on it, beyond what I suggested in my previous reply? It seems like that that's what you're trying to say, but it's not entirely clear because you didn't address my argument directly, nor did you acknowledge it. Zero Contradictions (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I feel as unaddressed as you do. I am not trying to accuse you of being a follower of hers. On the Lexicon, note I use the Ayn Rand lexicon for the misnomer that Aristotle is where the law of identity comes from. She thinks that because she never read Aristotle. You have to separate her branding "I am the greatest philosopher since Aristotle" from her philosophy, which like it or not, every real philosopher sees as lying between Nietzsche and LaVey. I had to read her slop in high school and I agree. I would say the list shouldn't include pop philosophy. Cake (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Again, you're still not answering my questions:

1. If this list page were to be recreated, do you believe that there should be other criteria for being included on it, besides agreeing with the proposition: "Reason is the chief source and test of knowledge"?
2. If your answer to the previous question is "No", then do you object to Ayn Rand being included on a List of rationalists page?

I believe that Rand agreed with the previous proposition that defines Rationalism. It seems that you don't, but you're not very clear about it.

I literally don't want to talk about anything else other than those two questions. The first question is the whole reason why we're having this discussion. Please don't post a reply unless you at least answer the first question. Zero Contradictions (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

You refuse to see the proof that her Aristotelianism is simply "Aristotle was the greatest philosopher, I am the greatest philosopher, so I follow Aristotle?"

It should be a list of rationalist philosophers, not every author to brand themselves as a rationalist. The same reason she is not an Aristotelian. Cake (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Again, I have absolutely no interest in debating Ayn Rand's shitty philosophy or talking about what she believed in, besides whether she was a rationalist or not. Please stop bringing up irrelevant information.

For the record, I posted that last reply of mine after you made your reply. I was still reading this version of the page, while you make your next two edits. It was only in the next edit that you finally answered my question, with your sentence I would say the list shouldn't include pop philosophy. I didn't read your next edit, since my web browser hadn't loaded it before I wrote my response.

Anyway, I think your exclusion criterion is way too arbitrary. If that should be added as a criterion, then why stop there?:

• Why not also exclude all religious philosophers (Maimonides, Alvin Platinga, Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Leibniz, etc), because they weren't rational enough to reject "God"?
• Why not exclude all ancient philosophers because they're beliefs are outdated, and thus not up to date with modern standards of rationalism?
• Why not exclude this philosopher, and that philosopher, etc, simply because editor X doesn't like them?

Again, this goes back to the first thing that I ever posted on this talk page. I don't think this talk page should exist at all because:

1. It's very difficult to define "rationalist", most people would probably disagree on who counts as a "rationalist".
2. Most of the philosophers included on it don't have any reliable sources to verify that they are rationalists.

Frankly, I think that almost all of the people who were included on the page (before it was converted to a redirect page) are guilty of merely branding themselves as rationalists, rather than actually brainstorming what rationalism is, isn't, how it works, why it's superior to other mental biases, etc. To a great extent, I believe that Rand fails to be a true rationalist. You obviously agree.

I think that the best course of action is for List of rationalists to redirect to Rationalism. I don't believe that it would be appropriate, beneficial, or useful for anybody for the page to exist as a list article. Do you agree or disagree? Zero Contradictions (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

All I have been talking about is that she isn't a rationalist just like she isn't an Aristotelian, despite branding herself as such for clout. Her self descriptions are as "shitty" as her philosophy. If the criteria allows for her, then the criteria is equally shitty. It takes more than self-identifying. It is why people get mocked as "self-described". She is at the top of the heap for such mockery; she self describes as the greatest philosopher since antiquity also. As for whether the list should exist, I said from the beginning I was only here to properly assess the article, depending on whether it stays a redirect or not. I certainly do not mind a redirect. Indeed I doubt there is a separate "List of rationalists" navbox. Cake (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Exactly, I think you see the point that I've been trying to make the whole time. I wish that we could've spent more time talking about that, rather than making me read about how much you hate Ayn Rand. (Again, I hate her philosophy too.) I'm glad that you're fine with the page being a redirect instead of a list.

Both of the problems that I stated with having a list article on this topic are never going to go away. So I really hope that nobody tries to convert the redirect back into a list. It would frankly be nothing more than a pointless waste of time.

Anyway, I think the discussion ends here. Thanks for giving your thoughts on it. Zero Contradictions (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2026 (UTC)