Capitalization Protocol

[aya3098]

I'm correctly working on an essay for an Anthem-related contest, and I feel the need to mention Objectivism within it. I'm not well-versed at all with Objectivism, so I'm wondering if it's acceptable for me not to capitalize Objectivism. Without arguing over the philosophy itself (if you must know, I DO agree with it), I'm just wondering of the reasons behind the capitalization. I have seen the thread similar to this, but it didn't actually answer my question, but I did read within it that it's because it's a "proper noun." We don't need to capitalize altruism or egoism, so what makes only Objectivism a proper noun? I just want to know if I'm wrong for not capitalizing it and need to do so. And seeing what happened to the last thread about this, I'd like to ask if I could just get an answer and not get into an argument. If you're respectful, I'll gladly be as well.

[softwareNerd]

Well Platonism, Buddhism, Christianity and most often capitalized. The idea is that these are proper nouns.

[aya3098]

Platonism comes from Plato, Christianity is from Christ, and Buddhism comes from Buddha. All those are names of people, so I can understand them. Objectivism comes from objective.

[Eiuol]

Platonism comes from Plato, Christianity is from Christ, and Buddhism comes from Buddha. All those are names of people, so I can understand them. Objectivism comes from objective.

Objectivism more specifically is just the name given to Ayn Rand's philosophy, thus it is thought of as a proper noun in that sense. As a whole system, it talks about way more than objectivity. Objectivism is also used in a general way and refers to a viewpoint on objectivity, but that's entirely different than the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

[aya3098]

You're right, I'm not saying it's just objectivity. But the root of the word is the reason for the capitalization. For instance, egoism comes from ego, and because ego isn't capitalized, egoism isn't. So what you're saying is that because Ayn Rand said it should be capitalized, it gets capitalized?

[softwareNerd]

...the root of the word is the reason for the capitalization.

No, the root does not determine proper capitalization; the meaning does.

[aya3098]

No, the root does not determine proper capitalization; the meaning does.

How so? How can this apply to Objectivism?

[Nicky]

the root of the word is the reason for the capitalization.

Not true. Proper nouns are defined as nouns that refer to unique entities, not nouns which have the name of a person as their root.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Proper_noun

"Objectivism" is a proper noun (it refers to a unique entity, the philosophy of Ayn Rand). In English, proper nouns are capitalized.

Edited December 1, 2012 by Nicky

[aya3098]

Not true. Proper nouns are capitalized because they refer to unique entities, not because their root is a proper name.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Proper_noun

Again, how does this not apply to egoism?

[softwareNerd]

How so?

If Marx creates a philosophy, then that particular body of ideas is unique and gets a proper noun. It really does not matter what sound and symbol you choose to use for such a proper noun. You might call it Marxism. However, if Marx came up with some name for it (imagine he wanted to call it "Malaponism"), then you would capitalize that too. Now, what about the term "Communism". Whether one should capitalize that depends on what you think it refers to. If you mean the ideas of Karl Marx, then you ought to capitalize it. If you mean something more generic, then perhaps not.

How can this apply to Objectivism?

If you mean the ideas of Rand, then you should capitalize it. However, Rand's ideas are not the only claimants to the term. For instance, the term "objectivism" is also used to denote other concepts in philosophy and in art.

All said and done, the capitalization is not a very important aspect of the grammar here, but if I were writing an essay to be judged by an Objectivist, I would capitalize it to make it clear that I mean the referent "the philosophy of Ayn Rand".

And, the reason some folk are sensitive about the capitalization is that they fear people will try to sneak in their favorite disavowal, and call that "objectivism" too.

[aya3098]

Thank you. Seeing who it's judged by I'll capitalize it.

[Nicky]

Again, how does this not apply to egoism?

Egoism isn't a unique entity, it is a category of moral philosophies. Objectivist Ethics is just one such system, there are others.

Edited December 2, 2012 by Nicky

[FeatherFall]

It might be useful to float a few more examples other than, "Objectivism" and "Communism/Marxism."

Taoism, Shinto, Pastafarianism. None of these derive from other proper nouns.

[Xall]

It might be useful to float a few more examples other than, "Objectivism" and "Communism/Marxism."

Taoism, Shinto, Pastafarianism. None of these derive from other proper nouns.

Same idea could be extended to [more] secular philosophies, Existentialism, Hedonism, Stoicism, Positivism, or cultural trends, Romanticism, Modernism, Dadaism, etc. I think this makes the point clear.

[Nicky]

Same idea could be extended to [more] secular philosophies, Existentialism, Hedonism, Stoicism, Positivism, or cultural trends, Romanticism, Modernism, Dadaism, etc. I think this makes the point clear.

Some of those aren't proper nouns, because they refer to a category of philosophies, artistic attitudes, etc., not a specific, well identified movement (i.e. existentialism, romanticism, modernism, hedonism). Same as egoism.

Again, this has less to do with the actual philosophy the word is based on, and more with how the word is currently used in the English language. When people go around calling themselves hedonists or existentialists, they rarely refer to a specific philosophical system. The are just putting themselves into a category, but within it they could be referencing any number of separate, often incompatible ideas.

On the other hand, if they call themselves a Dadaist or a Stoicist, you know exactly the movement they are referencing.

With Objectivist, it's even more important to capitalize it when referring to Rand's philosophy, because there's also the noun "objectivist" which refers to a category of philosophies that have only one element in common but many differences.

[Spiral Architect]

Just to build on softwareNerd and Nicky, the difference is in how it is used. Capitalization is for a specific entity that you can refer to and say “this”. Ideas as proper nouns qualify when they are specific systems of thinking versus a generalized term that is not a specific entity on its own but an abstract concept. Objectivism and Buddhism are philosophic systems that define the role of egoism in human life. However, egoism is a concept that is not a specific entity or system that does not tell you anything else about application. The concept of egoism is in fact treated very differently in Objectivism and Buddhism just to show how it can be used differently, in this case one as good and the other bad. The same can be said for others ideas that move from generic abstractions to specific entities: Other examples would be ethics and Christianity or something more concrete like man and Americans.

The guiding point is that you capitalize something when you need to identify it as a proper noun, which means you need to draw the reader’s attention to something as a specific entity. You do not when it is “generic”. If you want people to know you are referring to a specific system of thinking, say the philosophy of Ayn Rand, then you write Objectivism. It is a proper noun since it identifies a specific thing unique in the world. You would not when it is not a unique entity, as in the fact you are asking for an objective definition of when to capitalize words.

[Kate87]

It's basic English language really. Examples from politics:

republican - someone who supports government of the people by the people etc. as opposed to monarchy.

Republican - proper noun. A member of the US political party which doesn't necessarily have pro-republican (small r) policies, ie it's just a name for a political party.

democrat - someone who supports democracy

Democrat - proper noun. A member of the US political party whose policies aren't necessarily democratic (small d) as its just a party name.

libertarian - someone who supports minimal state power

Libertarian - proper noun. A member of the US political party whose policies aren't necessarily libertarian (small l) as its just a party name.

In the same way:

objectivism - the belief that certain things, esp. moral truths, exist independently of human knowledge or perception of them.

Objectivism - the philosophy of Ayn Rand. In the same sense, it is semantically possible to say that Objectivist (big O) philosophy is not objective (small o).

Edited December 2, 2012 by Kate87

[secondhander]

Sorry guys, most of you are wrong. And Kate, you get it right up until the end. I'd suggest consulting the Chicago Manual of Style or the AP Style Book for reference. But in general, philosophies are lower-cased unless they are formed from a proper noun, like the name of a person the philosophy is named after. So, to use Kate's examples, Libertarian would be capitalized if it is referring to the specific political party (a proper noun), but it would lower-cased if it is referring to the philosophy (a common noun). Marxism would be capitalized because it is formed off the name of Karl Marx, which is a proper noun. But objectivism would be lower-cased across the board.

Here's the AP Style rule:

Capitalize Communist, Conservative, Democrat, Liberal, Republican, Socialist, etc., when they refer to a specific party or its members. Lowercase these words when they refer to political philosophy (see examples below).

Lowercase the name of a philosophy in noun and adjective forms unless it is the derivative of a proper name: communism, communist; fascism, fascist. But: Marxism, Marxist;Nazism, Nazi.

EXAMPLES: John Adams was a Federalist, but a man who subscribed to his philosophy today would be described as a federalist. The liberal Republican senator and his Conservative Party colleague said they believe that democracy and communism are incompatible. The Communist said he is basically a socialist who has reservations about Marxism.

Here is the Chicago Manual of Style rule:

Nouns and adjectives designating philosophical, literary, musical, and artistic movements, styles, and schools and their adherents are capitalized when they are derived from proper nouns. Others are usually lowercased unless, in certain contexts, capitalization is needed to distinguish the name of a movement or group from the same word in its general sense.

"Objectivism" (capitalized there because it's the start of a sentence) is never capitalized, the same way that communism is never capitalized, or fascism, or existentialism. You can think of it this way: The default is that philosophies are common nouns and are lower-cased. The default is overridden when a proper noun comes into the mix, like when the philosophy is derived from someone's name (Darwinism) or when you are talking about a particular political party (the Libertarian Party).

Edited January 8, 2013 by secondhander

[Eiuol]

Others are usually lowercased unless, in certain contexts, capitalization is needed to distinguish the name of a movement or group from the same word in its general sense.

You overlooked this. Objectivism is distinguished from objectivism, including moral objectivism. So, it still conforms with the Chicago manual of style even. There is a lot to distinguish from objectivism as a belief in objectivity, and Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. I see no issue with just using capitalization all the time, for the sake of clarity. That's the purpose of style manuals, specifically so that there is consistency of usage. In this case, it is justified.