Well, Ayn added a lot of value, but asserting definitions of terms in English is not one of her contributions.

Interesting view, however, I agree to disagree. Practical is an expression of values, whereas pragmatic doesn't have reference to such values. At least that's how I read her commentary.

Dealing with things sensibly and realistically. Syn Practical.

My meaning, is the adjective, not the proper noun for the cult, which I found out was an unfortunate moniker, causing angst amongst Objectivists.

I should've just used practical.

One can not assign negativity to being practical (pragmatic) by noting a group being practical was also ethically vile.

I do not believe Ayn Rand addressed being pragmatic/practical (the adjective) in a negative manner. She addressed "Pragmatism", which is a cult, not an adjective. Something I learned about in this post.

Objectivism is not pragmatic. "Pragmatic" never describes a rational code of thought. The Nazi's were a pragmatic bunch; look at all that was accomplished: ruin and desolation. A philosophical code of thought cannot be pragmatic. In fact, I am unsure as to how to define an action as pragmatic. Practice describes an action, which of course is based on a practical frame of mind. The same can not be said of a "pragmatic" attitude. This is the very reason Ayn Rand identifies pragmatism: to criticize it as an attitude; nothing more, nothing less.

Can you define "pragmatic"?

I am an Organic Chemist as well. Did my Masters in Org Chem and my PhD in Biochem.

But my fave subject was Mat.

For what its worth.

This is the first thing we've discussed in months, that is in alignment. Excellent!

Hallow Thoritsu,
I do not know you. In this context and the comments is the first time I saw your name.
But, please allow me to express an opinion: I think that you should be ashamed for having made the comment above.
If it were addressed to me, I would demand an apology and if it were not fore-coming, consider leaving the Gulch here.
As many of the old timers expressed to me, it has deteriorated much. Your comment does not make it any better, for sure.
Sincerely,
Maritimus

Hallow, ewv,
As you know, I think, I was born in a language other then English. Started learning English at age 13.
So, a priori, please do not trust my judgements about language and meanings of words.
But, that notwithstanding, for the concept of becoming familiar with philosophical ideas and their relationships with other ideas and truths and fundamental principles of a philosophical system, the word "grasp" connotes, to me, too much a hand grabbing something. To my mind, "understanding" gives some feeling of deeper and broader familiarity than a hand grab.
Confession: I am too lazy to get up from my desk and take my Oxford Dictionary to explore what they say about grasp and understanding. Where I am is 6 minutes past midnight and far long past my bed time.
I hope that you were wiser and already produce those (Disney's?) series of Zs.
Good night.
Maritimus
EDIT: Corrected a typo.

Thank you ewv!
I went for undergraduate education abroad, so I could not have done there what I see being done here. My eternal regret is that I did not have a chance to take dual majors: physical chemistry and philosophy. But, I got there eventually, on my own, and an enormous push by Ayn Rand.
Good talking to you.
Best regards.
Sincerely,
Maritimus

Dear ewv,
I did send you a private message. Let me know, or answer it, when convenient.
Best regards.
Maritimus

I like this very much.

The correct is -here-,
Trump is way over -there-
Hillary is way over -there- (a different there).

Rather than actually say:
1. I think Trump is better than Hillary
2. I think Hillary is better than Trump

You say:
"-there is far from -here-" I can not even be bothered to consider the difference, but we will argue about Libertarians vs Objectivists (they are really, far apart...relative to the others).

How convenient "He who wins chess matches in not three, but just one move". "We only play the winning cards." Fantastic. Not likely to succeed...at anything...but fantastic. Glad to know you have so much staying power to expect to see the massive change from your wisdom. /s/

No, sorry, well all still be here, in socialist hell, as "Whining about compromise" is engraved on your headstone.

Well then, we can just stick with what we have then.

I assume this means you find the simple present redistribution of wealth superior, or do you have another suggestion for what is next? Remember there are three answers here:
1) Yes,
2) No, but my idea for changing the world is...(yes, we know, not happening, but can't wait for the wisdom*.)
3) Silence.

Just want to make sure we don't head off on another "but I don wanna answer the question. I wanna pontificate."

The Big Ten are not matched to principles, they are principles, but principles misconstrued as duties for a primitive subject matter. Some of them can be strained into a different and proper principle once you already know where to take it, like the virtue of honesty (starting with self-honesty) out of not lying (Ayn Rand's primary virtues are all corollaries of the virtue of rationality).

But most of the big Ten are totally irredeemable primitive religious in nature and far from fundamental in subject matter. That is to be expected from something originating thousands of years ago in a pre-philosophy religion, but it is very damaging to treat them as 'guidelines' today, which we often hear, accepting their specific subjects while retaining the duty mentality.

I had the same reaction you did to organic chemistry but also to some of the study of compounds and reactions in general chemistry. More interesting were physical and quantum chemistry courses and their precursors that also appeared in general chemistry (not my major but five semesters of chem courses plus labs required).

You are right about the hierarchy of knowledge in science and your relating it to Ayn Rand's conception of the role of philosophy. It all illustrates your opening emphasis on the practical as the purpose of principles of theoretical knowledge, not just in science but also in the "clarity and precision of her thinking" in a unique philosophy that is the antithesis of Pragmatism.

We both saw that early in studying science and engineering and found it later in philosophy by discovering the right one. Ayn Rand viewed the proper role of philosophy and her philosophy as a reality based conceptual, systematic science in the realm of its own subject matters as you quoted.

Ayn Rand emphasized knowledge and truth as a "mental grasp" of the facts of reality through a hierarchy of abstract concepts based on and organizing sense perception as man's means of understanding -- this in contrast to both emotional thinking and rationalization with floating abstractions as two common alternatives.

There is a well known story about the difference between knowing what things are versus what they are called in James Gleick's very interesting and motivating biography, Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman (which is the least technical of the Feynman biographies I've read, all very good). If you haven't read it I'm sure you would like it.

Ayn Rand's 'causality' versus 'duty' analysis of principles is related to her emphasis in general on the "objective" versus the "intrinsic", of which religious duties are only one instance. The comparison is part of her emphasis on the objective as against both the "intrinsic" and the "subjective". That three-way distinction is emphasized throughout her philosophy and explains a lot of common false alternatives.

Thank you for showing that there is still some interest on this forum for this level of discussion.

No one was "torn down" https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... Nor was there any indication in BCRinFremont's post responding to the thread topic that he was "challenging" a non-existent "firstborn of Objectivism". The subject also is not politics or "foxholes".

There was no "patronizing homework assignment". Those on an Ayn Rand forum who want to know where Ayn Rand explained the role of principles in terms of cause and effect in contrast to "duties" can read what she wrote about it. Those who don't can do what they want.

Yes, a murderer is not entitled to being told the truth because of what he doing -- there is no contradiction between the virtue of honesty and defending yourself against a thug. Correctly applying the meaning of both, in context, is not a "basic philosophy changing". Neither is discussing the relation between the two a confusion over the right of self-defense.

It does not matter what relative frame of reference one uses to compare Trump and Clinton -- one is worse than the other means the other is better than the other and vice versa. Compared to a proper limited government both are terrible. One can recognize that and still recognize the nature of limited choice in an election. That is not "obfuscation", "enjoyment of ambiguity" or "prancing around". Thoritsu's "assertions" about me are false personal attacks with no substance, just a sustained sequence of personal attacks.

Yes, government "partnering" with private entities in areas government should not be in at all is not a legitimate role for government. Illegitimate government power does not become legitimate by mixing it into private action. It typically results in government funding of ideological statist organizations, with even less accountability, giving illegitimate power to obnoxious, illegitimate "private" organizations.

A good example is the widely publicized ACORN scandal from about 10 years ago (ACORN then ceased to exist but it's pieces simply reformed under different names and continued on). Planned Parenthood is another one that is particularly anathema to conservatives. There are many, many more examples that continue to function with no public knowledge of the abuse.

Ayn Rand pointed out that fascism is a form of socialism in which private property is nominally acknowledged, but in fact controlled by government. It's the ultimate "public-private" partnership. The road from what we have now to an individualist government is not through fascism.

The context of the quotes is the smear in the post that contained them. Raising again the question of what happened to the forum policies for posting here is that that follow-up only adds a dishonest smear in an ongoing sequence of personal insults.