You "deal with" it by not embracing contradictions. What is a "modest version" of Ayn Rand's philosophy? No, he has not "explained" it.

I am not one who "passionately aspires to Objectivist purity" with "a religious fervor over their stance (ewv comes to mind)." Whatever put that smear in your mind it has nothing to do with me or Ayn Rand's philosophy. Consistency, integrity and objectivity are not "evangelical puritanism", not "a religious fervor", and not at odds with "practicality". This is not a matter of subjective "preference". Is exploiting a forum to attack its foundation with smears part of "what most closely holds to your philosophical/moral beliefs"?

I would argue that rational thinking “works” in practice, so there isn’t this dichotomy in most situations I can think of

i think choosing the best one of two alternatives when there are only two alternatives is indeed the proper selection. If objectivism stands in the way of that, of what use IS objectivism?

Unfortunately pragmatism has come to mean compromise with those who would enslave in order at some point to achieve the goal of being free. Objectivism is practical and factual but cannot be achieved by relenting and compromising with slavery. Eating well then compromising by taking poison to please another who wants to kill you does not move you toward the desired result of living a healthy life. There is nothing pragmatic about compromising with a socialist to win their support for your being free. They have no intention of living objectively, they only desire to live at your expense. If that expense is the cost of your life they don't care, the socialist believes there is always another victim of their violence.

I think you missed my admission of confusing everyone with a capital “Pragmatism”. I meant it as an adjective, meaning practical, not the philosophical group (or non-philosophical as people have noted).

I don’t know. Some people gravitate to a bunch of individual, disconnected views. I do think people who think about it and are at least consistent are more abstract (like geometry) than people who just adopt views from their favorite characters.

Look at the irony of a “Union Strong” bumper sticker in a Walmart parking lot (buying cheap Chinese stuff). This is a great example of a disconnected decision.

I have often heard JFK referred to as a pragmatist. I have most often seen it with making the best of a situation., That is not equal with Objectivism, which is is man acting for his own good, which, authentically, which in a perfect world also is best for society. I doubt Rearden or Roark would compromis to the level of being prgmatists. That would have been giving too much of their beifef system. Pragmatism is making do but Objectivism is a life goal of constant attemps to be true to to self. It is not always an easy journey. The resolution of the Cuban misile crisis, however, was pragmatism at work via Ex-COM.

Not really an analogy. It isn't a matter of degree of difficulty with rational vs. irrational thinking or the lack thereof.

Just like math. Being good at arithmetic is not indicative of being good at abstract math, and vice versa.

Being practical is generally being concrete bound, not attuned to theory/philosophical axioms/fundamentals.
It is being pragmatic. it is often not being rational.
There is no philosophical guide to being pragmatic. But a good phil. guide does not prevent practicality when the latter is also rational.

I completely agree with your comments about context. Email, or worse, blogs are a terrible vehicle, always lacking body language and inflection, often lacking good grammar.

I was completely unaware of the Pragmatism movement, and see how this confused people.

The rest of your note is extremely well written. Thank you! I certainly accept the new coined word for our purposes here, unless someone else has an objection.

Yeah, caps are bad. Just typed it because it is a title.

“pragmatic” is an adjective too.

The Usage of Pragmatism

It is important in any discussion to understand the terms and context used. Being pragmatic runs the gamut of what one is trying to convey, as well as the interpretation of the intended receiver. On this platform many are familiar with the philosophical implications, but most others utilize the word with different intentions. Rand had the same issue with selfish and self-interest, having to qualify both by preceding them with rational, eliminating any subjective misunderstanding. Objectivists sometimes fail in their communication, relying on the intrinsic abstract without relating to actual applications that may have a myriad of unknowns.

To properly utilize a word, concept or idea we must first understand its definition. Merriam-Webster defines pragmatism as:
1-A practical approach to problems and affairs
2-An American movement in philosophy founded by C.S. Peirce and William James and marked by the doctrines that the meaning of conceptions is to be sought in their practical bearings, that the function of thought is to guide action, and that truth is preeminently to be tested by the practical consequences of belief

These two definitions are profoundly different and can have implications that are polar opposites. The first can be seen as a rational attempt to understand the world around us. We begin by observation and formulate an idea or question. We continue to acquire and integrate data to propose and test a hypothesis, and then analyze the information to form a conclusion. That is the scientific method and has demonstrated its efficacy in the sciences that has immensely advanced the human condition. Proofs and principles are firmly grounded and form the basis of the inductive/deductive logical method.

The second definition is more reflective of a philosophical movement that began in the late nineteenth century. The dilemma was to reconcile the claims of science on one hand with those of religion and morality on the other. “The people needed a philosophy that is both empiricist in its adherence to facts yet finds room for religious belief.” To accomplish this they needed to sever the relationship of the real world and knowledge to justify actions of a predetermined morality or conclusion. Simply put, the ends justify the means. Rand more eloquently stated “the pragmatists declared that philosophy must be practical and that practicality consist of dispensing with all absolute principles and standards—that there is no such thing as objective reality or permanent truth—that truth is that which works, and its validity can be judged only by its consequences…………there is only an undifferentiated package-deal labeled ‘experience,’ and whatever one wishes to be true, is true, whatever one wishes to exist, does exist, provided it works and makes one feel better.” She further stated that “a later school of pragmatists (including Dewey) amended this philosophy……….and decided that objectivity consists of collective subjectivism-that knowledge is to be gained by means of public polls among special elites of ‘competent investigators’ who can ‘predict and control’ reality.……since reality is indeterminate and people determine its actual nature.”

Which of these two definitions more aptly defines today’s political culture. Does Jonathan Gruber’s or Pelosi’s comments on Obamacare come to mind? Or is it Bushes neocon foreign policy of nation building. The 2016 Clinton strategy was void of any substance and driven by lies, spins and deceptions to achieve a win at any cost. Much of today’s political rhetoric is based on the essential of Trump or anti-Trump, without regard to specific concretes, not to mention the use of governmental force and investigations, including threats, to accomplish a desired end. Re read the above definitions and decide which is the current political establishment and which one Trump represents. I am only using Trump as he is viewed as the quintessential pragmatist, and do not want to turn this discussion to him, but stay on understanding the intended concept.

While Trump may not be able to articulate his principles with the scientific factuality of a Stephen Hawking or the eloquent consistence of the philosophical writings of Rand, he still appears to have an “intuitive” common sense, not only of practicality but also of right and wrong. One need only to look at his children to realize some form of proper values was present and even Hillary recognized that in the last of the debates. His productivity and financial success had to be seated in proper fundamentals as opposed to a chaotic unprincipled achievement of goals or theft. And many, if not all (including his adversaries) that have personally engaged with him have echoed his likability. So does he have a “practical approach to problems and affairs”? Absolutely and if that is pragmatic so be it. But our political system is more reflective of the second definition of pragmatism and it’s what Trump, along with many clear coherent intellectuals can identify, moving it away from the “ends justify the means,” to the principled means justify the principled ends.

We are at a crossroads and as the more rational policies are instituted and succeed, we need to recognize the “cause and effect” to connect the dots of the practical existential applications to the proper fundamental principles, in the same manner and integrity that the scientific method accomplishes for the physical sciences. And just maybe we need to coin a new term, “rational pragmatism.”

The title of the blog includes "pragmatic"!!

Oh stop. As I explained to ewv, a more modest version exists which is not ridiculous. I used the example for communication, not argument.

There are unquestionably immediate actions/decisions that one can make being consistent with a principled philosophy, that will result in long term outcomes that are not consistent with the same philosophy.

How do we deal with these?

Another good example.

I tried (unsuccessfully) to separate the noun, “Pragmatism”, from the adjective, “practical”.

No one here is suggesting Pragmatism.

Agree. I tried to (but failed) separate the “Pragmatism” (noun) connection, in favor of the “practical” adjective.

This discussion is not about “Pragmatists”, the (new to me). It is about practical actions and decisions being consistent with a philosophy, in the case Objectivism.

It is quite clear that an immediate principled decision/action is possible that does not support a long term outcome that is congruent with the philosophy.

I will have to go read the link tonight (when I’m not in a board meeting). Thanks!

Very, very well said!!!

prag·ma·tist

1. a person who is guided more by practical considerations than by ideals.
"hardheaded pragmatists firmly rooted in the real world"
2.
PHILOSOPHY
an advocate of the approach that evaluates theories or beliefs in terms

pragmatism is goal oriented. objectivism provide principles to apply in achieving those goals

Evangelical puritanism has no place in the real world, and usually leads to constant conflict with those you regard as less pure, and therefore unworthy. It's indeed ironic to see those who passionately aspire to Objectivist purity adopt a religious fervor over their stance (ewv comes to mind).

Pragmatism is "whatever works," and can lead to complete abandonment of principle. I prefer the concept of practicality, as in what decision can I make that most closely holds to my philosophical/moral beliefs?

Any philosophy is abstract in that it is the science that studies the fundamental nature of existence.
It is a guide to (hopefully - as in Objectivism) living life rationally/morally.

Pragmatism is the dispensing of all absolutes and standards; there are no fixed laws of logic, certainty or objectivity. Pres. Trump is a pragmatist.

Thus, Objectivism is the philosophy of greatest use to man. Any philosophy that incorporates pragmatism is of no practical value.

Some decisions/actions one takes (e.g. sports) are not philosophical in nature - do not have moral consequences. But that is not acting pragmatically.