If Objectivism is not Pragmatic, of what use it it?

Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years, 10 months ago to Philosophy
130 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Some have asserted strict and sterile terms for being in-line with Objectivism, very philosophically consistent.

Others have asserted practical actions and decisions, that are clearly in their self-interest, and do not compel others.

Is Objectivism just an abstract concept, like higher mathematics, theoretical physics and various philosophies, or is Objectivism a practical manner to conduct basic decision making?

I'll provide an analogy...because I like them, not an a basic for argument, but as a means of communication:
Judo is both a sport and a martial art. I've practiced it since I was 15 yrs old. One can readily find sport-only practitioners, that will take action in matches that are complete failures in martial arts. (arching one's back to land on their shoulders to avoid points scored when thrown...and landing on your head/shoulders). There are many examples, and people will take strong positions on each side.

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Posted by Lucky 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    public-private partnership- a catch phrase of the nineties. Unfortunately not quite dead.

    No legitimate role for government can include partnering with private entities.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Everyone understands it is an entire article. “It” (the article) is not being criticized.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It's an entire article. It has been briefly explained here many times. It's not something to attack.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes that makes sense. The point in this context is that there is no principle-practical dichotomy with proper principles and knowing how to use them in context.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ puzzlelady 5 years, 10 months ago
    Pragmatism is the pursuit of results without concern for ethics or morals. "The ends justify the means." No wonder it was on the negative end of Ayn Rand's scale of values. As for doing the practical thing to achieve ends, Rand had it down to the simplest formulation: "The moral is the practical." Her formulation of the golden rule integrates the morality of rational self-interest with all non-predatory and non-sacrificial human relationships. I see it as the dynamics of economic interactions and the trader principle of win-win through exchange of values for mutual benefit by mutual consent. That makes Objectivism the prime directive for conducting all ethical decision-making, the foundational building block of free societies and lasting civilizations.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, compromising on principle is destructive and not a practical way to make incremental improvements. It doesn't "work".

    We are contending with a statist-collectivist trend that is driven by false philosophical premises widely accepted. Those premises do not permit a sequence of incremental changes for the better (which does not include a more fascistic public-private "partnership" in the name of improvement) -- they are in the opposite direction of the ideologically based trend. Occasional back lashes when the left goes too far in one step do not reverse the overall trend. We'll take the backlashes when they occur, but it's not enough for the future of the culture and the country.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    We have to get from here to there. Without a means and evidence to break the welfare cycle we will keep pouring money down the drain until a collapse.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yeah, or someone who actually understands it could explain it simply, like I can with a question about suppressors, engines or electric machines.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I believe that "practicable" means "possible to be
    practiced". (Doesn't necessarily mean very "practical", just possible, I think.) I just don't like that word "pragmatic", because of possible association with that philosophy called Pragmatism.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No, I prefer to have a laissez-faire system, without government involvement. (But I don't want Socialism pretending to be private enterprise).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You are strictly correct I was defining "working" as getting the desired result, which if you dont have correct or sufficient facts will not result in the desired outcome.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That isn't rationality not "working". The whole process is rationality working properly. You have to reason to assess whether you have enough information and evaluate what you have found out (and possibly try to anticipate probability where applicable).

    Not every question has an immediate answer that you can find or an answer to the precision you need. You don't yet know what you wanted to find out, but that doesn't leave a dichotomy between principle and the practical

    You may not have adequate general principles for a theory and have to experiment to get something to work, but that is just using different principles for whatever experimenting you have to do, with no guarantee that you will find what you mean. It's not a philosophical principle/practical dichotomy.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The phrase "modest version" is yours in your thread on Objectivism and practicality. It's less than clear what you meant, which is why I asked.

    The assertion "As I explained to ewv ..." is false. There has been no attempted explanation.

    It's not "aluminum cookware","trolling", failure to "address a point or assertion", inability to "read" or understand "English", "throwing words in the air", or "graffiti".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The notion of evolving principles he referred to is from Pragmatism, as stated.

    The example of the Ten Commandments he referred to does not apply to Objectivism because "principles of Ayn Rand's philosophy are not 'rules' as out of context duties like the Ten Commandments".

    Those on this Ayn Rand forum who would like to understand Ayn Rand's detailed explanation of that can read it in "Causality Versus Duty". It's not an "assignment", "homework', "arrogant", "lazy" or "ignorant".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It was a response to term2, using his own terminology, on choosing among alternatives both of which have bad features but which one has no control over. Unlike many other philosophies Objectivism recognizes on principle that the moral only applies to choices possible in reality.

    There was no "circular argument" about this. Thoritsu is apparently referring to the post here https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... the content of which he did not respond to.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You don't tell people to "shut up" and stop "preaching" in another of your "here we go again" snide personal attacks . We are not your peons. I did not "change the subject" to a "huge esoteric concept" or to anything else, did not say what you quoted, did not "walk away", am not "cowardly", "trolling', or "lazy", and do not evade "clear logical discussion".

    I did answer the question by naming the simple basic principles why the socialist should not be supported, the obvious result, which is naturally in accordance with the practical. It took two sentences. It does not require utilitarianism and an after-the-fact claim that someone "thinks" the choice may be "consistent" with Objectivism. This addresses the issue you raised in the thread title.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Who is "railing" without noting the further negatives of the alternative to Trump to tell people to not vote, contrary their self interest, and what does it have to do with "appearance of Objectivism"?

    In the past some Objectivists (like Leonard Peikoff) have advocated (not railed) for voting for Kerry against Bush or not voting (both of which I disagreed with), but never to vote contrary to one's self interest. They thought that the advice was in one's long term self interest. The dispute over that was political assessment, not about an "appearance of Objectivism" or a call to sacrifice one's own self interest.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I asked questions about what you meant in your own post opening the thread. It was not about Trump and Democrats.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well good. We are getting somewhere. When we can finally agree that undermining a Trump in favor of a democrat is impractical, and against self interest, I can let go this.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo