Apparently the people who rail on at the negativities of Trump, without noting the further negativities of the alternatives.

Not sure there is a meaningful difference in English between the adjectives practical and pragmatic. There is that sticky practicable, that gets people regularly, but only by William F Buckley and Hyman Rickover.

So you prefer hand outs?

Nice note. Thank you.

I totally agree, people who write well, have an excellent grasp of what they write (speaking well is similar, but not as definitive). The gentlemen that were classically trained (I mostly know engineers) 50 years ago or more, and were still contributing recently had a firm grasp of the fundamentals, and they could communicate them clearly, to another engineer or a lay person.

Do you really not see a distinction between arithmetic, algebra and calculus or diff equs?

Fear not Thoritsu, Your mentor was correct. I am safe.

Hallow Thoritsu and hallow all others,
I have to confess that I was disheartened by what I read in this discussion. I am virtually certain that I will not address all instances here where, I think, better thinking is necessary. At the same time, I hope that nobody will find my comments and criticism offensive. Trust me, no personal offense intended. We are here, at least I am, for sure, to learn together and from each other.
“… very philosophically consistent.” It seams to me that something is consistent or not. Consistency is a property and an adverbial descriptor such as “philosophically” does not change the consistency of whatever.
Objectivism is a philosophy in contrast to mathematics, higher or lower (what’s the distinction?), which is a special science. Have you had a chance to read “Where Mathematics Comes From” by George Lakoff and Rafael E. Nún͂ez (Basic Books 2000)? It is fascinating and beautiful.
I have “The Ayn Rand Lexicon”, edited by Harry Binswanger (New American Library 1986). I wish to give two quotes, because whenever I read them, I am deeply impressed by the clarity and precision of her thinking. On pp. 358-359: “Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man’s relationship to existence. As against the special sciences, which deal only with particular aspects, philosophy deals with those aspects of the universe which pertain to everything that exists. In the realm of cognition, the special sciences are the trees, but philosophy is the soil which makes the forest possible.” In the next quote she explains the components of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and esthetics.
In the Lexicon, on p. 377, there is a piece entitled Pragmatism. It is very much worth reading. I think that it shines much light onto the discussion on whether the Objectivism is or is not “pragmatic”.
” Objectivist ethical principles are meant to be practical, in the same way that principles of engineering are meant to be practical.” I think that Aristoteles would shudder if he heard that ethical principles are intended to be “practical”. Let’s start with the concept of principle. Let me use the three principles of thermodynamics as the object. The first scientists who discovered them called them principles because they realized that they are like axioms in geometry. Self-evident truths that nothing in nature can violate. Laws are limited in their applicability. You might enjoy one description of the three principles of thermodynamics I found long time ago. The first says that the best you can do is break even. The second says that you must loose and can break even only at absolute zero temperature. The third says that you can never reach absolute zero. How is that for optimism?
The other objection I have for that quote is the concept of principles of engineering. As one of the most prominent practitioners said; “Engineering is the art of things that work.” Imagine developing a new version of a product that is expected to operate flawlessly for, say, 40 years. Of course, with periodic maintenance shut downs. You have a limited budget and three years to develop a new (faster and more cost-effective manufacturing technology) version of a vital component of the product. There is no way of calculating the design, based on accelerated testing for a couple of years, to design a thing that you say we live 40. You have to rely on your gut feelings, the past experience of successes and failures and hope. Do you see why it is an art and not science? You use sciences as the tools of you trade. But, in the end, you have to gamble and put your name on the decision?
This is way too long already, so I will stop. I have a plea: please think through what you are writing. One of my sons taught me decades ago: “To write well you have to think well. If you found somebody who can teach you how to write well, you really have found somebody who teaches you how to think well.” Just one example that older can learn from the younger.
Best wishes to you and to all your loved ones.
Sincerely,
Maritimus

I don't want a "publicly funded, privately executed program to educate..." In the first place, it wouldn't really be privately executed. In fact, what statists usually prefer is privately funded, but publicly executed programs". That is, they want private enterprisers to put up the money, then shut up and take orders from the government. And "publicly funded, privately executed programs" would never pass, or if they did, would result in a mess which would cause the population to clamor for reinstatement of the previous "welfare".

I consider Objectivism practical. I do not like the term "pragmatic". From what I have read (admittedly, not from Pragmatists), Pragmatism seems to advocate just trying something first, to see what is true or not, without any reference beforehand to what is actually true.

Agree

Here we go again. I don't like the argument, so I'll change the subject to a huge esoteric concept so no one can make tangible assertions and conclusions, and you go on preaching

A free society versus socialism is more fundamental than liking some kind of power production,

Yes of course, who said it wasn't? Not me.

let alone making it state funded.

again, who recommended state funded power production?

It's also far more fundamental to running a country than some cursing politician's personal life.

a Free society vs socialism is more fundamental than cursing a politicians personal life. Yes, ok.

Now address the simple question I proposed, or shut up.

Saying "It is all more complicated than that", and walking away is not an argument. It is the cowardly, trolling of someone who is incapable of addressing or too lazy to address the clear logical discussion posed as a decision.

BCRinFremont, one of my mentors told me a long time ago, if someone can't explain something to you simply and concisely, it is they who don't understand it.

Don't fall for the patronizing homework assignment from ewv.

Here we go again. A reading assignment from the arrogant, lazy and perhaps ignorant teacher. No time to reduce your homework to simple, clear points.

Also here again comes the "Pragmatist" term, completely out of context. "Practical" and "pragmatic" here have been used as adjectives, not nouns.

In the case of rational thinking based on insufficient knowledge, the result wouldn’t “work” . Not the fault of a rational approach, and what better way to approach a situation could there possibly be, but the actual result would be sub optimal

I really wonder if you have a firm grasp of English and can read, or you just gather the words, throw them in the air and figure out what you want them to mean.

The only one who use "modest" as an adjective to modify Ayn Rand's philosophy is you. I have no idea what this means. I used the word to describe the severity of an immediate decision in another comment.

Do you have aluminum cookware?

Here again, I made a simple point. You troll, comment, and don't address my point or assertion. Just paint your little graffiti all over.

More like passionately avoids direct discussion, and enjoys fallacies and intentionally quoting out of context,

Oh, and you want better examples, of "smears" et al, go look at the several lies ewv posted last night. All clearly noted in my response.

Yet, we've had an circular argument for days about this very choice.

Are you now saying that Objectivism does not weigh on this decision? Are yo saying Moral choice is separate.

What the hell do you mean when you say "Objectivism does not stand in the way of making the better choice between two candidates"?

I would compromise with a socialist to change welfare to a publicly funded, privately executed program(s) to educate, instill discipline, relocate, et al people to get them off welfare, with incentives for long-term evidence.

We are already in a massively negative state. We will not get out of this state in one step. Each step from here to a state without non-Objectivism will have issues. There is no avoiding this. If one refuses to agree with the improved state (vs the ideal end state) one has no chance of succeeding in the politics. Therefore, compromise is required.

It is fantasy to believe even an improvement is not possible without compromise.

In what situations do you think rational thinking does not work?

Thoritsu: "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."

Who are the "some" who have asserted consistency as "strict and sterile"? What is non-strict consistency? How is consistency "sterile"? Is being consistent claimed here to be contrary to "practical"?

Thoritsu: "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?"

Why the dichotomy? Higher mathematics and physics are practical. So is Objectivism. As Ayn Rand put it, it's a "philosophy for living on earth". Thinking and living require abstract concepts and principles. Man differs from the lower animals by his rational faculty.

Many philosophies do "remain in the world of thought". Objectivism does not and is not incompatible with the physical world.

What "appearance of Objectivism" tells anyone to not vote, contrary to his self-interest?

The usage as a practical approach is much narrower than the philosophical definition. Your relating the scientific method as an example of the first definition required a whole philosophy of at least implicit Aristotelianism; a "practical approach" by itself does not provide the required epistemology. You have to know how to think in principles practically.

The spread of the philosophy of Pragmatism, which came from European philosophy that had already "severed the relationship of the real world and knowledge", has corrupted the common idea of what is practical as being divorced from principle, creating a false dichotomy.

Objectivism does not stand in the way of that. Moral choice concerns the possible.

A free society versus socialism is more fundamental than liking some kind of power production, let alone making it state funded. It's also far more fundamental to running a country than some cursing politician's personal life.

The principles of Ayn Rand's philosophy are not "rules" as out of context duties like the Ten Commandments. They are the opposite. See for example her article "Causality Versus Duty".

"Evolving" basic principles versus commandments as duties are a Pragmatist false alternative.