I still prefer the old Jewish negative form of that: "Don't do to others what you do not like'. It does not direct action toward others and is more of a governing principle keeping actions from overheating and causing strife in society. Less likely to be used to justify sadomasochism.

Interesting that the old adage "treat others as you would have them treat you" leads one pretty close to the objectivist view of human rights- and its easy to understand and make work for you.

You can say that about all ideas about reality and not just for official ideas of Rand. Some of hers ideas required way too much judgement of every thought and every statement of others to the result of completely emotionless thinking without any way to find happiness. In many cases it is not possible to choose an action without the choice of pleasure as the defining motive. It is easy to injure a consciousness by discarding emotion and bodily feelings from all cognition. Of course many of the original ideas of hers are useful and might make lives better, so with most ideas just question them and dump the ones that do not fit objective reality, remembering that what you get has been filtered though some parts of the brain that include very ancient reptilian and mammalian filters of sense data.

And how does one form those principles and prove them without observing a practical, concrete objective reality. Pragmatism deals with meanings of reality and those cannot be produced without observing reality. Rand at times formed principles a priori without actual concretes to point to with the resulting principle. The most referenced example would be 'man's life qua man' because it just floats there with no concretes pointed too, only lives as an ideal man, 'qua man', which is not a concrete, unless one wants to pretend that it is reifiable, but concepts are not part of the concrete world and only refer to it.

Yes. I love that summary.

I wonder if readers unfamiliar with the Fountainhead wondered why the Post article pulls examples from movies and politicians instead of from the primary source: "hmm... It sounds like his book extols the virtues of people who get rich by looking good and playing politics and belittles nobodies working in a small office or doing manual labor because they're not good at sales and politics. I wonder why this article doesn't use those examples directly from the book."

Funny how people think Trump could even get through one of Rand's books. Probably got through the first two pages, got bored, then tweeted about it.

Who's an Objectivist?!! Someone who blames
producers for escaping (as in the strike of the mind)
in Atlas Shrugged, and threatens to punish them
with even more taxation? Someone who gets
chummy with Russian government officials?! It's
amazing how upside-down some people think
nowadays.

my apologies, I thought the reference was to Tillman. please for give me.

Show me one swaggering dictator that would surround himself or herself with the type of free-market, anti-regulation cabinet members that Trump is picking. A dictator would go full throttle on bringing the entire economy under state control. Trump for the most part is going full throttle in the opposite direction.

If the Trump administration manages to repeal Obamacare, free up energy policy, smash the political power of the "environmental" and "climate change" extremists, reduce individual and corporate tax rates, and appoint one or two non-"progressives" to the Supreme Court, I won't be disappointed at all.

I suppose true believer objectivists might say that the issue is the definition of what "works".

Perhaps also they think that its the philosophical basis of morality that is paramount, regardless of what "works". Maybe I am just a non intellectual deplorable, but I think thats reversed- its great to present a philosophical theory, but it has to be tested against the reality that would result from its adoption.

I do think that there are very practical and observable results from the application of objectivist ideas, and pointing these out is a much more powerful way to convince the great mass of people to accept them than to spout philosophical principles that are over their heads.

At least he was considered, and he might still have a role in the future.

His cabinet picks are not consistent with either anti-intellectualism or authoritarianism. He is dangerous mainly to the political establishment of both major parties.

I don't think Trump is a Pragmatist (philosophically speaking). If he were, he would have been a lot more like Hillary both in the way he ran his campaign and his positions on the issues. And he wouldn't be appointing so many free-market advocates to cabinet positions. I think that, philosophically, Trump is eclectic (as in, "all over the map").

If Objectivism doesnt "work", then of what use is it in ones life? Isnt the final worth of some idea that it "works" in practice. Of what use is philosophy if it doesnt work in practice

It is an attempt to smear Trump, not Rand. At least for the last 70 years, connecting Rand to a person has been a negative labeling, whether from the left or right with some exceptions, of a person has been to smear that person.

"Brought up on the philosophy of Pragmatism, they (liberals) have been taught that principles are unprovable, impractical or non-existent—which has destroyed their ability to integrate ideas, to deal with abstractions, and to see beyond the range of the immediate moment." --Ayn Rand, Credibility and Polarization, The Ayn Rand Letter, October 11, 1971.

I doubt that I will be disappointed if they are not true believers and followers of Objectivism. All you have to do is look at the lives of the Objectivists both those not purged from the group and those who had the power to purge. Extreme judgement of others was the main part of the philosophy that they practiced where the slightest wrong thought was punished with long term therapy, aka brainwashing, until they repented. I sure would not want the government agents wondering if I had the right pure thoughts or whether I was reading the wrong books which would offend them in some way.

Rand seemed to think of pragmatism as trying things without thought until something works. But pragmatism is thinking of ways to do something until one gets a working solution among those that are workable. One should not believe that every problem has just one solution. Technology has a history of the rethinking of a problem with improvements not thought of before being found. The whole system is pragmatic. There is no purely true philosophy that exists and believing that one's philosophy is that one true one is nothing more than a religious belief.

Thanks. I totally did not remember that scene.
No wonder I did not blink! blink! notice the author..
Barely had time to read--no, scan--the title of a book I knew nothing about.
I'm sure I was like most people who had forgotten that scene before even leaving the theater. .

um, not sure what being an astronaut has to do with this, but cool that you were one. CEO of Cato and a major contributor for many years to Ayn Rand Institute. read my above statement carefully mr. astronaut

And Trump is a pragmatist.

Agreed for the most part.

It does not matter whether Trump is an objectivist, He is not a bureaucrat or politician, which is a huge improvment.
He is a businessman and a builder who will bring an anti government attitude with him. This is the chance to shrink government that we have sought
for years. It is the best we will get.

he is NOT an objectivist, why are you listening to him.