Reasoner

I wanted to add my thoughts, as a parent who is currently working through The Fountainhead for the first time.
I appreciate the quote that was given on Rand' and motherhood being a career that can become outdated.
This can be applied to fatherhood as well - which at this point in my life is my central purpose.
Thus, I would characterize one's central purpose in life not in terms of an unchanging career, but in terms of a single building that Roark might have built - in the sense of a stage of ones life.  A rational, discrete accomplishment and goal that consumes one with passion and leads to flourishing.
Everything I do at this point in my life is in the very broad context of my being a father - even my mental "breaks" from fatherhood (such as dates with my wife, studying philosophy, going to the gym - which I require to come back and continue being the best father I can be, rejuvinated with fresh energy and perspective.)

My marriage, my philosophical studies, my health/fitness, my personal time, my job - all of this (at this point in my life) supports my central purpose of being a father.

More to the point - Within the context of my knowledge, I don't do anything antithetical to being a father in the long-run. My current "building/structure" must integrate and not contradict the others I have built in the past - for example I will rely on my marriage, life experiences and health/fitness to support my next structure, so they all form a support of whatever my current building is.

As Rand alludes to, at some point it won't make sense for fatherhood to be my central purpose...my structure will be completed (for the most part...I know I will always be a father) just like my competitive bodybuilding, my college degrees, my career, my romantic life, a stable home, etc have all been important structures in my life for me in the past (in that chronological order, actually).

But the important point is the structures one chooses to build in life may change and this presents no contradiction with the objectivist conception of a flourishing life.  This is the integration referred to in the title of this thread - and it is deeply personal, and individualistic.  The structure of one's value hierarchy should properly be completely unique and personal for that individual.

Ultimately, the moral rule is that one pursue a flourishing life of reason, purpose, and self-esteem.  The number of ways one may do this is limited only to their imagination.
But just as Roark had multiple buildings that he architected during his life, a person's highest values may change as well.
And Roarks buildings, although discrete, did not preclude one another.  There is no reason that they should.
And if I may share something a bit more to the point, if not exceptionally personal:
It brought tears to my eyes when it occurred to me that my children are my Stoddard Temple.  And I know that I will have to unveil them to the world someday, and it breaks my heart, in a selfish way, that I can't keep them perfect and sweet and pure and innocent forever.
And they will be vandalized, and judged improperly by those who don't deserve to even look upon them.
I will build it my way, according to the very best within me, no matter what it takes, through sleepless nights and tears, but also through joyous highs and laughter.  And I will let no one sway me from my path unless the reasoning of my own mind convinces me of a better one.  
And when the time comes, as it will, for me to move on and choose a new structure in my life to focus on - I will look back on my temple and know it was built according to my highest values and to the best of my ability.
And properly, and egoistically, I will be a better person for having built it.

I wanted to add my thoughts, as a parent who is currently working through The Fountainhead for the first time.
I appreciate the quote that was given on Rand' and motherhood being a career that can become outdated.
This can be applied to fatherhood as well - which at this point in my life is my central purpose.
Thus, I would characterize one's central purpose in life not in terms of an unchanging career, but in terms of a single building that Roark might have built - in the sense of a stage of ones life.  A rational, discrete accomplishment and goal that consumes one with passion and leads to flourishing.
Everything I do at this point in my life is in the very broad context of my being a father - even my mental "breaks" from fatherhood (such as dates with my wife, studying philosophy, going to the gym - which I require to come back and continue being the best father I can be, rejuvinated with fresh energy and perspective.)

My marriage, my philosophical studies, my health/fitness, my personal time, my job - all of this (at this point in my life) supports my central purpose of being a father.

More to the point - Within the context of my knowledge, I don't do anything antithetical to being a father in the long-run. My current "building/structure" must integrate and not contradict the others I have built in the past - for example I will rely on my marriage, life experiences and health/fitness to support my next structure, so they all form a support of whatever my current building is.

As Rand alludes to, at some point it won't make sense for fatherhood to be my central purpose...my structure will be completed (for the most part...I know I will always be a father) just like my competitive bodybuilding, my college degrees, my career, my romantic life, a stable home, etc have all been important structures in my life for me in the past (in that chronological order, actually).

But the important point is the structures one chooses to build in life may change and this presents no contradiction with the objectivist conception of a flourishing life.  This is the integration referred to in the title of this thread - and it is deeply personal, and individualistic.  The structure of one's value hierarchy should properly be completely unique and personal for that individual.

Ultimately, the moral rule is that one pursue a flourishing life of reason, purpose, and self-esteem.  The number of ways one may do this is limited only to their imagination.
But just as Roark had multiple buildings that he architected during his life, a person's highest values may change as well.
And Roarks buildings, although discrete, did not preclude one another.  There is no reason that they should.
And if I may share something a bit more to the point, if not exceptionally personal:
It brought tears to my eyes when it occurred to me that my children are my Stoddard Temple.  And I know that I will have to unveil them to the world someday, and it breaks my heart, in a selfish way, that I can't keep them perfect and sweet and pure and innocent forever.
And they will be vandalized, and judged improperly by those who don't deserve to even look upon them.
I will build it my way, according to the very best within me, no matter what it takes, through sleepless nights and tears, but also through joyous highs and laughter.  And I will let no one sway me from my path unless the reasoning of my own mind convinces me of a better one.  
And when the time comes, as it will, for me to move on and choose a new structure in my life to focus on - I will look back on my temple and know it was built according to my highest values and to the best of my ability.
And properly, and egoistically, I will be a better person for having built it.

I wanted to add my thoughts, as a parent who is currently working through The Fountainhead for the first time.
I appreciate the quote that was given on Rand' and motherhood being a career that can become outdated.
This can be applied to fatherhood as well - which at this point in my life is my central purpose.
Thus, I would characterize one's central purpose in life not in terms of an unchanging career, but in terms of a single building that Roark might have built - in the sense of a stage of ones life.  A rational, discrete accomplishment and goal that consumes one with passion and leads to flourishing.
Everything I do at this point in my life is in the very broad context of my being a father - even my mental "breaks" from fatherhood (such as dates with my wife, studying philosophy, going to the gym - which I require to come back and continue being the best father I can be, rejuvinated with fresh energy and perspective.)

My marriage, my philosophical studies, my health/fitness, my personal time, my job - all of this (at this point in my life) supports my central purpose of being a father.

More to the point - Within the context of my knowledge, I don't do anything antithetical to being a father in the long-run. My current "building/structure" must integrate and not contradict the others I have built in the past - for example I will rely on my marriage, life experiences and health/fitness to support my next structure, so they all form a support of whatever my current building is.

As Rand alludes to, at some point it won't make sense for fatherhood to be my central purpose...my structure will be completed (for the most part...I know I will always be a father) just like my competitive bodybuilding, my college degrees, my career, my romantic life, a stable home, etc have all been important structures in my life for me in the past (in that chronological order, actually).

But the important point is the structures one chooses to build in life may change and this presents no contradiction with the objectivist conception of a flourishing life.  This is the integration referred to in the title of this thread - and it is deeply personal, and individualistic.  The structure of one's value hierarchy should properly be completely unique and personal for that individual.

Ultimately, the moral rule is that one pursue a flourishing life of reason, purpose, and self-esteem.  The number of ways one may do this is limited only to their imagination.
But just as Roark had multiple buildings that he architected during his life, a person's highest values may change as well.
And Roarks buildings, although discrete, did not preclude one another.  There is no reason that they should.
And if I may share something a bit more to the point, if not exceptionally personal:
It brought tears to my eyes when it occurred to me that my children are my Stoddard Temple.  And I know that I will have to unveil them to the world someday, and it breaks my heart, in a selfish way, that I can't keep them perfect and sweet and pure and innocent forever.
And they will be vandalized, and judged improperly by those who don't deserve to even look upon them.
I will build it my way, according to the very best within me, no matter what it takes, through sleepless nights and tears, but also through joyous highs and laughter.  And I will let no one sway me from my path unless the reasoning of my own mind convinces me of a better one.  
And when the time comes, as it will, for me to move on and choose a new structure in my life to focus on - I will look back on my temple and know it was built according to my highest values and to the best of my ability.
And properly, and egoistically, I will be a better person for having built it.

I wanted to add my thoughts, as a parent who is currently working through The Fountainhead for the first time.
I appreciate the quote that was given on Rand' and motherhood being a career that can become outdated.
This can be applied to fatherhood as well - which at this point in my life is my central purpose.
Thus, I would characterize one's central purpose in life not in terms of an unchanging career, but in terms of a single building that Roark might have built - in the sense of a stage of ones life.  A rational, discrete accomplishment and goal that consumes one with passion and leads to flourishing.
Everything I do at this point in my life is in the very broad context of my being a father - even my mental "breaks" from fatherhood (such as dates with my wife, studying philosophy, going to the gym - which I require to come back and continue being the best father I can be, rejuvinated with fresh energy and perspective.)

My marriage, my philosophical studies, my health/fitness, my personal time, my job - all of this (at this point in my life) supports my central purpose of being a father.

More to the point - Within the context of my knowledge, I don't do anything antithetical to being a father in the long-run. My current "building/structure" must integrate and not contradict the others I have built in the past - for example I will rely on my marriage, life experiences and health/fitness to support my next structure, so they all form a support of whatever my current building is.

As Rand alludes to, at some point it won't make sense for fatherhood to be my central purpose...my structure will be completed (for the most part...I know I will always be a father) just like my competitive bodybuilding, my college degrees, my career, my romantic life, a stable home, etc have all been important structures in my life for me in the past (in that chronological order, actually).

But the important point is the structures one chooses to build in life may change and this presents no contradiction with the objectivist conception of a flourishing life.  This is the integration referred to in the title of this thread - and it is deeply personal, and individualistic.  The structure of one's value hierarchy should properly be completely unique and personal for that individual.

Ultimately, the moral rule is that one pursue a flourishing life of reason, purpose, and self-esteem.  The number of ways one may do this is limited only to their imagination.
But just as Roark had multiple buildings that he architected during his life, a person's highest values may change as well.
And Roarks buildings, although discrete, did not preclude one another.  There is no reason that they should.
And if I may share something a bit more to the point, if not exceptionally personal:
It brought tears to my eyes when it occurred to me that my children are my Stoddard Temple.  And I know that I will have to unveil them to the world someday, and it breaks my heart, in a selfish way, that I can't keep them perfect and sweet and pure and innocent forever.
And they will be vandalized, and judged improperly by those who don't deserve to even look upon them.
I will build it my way, according to the very best within me, no matter what it takes, through sleepless nights and tears, but also through joyous highs and laughter.  And I will let no one sway me from my path unless the reasoning of my own mind convinces me of a better one.  
And when the time comes, as it will, for me to move on and choose a new structure in my life to focus on - I will look back on my temple and know it was built according to my highest values and to the best of my ability.
And properly, and egoistically, I will be a better person for having built it.

You need to justify this claim. I'm disputing that a monopoly on force is -itself- a cause of corruption. I dispute that human nature operates as you say it does.

Very good advice about the label.  The other thing I have noticed is people have a difficult time arguing against rational decision making - but once you use the word "Ayn Rand" or "Objectivist" you give them a giant target to aim for.
The first thing they do is play Bioshock, and then look up all the negative reviews of Atlas Shrugged on Amazon.
I would like to say I don't care about their opinions, but some of the backlash I have experienced verges on intellectually violent, it kind of scares me.

"Anyways, this assertion that every human , no matter in what profession, is of equal value, leads to a marxist society at the end." Eh . . . Only if it was also believed that it's ok/right to force people to make payments based upon this. Believing something is right or wrong doesn't always necessarily entail a belief that it's something one may rightfully go force others to follow through on.
Also, in general to this topic, 1) remember that value is contextual. (Something/someone is of some particular value to some particular party for some particular end. Value of something/somebody can be different to different people and at different times under different circumstances it can vary for the same person too.) 2) There's more than one way a person can provide value and more than one way value can be paid for. (Material value is one, immaterial value is another. Usually, but not always, you pay for material with material and immaterial with immaterial. Neither type of value alone can be seen as representative of a person's over-all value nor necessarily representative of how much somebody over-all value's another person.)
 

I am a 35 year old IT Project Manager with a Masters Degree in MIS.  Since high school I considered myself strongly libertarian and have had a major resentment of how virtues are denigrated by popular culture and law - a mental, if not physical, assault on honesty, integrity, hard work, and individualism.  I am a really, really nice guy.  I go out of my way for others.  I work out, and take care of my body.  I work hard to study topics that are important to me.  I work really hard to achieve the goals in my life that are most worthy of my efforts.  I am an Eagle Scout with a Masters degree and a good job and have never taken from anyone that which is unearned.
And I have always resented being told that I must pay penance for being successful in my life, and that my accomplishments weren't mine to claim but my failures were to be hung around my neck and borne alone.  I fundamentally resented the evasions that take place when it comes to race and religion and poverty, and despite not having a name for my thinking, or a framework for my morals  I always felt uneasy about faith and religion, despite being a devout Christian at the time (now firmly atheist) - but I didn't know a name for my uneasiness.
Until I read Atlas Shrugged for the first time, after being laid off for the second time in a row, while working as a security guard and nightclub bouncer (I had a little time on my hands!).
I cried multiple times.  My mind was blown.  Atlas Shrugged put into words what I had always felt to be true but couldn't quite put together into a cohesive structure in my mind.
I realized that I have ALWAYS been an Objectivist - I just didn't know what it was called until that point.  Rands fiction, and later her non-fiction, has clarified in my mind what I have always known.
I have read pretty much everything she has written (at least once).  And I am still learning so much, especially thanks to this forum.
I am now exploring Peikoff and Branden, as well as other contemporary Objectivist authors such as Roslyn Ross and Tara Smith.
I find Objectivism to be somewhat lonely - my wife understands and agrees with the basics but doesn't have the same passion about philosophy that I do.  This forum has been indispensible for me during my darkest hours, when my mind has been plagued with questions that haunt me.  And I have not been let down.
This philosophy is so deeply, deeply relevent to me.  I truly believe that Objectivism teaches us to love the very best in each other, and to appreciate the beauty of everything this world has to offer, because there is no other.  Objectivism gives us the framework for morally interacting with other human beings in non-sacrificial, mutually beneficial way.  Objectivism tells us that we are NOT evil, that we are right to be proud of ourselves and to seek our achievements in an upright posture.
As Rand writes in Atlas Shrugged: “It’s only human,' you cry in defense of any depravity, reaching the stage of self-abasement where you seek to make the concept 'human' mean the weakling, the fool, the rotter, the liar, the failure, the coward, the fraud, and to exile from the human race the hero, the thinker, the producer, the inventor, the strong, the purposeful, the pure—as if 'to feel' were human, but to think were not, as if to fail were human, but to succeed were not, as if corruption were human, but virtue were not—as if the premise of death were proper to man, but the premise of life were not.”

With regard to the original posters question, here is a fantastic article just posted by Dr. Hurd discussing a topic very similar to this.
https://drhurd.com/56694-2/

Would you present your view on 1) the quality of the article, and 2) where Kuhn's notion of paradigm shift enters into Reasoner's questions? I know little about Kuhn as it is, other than earlier on his views on a paradigm shift being way too strong. All Reasoner asked is how to know what a fact is if people differ on their beliefs.
EDIT: Oh I see. When Reasoner said "paradigm shift", he meant it like "a big change", not some Kuhnian thing (a Kuhnian paradigm shift as far as I know is supposed to be reaching some understanding that is "untranslatable" to the older understanding).

Well, remember it was called a AAA account, not AAA knowledge. It stood for accurate, adroit, and apt as three aspects of what knowledge is. "Accurate" is arguable, but the interesting point is that process is important. Knowledge requires deliberate thinking, it's not just a proposition. I find that far too few philosophers talk about knowledge as primarily about what you do, that the nature of one's mind is where the discussion should go (but the future is promising, if the article was any indication). Omniscience or infallibility doesn't enter in.
Perhaps earlier you were worried how two people can differ on knowledge. To an extent the worry is valid. But the part where it becomes objective is in terms of method. Nietzsche had perspectivism, but he had no notion of a method other than we all choose some method or other which is some expression of one's will. It's sort of true, but the answer to it is that there are superior methods than others, as Rand would say in terms of methods that lead to a good life.

Also, be wary of trying to get Objectivism to fit the out of context criticisms levied against it by it's opponents.
You seem to be operating under the *assumption* that Objectivism is a *materialistic* philosophy that judges worth by possessions or power or some other standard.
This is not a conclusion that can be derived by reading Rand.  This is a false conclusion that can only be arrived at by taking snippets of the philosophy out of context.
Objectivisms standard of value is mans life, and it's noblest virtue is the rational usage of ones mind, or rational faculty.
The goal of a materialistic pragmatist may be the accumulation of wealth and power.
The goal of an Objectivist is the moral acheivement of ones values as they pertain to living a flourishing life - something that can be different for everyone!

I apologize for that. In my defense, the forums I usually post on aren't Objectivist forums, so saying that someone is acting as a rationalist is not taken as the deadly insult there that it is here. I need to get used to the social norms on this forum.

I am a 35 year old IT Project Manager with a Masters Degree in MIS.  Since high school I considered myself strongly libertarian and have had a major resentment of how virtues are denigrated by popular culture and law - a mental, if not physical, assault on honesty, integrity, hard work, and individualism.  I am a really, really nice guy.  I go out of my way for others.  I work out, and take care of my body.  I work hard to study topics that are important to me.  I work really hard to achieve the goals in my life that are most worthy of my efforts.  I am an Eagle Scout with a Masters degree and a good job and have never taken from anyone that which is unearned.
And I have always resented being told that I must pay penance for being successful in my life, and that my accomplishments weren't mine to claim but my failures were to be hung around my neck and borne alone.  I fundamentally resented the evasions that take place when it comes to race and religion and poverty, and despite not having a name for my thinking, or a framework for my morals  I always felt uneasy about faith and religion, despite being a devout Christian at the time (now firmly atheist) - but I didn't know a name for my uneasiness.
Until I read Atlas Shrugged for the first time, after being laid off for the second time in a row, while working as a security guard and nightclub bouncer (I had a little time on my hands!).
I cried multiple times.  My mind was blown.  Atlas Shrugged put into words what I had always felt to be true but couldn't quite put together into a cohesive structure in my mind.
I realized that I have ALWAYS been an Objectivist - I just didn't know what it was called until that point.  Rands fiction, and later her non-fiction, has clarified in my mind what I have always known.
I have read pretty much everything she has written (at least once).  And I am still learning so much, especially thanks to this forum.
I am now exploring Peikoff and Branden, as well as other contemporary Objectivist authors such as Roslyn Ross and Tara Smith.
I find Objectivism to be somewhat lonely - my wife understands and agrees with the basics but doesn't have the same passion about philosophy that I do.  This forum has been indispensible for me during my darkest hours, when my mind has been plagued with questions that haunt me.  And I have not been let down.
This philosophy is so deeply, deeply relevent to me.  I truly believe that Objectivism teaches us to love the very best in each other, and to appreciate the beauty of everything this world has to offer, because there is no other.  Objectivism gives us the framework for morally interacting with other human beings in non-sacrificial, mutually beneficial way.  Objectivism tells us that we are NOT evil, that we are right to be proud of ourselves and to seek our achievements in an upright posture.
As Rand writes in Atlas Shrugged: “It’s only human,' you cry in defense of any depravity, reaching the stage of self-abasement where you seek to make the concept 'human' mean the weakling, the fool, the rotter, the liar, the failure, the coward, the fraud, and to exile from the human race the hero, the thinker, the producer, the inventor, the strong, the purposeful, the pure—as if 'to feel' were human, but to think were not, as if to fail were human, but to succeed were not, as if corruption were human, but virtue were not—as if the premise of death were proper to man, but the premise of life were not.”

I am a 35 year old IT Project Manager with a Masters Degree in MIS.  Since high school I considered myself strongly libertarian and have had a major resentment of how virtues are denigrated by popular culture and law - a mental, if not physical, assault on honesty, integrity, hard work, and individualism.  I am a really, really nice guy.  I go out of my way for others.  I work out, and take care of my body.  I work hard to study topics that are important to me.  I work really hard to achieve the goals in my life that are most worthy of my efforts.  I am an Eagle Scout with a Masters degree and a good job and have never taken from anyone that which is unearned.
And I have always resented being told that I must pay penance for being successful in my life, and that my accomplishments weren't mine to claim but my failures were to be hung around my neck and borne alone.  I fundamentally resented the evasions that take place when it comes to race and religion and poverty, and despite not having a name for my thinking, or a framework for my morals  I always felt uneasy about faith and religion, despite being a devout Christian at the time (now firmly atheist) - but I didn't know a name for my uneasiness.
Until I read Atlas Shrugged for the first time, after being laid off for the second time in a row, while working as a security guard and nightclub bouncer (I had a little time on my hands!).
I cried multiple times.  My mind was blown.  Atlas Shrugged put into words what I had always felt to be true but couldn't quite put together into a cohesive structure in my mind.
I realized that I have ALWAYS been an Objectivist - I just didn't know what it was called until that point.  Rands fiction, and later her non-fiction, has clarified in my mind what I have always known.
I have read pretty much everything she has written (at least once).  And I am still learning so much, especially thanks to this forum.
I am now exploring Peikoff and Branden, as well as other contemporary Objectivist authors such as Roslyn Ross and Tara Smith.
I find Objectivism to be somewhat lonely - my wife understands and agrees with the basics but doesn't have the same passion about philosophy that I do.  This forum has been indispensible for me during my darkest hours, when my mind has been plagued with questions that haunt me.  And I have not been let down.
This philosophy is so deeply, deeply relevent to me.  I truly believe that Objectivism teaches us to love the very best in each other, and to appreciate the beauty of everything this world has to offer, because there is no other.  Objectivism gives us the framework for morally interacting with other human beings in non-sacrificial, mutually beneficial way.  Objectivism tells us that we are NOT evil, that we are right to be proud of ourselves and to seek our achievements in an upright posture.
As Rand writes in Atlas Shrugged: “It’s only human,' you cry in defense of any depravity, reaching the stage of self-abasement where you seek to make the concept 'human' mean the weakling, the fool, the rotter, the liar, the failure, the coward, the fraud, and to exile from the human race the hero, the thinker, the producer, the inventor, the strong, the purposeful, the pure—as if 'to feel' were human, but to think were not, as if to fail were human, but to succeed were not, as if corruption were human, but virtue were not—as if the premise of death were proper to man, but the premise of life were not.”

Those are the right kind of questions. That's what "Gettier cases" want people to ask, to question if knowledge is -only- a justified true belief. A justified true belief doesn't seem to be able to answer what to do for what-ifs, like "what if a thief came by and stole my car?" So you're left to be a skeptic and constantly checking. Justifications are about your propositions, which doesn't say a lot of how to get evidence.
The answer, I think, is to make evidence gathering part of what constitutes knowledge. Making action part of epistemology, as in gathering evidence for yourself, making what we do and interacting with the world part of thinking. On top of that, we'd be able to make standards about what actions make for knowledge. Rather than being skeptical of our own minds and always working to check if we've been fooled by our own minds, I'm saying we ought to embrace our "limitations". The evidence one gathers is necessarily for knowledge, so something like virtue epistemology gets us to see that knowledge should be based on the mind's identity. In other words, knowledge isn't simply a proposition in your head. It's more.
AAA knowledge would probably be like a scientist developing a theory. Why not say "evolution is only a theory"? Because it aims at the truth, provides methods to get there, uses observation, and really helps with progress in science. The problem is how you personally know. Well, we'd have to ask what sort of evidence is needed. Briefly, personal perspective is one part, but in the sense it's one's "web" of one's total knowledge. How to know when you were wrong is another part.

While it's not your responsibility to fix anyone else's problems for them, you should try to discuss these things with anyone that really matters to you; self-censorship is just as selfless as making yourself a 24/7 Crusader for Capitalism.
When you censor yourself on a frequent or chronic basis, you end up damaging your own grasp of what's true and what's worthwhile (see this). So it's in your best interest to have these hard conversations, if you'll otherwise end up having to suffer that.
And if you try to talk to someone close to you (such as your parents or best friend) about it and find that they aren't interested in the true or the good -that they actually practice their evil ideas and intend to continue doing so- then you know what they're worth, according to the standard of their impact on your own life.
 
Personally, I tend towards the opposite extreme sometimes; towards trying to fix every single person in the world. However, as SN pointed out, that's not truly selfish either.
The right approach is to help those who deserve it, and to Hell with anyone else.
 
PS:
 
I find that the best approach, with Skeptics, is to take their questions seriously and to request the same courtesy for your answers. It consistently demonstrates who's honestly confused and who's just wasting your time.

Reasoner,
 I have no reservations about telling people I am an Objectivist. Most people I encounter have no idea as to what that is. As the subject of metaphysical beliefs rarely comes up in casual conversation, this is merely one more thing that people don't know about me. In the event that God, Bible-based morality, or the limits of man's knowledge becomes a matter of discussion, I generally state that I believe in objective reality. No one so far has had a problem with that, with the exception of a few religious fanatics. Inasmuch as I'm not the most qualified expert on philosophy, I tend to keep explanations of metaphysics to a minimum. As for politics, I have had a life-long interest in history, and with thanks to Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff, I've been able to argue in favor of capitalism and individual liberty much more easily. I noticed your first encounters with Objectivism are recent, that is, within the past eight years; this is coincidence, as I, too, only in the past eight years became aware of the writings of Ayn Rand. And a life-time of searching for the Truth is evermore reaching fulfillment. Most people would accept some aspects of Objectivism; most are unwilling to abandon the religious teachings of their youth. Either way, it is your life, and you have much greater advantages understanding Objectivism at an earlier age, as opposed to my personal case of learning of Objectivism at middle-age. People may reject labels they don't recognize or understand, but most people will respond well to reason.

Truth and facts - Reasoner's OP laid out the path in it's first sentences.  He recognized that truth and facts (based in existence and identity) exist independent of the evaluation of consciousness.  So his question is worthy of evaluation and the silliness of "open" and "closed" issues between Rand and Branden become nonrelevent side issues.
 
He then brings in the relationship between all existence and its notice by consciousness.  He suggests that the fact of consciousness (more specifically perception as a form of consciousness) may, by its identity, modify the perception of the object and that, therefore, the result is subjective. REASONER- Find a reference for Peikoff's analysis of sense organs.
 
Reasoner's question is a really good version of a common argument.  I don't have time tonight to write a clear essay, but I can enumerate the metaphysical and epistemological issues needed for integration.  REASONER: 
 
1. Do you agree that truth and facts of reality are based in existence and identity independent of perception?
2. Do you agree that consciousness is an existent whose identity has a specific, eventually understandable nature?
3. Do you agree that human consciousness is composed of varied sense based data evaluated by a reason function that works by recognizing attributes of things in reality and can create independent (from their referents), cognitive ideas that integrate these facts into concepts?
4. Do the sense organs of conscious beings have a specific identity?
5. NOW, stop and think.  The people who gave you the idea you proposed in this thread, are asking us to overcome skepticism by expecting A MYSTICAL PERCEPTION DEVOID OF IDENTITY.  Stop and consider. They propose that perception is skeptical BECAUSE it has a specific nature.  They propose that a perception that can be described and metaphysically identified, is subjective because of its identity.  Think of biological evolution as the engine, and then ask yourself if this position makes any sense at all?
 
So, subjective or objective becomes a matter of volition not metaphysics or epistemology.  Did you get it right or not, based on the evidence of your senses and the evaluation of your reason?
 
The objective value of Ayn Rand's thoughts are, curiously, wrapped up in the idea of human fallibility.  Knowledge is not automatic or mystical, it is hierarchical through time based on the nature of discovery in a sense based environment enhanced by concept formation thru abstraction in the faculty of reason.
 
Whatever your question - you can't go wrong if you start with the facts that existence is primary to consciousness and human consciousness is composed of sense organs providing data for a mental capacity, called reason, that can integrate seemingly incongruent identities into new cognitive ideas. 

What you're pointing out is that getting at the truth can be hard work, that we must go about this work deliberately, that we aren't guaranteed success and that this insight needs to be applied to any particular question such as the ones you point out in #1 and #3. Objectivism doesn't dispute any of this. We all might hope rationalistically that a single breakthrough will do the job once and for all and make any further intellectual effort automatic, but this hope is in vain.
 
If you can read and write you've made these efforts yourself, and I wish you the best at your further adventures.

This is a beautiful post. Very well done.