Greetings Everyone.

[dark_unicorn]

My name is Jon and I just recently joined the forum. Though I do not fully qualify as an Objectivist (I tend a bit more towards Thomism and traditional Aristotilean philosophy, sort of like Catholicism with a dash of Deism). Anyway, I have a great deal of admiration for Ayn Rand as well as for several in the Objectivist movement (Leonard Peikoff, Gary Hull , Andrew Bernstein, and Edwin Locke in particular) and I support pretty much all of their political stances. I have also found the Objectivist approach to Epistemology to be superior when used as a method of teaching in public school than any other method out there.

I guess I should call myself an admirer of Objectivism, which of course is not the same as actually being one. So, greetings to all, look forward to some lively discussions.

[JMeganSnow]

Welcome to the forum, Jon.

[dark_unicorn]

Welcome to the forum, Jon.

Thank you, unfortunately it seems I accidentally hit the "t" key one too many times and misspelled "introducing", I hope this doesn't give others the impression that I can't spell.

[softwareNerd]

... I accidentally hit the "t" key ...

Fixed.

Welcome.

[dark_unicorn]

Fixed.

Welcome.

Much obliged, and thank you for the warm welcome, hopefully my hands won't betray me like this again. This forum is the first one I've been on where there isn't an edit function for posts.

[softwareNerd]

This forum is the first one I've been on where there isn't an edit function for posts.

It is configured so that the dit button works for 1 hour after the post.

[dark_unicorn]

It is configured so that the dit button works for 1 hour after the post.

Understood, I still need to learn the ropes around here a little.

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

What do you mean you have found it utile as a teaching method? Objectivist epistemology just seems like the modern scientific method. It's not like it is unique to Objectivism. It developed independently of it. Objectivism seems to affirm said method and system of epistemology based on reason and empiricism combined.

Against what other methods are you weighing it? I didn't know of any way to teach other than one that focuses on logic, reasoning, analysis, and facts dealing with reality.

[dark_unicorn]

What do you mean you have found it utile as a teaching method? Objectivist epistemology just seems like the modern scientific method. It's not like it is unique to Objectivism. It developed independently of it. Objectivism seems to affirm said method and system of epistemology based on reason and empiricism combined.

Against what other methods are you weighing it? I didn't know of any way to teach other than one that focuses on logic, reasoning, analysis, and facts dealing with reality.

The primary school of thought in public education doesn't neccesarily deal with logic, reasoning, analysis and facts dealing with reality. Most educational professors at universities take a Sigmund Freud approach to children, which argues that children are not capable of abstract thought until their early teens (which is absurd, if you can speak and identify objects you a thinking abstractly, just not super-complexly).

Furthermore, particularly in the universities that train teachers, such logical methods of learning to read such as phonics are derided as "simplistic" and "subversive to the feelings of students". Granted, most elementary teachers that I've met don't turn their back on the logical teaching methods, but often they will create compromise methods between what worked for them as children and what the universities slammed down their throats, and the result is mixed levels of accomplishment.

Objectivist Epistemology is primarily useful as a razor to cut away all the nonsense that obviously does not pertain to educating a human child, yet gets passed off as thought it is. Beyond that, you are correct in your assertion that it is primarily a re-statement of Aristotilean logical theories (much as the Scholastic method of Scripture Instruction, which I was exposed to in Catholic School, thus giving me a different perspective on it than the self-taught Bible thumpers you see raving on TV like a bunch of psychos.)

[JMeganSnow]

Beyond that, you are correct in your assertion that it is primarily a re-statement of Aristotilean logical theories . . .

With a few primary and vitally important differences, like the solution to the "Problem of Universals": Ayn Rand's ideas of measurement-omission, which negate the necessity for Aristotle's mystical "essences" that somehow permit concept-formation.

I think Leonard Peikoff once described Objectivism as Aristotle stripped of Plato's influence.

[dark_unicorn]

With a few primary and vitally important differences, like the solution to the "Problem of Universals": Ayn Rand's ideas of measurement-omission, which negate the necessity for Aristotle's mystical "essences" that somehow permit concept-formation.

I think Leonard Peikoff once described Objectivism as Aristotle stripped of Plato's influence.

Yes, I neglected to mention the problem of Universals. I actually concur with objectivism on this, over my Thomistic teachers at the Philadelphia Arch-Diocese. However, what disqualifies me as an objectivist is my belief in God, as Ayn Rand's philosophy is atheistic in nature. This is why I don't label myself as an objectivist. I have a great deal of contempt for both the Brandens and David Kelley and I have no desire to join their ranks.

Unlike many of my fellow Christians (this is where my dash of Deism comes in) I don't feel threatened by Objectivism's atheism. I chalk it up to a gentleman's disagreement over speculating as to the origin of Physics, ergo as a student of Aristotilean teachings I concur with Objectivists on the material universe not having a beginning or end, but I think that the more logical course in speculating how the first star was born, and how things began to move comes back to some "first cause". I know that Leonard Peikoff asserts that Aquinas' appeal to the first cause has supposedly been refuted by various philosophers, but nothing I have read so far has convinced me that this is the case.

[EC]

I know that Leonard Peikoff asserts that Aquinas' appeal to the first cause has supposedly been refuted by various philosophers, but nothing I have read so far has convinced me that this is the case.

The way out of this is simply that no "first cause" is needed because the universe is eternal (don't confuse this with "infinite" which doesn't apply to time or space, and isn't possible anyway) and that the law of causality states that all existents act according to their identity, NOT that all actions are "caused". This is a subtle point, but once you understand it fully you'll realize all the errors that people have made while contemplating the universe's existence.

[dark_unicorn]

The way out of this is simply that no "first cause" is needed because the universe is eternal (don't confuse this with "infinite" which doesn't apply to time or space, and isn't possible anyway) and that the law of causality states that all existents act according to their identity, NOT that all actions are "caused". This is a subtle point, but once you understand it fully you'll realize all the errors that people have made while contemplating the universe's existence.

Perhaps, however the problem for me is that although the universe itself may be eternal, I have not been convinced that causality is something that has been eternal. The law of identity states that all entities have a specified nature, however, no matter is subject to action without causality (be it external or internal). Basically this is where I revert back to Aristotle's view of God, a universal consiousness that moved a motionless universe. It's a speculation that axiomatic truth was applied to existence, and thus life began. The time in which such events occured is obvious indeterminate, but one day science may take us there.

The other problem I have is the nature of man's specific identity, which of so far that is known (potentially there are other life-forms beyond our planet that have similar faculties to employ) is the only one capable of contemplating the universe. While it may not be neccesary that this ability be "caused", I do question whether or not the sum of an individuals accumulated experiences (his soul) is non-eternal. Ergo, I question whether or not the end result of a human soul after death is a return to zero.

Granted, until science is capable of reaching the point when we determine the origin of what is known as sentient life, this is all speculation and hense I am not in a position to either prove or disprove it. My mentor-in-spirit Thomas Aquinas knew this 700 years ago, and I understand completely why that it is still true today.

Edited February 8, 2006 by dark_unicorn

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

The primary school of thought in public education doesn't neccesarily deal with logic, reasoning, analysis and facts dealing with reality. Most educational professors at universities take a Sigmund Freud approach to children, which argues that children are not capable of abstract thought until their early teens (which is absurd, if you can speak and identify objects you a thinking abstractly, just not super-complexly).

I do see what you mean here, but I would like to point out that that particular mentality goes beyond Freund. Piaget is also a cognitive constructivist. Now, I do disagree with some of the elements of it as well as social constructivism, but they do have some points that are good and relevant, being applied successfully. As a teacher you have to work with the theory and combine them in practical application. For example, I believe that the regions or classifications used as levels are a bit too rigid. This has been confirmed by other psychologists, but the entire conception is not without merit. Children do develop socioemtionally and cognitiviely in general developmental patterns as well as uniquely, but I think the primary problem is the endeavour to attach a one-size-fits-all mentality to reality.

When you are speaking of the abstract quantification ability, I take it you are refering to concrete vs formal operations or preoperational? I don't believe, like I said above, that these characteristis come in neat, uniform packages all the time and that those characteristics are present to equal extents in all children. I agree with you that they are not totally absent untill late teens. I know of other theories that don't claim that. I don't really think Freud is all that credible. For example, the modern concept of early/mid childhood takes some elements from Piaget's concrete/formal levels of operational thought. A lot of things are actually useful in this general theory as well as the theory of Vygotsky (I employ the latter more, since I think it's a bit more useful). This can stretch anywhere from 6-13 years old. The cognitive development of the child is extensive in these periods, however, very young children in the stage of infancy do have a problem with operations. Other children in early childhoold and middlechildhood can have some problem, but training can alleviate some of those woes. Language develops early on, and you are right in that it is a form of abstract though, so I don't really know why anyone would say one isn't capable of such thought untill late teen years. From the Piagetian and modern view, that comes as early as the preoperational general stage.

I do believe in taking somewhat of a constructivist approach in teaching, but not entirely. I also believe in pragmatism. Most modern theories of educational psychology do not hold that children in the early years cannot reason or use logic to think abstractly, but not all children can at all times and, like I said above, they gain these abilities at various intervals. Some people never really actualize the potential of the Formal Operational stage. There are also different levels of abstract thought. Early children from 2-5 have a hard time with formal operations and concrete operations, but this steadily improves with training and biological development. Many very young children in the preoperational level 3-4 tend to exhibit problems with transitivity, seriation, and conservation, but again, this can be somewhat alleviated as a problem by extra training, but I don't believe in shoving something down someone's throat. I think education should be developmental. I have a hard time getting kids to learn highly absract concepts in elementary school, so I start off with more concrete things and move into gradually difficult abstracts.

Personally, I find the conceopts of scaffolding and the ZPD useful as teaching tools. I am quite disappointed with the methods of rote memorizationused in both elementary and highschool. Memorization can have a place, since you do need facts, but I think far too much emphasis is placed upon it and standardizied testing. It does not work very well and is also very poor for little children (even adults, when one thinks about it). Children and adolescents are generally active learners, and they need to get involved and teaching ought to be developmental.

Furthermore, particularly in the universities that train teachers, such logical methods of learning to read such as phonics are derided as "simplistic" and "subversive to the feelings of students". Granted, most elementary teachers that I've met don't turn their back on the logical teaching methods, but often they will create compromise methods between what worked for them as children and what the universities slammed down their throats, and the result is mixed levels of accomplishment.

I do agree with you here. They have abandoned very successful methods that I personally think are better. Phonics can be quite useful, but not for all kids. I don't think it should be abandoned, however. The educational theory I have learned so far seems to provide a basic framework for teaching. Some works better than others on certain children. There really is no universal method that works well. But as I said, my gereral education philsophy is a mix of progressivism and social pragmatism. My teaching philosophy is fairly utilitarian. I do what is useful.

I wish there were more of an emphasis on classes like logic, science. I find it horrid that children must take 4 years of English, 2 of which are literature, but they only need 3 of math and science. The latter are far more important.

[dark_unicorn]

I do see what you mean here, but I would like to point out that that particular mentality goes beyond Freund. Piaget is also a cognitive constructivist. Now, I do disagree with some of the elements of it as well as social constructivism, but they do have some points that are good and relevant, being applied successfully. As a teacher you have to work with the theory and combine them in practical application. For example, I believe that the regions or classifications used as levels are a bit too rigid. This has been confirmed by other psychologists, but the entire conception is not without merit. Children do develop socioemtionally and cognitiviely in general developmental patterns as well as uniquely, but I think the primary problem is the endeavour to attach a one-size-fits-all mentality to reality.

This is true, and I don't adopt a "one-size-fits-all" approach in reverse by suggesting that all children are capable of concept formation on a given level at a certain age. However, in my experience at least 70% of the elementary children I work with (as young as 1st Grade) are highly capable of differentiating such complex concepts as translucence, transparency, and opacheness in various objects (I gave this science lesson to a 1st grade class and 95% of the students got it immediately, many even pointing out the trans-link between transparency and translucence as being related to whether or not one could see through the object to any extent). This is something that most of social constructivists tend to either ignore or gloss-over. The amount of children that are not capable of doing this most often have problems with basic concept formation due to various brain-disorders, and are usually segregated out of track 1 and track 2 classrooms, which is the proper thing to do both for the sake of the more advanced kids and the one that is behind them.

Personally, I find the conceopts of scaffolding and the ZPD useful as teaching tools. I am quite disappointed with the methods of rote memorizationused in both elementary and highschool. Memorization can have a place, since you do need facts, but I think far too much emphasis is placed upon it and standardizied testing. It does not work very well and is also very poor for little children (even adults, when one thinks about it). Children and adolescents are generally active learners, and they need to get involved and teaching ought to be developmental.

I am a big opponent of most forms of standardized testing, however, the active-learner approach is often not effective unless it follows a good amount of information transfer from teacher to student. Lecture always precedes Labs, just as eating always precedes energy replenishment and 2+2=4 always precedes 2x5=10.

I do agree with you here. They have abandoned very successful methods that I personally think are better. Phonics can be quite useful, but not for all kids. I don't think it should be abandoned, however. The educational theory I have learned so far seems to provide a basic framework for teaching. Some works better than others on certain children. There really is no universal method that works well. But as I said, my gereral education philsophy is a mix of progressivism and social pragmatism. My teaching philosophy is fairly utilitarian. I do what is useful.

I would not classify myself as a utilitarian in any respect because it often involves evasion of standard principles, and also it can come at the expense of educational outliers (be they gifted or challenged students). I follow a more absolutist approach, absolute in the sense that things work for a reason, and that understanding that reason leads to a more successful approach.

One of my absolute principles involves my support of tracking, which is done for the sake of each individual student for the sake of both their cognitive and social development. Gifted children in particular do not cope well with the ridicule that comes from jealous track 2 students (the so-called middle level) and conversely the track 2 students develop the habit of what I refer to as "the mob of intimidation", which plays into Ayn Rand's "Arguement from Intimidation" principle. A key in social development is understanding that no person is in any position to attack someone else based on an unearned advantage or disadvantage in any given respect, for such a practice is the height of social evil in today's world.

I wish there were more of an emphasis on classes like logic, science. I find it horrid that children must take 4 years of English, 2 of which are literature, but they only need 3 of math and science. The latter are far more important.

My area of expertise is primarily music (though I am diverse in my studies of other fields) so I tend to favor alot of humanities in educational curiculum (granted, I oppose public education so my preference would be to teach in a school specializing in Asthetics). My problem is not so much how much of the humanities is taught, but what is taught in those classes. I have a great deal of disdain for both Literary Naturalism and Dadaism, and both of these are given equal standing or even superior standing to Romatic Literature. The result is open hositility towards logic and reality, and creates alot of the broken people that you see in the world today.

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

I am a big opponent of most forms of standardized testing, however, the active-learner approach is often not effective unless it follows a good amount of information transfer from teacher to student. Lecture always precedes Labs, just as eating always precedes energy replenishment and 2+2=4 always precedes 2x5=10.

Very true. I always favoured the blend of the two, but in my experiences, the latter lab has always gotten short-changed. It's also harder, I think, to do with humantities, since they are not as hard-core into the scientific method as the actual sciences. I think discussions should be incorporated into the lectures, instead of people just sitting in the front of the class and the kids writing. It's too passive. I like question.

I am not against having kids solve problems together, but one has to be careful with group work, since I have seen the slackers leech onto the few good kids, but I have ways of dealing with that. The teacher has to pay attention to what goes on. Like you said, though, you have to have the information to do the lab. I agree, I just don't like the current system of people sitting, writing, and then leaving quietly.

Edited February 8, 2006 by Technocratic_Utilitarian

[dark_unicorn]

1. Very true. I always favoured the blend of the two, but in my experiences, the latter lab has always gotten short-changed. It's also harder, I think, to do with humantities, since they are not as hard-core into the scientific method as the actual sciences. I think discussions should be incorporated into the lectures, instead of people just sitting in the front of the class and the kids writing. It's too passive. I like question.

2. I am not against having kids solve problems together, but one has to be careful with group work, since I have seen the slackers leech onto the few good kids, but I have ways of dealing with that. The teacher has to pay attention to what goes on. Like you said, though, you have to have the information to do the lab. I agree, I just don't like the current system of people sitting, writing, and then leaving quietly.

1. The key is that they be blended correctly and that there is a clear goal in mind. The end of education is not merely to socialize kids with students (in fact, that would be more of a side-effect of education, not a primary goal of it) but to educate them. Most pragmatists tend to think that throwing a rag-tag bunch of kids together an having them play with chemicals automatically produces a productive lab lesson, which is troubling since this philosophy is so prevalent nowadays.

2. I would actually favor excluding kids who are known slackers from participating in lab groups and have them instead do more book work. And if they are still a problem, you send them to a different, probably remedial class to find out if it's their attitude or a geniune lack of knowledge that is causing the problem. If it is their attitude that's the issue, you find them a field of study that they are interested in because obviously the one they are in isn't, if it is a lack of knowledge, you send them to where they can obtain it.

[JMeganSnow]

Unlike many of my fellow Christians (this is where my dash of Deism comes in) I don't feel threatened by Objectivism's atheism. I chalk it up to a gentleman's disagreement over speculating as to the origin of Physics, ergo as a student of Aristotilean teachings I concur with Objectivists on the material universe not having a beginning or end, but I think that the more logical course in speculating how the first star was born, and how things began to move comes back to some "first cause". I know that Leonard Peikoff asserts that Aquinas' appeal to the first cause has supposedly been refuted by various philosophers, but nothing I have read so far has convinced me that this is the case.

I find it bizarre that people will refuse to accept scientific theories because they don't 100% have perfect supporting evidence without any room for error or confusion, yet they will go ahead and leap right onto a proposition for which there is precisely zero supporting evidence, namely the existence of a supernatural consciousness that caused or created everything.

I don't know the answer so I can make up whatever pleases me and declare that it is the answer?

[dark_unicorn]

I find it bizarre that people will refuse to accept scientific theories because they don't 100% have perfect supporting evidence without any room for error or confusion, yet they will go ahead and leap right onto a proposition for which there is precisely zero supporting evidence, namely the existence of a supernatural consciousness that caused or created everything.

I don't know the answer so I can make up whatever pleases me and declare that it is the answer?

But this assumes that such a consciousness would be super-natural, something that I've been debating with myself for a long time. As someone whom leans towards Naturalism in terms of theology (the dash of Deism), I question the very premise of the need for a separate universe in order to justify a belief in a first consciouness, or the idea that consciousness neccesarily ends with the death of the physical body.

I accept the possibility that I am at error in my metaphysical speculations and that Leonard Peikoff could very well be right. However, exploring the origin of man's unique rational faculty, his ability to ask both "Why" and "How" about all the phenomena both inside and outside of the reach of his senses. Where does it come from specifically? I am pretty much certain that the nature of it's origin is natural, rather than supernatural. Furthermore, the very nature of the supernatural can be thought of as a misnomer that applied historically to everything outside of the reaches of man's reason at the time. Any concept of life beyond this planet as existing would have at one time been considered supernatural, but by the more correct powers of reason today, this is obviously placed in the category of a blatant absurdity.

But out of curiousity, what scientific theory have I refused to accept? I view science as a self-correcting practice, one that reproves or affirms our premises. My pursuit of God is not some blind crusade for an afterlife in another dimension, it is a search for divinity, my divinity. I am seeking answers to questions that are quite answerable, ones that matter to my own life and my personal quest for knowledge. I may indeed come to find that the God I've sought is, in fact, the better me that will greet me in the future, and if that be the case then I will accept it as any man of reason ought to accept the truth that he finds.

Edited February 10, 2006 by dark_unicorn

[JMeganSnow]

But this assumes that such a consciousness would be super-natural, something that I've been debating with myself for a long time.

I didn't mention super-nature; at this point it's still moot. I'm wondering, what evidence do you have to support the statement that a consciousness of any kind caused causality? Why consciousness? What facts lead you to the conclusion that it was definitely consciousness and not something else, such as an egg-and-cress sandwich? (Search Giant Spaghetti Monster on this forum if you're in a mood for some really dumb satire.) What evidence do you have that indicates that causality needed to be caused?

I've definitely realized that I know less than nothing about the origins of the physical universe (less than nothing because most of what I thought I "knew" turned out to be questionable if not downright false), so I try very hard to stick with propositions I have evidence for. Anything else gets slotted into the "wild imaginings" category instead of the "knowledge" category.

[dondigitalia]

(Search Giant Spaghetti Monster on this forum if you're in a mood for some really dumb satire.)

I am highly affended at your mockery of Him and His Noodly Appendage. How dare you blaspheme by asserting that He is bound to any size such as "Giant." The Flying Spaghetti Monster may take any form he wishes, which means he can be any size he wishes, as any bonafide Pastafarian will tell you.

[dark_unicorn]

I didn't mention super-nature; at this point it's still moot. I'm wondering, what evidence do you have to support the statement that a consciousness of any kind caused causality? Why consciousness? What facts lead you to the conclusion that it was definitely consciousness and not something else, such as an egg-and-cress sandwich? (Search Giant Spaghetti Monster on this forum if you're in a mood for some really dumb satire.) What evidence do you have that indicates that causality needed to be caused?

I've definitely realized that I know less than nothing about the origins of the physical universe (less than nothing because most of what I thought I "knew" turned out to be questionable if not downright false), so I try very hard to stick with propositions I have evidence for. Anything else gets slotted into the "wild imaginings" category instead of the "knowledge" category.

The primary proof that I have (which obviously is far from 100% proof of course) of caused causality is written about in Aquinas' Shorter Summa, it is a combination of the way he interpreted God in Catholicism and the way Aristotle speculated why things were moved. Whatever would be the given cause of causality (since causality is not a material object, it's origin is speculated to be a concept of action without matter, something which has not yet further been elaborated on, but could conform to some energy based phenomena) It is pretty much a given that causality dominates physics. But what I am specifically after is it's origin, what was the first thing to exist that established causality by way of precedent. Perhaps causality is not specifically caused, but I have speculated that at some point it started and developed.

One of the things that I've found interesting in Objectivism is that causality and the universe sort of pick up the slack that is left in God's absense. If indeed it is the case that the interaction of causality and material reality created man's unique ability to contemplate on such a deep level, I am curious to know how and hope that at some point the sciences will bring forth more answers. One of the things that makes me a bit sad is that I visualize all of the accomplishments that will be made after I'm gone, and that I will not have any way of seeing or knowing them.

One of the risks in getting into metaphysical speculation and even issues of faith is that you run a heavy risk of being at error and you often have less to go on than you do when you are using logic to categorize phenomena that is right in front of your face. Aquinas often referred to theology (as opposed to blind religion, which was the way of the old tribes preceding civilizaiton) is that it is a science that utilizes the other sciences to predict the nature of things that are beyond the current scope of reason. Sometimes such speculations can be made to serve reason by preparing it for analysis of newer phenomena when we become capable of studying it. (an example being speculation on potential life forms that could exist on other planets that are inorganic, or more plainly not based on Carbon)

As to the Spagetti monster (which sounds like a humorous satire based on what I would call the "Creator Octopus" senario, sort of my own little satire poking fun at the multi-apendaged Hindu Gods), I will look it up. But one of the things to remember about Aquinas (whom is my inspiration on this) is that he did not allow for things contrary to reason to infect his view of God. He used reason to isolate what God could potentially be by a process of elimination, until all absurdities such as an "Egg and Cress Sandwich" or the alien "Zenu" of scientology were eliminated and one coherent theory of why man contemplates eternity and yet is made of a non-eternal body. For Aquinas reason and his faith never contradicted, for me it is taken a step further and reason becomes a tool to rule out the poisonous forms of faith, what I see as erronius forms of guilt mongering which exists in various religions, and to seek a clear path. Undoubtedly this unique position is why I made my way here, I have the highest reverence for reason, and likewise I fear nothing when I am among others whom share this reverence.

Edited February 11, 2006 by dark_unicorn

[JMeganSnow]

I am highly affended at your mockery . . .

This sounds vaguely dirty. What is "affended?"

Aquinas often referred to theology (as opposed to blind religion, which was the way of the old tribes preceding civilizaiton) is that it is a science that utilizes the other sciences to predict the nature of things that are beyond the current scope of reason. Sometimes such speculations can be made to serve reason by preparing it for analysis of newer phenomena when we become capable of studying it. (an example being speculation on potential life forms that could exist on other planets that are inorganic, or more plainly not based on Carbon)

So theology = the science of wild imaginings?

Sounds to me like a fantasy writer trying to allow his readers enough suspension of disbelief to get on with his book.

[dark_unicorn]

So theology = the science of wild imaginings?

Sounds to me like a fantasy writer trying to allow his readers enough suspension of disbelief to get on with his book.

hehe, to each his/her own, but I would refer to it as:

Theology = speculation of universal origin

and

speculation of universal origin = utilizing the power of abstraction through a combonation of mathematical principles and metaphysical axioms to conceptualize a beginning.

I don't seek to avoid or even question reality, what I seek is to put it into order, starting with the axioms and building off of them into complex theory of universal phenomena. Each entity has onto itself a specific nature and thus an identity (A is A, 2+2=4, things are what they are) and what I seek is the full extent of that identity. What is the origin of it's identity, how did it evolve into it's current state, what surrounding phenomena may have affected or stimulated the process. Aquinas' "Shorter Summa" has a better explanation of it than what I can provide at this time. I obviously won't advertize Thomism on here since it is not within the guidelines of the forum, but at some point I may entertain a debate with whomever wishes to discuss this.

Ayn Rand and myself draw influences from the same philosopher, thus our views on most things are very similar. As a believer in the axiom of free will, I mirror her views on politics and do not consider government compulsion to be moral in any given senario. As a believer in an objective universe, I don't subscribe to the Kantian principle of intuition (interchangeable with non-rational faith, which is not compatable with Thomism and has been rightly condemned in the Catholic Encyclopedia as erronius) or Plato's obscure concept of a special means of "communicating" with a non-existing realm of ideas, which is basically a manifesto for the tyranny of intellectual elites. Consequently you will find that I am regularly launching polemics against most of the same enemies that all the Objectivists have.

To simply state how I define any concept of "faith" is as a speculation that is built off of reason (as opposed to an avoidance of it, which is where the term "blind faith" comes from). On the other hand, it is obviously not something that is scientifically demonstratable, at least not yet. Such theories as evolution, the big bang, or Aristotle's concept of an eternal universe is not in contradiction with this viewpoint.

P.S. - Just to add an additional wrinkle, I am not a supporter of Intelligent Design. One of the weakest arguements that many theologians have come to argue is the idea that because something is complex that it just magically pops up from nothing. The arguement from incredulity is something that I never engage in, because it is akin to surrendering your rationality and defaulting your arguement out of the bounds of any further logical discussion.

[softwareNerd]

Ayn Rand and myself draw influences from the same philosopher,...

I assume you mean Aquinas? A few months ago, I read the first 40 pages or so of Aquinas's Summa Theologica. I was impressed by the style, but definitely not by the content. For a person of his times, I reckon it was a huge leap, to try to formulate an argument in such logical terms; also, I admire the honest way in which he puts forth opposing objections and then replies to them.

If I lived in his times, I would have considered his book worth a read. However, I stopped reading when I realized that it is essentially only of historical importance. The content was nothing that modern man need take seriously.