Hi everyone. So I have some basic questions that I was hoping could be answered.... I know there is a search function but I thought a few of these are too specific to easily find the answers to, and that these questions were basic enough someone could answer easily for me. However, I would like to say I would prefer semi-thorough explanations if possible since I don't know much about Objectivism or philosophy in general and may need some of that simpler stuff explained that all of you accept as "obvious" already. I am working on learning more about both topics from what is available online. Hopefully these questions don't sound stupid to you all.
#1. Are the foundations ...for Objectivism really based in logic, or rather axiomatic assumptions?
For instance, from an Objectivist's mode of thinking, i.e. their empirical understanding of the world, is there a rational basis for belief in a free will? If so, what is it?
#2. Can the superiority of logic to a specific worldview be logically proven? In other words, it seems like you start with the assumption that logic is the best criterion for a good worldview. Why? You have no logical basis for doing this, it is essentially an act of faith, isn't it?
#3. It is my opinion that every worldview must begin with some level of basic faith, an axiom, something to be believed that cannot be truly proven. The problem I see with Objectivism is that it denies anything that cannot be proven. It takes it's own axiomatic foundations as truth and denies that such things can exist. Sure, it is logical and consistent after having established such things, but there is no logical reason to believe those basic foundations, just faith. To repeat, every worldview I think must start with faith. My faith is in God (to be clear, I believe there is a god, I do not however, assume it is some specific god like Christians, Muslims, and the like do, just that something was the source of all around us, I guess I am considered a deist because I don't think "it" involves itself with us), and from there everything else proceeds logically, and my worldview is less contradictory than Objectivism does because it still acknowledges it rests ultimately on faith. Objectivism also proceeds logically from its foundational axioms but it seems to me that Objectivism contradicts itself in saying it requires no faith, whereas I contend that it requires all sorts of faith commitments before it can get off the ground.
Again, correct me if I'm wrong, and I again admit that while I think I have a handle on the very very basics Objectivism, I could still learn a whole lot more and I am interested in doing so.