scorpio11284

I think, the answer you are searching for is far simpler than you think. If by the term 'ultimate truth' you are referring to the one basic, absolute, and final truth; the one truth that all other truths can be traced back to then, in fact, you have already given what I consider to be the 'ultimate truth': A is A or reality exists. There can't be anything more basic than that. So, going along with that train of thought, an 'objective truth' is anything that exists in reality. We, as humans, interpret reality by means of our mind, rational thought, and by extension, our five senses. So an 'objective truth', or something that exists in reality is anything that one can experience with his senses, and rationally process with his mind. To give an example: I hold an object in my hands. I can feel it with hands, and see it with my eyes. Therefore it is an objective truth that I do indeed hold an object in my hands. When bitten has a certain taste and odor, and once digested provides my body with sustenance. Therefore (assuming I don't die or have an allergic reaction after consuming it) it is an objective truth that this object is food and that it is good to eat. The color or name of this object are (as I understand it) examples of 'subjective truths'. I do not think, as Grames does, that 'subjective truth' is a contradiction. Subjectivity is simply each individual's perspective on the nature of reality. For instance, I might look at at the aforementioned object and see the color red, however a color blind person may look at the same object and see the color gray. We both see the same object, our perspective of it does not change the nature of the object itself and so, my calling this object red is a 'subjective truth'. Similarly, a name is an arbitrary string of letters that we assign to this object for the purpose of communication. The English language calls this object 'an apple', but the Spanish language calls this object 'una manzana'. The words for this object are different, yet that difference does not change the nature of the object itself. Where subjectivity enters dangerous territory is when one attempts to call a subjective truth an objective truth. For instance if I were to say to someone from Spain that this object is not 'una manaza' it is in fact an apple. Or if I were to say to a color blind person that the color he sees is in fact red when he sees gray. The fallacy here is the assumption that "I see reality for what it really is and you do not. What I see is right, and what you see is wrong." This is, of course, a very simplistic example, but I think it illustrates my point.

Greetings to anyone reading this post, My name is Peter Howland; I am 26 years old and a graduate of Elon University in Elon, North Carolina. This is my first post to this forum and as such, I thought it would be prudent to briefly describe who I am, where I come from, and why I felt it necessary to join this community. About two years ago, I discovered the books of Terry Goodkind, a fantasy writer who authored The Sword of Truth series. My interest at first was simply for some good books to get into for my own enjoyment. I was surprised to find more than just simple enjoyment after reading the sixth book in the series (Faith of the Fallen). This book's philosophical message struck me as no other book had before, and I wished to know more. I read some reviews of Mr. Goodkind's work and discovered his major influence in writing this book came from the writings of Ayn Rand. I knew absolutely nothing about Ayn Rand or Objectivism and, as the Wikipedia articles were wholly unhelpful in describing the nature of this philosophy; I turned to the writings of Ayn Rand herself for guidance. I read The Fountainhead. I will freely admit that I didn’t understand it, yet something struck me on a deeper level; still I wanted to know more. I read Atlas Shrugged. My mind was blown. To say that I was changed by these books would be a vast understatement. In the past six months, I have gone through so many paradigm shifts that my world has been completely 'up-ended'. And yet, for the first time, many things began to make sense. I read more books and articles on Objectivism. I watched interviews and listened to Q&A sessions with Ayn Rand herself. Slowly, things started to come together. I realized that ideas like individualism, rational self interest, a devotion to reason and logic have always played a major role in my personality. These things have been my core values since the day I began thinking for myself. However I had been taught that these things were immoral. I was led to believe that humility, charity, and sacrifice were the highest virtues I could achieve; that to give of myself to others was the only path to true happiness. One need only see my mind’s reaction to this philosophy to know that it cannot be true. For many years a battle had been waged within my mind; between things I rationally knew to be true, and things I was told to take on faith. My conscious mind had wholly accepted the teachings of Altruism, yet my core values remained untouched. This contradiction within me had only one possible outcome: the destruction of my self esteem, and a downward spiral into depression. Starting in high school and culminating in college, depression seemed to define me as an individual. True pleasure and enjoyment of life seemed to be beyond my grasp. Though I occasionally thought about suicide, I never progressed further than that. I did not (as is most common) escape into an alcoholic haze or drug induced stupor; my mind would not allow it. I kept going by escaping reality into various worlds of fantasy. The literature I read on my own was almost exclusively of the fantasy / science fiction genre. I spent my free time at school playing various games where I could exercise my mind and immerse myself in another world or become another person for a while. This behavior was not (as I thought at the time) simply frivolous or recreational, but something more destructive. It was an active attempt to prevent my mind from facing my fundamental contradiction. I was too young to understand what was happening to me or why I was doing these things, but I do know that not to do them would have almost certainly destroyed me. My mind needed time to mature, to gather knowledge and life experience in order to make the shift into true rational thought. Thus I spent the beginning of my life trying to escape from my core values. I did this not by dulling my mind, but by escaping into the pages of a book or the screen of a computer. I was that third kind of person described in the beginning of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff. I was the kind of person that uses his energy and intelligence to deny the existence of reality. While, for me, escapism was a method of self-preservation, I have come to understand that it would ultimately lead to my own destruction. I do not regret it however, for by running from reality, I was able to circle around behind it and meet it on my own terms. My escape through fantasy led me to Terry Goodkind who led me to Ayn Rand who helped me open my eyes to the truth at a time when I could handle it. These writers did not, however, force a change on me that I did not choose for myself; such a thing would have been impossible. To quote one of my favorite movie characters: I was merely shown the door, but it was I who had to walk through it. Thank you for taking the time to read this. I felt it was important to explain my life and my discovery of Objectivism. This is the first of many essays I will post to this forum and I hope those of you who read this now know a little more of who I am and where I come from. I am a student again, attempting nothing more than to learn about the nature of reality by discussing it with those people who love life as much as I. Thank you again, Peter Howland