Bold Standard : I’m not really into philosophical English. ‘Reason’, is that your translation of Greek logos, Latin ratio, or German Vernunft? I want to know what we’re talking about. Anyway, for as far as I know, we don’t live in Ancient Greece or in the Enlightenment, and their interpretations of rationality are out of date.
In fact, technically speaking -you know, from a modern point of view-, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics are all out of date. If metaphysics and epistemology are to be the foundation of philosophy, I can’t see how philosophy couldn’t ever not be spucalative, and I don’t think that that is what modern philosophy should be. I mean, if we allow philosophy to be speculation, then religion for example, would become perfectly viable philosophy, which I really don’t think it is anymore.
And well, I guess it doesn’t look like I’m going to be a fervent objectivist then, but coming here, it never was my aim to be converted or something. I’m just interested, as I am in all philosophy. I want to have an opinion, so I’m trying find out what things’re all about.
LaszloWalrus : You are of course very right in correcting me that reason is not dogmatic. It would be more apropriate to say (wouldn’t it?) that although it might be a foundation for ethics, aesthetics, etc., reason itself is either unsupported because it gives rise to an infinite regression, or is supported by something we would claim is a fallacy - but then of course it would be reason dictating us what a fallacy is, making the fallacy even more fallacious. Either way, I think that this kind of research into reason, though fascinating as some attempts may be, will never turn out to be a fruitful philosophical investigation.
FeatherFall : I survived all nine works of Terry Goodkind’s Sword of Truth series, does that grant me a chance at ploughing through Rand’s fiction? 
Could you tell me what objectivism’s three basic axioma’s are? Oh, and, are these really self-evident, or just a point you say we shouldn’t want to go beyond? And, could you explain what’s wrong with contradiction? Or is that a question I shouldn’t ask because it’s self-evident?
KendallJ : Yes, supernatural is what the original Greek metaphysics translates to, basically. And that’s what my question really comes down to. How can Rand claim objectivity about something that transcends sensory percention? That’s what I’d call speculation, and speculation is not something I would call objective - or very useful, for that matter. Unless her metaphysics does in no way make empirically unsupported claims, but then metaphysics just wouldn’t be an appropriate term in her system, or at the very least, a very, very confusing one.
And as for your question about my view on reason, being reasonable: I’ve said a little more about it already, but perhaps it would be helpful to consider some things Descartes says about philosophy -about science, we would say-: According to Descartes, philosophy is like a tree, with some of it’s more importent branches being ethics, mechanics, and medicine. It’s trunk, out of which these branches grow, is physics, and the roots of the tree, out of which the trunk grows, are metaphysics. Rand’s philosophy seems to fit this pattern, sowing a metaphysical grain of seed, from which might, if tended reasonably, grow a grand philosophically aesthetic, ethical tree. But Descartes adds this little thing (which in his philosophy, he doesn’t give a lot of further consideration, by the way), that ultimately the tree is judged by the fruit it produces, and that is somewhat the way I see it: The reasonable tree is not one with good roots, but one with good yield.
Felix : I’m a little hesitant about further elaborating what my position is, as it still shifts now and then. Besides, I’m here to try to get a basic understanding of objectivism, not to spew my ideas on these things. 
But well, “there’s no truth. Everything is just somebody’s opinion” may suffice as half of a crude description of what my opinions are. I do not think there is a truth the way objectivism seems to define it, but I do have some kind of a conception of truth.
But I would be interested in how objectivism managed to convince you? Perhaps I’m just missing some ‘fundamental’ point.
DavidOdden : Could you explain how Rand’s metaphysics differs from other kinds of metaphysics? (Where these other kinds may for convenience sake be described as the original Greek ta meta ta physika, Latin trans physicam, English supernatural, as in ‘making claims not supported by empirical data’?)
Again to Bold Standard : Rand seems to reject all progress made in philosophy since Kant… I was going to ask whether she is like the pinnacle of scholastic philosophy, with man instead of God as knowledge’s point of emanation?
For as far as I know, saying byebye to metaphysics doesn’t mean saying byebye to philosophy. It ‘just’ means saying byebye to the philosophy of old, but it opens new ways of exciting contemporary philosophy as well - and then I don’t mean logical positivism.
In general : I’m really not here to try to deconstruct objectivism. If it seems I’m criticizing, that’s because I want to understand.
And, I’m sorry if the things I’m saying are all very standard questions and remarks. I knew completely nothing about Rand’s objectivism a week or two ago. I’m just trying to grasp the material with all the means I have, and if few those be, then so be it. I find that personal interaction with people who know what they’re talking about is always much better a teacher than reading books is. I really appreciate the serious
replies you all are giving me!
Thanks,
Jan.
