Unless your interpretation is perfect, and your ability is perfect, your personal ideology can not be based on truth. And I know your ability is not perfect even if your interpretation is.
Indeed. My interpretation is succeptible to being fallacious, being only human and therefore imperfect. But that is the case with anyone, of whatever faith or ideology they choose to align themselves with.
I'm not saying that my view is the One Single Guiding Truth of the Universe - far from it. (I had to deal with that mentality growing up under the yoke of Mormonism.) All I am saying is that Objectivism seems to best fit my own personal view of the world, having independently reached the same conclusions before I had ever even heard of Ayn Rand or any of the other Objectivist writers, or of the philosophy itself, for that matter.
Peace and Prosperity this New Year!
But my point is that Objectivism is flawed from the outset because it relies on something that is inherently unreliable. You are like a ship's captain trying to guide his ship not by the north star, but by the lamp at the top of the main mast. You are lost but confident.
Once you know that you can not accurately percieve reality and know that you can not discern truth, then you must turn to a source that can.
True, when you listen to that source your faculties still get in the way, but at least it's in the way of truly objective truth. The north star is viewed through an atmosphere that distorts the image, but it is still sufficient.
Objectively speaking, the version of objectivism that is presented in this thread requires faith in G-d.
Shalom.