[donh]

I think you're overloading the word by automatically assigning it religious or mystical significance, when such is hardly necessary to use the word properly. "Truth" is only as you say it is if you deny that there is such thing as objective fact, which I would be rather surprised to see you do.

Indeed, I do not deny it. As a closet Objectivist, I embrace it as fundamental to psychological health. I accept it because I have faith in the concrete nature of reality. But I do not mistake this faith for something other than faith, of no more fundamental technical merit in the realm of logical reasoning than faith in God the Prime Mover, or faith in druidic tree spirits, if that's what floats your boat. When it comes to what you can objectively share with others, that sharing takes place outside the skin, where utility stops. Inside the skin is where the TRUTH detectors are--and everybodies TRUTH detectors are tuned slightly differently--it is treacherous territory to try to objectively share.

[PatrickHenry]

I accept it because I have faith in the concrete nature of reality. But I do not mistake this faith for something other than faith, of no more fundamental technical merit in the realm of logical reasoning than faith in God the Prime Mover, or faith in druidic tree spirits, if that's what floats your boat.

I just want to make sure I understand your position. Are you saying that your belief in objective reality (for example, the existence of the moon) is no more firmly grounded than someone's belief in the existence of hell?