[thinktwice]

What is "truth"? Truth is simply what is. What isn't, is not truth.

Your statement contains non-contradictory points inherent in Objectivism's approach to truth, a three step process that I'd summarize as follows ...

1. Reality is that which exists -- that which "is" as you say it.
2. Truth is the recognition of reality -- the individual realizing that which "is."
3. Reason is man's standard for knowing truth -- the individual deriving truths of reality from perceptions that are evaluated using reason.

We can use reason to determine certain truths, however reason can not create truth.

Close, but not quite right ...

Man has the ability, using the rational faculty of reason, to create art, literature, buildings, inventions -- things that are not yet real and cannot, as yet, be recognized as real; i.e., not true now, but recognizable as truths of reality (it exists!) upon creation.

Reason/logic define validity, not truth. Unless you already know that all the premises you base your conclusion on are true, and that your conclusion is valid, reason can't make an assertion that a specific conclusion is true.

You seem to be confused about the relationship between reason and logic. Logic requires the use of reason, but reason can be used for more than logic; creating a beautiful work of music, for instance; or recognizing important "self evident" truths as America's forefathers did.

Reason/logic define validity, not truth. Unless you already know that all the premises you base your conclusion on are true, and that your conclusion is valid, reason can't make an assertion that a specific conclusion is true.

I've read that Ayn Rand would often end conversations with the words ... "Check your premises."

[Hajman]

You seem to be confused about the relationship between reason and logic. Logic requires the use of reason, but reason can be used for more than logic; creating a beautiful work of music, for instance; or recognizing important "self evident" truths as America's forefathers did.

It appears we're talking past each other. When I use the term 'Reason', I'm using it in the sense how it pertains to logic (dictionary.com defines it as such). I usually don't associate things such as developing a beautiful work of music with reason, due to how I understand reason. Reason and logic should be objective, however, such things as lovely pieces of music are subjective (though more atomic parts, such as harmonies, can be quantified, and therefore brought into a more objective point of view).

Perhaps we should move from the concept of reason (which we both apparently understand differently), into the concept of objectivism (not naturalism). I do this because I don't believe you'll apply subjectivism for the current subject of Unaliable Rights (if you do, then 'Rights' become defined by the observer, and there can be no universal Unaliable Rights, as defined). Can you come up with an objective way to define such things as Unaliable Rights?

-The Hajman-