Among the new crop of TV shows (new at the time I gave this speech to post graduates at Florida State University 20-years ago) debuting this fall is one called, Lost. On Lost, blindfolded contestants are dropped into the middle of nowhere and must find their way back home. Once they are dropped and before they can do anything else, every contestant will be forced to ask three questions: 1) Where am I? 2) How do I know? 3) What should I do?

Ironically, programs of this type, which many have dubbed, “Reality TV,” are criticized because they are geared to the intelligence level of a half-wit. The irony lies in the fact that, in this case, Lost concretizes, in the form of a television program, a very abstract intellectual field of study; a field that lies at the foundation of all knowledge. For the questions the contestants on Lost must ask are the very same questions we must ask when we are dropped into existence: 1) Where am I? 2) How do I know? 3) What should I do? The highly abstract intellectual field of study that seeks to provide the answers to those questions is philosophy. It is only through philosophy that we who are dropped into existence can find our way home.

To understand philosophy, let us begin by first defining it; then, we will look at what fields in philosophy those three questions represent.

“Philosophy,” wrote Aristotle, among the greatest philosophers in history, “is the queen of the sciences.” By that he meant that all other fields of study relied upon philosophy. Ayn Rand, the great 20th Century philosopher wrote that “philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man and of man’s relationship to existence…. [and that] the task of philosophy is to provide man with a comprehensive view of life. This view tells him the nature of the universe (metaphysics); the means by which he is to deal with it, i.e., the means of acquiring knowledge (epistemology); [and] the standards by which he chooses his goals and values in regard to his own life and character (ethics).”

There are two other fields of philosophy, but I will deal with those later. The three fields mentioned—metaphysics, epistemology and ethics—form the foundation of philosophy, with metaphysics and epistemology forming the base of a pyramid on which rests, at the apex, ethics. These three fields represent the three questions everyone must ask themselves before they are can properly function in life; before they can—like the contestants on Lost—find their way home.

Let us now explore the answers one might give to each of those three questions. Fundamentally, i.e., at the most basic level, no matter the complexity of the philosophy, there can be only one of two answers to each of those three questions.

Question 1: “Where am I?” the basic question of metaphysics offers two answers from which to chose: Answer A: we are in an objective, knowable reality that operates independent of the perceiver, a reality where consciousness identifies but does not control existence.

Or answer B: we live in a subjective reality, a reality that is a product of consciousness; a reality where physical laws can be broken by the mere wish of a mind, either our own or someone else’s.

Question 2: “How do I know?” the basic question of epistemology also offers two answers. Answer A is that knowledge is gained through perception and the process of reason, i.e., logic, which, by interpreting the data of our senses, identifies the identity of reality.

Answer B is that knowledge is gained through feelings—intuition, revelation, one’s gut, etc.—either one’s own or those of others.

Finally, Question 3: “What should I do?” the basic question of ethics offers two alternatives as well. Answer A states that right is pursuing and cherishing the values that promote and preserve our lives as rational beings—that one’s life as a rational being is the moral standard. Answer B states that we should focus, instead, on others, either to serve them or to rule them, with will or feelings—either our own or those of others—being the moral standard.

How you answer these questions will largely determine the answers you choose in the two remaining fields of philosophy, namely, politics and aesthetics; which deal with, respectively, the nature of both a proper social system and that of art and beauty.

Your answers to those three little questions, therefore, will determine the principles you practice in your life. Philosophy, then—despite what you may have heard—is the most fundamentally practical discipline among all other fields of study.

In conclusion, Philosophy is the queen of the sciences, the most powerful thing on Earth, lying, as it does, at the base of all of man’s knowledge, directing all men’s lives and, therefore, the course of civilizations; yet an understanding of philosophy begins with just three little questions:

1) Where am I?
2) How do I know?
3) What should I do?

The influence of philosophy is unavoidable. Like those in the TV show, Lost, these are questions no one who is dropped into existence can avoid answering—you have no choice. The only choice left open to you is: do you consciously answer those three questions yourself, basing your answers on your own thinking, certain in your judgment; or do you let others answer them for you, and remain a helpless bit of flotsam tossed upon the waves of circumstance and association?

The choice you make will determine the course of your life.

So choose wisely.

For starters: Learn how to talk to each other.

Rules of Rational Communication
by Michael J. Hurd

· Do not interrupt. Allow your partner to finish what he is saying. When there is a pause, politely ask, "Are you finished?"

· Actively listen. In other words, think about what she is saying. Look for evidence of honest misunderstandings. They are almost always present. Misunderstandings, rather than fundamental differences, are the root cause of most marital quarrels.

· Do not try to formulate your answer while he is talking. When it is your turn to speak, pause and carefully formulate your answer before stating it. Don't rush things.

· Allow time-outs. If you are too emotional to continue, take a five- or ten- or thirty-minute time-out. Take responsibility for re-initiating the discussion at the end of the time-out. Although time-outs can be frustrating, it is more frustrating to try to carry on a conversation when one or both parties are too emotional to think clearly and logically.

· Be very careful to avoid saying things you do not mean. Hateful, hurtful statements, made in the heat of emotion, do irreparable damage. Words do have consequences.

· Try to remind yourself that you are an adult, and that you are no longer a helpless child at the mercy of adults. You are in this relationship by choice. Nobody is forcing you to be here, and you owe it to yourself, more than anyone, to resolve this conflict rationally so that you can be happy with your spouse.

· Try to avoid generalized comments such as, "You always accuse me..." or "You never show me you love me..." Use generalized statements only if you know for a fact they are true. In the heat of discussion, you might feel they are true, but feelings and facts are not necessarily the same thing.

· Avoid defensiveness. Don't feel you have to defend yourself against enemy attacks; with the person you supposedly love the most in the world as your mortal enemy. Instead, calmly and politely ask for the evidence that you never show that you care, or the evidence that you are not truthful, or the evidence that you do not keep your promises. You do not have to accept assertions without proof, even from your spouse.

· If your partner does provide convincing evidence for a criticism of you, act like a grown-up and accept responsibility for the fact you made a mistake. Adherence to the facts of reality is a virtue, and will help your spouse respect you more and improve your own self-esteem. Faking reality, denying that something is true even though you know it is true, represents the greatest sin you can commit against yourself or your spouse. The damage is permanent.

· Follow this absolute rule: feelings and facts are not necessarily the same thing. You have no right to assert your feelings as truth without valid, logical proof to back them up. Neither does your spouse. If either partner fails to follow this rule, as an absolute, no marital happiness will ever be possible.

Truth is the identification of Identity. When the mind sees what is, not what it wants to see.

Of course, postmodern academe has a problem with that. They utter self-refuting, contradictory statements like "The are no absolutes," (an absolute); "there is no truth," (so that's a lie, right?); "there's no black & white, only gray" (a black & white staement); etc.

Statements that deny facts are self-contradictory, false on their face.

"Truth is unknowable." {So how do you know that?
"Objectivity is impossible." {Ditto
"We cannot know anything." {Ditto
"I cannot be sure I know anything." {One must be certain of something in order to doubt anything. "I don't know if that traffic light ahead is red or green (but I'm certain there is a traffic light ahead.)
"This sentence is false." {Meaningless, as it refers to nothing *in reality,* no fact, but only to itself.

Here's one more complex by a god of the postmoderns, Howard Zinn: “Objectivity is impossible and it is also undesirable. That is, if it were possible it would be undesirable, because if you have any kind of a social aim, if you think history should serve society in some way...then it requires that you make your selection on the basis of what you think will advance causes of humanity."

IOW, knowing the facts won't promote the "causes of humanity" (whatever the Hell such causes are. Likely, those causes mean mobs crushing the individual human being.

But Zinn wasn't the first to make such a statement: "There is no such thing as truth, either scientific or moral." Adolf Hitler (Munich; 1939)

You see, when you get folks to believe in an elastic truth, in a reality of imagining, you can herd mankind into a mob of selfless, souless thugs and, in the name of humanity, riot, destroy, kill.

This generation, indeed, the Boomers & the Xers also, deserve the future they are going to see.

However, if you are one of those rare individuals who actually thinks for himself, you may wish to explore the woman's philosophy: "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." - Ayn Rand

And for those simpering souls who pleadingly ask, "What is the meaning of life?" " … joy, exaltation, beauty, greatness, heroism, all the supreme, uplifting values of man's existence on earth, are the meaning of life--not the pain or ugliness he may encounter ... one must live for the sake of such exalted moments as one may be able to achieve or experience ... happiness matters ... the essence of life is the achievement of joy, not the escape from pain." - Ayn Rand

>http://aynrandlexicon.com/
>https://aynrand.org/

Just remember one thing: "The mind never fully accepts any convictions that it does not owe to its own efforts." - Frederic Bastiat

Ooops, sorry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppJ5uITLECE

Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini. Rachmaninoff.

Anna Fedorova.

You seem...intelligent. Listen.