I have edited this post to make sure I am clear that knowledge itself is not innate, rather, one is born with the ability to reason. whether one chooses to do so is another story.

no. empiricism rejects reason and logic. see below:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ration...
do I have the gulch street cred of being unlamb-like? seriously, I am as sweet as a daisy

do it

good points. I likey "redemption from the vagaries of life"
religion as an attempt to understand the world, define one's place in the world, an attempt to control and manipulate-power (intellectual, spiritual, governmental, personal).

Gotcha. Empiricism, yes? And thanks for the gentle answer!

ah, you're no fun, coder :)
to your point, answered above

all logical systems are based on at least one axiom/assumption/observation. As you point out, in Euclidian geometry, one of the axioms is that a straight line goes on forever, and two parallel straight lines will never intersect.
In Objectivism, my opinion, the fundamentals are based on observation. Observations are testable.

Which by all that gobbledygook, I'm trying to say that eventually you boil down to a principle that isn't derived rationally, but offered up as the as yet only known idea for what might be the, or at least a, primordial fundamental principle of your philosophy... hence a principle with no rationale other than "it must be". Not picking fight here (i bruise too easily) please be gentle if I'm way off.

Can't the rationale for any held non-elemental principle eventually be traced back to some irreducible axioms or even an undefined though seemingly obvious fundamental? (points in Euclid, for instance)
You can perhaps derive Objectivism from Existence [ well, you probably can, and obviously, AR did, I'm not that smart, yet] , but (aside from the fact that existence is patently obvious and those questioning it are deluded or deranged [ just trying to make it clear I don't question it, my condolences (but no apology) to any who do]) you cannot go the other way, can you? At best Existence is suggested as pragmatically necessary, which I think is different than proven, or have I missed something?

It means to me, in my interpretation, that the masses were easily led chattel, that this was hammered home so they didn't have a reason to think on their own, because they were being told how to think. That it was their redemption from the vagaries of life.

Speak for yourself! Lol Yes we are! wink wink

Yes, what she said. On all counts!

Oh!!! Cool and awesome!! Lucky "kid"!! And I certainly did not see that coming :-)

That's it, go and crank the crank! ;-)

They will be chronically confused. Do it!!

You ain't just whistling Dixie, lol!

lol Funny...although I think he's chronically "suspecting". :)

ok I will go use it on DK right now.lol

well reasoned-now go use it on someone unsuspecting...

clap clap clap :)

Well Done Grasshopper :)

It took me 6 times to read this, 4 google searches on words, interpretation from Mom, and reading it out aloud to understand it, but now I think I do. Also I am the dyslexic one(the only one).
This is what I come up with:

So look at reason and the facts behind the principles of faith that are not in question, and make your own judgment about it, but use logic to determine your principles.????????

succinct and correct

btw, I edited the above to include "by"

If one cannot make a reasoned argument for the principles they hold with conviction, can they truly be held as principles? (That's not said very well, but that's my interpretation.)