The mind aches for surety & Kant V Rand

It cannot stand finite things, they bring stress. It wants validation of tomorrow and the day after while it’s still existing in today. It may seem the solution to worry and to want is to plan, but it does not seem like that works. To be happy in today is what sates the aching mind. To be thankful for what you have, rather than what you want.

—-

I agree with Kant in how believes consciousness affects our perception of truth and objectivity, I disagree with him in how he turns that argument into the only thing that is moral is to do what you have to do in your own obligation with no benefit to ones’ self. I can understand how Rand can be so angry with his conclusion.
I agree with his premise but not his conclusion; to me it seems like he says "We can’t know the truth about morality, so let’s just say morality is that thing we really don’t like to do." It’s a non-sequitor to the extent of being unreasonable.
I agree with the idea of Rand’s self interest being the only reasonable driving force but not with her Objectivist framework.

Epistomologically, my defense against a knowable God is my "realist" philosophy based on the lack of ability to gain or understand extra sensory knowledge.

I am a naturalist, but do however, favor labeling things, experiences, certain emotions with "idealist" phrases and definitions. The reason for this, is even though we may not be able to perceive in its complexity the extra dimmensions, there’s is a distinct possibility that they do somehow affect us, and perhaps extending that to include some form of us in those systems. To us, we will still be in our naturalistic existence, but experiencing things that may seem to be idealistically driven, ie: inexplainable and spiritual. So, I would say I am a naturalist/realist who adopts idealistic nomenclature to more completely explain/talk about the human experience.