1. Knowledge as a Unity: A detailed analysis and concretization of the principles that everything in the universe is interrelated, and that every item of knowledge is connected to every other. Why these principles are the antidote for rationalism. Exercise: Students are given a simple item of knowledge, e.g., "The plane from Los Angeles will be two hourslate," and are Jed to see connections between this statement and the total content ofhwnan cognition in every field, area,and era.

2. How to Unite History and Philosophy : Does philosophy make science , including history, possible––or is it vice versa? What, if any, is the role of historical fact in validating the principles of epistemology? of ethics? of politics? Do we learn that reason is man's basic means of survival by studying the nature of man or the history of men? Why did Ayn Rand say that she could not have formulated her ethics prior to the Industrial Revolution? How would an Objectivism formulated in the 17th century differ from the philosophy in Atlas Shrugged?

3. Definitions: The principle of two definitions: why a certain category of philosophic term requires not one, but two definitions, both necessary to the unity of knowledge. Which terms fall into this special category, and therefore, how to answer such questions as: Does James Taggart pursue any values? Since Christianity preaches sacrifice, does it really offer a code of morality? Is Linguistic Analysis a philosophy? Exercise: Students are offered a definition of "racism" formulated at Smith College and are asked to detect in it a unified and comprehensive philosophic viewpoint.

4. Is Morality Difficult or Easy to Practice?: Virtue, fundamentally, as the choice to focus. Since knowledge must be a Unity, does focus entail continuous mental work and/or struggle in order to perform the requisite integrations? If one is being influenced by a subconscious defense mechanism, can he be said to be in focus? If one is fully in focus, are his mental processes necessarily objective? Can a man ever act against his moral beliefs and yet still be fully in focus (e.g .,the case of Rearden)? Can he still be an example of the unity of thought and action, i.e., of integrity?