Holy crap! I only wrote that half-jokingly, not expecting that you were took objectivism seriously, but you do!<p>I don&#x27;t take Rand&#x27;s philosophy seriously for much the same reason I don&#x27;t take postmodernism as a whole seriously: the Continental approach (which she employed) lacks any real rigour[1]. Great for fiction, but not so good for being <i>useful</i>. As well as that, we objectively (see what I did there!) know that some of her important points (such as on causation, determinism, and free-will) are bunk, and it&#x27;s not as if she was even particularly consistent on them anyway.<p>The best I can say to you is to go read Hume and come back to me: he was a much better philosopher than Rand, and had much more interesting and useful things to say about the world. Alternatively, maybe try to broaden your horizons with the Rationally Speaking Podcast (<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;rationallyspeakingpodcast.org&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;rationallyspeakingpodcast.org&#x2F;</a>). But if you don&#x27;t want to, that&#x27;s fine: you do you.<p>[1] Even with the continental school philosophers I <i>do</i> take at least a little more seriously, such as Nietzsche and Camus, it&#x27;s more on the level of &#x27;oh, that&#x27;s an interesting idea&#x27;, &#x27;hmm... that&#x27;s an interesting line of though&#x27;, and &#x27;oh, that&#x27;s an interesting story&#x27; rather than anything seriously <i>useful</i>. And Rand doesn&#x27;t even get to that level. I&#x27;m totally OK with her loathing Kant[2] and thinking Marxism sucks, but she doesn&#x27;t offer much else of any depth, which, I guess, at least nothing that&#x27;s been published.<p>[2] My personal opinion of Kant is that he was a stick-in-the-mud prude, and that deontological arguments, such as those Kant made, fall down when exposed to the real world, even though deontology itself can be a useful tool.