…in a letter to the New York Times from a philosophy student:

The article quotes one of Ms. Rand’s detractors as calling her “irrelevant.” Given that Ms. Rand described Objectivism as “a philosophy for living on earth,” this claim is ironic indeed. No other philosophy is as focused on dealing with the needs of real people. This is clear from the case of BB&T. Could Plato or Kant take credit for the success of a business in the way that Ms. Rand could take credit for this bank’s success?   Objectivism, as a philosophy which upholds rationality, honesty, justice, and pride — not as duties, but as tools for success — is very relevant.

I don't suppose much needs to be said about this, though I will observe that what I, the "detractor" in question, actually said is that,  “To describe her as a minor figure in the history of philosophical thinking about knowledge and reality would be a wild overstatement…She’s irrelevant.”  I am happy to add, though, that she is also irrelevant to "the needs of real people."  (Here, for example, are some actual human needs which are being addressed in best Randian fashion!)

But at least this clarifies one thing:  the criterion of success in philosophy for Randians appear to be  contribution to successful businesses!  "Could Plato or Kant take credit for the success of a business in the way that Ms. Rand could take credit for this bank's success?"  Admittedly, this isn't quite as silly as the Randian who wrote to me:   "As to Hume and Kant, they are the reason for  the most horrible atrocities committed by man.  The idea that reality is unknowable is false, and to promote otherwise is dishonest."  Poor Kant gets it twice over:  he's helped no businesses succeed and he is "the reason for the most horrible atrocities committed by man" all because of his doctrine of transcendental idealism.

All joking aside, I do want to say there are several philosophers I respect who have a soft spot for Ayn Rand.  I'm sure they are even more embarrassed by the weirdness or just stupidity of some members of the Rand cult–like the fellow who wrote to denounce me, adding that I should "stop working for the government and get a real job."  I infer that this particular cosmopolitan fellow believes that (1) Mayor Daley is my boss at the University of Chicago, and (2) the President of the United States, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, firemen, and doctors at city hospitals, among others, do not have "real jobs."

(For those with an appetite for these things, there is even a list-serve group for parents who want to practice proper Objectivist parenting [and not, mind you, "pseudo-Objectivist parenting"].  Wow!)