[flagged]
edit: one nice example would be Thomas Reid.
1. Plato believed with live in a degenerate physical world that was a reflection of an alternate dimension.
2. Christian philosophy believes god can change the rules of reality at any given moment.
3. Kant believed we cannot know the noumenal world (world beyond our preception)
4. Materialists believe we don't know anything and we're just atoms deterministically saying anything
And a ton of derivatives.
etc. etc.
Aristotle is the most notable exception who believed in hylomorphism, but it was very very early philosophy.
"Thomas Reid, a Scottish philosopher and a contemporary of David Hume, is known for his common-sense philosophy, which posits that common sense beliefs have a greater evidentiary value than philosophical or scientific evidence."
I'd be wary of your idea he is someone who cares about objective reality.
Can you name one mainstream philosopher, besides Plato, whose primary focus was the idea that we live in a false reality? (Not that that was even Plato's primary focus.) That's such an odd complaint. Do you think Wittgenstein, Foucault, and Sartre were all just complaining about how the universe is unknowable because we can't directly access the realm of forms?
Someone like Philio might not be widely read today, but the adoption of Plato's ideas into the dual creation of man in Genesis lives on today among Kabbalah much as Plotinus's contributions to Neoplatonism evolving alongside the Gnostics which in turn live on in everything from Scientology to The Matrix to Nick Bostrom.
That the commenter is mischaracterizing medieval and later mainstream philosophy doesn't mean their underlying claims about views of being in a world-copy being extensive among the broader set of philosophical thinking is incorrect. It was quite prominent in both East and West in various points in antiquity.
She was an author of fiction, like Terry Pratchett. Lots of people draw philosophical inspiration from Pratchett, but that doesn't make him a philosopher.
Sorry to burst some bubble here, but most of the philosophical content of her writings is just rehashed Nietzsche, sometimes near-verbatim. All the while she claimed, she never read any philosopher but Aristotle. For anyone who has read Nietzsche and then opens a Rand book, this is laughable.
Rand's fiction books seem like thinly veiled philosophy- there is not much story or character development, and very long rants about ideas. I think it's worth mentioning in the context of Rand that Terry Goodkind is a very popular fantasy novelist whose books are also all based on Objectivism.
Ayn Rand (1966/1979) Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology
it can be found on libgen, if people are really interested. (It's not a good book.)
Yowzer. I'd never dug quite that deep. You're not kidding.
Its not entirely unfair, though "polemicist" is more accurate than "philosopher"; moreso than to say that Ayn Rand is worth reading in any meaningful way, at least.
> She was an author of fiction, like Terry Pratchett.
In terms of the works that make this a reasonable statement, I would more say she was an author of religious (or, if you prefer, ideological) polemic packaged as long-form fiction, like Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins.
https://archive.org/embed/isobjectivismrel0000elli
Albert Ellis (1968) Is Objectivism a religion?
In terms of Ayn Rands own stated goals of affirming life, and taking responsibility, the ancient Stoics had more effective methods to actually achieve that goal in real life. The difference is obvious- many of the people I admire most were practicing stoics, I cannot think of anyone I deeply admire that followed Rand in real life.
Name one epistemological idea she ripped off from Nietzche.
The only "new" thing she adds is an obsession with thinking rationally, but in a sloppy way that ends up just being nonsense. For someone obsessed with rationality, she never took any time to understand it, e.g. things like Bayesian inference, and reasoning in real life with messy uncertainty and incomplete information. Her type of rationality only works in carefully constructed fake scenarios in books, and ignores both the value of emotions, and the fact that cognitive biases make it a challenge for us to tell apart emotional reasoning from rationality, without practice and specific techniques. She boils it down to a moral choice, when it's actually a skill - a skill she didn't respect or develop in herself. Without these things, "rationality" is usually just a strategy for emotionally manipulating others by making up your own "objective" authority.
Carl Jung is a better example of someone who really understood Nietzsche, and (intentionally and correctly) "ripped off," e.g. borrowed and built upon some of his ideas. He also (unlike Rand) understood that much of our intelligence is connected to our unconscious, and is communicated through emotion... to deny that it to deny most of yourself.