Ayn Rand's philosophy replaces the traditional views, showing again that rationality works. Obviously it has not replaced what most people still believe.

Personalities, cultures and degree of active intelligence are a result of philosophy. Of course a better philosophy answers bad personalities, cultures and states of knowledge. Every individual requires a philosophic outlook to live, regardless of his degree of intellectual capacity and potential. There is no substitute for rationality. Of course Ayn Rand's philosophy is the answer for different people. It is based on the nature of man as a being who requires his rational thought to live.

Whether it "has replaced" is certainly debatable. I question whether Rand's philosophy is an entirely adequate answer for certain personalities, cultures, and levels of intelligence.

Ayn Rand's moral revolution in Atlas Shrugged proved that rational thought has replaced the traditional bad duty ethics of 2000 years and its consequences of 20th (and 21st) century altruism and collectivism.

God is dead. If so, can science (or rational thought) successfully replace God? The 20th century proves not. These are the questions Jordan B. Peterson, made famous recently by the Canadian decision to compel speech in regards to sexually ambiguous people, is pursuing. Anyone following?

A terribly written article denouncing and misrepresenting the Enlightenment while pining for pre-Enlightenment religion and St. Benedict, all as the alleged cause of millennials not thinking clearly, is not a "really good article" just because it raised a "topic of discussion" it misrepresents. That is not "thoughtful". The article is fundamentally wrong across the board, not "really good".

The original post in this thread praised the article as an unusual "sanity" for supposedly seeing that a rejection of Aristotle and rational philosophy "set Millennials adrift". The article is the opposite of that, confusing Aristotle with pre-Enlightenment religion and calling for St. Benedict, not rational philosophy.

Millennials are adrift and worse, as is the whole culture because of the bad philosophy driving it for well over a century. The Millennial generation only happens to be the latest in the trend. That does not mean that individuals are not capable of thinking if shown how, despite the bad education promulgating bad philosophy. The problem is doing this on a cultural scale, where clear logical thinking is routinely undermined by bad philosophical premises that are increasingly difficult to uproot. The article proposes an answer to changing the whole culture with a return to religion under the guidance of the likes of Allistair MacIntyre. That is not the answer. It is the opposite.

It's not enough to proclaim slogans about "Aristotle" and "rational philosophy". One must understand what Aristotle and the Enlightenment accomplished, how it differed from the religious tradition that destroyed western civilization for over a millennium, how it differs from the road to destruction we are getting today, and what it takes on a philosophical scale to correct it. Instead we see, on of all places an Ayn Rand forum, a post extolling appeals to Allistaire MacIntyre and religion just because a bad article included the name "Aristotle" and decried common behavior of "millennials".

Ummm is a simple euphemism meaning a thoughtful pause. The article is a good article in that it raises a good topic of discussion. One does not have to agree with it to acknowledge that. I do not agree with the premise which is why I brought up my experiences with a least a segment of the younger population. That point has everything to do with the article.

Unfortunately it was we Baby Boomers that gave us most of the libertine, self-absorption that has become the norm. If you peel away all of the politics of division, it was an outgrowth of the radicalism nurtured by Allinsky following Gramsci's roadmap for destroying the industrial democracies. That is a fact! Free love, drugs, "me first" dogma couched in the feel good rhetoric is on us and unfortunately, no one else!

The "Greatest Generation" was our parent who survived the Great Depression and fought WWII. Feats that we probably at this point would be hard-pressed to replicate. That is the sad Truth....

The population has been progressively drifting to towards the collectivism and statism of the left in this country for over a hundred years.

The Declaration of Independence was based on the principles of the Enlightenment, not a "writing" about ancient Judaism.

The mystical, sacrificial duties demanded by religion are a destructive morality contrary to the principles of the Enlightenment on which this country was founded. A proper, rational morality is necessarily "without religion". The moral revolution of Atlas Shrugged rejects the traditional "beliefs".

What is "Ummm...." supposed to mean? Reason was lost in the western world in the Dark and Middle Ages when civilization collapsed. Whatever few individuals who were left trying to use their reason were vastly outnumbered and dominated by an irrational society; they had to try to start over by themselves and it took thousands of years for the western world to recover from the collapse by the time of the Enlightenment.

That man's essence is the 'rational animal' does not mean that he behaves rationally regardless of his choices. 'Losing reason' does not mean the biological disappearance of the human faculty of the mind capable of logically integrating in conceptual form the information provided by the senses; it means the failure to practice that, under the influence of irrational philosophy and the loss of the knowledge of how to do it, which is largely what happened under the influence of religion between Greek civilization and the Enlightenment. The influence of reason as a dominant factor in the culture returned in the Enlightenment, beginning with the Renaissance. That is not subject to debate other than by the mystics and the subjectivists.

The article decried the loss of the influence of religion due to the Enlightenment, obliterates the essential distinction between Aristotle and the mentality of religion that displaced it, then attributed the Enlightenment to leaders of the subsequent counter Enlightenment. It is not a good article. That you still find younger people in this culture now able and willing to think rationally has nothing to do with the article and does not make it a "really good article".

Ummm....the article posits that the Aristotelian philosophy of reason was lost with the Enlightenment. Maybe, maybe not. That is subject to debate. The article suggests that the loss of this ability is affecting "millennials" to think critically.

While true in so many apparent cases, it is not applicable to the entire generation just because they are of that age. That is the usual painting of groups as a collective instead of acknowledging individuals. Which is why I took exception to painting "millennials" as all the same and talked about my experience with some of the younger generation as being different than this collective characterization.

My point is also that reason is not lost, was never lost (hence Ayn Rand in the 20th Century), and will never be lost. It is an inherent capability of mankind.

Reason is the ability to apply critical thinking to any subject, politics included. This is what separates humans from other creatures. It is endemic to the species. Yes it can be denied and attempted to be aborted, but one can never deny the reality of the capability.....and be correct.

What I am saying is that this cognitive ability will never be entirely lost to all individuals despite indoctrination, intellectual trends, "movements", and other such collective forces. It is who we are as individuals. That fact can never be entirely negated. It will always bubble to the surface.

That is why the ability I see in certain young ones as also having the ability to critically think about and question what is going on in politics is so encouraging and relevant to this article.

The innate ability of reason will never be stopped. The ability for some to think for themselves will always persevere. That is the theme of Anthem. That is why she wrote it.

One belief is religion has morality before morality is without religion.

There's certain sanity.

The baby boomers comprise the greatest generation.

Awkwardness includes a certain number. The country with good people is upgrading. The good people lead.

Who are the teachers at present teaching millenials?A number are graduates and professionals from schools with what teachers?

Too much of a number of millenials are voting liberals...

One writing indicates Jews are with ways causing the basis of The Declaration Of Independence.

One belief is too much of a number of millenials or the y-genration, or a portion, are clones off of "the baby boomers".

What does an ability to apply critical thinking to politics have to do with the article? The author is urging pre-Enlightenment religion as a moral foundation and decries, "Alas, St. Benedict has not yet appeared." This country was founded on the Enlightenment ideas of reason, individualism and freedom, not pre-Enlightenment religion. We need the Aristotelian-based moral revolution of Atlas Shrugged, not a return to the mentality of the Dark and Middle Ages.

A really good article. Thanks for posting.

My experience with the younger generations (yes, I am a geezer) has been mostly positive, but I suspect is hardly representative. I have hired and tutored many new mining engineering and geology graduates that have come from very science and technology oriented curricula. They can be really amazing. I have known and befriended many that can think critically even outside of their specialized education. Applying critical thinking to politics - they get it. And the questions they can ask!

But as a mentor type, I relate other experiences that I have had, particularly in politics and law, especially regarding the Constitution and they are all ears. "They didn't teach us that!"

I know, but you are hearing it now. Your education has only begun.

The article appeals to religion as the base of morality, invoking Alasdair MacIntyre, a very bad philosopher, and falsely equates the Aristotelian tradition with religion: "MacIntyre argues that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam superadded divine revelation to this Aristotelian framework, but didn’t essentially change the framework itself". That is of course false. It decried a lack of religious emphasis beginning with the Englightenment, "freed from any overarching, religiously-informed view of man and his supposed purpose in life". The author equates counter Enlightenment philosophers Kant and Kierkegaard, who were very religious, with the Elightenment. He is very confused.

We need a total makeover in the offerings... a change of the philosophy of those elected to rule... Leaders instead of Losers... but what can I do?Who is John Galt?...

Not alone philosophically or spiritually (human spirit) but physically, conversationally, compatibly, yes, which is not our preference, but A is A, so we make the best of it and try to spread reason as best we can. The Gulch is a great help in connecting with "like minds" and gaining knowledge we may not have yet recognized ourselves...............happened for me today.