She offered, in non-fiction works and talks, the start of a theory of epistemology, with a unique take on concept formation; a full-fledged theory of ethics, centered on life as the standard of value and rational self-interest as the core of human virtues; a political theory aligned with the founding principles of the USA but grounded in her ethics; and a theory of esthetics. As for her metaphysics, it was radically limited and simple -- a bare-bones mix of Parmenides and Aristotle.
Are you aware of her above-mentioned, philosophical theories?
Her work is unappreciated by philosophers because her work is not really in the scope of philosophy and fails to answer any of its core problems, either then or now. Political or social change is not a good barometer for importance in philosophy, even though her work may exhibit some philosophical underpinnings. By the standards of entertainers who dabble in philosophy and were extremely influential, this list could also include, say, Bob Dylan.
It would take me longer than I have to respond well, but others can google “ayn rand philosophical questions” and be the judge. As best as I can tell, she is ignored and slandered because of her politics which are not in fashion and not her ideas.
Adding Ayn Rand would help balance the gender disparity, as well, and yet they don't. The resistance to accepting her as a philosopher is just that great.
I'm not clear on what list you think Rand might be added to, but when I was an undergrad over 20 years ago, our philosophy department included a course that covered some of her work, among that of others. She was mentioned by name in the course description, though I can't speak to the content of the course beyond that.
In order to understand the problem of her popularity among philosophers compare her to someone else who was influential in having written philosophy, plays and fiction, and also for having had some political influence: Jean-Paul Sartre. Imagine Sartre's position in the canon if his writing was not Nobel-prize quality and was - let's be frank - pretty bad, but he was still in possession of some political influence, somehow, as a public intellectual. Under those analogous circumstances, I'm not sure we'd even know who he was here in the United States.
If that’s the criterion, shouldn’t Mao’s Little Red Book be on the list? It has the same scientific merit as Rand’s work (none, that is), but definitely changed the real world.
Karl Marx is a better analogue than Mao to Ayn Rand, and we study him in Philosophy. Both have similar "scientific merit", however relevant you think that is.
What is your experience interacting with it? I've read everything she's written and much of the secondary literature from her adherents and critics. (I've also got a minor in philosophy, so it's not like I'm unfamiliar with the canon.)
For me, the thoughts of predecessors that she builds upon (or amplifies) benefit from her clear, practical, and direct writing style. She draws out implications and essentializes a bunch of philosophers—having read the original works, I can appreciate what she brings to that particular table.
In my opinion, her most significant contributions are in epistemology. I've never seen her theory of concept formation anywhere else, for example. Her grounding of abstraction in concretes sidesteps many of the issues that led Hume astray.
If anyone's interested, I can provide several books that explore her epistemology in great detail and really shine a light on her contributions.
(Her ethics is also unique, as is her politics, but I think history will look most favorably on her epistemology.)
People are sensitive about Godwinning but you didn't really deserve to be downvoted for that comment. Rand's Objectivism and Hitler's mind droppings have at least two important things in common: they're derivative of Nietzschean existentialism and they've been used to rationalize varieties of political extremism.
