Objectivism is the antidote: Aristotelian epistemology is superior to the Platonic construction. Besides, Aristotle was a better drinking companion. And when Socrates offers to buy a round, take a pass: that hemlock is one nasty hangover.
Rand's objectivism, you mean? That's a lie, too, and a far more pernicious one than Plato's -- the latter at least had the honesty to admit his lie, but Rand insists that she's got the real goods.
Rand demanded that you accept her premises as correct -- but here's the test. Try to arrive at Rand's premises through logic and reason, applied to the evidence gathered by your senses -- just as she says you should. You very quickly end up stuck in the mud.
Here's the killer: consider Rand's statement that "man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself."
Now consider the moral responsibilities inherent in something so natural as parenthood -- we are morally required to be the means to our children's ends. Objectivism cannot even contend with the propagation of the species: it's a damned fraud.
I'm pretty sure Rand started with atheism and a desire to define an "absolute" moral system, and she fiddled with the logic to make it all work.