Добродетелта на егоизма

by Ayn Rand

Айн Рэнд (1905-1982) — наша бывшая соотечественница, крупнейшая американская писательница, чьи книги оказали мощнейшее влияние на мировоззрение миллионов людей во всем мире, автор признанных бестселлеров — «Атлант расправил плечи», «Источник», «Гимн» и др. Книга «Добродетель эгоизма» представляет собой сборник статей, написанных Айн Рэнд в разные годы и объединенных одной темой — защитой концепции «разумного эгоизма» как этической основы свободного капиталистического общества. Автор на редкость живо и убедительно доказывает, что только в рамках системы, которая ставит во главу угла права личности и разум, люди могут свободно развиваться и обретать счастье, не оказываясь порабощенными диктаторами, государством и другими людьми. А значит — только такую систему можно признать нравственной и соответствующей человеческой природе.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Politics, Psychology, Classics, Essays, Economics

262 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1961

About the author

Polemical novels, such as The Fountainhead (1943), of primarily known Russian-American writer Ayn Rand, originally Alisa Rosenbaum, espouse the doctrines of objectivism and political libertarianism.

Fiction of this better author and philosopher developed a system that she named. Educated, she moved to the United States in 1926. After two early initially duds and two Broadway plays, Rand achieved fame. In 1957, she published Atlas Shrugged , her best-selling work.

Rand advocated reason and rejected faith and religion. She supported rational and ethical egoism as opposed to altruism. She condemned the immoral initiation of force and supported laissez-faire capitalism, which she defined as the system, based on recognizing individual rights, including private property. Often associated with the modern movement in the United States, Rand opposed and viewed anarchism. In art, she promoted romantic realism. She sharply criticized most philosophers and their traditions with few exceptions.

Books of Rand sold more than 37 million copies. From literary critics, her fiction received mixed reviews with more negative reviews for her later work. Afterward, she turned to nonfiction to promote her philosophy, published her own periodicals, and released several collections of essays until her death in 1982.

After her death, her ideas interested academics, but philosophers generally ignored or rejected her and argued that her approach and work lack methodological rigor. She influenced some right conservatives. The movement circulates her ideas to the public and in academic settings.

Reviews

[Gene Wagendorf III · Rating 5 out of 5]

I didn't really get this book when I first read it, but having read it multiple time since, it's become like a bible. Rand outlines her Objectivist philosophy and explains the concept of rational self-interest. This book will turn you into an asshole once you read it, someone will smack you, you'll read it again, pick up the part everyone misses (about morality being intrinsic, not non-existent) and then you'll live a happier, more whimsical life.

[jessica · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book once meant a lot to me. When I was 15. If anything written by Ayn Rand means a lot to you and you're not going through adolescence, you should be ashamed of yourself. Yeah, I know I sound like a self-righteous douchebag, but seriously. Give me a break.

[sologdin · Rating 1 out of 5]

Part II of multi-part review series.

Reading Rand reminds me of teaching freshman composition at university years ago. There’s not nearly as many spelling errors, but Rand’s pronouncements bear all the markers of severe Dunning-Kruger effect: under-researched, un-theorized, insufficiently self-aware.

For instance, this text has a tendency to adopt dogmatic solecisms, such as “In popular usage, the word ‘selfishness’ is a synonym of evil” (vii)--uh, not really. This is a nasty problem throughout the volume.

A second major problem is that text constructs its problematic without reference to the history of discourse on any given issue. Though there is blithe reference to certain writers on occasion, there is no specific analysis of or rigorous citation to the actual writings of the major interlocutors. There are nondescript, distorting references to Nietzsche, Heraclitus, and others, but no evidence that the writings of these persons have been assimilated. The only evidence that is cited is anecdotal: “observe the fortunes made by insurance companies” (49) as proof that “catastrophes are the exception” (the wrong inference when discussing risk management, to be honest), or speaking to a strawperson on a plane one time (123-24).

So, for example, we are solemnly informed that “No philosopher has given a rational, objectively demonstrable, scientific answer to the question of why man needs a code of values” (14). Instead of citation to other writers, the text consistently cites “Galt’s speech” grossly (rather than to specific components of it). (After a tortured process, her answer to the fake question is extremely bathetic, boiling down to the problem “what are the values [human] survival requires?” (22).)

A third problem: the text presents a continuous chain of non-sequiturs. Taking the previously cited bit, the immediately following sentence is “So long as that question remained unanswered, no rational, scientific, objective code of ethics could be discovered or defined” (14). Huh? I suppose, therefore, that’s the reason no prior interlocutor need be considered in detail; we just sweep 2,500 years of discussion off the table by fiat.

A fourth issue: text displays a spenglerian refrain, in order to set up the fake place of intervention convenient to the author, that “the world is now collapsing to a lower and even lower rung of hell” (15). See also: moral grayness as “one of the most eloquent symptoms of the moral bankruptcy of today’s culture” (75). It’s a joke, though, as acknowledged toward the end: “It is true that the moral state of mankind is dangerously low. But if one considers the monstrous moral inversions of the governments (made possible by the altruist-collectivist mentality [!]) under which mankind has had to live through most of its history, one begins to wonder how men managed to preserve even a semblance of civilization” (114). One wonders indeed! If these conditions have obtained throughout history, then it’s not really dire at all, and perhaps, maybe, shouldn’t the principles that lead to the conclusion of crisis be re-evaluated? Should not the fact that civilization has existed against this doctrine that civilization can’t have existed invalidate the doctrine? Is it not the cardinal principle of objectivism that existence exists, A=A? And like that, the allegedly philosophical facade of Rand's house of crap collapses into mere mean-spirited shamanism, consistent with the kindergarten mantra, Mine!

Fifth issue: deployment of important terms dogmatically without explanation, even though the rest of us know that the terms are burdened by much dialogue: e.g., “it is the principle that no man may obtain any values from others without the owners’ consent” (111). There is no discussion of what ownership or consent is or how they came to be. Nevermind that factory owner built factory with moneys acquired through inheritance from estate built on slavery and slaughter of natives. No, that’s irrelevant. What matters is that heir now owns factory and does not agree to be taxed so that mooching looter disabled parasites won‘t starve.

The argument develops typically by initiating a fake crisis, then adopts a bizarre definition, deploys unexamined terminology, and piles up non-sequiturs on top of it, often filled with further bizarre definitions and unexamined terms. It just spirals out of control, and the number of errors defies easy counting, especially when the argument becomes historical.

Text most anxiously wants to throw collectivism under the bus, but is unable to get away from some weirdnesses, such as the moronic definition, “altruism, the ethical theory which regards man as a sacrificial animal, which holds that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is the highest moral duty, virtue, and value” (34). Nevermind that no actual “altruist” text is cited for any of these propositions (it’s an ambiguous straw person, really)--the real problem is the aporetic invective against poorly defined “collectivism” while deploying without irony idealist collectivisms such as “man,” which is the barbaric way to refer to homo sapiens, one supposes. That barbarism aside, it is incongruous that text suggests “man” as a collective has rights, whereas we later have an entire essay militating against group rights.

“The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between ‘is’ and ‘ought’” (17)--which is beyond cavalier in handling Hume.

In contrast with animals, humans have “reason,” “the process of thinking” (an odd equation), “a faculty that man has to exercise by choice” (20). Lest this be confused: “The act of focusing one’s consciousness is volitional” (20-21), against which we might lodge, inter alia, the critique of volition found in Ryle’s The Concept of Mind. But note well the contradiction between the dogmatic bizarre definition and the non-sequitur inference that follows: on the one hand, humans differ from animals insofar as they have reason via “the process of thinking,” i.e., thinking itself is sufficient for reason, which is bizarre and solipsistic. But reason, which is presented as the distinguishing feature of humans, is really volitional, which means that it is not present in all human persons, as some will “choose“ not to think or exercise the faculty of reason--this latter is the fundamental point of departure for the text ( the “no philosopher” bit, supra).

Text presents survival “by imitating and repeating, like trained animals, the routine sounds and motions they learned from others” as being a “mental parasite” (23). And yet, just prior to this uber-producerist fantasy is the likewise unevidenced proclamation that “the standard of value of Objectivist ethics--the standard by which one judges what is good and what is evil--is man’s life: that which is required for man’s survival qua man” (id.). So, to complete the syllogism: survival by imitation, by being a mental parasite, is consistent with the standard of objectivist ethics, which is rooted in survival. This absurd result was not intended, but it’s illustrative of the poor conceptualization. Similarly, “looters are parasites incapable of survival” (id.)--but you just said “If some men attempt to survive by means of brute force or fraud, by looting, robbing, cheating or enslaving the men who produce, it still remains true that their survival is made possible only by their victims” (id.) (emphasis added)?

Without any rationale, “the only proper, moral purpose of government is to protect man’s rights” (NB: collective rights-holder), which boils down to “without property rights, no other rights are possible” (33). This pronouncement is made ex nihilo--there is no presentation to warrant these two conclusions. It’s just goal-oriented dogmatism. Critique could proceed, matching each sentence in this text with several sentences of commentary. It really is a mess of stupidity, and requires some effort to untangle.

We see that “one must never sacrifice one’s convictions to the opinions or wishes of others” (26), which is the fascist’s refusal to compromise. “There can be no compromise on moral principles” (70).

Just as rich people have “self made wealth,” objectivists are apparently “self made souls” (27). At various other loci, though, we will be informed that nothing is causeless, that only death-choosers believe in effects without causes. Again: very poorly conceived. We are likewise told that “man chooses his values” (28), which strikes me as the worst sort of causelessness.

We are given the pre-capitalist trader as the emblem of justice: “a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved” (31). None of the key concepts are given much content, such as “earnings” or “desert,” except, apparently, an unexamined and vulgar market value. It’s all very philistine.

We are told that “illness and poverty are not metaphysical emergencies” (48), so all of you dirty little poor persons can rest peacefully now.

One of Rand’s real defects is that she has no understanding of law. (That’s one reason, incidentally, that the plot of The Fountainhead is so stupid.) We are told, e.g., that “just as a judge in a court of law may err, when the evidence is inconclusive, but may not evade the evidence available, nor accept bribes, nor allow any personal feeling, emotion, desire, or fear to obstruct his mind’s judgment of the facts of reality--so every rational person must maintain an equally strict and solemn integrity in the courtroom within his own mind” (71). This is not reflective of how law works. The judiciary does not err when the evidence is inconclusive; that circumstance by definition means that the plaintiff’s case must fail, as the moving party’s evidence has failed to preponderate, being equally balanced by the evidence in opposition. Judicial errors are legal errors, such as the application of the wrong rule of decision, or improper analysis under the correct standard. This is revealing, too, metaphorically: just as Rand does not understand how law works, her envisioning of legal errors as simply arising out of inconclusive evidence is emblematic of how her “philosophy” has failed to consider the proper analytic standard. I doubt that objectivism spends much time cogitating on its own assumptions; that would be death-choosing inner conflict and moral grayness.

Another recurrent mantra is the oddity that “to be imposed by political means” is equated with “by force” (81). Taxation or regulation by the state is therefore equated with armed robbery. This is a nasty bit of mendacity, however. Just as the relation between state and citizen always has force underlying it, so too do private relations between, say, employer and employee. The Randian will not acknowledge this, and will insist that voluntary contracts are pure and have no force under them. Meanwhile, the proper function of government is to “protect property” (33). When faced with starvation, unemployed worker will accept what employer offers, as the alternatives are to invade the property that the state protects, or to die. It is an evil for the state to “expropriate the labor” via taxation for the purpose of space exploration (i.e., a project too risky for private capital to undertake), but fine, because “voluntary,” for the employer to expropriate the employee.

It is asserted, without any citation to any law or authority, that “no human rights can exist without property rights” (91). As a matter of law, this is manifestly, idiotically erroneous--property rights are simply one component of rights in general, and we can have property regimes wherein rights themselves are not conceived as properties. (In capitalist law, rights themselves are properties, and with some important exceptions, can be alienated: property is therefore a collection of rights, each of which is a property, &c. don’t ask Rand to understand any of this, though.) Rand’s failure to read any law is on display, though, in such categorical assertions as “rights are a moral concept” (92)--which is completely erroneous. Rights are creatures of law, period. Whatever they may be in morality, there are no rights sans law--and rights in law may be worthless if there are no remedies (such as the weak remedies for Fourth Amendment violations make that beautiful set of rights somewhat worthless).

She is of course not completely wrong in one instance in this volume: “The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights” (86)--though we may quibble that the individual right to own the means of production is what socialism denies. She goes on to state that “under socialism, the right to property is vested in ‘society as a whole’” (id.), which allegation is simultaneously wrong and true of anywhere. Again, a problem of having no knowledge of law: capitalist law vests title in property owners, but title is not absolute--it is always a measure of what the public will allow. Gone are the days of quiritary and allodial title--though I suspect that Rand would reach back into the past for these concepts, had she any exposure to law or history.

Instead of explanations with evidence, the text tends to rely further on coarse pop psychology assumptions, such as “What then is the motive of [socialist] intellectuals? Power-lust. Power-lust--as the manifestation of helplessness, or self-loathing, and of the desire for the unearned” (88). It’s amateurish, citing no actual socialist writings. This parasite “derives his illusion of greatness […] from the power to dispose of that which he has not earned” (89). The comedy is unintentional, as I’m sure this writer has not read any Marx--but this is a similar critique of capitalist relations via the theories of surplus value and commodity fetishism (minus the dumb faux psychology).

We find that “socialism is merely democratic absolute monarchy”(91), which reveals the total contempt for egalitarianism in this text. By contrast, we are told that the US “was the first moral society in history” (93); the only proof of this is the Declaration of Independence (95), which is of course not law. What is the content of this morality in the US? It was “the pattern of a civilized society which--for the brief span of some hundred and fifty years--America came close to achieving” (95). What ended it? “America’s inner contradiction was the altruist-collectivist ethics,” of course (id).

Her timeline of US freedom pricks something in the back of my mind. What could those 150 years mean? Was it the altruist ethics of abolishing chattel slavery, maybe? Further, it was not capitalism that abolished chattel slavery through its own alleged ongoing enlightenment, but the state through the use of force against private property owners. Rand loves to use “slavery” as a metaphor, referring to the slavery of taxation and regulation, the slavery of socialism and in Soviet Russia. She makes no mention of chattel slavery under the capitalism that she adores. It is a telling blind spot. But we never approached this text expecting honesty.

An example of further dishonesty: the divine right of kings is held up as an example of altruist-collectivist ethics (103). It’s accordingly like an Onion article. When Rand does discuss racism, it is denounced as a collectivism, but no mention of US capitalist slave trade is mentioned. (In that essay, though racism is denounced, the current “Negro leaders” are still villains, and the “worst breach of property rights” is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (134). No shit!)

Further Onion article: “unilateral breach of contract involves an indirect use of force” (111). This is a dangerous admission for Rand, who wants to make state action itself force. Here, though, a private action involving no vi et armis is glibly purported to be force. Would this rationale then apply to employer-employee relations? (Doubtful for Rand--but certainly for everyone with sense.)

Text is mixed authorship; five of the essays are by newsletter editor Branden, who deploys pop psych Galtisms to fight the death-choosers. It’s very cute.

Overall, one of the worst books ever written. Go read for comedy’s sake, or if you suffer from chronic orthostatic hypotension and need to get your blood pressure back up.

[Patrick Peterson · Rating 5 out of 5]

2020-07-24 - The title of this book is a challenge. For sure. I remember seeing a paperback edition of this book around our house for years when I was growing up and thinking, "how could a book claim such a thing?' How could selfishness possibly be considered a virtue? I wasn't much of a reader at that point, so I did not even crack the cover.

But then I met a fellow student in college who was reviewing in the student newspaper the books by Ayn Rand that he was reading, including this one. I remember quite vividly agreeing with 80-90% of what he said Rand's books were saying, and thinking - WOW, this is powerful stuff. So powerful that I then took time out of my studies to read an essay or two in this outrageously titled book. Just as he said - great ideas, so in touch with reality, so little appreciated, so applicable for a better world for all. A clue to this book, but only a clue, for those who know something of the enlightenment ideas, especially the Scottish writers, think: "enlightened (long-term) self interest" when you read the word "selfishness."

Over the next 5-10 years I read all of this little book's powerful essays, as well as:
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal - which focused more on economics and history, much more in my area of expertise than the philosophy in this book.
The Fountainhead
Atlas Shrugged
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology
The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution
The Romantic Manifesto - partially
The Early Ayn Rand
Who is Ayn Rand?

Discussions of some hack &/or hatchet-job biographies of Rand.
Speeches and debates by some of her distinguished students/admirers.
"The Passion of Ayn Rand" by Barbara Branden
"Judgement Day" by Nathaniel Branden

Many, many more articles attacking her with bogus references or summaries, snide remarks, usually totally off the mark and highly error filled - so often and blatant that it sure seemed they could be purposely mischaracterizing her ideas.

The two biographies that came out almost simultaneously about 10 years ago -
- one very good by Anne Heller, "Ayn Rand and the World She Made" and
- the other by Jennifer Burns, "Ayn Rand: Goddess of the Market" - just a disaster, analysis-wise, but with some very good historical content (mostly revealing letters to Ayn Rand from her readers), which the Ayn Rand Inst. allowed her to discover from their archive (and denied to Anne Heller!!!). Despite the fascinating letters from fans, Burns' grave misunderstandings of Rand's ideas and the intellectual foundations of the enlightenment from which they gestated, make the book a very poor choice to understand Ayn Rand.

Since this book (The Virtue of Selfishness) is a collection of essays, it is much easier to approach and try out Rand's ideas. Highly recommended. So important for understanding many of the awful trends of the her day and even more so these days. Try the one titled "Racism" as just one timeless example, and see if you ever again think of that subject the same way you do now!

Don't let the title put you off - check out an essay or two - see what you THINK of Rand's actual ideas. How you FEEL about them may change too. But first, try to grasp the logic, and facts she presents and if they actually coincide with reality, or are just fantasy, or lies. You do the judging, after an honest exploration. Don't just prejudge with biased info.

[Eric_W · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ayn Rand was not afraid of turning conventional wisdom on its head. For millennia, one of the few ethical principles that prevailed across cultures was the value of altruism, i.e. , giving up your life for the benefit of others. Rubbish, writes Rand.

Rand was as anti-community and pro-individual as anyone I have ever read. Adamantly opposed to coercive state and religious power, she built a philosophy, Objectivism, on rational thinking and reason. She became too dogmatic and rigid for my taste in later years; nevertheless, she has some very interesting things to say.

"Every human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others and therefore, man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself." I find this statement profound in its implications; if it were to be adopted everywhere, wars would cease. It's only because we have bought into the principle of sacrificing oneself for the greater good that armies can survive, yet the reason is so others can accumulate or obtain what you should be able to.

In her philosophy, the happiness of the individual is paramount. Religious types will find her philosophy more than unsettling, because as an atheist, she values the present and current life above everything else. Whether you like her or not, several of the essays are well worth the time to read, particularly "Collectivized Rights" and "Man's Rights." One's gut response is to say that she has rejected charity and helping others. Not at all. It's just that helping others should not be at one's own expense, e.g., spending a fortune to cure one's wife of a disease because the wife is important to oneself would fit nicely into her worldview. Love is entirely selfish.

An important book no matter where you stand.

[Mary.dooms · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best thought I embraced from this book was a simple, yet powerful, soundbite: "A plant will not destroy itself, but man will".

Towards the end of the school year, a couple of kids in class had some serious self-destructive behavior--not just your run-of-the-mill, "I didn't do my homework." I dropped math for the day and we had an outstanding class discussion about how a plant will grow around a rock to seek light, and that roots grow deep to seek water--doing everything it can to sustain itself.

The kids immediately made the connection that man allows his brain to act without rational thought and ends up destroying itself.

For that alone the book was worth it.

[Manny]

Just noticed this in Johan Hari's column from today's Independent:

Trump probably won't become the Republican nominee, but not because most Republicans reject his premisses. No: it will be because he states these arguments too crudely for mass public consumption. He takes the whispered dogmas of the Reagan, Bush and Tea Party years and shrieks them through a megaphone. The nominee will share similar ideas, but express them more subtly. In case you think these ideas are marginal to the party, remember - it has united behind the budget plan of Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan. It's simple: it halves taxes on the richest 1 percent and ends all taxes on corporate income, dividends, and inheritance. It pays for it by slashing spending on food stamps, healthcare for the poor and the elderly, and basic services. It aims to return the US to the spending levels of the 1920s – and while Ryan frames it as a response to the deficit, it would actually increase it according to the independent Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. Ryan says "the reason I got involved in public service" was because he read the writings of Ayn Rand, which describe the poor as "parasites" who must "perish", and are best summarized by the title of one of her books: 'The Virtue of Selfishness.'

By the way, non-British readers may be interested to learn that this typical pinko liberal paper is owned by Russian multi-billionaire and former KGB officer, Alexander Lebedev. Isn't life confusing sometimes?
________________________________________

Now that Ryan has been picked as Romney's running mate, MoveOn have started plugging this story too. From the ten-point list in the mail I just received:

10. He thinks an "I got mine, who cares if you're okay" philosophy is admirable. For many years, Paul Ryan devoted himself to Ayn Rand's philosophy of selfishness as a virtue. It has shaped his entire ethic about whom he serves in public office. He even went as far as making his interns read her work.

[متجر وراق . · Rating 2 out of 5]

المراجعة هذه تحتاج إلى مجموعة من الايضاحات.
أولاً: فهم فلسفة الكتاب معتمدة على فهم المذهب الفلسفي الذي تبنته المؤلفة والخلفيات المعرفية التي تنطلق منها، أما أنا فأحب أن أقرأ هذا الكتاب ضمن مسيرة حياة المؤلفة الشخصية، بالطبع لا أؤمن بمبدأ موت المؤلف في مواضع كثيرة وهذا أحدها.
آين راند، روسية غادرت الإتحاد السوفيتي مع عزمها على عدم العود إليه، وهي لم تغادر الإتحاد السوفيتي فحسب بل أرادت أن تغادر المنظومة الفكرية الفلسفية التي نشأت في ظلها، ولذا نحت هذا المنحى الحاد في تناولها الفلسفي واتخذت اتجاهًا مفرطاً في الإعلاء من الأنانية واستقلال الفرد.
هذا الكتاب هو مجموع مقالات بالإضافة إلى محاضرة للكاتبة جميعها تصب في نقد مذهب الإيثارية الخلقي، وتعني به المؤلفة مذهب الإيثار على النفس والبذل، وتقوم بالسخرية منه ومحاكمته محاكمة شديدة تعزز من إعلاء شأن الفردية وتقديمها على الاعتبارات الأخرى، وهذه المحاكمة لم تكن نزيهة بل شابها الكثير من المغالطة، سواء في عرض الفكرة حيث تعمد أحيانا إلى عرض الإيثارية بأكثر طريقة منفرة أو بتأويلات غير صحيحة بغرض تشويهها. فعلى سبيل المثال فقط: حين أوردت تعريف الأنانية عرفته بأنها الاهتمام بالمصالح الشخصية، ولكن هذا ليس مفهومها الدلالي على الأقل في ما أفهمه من لغتي العربية، إذ أن مفهوم الأنانية لغوياً محمل بدلالة سلبية ليست دلالة التداول المجتمعي فحسب وإنما دلالة جذر المصطلح نفسه لغوياً.
وفي سياق حديثها عن كراهية الصناعي الثري بررت أن الناس تكرهه لكونه يجني ثروة لنفسه، وهذا مجانب للصواب فالثري المكروه هو الثري الجشع الذي يحصد المال من خلال إنهاك المهمشين وسحقهم ... إلخ لكن راند تحاول اختزال سبب كره الأثرياء في هذا التفسير السطحي فقط.
من الأمثلة محاولة تفسيرها للإيثارية بأنها جعل عمل الإنسان لنفسه شراً؛ بينما الإيثارية تقوم على مبدأ البذل والعطاء أو مفهوم الإحسان، ويغيب هذا المفهوم في أطروحة المؤلفة لكونها تتخذ موقفاً معادياً للدين في فلسفتها.
هناك أفكار ممتازة طرحتها المؤلفة كنقدها للرمادية وما طرحته من وجوب التزام جانباً في الحقيقة ما دمنا نراه صحيحاً وأن سلوكنا للحياد في قضية ما مع اعتقادنا بوجود الحق في أحد الطرفين هو خطأ محض.
بقي أن أعلق على الترجمة، الترجمة ليست ممتازة للأسف
*بما إننا نتكلم عن الترجمة في أول مراجعة، فرأيي هو أن القارئ يحق له محاكمة الترجمة وإن لم يمتلك معرفة اللغة المترجم عنها لأنه في الحقيقة الذي يهمه هو أن يقرأ نصاً بلغته المترجم إليها دون الشعور بقراءة نص وعر أو قلق*

[James · Rating 1 out of 5]

It's fitting that Rand's non-fiction reads like an advertisement for Atlas Shrugged; she is the ultimate capitalist after all. This is the lowest score I've yet given a book on this website; it's rare that I can't find something of significance to appreciate in any of the books I read. Although Anthem was a semi-interesting (if hackneyed) entertainment for an afternoon, this essay collection is as bad as it gets. Supposedly a scholarly work of philosophy, this book has inspired many people (some of whom I admire), but I found the shrillness which Rand employs in her "reasoning" is matched only by her supreme arrogance.

I don't think anybody could convince me that selfishness is a virtue (certainly not Ayn Rand). Her defenders point out that the title is a misnomer of sorts; they point out that it is "rational self-interest" not selfishness. Personally, I find it embarrassing that so many intelligent people are taken in by her dismissal of altruism; as Gore Vidal rightly points out in his shrewd essay on Rand, the fact that an author who blatantly preaches "every man for himself" is so popular says quite a bit about our society. The odd thing about Ayn Rand is that many of her chief followers are religious (Glenn Beck for example); apparently many would be Objectivists only read the sections on looking out for # 1 and how being egotistical is the only way to lead mankind to advancement, while ignoring Rand's militant atheism. This would imply that even her followers can't stomach some of her opinions. As for me, I found morally repugnant ideas on nearly every page. I don't attack Rand for being secular (there's nothing wrong with that); rather I attack the hypocrisy of her statement that religion imprisons man in dogma, but then goes on to state a "philosophy" that is not only immoral, but equally dogmatic (if not more so) as she is highly dismissive of any views except her own, without any desire for a serious, open discussion. For someone who valued "reason" so much, it's odd that this book is so dense with logical fallacies and reasoning that is, at best, fuzzy and, at worst, ludicrous. Finally, the writing style she employs here is shrill and irritating, hardly appropriate for any "scholarly" work; also, she constantly italicizes arbitrary words, which give the impression of a parent lecturing a particularly dim-witted child.

In closing, I must say that I couldn't recommend this book to anybody that believes in the importance of charity and generosity, is religious or is annoyed by banal and sanctimonious attacks on religion's worst aspects while ignoring any positives, enjoys good prose and/or has left leaning opinions. For everybody else...

[Tim · Rating 5 out of 5]

Altruism ain't all its cracked up to be.

Although she tends to take things a bit too far, Rand touches on an often overlooked point of life: we are the ones best-equipped to care for ourselves. It is a wonderful and necessary aspect of humanity when we chose to show charity and care for others, but when is it appropriate to sacrifice ourselves for the well-being of another? You would jump into a rushing river to save your child, but would you do the same for an elderly stranger? A young stranger? An animal?

The question eventually becomes not where to draw the line but WHO draws the line. Government have sometimes appealed to altruism to foster policies that in fact were harmful to the populace. Who decides?

[Steven Godin · Rating 2 out of 5]

These essays weren't far off from being complete and utter tosh.

Read just over half of them, ditched the rest.

50/50 as to whether I read Rand again.

[Poncho González · Rating 3 out of 5]

La primera mitad del libro es una completa obra maestra de filosofía, explicada desde la lingüística para evitar los malos entendidos y los sesgos cognitivos, la segunda mitad se pierde por completo el objetivo del libro y se convierte en una propaganda capitalista tirándole al comunismo en todo momento (sumamente decepcionante esa parte).

[Onslow · Rating 5 out of 5]

Want a good laugh?

Read 'The Argument From Intimidation,' the final essay in THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS, then read just about any of the one-star reviews here in which readers offer their 'rebuttals' of Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy. You will notice the vast majority of 'critiques' are filled with such witticisms as "If anything written by Ayn Rand means a lot to you and you're not going through adolescence you should be ashamed of yourself."

This is precisely the kind of meaningless drivel that Rand so astutely predicts in response to her works- totally devoid of any factual analysis, heavy on self-righteous posturing and Begging the Question.

This book is a must read for anyone with an open mind who has the mental capacity to understand that selfishness doesn't necessarily mean "I've got mine and screw everyone else." Highly recommended.

[Kevin J. Rogers · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ayn Rand was one of the most controversial thinkers--and successful fiction writers--of the 20th Century. Her detractors would claim that there is little to distinguish her fiction from her philosophy: that both are the result of a fantasist's distorted perspective on the world, tainted by an extreme egoism and fueled by some rather profound delusions. Her supporters would claim that it is the world as we know it that is distorted, mostly through the insidious influence of the philosophy of altruism, and that Miss Rand's philosophy is the only antidote to a world gone mad and hurtling toward an orgy of self-destruction. (This kind of extreme, polemical speech is fairly common in Randian discourse, no matter which side you are on.) The truth, as in most cases, lies somewhere in the middle.

Miss Rand (as she is always referred to by her followers) was the founder of the philosophy of Objectivism. She presented that philosophy in a series of novels, the culminating magnum opus of which was Atlas Shrugged, a sprawling neo-scifi quasi-futurist melodrama that has become a perennial bestseller since its publication in 1957. (The Fountainhead, which I think is a far superior book from a strictly literary perspective, came out in 1943, and was intended, in her words, to be "a portrayal of the ideal man".) Critics savaged Atlas Shrugged almost immediately, but the public took a kinder view of it, and Miss Rand, after a period of depression caused by the lack of serious consideration of her work in academic circles, founded an organization (now known as The Ayn Rand Institute) to promote her philosophy. That organization published a monthly newsletter throughout the 1960's to explain the philosophy in greater detail; Ayn Rand's contributions (and those of her chosen heir, Nathaniel Branden) were then collected into a series of short books further explaining Objectivism in greater detail. The Virtue of Selfishness is one of those books.

And there is much to admire here. Objectivism is based on the belief that reality is real--"A is A"--and that alone is a welcome change from the gibberish that one often encounters in the more esoteric philosophical discussions. The problem is that Miss Rand believes that in life, regardless of the circumstances, A is always A, and it is her "A" which is the correct one. (There is a famous exchange she had during a Q & A on an episode of the Phil Donahue Show, where a guest asked her if she thought she was perfect. "In terms of adhering to my philosophy at all times," she said, "yes, I am." The crowd exploded in hoots of derision. She just laughed at them. And this was in the Felt Forum in Madison Square Garden, with an attendance in the thousands. Say what you will, the woman had guts.) And that's a crucial flaw in the philosophy: to use logic to always come up with the right answer, as though life were a math problem, one must always have all the facts--all the inputs--and in life that is rarely the case. Most of the time we spend in doubt, trying to guess what "A" really is, or going forward on the basis of our experience and intuition. Miss Rand would call this mysticism; most other people would call it "life".

There is a distinct lack of humor and compassion here, as well. Neither of those values have a place in Objectivism, because the standard in Objectivism is always the same: rational self-interest. Everything in Objectivism is self-referential; how one feels about--or what one does for--another individual is based solely on that individual's place in one's own hierarchy of values. It is anathema to the Objectivist to suggest that there is a moral obligation to help someone in, say, a foreign country, even if the means are available to do so. And it is certainly immoral to suggest that society as a whole (meaning, of course, government) has a moral obligation to provide a social safety net for those who have been born ill-equipped to face the challenges of living in a modern society, or into familial or social circumstances which render it nearly impossible to develop into fully contributory citizens. Perhaps worst of all, though, is the idea that any sense of humor about oneself--any form of self-deprecating wit, or sign of humility--is somehow a betrayal of one's very soul. (There is that extremism again.) It sometimes seems, in reading Rand, that she has modeled the perfect human on Dr. Spock of Star Trek fame, which is unfortunate, given that the good Doctor was an alien.

But there is, as always when dealing with Miss Rand, another side to the story. As much as professional philosophers ridicule her as being a crackpot--and there are, admittedly, some howlers in there--for most people (who, frankly, themselves would consider most professional philosophers to be crackpots) there is a great deal of practical appeal in Objectivism, and for good reason: as Miss Rand so succinctly puts it, Objectivism is a philosophy "for living life here on Earth". There is very little angels-on-pinheads speculation here, very little that is off the point. Her focus is always concentrated on the here and now, the reality of living as experienced by individuals every day, and as such there is a great deal of utility in reading her work. To adopt her philosophy wholly is, ironically enough, to abdicate one's individuality, since she always insisted that her philosophy was "perfect" and had to be accepted in its entirety, exactly as she promulgated it. (If you're wondering whether or not there is a high degree of cult-like devotion in the Randian world, the answer is yes.) But if one is willing to think for oneself there is value in reading her work, and The Virtue of Selfishness is a good place to start.

[Lisa (Harmonybites) · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ayn Rand was once asked if she could present the essence of her philosophy while standing on one foot. She answered: Metaphysics: Objective Reality; Epistemology: Reason; Ethics: Self-interest; Politics: Capitalism. I first encountered Ayn Rand through her works of fiction as a young woman barely out of my teens. Back then I was already an atheist, one with a great belief in science and reason. There was nothing in her "metaphysics" or "epistemology" that I found the least bit surprising or controversial--indeed in essentials I already agreed with her. Her ethics and her politics were a different story. I remember reading Atlas Shrugged and thinking "you crazy bitch." But she did touch off a revolution in my thinking, changing me from a liberal to a libertarian.

Do I agree with everything within these pages? Well, let's say there is still much of it where I have doubts, and where I feel uneasy about her tone if nothing else. She wrote in the book:

I hear once in a while: 'Why do you use the word selfishness to denote virtuous qualities of character, when that word antagonizes so many people to whom it does not mean the things you mean'? To those who ask it, my answer is: 'For the reason that makes you afraid of it'

That's rather a slap at the reader and her opponents. Yet having read her books, even without her elaborating, I knew what she meant. Or thought I did. That people do fear selfishness as an ideal. Make no mistake--this is a demanding ethic. It requires integrity, to never fake reality. To never let your weakness stand as a plea for the unearned. It doesn't allow you to cover up a lack of self-worth by being subsumed by being part of a "greater" whole.

At the same time--and this is more a matter of tone than substance--I do think Rand undervalues benevolence, kindness, generosity. I found I liked better Spinoza's formulation of the question of ethics. Spinoza, like Aristotle (and Rand), emphasizes that ethics is about human flourishing and happiness. But what I like about Spinoza is his emphasis on reciprocity and empathy--in other words, the Golden Rule that has been a near universal in moral thinking from Confucius to Jesus: “Every man should desire for others the good which he seeks for himself.” Spinoza recognizing humans flourish best with other humans argues it’s in a person’s self-interest, and makes a person happiest, when consequently people “are just, faithful, and honourable in their conduct.” I like that squaring of the circle of selfishness and altruism--which I think Rand too easily dismisses. But you know, were it not for Rand bringing philosophy alive to me and convincing me it's important I would never have read Aristotle--or Spinoza.

[Shea Ivy · Rating 2 out of 5]

I could write an entire dissertation on the inconsistencies of Rand's philosophy and the arguments she makes, but I'll behave and limit myself to just one criticism: she flagrantly disregards the meaning of the term "ethics" and argues that a purely "selfish" approach (i.e. one that is concerned only with one's self) is not only a rational thing to do, but it is, in fact, an ethical approach to take.

The first part of her argument does make sense if you boil rationality down to a purely biological need to survive and function in this world. However, the latter part of her argument makes no sense and she makes relatively little effort to explain or justify her assertion. Instead, she chooses to assert over and over again the power of the individual and his or her rationality as supreme, and she develops the phrase "ethical egoism" in order to navigate around some obvious problems with her assertion. If one is unconcerned with the meaning of words and how they function, then they will have little problem converting into a "Randian". However, if one is like me and remembers what my buddy Ludwig Wittgenstein talked about in his linguistic philosophy, it's pretty much impossible to overlook how Rand essentially makes up new definitions for terms whenever it is convenient.

[T · Rating 1 out of 5]

My advice would be to spend your time on a more useful endeavour...

[notgettingenough · Rating 1 out of 5]

The star's for this: she writes a novel and then quotes one of the characters at length in this book. What chutzpah.

It's even better than the academics who cite things they haven't written yet.

Why have I picked it up? I'm sleeping badly. It made me closely examine what's in the bookshelf in the room in which I am generally living at the moment.

Oh yes. I see what's happened. Many years ago when I first moved into this house, I very sensibly put all the philosophy out in the spare bedroom where nobody would ever have to look at it. Kant. Heidegger. Rand. Nietzche. Machiavelli. Robert Audrey (yes, even worse, there is anthropology). There's Voltaire and Jung and Freud. There's Jerry Rubin, books on Jesus and books on drug communes. You get the drift.

Of course, guests would have to live with it, but at the very least it would ensure that they moved on at a decent pace. Little did I know it would be my place of residence later on.

Major reorganisation of bookshelves to take place. Novels. Poetry. Comics. Things to dream by.

[Robert · Rating 5 out of 5]

The title of the book is slightly misleading as most people have no true philosophical understanding of what is "selfishness", immediately thinking of the irrational blanket understanding of individuals acting in grotesque mockery of true self interest, often harming themselves in the process. Her contention is that such people are not selfish enough, for if they were truly selfish, they would have their true self-interest at heart and are therefor acting irrationally and not selfish at all. Think instead for the title of this book: "The virtue of rational self-interest" and you will understand it better. This means The ability to choose voluntary cooperation from a rational appraisal of value, along with its opposite or the freedom to not associate with people we do not value. This is the freedom of contract, and the Non-aggression principle coupled with a theory of value based judgment with your own life as the basis for that value. If you start with an end goal of a successful and rationally fulfilled life as the standard of your values, you will not seek anything which is not value, and therefor you will not seek those things which are irrational or conducive to your end goal. Rand explains the self defeating impossible contradiction inherent within all systems of ethics which start with Altruism, and how such philosophies contributed and continue to create the worst atrocities the world has ever witnessed, and that because the basis of their values is the irrational, they create impossible contradictions and seek to gain fulfillment by destruction. She explains that all men who seek to practice any form of altruism are walking time-bombs of emotional psychologically scarred and repressed schisms and how this ultimately irrational goal destroys the people who attempt it, dragging society along with them.

[Said · Rating 5 out of 5]

نمی دونم واقعاً اگر همه این گونه بشوند دنیا چگونه می‌شود ولی مهم نیست، من این گونه میشوم

[Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

How many books and movies have moved audiences by portraying a character who, struggling with persistent unhappiness, is pushed by their despair through to the realization that they’ve been living their life for another’s dream? That they married the man their parents wanted them to marry, even if they didn’t love him — that they became lawyers or doctors because their mom wanted them to, instead of pursuing their own dreams? The essential lesson there, the importance of honoring our inner being — our Self — is one we remind ourselves of frequently. It is in that vein that The Virtue of Selfishness puts forth a case for living in the honest pursuit of rational self-interest.

Like many readers, my initial reaction to Rand’s philosophy of ‘selfishness’ was one of surprise and contempt; based on the connotation the word carries in most cultures. My interest in Man vs State stories led me to her fiction, however, and somewhere amid the argument between Roark and Keating I found myself admitting that I’d misjudged her. Her ideas were far more substantial than expected; so too this title, which serves as a general introduction to Objectivism as a whole. She begins by establishing the importance of philosophy — particularly, epistemology and ethics, or how we come to find out what is true, and how we use it to guide our actions. Ethics, she argues, is not an artifact of human civilization, a code of behavior to keep unruly bipeds in crowded conditions from destroying one another, but the very genesis of progress. Reason is the great tool given to man by nature, our answer to the whale’s size and the tiger’s claws; without its consistent use to suss out the Truth and then act according to its dictates (ethics), we would amount to nothing but less hairy and more angsty apes.

An individual can think, conclude, and act. ‘Society’, being an abstract concept, a name for a collection of individuals, cannot. Rand therefore bases her worldview on the smallest concrete subject possible: the Individual. The Virtue of Selfishness is not a rationalizing defense for bad behavior, but rather defends the integrity of the self and reason against impulse, collectivism, and the ‘altruistic mentality ‘ — the latter being the habit of regarding one’s own existence as meaningless except when engaged in self-suppression on behalf of the tribe or even strangers. Other people do not justify your existence, Rand writes; there is no lasting meaning in identification with tribes, no reliability in following their whims. Joy is achieved through an individual’s dogged pursuit of excellence, through their successes in triumphing over challenges and their own impulses through clear thinking and hard work.

From here, Rand surveys the health of the Individual in the mid-20th century and finds it in very poor health indeed, nearly as oppressed by traditionalism, authority, and irrationality then as it was in previous dark ages. As belief in the old gods faded, the new god of the State and its collective lifeblood, The Nation, took the stage — and the new gods were far more potent than the old, coopting the tools of progress to serve instead the cause of decay. The Universities, too, having once been beacons of light allowing for the conquest of darkness, had fallen prey to postmodern confusion — and turned against the individual, especially the free exchange of economic energy between people that allowed the west to eclipse its own productivity decade after decade.

There is a savage and hard beauty in Rand’s writing, like the lines of a battleship. Far from catering to the worst of the human spirit, self-indulgence, Rand calls the Self forth to battle, summoning the best in us. Her Virtue demands the best from us — sharp thinking, hard work, constant self-evaluation. Her worldview is admirably integrated; the more I read her nonfiction, the more I realize it’s all of a piece. Even as I argued with her in my head (attempting to reconcile individualism and evolutionary psychology, as well as debating the role of the ego in well-being), I can’t help but admire her strength and consistency. She is shocking, but throws a cold and clear light on the world and I find that perspective illuminating despite its shadows.

Current plan: to continue reading Rand’s nonfiction, and then offer a response to her worldview including my reservations. Philosophy: Who Needs It will be next, followed by The Romantic Manifesto.

[Marlenecabada · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this book to be worth reading.After twenty one years of sacrificing my life and raising two arrogant teenagers who remain ungrateful for my efforts.I understand what Rand is trying to say.We cant always do all the giving because we will end up spent with nothing to show for it.We must nurture ourselves always, in this way we will have inner strength and the ability to get through life regardless what may come our way.
I disagree that her philosophy is founded on a Dr. Spok mentality.Her philosophy, while seeming extremely logical does have many valid points.
The principle that "One must never fail to pronounce moral judgement" is one that requires our intellectual as well as emotional ability to be able to discern what exactly we perceive as being right or wrong, and someone who is exercising this ability is to my understanding,very much in touch with their emotions,but I can understand why a lot of people would want to take her philosophy in small doses.Our American society is based on a degree of selflessness.Marked by many revolutions,however were not the founding fathers practicing Rand's philosophy when making a moral judgement by fighting for our rights to freedom from the Opressive British Crown? Were they biting the hand that fed them and being ungrateful? I suppose you can say that they were purely selfish in believing that they were worthy enough to have human rights.That is why we are a great nation.
Rand's "Virtue of Selfishness" seems to ring true in many respects for me.

[Anshu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Recently Right to Education was enacted and intellectuals hailed it as a major success of Indian democracy. As the Indian Govt paves the way for Right to Food Act, I see that there is an increasing need for more people to read this book and realise what they are witnessing is not the victory of Indian democracy over poverty and hunger, a victory of the principles of modern day altruism, the success of government over economic ills.

What we are seeing is the constant abdication of private rights to the ruling minority. What we are witnessing is constant flouting of the only two rights that any citizen must have - Right to private property, and right to free trade.

India is trudging downhill with increasing economic regulation and moral depravity. And yet our unfocused collective eyes see only perceived success.

A must read for those who are young and conscientious.

[Abrar_abdullaha · Rating 4 out of 5]

كتاب مثير للجدل، قد يستفز البعض، ويجده البعض مقنع ويستحق الإشادة

شَخْصِيًّا استطاعت آين راند إقناعي رغم أنني قد أختلف معها في بعض التفاصيل، ولكن في المجمل منطقها وعقلها يستحق الإعجاب

رغم أن الكتاب يتحدث عن الأنانية بعيد عن المفهوم الشعبي ويحولها لفكرة عقلانية ومنطقية، ولكني استطعت أن أفهم كيف نشأت فكرة الإيثار وبماذا يتصف من يتحلى بهذه الصفة، وجدت أنها قد تكون فكرة خطيرة وليست فضيلة بالضرورة خصوصا حينما يتم تبني هذا المفهوم دون وعي

كتاب يستحق القراءة بلا شك، خصوصا لأ��لئك الذين يقدسون فكرة الإيثار

[Gregg Bell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ayn Rand is an event. She had one of the most astute and utterly confident minds of all time. Whether she's right about what she thinks is a different story. But make no mistake--Ayn Rand thinks about thinking. She is a true intellectual.

That said, I think "The Virtue of Selfishness" is not her strongest effort. For starters it has an uncharacteristically provocative title. Which is okay, but when a title is too sensationalistic (a la Ivan Boesky's "Greed is good.") I'm always skeptical. There are merits to the book, though. Anything written by Ayn Rand has substantial merits.

So is it good to be selfish? Read the book. (Just kidding.) Rand would say yes. But not simply or cavalierly but with sound reasons and substantial elaboration. Perhaps a better term for what Rand is calling 'selfishness' might be 'enlightened self interest.' But she's right on the money with much of her logic. In a chapter called "How does one lead a rational life in an irrational society" she examines the necessity to make choices that all people face and how to evade such responsibility is the true nature of evil. Her insights, as always, are razor sharp. For instance: "Indiscriminate tolerance and indiscriminate condemnation are not two opposites: they are two variants of the same evasion."

Rand addresses society's tendency to hold down, to make the hard-working, thinking, responsibility-taking person feel guilty, when in reality logic demands that the opposite should be the case. People should be proud of their efforts and what they've produced. Not say they are sorry for being a success. She is the ultimate free marketerian, believing a meritocracy is the only fair way of living in society.

She's a little myopic at times. In fact, her moral philosophy "objectivism" has not a few holes in it. But nevertheless her defense of her principles is based on reasons, not conjecture or belief. And I find that to be refreshing.

In her way she is a cheerleader for people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and make their lives happen. Witness this passage:

"Every achievement of man is a value in itself, but it is also a stepping-stone to greater achievements and values. Life is growth; not to move forward, is to fall backward; life remains life, only so long as it advances. Every step upward opens to man a wider range of action and achievement--and creates the need for that action and achievement. There is no final, permanent "plateau." The problem of survival is never "solved," once and for all, with no further thought or motion required. More precisely, the problem of survival is solved, by recognizing that survival demands constant growth and creativeness."

Have you worked hard to achieve something? Be proud of it. Were you well compensated for it? Enjoy it. You worked for it. You deserve it. This is Rand's philosophy, and if this is selfishness, than selfishness is indeed a virtue.

[Ericka Clou · Rating 1 out of 5]

Note: Objectivism is deeply anti-Christianity, and anti-religion in general. You should not trust a politician that claims that he is both a Christian and a believer in the philosophies of Ayn Rand. He does not understand either Christianity or Objectivism, or possibly both, or he's a huge liar.

That said, this book isn't really what it sounds like. It's a collection of essays by Ayn Rand and Nathanial Branden that are not pro-heathenism per se. Rand and Branden try to explain how the philosophy of objectivism is that individuals need to think through their own rational system of morals and ethics. That's a good start. The problem is that a lot of the points in Rand's essays are either not logically sound or based on incorrect premises. (And I was pretty bored by Branden's sycophantic essays.) It's like swimming through mud.

For one thing, Rand refers a great deal to biological examples, and she repeatedly gets biology wrong. Obviously, she's not a biological scientist, and we know more today about biology than in the 1960s, but she premises her ethics arguments on the natural world- and her basis is incorrect. She believes that living creatures are driven primarily by continuing to live- that life (and the avoidance of pain) is the fundamental value of the natural world. That's only sort of true. The natural world is more driven by reproduction which means that animals regularly act on behalf of other related animals. Even on a cellular level there's the theory now that mitochondria used to be a separate free-living organism that combined with other organisms (endosymbiosis theory). Her idea that humans are emotionally and ethically tabula rasa when they are born isn't scientifically supported either. These are just a few examples, she gets a number of her points about science and animals either factually wrong or logically wrong. It reminds me of the absurd co-opting of evolutionary principals for political "Social Darwinism" nonsense.

As for her logical failures, (though I'm sure that some American Republicans agree with her) she makes no rational distinction between armed robbery, confiscation of all your property in a communist system, and taxation. She makes no distinction between altruism generally and complete self-sacrifice. Her views on love collapse into such total nonsense that arguing against them would require an entire treatise. She also incorrectly predicted many of the results of capitalism so this makes her arguments for unhindered capitalism look obviously foolish.

I do appreciate her condemnation of people's failure to engage in the pursuit of knowledge and reason. I also enjoyed her condemnation of communism.

[Christopher · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book by novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand, (author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead") is an ethical treatise on her philosophy of Objectivism, which sets out the principles of rational egoism—selfishness—and is the answer to thousands of years of the ethics of self-sacrifice—altruism.

This morality is based on the needs of man’s survival, with one’s self as the standard of value, (hence selfishness,) and the pursuit of one’s own happiness as the moral ideal. Or, to quote Miss Rand: "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

This book contains many incisive essays on how American culture is inundated with primitive philosophical ideals, and needs nothing less than a moral revolution.

[Public Scott · Rating 1 out of 5]

One star because we can't do fractions of stars.  This was obviously a hate-read for me.  As someone who thinks Objectivism is the purest, undistilled horse shit, forcing myself to get through even this slim 168-page volume was torture.  The worst of Halloween tricks, The Virtue of Selfishness waited on my nightstand every day like a flaming bag of dog mess to be stomped every morning.  I wouldn't read this book again if I was stranded on a desert island for the rest of my life and this was my only reading material.

Objectivism pretended to be something new.  Rand obviously intended "The moral purpose of a man's life is the achievement of his own happiness," (p.56) to be outre and scandalous.  Squares like us are supposed to be startled.  How could she say such a thing?!?

What Rand offers is an inversion of the Golden Rule.  Instead of Love Your Neighbor as Yourself, Rand instructs us to cut the middle man and just love yourself instead.  To Rand altruism is evil and selfishness should be rewarded.  A Medal of Honor winner who sacrificed his own life to save his platoon (my example) shouldn't be honored but criticized.  According to Rand any such extravagant displays of self-sacrifice show only a lack of self-esteem, diminished respect for others, and proof of a tragic indifference to ethics.  To Ayn Rand, Jesus Christ, held up by religious doctrine as sacrificing his life for the souls of everyone else, would be the ultimate sucker.  Sad.

It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to turn everything upside down and inside out in an effort to create a whole new morality for mankind.  Up is down and black is white.  Rand says that love is a selfish value - the recognition of seeing one's values in another - and that selfless love is a contradiction in terms (p. 51).  Helping others and relief of suffering should never be one's primary concern.  Any help one gives another should be an act of generosity, never a moral duty.

Rand writes "If one wishes to advocate a free society - that is, capitalism..." showing that to her, they are the same thing (p.108).  In fact, the terms are completely interchangeable.  Objectivism and capitalism go hand in hand.  The implication of this book is that society would be better if we adopted Objectivist philosophy, though Rand rarely says so explicitly.  She constructs grand straw men to prove that uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism is the best of all worlds.  Socialist societies are "democratic absolute monarchy" that are "open to seizure of power by all comers, any ruthless climber, opportunist, adventurer, demagogue or thug." (p. 106)  Rand warns that the apotheosis of socialism is the cutting out of a healthy man's eyes to give a blind person the power of sight.  After all, if everything is community property, even one's own eyeballs would not be safe. (p. 98) 

Yet the only ruthless climber, opportunist, or demagogue I see is Ayn Rand herself.  Like any malignant narcissist, she reveals much more about herself in what she writes than what she is trying to convey.  The goal was never to create a better society.  Rand hates society.  The goal was to create a justification for the status quo.  This fancy new philosophy that Rand worked so hard developing was only ever about creating a place in the world for Ayn Rand. 

(Case in point, Nathaniel Branden, who wrote five chapters in this book gets almost no credit. Since when is contributing 5 chapters out of 19 not coauthorship? Instead, we get a cryptic note at the end of the introduction that tells us that despite contributing to large portions of this book and the Objectivist philosophy Branden is "no longer associated me, with my philosphy or The Objectivist (formerly The Objectivist Newsletter).")

What we have here is a fancy doctrine that says that the people at the top deserve to be there.  The point of Objectivism isn't to rattle cages and freak out squares, it is about justifying the existing class structure.  Rand knew that if she found a way to help rich people sleep better at night, she would be rewarded with her own creature comforts.  Being a good Objectivist, Rand was concerned only with herself and her own problems.  Ayn Rand was a selfish asshole.

Objectivism is a classic case of putting the cart before the horse.  Rand starts with her conclusion and works her way back.  The point of Objectivism is to reward selfishness and self-centeredness.  Rich people don't just want to have all the money and power, they also want to be loved.  The Western religious tradition, based in large part on Christ's message of self-sacrifice, has always made rich people feel bad about being rich.  Ayn Rand saw an opportunity to ditch that old philosophy for something fresh that said, actually no, rich people are great.  They are the best of us because they are the culmination of this new morality that says you should put yourself first. 

Rand seeks to take the economic arguments of the Austrian School and Milton Friedman's neoliberalism to their logical conclusion.  She seeks to flatter capitalist society's winners and tell them they deserve everything they can horde.  This philosophy, like Neoclassical economics, is based first on property rights, "without property rights, no other rights are possible." (p.110)  Rand's vision of a utopian ideal is a place where taxation (payment for government, she clarifies) would be "strictly voluntary." (p. 135)  Just so.  Good luck building a military with that.

But the philosophy that Rand concocts is nothing new.  This is, in fact, the oldest philosophy in existence.  It's so old that it's not even really a philosophy at all.  It's called the Law of the Jungle.  Might makes right.  Bigger is better.  It's a slight twist on social Darwinism that says those at the top of the social food chain belong there because they are the biggest, best, and meanest.  To the victor go the spoils.  There is nothing original or new about this idea.  

Mankind is a social animal.  There is a reason that the United Nations considers solitary confinement torture.  People need others.  There is truth to John Donne's sentiment that "No man is an island."  Society only exists because people work together.  The people who decide to lone-wolf it end up like Christopher McCandless, lonely, cut off, miserable, and dead.  Like it or not, we need each other.

I think it is telling that Rand's worldview resonates with so many teenagers.  In this self-centered worldview, everyone is out to get you, so you need to fight hard just to survive.  A lot of teens feel this way.  It is also telling that Rand died without ever having had children.  In my own experience, having children made me grow beyond any selfish worldview I might have had as a young person.  A baby is not going to wait for you to deal with your own personal headspace before you cope with their needs.  Taking care of a family shakes a person out of their me-first attitude really quick and helps them see that there is more to life than one's own neuroses.  

Human beings need each other.  There is a reason that the world's great religions emphasize this.  We need to take care of one another if we are going to survive.  Putting oneself first, emphasizing the worst aspects of human nature, is no way to propagate the species.  It's no way to build a society.  It's no way to live your life.  Please do yourself a favor and let Ayn Rand go fuck herself. 

[Sergei_kalinin · Rating 1 out of 5]

О ужас! Сделайте меня это развидеть! :) Если это "философия" (да ещё и "объективизма"), то тогда я - Папа Римский! Если даже это и философия, то "ключница делала" :((

1. Это не философские тексты, а пропаганда (ну или публицистика-эссеистика в лучшем случае). В текстах слишком много эмоций (особенно ненависти к инакомыслящим), и слишком мало строгой логики.

2. Главная авторская идея проста как 2х2 : эгоизм (и основанный на нём капитализм) - это хорошо (этично), а альтруизм (и основанный на нём социализм любого толка) - это плохо и безнравственно.

Все авторские доказательства этого тезиса можно свести к одному главному: "Это так (и это хорошо), потому что я (эгоист) так думаю, и потому что это хорошо для меня". Круг, как говорится, замкнулся :(( Какой уж тут "объективизм" :(.

По сути это какой-то подростковый чёрно-белый максимализм (если не сказать радикализм). Где автор с пеной у рта отстаивает только свою точку зрения и игнорирует противоположную точку зрения. Дело обстоит ещё хуже: Айн Рэнд сама конструирует-сочиняет некий "ужасный альтруизм", а потом вовсю лупит по этой ею же созданной иллюзорной мишени. Как-то тупо и не остроумно :((

3. Это очень жёсткий подход в логике "или/или" ("или радикальный эгоизм - или лживый альтруизм"), и полное неприятие подхода "и/и". На самом деле даже на уровне биологии (этологии; социобиологии) "азбучной истиной" является факт, что для лучшего выживания вида нужно И эгоистическое, И альтруистическое поведение; что в любой популяции есть И эгоисты, И альтруисты и т.д.

Мало того, в реальном мире провести границу между "делаю для себя" и "делаю для других" практически невозможно. Любой эгоист социален и социализирован, и ни в одном обществе (или стае) невозможно выжить, если не "отдавать" (т.е. если не быть альтруистом). Разумный эгоизм: делать хорошо себе, но с учётом интересов других людей, и так, чтобы было хорошо не только мне, но и окружающим. Но для Айн Рэнд версия такого "разумного эгоизма" слишком мягкая; в ей понимании "правильные" эгоисты как-то всё больше смахивают на помесь социопата с социофобом :))

4. В целом авторский конструкт "эгоизма" - это классический пример сферического коня в идеально чёрном вакууме. Один (тоже фиговый философ))) верно заметил: "Жить в обществе и быть свободным от общества нельзя".

Рэнд восхваляет капитализм и общественный строй США как идеальную почву для эгоизма - для максимально свободного индивидуализма. Очень смешно это читать, т.к. ЛЮБОЕ общество - это некий баланс между индивидуальными свободами и ограничениями социальной Матрицы (гос.регулирование, социальный контроль, цензура и проч.). Причём эти ограничения складывались веками, и как бы мы ни называли и не реформировали общество, никуда они не денутся. В каждом обществе эти ограничивающие механизмы свои, и возможные "степени свободы" для каждого отдельного человека также свои.

Абсолютизировать какой-то один вариант (что делает Рэнд), мягко говоря, не умно :(. Просто фанатизм какой-то :(( Текст получается религиозно-пропагандистский, но никак не философский.

5. В целом такая ницшеанская книга для молодых, сильных и наглых отморозков :) Всё что хочет твоё Эго - разумно и правильно. И в реализации этих желаний тебе никто не должен мешать (т.е. должна быть максимальная свобода от общественных "долженствований" и любых социальных регуляторов). Если ты как-то хочешь помочь другим, то это только твоё добровольное решение - и никто не может принуждать тебя к этому ни словом, ни делом. Ну, и т.д. и т.п.

В общем, это манифест тех, кто хочет и может сам о себе позаботиться (и чтобы никто вообще под ногами не путался; и не критиковал способы, которыми я свои интересы реализовывать буду). А как быть с теми, кто не может о себе позаботиться? С детьми, стариками, людьми с ограниченными возможностями, с попавшими в трудные жизненные ситуации? По версии автора, радикальные эгоисты сами должны пожелать "поделиться" с этими людьми. Ну-ну... Прям очереди из желающих поделиться...

PS Сдаётся мне, что если бы человечество в один прекрасный день решило бы жить по книгам Айн Рэнд, то мы бы просто не выжили.

[David · Rating 2 out of 5]

In reading this book, my objective was to objectively evaluate objectivism. The author made that task difficult to impossible. Rand impedes evaluation of the objectivist doctrine by presenting it in a manner that consists largely of emphatic declarations, straw man arguments, false dilemmas, misrepresentation or exaggeration of alternative viewpoints, and ad hominem attacks. Unfortunately, this is a distraction to aspects of objectivism that might be credible and that could contribute to a productive debate on ethical philosophy, or what she dubiously calls the “science of ethics.”

Objectivism, sometimes referred to as ethical egoism, is the doctrine that everyone ought to act to maximize his or her own interests exclusively. Some would say all behaviors are ultimately motivated by self-interest anyway (psychological egoism), but Rand rejects this idea. To be clear, the objectivism brand is not one of selfishness for immediate gratification, but a long-term self-interest that might include reciprocal behaviors and generous acts such as caring for the welfare of loved ones because they contribute to your happiness. As she states, “…the actor must always be the beneficiary of his actions and that man must act for his own rational self-interest. But his right to do so is derived from his nature as man and from the function of moral values in human life—and, therefore, is applicable only in the context of a rational, objectively demonstrated and validated code of moral principles which define and determine his actual self-interest.” But the rub is getting to the “rational, objectively demonstrated and validated code of moral principles.” I saw little in this work that would get us there or help us to act as rational agents able to cross a river of cognitive barriers to get to that end. In fact, this book seems to be evidence that we can’t get there in a rational and objective way.

An example of this is her selection of the title “The Virtue of Selfishness”. In the Introduction, she admits that she selected this title knowing it would be provocative and goes on to say that people (presumably all those rational agents) don’t understand what selfishness means, stating that the dictionary definition of selfishness is, “concern with one’s own interests.” Cross-checking this with Merriam-Webster, the current complete definition is: “A concern for one's own welfare or advantage at the expense of or in disregard of others; excessive interest in oneself.” Other dictionaries and Wikipedia include the same contingency about excessive self-interest and disregard for the interest of others. Following this, she goes into a tirade, complaining that the concept of selfishness is viewed by the liberal public in some judgmental sense, while the whole time she makes snarky judgments herself. In one passage, she even lashes out at 1960s dancing: “Observe, in this connection, the modern ‘beatniks’—for instance, their manner of dancing. What one sees is not smiles of authentic enjoyment, but the vacant, staring eyes, the jerky, disorganized movements of what looks like decentralized bodies, all working very hard—with a kind of flat-footed hysteria—at projecting an air of the purposeless, the senseless, the mindless.”

What is lacking in Rand’s description of objectivism is a dispassionate explanation of the structure of the philosophy, and instead offers what comes off as a contemptuous political polemic.