Rating: 
Summary: The most important of Rand's nonfiction works
Review: I'm giving this 4 stars because if you want any of Rand's nonfiction works, you want this one. Also, if you are at all interested in Rand's ideas outside of fiction, this is probably the collection of her essays that gets to the point fastest.This book contains, in an essay called The Objectvist Ethics, Rand's "main ethical argument". In discussion forums about Rand's ideas, people talk about this central argument alot: Rand's justification for egoism, Rand's unique usage of the word "selfish", and so on. Well, this is the book where Rand actually states these views, and makes her arguments. If you want to read the original, this is it. If it matters, I think this book is also important for anyone curious about Rand's philosophy, because her main ethical argument, in the essay I mentioned, is very bad. The entire thing hinges on abusing the heck out of the word "value" and tossing around forceful rhetoric about "life and death". I read it when I was younger, and never could tell what the point was, so I told myself I would read it again later. Well, I finally got around to it a few months ago, and it was very disappointing. In over 25 pages of essay, there are only one to two pages of real philosophic argument. Moreover, I've since learned that the essay, Rand's main ethical argument, was originally a speech and has simply been transcribed into essay form! It is very disappointing, especially for an author so well-regarded for her fiction, and especially for all the hype that surrounds her on the Internet. The vision of life Rand presents with the heroes in her novels sure feels nobel, but when she tries to sit down and do philosophy, it comes out worse than mediocre. This is the nonfiction Rand book that makes these flaws most obvious. Her other nonfiction works are mainly political.
Rating: 
Summary: Truly Changed My Life
Review: I read this book a few years ago when I was a sophomore in college. I hadn't read too many books at that time and it was my first Rand book. From the first page I was absolutely enthralled. It was the most intellectually stimulating experience of my life up to that point. Some people who read this book will reject it out of hand because they don't like some or all of her conclusions. But she argues everything so clearly and thoroughly starting with basic premises building up to complicated philosophical ideas that it's hard to rationally disagree. Before I read this book I had only vague conceptions of what I believed or valued. This book gave me a logically consistent foundation for my views on morality, politics, and philosophy. What Rand is fighting for is the idea that reason is supreme and can be effectively used to optimize life in all its aspects. She uses reason to analyze many big questions such as "What is the purpose of morality?" "How should I decide what moral ideals to choose for my life?" "What is the proper role of government?" and more. I have now read most all of her work and agree wholeheartedly with almost every detail of her philosophy. But where we do disagree I find it to be insignificant because her entire philosophy I believe can be summed up in this statement: "Use reason without contradiction to guide your life in every way" which I completely agree with. That statement seems obvious enough but once I understood its significance (through reading her books) I saw that people everywhere all the time are knowingly contradicting themselves in their beliefs and actions. Indeed, without knowing it, they will argue passionately that contradicting yourself is the proper way to act and think. These are the Rand haters. How can you seriously consider the opinion of someone who says in a debate "You're taking logic too far." Or "Reason is good for some things but not for everything". Or "Your argument makes sense but I'm just being practical". Such people don't seem to grasp what reason is. They might as well be saying "2 plus 2 equals four sometimes and five other times". I highly recommend this book and would also say that if you do disagree with Rand on some point don't abandon reason taken to its logical conclusion to support what you are saying. If you do you have already lost the argument. If there are any logical errors in her writing they should be treated as errors and not as an indictment of her philosophy of using reason which is absolutely correct.
Rating:
Summary: The Selfish Objectivism of Rand's Detractors
Review: If you're not selfish and objective, you'll never be enough of a person to help a single soul, including yourself. This is a daring seminal work in one of the core controversies of human history: individualism versus forced altruistic collectivism. The problem for those poor raging anti-Randians ( who lust to scold the rest of us) is that they necessarily assume Rand's rationalistic self-interest doctrine in the process of criticizing it. Preachers of universal unselfishness want you to help any self in the world---AS LONG AS IT'S NOT *YOU*. Forced love, from body or paycheck, is rape. And it will always produce hate and misery.
Rating: 
Summary: Misguided At Best
Review: This unconvincing collection of essays touts Rand's "Objectivist" dogma. Though once an adamant believer in Objectivism, upon actually LEARNING about the philosophic issues that Rand addresses (I now have a degree in philosophy), the incredible irrelevance of her work is glaring. She has scarcely a single new thought to add on any topic, though most of her admirers familiarize themselves only with hers. Her angry, blunt style is totally rediculous for someone trying to write coherent philosophy, yet the heavy-handed manner is rather convincing if you don't pay too much attention to detail. Anyone with a reasonable knowledge of Modern Philosophy would find her work insulting in its rash presumptions, and even laughable were it not the case that so many people (who pick up her novels, or who only have read HER *philosophy*) get spellbound by her warped ideas. Look folks: THIS IS NOT PHILOSOPHY. At best, these essays represent a series of rampant, misguided ARGUMENTS that contain only small doses of appeal. If you don't understand the ways that her works fall short of EVER being considered seriously by professional philosophers, then grab anything written by ROBERT NOZICK. His nature of dialect will be broad, precise, and completely honest--a whip-lash of a change from Rand. Ayn Rand's NOVELS sell with relative success purely becasue they have epic qualities that popularily attract. Additional value (beyond entertainment) is difficult to extract, which is not good news for her non-fiction work.
Rating: 
Summary: Big Ayn Rand fan, not so hot on this book
Review: The format of this book is not what I expected. It is basically a set of essays that don't really present one with much information. If you have read the two major novels - The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged (both five stars) - then much of the ideas are repeated in a less effective manner. THere are sections in both of the novels consisting of 50-100 pages that do a much better job presenting the overall Objectivist philosophy. This one isn't really worth the money.
Rating:
Summary: Important book for rational minds gone astray
Review: I was, unfortunately, at one time a Socialist. I had set my values according to that system and wrote off Objectivism as "evil capitalist propaganda". Also, at the same time, I was advocating the worth of the individual. This was a week ago. What prompted this change you ask. Logic. That is, rational truth in its purest form. Life broken down into it's irreducible primaries. This book is the medium, the last form of reality that offers reason a space in which to breath so that it might grow and engulf the fog of irrationality weighing heavy on this world.
Rating:
Summary: Hi-Fi Philosophical Ayn - Gem Picks for some
Review: Vaguely I remember some guy telling me to read Ayn Rand and I found my way picking up gem selection like Fountainhead and now this 'The Virtue of Selfishness' - The name that arouse interest itself 'How can selfishness be a virtue?' The Philosophy of Ayn Rand is a logic, which has a major impact on the intellectual side. This book is a collection of essays appeared in The Objectivist Newsletter, edited and published by Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden, The issues that crop up day-to-day and the problems that arise were sorted by with every chapter. Selfish itself is regarded as 'evil' word but Ayn Rand's philosophy regards Objectivist Ethics as a morality of rational self interest. An industrialist who produces a fortune and a gangster who robs a bank are regarded as equally immoral since they both sought wealth for their own selfish benefit. Since nature does not provide man with an automatic form of survival, since he has to support his life by his own effort, he would have to work in self-interest and this is not selfish means. It's like self-supporting with some moral codes and purpose of morality is to define man's proper values and interests and man must be beneficiary of his own moral actions. The Book is a high read and thought provoking. Reviewing is rather brief and so, if one is fond of philosophy, here is a good Choice Read - Ayn Rand's Best New concept of egoism with inputs by NB.
Rating:
Summary: perfect for fans; mere LINGUISTIC DRAMATICS for the rest
Review: A perfect book for those who are ALREADY fans of Ayn Rand and her LINGUISTIC RADICALISM.
The basic idea of "not taking altruism to extremes --to the point of MEANINGLESS self-sacrifice-- is one that no SENSIBLE person could possibly argue against.
But Rand takes a word, defines it to an ABSURD EXTREME --thereby PROVOKING A REACTION-- and spends the rest of the book RANTING ENDLESSLY against it. While reading, one is continually bothered by the question: "but who defines it to THIS extreme, but Rand herself and her kind only?".
Ridiculous LINGUISTIC DRAMATICS. Perfect for those who hunger for provocative speech; again, perfect for Ayn Rand's fans. The rest of us who would rather be persuaded by CONTENT, are left wanting.
Rating:
Summary: Why Argue?
Review: Some find it strange that, while I am a strong believer in free markets, trade and the "Chicago School" of economics, I despise Ayn Rand. There are two reason - first, Rand is no philosopher, and second, I am a pragmatist (i.e., I don't see the need for an abstract moral philosophy to justify things). In this book, Rand violates one of the most important philosophical laws: David Hume's statement that "No 'is' implies an 'ought.'" Just because an organism has a tendency to survive does not mean it has a moral right to. Capitalism has transformed the world and raised the standards of living. This is the true (and pragmatic) virtue of capitalism and self-interest. This virtue rests not on some abstract philosophy, but in the lives of billions of people on this planet. All Rand has done is create a straw-man for the socialists and communists who despise capitalism to attack, for her arguments cannot be logically defended, and she is too extreme. Let capitalism speak for itself.
Rating:
Summary: ONE valid idea, drowned in COUNTLESS clutter
Review: There is no arguing with those who already like Ayn Rand and enjoy her linguistic dramatics.
But that is precisely what makes everyone else not take her seriously--she is more DRAMATIC than BRILLIANT or INCISIVE.
The very idea of not carrying altruism to the extreme, by not meaninglessly sacrificing oneself because of expectations imposed upon us, indeed stands up to scrutiny.
But this particular book is more than anything else about taking an idea, or even a word definition, to an extreme which not too many sensible people do anyway, and verbosely ranting against it in --yet again-- dramatic ways. A few valid ideas are no licence to engage, too, in tirades that open us to suspicions of paranoia or hidden "issues".
Ayn Rand needs to acquire greater faith in the persuasive powers of SUBSTANCE, and less on FLOWERY or RADICAL WORDS.
A perfect book for fans of hers. For the rest of us, it's a struggle to get through the first ten pages.
| 
