The Virtue of Selfishness

Rating:
Summary: Who's Zoomin' Who?
Review: So the anonymous reviewer below ("There you have it...") , thinks that I, FoxNShades, exercise "poor" and "superficial" reading comprehension skills.

How unfortunate that the Anonymous Reviewer, who rejects "selfishness as a virtue" should so SELFISHLY consume webspace with a book review which does not even confront the actual content of the book!

How unfortunate that the anonymous reviewer, in spite of his "superior" reading and reasoning skills, carelessly MISquotes my actual words, and then proceeds to pontificate quite egregiously upon his fundamental perceptual error.

"Scalpel...., er, I mean DICTIONARY, please... Nurse!"

WHAT I SAID... is that "MOST" religions teach selfishness as a virtue... I did NOT say "all" religions. The word "most" is NOT interchangeable with ALL.

The Anonymous Reviewer stands corrected.

Further, I did NOT say that "everyone" describes Jesus as selfless... I said "How many times have you heard..." The phrase "how many" is NOT interchangeable with "everyone."

The Anonymous Reviewer stands corrected... again.

(Unfortunately, since the Anonymous Reviewer rejects Ayn Rand's epistemological theories, including the process and function of "perception", he will remain unlikely to correct his deficiencies.)

There is no contradiction between the "twin" claims that 1)the Bible portrays Jehovah and Jesus as "rational egoists" and that 2)modern christians perceive Jesus as "selfless." What the Bible actually says, and what modern christians believe, are more often than not at odds.

If you can't bear to think of Jesus as a rational egoist, then I suppose you wouldn't be interested in considering the plot and thematic parallels between Atlas Shrugged and the book of Revelations? Hmmm...?

Rating:
Summary: There you have it . . .
Review: . . . Ayn Rand wasn't anti-Christian at all; Jesus was a rational egoist!

Of course there might be a contradiction lurking in the twin claims that (1) all religions teach 'rational selfishness,' AND that (2) everybody describes Jesus as 'selfless.'

But contradictions probably don't bother people who think they can have Rand and Christianity too - or who are so poorly read in philosophy AND religion that they think Rand was the first person ever to raise the principle 'love thy neighbor' to the level of 'focused, critical thinking' (or, for that matter, that she did so ~at all~).

Such nonsense is the result of a very superficial reading ~even~ of Rand herself. Try John Robbins's WITHOUT A PRAYER if you want to know how Rand ~really~ compares to Christianity.

And by the way: the claim that Jesus was a 'rational egoist' is based on a verse in the book of Hebrews which says He went to the Cross for the sake of the joy which was before Him. But please note that His joy was in the salvation of ~others~ to the glory of God - a joy that has no place at all in Rand's own 'philosophy.' If Jesus had come to Rand seeking advice about whether to be crucified, she would have told Him to shrug.

'Objectivism' is a philosophy that turns nice people ugly and ugly people uglier. Whether there may be an isolated truth in it here and there doesn't matter; ~as a system~, it's a fancy way to go to hell (take that as literally as you like). Selfishness is ~not~ a virtue, and anybody who believes otherwise will believe just about anything.

Rating:
Summary: One THOUSAND and ten stars for this heroic philosopher!
Review: The essence of this book is "Before you can truly love others, you must learn (and be allowed) to love yourself first. Before you can feed others, you must learn (and be allowed) to feed yourself first."

The essence of this book was most accurately and concisely stated by Rand herself in another book (Philosophy: Who Needs It?): "Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you DO or do NOT have the right to exist WITHOUT giving him that dime..."

Whether or not Rand herself always lived up to her own ideals does not diminish the accuracy or meaning of her ideals. Just because a moral ideal is not attained, does not prove it to be unworthy of attainment. From an artistic viewpoint, just because a singer hits a few wrong notes, does not make the song itself unworthy of being sung.

Rand has been castigated for proclaiming "selfishness" to be a virtue, in spite of the fact that selfishness is taught by most world religions. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," "Love thy neighbor as thyself," "Do what ye will, an harm none," and numerous other paraphrases of the Golden Rule all hold the "self"' as a standard for one's behavior toward others. Rand's profound contribution was to raise this principle from an EMOTIONAL guideline to the level of FOCUSED, CRITICAL THINKING: to apply this principle to everyday circumstances requires the most scrupulously rational thought processes.

How many times have we heard Jesus Christ characterized as "selfless," because he was willing to die on the cross for the sake of others? But according to scripture, he gave up a feeble life on earth in exchange for eternal life at the right hand of his Father in Heaven, as the Ruler over mankind. That is, he gave up something lesser for something greater. He profited. Not only was his death NOT an act of selfless charity, it was an act of purely rational-selfishness.

Much unnecessary ado has been made over Rand's "dictionary definition" of the word selfish. Whether or not the dictionary she claimed to use actually existed is IRRELEVANT, because what Rand was arguing against was the "popular" connotation of selfishness. In her experience (and in mine, as well) MOST people use the word invariably to convey a moral condemnation, even though it's possible to be selfish without hurting others.

Even if one defines selfishness as an "excessive" interest in oneself, then one must answer the question "Excessive...By what standard?" Whether you include the word "excessive" in your definition of selfishness, Rand's concept of "rational selfishness" provides an accurate and meaningful alternative to the popular image of a "brute who abuses others to satisfy his own capricious desires." Rand is the first philosopher to suggest and to successfully demonstrate that "selfishness" has the POTENTIAL to be either good or evil, and that ONLY consistently rational, critical thinking can distinguish between the two.

Critics who call Rand "narcissistic" or who CONFLATE (ie, to confuse, or blend together) rational selfishness and "brute" selfishness are simply MISREPRESENTING Rand's actual words. The first time I saw this book as a teen-ager, I shuddered at the title because I had been taught that "selfishness=bad." But after a few years in college, and in the "real" world of working for a living, I understood that Rand's concept of "rational selfishness" was the only moral code that allowed me to defend myself from those who would manipulate me to my detriment but for their own benefit; it was the only moral code that allowed me to earn a profit from my own behavior without hurting others in the process.

Rand was the original exponent of what is now called the "WIN-WIN" philosophy!

The only people I can imagine being opposed to Rand's concept of rational self-interest would be those who intend to profit, not through their own honest effort and the VOLUNTARY cooperation of others, but by cheating or abusing others.

DON'T judge this book by its cover! And don't judge it by what anti-Randian critics say... This is one book that MUST be read before it can be either rationally accepted OR rejected. BUY this book, and SING "The Song of Freedom!"

Rating:
Summary: Rand's Best Work
Review: Ayn Rand wasn't much of a philosopher, but she did have a few interesting ideas and -- from time to time -- did write stuff that approached a reasonably sustained argument worthy of some attention. I would say that three essays in this book are her best in that regard: (1) The Objectivist Ethics; (2) Man's Rights; and (3) The Nature of Government.

The Objectivist Ethics is her best work by far. Although it does descend into gratuitous name-calling at times, she does set forth an argument that has some plausibility. Clearly there is some connection between life and value. Whether Rand overcomes the "is/ought" problem is another question. In addition, based on her advocacy of "selfishness" she provides us with no reason to respect the rights of others or engage in benevolent conduct. (By the way, if anyone knows of a dictionary that tells us that the "exact meaning" of "selfishness" is "concern with one's own interests" please email me.) For a detailed refutation of Rand's arguments, see J. Charles King's essay in the collection The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand.

Some of Rand's writings on ethics have been used in anthologies. This is in contrast to her writings in other areas of philosophy, such as the silly Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, which is so flawed that I doubt it has (or ever will be) placed in a serious collection of works of philosophy.

But when all is said and done, Russell Kirk was right: "If you believe selfishness is a virtue, you'll believe anything."

Rating:
Summary: We are free to live.
Review: The most basic element of Ayn Rand's philosophy is that every man has, not only the right, but the unavoidable duty, to live for his own interests and goals. If a man decides to live for something other than himself, he is evading his responsibility to himself. A man that seeks to live for a cause is a man who is afraid to live for himself. Ayn Rand was born in Imperial Russia, and was raised in the early stages of the drawn-out murder of the Soviet Union. She knew, from first hand experience, the inevitable terror of a society that attempts to use irrationality and slogans in place of logic and economical integrity (for, make no mistakes, economics are the highest expression of morality and integrity). To preserve this country, nearly the last country on earth which had not succumbed to the disease of socialist thinking, she wrote her novels, to make her logic an available weapon against this illness. And as we look around today, we can see that she succeeded, and we may say a moment's silent thanks to the incredible will, the indomitable mind that saved this country.

Her thoughts are easily argued with, but that was her intent. To make people think, to make them use their minds in a clear and logical way, to examine the world around them and see where it was headed. Whenever anyone reads her books and says "But wait, is this so?", they come a step closer to making this world clearer, and brighter. And that, in essence, was the purpose of Ayn Rand's writing. To make the people of the world think, and see for themselves the state of the world, and the causes of it.

Rating:
Summary: I read it, and I made up my own mind.
Review: "[B]eware, judging her from the standpoint of her personal life, worse than wasting time, is failing to grasp the true importance of her thinking and legacy."

On the contrary. As exemplars of her philosophy (including her "new" version of "egoism" as set forth in this volume), Rand repeatedly held up herself, her husband, and Nathaniel and Barbara Branden; if she regarded the four of them as living examples of Objectivist practice, it is entirely licit to use her personal life as a basis for criticism. (And recall that she made these remarks at a time when she was engaged in an extramarital affair with Nathaniel, justifying/rationalizing her adultery as a form of behavior suitable only for moral "giants" like her.)

Moreover, on Rand's argument that "the moral is the practical," the practical behavior of Objectivists in general is fair game, which is why I also highly recommend reading Ellen Plasil's _Therapist_ (and, of course, the Brandens' two biographies). At any rate, such stuff is enlightening as regards how well (or badly) the principles of Objectivism succeed in actually _achieving_ the stated goals of the Objectivist philosophy.

"At the base of her work is the unshakable foundation of her Objectivist Epistemology, that proves the human mind as capable of producing valid knowledge."

Nonsense. I've personally driven several trucks through the holes in ITOE, and I'll be happy to send my utterly destructive critiques to anyone who wants them. The Objectivist epistemology is ultimately a version of nominalism, in which there is nothing new except the errors Rand herself introduced. She just failed to notice because she gave a tendentious misrepresentation of nominalism. But her epistemology inherits all of nominalism's problems, including its inability to justify "knowledge." (Plus a host of additional problems introduced by Rand's own silly arguments, e.g. her confusion of sensation and perception, her contention that knowledge isn't propositional, her strange claim that a concept doesn't change once it's formed, and her botched attempt to use the label "contextually absolute knowledge" as a fig leaf for error.)

"After establishing the definitive criteria to validate knowledge, Ayn Rand, never deviating from it, gives you valid arguments in favor of your right to live your life with the pursuit of your values and happiness as your responsibility and right."

More nonsense. Rand's work on epistemology came _last_ (and even _she_ regarded it as unfinished). In fact, as demonstrated by the early writings the Ayn Rand Institute has helpfully made available, her more-or-less-Nietzschean ethics were where she _started_ -- even before she she adopted the free-market economics of Ludwig von Mises. (By the way, did you know that she voted for FDR?)

Her epistemology, such as it is, was supposed to provide a foundation for certain ethical conclusions at which she had already arrived on other grounds -- and it demonstrably fails to do so. For example, her identification of "human" with one attribute of human beings (rationality), and her consequent dismissal of irrational people as subhuman, directly violates her dictum in ITOE that a concept "means" all of its referents, together with _all_ their attributes.

Here again, anybody who reads critically can drive several trucks through her extremely poor arguments. Depending on which proof-texts you pick, Rand's arguments for "rights" either (a) reduce them entirely to considerations of self-interest, or (b) aren't consistent with the rest of her philosophy. Either way, she hasn't provided any foundation for them at all.

Generally, her work in ethics depends on the same "false trichotomy" -- intrinsicism vs. subjectivism vs. the alleged "third way" of Objectivism -- that she eventually introduced into her epistemology. And her subjectivistic nominalism doesn't work any better in her theory of value than it does in her theory of knowledge.

That's enough for one review. Wanna hear more? Drop me a note.

Rating:
Summary: Read and make up your own mind !
Review: Ayn Rand is certainly a fascinating subject and an extremely important one for all of us. But beware, judging her from the standpoint of her personal life,worse than wasting time,is failing to grasp the true importance of her thinking and legacy. Ayn Rand is arguably the most important thinker to-date. Consider the following:

At the base of her work is the unshakable foundation of her Objectivist Epistemology, that proves the human mind as capable of producing valid knowledge. This in contrast with Kant et al who try to prove the contrary. All those philosophers who either outright accept this rotten beginning, or else fail to denounce it, they have nothing certain to ascertain, right? After establishing the definitive criteria to validate knowledge, Ayn Rand, never deviating from it, gives you valid arguments in favor of your right to live your life with the pursuit of your values and happiness as your responsibility and right.So, read and judge for yourself. Free yourself from whatever may be holding you back. And a lot more!

Rating:
Summary: Philosophy and Ideology
Review: Once again, Ayn Rand manages to take a complex philosophical subject, the virtue of egoism and its traditional opposition to an altruistic comportment, and render it simplistic with a bland, hopelessly mononomic approach. Basically unsound and often ridiculous in her analysis, Rand is only original from the perspective of those who have never taken the time to seriously engage the history of philosophy (which , of course, includes herself). In the final analysis, her philosophical views amount to little more than superficial caricatures of deeper presentations that precede her and are more akin to the stagnant waters of dogmatic ideology than any genuine stimulus to independant thought. My advice to anyone interested in the subject is to read an author who gives a truly groundbreaking and deep treatment. I would recommend Rousseau's Emile, Hobbes' Leviathan, Descartes' Passions of the Soul, Mill's On Liberty, or Locke's Second Treatise on Government.Of course, these are only a few of the many titles worth investigating.

Rating:
Summary: Simply Outrageously Terriffic!
Review: This book is excellent! It is not such easy reading as are Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, but if you liked them, then you will be greatly rewarded by reading "the Virtue of Selfishness". Ayn Rand explains the true meaning of selfishness and how it is corrupted by the altruist's of this world. Alturist's have twisted the concept of selfishness into a distorted, wicked image, when, in actuallity, true selfishness is a beautiful thing. True selfishness is what one experiences when he is rewarded for his own efforts. Yes, even if he earned a billion dollars and kept it all to himself it is beautiful and respectable! Altruist's have corrupted and shielded the beauty of true selfishness by inducing a feeling of guilt in individuals BECAUSE of their very own abilities. Altruist's claim, for example, that millionaire industralists are guilty of exploitation simply BECAUSE they have become rich (RICH! ) while their workers remain at a lower standard of living. The suggestion ( and guilt trip) is that the industralist is guilty because he did not give his money, his earnings away. They forget and ignore the fact and reality of how the industralist's products have benifitted themselves, the plant workers and simply raised everyone's standard of living. Read this book; enjoy it! And stay clear of altruist's and their philosophy!

Rating:
Summary: Headache? Keep the Motrin handy.
Review: Yep, "critically, sentence by sentence" is exactly how you have to read Rand -- otherwise she'll get away with murder.

Take the previous reviewer's first example: "Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action." [That's from "The Objectivist Ethics," in this volume.] Now Rand insisted repeatedly (e.g. in her letters to John Hospers, reprinted in _The Letters of Ayn Rand_) that when she defined a word, she stuck to the meaning she had assigned it. Yet in her argument here, she passes insensibly from "biological life" to "life with integrity," even allowing in _Atlas Shrugged_ that one might commit biological suicide in order to _preserve_ one's integrity. So much for life as an end in itself. In fact biological life is of purely instrumental value -- i.e. as a means to the achievement of values which really _are_ ends in themselves. But what Rand does is to build her own favorite virtues into the meaning of "life as man _qua_ man," and thereby define anyone who doesn't practice those virtues as quite literally _subhuman_.

Or take the previous reviewer's second example: "Epistemologically, the concept of 'value' is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecedent concept of 'life.'" This is just nonsense, as Rand's own example of the "indestructible robot" shows. She wants to insist that an indestructible robot can't have any values -- but she does it by building in to her statement the hypothesis that the robot can't be affected by _anything_ in _any_ way whatsoever (a much stronger condition than simple indestructibility). Her argument that value depends on life (really, on "mortality") is therefore just bad. There's no reason in the world why immortal beings couldn't have values.

You'll spot her doing this sort of thing right and left. She'll tell you on one page that "values" make sense only for beings who can make choices in the face of alternatives -- and then turn around and tell you that plants have values that they have no alternative but to seek. She'll tell you that the very first question in ethics is whether we _need_ ethics at all -- and not only ignore the fact that "need" is already an ethically loaded term, but then turn around later in the volume and argue that "need" can't be the basis for any of our claims against one another. This despite her just-as-equivocal argument that "rights" are based directly on needs -- a well-known passage in which she passes without acknowledgement from the statement that "it is right" for man to use his mind, etc., to the statement that "he has a right" to do those things. The woman who allegedly never altered the meaning of her words in fact did it all the time -- she just didn't notice.

This volume's worst flaw is, as I've said elsewhere, that Rand tries to alter the meaning of "human being" or "man's life" so that it means, not biological life, but the sort of life she regards as moral. I'm not disagreeing that such a life _is_ moral, but it's a sign of trouble when you try to base an ethic directly on biological life and immediately find yourself distorting that standard to fit your conclusions. There are two standards here, and Rand conflates them; the result is not elevation, but corruption.

As a matter of biological fact, a human being is a human being from conception to death, no matter how immoral we may be in between. To equate immorality with subhumanity is to provide a fig leaf of legitimacy for anyone who really _does_ want to get away with murder.