Rating: 
Summary: Somebody should have given her a dictionary
Review: This insane woman seems to have been incapable of understanding simple English. She says her 'dictionary' defines selfishness as 'concern for one's own interests', conveniently omitting the word 'excessive' as found in most definitions. She defines 'sacrifice' as giving up a greater value for a lesser one, in blatant contradiction to the standard meaning of the word in both Christianity and baseball. And so forth. Read too much of this woman and you'll never again be able to read anyone else. Of course, maybe that's what her cult *wants* . . .
Rating:
Summary: Wastepaper.
Review: So selfishness is the true basis of benevolence, is it? That must be why the Manhattan telephone directory's Yellow Pages are chock-full of Objectivist charitable organizations. Gimme a break.
Rating:
Summary: Precedented
Review: The chapters 'showing' the effects of government intervention are in CAPITALISM: THE UNKNOWN IDEAL, not in this book. And they 'show' it by referring to the work of Ludwig von Mises, so Rand was indeed 'precedented'.
Rating: 
Summary: Unprecedented
Review: "Capitalist Excess" was always an unanswered doubt in the back of my mind. The chapters in this book which show that crises and depressions are caused by Government intervention are of particular importance. I felt ten years younger after reading them."In the name of the best within us."
Rating:
Summary: Better yet, read INSTEAD of Atlas Shrugged
Review: - and stop when you reach the point in the introduction at which Rand says she's using the term 'selfishness' to intimidate people. That statement pretty much sets the tone for the rest of the book, indicates the quality of 'philosophy' you can expect, and tells you exactly what you'll find in Atlas Shrugged - so you can skip it too.
Rating: 
Summary: Read before Atlas Shrugged
Review: Read this book (and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal) before embarking on reading Atlas Shrugged. The insight into Objectivist thought that the reader gains from the Virtue of Selfishness will make Atlas Shrugged all the more compelling.
Rating:
Summary: Sheer poison
Review: Rand claims benevolence is based on 'selfishness'. On the contrary, genuine concern for one's own interests is possible only on the basis of benevolence - life in a human society in which respect for the well-being of other persons is built into the very foundations of the regnant ethic. Rand gets this key point exactly backwards - through her insistence that the definition of 'rights' comes *first*. Nonsense. Rights are a bit more fluid and context-dependent than Rand wishes to admit, and defining them in any particular social context is a very difficult task. Indeed there is simply no reason for any of us to respect the rights of others - because there is no reason for us to try to *define* the rights of others - unless we are *already* benevolent. All Rand accomplishes in this slim volume is to obscure the basic fact that, though human beings are undoubtedly *individuals*, our nature is fundamentally *social*. Begin with benevolence and you can arrive at rights fairly quickly; begin with rights and you shall never reach benevolence at all. This is the essential reason why so many 'Objectivists' are socially inept narcissists. Like Rand.
Rating: 
Summary: Weak philosophy, but an OK morale booster.
Review: More than one writer below has commented that Rand's idea of selfishness rests on the idea that "there are no ultimate conflicts of legitimate interest among rational people." A cursory look at the history of philosophy shows that this cannot be true, assuming that by "rational" one means that people will make their decisions according to logic. Logic is a system of thinking based on axioms. Axioms are things we posit to be true. Thus, for instance, Rand proposes the idea that "A=A". But the philosopher David Hume showed that there is no "logical" way to prove that an axiom IS true. The axioms we choose, therefore, determine the structure of the logical system created. Rand must assume, therefore, that everyone will agree upon the same axioms. BUT, there is no RATIONAL reason why two different people should do this. As a result, saying that their will be "no ultimate conflicts of legitimate interest among rational people," can only be true if everyone agrees on the same axioms. In practice, this is no different from a religious community that chooses certain rules (read: axioms) of conduct. Rand has built a huge, quasi-philosophical edifice on an idea which could easily be stated "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This doesn't make her a sublime or original philosopher. I suspect it's for this reason that the academic community doesn't take her seriously. So read her to remind yourself that individuality IS important. But don't buy into the idea that her closed system is the be-all and end-all of philosophy. It isn't.
Rating:
Summary: Consume, consume, my little herd!
Review: Make a space next to phrenology in the intellectual dust-bin for this tripe.
Rating:
Summary: Brasil
Review: I Swear by life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor will I ask another man to live for my sake. - Atlas Shrugged -. If you don't agree with this, read it and you will. the book is about this quote, how to live for yourself, what are the terms on ethics, racism etc... If you agree with this, also read it, I have, it will show little things which become significant. What this book says is to live for yourself and value yourself more than anything else.
| 
