Rating: 
Summary: Rand's Wisdom is Far Ahead of Its Time
Review: Ayn Rand is a woman of almost unfathomable genius. I would encourage readers to disregard anything negative that other reviewers have to say about this book. For the small price that you have to pay Rand presents her vision of individual freedom that, even with its holes and shortcomings, is so far ahead of its time, it's difficult to imagine. It was far out ahead of its time when she published this book more than 40 years ago. Sadly, her vision is still WAY out ahead of the current state of the world even today.Even if you don't agree with her, you will still have the freedom to use your own rational mind to challenge or discard anything that she says. Anyone who approaches Rand with an open mind, however, will have to admit that she had an uncanny understanding of how the value that each individual places on his own life impacts the course of history and the progress of man. She clearly describes how the cult of self-sacrifice is a logical and immoral progression from mysticism and how the resulting psychological, political and economic processes undermine individual liberty, man's pursuit of happiness, the general quality of life for all men, and the advancement of civilization. The selfless and self-sacrificing among you can take comfort in the fact that when Rand's vision of laizzez-faire capitalism and individual freedom is finally realized (reason always wins in the end), you will still have compete and total freedom to live irrational, mystical, irresponsible lives. No one will have the right to prevent you from sacrificing your own life, mind or values to any person, state, religion, or collectivist ideals. No one will force you to achieve your full potential as a human being. It will still be your life and you will have complete freedom to sacrifice your own value in the service of lesser values. The big change will be that you will no longer be permitted to force other men to sacrifice their own rational, life-sustaining, self-interest to your own. That is the virtue of your fellow man's selfishness. You will not be able to destroy him or deprive him of his liberty. You will no longer have the "right" to place liens on the success of others, or to force individuals to give up objective reality for subjective or collective delusions. Irrational, angry mobs will no longer have the "right" to enslave rational individuals and force them to sacrifice themselves to what is not rational and of their own choosing. You will not be entitled to legally force the efficient, intelligent producers to support the inefficient, the mediocre, or the parasites, be they rich or poor. All men will be free to use their own rational minds to seek their own values and happiness as long as it doesn't deprive others of individual liberty. All men will be free to learn and create, and trade freely with whomever they choose, which by default elevates the status of all men. Rand's hyperbole sometimes made me laugh, but this book clearly articulated so many of my own perceptions and thoughts. It also made me see possibilities I never imagined before. This book and Rand's other writings are a must-read for anybody interested in the real meaning of liberty. Everything she talks about in this book is happening all around me.
Rating: 
Summary: my subjective take on it...
Review: Cold war ramblings. People throw words like rationality and enlightenment around and all over randian or marxist - college minded arenas etc. this is a historically significant book but for those seeking less reactive and more stable ideologies I'd recommend something else.
Rating:
Summary: At last, an honest atheist!
Review: I chose the title for this review carefully. I have had numerous discussions with atheists. I have noticed a common inconsistency about them: they roundly criticize Christian doctrines such as the Incarnation, Resurrection, etc. But at the same time they affirm much of Christian morality, such as concern for the poor, the need to subjugate one's personal ambitions to the good of "society," etc. But they never build a case for why these "virtues" are of any use in a Universe without God, where a brutal system of survival of the fittest is directly responsible for what progress the world has enjoyed. When I confront them with this error in their thinking they either go into a glassy-eyed stare of start shouting slogans.
Rand is a refreshing change from these pseudo-intellectual morons. She starts with the premises that Man is the highest form of life in the Universe and that naturalistic evolution is true, and develops a moral code consistent with those beliefs. Her conclusion: that a society based on self interest will lead to the elimination of the weak and the development of better, smarter and prettier human beings. Now THAT is an ethical code consistent with a godless, materialistic Universe where the strong survive and the weak - well, screw them! I applaud Ms. Rand for having the courage her fellow unbelievers lack: to think out the true implications of their worldview. Bravo!
Rating:
Summary: A life changing book
Review: I read this book more than 40 years ago. At the time, I was searching for a rational basis for ethics in a world where everyone believed that only dogmatic religion could supply the basis for an ethical life.
Read this book and think for yourself.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting read.
Review: I recommend this book over Ayn Rand's novels. You don't have to put up with hundreds of pages of the conversations of Howard Roark, Dominique and John Galt. This reader is always surprised by the perennial claim that the author's Fountainhead novel is rated second on the all time best seller list after the Bible. For the reader who wants some exposure to Ayn Rand's philosophy called Objectivism, this book, "The Virtue of Selfishness" is the way to go. This way the reader can cut out the middleman and get the philosophy straight from the author. You actually get a more well rounded view of her philosophy. As a reader who tackled both the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, I consider my time was better spent with this book. My problem with this book is that I feel the author could have done a better job explaining how Objectivism would work within a society, not just the individual. Ayn Rand extols pure capitalism and the U.S.A. was her adopted country, and the country closest to her ideal. Why didn't she mention or explain away examples such as J.P. Morgan, Andrew Carnegie or John D. Rockefeller where the big winners can actually change the rules of the game from "free for all capitalism" to monopoly. The book is also
silent on the segment of society requiring charity. What would be the effect on a society based solely on Ayn Rand's philosophy ?
Rating:
Summary: Cut out the Middleman
Review: I recommend this book over Ayn Rand's novels. You don't have to put up with hundreds of pages of the conversations of Howard Roark, Dominique and John Galt. This reader is always surprised by the perennial claim that the author's Fountainhead novel is rated second on the all time best seller list after the Bible. For the reader who wants some exposure to Ayn Rand's philosophy called Objectivism, this book, "The Virtue of Selfishness" is the way to go. This way the reader can cut out the middleman and get the philosophy straight from the author. You actually get a more well rounded view of her philosophy. As a reader who tackled both the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, I consider my time was better spent with this book. My problem with this book is that I feel the author could have done a better job explaining how Objectivism would work within a society, not just the individual. Ayn Rand extols pure capitalism and the U.S.A. was her adopted country, and the country closest to her ideal. Why didn't she mention or explain away examples such as J.P. Morgan, Andrew Carnegie or John D. Rockefeller where the big winners can actually change the rules of the game from "free for all capitalism" to monopoly. The book is also
silent on the segment of society requiring charity. What would be the effect on a society based solely on Ayn Rand's philosophy ?
Rating:
Summary: Interesting, flawed, worth reading.
Review: I'm not a philosophical expert, but I find Rand's epistemology to be very bad, basically little more than a twisted version of nominalism. However, I stand by my former assertion that there are some compelling and interesting ideas present in the ethical facet of her philosophy that stand alone from the epistemological foundation. Because, quite frankly, Rand's epistemology is not good. (At this point, I direct objectivists to hit "not helpful" and skip the rest of the review, because they probably hate me already.) Rand's basic claim is that man's life should be used as a moral criterion, and a moral life supplicates a rational means of elucidating information and identifying what is right and what is wrong. With this NEW concept of egoism, Rand and Nathaniel Brandon explain that MY happiness should be my most important goal, but not to satisfy my happiness with whims, cheap thrills, or hedonistic kicks. (Brandon's essay "The Psychology of Pleasure" does a good job illustrating what a rationally selfish man seeks to give him pleasure in the context of art, love, and productive work.) The prima facie perspective suggests that this should be workable, and Rand's confident, florid prose (which I must confess I like) might sway you. But I became skeptical of her argument when she talks about the immortal being who can have no values because it is not alive, nothing is for or against it. I don't see why an immortal would be incapable of valuing anything, and Rand's argument doesn't flesh that out enough. Could not an immortal being still love and value things because they give her happiness? Or is an immortal being without the desire to be happy? Not that I know any immortals personally, but you know... Still, I think the basic premise lends itself to some interesting ideas. Of course, I'm one of those hardcore libertarian folks who believe in individualism, responsibility, small government, and all those good things. Since Rand was in many ways the same, I find myself agreeing with her on many issues. And let's face it, we usually like reading stuff that reflect our own ideas. In this volume, there's a pair of great essays called "Collectivized 'Rights'" and "Man's Rights" that tie in pretty well with the libertarian mindset. Also great is the essay "Racism," a brilliant, scathing attack on bigotry, although she takes it farther than you'd expect and writes some intuitive tidbits. Plus, I get a kick out of some of Rand's terms, like calling the USSR a "slave pen" and her use of "goon squad" in the last essay. Good stuff, hehe. In my previous review of this book, I gave it 5 stars because I thought it was interesting. In this, my second review, I am deducting a star. Not because of my disagreement with the philosophy (although I DO disagree with a big chunk of it), but because I think this collection of essays misses a number of issues that, if they'd been addressed, may have given the ethical part of Rand's philosophy more credence. For instance, she doesn't accommodate much benevolence in this collection, but I think she could have worked it in. (She touches upon it with "The Ethics of Emergencies," but it doesn't answer a number of questions.) There aren't many Howard Roarks and John Galts in the world...most people aren't perfect, and need to cooperate and help each other in order to succeed. However, one of Rand's most important points, I think, is that human relationships should exist without sacrifice. Every man is responsible for his own survival, and it is morally wrong to sacrifice yourself for someone unimportant to you, and equally immoral to expect someone else's sacrifice for your sake. This doesn't eliminate charity, though. You just shouldn't bring harm to yourself in order to help someone. Of course, you could deleteriously affect your own welfare to help someone, but it might not be a sacrifice depending on the circumstances. Say you could pay fifty million dollars to cure your wife of the ULTRA DEATH VIRUS OF DOOM (ominous, eh?). Doing so is not a sacrifice, since your wife should be more important than money, of course. I think a lot of Rand's critics missed points like this. It wasn't ALL about money. Even though Rand's ideas about love and sex come through, uh, rough in her fiction, here it's very clear what she was trying to show (questionable though it was, at least in The Fountainhead...Atlas Shrugged was just consenting sex that was rough). She avers strongly that love is an entirely selfish thing....you don't just love some random person off the street as favor. You love someone that mirrors personal qualities that are important to you: intelligence, conviction, self-esteem, and morality, for instance. I strongly concur with her on this one, and Brandon writes a good essay about it in the aforementioned "The Psychology of Pleasure." I also think Rand's argument against bringing harm to others is too shallow. She deals with this in a part of the first essay, but doesn't get into it enough. This complaint isn't necessarily a problem with the philosophy itself, because Rand may have had good answers to this and other issues. But I think the book probably should have added more depth to this topic, as well as some others, but I'm not going to discuss them all. I suggest that people read this book carefully, note to good bits of her ethics, identify the not-so-good bits, and keep it around for a laugh. She's so venomous about some issues that it gives me a chuckle. (That eyeball analogy is good stuff, hehe.) She also has some great arguments against the ethical basis for socialism.
Rating:
Summary: The best ethical formulation in the history of philosophy.
Review: Many years ago while discussing the Chrysler bail-out with two colleagues, they mentioned that Lee Iacoca, in pursuing the government action, was pursuing his "self-interest". The discussion on government interference in economic matters interestingly took place in the context of a debate on the contents of this book. Listening to me defend its concept of self-interest and why I thought humans should indeed pursue their self-interest, they seem perplexed that I was objecting vociferously to the Chrysler bail-out. After all, was not Lee Iacoca pursuing his self-interests when he arranged the government bail-out? This conversation, done with two people who are now fairly well-known philosophers, illustrates the deep bias surrounding the concept of self-interest. The fact that Lee Iacoca thought he was pursuing his self-interest in arranging the bail-out does not mean that it really was in his self-interest. If a person is lost in a forest and starving, and then spots a mushroom he/she believes is nutritious but in fact is poisonous, are we to accept that the eating of the mushroom is in the person's interest? The fact that we believe something is in our interest does not make it so. The author of this book makes a brilliant case for the ethics of self-interest, with this concept being rooted in the organism's identity. It is the characteristics of the organism that determine what is good or bad for it. Ethical values arise when the organism can exhibit choice over a collection of alternatives, and is distinctly self-aware of these choices. And due to the complexity of both the organism and the environment, the context will determine the choices available to the organism. An Eskimo in the Artic North certainly faces different choices than an individual living in the jungles of the Amazon. In addition, because the organism is not omniscient, the choices made may act to the organism's detriment. Adaptation takes time, and the organism will suffer or even die if bad choices are made. Organisms with a self-awareness of choices, or moral agents, are thus governed by what characteristics they possess, and the environments in which they find themselves. The author of this book argues brilliantly for a morality of self-interest, and her care and skill in elucidating the concept of self-interest and ethics in general, makes this book the best formulation of ethics in the history of philosophy. In addition, the book could be read in the context of modern theories of rational agents, both in philosophy and the field of artificial intelligence. The author has defined "rationality" in a manner quite different from what the word stands for in economic theory, the latter of which views it as a descriptive concept. If a person is labeled as "rational" in economic theory, it means that the person is attempting to optimize his self-interest, regardless of the facts that might indicate otherwise. "Rational" for the author is quite different. What the author is saying, and is most profound, is that many of the actions that have been taken as an excuse for self-interest, such as lying, deception, and violence, are indeed never in one's interest. To label a human as "rational" in her view, is to characterize the person as one who is optimizing their self-interests, but these interests, because of the nature of the biology of humans, and the nature of the human psyche, never involve lying, deception, and violence. This is a bold and interesting move in ethical theory, and differentiates the author's formulation from most others in the history of philosophy. The ethical doctrines of this author are also intimately related to what science can tell us what indeed is in the interest of organisms, in order for them to optimize their health and general well-being. Most refreshing though is that this formulation of ethics is exceedingly optimistic. It asks the reader to consider that rationality, productiveness, and pride are the virtues of self-interest. Plundering, violence, cheating, and deception never are. With its emphasis on the power of the human mind and its efficacy, it is certainly a philosophy that meshes will with our time. Even though written down over four decades ago, its optimism coupled with its practicality makes it pure 21st century.
Rating: 
Summary: She didn't practice what she preached!
Review: Rand was notorious for her hatred of such concepts as "help," "compassion," and "generosity." (As Dominique Francon says in FOUNTAINHEAD, "Compassion is ... something one feels for a squashed caterpillar.")
In her own life, though, Rand was helped by all kinds of people. Her mother in Russia sold the family jewels so that the daughter could travel to America. Ayn's relatives in Chicago gave her free room and board, a train ticket to L.A., and cash gifts. In Hollywood she was helped by Cecil B. DeMille and she lived in privately subsidized housing. Her husband got her a green card and served as her chauffeur and handyman. Her editor at Bobbs-Merrill risked his job to get FOUNTAINHEAD published.
And yet, when she became rich and famous, she wrote novels and essays that heaped scorn on those very acts of kindness and generosity.
Ayn Rand, quite simply, was a fraud.
For a thorough unmasking of La Rand and the Rand religion, see Jeff Walker's THE AYN RAND CULT.
For a satire of Rand's ideas, see my own THE PIANISTH WHO LIKED AYN RAND: A NOVELLA & 13 STORIES. In preparation for the title piece, I read all of awful Ayn's oeuvre, raided it for quotes, and proceeded to put them on the lips of my characters. It was my way off depicting and dramatizing the seductive lure of Randism on susceptible American adolescents.
See also my essay, "Who Was Ayn Rand?" in SALMAGUNDI, Fall-Winter 2004.
Rating:
Summary: Ignore the nonsense, this is a good read.
Review: This book is an excellent introduction to Ayn Rand's ethical theory, which consists of her particular version of egoism. A person's life is their own and should not be sacrificed to others or for a lesser value against their will(or contrary to their "rational self interest"). Also, a person should not expect the sacrifice of others for his/her sake either. The typical objection to this is that it eliminates charity. This is not true. She definitely needed to clarify this point more, but according to Rand, if a person sees value in giving to others, it is perfectly moral and rational to do so. The point is, it should not be a moral DUTY to do so, it should be a choice. As long as you are not trading values for non-values, and as long as it is your choice and you are not forced, it is ok. Giving and helping is not what Rand was against, but, as already mentioned, she did not make this clear enough. Her reaction against altruism is so extreme that at times it does seem that she sees any act of charity or goodwill as a sign of communist tendencies. Rand's argument is, although obviously not completely valid, at least clearly expressed and reasonable. Some ammendments and clarifications are needed. People really need to take the time to go through Rand's work and separate the good points she makes from the bad and not allow her polarizing style of expression to lock them into either swallowing it whole or rejecting it outright. A lot of the reviews of this book are good examples of this problem. I give this book 5 stars because it is well-written, entertaining, and expresses very clearly and forcefully what Rand's views were on this topic. I am a fan of Rand's writing and have been influenced a lot by her thinking, but I do not turn a blind eye to some of her obvious errors. I think others should try taking a similar attitude toward her work.
|
