Rating: 
Summary: Love is Selfish
Review: Rand used the term altruism, in its original meaning (as used by philosopher August Comte who coined the term): self-sacrifice. To Rand, to sacrifice a greater value (say your beloved child), for the sake of a lesser value (some strangers you did not know) was wrong. (I agree). To save your beloved wife from drowning would be selfish--because you loved her; to let her die to save some other stranger--when you loved your wife--would be unselfish. Selfish, as Rand uses the term, means to act in ones own LONG-TERM rational self-interest. It does not mean that one cannot have friends--only that "friends" who stab you in the back are not really your friends. In fact, if you think about it: love IS selfish. To paraphrase Rand, before one can say 'I love you', one must first learn to say the word 'I'. Of course, if one actually READ the book, one would know this. If one reads the book, and still holds these distorted views of Rand's work, then one is either stupid or dishonest. This does not mean one may still not disagree--there are some things I disagree with Rand on; but, one should not stoop to dishonest smears, name-calling, and outright lies about her work.
Rating:
Summary: The root of ALL good.
Review: I have read this book; and l have come to the conclusion that if everybody understood what this book preaches, this world would be a better place. Any person searching for answers in his own personal life, will find them here. A book like this is needed by EVERYBODY in this world. People who criticize this book's ideas are afraid of the truth because it hits close to home.
Rating:
Summary: Simply excellent.
Review: This book is a series of essays, some by Rand, some by others. But every essay in this book will give you a fresh way of approaching different topics. I wouldn't consider myself an Objectivist, but I loved every page of this book. Now that I've read this through, Ayn Rand and I seem to agree on 90% of everything.
Rating:
Summary: Mashed Swedes
Review: The book is fine.The language is difficult.I am used to simplifying.That is the first rule of effective communication.But then,I did not learn English as a second language.What amuses me is the sight of all these readers trying to answer logic with arguments.I think Ms.Rand would have found that funny.
Rating: 
Summary: Destructive "philosophy"
Review: I believe Ayn Rand's writings are very destructive. And this isn't because of her highly un-original philosophy. No, the reason for this is the powerful grip the books has on her followers. In her books they find justification for behaving in a anti-social manner that is slowly destroying the fabric of the societies of the Western World. This egoism is supposedly derived from "reason". In the real world however there is no reason for people not to find fulfillment and meaning from helping others and caring for their family and friends. The accusation that "altruism", i.e. decency and goodness, leads to tyranny is nothing but products of a very paranoid mind. The craziest thing about this though is the fact that Ayn Rand has been raised to a saint-like status by her followers. No disagreement with her writings is ever accepted and if you disagree you are an evil communist/collectivist. To be a true individualist you must agree with everything she has ever written. Isn't this collectivism in a true sense? No, says her followers, those views are derived by reason and must therefore be share by all intelligent human beings. Pretty scary!! Note that Objectivism, like Marxism, Freudianism and Jungianism, is a closed system of thought in the sense that any critisism of the system is automatically seen as a symptom of unreason. This is what makes Objectivism a religion rather than a philosophy or scientific method. And this is also the reason for the fanatical behavior of her disciples.
Rating:
Summary: Characteristic of Rand
Review: As in all Rand's works there seems to be a gap between what is said and what can actually be put into practice. Good attempt but she assumes that all rational people must come to the same conclusions as her. The Cult of Rand as it is said. You may not judge by your whims but you can judge as long as they are Rand's whims.
Rating:
Summary: weak
Review: Selfish ethics, does it really hold up to criticism? If someone wants to act out of pure self intrest a lot of problems arise. Why should someone help someone who is sick, or extend his life (presuming doing that will give you no self-advantages) Would it be moral to kill a individual you have a distaste for, and take his money , if there is no possible punishment or personal loss, according to selfish ethics it would be. Under ethical egoism , morality is not done out of duty, or respect for others life, but out of personal gain, as a person is a material object only guided for self advantage, and without use if not benefited to you (at least in applied selfish egoism) Rand also makes the (incorrect) assumption that 'the goal of any organism is self preservation' which is empirically false, A look at mammals, birds, social insects shows altruism in many places, wolves giving up their own food for brothers or pack leaders, chimpanzees sacrificing their life or putting it in danger for a close relative, bees or ants that will sacrifice their life for the preservation of the group etc. Humans are pack animals, and display much altruism, a good book on this would be 'on human nature' by Edward O. Wilson. Another major objection to the book is found in Rand's straw man of socialism, turning anything 'leftist' into communism. From this Rand equates socialism, with bureaucracy, crushing of individuals, and collectivism, something which very few socialists hold, In fact most socialists opposed Communism in its Russian form. Rand also makes the use of many logical fallacies, such as causation not equaling correlation, Rand tries to make out that somehow Britain was prospering, but then its pro-labor government ruined it causing mass migration to the US and Canada. She fails to mention the millions of dollars and lives lost in world war 2 or any such thing. Instead of Rands gross generalizations and faulty ethical systems, someone should try a more original, and logical philosophy, although this book may be worth a small read
Rating:
Summary: The best of Randian philosophy
Review: By far the greatest and most powerful collection of Randian essays ever assembled. As always Rand consistently and rationally integrates her incredible philosophy leaving no room for argument or misinterpertaion. But these essays cover such a wide range of topics in so short a space that they are peerless among her work. She achieves absoulute certainty in all of her chosen areas with no contradiction.
Rating:
Summary: another fine example of Ayn Rand's clear thinking
Review: I think you should read her fiction first and only then read this. Its definitely not a conformist book, none of her books ever are. It's refreshing, because here's finally a book that says its okay to put yourself first. It basically says that everyone is actually selfish, but that is not bad. Even self-proclaimed altruists have a selfish reason for being that way-- they are doing something they believe in and thus attaining happiness. Anyone who proclaims he/she is unselfish is lying. This book helps explain John Galt and Roark's characters better.
Rating:
Summary: The rights of man explained at last!
Review: Ever wondered what 'natural rights' were, and why it not only seems wrong but is actually wrong to force people to act against their will? Then read this book. It is a collection of essays penned by Ayn Rand, with a handful by associate at the time, Nathaniel Branden. Each essay is well worth reading, and the book is therefore 'easy' to dip into. In particular I found the sections on the rights of man, racism and the role of government to be superb.
| 
