The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism

تبدأ لتبحث عن فضيلة فلا تجد إلا تطرفًا -تزعم أنه السواء- وتناقضات ومغالطات؛ ومن يضمن هذا العقل الخاضع المقولب لكل فرد حسب السياق والظرف ليضعه الأساس في غالب أسباب بشاعة الإحساس بالإثم والتهكم!
لم يخُلق الإنسان بشكل فردي ليحاكم أو يتأله! من الضروري خضوعه للجماعة شاء أم أبى؛ عقله عاجز لوحده لثنائيته الفطريّة وانتماءه للجماعة.

بل إن السؤال عن المنطقية والخضوع للعقل المحض لمجتمع أكثر حضارة أصبح سؤالاً ساذجاً في عالم كل ما فيه غير منطقي بل هو للجنون أقرب.

О ЧЕМ КНИГА:
Всем любителям Айн Рэнд рекомендую этот сборник эссе. В каждой из глав Рэнд раскрывает один из элементов её философии объективизма. Как всегда мысли и выводы у Айн Рэнд очень твердые и логичные. Некоторыми свои доводами она просто припечатывает так, что и возразить нечего.

ГЛАВНАЯ МЫСЛЬ КНИГИ:
Каждому человеку нужна система ценностей, исходя из которой он выбирает и действует, – этот выбор и эти действия определяют цель и течение его жизни.

КАКАЯ БЫЛА ЦЕЛЬ ЧТЕНИЯ:
Получше разобраться в объективизме.

ГЛАВНЫЕ МЫСЛИ И ЦИТАТЫ:
▪️Разум - орудие выживания. Поэтому для людей вопрос «Быть или не быть» есть вопрос «Думать или не думать».

▪️Три главные ценности объективистской этики:
1. Разум.
2. Предназначение.
3. Самооценка.

Три соответствующие им добродетели это:
1. Рациональность.
2. Продуктивность.
3. Гордость.

▪️Основной социальный принцип объективизма состоит в том, что жизнь есть самоцель. И следовательно каждый человек есть самоцель, а не средство для достижения каких то целей или обеспечения благосостояния других. А значит он должен жить исключительно ради самого себя.

▪️Проблема выживания человека сейчас встает не как вопрос жизни или смерти, а как вопрос счастья или страдания.

▪️Страдание - это предупредительный сигнал гибели. Это предупреждение о том, что надо что то менять в жизни.

▪️Человек, который поддается вере, будет обращаться к ней именно в тех случаях, где ему более всего требуется разум.

▪️Гордость - это реакция человека на способность достичь чего то ценного. Это удовольствие, которое он получает от эффективности собственных действий.

▪️Облегчение страданий других не является первостепенной заботой человека. Предложение помощи другим - это не правило и не моральная обязанность, а жест великодушия.

▪️Для людей созидающих деньги не самоцель, они не представляют ценности сами по себе. Для них деньги — воплощение уверенности в том, что есть люди, не уклоняющиеся от обязательств, и верные принципам, лежащим в основе денег.

ЧТО Я БУДУ ПРИМЕНЯТЬ:
Буду учиться испытывать чувство гордости, когда буду достигать чего то значимого в бизнесе.

ЕЩЕ НА ЭТУ ТЕМУ:
Айн Рэнд «Ответы. Об этике, искусстве, политике и экономике»

Vvery little of it is rooted in reality, let alone reality as we now understand it in 2016. I could probably write a 10 page paper on everything she's gotten wrong and I'm only a third of the way through this, Rand's shortest book that I know of. The brain doesn't work the way she think it does. Morality doesn't work the way she thinks it does. Altruism and society doesn't work the way she thinks it does. Some of her axioms are ass-pulls and everything she says is laced with moralistic outrage.

Did not finish. Will not finish. I've read something like 200 books since I wrote that a third of the way through the book. It is such a low priority for me to read another word, even in the spirit of open inquiry, that ayn rand ever writes that I will never finish this book in this life. I guarantee it.

Whenever it comes to the morals and drive of a rational man, Ayn Rand displays elegant thinking and some sound arguments. It is a pity though that she fails to aknowledge that the objectivist ethics are perfectly compatible with altruism.

Despite her elegant thinking, most of the book is a collection of fallacious arguments: calls to common sense, composition fallacies, straw men, and the main reason for which I give such a bad rating to that book: the overuse of emotional language, which wouldn't be necessary had a proper demonstration of her ideology been provided.

There is some moral and ethical wisdom to pick from this book. Unfortunately, because of the lack of argumentation, the book can only serve previously-convinced Objectivists, and is convincing to others mainly through the flattery that sweeten some of its chapters.

**Altruism strawman**
Rand provides her own definition of altruism, and no proof that actual altruists (as a whole or even in part) agree to the definition she provides.
Since Rand doesn't provide proof, my own definition of altruism has just as much value as hers. Altruism *is* basically seeing your own interests in the interests of others (something that Rand claims to be the objectivist way of seeing things). It is believing that acting for the sake of others will bring you happiness (which is usually true, unless you are a sociopath).

**Sadly avoided subjects**
The subject of inheritance or family business is never discussed : it is, after all, unearned wealth distributed on a collectivist/racist basis (according to the philosophy developed in that book).

The subject of money is never discussed. Who provides the money(s) ? The logical conclusion from that book would be that money can be produced by anyone, and freely accepted or refused by anyone. It's unfortunate that the complex consequences of money being non-centralized, and of a government still existing, trading services for currencies of uncontrollable value, are never discussed...

**A society that cannot defend itself**
Ayn Rand isn't naive enough to be a pacifist. Her government must have the ability to defend itself, and have a military force. The financement of such organisation is defined in the book.
She however goes completely over the fact that, if the government cannot initiate force against its citizen, it has no right to force a citizen to participate in the military effort.

People who have enough wealth to profit from the freedom provided by such a government do have an interest in risking their lives to defend it...
What of the people who do not have the "capacities" required to succeed in a "free society" ? On what ground does Ayn Rand assume that such people wouldn't constitute the majority of her free society ? And if she doesn't, why does she believe that such people, who live in a rational society, yet who bear little to no interest in the survival of such society, would risk their life for its protection ? What kind of insanely high remuneration would a soldier get to convince him to defend the interests of others at the potential cost of his own life ?

**Inacurate assertions**
Whenever Ayn Rand tries to make comparaison with the animal reign (chapters 1 and 16), she only shows her lack of understanding of the cognitive mechanisms of both man and animal.
Which, fortunately for her, doesn't invalidate any of her claim: for better or for worse, these demonstration are never essential to Rand's points. It is however unfortunate that she loses so many pages on pointless and invalid demonstrations.

**Unbased assertions**
The arguments used by Rand are mostly unbased assertions. Sometimes, clearly false, otherwise possibly true, but not demonstrated.
We have two examples of that in chapter 16 :
- According to Rand, some 30 year old man may look old, because they've stopped thinking... thus their bodies grow old quicker. Rationally thinking, it is much more likely that such men have aged quickly because they've done much productive work, or because of a bad alimentation or lifestyle. Her assertion of "aging by stopping the process of thought" is less likely, and would require scientific proof.
- At page 144, Rand says that automatisation "increases the demand for labor, as well as in raising the general standard of living; that this is demonstrable theoretically and observable historically". No theoretical demonstration ensues (a couple of other assertions that cannot possibly serve as such), and absolutely no historical facts are quoted.

I picked this last example precisely because, in such a case, she may very well be right. It wouldn't surprise me. But it doesn't mean that we should just take her word for it: we need a demonstration, something that Rand often fails to provide throughout her book.

Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, is often misinterpreted and misused, without ever being studied or even read. Often, the argument is that 'capitalism' has failed, and therefore Rand's philosophy is a failure as well. This is a strawman argument at best. The Virtue of Selfishness, as provocative a title as the book may have, is a philosophical synopsis of the application of Rand's philosophy, objectivism; it is not Rand's philosophy in itself.
Those that have read Rand know that her writing style is straight-forward, holding no bars against those that she disagrees with while at the same time providing valid arguments in a clear and concise manner. The virtue of selfishness, to clarify, is the proposition that altruistic behaviors promote individual slavery to the masses, and that such slavery undercuts any social, intellectual or individual progress. For this reason, Rand is sometimes deemed a 'conservative', which is far from the truth. I would recommend this book, but with the suggestion that one read "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" first.

Ayn Rand is an event. She had one of the most astute and utterly confident minds of all time. Whether she's right about what she thinks is a different story. But make no mistake--Ayn Rand thinks about thinking. She is a true intellectual.

That said, I think "The Virtue of Selfishness" is not her strongest effort. For starters it has an uncharacteristically provocative title. Which is okay, but when a title is too sensationalistic (a la Ivan Boesky's "Greed is good.") I'm always skeptical. There are merits to the book, though. Anything written by Ayn Rand has substantial merits.

So is it good to be selfish? Read the book. (Just kidding.) Rand would say yes. But not simply or cavalierly but with sound reasons and substantial elaboration. Perhaps a better term for what Rand is calling 'selfishness' might be 'enlightened self interest.' But she's right on the money with much of her logic. In a chapter called "How does one lead a rational life in an irrational society" she examines the necessity to make choices that all people face and how to evade such responsibility is the true nature of evil. Her insights, as always, are razor sharp. For instance: "Indiscriminate tolerance and indiscriminate condemnation are not two opposites: they are two variants of the same evasion."

Rand addresses society's tendency to hold down, to make the hard-working, thinking, responsibility-taking person feel guilty, when in reality logic demands that the opposite should be the case. People should be proud of their efforts and what they've produced. Not say they are sorry for being a success. She is the ultimate free marketerian, believing a meritocracy is the only fair way of living in society.

She's a little myopic at times. In fact, her moral philosophy "objectivism" has not a few holes in it. But nevertheless her defense of her principles is based on reasons, not conjecture or belief. And I find that to be refreshing.

In her way she is a cheerleader for people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and make their lives happen. Witness this passage:

"Every achievement of man is a value in itself, but it is also a stepping-stone to greater achievements and values. Life is growth; not to move forward, is to fall backward; life remains life, only so long as it advances. Every step upward opens to man a wider range of action and achievement--and creates the need for that action and achievement. There is no final, permanent "plateau." The problem of survival is never "solved," once and for all, with no further thought or motion required. More precisely, the problem of survival is solved, by recognizing that survival demands constant growth and creativeness."

Have you worked hard to achieve something? Be proud of it. Were you well compensated for it? Enjoy it. You worked for it. You deserve it. This is Rand's philosophy, and if this is selfishness, than selfishness is indeed a virtue.

The Virtue of Selfishness as the title suggests, is not about selfishness in the way “we” generally think or practice the word— selfishness. We have a high tendency to form and adapt things according to us and thus, with time, similar has been done with the language and its use. Our tendency to shape things has no boundaries though. But a language do as well as the meaning of a word.

Ayn Rand was one of the most controversial thinkers and a successful fiction writer of 20th century. Her fiction mostly reflects her philosophy. Her fiction includes The Fountainhead & The Atlas Shrugged. I actually enjoyed reading The Fountainhead last year as well as her writing style. But there is more than just mere meaning of words in her wiring, and it’s called Objectivism, her philosophy. In considering that, I’d like to mention here, please keep in mind that the intellectual changes she observed and her vision of individualism may sound harsh and dogmatic currently but in her time, some parts of the western world were overwhelmed by communism and socialism. Although, majority of her philosophy is comfortably applicable to the current time period.

Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism is presented through her fictional works and all started with Anthem which is all about finding yourself in the heap of society. This continues and reaches its pinnacle in the form of Atlas Shrugged. The Virtue of Selfishness, a non-fictional work, is more a collection of essays explaining Objectivism in detail. In her essays, one can see her paraphrasing from her own work Atlas Shrugged.

This collection of essays represents a systematic and clear attempt to outline Rand’s philosophy. She begins by defining what are ethics?

It is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions— the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life.

She continues to correct her readers on the meaning of word “selfish” and compares/contradicts altruism along in most of her essays. According to Rand, the word “selfish” doesn’t represent the lack of concern for others, rather she argues:

Why do you use the word ‘selfishness’ to denote virtuous qualities of character, when that word antagonizes so many people to whom it does not mean the things you mean?”

To those who ask it, my answer is: “For the reason that makes you afraid of it. "

She is blunt and to the point from the start of the book and I like that. In recent times, I have read much books on different philosophies where the philosophers or the writer of that book would sometimes get carried away from the text.

The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word “selfishness” is not merely wrong: it represents a devastating intellectual“package-deal,” which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind.

Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests. This concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil; nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interests. It is the task of ethics to answer such questions.

After reading that, I think, the representation of the word “selfish” may need a re-evaluation and a moral way of using it. Her criticism represents a common theme, which can be found in her fictional works, where an immoral society though its particular interest is altruism, prevent individuals from succeeding and producing using their own effort and hard. She clarifies altruism:

Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. […] Hence the appalling immorality, the chronic injustice, the grotesque double standards the insoluble conflicts and contradictions that have characterized human relationships and human societies throughout history, under all the variants of the altruist ethics.

There is some amount of bluntness in her essays that may sound harsh to some but I think if you think rationally about the overall moral of her philosophy, it might appear more rational. That is the one basic theme of Objectivism, so far I have concluded and accepted, being rational. Her writing might suggest that individualism is the genesis of Objectivism, but I don’t wholesomely agree with only that. I’d make an addition to the genesis and conclude individualism of a rational being. I find this bridge between the two subordinates essential since it conveys a proper meaning. Another essential theme of Objectivism is the self-esteem to which Rand gives much emphasis.

There is always an exception and Rand has provided a whole essay it in which she suggests a pragmatic approach to be taken in the time of crisis in the form of actions for the welfare that will genuinely help others. This essay is an essential piece in the whole puzzle of Objectivism. She calls this crisis but I think we come across this “crisis” everyday, and cannot show a lack of interest in others since every one of us is not living separately and in solitude on an island with sand and coconuts. In this book, I observed that her focus is on the present and the reality of living as experienced by individuals and tries to provide a utility in form of her works.

Moving on, some of the essays in The Virtual of Selfishness are contributed by Nathaniel Branden, a psychotherapist, whom many acclaimed was her chosen heir. Since this is a non fictional work, I’d adhere myself from commenting on the writing style adopted by the author which is contrasting to that of her fictional works. My work is not done here, I’d have to dig more into her works or philosophy since I find a good deal of practical appeal associated with it.

If you are looking forward to read about Objectivism, or trying to get in the head of Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness is a good place to start.

4 out of 5!

I’ve never read anything by Ayn Rand, but I’ve found that I disagree with all of the people who are fans of Rand, so I wanted to read some of her stuff to see what it’s all about. I think it’s important to read books by people we disagree with to see what we’re missing or not understanding as well as to have a better idea of where they’re coming from. I’m a non-fiction reader, so I have very little interest in reading her insanely long works of fiction. I grabbed this book because the title obviously stands out, and it’s a collection of essays about her philosophy of objectivism and self-interest. I felt that this would give me a pretty good idea of what she was all about and the core aspects of the ideas fans of hers promote. But, I will definitely read some more of her non-fiction work to get a more rounded-view of her opinions and thoughts.

After finishing this book, I guess I’ll start off by saying that there are actually a few things I agree with. I’m a recovering drug addict, so I know the imporotance of personal effort and hard work. What I found was that there were many, but not all, sections on labor and economic ideas that I agreed with. For example, there’s an essay on our personal responsibility to not want to stifle technological advances just because we don’t want to learn new skills, and I definitely agree with that. But, as a whole, I’d say I maybe agreed with 20% of this book. As for the other 80%, I could write a 5,000 word essay about the various issues wiith the arguments in this book. The main issue is that when it comes to the arguments of morals and ethics, it starts from an incorrect premise that neglects evolutionary and moral psychology. From that bad premise, the book then goes on to say what’s rational and logical. When you have a bad premise that isn’t backed by science, you cannot then say what makes a person rational because it’s not based in reality. What I will do is give this book the benefit of the doubt because it was originally written in 1964 before a lot of the latest research was conducted. But for anyone who still holds these bad premises in 2021 that deny scientific evidence, there’s not really an excuse.

Do I recommend this book? Absolutely. There are a LOT of fans of Ayn Rand’s work, so it’s good to know what it’s all about. I do think some people can benefit from this in the same way they can benefit from some, not all, of Jordan Peterson’s work. Like they taught me in AA, take the best and leave the rest.