My advice would be to spend your time on a more useful endeavour...

Just noticed this in Johan Hari's column from today's Independent:

Trump probably won't become the Republican nominee, but not because most Republicans reject his premisses. No: it will be because he states these arguments too crudely for mass public consumption. He takes the whispered dogmas of the Reagan, Bush and Tea Party years and shrieks them through a megaphone. The nominee will share similar ideas, but express them more subtly. In case you think these ideas are marginal to the party, remember - it has united behind the budget plan of Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan. It's simple: it halves taxes on the richest 1 percent and ends all taxes on corporate income, dividends, and inheritance. It pays for it by slashing spending on food stamps, healthcare for the poor and the elderly, and basic services. It aims to return the US to the spending levels of the 1920s – and while Ryan frames it as a response to the deficit, it would actually increase it according to the independent Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. Ryan says "the reason I got involved in public service" was because he read the writings of Ayn Rand, which describe the poor as "parasites" who must "perish", and are best summarized by the title of one of her books: 'The Virtue of Selfishness.'

By the way, non-British readers may be interested to learn that this typical pinko liberal paper is owned by Russian multi-billionaire and former KGB officer, Alexander Lebedev. Isn't life confusing sometimes?
________________________________________

Now that Ryan has been picked as Romney's running mate, MoveOn have started plugging this story too. From the ten-point list in the mail I just received:

10. He thinks an "I got mine, who cares if you're okay" philosophy is admirable. For many years, Paul Ryan devoted himself to Ayn Rand's philosophy of selfishness as a virtue. It has shaped his entire ethic about whom he serves in public office. He even went as far as making his interns read her work.

I'm extremely glad that I re-read this. Though it was one of the first books on Objectivism that I read, and the material is completely integrated, it is astonishing just how powerful and clear her writing is, and how one can still find new things after all these years.

Muy buen libro. Que plantea la virtud de ser individualista y lo tergiversado que está el termino, siendo hoy día sinonimo de malvado en contra del colectivo social.

Fundamental la busqueda de la libertad para poder desarrollar al individuo que, en su progreso ayudará en definitiva a la sociedad.

Para terminar dejo una cita del libro que me pareció interesante.

"Ni la vida ni la felicidad pueden lograrse persiguiendo caprichos irracionales. Así como el hombre es libre para tratar de sobrevivir de alguna manera aleatoria, como un parásito, un mendigo o un saqueador, pero no lo es para alcanzar el éxito en su intento más allá del momento inmediato, también es libre para buscar la felicidad a través de cualquier fraude irracional, cualquier capricho, cualquier ilusión, cualquier torpe evasión de la realidad, pero no para tener éxito más allá del momento inmediato, ni para escapar a las consecuencias."

Whoosh. There are a lot of different ways to approach Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness. I'm bothered less by the fact that I don't share her opinions and more by her conceptual analysis. Basically, I don't think that a lot of the arguments in the book are well-reasoned or at least the implications of the view aren't carefully explored. Here goes.

Regarding Rand's understanding of selfishness and altruism, she takes ordinary language concepts (selfishness and altruism) and distorts them in such a way that they wouldn't be recognizable as a matter of ordinary language. So selfishness becomes 'rational self-interest,' where a person pursues his or her own goals and motivations rationally, and altruism means something like a complete neglect of self. This is not how these terms are used in the vernacular. There's no evidence that Rand has uncovered the 'true' meaning of these words, or what they would even mean to uncover the 'true' meaning of ordinary language concepts.

As for her history of philosophy, it's patently false. For example, she writes, "In the sorry record of the history of mankind's ethics--with a few rare, and unsuccessful, exceptions--moralists have regarded ethics as the province of whims, that is: of the irrational. Some of them did so explicitly, by intention--other implicitly, by default." Not true. Aristotle hardly thought ethics was about whims; rather, it was about developing character. Whatever you think of utilitarianism through the likes of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, their view was hardly based on whims; rather, they believed that ethics was subordinate to the principle that we ought to create the greatest good for the greatest number. Immanuel Kant thought the supreme principle of morality was treating human beings as an end in themselves, and not instrumentally, never as a means.

Rand never cites this ethical literature. Perhaps she is unaware of it, and in fact, her own philosophical position, unknowingly or knowingly, often parrots Kant! Rand claims her philosophy of egoism "holds that man is an end in himself" ... So did Kant's moral philosophy.

Rand also paints too broad a brush in thinking about ethics in its relationship to a person's society. For instance, she says that if a society held that we have a duty to help our fellow man or woman, we're a slave to a collectivism that subordinates the individual to society. But she also allows for individual charity and aids to others. She doesn't think about it this way: that it is possible for a society, i.e. a collective of individuals, to want to, voluntarily, aid others. It doesn't follow automatically that the people in that society are a slave to collectivism. They are, using Rand's idiosyncratic terminology, actually acting selfishly (even on her definition of the term). As Rand would say, if there's a contradiction, reexamine your premises. Rand often failed to examine hers.

#ريفيو_كتاب
#فضيلة_الأنانية
#الكاتبة_آين_راند
#عدد_صفحات_197
اهرب دائما من اي رجل يخبرك بأن المال ليس كل شيء و انه اساس المشكلات، فهذا يعني بأنك قد تتعرض الى السرقة و الخداع قريبا.

كثير من مجتمعاتنا تنبذ هذي الصفة (الأنانية) و ما ننظر لها بموضوعية أو نفسر لها معنى
فلسفة ال أنا و أخلاقياتها و تعامل البعض معها
بحثت الكاتبة عن تبسيط لها و تفسير فلسفي منطقي .
كثير ما نسمع شخص أناني بمعنى الكلمة و يحب ذاته و تثير العداء بأنفسنا هذي الصفة .
الكاتبة قامت بالتوضيح للصفة على مستوياتها للدولة و التعاملات مع الدول الجوار او سياستها الداخلية للأفراد و الطوائف و المجتمعات الأقليه

تعتبر الصفة خيراً اذا ما أستخدمت حسب القيم و الأخلاق الموضوعانية في الحالات العقلانية

الكتاب عبارة عن دراسة بالأخلاق و الفلسفة الموضوعية العقلانيه و توضيح الأفكار الرأسمالية و الأشتراكية و النازية
طبعا الكتاب يثير داخل النفس تسأولات كثيرة و أفكار غريبة اشوفها لكن منطقية واقعية لانه الكاتبة أستخدمت أدلة للتفسير
تبقى كل قارئ و قناعاته

Wanted to read some Ayn Rand as an honest counterpart to the Theory of Justice, by Rawls. So, I chose this small book. Surprisingly, the first part of the book contained some really good essays. Rand gets it right when she proposes that an individual has a duty, almost, to live their life to the fullest of their abilities - a confirmation of Aristotelian flourishing (also espoused by Rawls). But, she gets it horribly wrong when she thinks about the individual interacting within society. She demonizes altruism without understanding it - we're all in this together.

Beyond me how anyone can use her thoughts on society to guide then through life (that means you, Paul Ryan).

Aristotle once said "it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." There seems to be great danger in reading much of what the modern world calls a "classical philosophical education" without possessing the mind Aristotle praised.

I have a jumble of thoughts regarding this book and the philosophies contained within.

I find it rather appalling, from a faith based perspective, at the outright double speak in this book. It leaves me with little doubt as to why so many of my acquaintances are finding themselves completely confused and falling into varying levels of apostasy after having studied such books and philosophies.

I'm not and Egoist, or a Humanist. I'm a disciple of Christ. I follow His teachings to the best of my ability. And, therefore, I consider it to be alarming in the extreme to read some very thought provoking ideas, ideas that, on the surface, are good only to discover that the source of said ideas is not in harmony with the teachings of our Lord, but rather quite the opposite.

With that said there are a few things I want to remember:

I didn't like the fact that Rand quotes 2 sources: her own books Atlas Shrugged and Nathaniel Brandon, her co-editor. Nor did I like that she did a very thorough job of telling me all about how horrible Altruism is as a way to defend her own arguments in favor of Egoism. It seems that if Egoism is really all that great, it should be able to stand on its own philosophical merits.

I did find her commentary on "pleasure as escape" to be very interesting (chapter 6)

Her comments on "compromise" ring so true, the danger lies in what she defines as true or false, good or evil. Chapter 7

"Free speech - the right to advocate ones views and to bear the consequences." Chapter 12

"If a drought strikes them, animals perish. Man builds irrigation canals.
If a flood strikes them, animals perish. Man builds dams.
If a carnivorous pack attacks them, animals perish. Man writes the Constitution of the United States."

"When one abandons the will to think, one abandons the will to live." Chapter 15

She has brilliant thoughts regarding individual rights, civil rights and states' rights.

I've come to the conclusion that one should have a VERY solid foundation of one's own beliefs prior to the exploration of those who would preach the opposite.

This book summarizes Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. I really like many of the values Objectivism champions: reason, ethics, self-love, self-esteem, self-reliance, individualism, joy, and pleasure. But emphasizing these in absolute terms, as polar opposites to other qualities, creates a lot of problems.

Like most Western philosophers, Rand is a dualistic thinker, which I find simplistic. To her, value and morality are objective, inherent in human nature. There is Self and Other, Moral and Immoral, Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, and one should never hesitate to cast judgment on those who are Wrong, or compromise in the slightest bit on these fundamental values. Nations that are Right may invade nations that are Wrong, and impose their morality on that nation, because Wrong nations are outlaws. Of course, Ayn Rand is the authority on Right and Wrong, although this is neatly couched in the claim that her advocated morality is objective.

She seems to be reacting against a world that I'm unfamiliar with--a world divided between creative people who just want to do their thing, and parasites who just want to steal all their hard work. Fleeing as she did from Soviet Russia, I get this. So maybe I'm just a spoiled American, but I've never seen the world divided in this way. Ironically, most of the parasitism I'm aware of are by corporations, for which Rand advocates nearly zero regulation. Much of the property they steal or pollute is inherently communal, impossible to divide and protect in the way Rand advocates. Rand believes the only rights are individual rights, that there is no such thing as a collective.

Objectivism also distinguishes between selfishness and a hive mentality that she calls altruism. Maybe I'm being thrown off by the word "selfishness," which she admits she uses for shock value. She does believe in ethics, and says that selfishness would make the world a better place, though she never explains why in this book. But even with a strong code of ethics, focusing on self-interest misses out on the full possibilities of love and compassion, which can be learned and practiced, and encompasses and requires self-love. That is what altruism is for me. There are few places besides Rand's writing that I've seen altruism equated with self-sacrifice. How can someone be of service unless they have their own needs met and they find joy in it? Maybe that's all Rand is trying to say, but if so, then I admit I've misunderstood her, which is apparently common among her readers.

كتاب مثير للجدل، قد يستفز البعض، ويجده البعض مقنع ويستحق الإشادة

شَخْصِيًّا استطاعت آين راند إقناعي رغم أنني قد أختلف معها في بعض التفاصيل، ولكن في المجمل منطقها وعقلها يستحق الإعجاب

رغم أن الكتاب يتحدث عن الأنانية بعيد عن المفهوم الشعبي ويحولها لفكرة عقلانية ومنطقية، ولكني استطعت أن أفهم كيف نشأت فكرة الإيثار وبماذا يتصف من يتحلى بهذه الصفة، وجدت أنها قد تكون فكرة خطيرة وليست فضيلة بالضرورة خصوصا حينما يتم تبني هذا المفهوم دون وعي

كتاب يستحق القراءة بلا شك، خصوصا لأولئك الذين يقدسون فكرة الإيثار

There is a chapter in Victor Hugo's Les Miserables wherein he describes in acute detail the barren, cold chapel at the monastery, bereft of any material placement. The description was bleak and harsh.

That is how I would describe this book. Rand's cold, sharp, clinical approach towards man's motivations and existence leaves one cold. While she does have some points about the necessity of ego versus altruism, her position on the far edge of the spectrum is neither healthy or helpful.

This book gets two stars because the language is direct and clear. The message is brutal but it's definitely clear.

Ein Buch, das sehr wohl als ein Grundpfeiler von Ayn Rands Objektivismus angesehen werden kann. Anders als in „Atlas Shrugged“ geht es hier allerdings um eine systematische Darlegung von Rands Philosophie.

Zunächst das Gute: Ayn Rand schreibt sehr verständlich, sowohl in Englisch als auch in der deutschen Übersetzung. Als Kontrast zu machen philosophischen Klassikern definitiv ein Segen (auch wenn Philosophen daran Anstoß nehmen werden). Ab und zu kann man auch aus klassisch-liberaler und libertärer Perspektive gute Passagen im Buch finden – z.B. zur Außenpolitik oder der generellen Notwendigkeit einer moralischen Grundlage des Kapitalismus.

Damit hört das Lob aber auf. Ayn Rands Ethik ist von einer Hybris durchzogen: der Anspruch auf Objektivität, als läge sie ein naturwissenschaftsäquivalentes Moralgesetz nieder. Ich, als jemand der stark von Denkern wie Hayek oder auch Ernst Mayr geprägt ist, kann damit nur wenig anfangen.

Humes Gesetz (der Gegensatz von Soll und Ist) wird einfach beiseite gewischt: Es soll so sein, weil die Natur es notwendig macht (also weil die Natur «ist»). Erster Strike.
Der Vernunft räumt Rand regelmäßig eine große Bedeutung ein, nur um die inhärent menschlichen Grenzen der Vernunft zu übergehen oder gleich als irrigen Subjektivismus abzutun (ok, es ist Subjektivismus – subjektive Rationalität, um genau zu sein –, aber das ist nicht der Punkt). Zweiter Strike.
Ihr schlimmstes Vergehen aber ist, sich nicht von den szientistischen Idealtypen antiquierter Wissenschaftstheorien nach Plato, Aristoteles oder auch Kant (den sie lustigerweise verachtet) zu lösen und nicht anzuerkennen, dass es nicht „die Moral“ gibt, sondern dass Moral ein Produkt sozio-evolutionärer Prozesse ist. Dritter Strike.

Aus einer sozio-evolutionären Perspektive heraus ist das keine gute Philosophie, es ist einfach nur eine weitere Unterart falsch verstandener Moral als Idealtypus.