The best thought I embraced from this book was a simple, yet powerful, soundbite: "A plant will not destroy itself, but man will".

Towards the end of the school year, a couple of kids in class had some serious self-destructive behavior--not just your run-of-the-mill, "I didn't do my homework." I dropped math for the day and we had an outstanding class discussion about how a plant will grow around a rock to seek light, and that roots grow deep to seek water--doing everything it can to sustain itself.

The kids immediately made the connection that man allows his brain to act without rational thought and ends up destroying itself.

For that alone the book was worth it.

I could bear approximately 50 pages before giving up. I could do no more intellectual self-harm.

I didn't really get this book when I first read it, but having read it multiple time since, it's become like a bible. Rand outlines her Objectivist philosophy and explains the concept of rational self-interest. This book will turn you into an asshole once you read it, someone will smack you, you'll read it again, pick up the part everyone misses (about morality being intrinsic, not non-existent) and then you'll live a happier, more whimsical life.

2020-07-24 - The title of this book is a challenge. For sure. I remember seeing a paperback edition of this book around our house for years when I was growing up and thinking, "how could a book claim such a thing?' How could selfishness possibly be considered a virtue? I wasn't much of a reader at that point, so I did not even crack the cover.

But then I met a fellow student in college who was reviewing in the student newspaper the books by Ayn Rand that he was reading, including this one. I remember quite vividly agreeing with 80-90% of what he said Rand's books were saying, and thinking - WOW, this is powerful stuff. So powerful that I then took time out of my studies to read an essay or two in this outrageously titled book. Just as he said - great ideas, so in touch with reality, so little appreciated, so applicable for a better world for all. A clue to this book, but only a clue, for those who know something of the enlightenment ideas, especially the Scottish writers, think: "enlightened (long-term) self interest" when you read the word "selfishness."

Over the next 5-10 years I read all of this little book's powerful essays, as well as:
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal - which focused more on economics and history, much more in my area of expertise than the philosophy in this book.
The Fountainhead
Atlas Shrugged
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology
The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution
The Romantic Manifesto - partially
The Early Ayn Rand
Who is Ayn Rand?

Discussions of some hack &/or hatchet-job biographies of Rand.
Speeches and debates by some of her distinguished students/admirers.
"The Passion of Ayn Rand" by Barbara Branden
"Judgement Day" by Nathaniel Branden

Many, many more articles attacking her with bogus references or summaries, snide remarks, usually totally off the mark and highly error filled - so often and blatant that it sure seemed they could be purposely mischaracterizing her ideas.

The two biographies that came out almost simultaneously about 10 years ago -
- one very good by Anne Heller, "Ayn Rand and the World She Made" and
- the other by Jennifer Burns, "Ayn Rand: Goddess of the Market" - just a disaster, analysis-wise, but with some very good historical content (mostly revealing letters to Ayn Rand from her readers), which the Ayn Rand Inst. allowed her to discover from their archive (and denied to Anne Heller!!!). Despite the fascinating letters from fans, Burns' grave misunderstandings of Rand's ideas and the intellectual foundations of the enlightenment from which they gestated, make the book a very poor choice to understand Ayn Rand.

Since this book (The Virtue of Selfishness) is a collection of essays, it is much easier to approach and try out Rand's ideas. Highly recommended. So important for understanding many of the awful trends of the her day and even more so these days. Try the one titled "Racism" as just one timeless example, and see if you ever again think of that subject the same way you do now!

Don't let the title put you off - check out an essay or two - see what you THINK of Rand's actual ideas. How you FEEL about them may change too. But first, try to grasp the logic, and facts she presents and if they actually coincide with reality, or are just fantasy, or lies. You do the judging, after an honest exploration. Don't just prejudge with biased info.

نظرة بسيطة عن حياة المؤلفة: هروبها من بطش الاتحاد السوفيتي خانها حبيبها مع أحد طلابها بعدما وافقت ان تكوت عشيقة ثانية لرجل متزوج مهارات أجتماعية محدودة و لا تتقبل النقد. مهوسة بأفكار أدم سميث و نيتشة, ضد مبدأ الايثار شكلا و موضوعا.... و ماذا بعد !!!!!
راند ليست فيلسوفة و الموضوعانية ليست فلسفة بالأصل
"أين ريد حولت المفهوم الجمعي ل كلمة الأنانية المرتبطة بالمعنى السلبي لمفهوم ايجابي... و هذا يجعلك مرتبكا من مجرد العنوان "فضيلة الأنانية !!!

تدعو أين راند ان القيم الأخلاقية يتم أكتشافها عبر التجربة الأنسانية
و القيم الموضوعانية هي القيم الثلاث : العقل و الهدف و تقدير الذات
و فضائلها ثلاث: العقلانية, الانتاجية و الكبرياء

و هنا أقتباس يدل على تمحورها في الحياة المادية بوصفها العمل الانتاجي كالاتي: " هو الهدف الأساسي لحياة الانسان العقلاني و هي القيم المركزية التي تدمج و تحدد التسلسل الهرمي لجميع القيم الاخرى؛ و العقل هو المصدر و الشرط للعمل المنتج؛ و الكبرياء هي النتيجة..
و الفضيلة في ذلك ان العقلانية هي الفضيلة الأساسية للانسان ومصدر كل فضائلة الأخرى "

الغوص أكثر في فلسفتها مع اني لا اراها فيلسوفه حيث كل اساسيات التفكير نابعه من التمحور حول الذات و الاعتناء بالموضوع و تعتبر العاطفة هي أساس كل الشرور !!!!
و التناقض كذلك بالقول ان الانسنا يولد صفحة بيضاء من حيث قدرته على المعرفة و العاطفة و هذا متناقض علميا لأن الانسان كما يرث الصفات الجينية و الشكلية فهو كذلك يرث القدرات الادراكية و العاطفية و يتم تأسيسها من خلال رحلة تكوين الهوية.
و أقتناعها بان الشعور الميتافزيقي" الغيبيات" "ما هو الا لحظةراحة من حالة رعب مزمن"

حيث ذكرت السعادة من وجهة نظرها ان مفهوم الحياة مطلق في حد ذاته = ان السعادة الشخصية كأحد الأهداف القصوى = أن نشاط متابعة الاهدافو في حد ذاته الحفاظ على حياة المرء = و مكافئتها عي عاطفة السعادة

و في قناعتها بان المتعويين "أصحاب مذهب المتعة" و الايثاريين مفهوم السعادة لديهم يستلزم الأضرار بشخص أخر
من حيث المتعة= التضحية بشخص
الايثار= التضحية من أجل شخص

و الحل من وجهة نظرها ان الاخلاق الموضوعانية ان الخير الانساني لا يتطلب تضحيات بشرية و لا يمكن تحقيقة بالتضحية؛ و مبدأ التجارة هو المبدأ الوحيد لجميع العلاقات الأنسانية و الشخصية و الاجتماعية و الروحية و المادية !
طب بالذمة ده كلام!!!!!!

و في أطروحه مثيرة للفضول كذلك " لماذا فشل رسل الأنسانية اللاأنيانيين ذو الرغبة في تحقيق الأخوة بين البشر ؟!

ذلك لم يتحقق طالما حذف مفهوم عقلاني من سياق القيم و الرغبات و المصلحة الذاتية"

دليل بسيط ان الذي يتحدث ليس لديه ذرة ألمام بسياقات التاريخية للعالم و كيف تحدث الاشياء و يدعونها فيلسوفه !!

La primera mitad del libro es una completa obra maestra de filosofía, explicada desde la lingüística para evitar los malos entendidos y los sesgos cognitivos, la segunda mitad se pierde por completo el objetivo del libro y se convierte en una propaganda capitalista tirándole al comunismo en todo momento (sumamente decepcionante esa parte).

Rand and Branden put forth and elucidate perhaps the most fundamental of the Objectivist philosophical teachings: the virtue of selfishness. Perhaps the book being titled as such is a marketing gimmick, as selfishness per Branden and Rand is not at all similar to the childish narcissism many ascribe to it, but instead is a vision of rational, practical, and moral self-interest. Perhaps the most impactful essay of the bunch was the discussion of Objectivism's compatibility with Hedonism. To many critiques of Rand's objectivism, the equation of it to Hedonism is central. The hyper-rational paralleling of these two concepts often quickly discusses isolated concepts of Objectivist self-interest and equates them with 'by any means necessary' carnal pleasure-seeking. To "steel-man" this argument further, Rand's metaphysics, ethics, and epistemology being essentially one concept (as is discussed in "An Introduction to Objectivist Ethics") creates a fundamental problem: if what should be (ethics) and what is (metaphysics) are construed from the same concept (epistemology through reason), then there is no way to prevent the individual from deciding that reason dictates that he or she shall pursue whatever whims immediately desirable. What this argument fails to consider is the fact that emotion, pleasure-seeking, and other Hedonistic impulses are not guided by the fundamental concept of Rand's Objectivism - reason. Rand discusses the failure of this argument by clearly describing how happiness is not the purpose of ethics, but the standard. Additionally, the ways in which pleasure is pursued is invariably mired by emotions, which stand at odds with reason and are not actually an expression of individuality (as is essential for moral Objectivism), but instead as an expression of random, biological whims that are often a conglomeration of environmental and biological cues. An additional rejoinder Rand makes is that if desire is the "ethical primary," then one would have to accept the most inimical of all ideas, that being a contradiction. If each individual takes his or her individual desire as the ethical primary, then this would necessarily come into contradiction with that of others. This is not to say that Rand is concerned with an overarching collectivist agreement in what is good for all, but that if each individual whim is taken as the purpose of living, there would come a time when these ideas would come into conflict. An infinite number of ethical "goods" would proliferate, thus destroying the concept of objectivity. Rand instead puts forth the notion that acting in your own self-interest does neither includes the violation of the rights of others nor the sacrifice of others for an individual goal.

Only book I admire of Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand was not afraid of turning conventional wisdom on its head. For millennia, one of the few ethical principles that prevailed across cultures was the value of altruism, i.e. , giving up your life for the benefit of others. Rubbish, writes Rand.

Rand was as anti-community and pro-individual as anyone I have ever read. Adamantly opposed to coercive state and religious power, she built a philosophy, Objectivism, on rational thinking and reason. She became too dogmatic and rigid for my taste in later years; nevertheless, she has some very interesting things to say.

"Every human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others and therefore, man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself." I find this statement profound in its implications; if it were to be adopted everywhere, wars would cease. It's only because we have bought into the principle of sacrificing oneself for the greater good that armies can survive, yet the reason is so others can accumulate or obtain what you should be able to.

In her philosophy, the happiness of the individual is paramount. Religious types will find her philosophy more than unsettling, because as an atheist, she values the present and current life above everything else. Whether you like her or not, several of the essays are well worth the time to read, particularly "Collectivized Rights" and "Man's Rights." One's gut response is to say that she has rejected charity and helping others. Not at all. It's just that helping others should not be at one's own expense, e.g., spending a fortune to cure one's wife of a disease because the wife is important to oneself would fit nicely into her worldview. Love is entirely selfish.

An important book no matter where you stand.

This book once meant a lot to me. When I was 15. If anything written by Ayn Rand means a lot to you and you're not going through adolescence, you should be ashamed of yourself. Yeah, I know I sound like a self-righteous douchebag, but seriously. Give me a break.

Altruism ain't all its cracked up to be.

Although she tends to take things a bit too far, Rand touches on an often overlooked point of life: we are the ones best-equipped to care for ourselves. It is a wonderful and necessary aspect of humanity when we chose to show charity and care for others, but when is it appropriate to sacrifice ourselves for the well-being of another? You would jump into a rushing river to save your child, but would you do the same for an elderly stranger? A young stranger? An animal?

The question eventually becomes not where to draw the line but WHO draws the line. Government have sometimes appealed to altruism to foster policies that in fact were harmful to the populace. Who decides?

إما أني لم أكون قادرة على فهم الكتاب أو الترجمة لم تكن منصفة، لكن حقيقة لم أفهم الفكرة بوضوح