Utter rubbish! And I'm not categorizing it under "Philosophy" because it's not, nor is she a legitimate philosopher like some people fancy. She's a lightweight twit who fancied herself quite the intellectual, promoted some of the worst of human traits, championing them as great values, thus poising generations of future (modern) Republicans like Paul Ryan, who insists all of his staffers read her works as she is the Republican female Christ -- and yet she seems to represent the antithesis of virtually all Jesus Christ was alleged to have taught. But then so do virtually all modern Republican Neo-Conservative Evangelicals. They either have never read their holy book or don't give a shit. Rand? She doesn't give a shit. About anyone or anything, other than how she can best use them before disposing of them, so naturally her life was testament to that. And we hail this halfwit immoral cretin as some sort of philosophical genius. Let the laughter begin. For those who haven't asked a philosophy professor why she's not taught in any philosophy classes, after they get up from rolling on the floor with laughter and they see you're actually serious, they sigh for the hundredth time and then try to briefly explain exactly WHY she's not taken seriously as a philosopher, along with others whom many more might view as legit (like Camus, who had more brains in one foot than she did in every gene in her body or alleged brain). So too, ask a philosopher rather than a "mere" philosophy professor, and virtually all will react the same way. However, that's frankly neither here nor there. When I get to her "philosophical" works, I'll trash them even more and might actually resort to some responses more in line with philosophical reasoning than simply doing what I am here and asserting she's a nasty, immoral, transparent, narcissistic nitwit, sort of a female pre-Trump. Thinks they're geniuses and are too stupid to know they are nor that most people are laughing at them because they aren't, instead of laughing WITH them. It takes a certain kind of stupid, and she had it in spades. Not recommended to use as fire fuel. Not recommended for anyone, ever. Unless you're an ambitious, ruthless, nationalistic fascist autocrat. So considering the events of the past decade, I guess she DOES have a bit of an audience, sadly...

when one is asked: “Surely you don’t think in terms of black-and-white, do you?”—the proper answer (in essence, if not in form) should be: “You’re damn right I do!”
Page 79.

Genuinely infuriating to read, so much so that I wrote a review explaining what I think is wrong with Rand's thought but it would barely fit the Goodreads character limit. Won't publish until I've given it some more thought (and I'm honestly not sure who would want to read it), but can be summed up by the following:

"To be an Objectivist, it seems, means to be a historian oblivious to history, a philosopher brutalising analytic concepts, a psychologist ignorant of psychological research, yet to be infatuated with your own rationality and wisdom, to pride yourself on being an intellectual elite to such an extent that all you will do is engage in your own hagiography."

A prententious way of saying: I think Rand and Branden are frauds. They make awful, absurd, contrived and cruel claims. In this respect, they're innovators of the right-wing, faux-intellectual "facts-and-logic" shtick we're now plagued with.

Read Against the Web: A Cosmopolitan Answer to the New Right or Give Them an Argument: Logic for the Left for concise explorations of why we shouldn't take these people seriously; better yet, steer clear of them entirely.

Wow. This book is so simple and so challenging at the same time. I found myself agreeing with this more times than I wanted to. Next time you’re looking for something to bring to the beach… take this little work of philosophy. You’ll leave a different person (and remember to reapply every 2-3 hours).

Viena iš knygų, kurias iki galo suprasti, matyt, reikia perskaity daug kartų. Kaip romanų rašytoja- super, bet kai bando perkelti tai į politinį lauką - tampa dar viena politikė, bandanti pritempti tiesą prie savo individualizmo postulatų.

It's fitting that Rand's non-fiction reads like an advertisement for Atlas Shrugged; she is the ultimate capitalist after all. This is the lowest score I've yet given a book on this website; it's rare that I can't find something of significance to appreciate in any of the books I read. Although Anthem was a semi-interesting (if hackneyed) entertainment for an afternoon, this essay collection is as bad as it gets. Supposedly a scholarly work of philosophy, this book has inspired many people (some of whom I admire), but I found the shrillness which Rand employs in her "reasoning" is matched only by her supreme arrogance.

I don't think anybody could convince me that selfishness is a virtue (certainly not Ayn Rand). Her defenders point out that the title is a misnomer of sorts; they point out that it is "rational self-interest" not selfishness. Personally, I find it embarrassing that so many intelligent people are taken in by her dismissal of altruism; as Gore Vidal rightly points out in his shrewd essay on Rand, the fact that an author who blatantly preaches "every man for himself" is so popular says quite a bit about our society. The odd thing about Ayn Rand is that many of her chief followers are religious (Glenn Beck for example); apparently many would be Objectivists only read the sections on looking out for # 1 and how being egotistical is the only way to lead mankind to advancement, while ignoring Rand's militant atheism. This would imply that even her followers can't stomach some of her opinions. As for me, I found morally repugnant ideas on nearly every page. I don't attack Rand for being secular (there's nothing wrong with that); rather I attack the hypocrisy of her statement that religion imprisons man in dogma, but then goes on to state a "philosophy" that is not only immoral, but equally dogmatic (if not more so) as she is highly dismissive of any views except her own, without any desire for a serious, open discussion. For someone who valued "reason" so much, it's odd that this book is so dense with logical fallacies and reasoning that is, at best, fuzzy and, at worst, ludicrous. Finally, the writing style she employs here is shrill and irritating, hardly appropriate for any "scholarly" work; also, she constantly italicizes arbitrary words, which give the impression of a parent lecturing a particularly dim-witted child.

In closing, I must say that I couldn't recommend this book to anybody that believes in the importance of charity and generosity, is religious or is annoyed by banal and sanctimonious attacks on religion's worst aspects while ignoring any positives, enjoys good prose and/or has left leaning opinions. For everybody else...

I really expected a more sutainable argument from this book. However, right from the first couple of pages there are some serious red flags; the false premise that:

*Humans live in a vacuum (no interconection) (Levels of selfulness).

*There is a predefined theory of deserving. Who deserves what?

The book also predefines the concept of 'sacrifice'. Altruism as improving someone else's life does not necessarily mean abjection of my own good. What if giving without harming myself rewards me in terms of life expectancy, which in turn fulfills my "selfulness" and therefore my own survival?

Moral obligation to help someone? In terms of survival? Yes. If it is the case that empathy was what we were equipped with from birth (unnecessary for many born with sociopathic traits). Yes. Everything we do, we do it for ourselves. Even helping others. Because that is the only way in which we can continue in perpetuity as a species. So even in that case, Ethical Altruism (where there is no partition of oneself /let us define it) is necessary for the survival of humans.

[11/22/2017]

I hope to write something about this later. Until then, my 1 star rating will have to suffice to say what I thought of her book.

[update 3/13/2020]

Given the reasons I chose to read this book (to step outside my ideological box), the copious amount of notes I took while reading it, the reputation Ayn Rand has among American conservatives, and the fact that I only gave it 1 star, I feel a need to write something in review of it. But I do not feel up to anything comprehensive. I did read the book, contrary to what that funny troll asserted, and I trust this will be self-evident from what follows. So, finally, two+ years later, here is my review. It's just a few critical notes, but I hope it provides some original-ish analysis:

1) Rand is aware of the existence of power-hungry people who will use political systems to their own benefit, but she seems oblivious to the possibility that a society based on "objectivism" (her philosophy) is as vulnerable to such opportunists as are the socialist societies she soundly criticizes. Her clear failing in this regard is a good lesson to thinkers of any persuasion.

2) Rand is anathema to the idea of cultural or moral relativism. Like so many critics of relativism, she defines it by its extreme implication: a nihilist denial of transcendent values and the placement of all viewpoints on equal moral footing. Relativism's more practical implication of exercising humility, however, is its most salient one. If viewpoints are situated within specific cultural contexts, the assessment and criticism of other viewpoints requires a near-constant assessment of one's own biases and assumptions. Humility, notably, is a trait sorely missing from her writing and her objectivist philosophy.

3) She uses the word "hooligan" far too often to keep hold of any claim to objectivity.

4) "The United States was the first moral society in history..." This should win a trophy for ridiculous utterances. The whole of US history is evidence to the contrary. There is also evidence in US history to support it, however the same evidence exists in every society. A more accurate, although just as useless, statement would be that "The first society in history was the first moral society in history."

I can appreciate Rand's attempt to present a coherent, complete philosophy for "man" to live by in the age of European totalitarianism, to come up with a simple answer to Communism that goes beyond the passiveness of just being an answer. But Ayn Rand is lost, in over her head, and willfully ignorant not only of the weaknesses of her own assumptions but also of the motivations, strengths and (apparently) even the factual assertions of her philosophical competitors. Her fans seem to be no different. I don't think there is anything I can say that a Rand fan couldn't chalk up to the fact that I accept that altruism is moral and, concomitantly, that selfishness is immoral. (You can't play ball with someone who won't enter the court and is content to just bad mouth you from the stands.) My belief that altruism is good doesn't preclude my recognition that selfishness can also be put into the service of good, nor seeing that we are all selfish sometimes in some situations regardless of our beliefs, nor admitting that altruism can sometimes have results we don't expect or want. I also don't claim to be able to define selfishness or altruism for all people everywhere throughout time. That's the benefit of relativism: recognizing the limits of one's own understanding. I think her philosophy would benefit from a better familiarity with other philosophies and cultural beliefs. Ironically, shes eschews this practice from the start.

Yikes no

نمی دونم واقعاً اگر همه این گونه بشوند دنیا چگونه می‌شود ولی مهم نیست، من این گونه میشوم

Capitalism is the system of future as it has never been completely implemented not even in America. Hard to believe??
Read through!!
When something takes you to the path of altruism. I love it.
No philosopher has given a rational, objectively demonstrable, scientific answer to the question of why man needs a code of values. Even the greatest of all all philosopher, Aristotle did not regard ethics as an exact science.
As per this novel, today as in past, most philosophers agree that the ultimate standard of ethics is "whim" and the battle is only over the question or whose whim: one's own or society's or the dictator's or God's. For some its merely a subjective issue and that the three things barred from its field are" reason, mind, and reality.
The capacity of experience pleasure or pain is innate in a man's body; it is part of his nature, part of the kind of entity he is. He has no choice about it, and he himself experience the physical sensation of pleasure or of pain. There is standard and that is "life".
Consciousness for those living organisms which possess it is the basic means of survival. For man, it is reason. Every "is" implies an "ought". The three cardinal values of the objectivist ethics-the three values which, together, are the mans to and the realization of one's ultimate value, one's own life are: Reason, Purpose, Self-Esteem, with their three corresponding virtues: Rationality, Productiveness, Pride.
The achievement of his own happiness is man's highest moral purpose.
Today, if civilization is to survive, it is the altruist morality that men have to reject.

Ayn Rand's ideas about owning oneself, and choosing action over self-victimization, are certainly concepts society should consider more often, and more seriously. We do live in a world of complainers, of people who are hell-bent on accusing external factors for just about every failure (and maybe even every success they deem inadequate). When things don't go our way, it's the government's fault, it's the education system's fault, or maybe we were simply given a bad deck of cards. Either way, we were set up for failure and our shortcomings and dissatisfactions have been written in the stars. This, although potentially true, is lazy thinking. One might be better off deciding that blaming external factors is unproductive (even!! if they deserve it) as opposed to figuring out the next step towards achieving control, success, satisfaction, etc. I also found her ideas about moral standards in society being set in favour of those in power and in disfavour of the people interesting.

Although I agree with a lot of what Ayn Rand says, her points are rather vague, redundant, and oversimplified. Many of her ideas are parallel to stoicism but lazily told, almost sacrificing the strength of her arguments for angst. Yes, "The Virtue of Selfishness" is (in my opinion!!!) very angsty, and this was something that especially discouraged me from reading it. Another reason I didn't like this book too much was simply Ayn Rand's writing. Her writing is complex without her saying anything worthy of complexity, making it dull and... dareisay... pretentious. Now, I am not anti-pretentious or anti-angst but such a combination is a hit-or-miss.

I wouldn't necessarily recommend this book to anyone, as I think there are much more organized, thorough texts out there that cover the same ideas in a much more uh... "professional"?? way. This hasn't been a regrettable read, but I can't say it is one I think I will remember.

¡Queda claro que defiende el egoísmo cuando las únicas obras que cita son sus otros libros y sus artículos en revistas! Hablando en serio: encuentro difícil reseñar un libro así porque obliga a enfrentarse a cuestiones cotidianas en las que la ira te obliga a darle la razón, particularmente en las que tienen que ver con el individuo como pieza fundacional y fundamental del resto de estructuras; por otra parte, estoy de acuerdo con ella y el coautor en su antirracismo y el rechazo a las tiranías. Pero en la cuestión económica no puedo estarlo, y en las consecuencias de llevar sus ideas hasta el final tampoco, que jugué los tres BioShock y termina muy mal.

Es una obra que, si la hubiera leído de joven junto con las de Friedrich Nietzsche (al que la autora acusa de extremo por pasional y desmedido) y Jean-Paul Sartre, habría encontrado fácil de aceptar y enmarcar en mi cabeza; sin embargo, me coge mayor y con otras lecturas y vivencias que hacen que no esté de acuerdo con algunas de sus líneas maestras. Por ejemplo, defiende la tabla rasa en contraposición a la idea de que el comunismo pueda llegar a heredarse por condicionamiento, pero ambas cosas quedaron desmontadas en The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (otro libro valiente); por otra parte, su defensa a ultranza del individualismo y el egoísmo en contraposición al altruismo como creador de esclavitud moral desconoce el mero concepto de sistema o la creación de sinergias como resultado de la cooperación; si no, que se lo digan a los organismos procariotas de los que descendemos.

Sinceramente, creo que el mundo es mucho más complicado de lo que la autora previó, y sospecho que su juventud en la dictadura soviética forjó gran parte de su pensamiento en contraposición a sus vivencias; mi experiencia me dicta que intentar tener pensamientos sociopolíticos cuando sientes mucha ira causa sobreproducción intelectual e ideas poco maduras y contextualizadas.

Por otra parte, ¿quién soy yo para criticar la obra de una reputada filósofa? En realidad solo quiero decir que hay una mitad de su pensamiento que me parece bien, pero una mitad con la que me costaría horrores ponerme de acuerdo salvo que me convirtiera, a los ojos de mi yo actual, en un monstruo. Y por ahora no va a pasar.

Es un libro muy valioso, pero también es de esos que no le daría a cualquiera: se les pueden ocurrir cosas raras. ¡Para esto sí me siento egoísta!