Esta clase de libros es de esos que uno puede juzgar por su nombre equivocadamente. Hay muchas personas por ahí convencidas de que el egoísmo es el término de la virtud y es entonces donde deciden no tomar en cuenta un libro como este, donde se hacen declaraciones acertadas, no sobre el egoísmo, si no sobre el ser humano y su manera de vivir. Muchos pueden refutar este libro, yo entre esas personas, donde una serie de pensamientos me parecen muy estrictos e inflexibles, haciendo del objetivismo una corriente filosófica rígida, sin embargo, sus bases me parecen sólidas y acertadas como argumentos en algunas discusiones en donde uno cree que por hacer altruismo se tiene el cielo ganado.

Este ha sido un libro intrigante, es entretenido en demasía y sin duda alguna Ayn fue una mujer con unas convicciones muy fuertes, bien fundamentadas. No se trata necesariamente de tomarse este libro tan a pecho, ni de hacerlo de tu biblia de moral, pero si puede ayudar a las personas a ser más abiertas y más conscientes de que encargarse primero de uno, no es necesariamente el peor pecado del mundo (porque vaya que sobran personas que dejan sus intereses y deseos hasta el final).

Dice Ayn que el egoísmo se trata de usar la razón, de tomar decisiones basadas en la inteligencia, no en deseos o chiflazones. Y yo creo, que en eso si tiene razón.

Rand's points often seem interesting except for one huge logical flaw that will well up and ruin her whole argument. Her enormous arrogance often gets in the way as well. A useful philosophy to follow if you believe that you are smarter than everyone else and that only your own happiness really matters in the end.

More like a Conservative Doctrine, than what the title of the book suggests. "Mind your own business" , literally.

How many books and movies have moved audiences by portraying a character who, struggling with persistent unhappiness, is pushed by their despair through to the realization that they’ve been living their life for another’s dream? That they married the man their parents wanted them to marry, even if they didn’t love him — that they became lawyers or doctors because their mom wanted them to, instead of pursuing their own dreams? The essential lesson there, the importance of honoring our inner being — our Self — is one we remind ourselves of frequently. It is in that vein that The Virtue of Selfishness puts forth a case for living in the honest pursuit of rational self-interest.

Like many readers, my initial reaction to Rand’s philosophy of ‘selfishness’ was one of surprise and contempt; based on the connotation the word carries in most cultures. My interest in Man vs State stories led me to her fiction, however, and somewhere amid the argument between Roark and Keating I found myself admitting that I’d misjudged her. Her ideas were far more substantial than expected; so too this title, which serves as a general introduction to Objectivism as a whole. She begins by establishing the importance of philosophy — particularly, epistemology and ethics, or how we come to find out what is true, and how we use it to guide our actions. Ethics, she argues, is not an artifact of human civilization, a code of behavior to keep unruly bipeds in crowded conditions from destroying one another, but the very genesis of progress. Reason is the great tool given to man by nature, our answer to the whale’s size and the tiger’s claws; without its consistent use to suss out the Truth and then act according to its dictates (ethics), we would amount to nothing but less hairy and more angsty apes.

An individual can think, conclude, and act. ‘Society’, being an abstract concept, a name for a collection of individuals, cannot. Rand therefore bases her worldview on the smallest concrete subject possible: the Individual. The Virtue of Selfishness is not a rationalizing defense for bad behavior, but rather defends the integrity of the self and reason against impulse, collectivism, and the ‘altruistic mentality ‘ — the latter being the habit of regarding one’s own existence as meaningless except when engaged in self-suppression on behalf of the tribe or even strangers. Other people do not justify your existence, Rand writes; there is no lasting meaning in identification with tribes, no reliability in following their whims. Joy is achieved through an individual’s dogged pursuit of excellence, through their successes in triumphing over challenges and their own impulses through clear thinking and hard work.

From here, Rand surveys the health of the Individual in the mid-20th century and finds it in very poor health indeed, nearly as oppressed by traditionalism, authority, and irrationality then as it was in previous dark ages. As belief in the old gods faded, the new god of the State and its collective lifeblood, The Nation, took the stage — and the new gods were far more potent than the old, coopting the tools of progress to serve instead the cause of decay. The Universities, too, having once been beacons of light allowing for the conquest of darkness, had fallen prey to postmodern confusion — and turned against the individual, especially the free exchange of economic energy between people that allowed the west to eclipse its own productivity decade after decade.

There is a savage and hard beauty in Rand’s writing, like the lines of a battleship. Far from catering to the worst of the human spirit, self-indulgence, Rand calls the Self forth to battle, summoning the best in us. Her Virtue demands the best from us — sharp thinking, hard work, constant self-evaluation. Her worldview is admirably integrated; the more I read her nonfiction, the more I realize it’s all of a piece. Even as I argued with her in my head (attempting to reconcile individualism and evolutionary psychology, as well as debating the role of the ego in well-being), I can’t help but admire her strength and consistency. She is shocking, but throws a cold and clear light on the world and I find that perspective illuminating despite its shadows.

Current plan: to continue reading Rand’s nonfiction, and then offer a response to her worldview including my reservations. Philosophy: Who Needs It will be next, followed by The Romantic Manifesto.

Ayn Rand was once asked if she could present the essence of her philosophy while standing on one foot. She answered: Metaphysics: Objective Reality; Epistemology: Reason; Ethics: Self-interest; Politics: Capitalism. I first encountered Ayn Rand through her works of fiction as a young woman barely out of my teens. Back then I was already an atheist, one with a great belief in science and reason. There was nothing in her "metaphysics" or "epistemology" that I found the least bit surprising or controversial--indeed in essentials I already agreed with her. Her ethics and her politics were a different story. I remember reading Atlas Shrugged and thinking "you crazy bitch." But she did touch off a revolution in my thinking, changing me from a liberal to a libertarian.

Do I agree with everything within these pages? Well, let's say there is still much of it where I have doubts, and where I feel uneasy about her tone if nothing else. She wrote in the book:

I hear once in a while: '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'

That's rather a slap at the reader and her opponents. Yet having read her books, even without her elaborating, I knew what she meant. Or thought I did. That people do fear selfishness as an ideal. Make no mistake--this is a demanding ethic. It requires integrity, to never fake reality. To never let your weakness stand as a plea for the unearned. It doesn't allow you to cover up a lack of self-worth by being subsumed by being part of a "greater" whole.

At the same time--and this is more a matter of tone than substance--I do think Rand undervalues benevolence, kindness, generosity. I found I liked better Spinoza's formulation of the question of ethics. Spinoza, like Aristotle (and Rand), emphasizes that ethics is about human flourishing and happiness. But what I like about Spinoza is his emphasis on reciprocity and empathy--in other words, the Golden Rule that has been a near universal in moral thinking from Confucius to Jesus: “Every man should desire for others the good which he seeks for himself.” Spinoza recognizing humans flourish best with other humans argues it’s in a person’s self-interest, and makes a person happiest, when consequently people “are just, faithful, and honourable in their conduct.” I like that squaring of the circle of selfishness and altruism--which I think Rand too easily dismisses. But you know, were it not for Rand bringing philosophy alive to me and convincing me it's important I would never have read Aristotle--or Spinoza.

‘The Virtue of Selfishness’ is a collection of essays, written by Ayn Rand and her intellectual protégé Nathaniel Branden. To say that the two figures enjoyed a peculiar relationship would be an understatement; not least due to the fact that Nathaniel changed his surname to include ‘Rand’ in homage to his mentor, but also because the two engaged in an extramarital affair, which their respective spouses had full knowledge of and were compelled to give consent to.

Apart from their shared convictions, when reading their polemics on ethics consecutively, you get a sense of a common temperment between the two; an intransigent fervour for the creed they are espousing. Ironically, whilst they take turns in decrying what they percieve to be the perniciousness of Western morality - which encompasses Judeo-Christian ethics, and more specifically, the concept of altruism - their vehement rhetoric bears all the negative characteristics of the more extreme ideological elements they claim to be denouncing. For instance, at times their proselytising of Objectivism has an unmistakable ring of dogmatism to it in the way one would condemn a lay preacher for.

The repetitive and mirrored use of derisive terminology at times reads like two cult leaders tag-teaming it at the lectern. They brazenly assert what falls into their dichotomy of good and evil, and there can be no in-between - they extrapolate the very worst from something, and hold it up as an example as that which represents the thing in its entirety. Aside from the straw-man, also prevelant is a liberal use of the ‘either/or’ fallacy; also known as bifurcation - the distillation of complex subject matter, whereby innumerable factors require consideration, into a binary one-or-the-other ultimatum. This tactic is employed ad nauseam.

Throughout the book we are told that man’s unique, involiable asset is his mind and his ability to use reason and logic to determine his own existence. Man is an end in and of himself, and not a means to someone else’s end; meaning that man is not a sacrificial animal to suit society’s desires. These are some of the premises that I can agree with; especially in the case of mandatory conscription let’s say, which I would consider to be an unequivocal infringement of one’s individual rights. To be sure, there were many intruiging arguments put across in this book, some I would have to really scrutinise and deliberate upon further before I wholeheardly accepted.

I found the latter half of the book much more appealing with regards to the topics of individual rights, the optimal role of government and fiscal policy. Furthermore, some of Rand’s commentaries on the subject of racism bear an uncanny prescience and relevance to our current state of affairs; particularly her prognostications on the divisiveness of identity politics. It was in these chapters that I could enjoy the lucidity of Rand’s arguments; the strength and cogency of her deducements shine; and moreover, benefit from a noticable absence of the hitherto more loaded rhetoric in previous chapters. Overall, ‘The Virtue of Selfishness’ was an intellectually stimulating and enjoyable read. Despite the fact that I disagreed with many of Rand’s/Branden’s propositions, I still appreciated the acuity of intellect that has gone into it.

3.5 stars

In reading this book, my objective was to objectively evaluate objectivism. The author made that task difficult to impossible. Rand impedes evaluation of the objectivist doctrine by presenting it in a manner that consists largely of emphatic declarations, straw man arguments, false dilemmas, misrepresentation or exaggeration of alternative viewpoints, and ad hominem attacks. Unfortunately, this is a distraction to aspects of objectivism that might be credible and that could contribute to a productive debate on ethical philosophy, or what she dubiously calls the “science of ethics.”

Objectivism, sometimes referred to as ethical egoism, is the doctrine that everyone ought to act to maximize his or her own interests exclusively. Some would say all behaviors are ultimately motivated by self-interest anyway (psychological egoism), but Rand rejects this idea. To be clear, the objectivism brand is not one of selfishness for immediate gratification, but a long-term self-interest that might include reciprocal behaviors and generous acts such as caring for the welfare of loved ones because they contribute to your happiness. As she states, “…the actor must always be the beneficiary of his actions and that man must act for his own rational self-interest. But his right to do so is derived from his nature as man and from the function of moral values in human life—and, therefore, is applicable only in the context of a rational, objectively demonstrated and validated code of moral principles which define and determine his actual self-interest.” But the rub is getting to the “rational, objectively demonstrated and validated code of moral principles.” I saw little in this work that would get us there or help us to act as rational agents able to cross a river of cognitive barriers to get to that end. In fact, this book seems to be evidence that we can’t get there in a rational and objective way.

An example of this is her selection of the title “The Virtue of Selfishness”. In the Introduction, she admits that she selected this title knowing it would be provocative and goes on to say that people (presumably all those rational agents) don’t understand what selfishness means, stating that the dictionary definition of selfishness is, “concern with one’s own interests.” Cross-checking this with Merriam-Webster, the current complete definition is: “A concern for one's own welfare or advantage at the expense of or in disregard of others; excessive interest in oneself.” Other dictionaries and Wikipedia include the same contingency about excessive self-interest and disregard for the interest of others. Following this, she goes into a tirade, complaining that the concept of selfishness is viewed by the liberal public in some judgmental sense, while the whole time she makes snarky judgments herself. In one passage, she even lashes out at 1960s dancing: “Observe, in this connection, the modern ‘beatniks’—for instance, their manner of dancing. What one sees is not smiles of authentic enjoyment, but the vacant, staring eyes, the jerky, disorganized movements of what looks like decentralized bodies, all working very hard—with a kind of flat-footed hysteria—at projecting an air of the purposeless, the senseless, the mindless.”

What is lacking in Rand’s description of objectivism is a dispassionate explanation of the structure of the philosophy, and instead offers what comes off as a contemptuous political polemic.

A philosophical treatise on individual rights, beginning from fundamentals such as whether we need values, the definition of value, and the core value of life and a defense of the right to life. From that right come all other rights, such as the right to liberty and property. Individuals must deal with each other respecting those rights, i.e., through trade and never coercion or theft, with the role of government being only to protect those rights; there is no other morally justifiable way to live.

Recently Right to Education was enacted and intellectuals hailed it as a major success of Indian democracy. As the Indian Govt paves the way for Right to Food Act, I see that there is an increasing need for more people to read this book and realise what they are witnessing is not the victory of Indian democracy over poverty and hunger, a victory of the principles of modern day altruism, the success of government over economic ills.

What we are seeing is the constant abdication of private rights to the ruling minority. What we are witnessing is constant flouting of the only two rights that any citizen must have - Right to private property, and right to free trade.

India is trudging downhill with increasing economic regulation and moral depravity. And yet our unfocused collective eyes see only perceived success.

A must read for those who are young and conscientious.

Want a good laugh?

Read 'The Argument From Intimidation,' the final essay in THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS, then read just about any of the one-star reviews here in which readers offer their 'rebuttals' of Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy. You will notice the vast majority of 'critiques' are filled with such witticisms as "If anything written by Ayn Rand means a lot to you and you're not going through adolescence you should be ashamed of yourself."

This is precisely the kind of meaningless drivel that Rand so astutely predicts in response to her works- totally devoid of any factual analysis, heavy on self-righteous posturing and Begging the Question.

This book is a must read for anyone with an open mind who has the mental capacity to understand that selfishness doesn't necessarily mean "I've got mine and screw everyone else." Highly recommended.

О ужас! Сделайте меня это развидеть! :) Если это "философия" (да ещё и "объективизма"), то тогда я - Папа Римский! Если даже это и философия, то "ключница делала" :((

1. Это не философские тексты, а пропаганда (ну или публицистика-эссеистика в лучшем случае). В текстах слишком много эмоций (особенно ненависти к инакомыслящим), и слишком мало строгой логики.

2. Главная авторская идея проста как 2х2 : эгоизм (и основанный на нём капитализм) - это хорошо (этично), а альтруизм (и основанный на нём социализм любого толка) - это плохо и безнравственно.

Все авторские доказательства этого тезиса можно свести к одному главному: "Это так (и это хорошо), потому что я (эгоист) так думаю, и потому что это хорошо для меня". Круг, как говорится, замкнулся :(( Какой уж тут "объективизм" :(.

По сути это какой-то подростковый чёрно-белый максимализм (если не сказать радикализм). Где автор с пеной у рта отстаивает только свою точку зрения и игнорирует противоположную точку зрения. Дело обстоит ещё хуже: Айн Рэнд сама конструирует-сочиняет некий "ужасный альтруизм", а потом вовсю лупит по этой ею же созданной иллюзорной мишени. Как-то тупо и не остроумно :((

3. Это очень жёсткий подход в логике "или/или" ("или радикальный эгоизм - или лживый альтруизм"), и полное неприятие подхода "и/и". На самом деле даже на уровне биологии (этологии; социобиологии) "азбучной истиной" является факт, что для лучшего выживания вида нужно И эгоистическое, И альтруистическое поведение; что в любой популяции есть И эгоисты, И альтруисты и т.д.

Мало того, в реальном мире провести границу между "делаю для себя" и "делаю для других" практически невозможно. Любой эгоист социален и социализирован, и ни в одном обществе (или стае) невозможно выжить, если не "отдавать" (т.е. если не быть альтруистом). Разумный эгоизм: делать хорошо себе, но с учётом интересов других людей, и так, чтобы было хорошо не только мне, но и окружающим. Но для Айн Рэнд версия такого "разумного эгоизма" слишком мягкая; в ей понимании "правильные" эгоисты как-то всё больше смахивают на помесь социопата с социофобом :))

4. В целом авторский конструкт "эгоизма" - это классический пример сферического коня в идеально чёрном вакууме. Один (тоже фиговый философ))) верно заметил: "Жить в обществе и быть свободным от общества нельзя".

Рэнд восхваляет капитализм и общественный строй США как идеальную почву для эгоизма - для максимально свободного индивидуализма. Очень смешно это читать, т.к. ЛЮБОЕ общество - это некий баланс между индивидуальными свободами и ограничениями социальной Матрицы (гос.регулирование, социальный контроль, цензура и проч.). Причём эти ограничения складывались веками, и как бы мы ни называли и не реформировали общество, никуда они не денутся. В каждом обществе эти ограничивающие механизмы свои, и возможные "степени свободы" для каждого отдельного человека также свои.

Абсолютизировать какой-то один вариант (что делает Рэнд), мягко говоря, не умно :(. Просто фанатизм какой-то :(( Текст получается религиозно-пропагандистский, но никак не философский.

5. В целом такая ницшеанская книга для молодых, сильных и наглых отморозков :) Всё что хочет твоё Эго - разумно и правильно. И в реализации этих желаний тебе никто не должен мешать (т.е. должна быть максимальная свобода от общественных "долженствований" и любых социальных регуляторов). Если ты как-то хочешь помочь другим, то это только твоё добровольное решение - и никто не может принуждать тебя к этому ни словом, ни делом. Ну, и т.д. и т.п.

В общем, это манифест тех, кто хочет и может сам о себе позаботиться (и чтобы никто вообще под ногами не путался; и не критиковал способы, которыми я свои интересы реализовывать буду). А как быть с теми, кто не может о себе позаботиться? С детьми, стариками, людьми с ограниченными возможностями, с попавшими в трудные жизненные ситуации? По версии автора, радикальные эгоисты сами должны пожелать "поделиться" с этими людьми. Ну-ну... Прям очереди из желающих поделиться...

PS Сдаётся мне, что если бы человечество в один прекрасный день решило бы жить по книгам Айн Рэнд, то мы бы просто не выжили.

Best way to promote a shitty novel. She cites Atlas Shrugged in most of her arguments. This book and this author is for those who often use the phrase "according to me..."