The Virtue of Selfishness (Signet) by Ayn Rand
|
List Price: Our Price: $3.37 You Save: $4.62 (58%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $2.00 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of The Virtue of Selfishness (Signet)
Book Review: Rand's Wisdom is Far Ahead of Its Time
Summary: 5 Stars
Ayn Rand is a woman of almost unfathomable genius. I would encourage readers to disregard anything negative that other reviewers have to say about this book. For the small price that you have to pay Rand presents her vision of individual freedom that, even with its holes and shortcomings, is so far ahead of its time, it's difficult to imagine. It was far out ahead of its time when she published this book more than 40 years ago. Sadly, her vision is still WAY out ahead of the current state of the world even today.Even if you don't agree with her, you will still have the freedom to use your own rational mind to challenge or discard anything that she says. Anyone who approaches Rand with an open mind, however, will have to admit that she had an uncanny understanding of how the value that each individual places on his own life impacts the course of history and the progress of man. She clearly describes how the cult of self-sacrifice is a logical and immoral progression from mysticism and how the resulting psychological, political and economic processes undermine individual liberty, man's pursuit of happiness, the general quality of life for all men, and the advancement of civilization.
The selfless and self-sacrificing among you can take comfort in the fact that when Rand's vision of laizzez-faire capitalism and individual freedom is finally realized (reason always wins in the end), you will still have compete and total freedom to live irrational, mystical, irresponsible lives. No one will have the right to prevent you from sacrificing your own life, mind or values to any person, state, religion, or collectivist ideals. No one will force you to achieve your full potential as a human being. It will still be your life and you will have complete freedom to sacrifice your own value in the service of lesser values.
The big change will be that you will no longer be permitted to force other men to sacrifice their own rational, life-sustaining, self-interest to your own. That is the virtue of your fellow man's selfishness. You will not be able to destroy him or deprive him of his liberty. You will no longer have the "right" to place liens on the success of others, or to force individuals to give up objective reality for subjective or collective delusions. Irrational, angry mobs will no longer have the "right" to enslave rational individuals and force them to sacrifice themselves to what is not rational and of their own choosing. You will not be entitled to legally force the efficient, intelligent producers to support the inefficient, the mediocre, or the parasites, be they rich or poor. All men will be free to use their own rational minds to seek their own values and happiness as long as it doesn't deprive others of individual liberty. All men will be free to learn and create, and trade freely with whomever they choose, which by default elevates the status of all men.
Rand's hyperbole sometimes made me laugh, but this book clearly articulated so many of my own perceptions and thoughts. It also made me see possibilities I never imagined before. This book and Rand's other writings are a must-read for anybody interested in the real meaning of liberty. Everything she talks about in this book is happening all around me.
Book Review: THE MOST ETHICAL VISION
Summary: 5 Stars
The negative reviewers below insist that self-sacrifice is necessary. So does every warmonger and dictator. Sacrifice means, and always meant, personal loss for others' gain; else it means nothing. Distinctively, all tyranny requires a pro-sacrifice ethics - tyrants want to receive sacrifice. In sharpest contrast to this, Ayn Rand in <The Virtue of Selfishness> upholds man - i.e., the individual person - against tyranny, by defining "a new concept of egoism" (to quote the book's subtitle). It is a no-sacrifice ethics. Evidently, this is so new that reviewers steeped in conventional ethical ideas feel personally challenged enough by it to misrepresent it. They accuse her of advocating the violation of others' rights. What she actually advocates in this book is a principled life eschewing sacrifice, in which one "neither sacrifices oneself to others, nor sacrifices others to oneself." Why not sacrifice others? Because, says Rand in this book, it is *not* to one's self-interest to conduct one's life thusly. She says one might certainly *feel* it is but one's *feelings* cannot determine what one's genuine, long-term interests are. And she goes on to define an ethics based on reason. She calls this morality "rational self-interest" - or "selfishness," which is intended to represent her defiance of the pro-sacrifice approach. (This approach asserts that sacrifice is unavoidable because, it says, self-interested action can include violating others' rights; thus self-interest is maligned. But Rand denied it, and identified this view as being based on philosophical subjectivism or on mental illness.) Philosophical subjectivism is jettisoned from ethics at the outset. Now about a political system based on her ethics. Rand insisted that other people in general are valuable to one because trade with them (in terms both of physical goods and of personal virtues) can be enormously beneficial to one's proper life. Since the fundamental requirement of man's living and thriving in society, she says, is freedom from physical coercion, the imperative of politics is to bar the initiation of physical coercion. Her politics is loud and clear: leave other people alone - allow them to function freely - do not initiate physical compulsion against them or let them initiate it against oneself. In her view, government is an agency of standardizing the retaliatory use of force against those who initiate physical compulsion. (See "Man's Rights" in <Virtue>, and see her book on politics, <Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal>.)All these exceedingly noble - and realistic - ideas, if practiced, would transform the world for the better. That prospect repulses the tyrannical not only because their vocation of collecting sacrifices would be at an end, but also because the unjustified monopoly on morality held by their best helpers - the religious - would then be broken at long last.
Book Review: Hate it or Love it? should still read this book for the pursuit of the intellects
Summary: 5 Stars
Objectivism is such a controversial philosophy and thus I will preface this review that I am writing this from a perspective of a studier of concepts and not a promoter of objectivism. I will give you an "objective" lay out of the book and you can make the rational decision whether you would even want to venture in exploring or at least see what all the fuss is about in this collections of essays in Rand's system of thoughts and see a different perspective of the world. It is essentially the quick and dirty window into the basic concepts behind her more popular fiction books of "Atlas Shrugged" or "The Fountainhead". The concept of rational self-interest is definitely an antithesis to the foundation of normal society and thus met with many challengers and outright anger. In other words, she believes every individual choice should be based on "egoism" and objective self-interest. A choice in life should not be influenced by society norm or emotional decision but by sheer tallying of black and white of gain to yourself and then you execute. Rational self-interest is to not view pain as suffering but look at it rationally and it can be joy. To view building your life as not a need but as an achievement. To be control of your choices and not let others' choices control you. This concept cannot be captured better than what was said by Rand herself: "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." She challenged ethics which is a must for a thinker to consider even he chose to embrace or refute them. Some quick must hit essays: 1) The Objectivist Ethics - ethics of rational egoism (i.e. what I laid out above 2) Ethics of Emergencies - use objectivism to make rational choices when encounter hardships or jeopardies in life 3) Man's Rights - individual rights come from the self and man 4) The Nature of Government - the only government should exist is the purpose of protecting individual rights but that's it. There are many others, but these are the essential cliff notes. So whether this is against your grain, religious, moral, ethics, or any views...you should read it if not for any purpose than expanding perspective in the pursuit of the intellect. I personally do see something that can be garnered with filters of what should not....I see greys in life now and used to see all black and white - so do let go of idealistic black and white of youth, learn and embrace the greys and use some of these views to turn some greys back into rational black and whites. There is value to that in life and end some emotional sufferings and turmoils and take back the control.Book Review: Contextual Criticism Only, Please.
Summary: 5 Stars
"An example can illustrate the difficulties involved in the subject. Suppose five soldiers are standing around and a grenade lands between them. One of the soldiers dives on the grenade and, though instantly killed, saves the other four. According to the logic of Rand's philosophy, the soldier who dove on the grenade is evil and the other four are also evil for benefiting from the self-sacrifice of another. A perfectly consistent altruist, however, would say that only the sacrificial soldier is good and that the other four are evil: for the altruist would have all five pile on the grenade and get killed!"Such is an example of the Falsehoods taken up by those who disagree with Rand. They fail, consistently, repeatedly, to understand what Enlightened Self Interest, or Virtuous Selfishness, consists of.
To follow through on the above example, if it is an all volunteer army (nobody is compelled to be there) then they knew the conditions of army life, and signed a contract agreeing to certain requirements in exchange for certain rewards. They also know that the overall objective of the military is to win the war. So, it logically follows, their objective is to win the war as well.
Thus, to follow through on their own selfish objective, the soldier throws himself on the grenade. QED, and not even Greg Nyquist can disagree with that.
She does not advocate a survivalist mentality when she says that the object of our morality should be our own life. There is more to life than survival, and that is why she advocates Rational Self Interest. It is logically coherent to advocate such, as we are more than mere animals, we desire to live better. I would rather have a house than a cave, and therefore would rather interact with my fellow man, for my own personal individual benefit.
People object, based on the fallacy perpetuated by Kant, that morality isn't rational, it's based on emotions, or gods, or society. True, what most people think of as morality isn't based on reason, I have to give that much. Then in return, I ask the objectors to note that their morality isn't the only morality in the world, and that other moralities exist. Once that is accomplished, once you break the false connection between "my morality" and "morality as a whole" they can then see that it IS entirely possible to have a reason based morality.
The final objection comes from some people who then find it troubling that actions that are not approved in one morality and are approved in another, claim that the second is a false morality due to said actions. That is a false judgement, saying, for example, that apples are bad on the citrus scale.
Book Review: I can't believe I'm going to do this
Summary: 5 Stars
OK, I'm going to put my two cents in on Objectivism ala Ayn Rand.
In a book review on Amazon. Weird.
Many reviews here slam this philosophy becuase of a lack of altruism (acting not in your own self-interest, but in the interest of something else, i.e. "a higher power"). If there is no altruism (no sacrifice), then this must be a callous, cold philosophy.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
What Objectivism does is simply acknowledges that everything people do they do for themselves. Don't get me wrong- very often people believe they do things for "noble" reasons. But the bottom line is that if you do something selfless because you think it's gonna get you in with your god (because those are your god's teachings), then THAT is why you did it. For you. Do you stay with your abusive husband because of the sanctity of marriage?
Example: Let's say that you love someone (something, whatever). If you love that person, then you enjoy having them in your life. If you enjoy having them in your life, it is within your rational self-interest (<-- key phrase) to make them happy, so that they will continue to stick around. If they feel the same way, they will reach the same conclusion and reciprocate.
Further more, let's say that helping complete strangers makes you feel good. You like feeling good, don't you? Good. Now go help a stranger... but know that you did it NOT for them, but because it makes you feel good, plain and simple. If it made you feel awful, you would not do it-- unless you thought that maybe it would please your god!
The point is this: you are able to understand when something is rationally good for you, or bad for you. Why not admit it? If the right's of the individual are protected, then all people are protected, and all people can go about their lives acting in their own rational self-interest. There is then no need for special rights for minorities, gays or anyone else.
After all that being said, people often act in a self-destructive manner becuase of what they have(or have not) been taught about reality. Objectivism says simply this: reality is obvious. It's all around you, all the time. Stop trying to make it confirm to your cultural and religious views, and simply see it right there in front of your face.
Ther really is no need to believe in a god, voodoo, magic, or any other mystical force. People practice this stuff because they have been taught not to trust their own eyes, ears, and minds.
Try trusting your mind for awhile, you won't go back.