Customer Reviews

The Virtue of Selfishness (Signet)

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

This book is awesome - but I don't recommend it as the first of Ayn Rand's work for one to read. I suggest starting with "The Fountain Head" and then "Atlas Shrugged". After reading those two, if you want some practical / real life applications and views on the philosophy elucidated in those two novels, pick this book up. It is a great collection of essays and speaches written by Rand and others. A fast read, great for short trips on the subway or bus.

The Virtue of Selfishness without a doubt is a good book to read if you're looking to understand a an egoistic philosophy. The book adequetly voices its opinion, however, it is at times hard to follow. The reader may tend to trial away from the work. Yet, Ayn's ideals are worth attempting to understand.

Dismayed by the fact that people see through you as through a pane of glass; instantly and infallibly intuit your deepest, most embarrassing secrets your, every personal limitation and character flaw; can spontaneously recite in excruciating detail, mere seconds after initial contact, the complete history of your most colossal failures and most egregious blunders, exactly as if they had been present to witness every faux pas of your life, and always with the encyclopaedic thoroughness of a pathologically vindictive ex-spouse? Is THIS what's getting you down, Binkey? Well, WEEP NO MORE!

Yes, your salvation is at hand, courtesy of AYN RAND, who sets the standard of genius for the civilized world. Ms. Rand's best-selling book THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS (Signet Books, 1964) is your ticket to apotheosis. Just follow three steps. First, MEMORIZE THE ENTIRE BOOK. Then PRACTICE RECITING EXTENDED PASSAGES CHOSEN AT RANDOM until you can deliver them so smoothly and easily as to convey an impression of perfect spontaneity. Finally, WORK THESE PASSAGES INTO YOUR EVERYDAY CONVERSATION in such a way that you can pass seamlessly from ordering an entrée at a restaurant or informing your physician that you haven't had a normal bowel movement in months to illustrating how subscription to Ms. Rand's philosophy of Objectivism fosters the universal adulation and untrammeled omnipotence you've always craved.

Imagine yourself beaming with pride as everyone stares slack-jawed and bug-eyed in open admiration for the working of your mind, jumping up and down on one leg and sputtering: "Oh, GOD! Oh, DEAR God! I sized up this person initially as a mere simpleton, as the very incarnation of mortal inferiority! How could I have been so WRONG? This person's just so...so...INTELLIGENT, so...fascinatingly SOPHISTICATED! Yes, an individual of many moods and interests, enshrouded in elements of mystery..., so...so...AYN-RAND-LIKE! Oh, my LORD! I...I can't control my impulse to immolate myself on the altar of this person's transcendent excellence. PLEASE! Somebody HELP ME! I'm about to sign over my LIFETIME INCOME!"

That's right: Ayn Rand's THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS! Buy it. Memorize it. Regurgitate it. Do it--NOW! After all, why stumble through life being mistaken for YOURSELF, when you COULD be mistaken for...AYN RAND?

By way of review, I thought I would simply provide some brief excerpts from one of the essays in this collection, "The Argument from Intimidation", so that readers can get a glimpse of her reasoning and writing style. As an added bonus, these excerpts are relevant to some of the other reviews here:

"[The Argument from Intimidation] is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy...

"All smears are Arguments from Intimidation: they consist of derogatory assertions without any evidence or proof, offered as a substitute for evidence or proof, aimed at the moral cowardice or unthinking credulity of the hearers...

"A moral judgment must always follow, not precede (or supersede), the reasons on which it is based.

"When one gives reasons for one's verdict, one assumes responsibility for it and lays oneself open to objective judgment: if one's reasons are wrong or false, one suffers the consequences. But to condemn without giving reasons is an act of irresponsibility, a kind of moral 'hit-and-run' driving, which is the essence of the Argument from Intimidation."

This book also includes Rand's groundbreaking essay on moral philosophy, "The Objectivist Ethics", as well as applications of her theory of rational egoism to produce original analyses of topics such as "Racism". A truly exceptional book...read it for yourself and make up your own mind!

Magnum Opus managed to get the book, THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS by Ayn Rand, to me in a very timely manner and in perfect condition. In spite of some confusion as to who actually sent the book, as I ordered the same book from two different distributors, it was finally ironed out in a basically satisfactory manner.

The other company, CarpePM, had difficulty in that the post office either lost or destroyed the same book. CarpePM immediately credited my account with the $6.59 cost of the book and communicated the transaction to me as soon as they knew what had happened. Unfortunately, I did not see it in a timely manner, got confused as to who did what and wrote to Maghum Opus thinking they had not yet sent the book. There was confusion and some words exchanged. In the long run, however, it appears to have been cleared.

This book is on the cutting edge of thought and therefore will not be appropriate reading for the majority. The other review on this book by the "oakshaman" indicates that he really had no concept of what this book is about. The fact that he gave a Harry Potter book 5 stars and this book 1 shows me that he would better relate to a fantasy world. Unfortunatly, we live in a society where the government pretends to be an altruistic "democracy" but in reality is becoming more of a dynasty where the appointed officials and elite gain most of the money and power. " An irrational society is a society of moral cowards - of men paralyzed by the loss of moral standards, principles, and goals " p.75 In a world where evil seems to have the upper hand, it is time that people make better choices by their own accord and not just go along with the masses. It is easy to not want to take responsibilty for you actions when you can say " it wasn't my idea" or I'm just doing what everybody else is doing. This book is about being true to yourself, making better choices, and talking responsibility for your choices.

Paragraphs packed with cogent analysis and potent prescriptions, it's tough to write something that encapsulates it all. Ayn Rand summarizes her views better than I ever could in "The Objectivist Ethics." If you only read one of the essays in "The Virtue of Selfishness," make it that one. The piece expands upon ideas found in "Atlas Shrugged."

Whether you accept Rand's strict rationalist philosophy or not, your worldview will never be the same after reading her. At the beginning of "The Objectivist Ethics," I reckoned she was cribbing John Stuart Mill's "Utilitarianism" without giving the great Englishman credit. But, almost on cue, Rand criticizes Mill and other utilitarians, holding herself apart from them -- "The philosophers who attempted to devise an allegedly rational code of ethics gave mankind nothing but a choice of whims...'selfless' service to the whims of others (such as the ethics of Bentham, Mill, Comte, and of all social hedonists...)."

Rand further rounds on the rationalists, whose father was Aristotle, saying they were no different from the "irrationalists" (the religious), simply substituting "society" for "G-d." This set the stage for statist tyranny of the majority that is everywhere around us today.

A staunch advocate of capitalism because its rationality best accords with man's nature, Rand writes that government and the economy should be separate for the same reasons church and state are separate. Good one! Never heard it put in quite those terms before.

Rand adds that capitalism (which she calls the system of the future) has never been tried before, not even in America, always hamstrung by some government interference. This may give us a clue as to why government has so easily discredited the market while elected leaders swear up and down that they believe in "freedom."

Altruism is Rand's great foe and mankind's great foe (according to Rand). It's ironic that Rand's theory about the destructiveness of self-sacrifice may be proved by one of the most dramatic incidents in the Bible -- Abraham's near-sacrifice of his son Isaac. Rand rejected religion and other "supernaturalism" yet isn't G-d telling mankind by telling Abraham, in essence, that "even though you (Abraham) thought I wanted you to sacrifice yourself (your loving nature, all your hopes for the future as represented by Isaac) and other people (Isaac himself) that's not what I want or require."? And did Christianity come along and reverse this via the dramatic execution of Jesus amid his supposed ethos of dying for the sins of others?

Rand is careful to section off her "selfishness" from mere license. Clearly, personal responsibility is mandated by Rand.

Our author holds that life should be lived for its own sake (Rand's Jewishness pops out again in that this concept sounds a lot like "Torah Lishma," learning Torah -- the Hebrew religious canon -- for its own sake, simply to be imbued with its wisdom (this concept was expertly expounded by Rabbi Chaim Volozhiner and his disciples).

But does Rand's philosophy take proper account of man's spiritual nature and desire for community? In other words, do humans need a little "irrationality" in their lives?

F.A. Hayek, whose teachings converged with Rand's on several matters including the superiority of market economics over socialism, held that the strict rationalist tends to become a barbarian. Do most people need the fear of sin to keep from becoming degenerates?

Every man's way is right in his own eyes, King Solomon wrote in "Proverbs." Perhaps Rand's rationalism should be used exclusively in law, government, and the economy (yeah, but just try keeping them separate). Yet Rabbi Mayer (Craig) Schiller blames the current low state of American/European culture on the fact that the G-d-centeredness of all things including law and government has been stripped away and/or forgotten. So is Rand right or is Schiller? Like many arguments between Jews, the dispute will likely go on until the end of time.

Since I'm reviewing Rand's book, I'll let her have the last word. It is a somewhat hopeful statement for those who despair at what appears to be humanity's intractable corruption --

"It is not men's immorality that is responsible for the collapse now threatening to destroy the civilized world, but the kind of moralities men have been asked to practice. The responsibility belongs to the philosophers of altruism...It is philosophy that sets men's goals and determines their course; it is only philosophy that can save them now."

I read this book as a young man. I've since reviewed it. As a young man I was also reading Bertrand Russell, J.S. Mill, Albert Einstein, Eric Fromm, and Sigmund Freud. Ayn Rand is a modestly entertaining novelist. Her attempts at philosophy are that of an emotional novelist. Her partner Brandon is equally poor. Their explanation of their philosophy in their Objectivist tome is a joke. To find a specific non self-contradicting principle anywhere in that mess is an impossibility. The definition of "capitalism" for example is so vague, idealistic and lacking in specificity it is useless. To call it a book of philosophy or a dictionary of philosophic terms is ridiculous.

Pursuing one's self interest was not the philosophy of Adam Smith nor would he have recognized selfishness as a virtue. Ayn Rand is an elitist and she preaches a Republican style egoism. Much to the chagrin of her followers her "philosophy" is often compared to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf. She is basically Adolf without the Jews, they say. Well, I wouldn't go quite that far but many legitimate comparisons can be made.

Ayn Rand, I interpret to be a political propagandist for the extreme right. She was interested in philosophy and included the ideas of some philosophers in her fiction - but she was not a philosopher in my view.

I have read certain of Nietzsche's works and summaries of his ideas. I find that there are obvious similarities in style, temperament, presentation and overall superiorist attitudes between him and Rand. Nietzsche had his superman and Rand had her super-capitalist. Both writers are belligerent and hateful of organized religion and the common man. Rand refers to religious thinkers as "witch doctors." Nietzsche eventually went mad and was institutionalized. I think he was mad long before he was actually declared mad and locked away. Rand was never declared officially mad and was not institutionalized. She was clearly suffering from delusions of grandeur and was not able to distinguish between success and intelligence. There is often very little connection between the two.

I have read Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf. His belief and confidence in the superiority and righteousness of the individual and the capitalist rings through Rand's written works. He has his Arians and Krupps; once again, she has her glorified wealthy capitalists and entrepreneurs. Adolf's flamboyant braggadocio with regards to the superior few and their right to rule is also a theme running constantly through the rantings of Rand. And

the same disrespect for the "common herd" and the principles of democracy are prevalent in Rand and Mein Kampf.

Her family's wealth was wiped out by the Russian Revolution. It is quite obvious that this event affected her psychological development. She actively joined on the bandwagon of the disgruntled exiles and pursued an anti-Russia philosophy. She found much support among Russia haters and the rabid ranks of the Cold Warriors. Although I sympathize with her position, I must take her political writing and opinions with a grain of salt and a lot of dubiousness.

She wrote political and economic fantasies that appealed to the selfish and the egotistical. Her goal was clearly to make the better-off feel comfortable with their wealth and their prejudices. She was another of the many champions of the comfortable and powerful who ran off gallantly to defend the rights and privileges of the rich and famous. There has never been a shortage in this group of comfortable "revolutionaries." Her biggest mistake was the same made by the communist in her mother Russia - she attacked God and religion. This was the most daring of her positions.

Richard Edward Noble - The Hobo Philosopher - Author of:

Mein Kampf - An Analysis of Book One

If you understand how words are defined, this book is excellent. If you don't, you'll be lost.

I truly hope that this book is widely read by the general public. I say this in the sense that I wish _Mein Kamph_ would have been more widely read. If people would have been more familiar with the author's ideas it would have averted horrible tragedy, and outright evil, in the world. As Ayn Rand is the author most quoted by "libertarians", "free-traders", and advocates of "hands off" capitalism this also applies.

Her philosophy of Objectivism is the philosophy of sociopathy, of the ego freed from the restraints of social conscience. All that is important is gratification of the ego. There is no room for community, no room for humanity, no room for God- the individual ego is God. To the objectivist, "altruism", lending a hand or doing good for it's own sake, is a dirty word. I have heard a leading spokesman for Rand's philosophy denounce Hitler primariy because he was too "altruistic." Make of that what you will. In our own time, the proponents of unrestrained corporate power, and of the dismantling of elected government, love Rand. They tell you that only governments can "initiate force." This is the Big Lie- there is no moral difference between shooting a man and starving him to death through economic control of resources- or controlling people through the threat of it. Rand and her objectivists are usually very adept at formal argument and logic. However, their basic premises are so absolutely inhumane that their arguments are mere castles in the air. Castles empty of humanity and God, but filled with evil.

I sometimes wonder what sort of childhood abuse in her native Russia could have warped Rand so seriously. It is obvious that her philosophy is an extreme over reaction to communist collectivism- in the same way that Satanism is an extreme overreaction to Christian fundamentalism