What do you think?
Rate this book
賮囟蹖賱鬲 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴蹖
賮囟蹖賱鬲 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴蹖: 賲賮賴賵賲 噩丿蹖丿蹖 丕夭 禺賵丿诏乇丕蹖蹖 賲噩賲賵毓賴 賳賵卮鬲丕乇賴丕 賵 賲賯丕賱丕鬲蹖 丕夭 丌蹖賳 乇賳丿 賵 賳丕鬲丕賳蹖賱 亘乇丕賳丿賳 丕爻鬲. 丕睾賱亘 賳賵卮鬲丕乇賴丕 丿乇 丕氐賱 丿乇 禺亘乇賳丕賲賴 毓蹖賳蹖鬲鈥屭必� 賲賳鬲卮乇 卮丿賴 亘賵丿賳丿 噩夭 丕禺賱丕賯 毓蹖賳鬲 诏乇丕 讴賴 賲賯丕賱賴鈥屫й� 亘賵丿 讴賴 乇賳丿 丿乇 爻賲倬賵夭蹖賵賲蹖 丿乇 丿丕賳卮诏丕賴 賵蹖爻讴丕賳爻蹖賳 丿乇 禺氐賵氐 丕禺賱丕賯蹖丕鬲 毓氐乇 賲丕 丕乇丕卅賴 讴乇丿. 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇亘乇诏蹖乇賳丿賴贁 卮賳丕爻丕蹖蹖 賵 丕孬亘丕鬲 禺賵丿诏乇丕蹖蹖 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 賲噩賲賵毓賴 賯賵丕毓丿 丕禺賱丕賯蹖 亘禺乇丿丕賳賴貙 賲禺乇亘 亘賵丿賳 丕蹖孬丕乇貙 賵 賲丕賴蹖鬲 蹖讴 丨讴賵賲鬲 賲賳丕爻亘 亘賵丿.
212 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1961
1245 people are currently reading
17029 people want to read
About the author
Ayn Rand
546听books10.1k听followersPolemical novels, such as
The Fountainhead
(1943), of primarily known Russian-American writer Ayn Rand, originally Alisa Rosenbaum, espouse the doctrines of objectivism and political libertarianism.
Fiction of this better author and philosopher developed a system that she named. Educated, she moved to the United States in 1926. After two early initially duds and two Broadway plays, Rand achieved fame. In 1957, she published Atlas Shrugged , her best-selling work.
Rand advocated reason and rejected faith and religion. She supported rational and ethical egoism as opposed to altruism. She condemned the immoral initiation of force and supported laissez-faire capitalism, which she defined as the system, based on recognizing individual rights, including private property. Often associated with the modern movement in the United States, Rand opposed and viewed anarchism. In art, she promoted romantic realism. She sharply criticized most philosophers and their traditions with few exceptions.
Books of Rand sold more than 37 million copies. From literary critics, her fiction received mixed reviews with more negative reviews for her later work. Afterward, she turned to nonfiction to promote her philosophy, published her own periodicals, and released several collections of essays until her death in 1982.
After her death, her ideas interested academics, but philosophers generally ignored or rejected her and argued that her approach and work lack methodological rigor. She influenced some right conservatives. The movement circulates her ideas to the public and in academic settings.
Fiction of this better author and philosopher developed a system that she named. Educated, she moved to the United States in 1926. After two early initially duds and two Broadway plays, Rand achieved fame. In 1957, she published Atlas Shrugged , her best-selling work.
Rand advocated reason and rejected faith and religion. She supported rational and ethical egoism as opposed to altruism. She condemned the immoral initiation of force and supported laissez-faire capitalism, which she defined as the system, based on recognizing individual rights, including private property. Often associated with the modern movement in the United States, Rand opposed and viewed anarchism. In art, she promoted romantic realism. She sharply criticized most philosophers and their traditions with few exceptions.
Books of Rand sold more than 37 million copies. From literary critics, her fiction received mixed reviews with more negative reviews for her later work. Afterward, she turned to nonfiction to promote her philosophy, published her own periodicals, and released several collections of essays until her death in 1982.
After her death, her ideas interested academics, but philosophers generally ignored or rejected her and argued that her approach and work lack methodological rigor. She influenced some right conservatives. The movement circulates her ideas to the public and in academic settings.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 825 reviews
September 26, 2007
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.
August 2, 2007
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.
March 27, 2015
Part II of multi-part review series.
Reading Rand reminds me of teaching freshman composition at university years ago. There鈥檚 not nearly as many spelling errors, but Rand鈥檚 pronouncements bear all the markers of severe Dunning-Kruger effect: under-researched, un-theorized, insufficiently self-aware.
For instance, this text has a tendency to adopt dogmatic solecisms, such as 鈥淚n popular usage, the word 鈥榮elfishness鈥� is a synonym of evil鈥� (vii)--uh, not really. This is a nasty problem throughout the volume.
A second major problem is that text constructs its problematic without reference to the history of discourse on any given issue. Though there is blithe reference to certain writers on occasion, there is no specific analysis of or rigorous citation to the actual writings of the major interlocutors. There are nondescript, distorting references to Nietzsche, Heraclitus, and others, but no evidence that the writings of these persons have been assimilated. The only evidence that is cited is anecdotal: 鈥渙bserve the fortunes made by insurance companies鈥� (49) as proof that 鈥渃atastrophes are the exception鈥� (the wrong inference when discussing risk management, to be honest), or speaking to a strawperson on a plane one time (123-24).
So, for example, we are solemnly informed that 鈥淣o philosopher has given a rational, objectively demonstrable, scientific answer to the question of why man needs a code of values鈥� (14). Instead of citation to other writers, the text consistently cites 鈥淕alt鈥檚 speech鈥� grossly (rather than to specific components of it). (After a tortured process, her answer to the fake question is extremely bathetic, boiling down to the problem 鈥渨hat are the values [human] survival requires?鈥� (22).)
A third problem: the text presents a continuous chain of non-sequiturs. Taking the previously cited bit, the immediately following sentence is 鈥淪o long as that question remained unanswered, no rational, scientific, objective code of ethics could be discovered or defined鈥� (14). Huh? I suppose, therefore, that鈥檚 the reason no prior interlocutor need be considered in detail; we just sweep 2,500 years of discussion off the table by fiat.
A fourth issue: text displays a spenglerian refrain, in order to set up the fake place of intervention convenient to the author, that 鈥渢he world is now collapsing to a lower and even lower rung of hell鈥� (15). See also: moral grayness as 鈥渙ne of the most eloquent symptoms of the moral bankruptcy of today鈥檚 culture鈥� (75). It鈥檚 a joke, though, as acknowledged toward the end: 鈥淚t is true that the moral state of mankind is dangerously low. But if one considers the monstrous moral inversions of the governments (made possible by the altruist-collectivist mentality [!]) under which mankind has had to live through most of its history, one begins to wonder how men managed to preserve even a semblance of civilization鈥� (114). One wonders indeed! If these conditions have obtained throughout history, then it鈥檚 not really dire at all, and perhaps, maybe, shouldn鈥檛 the principles that lead to the conclusion of crisis be re-evaluated? Should not the fact that civilization has existed against this doctrine that civilization can鈥檛 have existed invalidate the doctrine? Is it not the cardinal principle of objectivism that existence exists, A=A? And like that, the allegedly philosophical facade of Rand's house of crap collapses into mere mean-spirited shamanism, consistent with the kindergarten mantra, Mine!
Fifth issue: deployment of important terms dogmatically without explanation, even though the rest of us know that the terms are burdened by much dialogue: e.g., 鈥渋t is the principle that no man may obtain any values from others without the owners鈥� consent鈥� (111). There is no discussion of what ownership or consent is or how they came to be. Nevermind that factory owner built factory with moneys acquired through inheritance from estate built on slavery and slaughter of natives. No, that鈥檚 irrelevant. What matters is that heir now owns factory and does not agree to be taxed so that mooching looter disabled parasites won鈥榯 starve.
The argument develops typically by initiating a fake crisis, then adopts a bizarre definition, deploys unexamined terminology, and piles up non-sequiturs on top of it, often filled with further bizarre definitions and unexamined terms. It just spirals out of control, and the number of errors defies easy counting, especially when the argument becomes historical.
Text most anxiously wants to throw collectivism under the bus, but is unable to get away from some weirdnesses, such as the moronic definition, 鈥渁ltruism, the ethical theory which regards man as a sacrificial animal, which holds that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is the highest moral duty, virtue, and value鈥� (34). Nevermind that no actual 鈥渁ltruist鈥� text is cited for any of these propositions (it鈥檚 an ambiguous straw person, really)--the real problem is the aporetic invective against poorly defined 鈥渃ollectivism鈥� while deploying without irony idealist collectivisms such as 鈥渕an,鈥� which is the barbaric way to refer to homo sapiens, one supposes. That barbarism aside, it is incongruous that text suggests 鈥渕an鈥� as a collective has rights, whereas we later have an entire essay militating against group rights.
鈥淭he fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between 鈥榠s鈥� and 鈥榦ught鈥欌€� (17)--which is beyond cavalier in handling Hume.
In contrast with animals, humans have 鈥渞eason,鈥� 鈥渢he process of thinking鈥� (an odd equation), 鈥渁 faculty that man has to exercise by choice鈥� (20). Lest this be confused: 鈥淭he act of focusing one鈥檚 consciousness is volitional鈥� (20-21), against which we might lodge, inter alia, the critique of volition found in Ryle鈥檚 . But note well the contradiction between the dogmatic bizarre definition and the non-sequitur inference that follows: on the one hand, humans differ from animals insofar as they have reason via 鈥渢he process of thinking,鈥� i.e., thinking itself is sufficient for reason, which is bizarre and solipsistic. But reason, which is presented as the distinguishing feature of humans, is really volitional, which means that it is not present in all human persons, as some will 鈥渃hoose鈥� not to think or exercise the faculty of reason--this latter is the fundamental point of departure for the text ( the 鈥渘o philosopher鈥� bit, supra).
Text presents survival 鈥渂y imitating and repeating, like trained animals, the routine sounds and motions they learned from others鈥� as being a 鈥渕ental parasite鈥� (23). And yet, just prior to this uber-producerist fantasy is the likewise unevidenced proclamation that 鈥渢he standard of value of Objectivist ethics--the standard by which one judges what is good and what is evil--is man鈥檚 life: that which is required for man鈥檚 survival qua man鈥� (id.). So, to complete the syllogism: survival by imitation, by being a mental parasite, is consistent with the standard of objectivist ethics, which is rooted in survival. This absurd result was not intended, but it鈥檚 illustrative of the poor conceptualization. Similarly, 鈥渓ooters are parasites incapable of survival鈥� (id.)--but you just said 鈥淚f some men attempt to survive by means of brute force or fraud, by looting, robbing, cheating or enslaving the men who produce, it still remains true that their survival is made possible only by their victims鈥� (id.) (emphasis added)?
Without any rationale, 鈥渢he only proper, moral purpose of government is to protect man鈥檚 rights鈥� (NB: collective rights-holder), which boils down to 鈥渨ithout property rights, no other rights are possible鈥� (33). This pronouncement is made ex nihilo--there is no presentation to warrant these two conclusions. It鈥檚 just goal-oriented dogmatism. Critique could proceed, matching each sentence in this text with several sentences of commentary. It really is a mess of stupidity, and requires some effort to untangle.
We see that 鈥渙ne must never sacrifice one鈥檚 convictions to the opinions or wishes of others鈥� (26), which is the fascist鈥檚 refusal to compromise. 鈥淭here can be no compromise on moral principles鈥� (70).
Just as rich people have 鈥渟elf made wealth,鈥� objectivists are apparently 鈥渟elf made souls鈥� (27). At various other loci, though, we will be informed that nothing is causeless, that only death-choosers believe in effects without causes. Again: very poorly conceived. We are likewise told that 鈥渕an chooses his values鈥� (28), which strikes me as the worst sort of causelessness.
We are given the pre-capitalist trader as the emblem of justice: 鈥渁 man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved鈥� (31). None of the key concepts are given much content, such as 鈥渆arnings鈥� or 鈥渄esert,鈥� except, apparently, an unexamined and vulgar market value. It鈥檚 all very philistine.
We are told that 鈥渋llness and poverty are not metaphysical emergencies鈥� (48), so all of you dirty little poor persons can rest peacefully now.
One of Rand鈥檚 real defects is that she has no understanding of law. (That鈥檚 one reason, incidentally, that the plot of is so stupid.) We are told, e.g., that 鈥渏ust as a judge in a court of law may err, when the evidence is inconclusive, but may not evade the evidence available, nor accept bribes, nor allow any personal feeling, emotion, desire, or fear to obstruct his mind鈥檚 judgment of the facts of reality--so every rational person must maintain an equally strict and solemn integrity in the courtroom within his own mind鈥� (71). This is not reflective of how law works. The judiciary does not err when the evidence is inconclusive; that circumstance by definition means that the plaintiff鈥檚 case must fail, as the moving party鈥檚 evidence has failed to preponderate, being equally balanced by the evidence in opposition. Judicial errors are legal errors, such as the application of the wrong rule of decision, or improper analysis under the correct standard. This is revealing, too, metaphorically: just as Rand does not understand how law works, her envisioning of legal errors as simply arising out of inconclusive evidence is emblematic of how her 鈥減hilosophy鈥� has failed to consider the proper analytic standard. I doubt that objectivism spends much time cogitating on its own assumptions; that would be death-choosing inner conflict and moral grayness.
Another recurrent mantra is the oddity that 鈥渢o be imposed by political means鈥� is equated with 鈥渂y force鈥� (81). Taxation or regulation by the state is therefore equated with armed robbery. This is a nasty bit of mendacity, however. Just as the relation between state and citizen always has force underlying it, so too do private relations between, say, employer and employee. The Randian will not acknowledge this, and will insist that voluntary contracts are pure and have no force under them. Meanwhile, the proper function of government is to 鈥減rotect property鈥� (33). When faced with starvation, unemployed worker will accept what employer offers, as the alternatives are to invade the property that the state protects, or to die. It is an evil for the state to 鈥渆xpropriate the labor鈥� via taxation for the purpose of space exploration (i.e., a project too risky for private capital to undertake), but fine, because 鈥渧oluntary,鈥� for the employer to expropriate the employee.
It is asserted, without any citation to any law or authority, that 鈥渘o human rights can exist without property rights鈥� (91). As a matter of law, this is manifestly, idiotically erroneous--property rights are simply one component of rights in general, and we can have property regimes wherein rights themselves are not conceived as properties. (In capitalist law, rights themselves are properties, and with some important exceptions, can be alienated: property is therefore a collection of rights, each of which is a property, &c. don鈥檛 ask Rand to understand any of this, though.) Rand鈥檚 failure to read any law is on display, though, in such categorical assertions as 鈥渞ights are a moral concept鈥� (92)--which is completely erroneous. Rights are creatures of law, period. Whatever they may be in morality, there are no rights sans law--and rights in law may be worthless if there are no remedies (such as the weak remedies for Fourth Amendment violations make that beautiful set of rights somewhat worthless).
She is of course not completely wrong in one instance in this volume: 鈥淭he essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights鈥� (86)--though we may quibble that the individual right to own the means of production is what socialism denies. She goes on to state that 鈥渦nder socialism, the right to property is vested in 鈥榮ociety as a whole鈥欌€� (id.), which allegation is simultaneously wrong and true of anywhere. Again, a problem of having no knowledge of law: capitalist law vests title in property owners, but title is not absolute--it is always a measure of what the public will allow. Gone are the days of quiritary and allodial title--though I suspect that Rand would reach back into the past for these concepts, had she any exposure to law or history.
Instead of explanations with evidence, the text tends to rely further on coarse pop psychology assumptions, such as 鈥淲hat then is the motive of [socialist] intellectuals? Power-lust. Power-lust--as the manifestation of helplessness, or self-loathing, and of the desire for the unearned鈥� (88). It鈥檚 amateurish, citing no actual socialist writings. This parasite 鈥渄erives his illusion of greatness [鈥 from the power to dispose of that which he has not earned鈥� (89). The comedy is unintentional, as I鈥檓 sure this writer has not read any Marx--but this is a similar critique of capitalist relations via the theories of surplus value and commodity fetishism (minus the dumb faux psychology).
We find that 鈥渟ocialism is merely democratic absolute monarchy鈥�(91), which reveals the total contempt for egalitarianism in this text. By contrast, we are told that the US 鈥渨as the first moral society in history鈥� (93); the only proof of this is the Declaration of Independence (95), which is of course not law. What is the content of this morality in the US? It was 鈥渢he pattern of a civilized society which--for the brief span of some hundred and fifty years--America came close to achieving鈥� (95). What ended it? 鈥淎merica鈥檚 inner contradiction was the altruist-collectivist ethics,鈥� of course (id).
Her timeline of US freedom pricks something in the back of my mind. What could those 150 years mean? Was it the altruist ethics of abolishing chattel slavery, maybe? Further, it was not capitalism that abolished chattel slavery through its own alleged ongoing enlightenment, but the state through the use of force against private property owners. Rand loves to use 鈥渟lavery鈥� as a metaphor, referring to the slavery of taxation and regulation, the slavery of socialism and in Soviet Russia. She makes no mention of chattel slavery under the capitalism that she adores. It is a telling blind spot. But we never approached this text expecting honesty.
An example of further dishonesty: the divine right of kings is held up as an example of altruist-collectivist ethics (103). It鈥檚 accordingly like an Onion article. When Rand does discuss racism, it is denounced as a collectivism, but no mention of US capitalist slave trade is mentioned. (In that essay, though racism is denounced, the current 鈥淣egro leaders鈥� are still villains, and the 鈥渨orst breach of property rights鈥� is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (134). No shit!)
Further Onion article: 鈥渦nilateral breach of contract involves an indirect use of force鈥� (111). This is a dangerous admission for Rand, who wants to make state action itself force. Here, though, a private action involving no vi et armis is glibly purported to be force. Would this rationale then apply to employer-employee relations? (Doubtful for Rand--but certainly for everyone with sense.)
Text is mixed authorship; five of the essays are by newsletter editor Branden, who deploys pop psych Galtisms to fight the death-choosers. It鈥檚 very cute.
Overall, one of the worst books ever written. Go read for comedy鈥檚 sake, or if you suffer from chronic orthostatic hypotension and need to get your blood pressure back up.
Reading Rand reminds me of teaching freshman composition at university years ago. There鈥檚 not nearly as many spelling errors, but Rand鈥檚 pronouncements bear all the markers of severe Dunning-Kruger effect: under-researched, un-theorized, insufficiently self-aware.
For instance, this text has a tendency to adopt dogmatic solecisms, such as 鈥淚n popular usage, the word 鈥榮elfishness鈥� is a synonym of evil鈥� (vii)--uh, not really. This is a nasty problem throughout the volume.
A second major problem is that text constructs its problematic without reference to the history of discourse on any given issue. Though there is blithe reference to certain writers on occasion, there is no specific analysis of or rigorous citation to the actual writings of the major interlocutors. There are nondescript, distorting references to Nietzsche, Heraclitus, and others, but no evidence that the writings of these persons have been assimilated. The only evidence that is cited is anecdotal: 鈥渙bserve the fortunes made by insurance companies鈥� (49) as proof that 鈥渃atastrophes are the exception鈥� (the wrong inference when discussing risk management, to be honest), or speaking to a strawperson on a plane one time (123-24).
So, for example, we are solemnly informed that 鈥淣o philosopher has given a rational, objectively demonstrable, scientific answer to the question of why man needs a code of values鈥� (14). Instead of citation to other writers, the text consistently cites 鈥淕alt鈥檚 speech鈥� grossly (rather than to specific components of it). (After a tortured process, her answer to the fake question is extremely bathetic, boiling down to the problem 鈥渨hat are the values [human] survival requires?鈥� (22).)
A third problem: the text presents a continuous chain of non-sequiturs. Taking the previously cited bit, the immediately following sentence is 鈥淪o long as that question remained unanswered, no rational, scientific, objective code of ethics could be discovered or defined鈥� (14). Huh? I suppose, therefore, that鈥檚 the reason no prior interlocutor need be considered in detail; we just sweep 2,500 years of discussion off the table by fiat.
A fourth issue: text displays a spenglerian refrain, in order to set up the fake place of intervention convenient to the author, that 鈥渢he world is now collapsing to a lower and even lower rung of hell鈥� (15). See also: moral grayness as 鈥渙ne of the most eloquent symptoms of the moral bankruptcy of today鈥檚 culture鈥� (75). It鈥檚 a joke, though, as acknowledged toward the end: 鈥淚t is true that the moral state of mankind is dangerously low. But if one considers the monstrous moral inversions of the governments (made possible by the altruist-collectivist mentality [!]) under which mankind has had to live through most of its history, one begins to wonder how men managed to preserve even a semblance of civilization鈥� (114). One wonders indeed! If these conditions have obtained throughout history, then it鈥檚 not really dire at all, and perhaps, maybe, shouldn鈥檛 the principles that lead to the conclusion of crisis be re-evaluated? Should not the fact that civilization has existed against this doctrine that civilization can鈥檛 have existed invalidate the doctrine? Is it not the cardinal principle of objectivism that existence exists, A=A? And like that, the allegedly philosophical facade of Rand's house of crap collapses into mere mean-spirited shamanism, consistent with the kindergarten mantra, Mine!
Fifth issue: deployment of important terms dogmatically without explanation, even though the rest of us know that the terms are burdened by much dialogue: e.g., 鈥渋t is the principle that no man may obtain any values from others without the owners鈥� consent鈥� (111). There is no discussion of what ownership or consent is or how they came to be. Nevermind that factory owner built factory with moneys acquired through inheritance from estate built on slavery and slaughter of natives. No, that鈥檚 irrelevant. What matters is that heir now owns factory and does not agree to be taxed so that mooching looter disabled parasites won鈥榯 starve.
The argument develops typically by initiating a fake crisis, then adopts a bizarre definition, deploys unexamined terminology, and piles up non-sequiturs on top of it, often filled with further bizarre definitions and unexamined terms. It just spirals out of control, and the number of errors defies easy counting, especially when the argument becomes historical.
Text most anxiously wants to throw collectivism under the bus, but is unable to get away from some weirdnesses, such as the moronic definition, 鈥渁ltruism, the ethical theory which regards man as a sacrificial animal, which holds that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is the highest moral duty, virtue, and value鈥� (34). Nevermind that no actual 鈥渁ltruist鈥� text is cited for any of these propositions (it鈥檚 an ambiguous straw person, really)--the real problem is the aporetic invective against poorly defined 鈥渃ollectivism鈥� while deploying without irony idealist collectivisms such as 鈥渕an,鈥� which is the barbaric way to refer to homo sapiens, one supposes. That barbarism aside, it is incongruous that text suggests 鈥渕an鈥� as a collective has rights, whereas we later have an entire essay militating against group rights.
鈥淭he fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between 鈥榠s鈥� and 鈥榦ught鈥欌€� (17)--which is beyond cavalier in handling Hume.
In contrast with animals, humans have 鈥渞eason,鈥� 鈥渢he process of thinking鈥� (an odd equation), 鈥渁 faculty that man has to exercise by choice鈥� (20). Lest this be confused: 鈥淭he act of focusing one鈥檚 consciousness is volitional鈥� (20-21), against which we might lodge, inter alia, the critique of volition found in Ryle鈥檚 . But note well the contradiction between the dogmatic bizarre definition and the non-sequitur inference that follows: on the one hand, humans differ from animals insofar as they have reason via 鈥渢he process of thinking,鈥� i.e., thinking itself is sufficient for reason, which is bizarre and solipsistic. But reason, which is presented as the distinguishing feature of humans, is really volitional, which means that it is not present in all human persons, as some will 鈥渃hoose鈥� not to think or exercise the faculty of reason--this latter is the fundamental point of departure for the text ( the 鈥渘o philosopher鈥� bit, supra).
Text presents survival 鈥渂y imitating and repeating, like trained animals, the routine sounds and motions they learned from others鈥� as being a 鈥渕ental parasite鈥� (23). And yet, just prior to this uber-producerist fantasy is the likewise unevidenced proclamation that 鈥渢he standard of value of Objectivist ethics--the standard by which one judges what is good and what is evil--is man鈥檚 life: that which is required for man鈥檚 survival qua man鈥� (id.). So, to complete the syllogism: survival by imitation, by being a mental parasite, is consistent with the standard of objectivist ethics, which is rooted in survival. This absurd result was not intended, but it鈥檚 illustrative of the poor conceptualization. Similarly, 鈥渓ooters are parasites incapable of survival鈥� (id.)--but you just said 鈥淚f some men attempt to survive by means of brute force or fraud, by looting, robbing, cheating or enslaving the men who produce, it still remains true that their survival is made possible only by their victims鈥� (id.) (emphasis added)?
Without any rationale, 鈥渢he only proper, moral purpose of government is to protect man鈥檚 rights鈥� (NB: collective rights-holder), which boils down to 鈥渨ithout property rights, no other rights are possible鈥� (33). This pronouncement is made ex nihilo--there is no presentation to warrant these two conclusions. It鈥檚 just goal-oriented dogmatism. Critique could proceed, matching each sentence in this text with several sentences of commentary. It really is a mess of stupidity, and requires some effort to untangle.
We see that 鈥渙ne must never sacrifice one鈥檚 convictions to the opinions or wishes of others鈥� (26), which is the fascist鈥檚 refusal to compromise. 鈥淭here can be no compromise on moral principles鈥� (70).
Just as rich people have 鈥渟elf made wealth,鈥� objectivists are apparently 鈥渟elf made souls鈥� (27). At various other loci, though, we will be informed that nothing is causeless, that only death-choosers believe in effects without causes. Again: very poorly conceived. We are likewise told that 鈥渕an chooses his values鈥� (28), which strikes me as the worst sort of causelessness.
We are given the pre-capitalist trader as the emblem of justice: 鈥渁 man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved鈥� (31). None of the key concepts are given much content, such as 鈥渆arnings鈥� or 鈥渄esert,鈥� except, apparently, an unexamined and vulgar market value. It鈥檚 all very philistine.
We are told that 鈥渋llness and poverty are not metaphysical emergencies鈥� (48), so all of you dirty little poor persons can rest peacefully now.
One of Rand鈥檚 real defects is that she has no understanding of law. (That鈥檚 one reason, incidentally, that the plot of is so stupid.) We are told, e.g., that 鈥渏ust as a judge in a court of law may err, when the evidence is inconclusive, but may not evade the evidence available, nor accept bribes, nor allow any personal feeling, emotion, desire, or fear to obstruct his mind鈥檚 judgment of the facts of reality--so every rational person must maintain an equally strict and solemn integrity in the courtroom within his own mind鈥� (71). This is not reflective of how law works. The judiciary does not err when the evidence is inconclusive; that circumstance by definition means that the plaintiff鈥檚 case must fail, as the moving party鈥檚 evidence has failed to preponderate, being equally balanced by the evidence in opposition. Judicial errors are legal errors, such as the application of the wrong rule of decision, or improper analysis under the correct standard. This is revealing, too, metaphorically: just as Rand does not understand how law works, her envisioning of legal errors as simply arising out of inconclusive evidence is emblematic of how her 鈥減hilosophy鈥� has failed to consider the proper analytic standard. I doubt that objectivism spends much time cogitating on its own assumptions; that would be death-choosing inner conflict and moral grayness.
Another recurrent mantra is the oddity that 鈥渢o be imposed by political means鈥� is equated with 鈥渂y force鈥� (81). Taxation or regulation by the state is therefore equated with armed robbery. This is a nasty bit of mendacity, however. Just as the relation between state and citizen always has force underlying it, so too do private relations between, say, employer and employee. The Randian will not acknowledge this, and will insist that voluntary contracts are pure and have no force under them. Meanwhile, the proper function of government is to 鈥減rotect property鈥� (33). When faced with starvation, unemployed worker will accept what employer offers, as the alternatives are to invade the property that the state protects, or to die. It is an evil for the state to 鈥渆xpropriate the labor鈥� via taxation for the purpose of space exploration (i.e., a project too risky for private capital to undertake), but fine, because 鈥渧oluntary,鈥� for the employer to expropriate the employee.
It is asserted, without any citation to any law or authority, that 鈥渘o human rights can exist without property rights鈥� (91). As a matter of law, this is manifestly, idiotically erroneous--property rights are simply one component of rights in general, and we can have property regimes wherein rights themselves are not conceived as properties. (In capitalist law, rights themselves are properties, and with some important exceptions, can be alienated: property is therefore a collection of rights, each of which is a property, &c. don鈥檛 ask Rand to understand any of this, though.) Rand鈥檚 failure to read any law is on display, though, in such categorical assertions as 鈥渞ights are a moral concept鈥� (92)--which is completely erroneous. Rights are creatures of law, period. Whatever they may be in morality, there are no rights sans law--and rights in law may be worthless if there are no remedies (such as the weak remedies for Fourth Amendment violations make that beautiful set of rights somewhat worthless).
She is of course not completely wrong in one instance in this volume: 鈥淭he essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights鈥� (86)--though we may quibble that the individual right to own the means of production is what socialism denies. She goes on to state that 鈥渦nder socialism, the right to property is vested in 鈥榮ociety as a whole鈥欌€� (id.), which allegation is simultaneously wrong and true of anywhere. Again, a problem of having no knowledge of law: capitalist law vests title in property owners, but title is not absolute--it is always a measure of what the public will allow. Gone are the days of quiritary and allodial title--though I suspect that Rand would reach back into the past for these concepts, had she any exposure to law or history.
Instead of explanations with evidence, the text tends to rely further on coarse pop psychology assumptions, such as 鈥淲hat then is the motive of [socialist] intellectuals? Power-lust. Power-lust--as the manifestation of helplessness, or self-loathing, and of the desire for the unearned鈥� (88). It鈥檚 amateurish, citing no actual socialist writings. This parasite 鈥渄erives his illusion of greatness [鈥 from the power to dispose of that which he has not earned鈥� (89). The comedy is unintentional, as I鈥檓 sure this writer has not read any Marx--but this is a similar critique of capitalist relations via the theories of surplus value and commodity fetishism (minus the dumb faux psychology).
We find that 鈥渟ocialism is merely democratic absolute monarchy鈥�(91), which reveals the total contempt for egalitarianism in this text. By contrast, we are told that the US 鈥渨as the first moral society in history鈥� (93); the only proof of this is the Declaration of Independence (95), which is of course not law. What is the content of this morality in the US? It was 鈥渢he pattern of a civilized society which--for the brief span of some hundred and fifty years--America came close to achieving鈥� (95). What ended it? 鈥淎merica鈥檚 inner contradiction was the altruist-collectivist ethics,鈥� of course (id).
Her timeline of US freedom pricks something in the back of my mind. What could those 150 years mean? Was it the altruist ethics of abolishing chattel slavery, maybe? Further, it was not capitalism that abolished chattel slavery through its own alleged ongoing enlightenment, but the state through the use of force against private property owners. Rand loves to use 鈥渟lavery鈥� as a metaphor, referring to the slavery of taxation and regulation, the slavery of socialism and in Soviet Russia. She makes no mention of chattel slavery under the capitalism that she adores. It is a telling blind spot. But we never approached this text expecting honesty.
An example of further dishonesty: the divine right of kings is held up as an example of altruist-collectivist ethics (103). It鈥檚 accordingly like an Onion article. When Rand does discuss racism, it is denounced as a collectivism, but no mention of US capitalist slave trade is mentioned. (In that essay, though racism is denounced, the current 鈥淣egro leaders鈥� are still villains, and the 鈥渨orst breach of property rights鈥� is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (134). No shit!)
Further Onion article: 鈥渦nilateral breach of contract involves an indirect use of force鈥� (111). This is a dangerous admission for Rand, who wants to make state action itself force. Here, though, a private action involving no vi et armis is glibly purported to be force. Would this rationale then apply to employer-employee relations? (Doubtful for Rand--but certainly for everyone with sense.)
Text is mixed authorship; five of the essays are by newsletter editor Branden, who deploys pop psych Galtisms to fight the death-choosers. It鈥檚 very cute.
Overall, one of the worst books ever written. Go read for comedy鈥檚 sake, or if you suffer from chronic orthostatic hypotension and need to get your blood pressure back up.
July 11, 2023
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.
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.
April 12, 2009
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.
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.
June 16, 2008
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.
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.
Want to read
August 14, 2012Just noticed this in Johan Hari's column from today's Independent:
________________________________________
Now that Ryan has been picked as Romney's running mate, MoveOn have started plugging this story too. From the ten-point list in the mail I just received:
Trump probably won't become the Republican nominee, but not because most Republicans reject his premisses. No: it will be because he states these arguments too crudely for mass public consumption. He takes the whispered dogmas of the Reagan, Bush and Tea Party years and shrieks them through a megaphone. The nominee will share similar ideas, but express them more subtly. In case you think these ideas are marginal to the party, remember - it has united behind the budget plan of Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan. It's simple: it halves taxes on the richest 1 percent and ends all taxes on corporate income, dividends, and inheritance. It pays for it by slashing spending on food stamps, healthcare for the poor and the elderly, and basic services. It aims to return the US to the spending levels of the 1920s 鈥� and while Ryan frames it as a response to the deficit, it would actually increase it according to the independent Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. Ryan says "the reason I got involved in public service" was because he read the writings of Ayn Rand, which describe the poor as "parasites" who must "perish", and are best summarized by the title of one of her books: 'The Virtue of Selfishness.'By the way, non-British readers may be interested to learn that this typical pinko liberal paper is owned by Russian multi-billionaire and former KGB officer, Alexander Lebedev. Isn't life confusing sometimes?
________________________________________
Now that Ryan has been picked as Romney's running mate, MoveOn have started plugging this story too. From the ten-point list in the mail I just received:
10. He thinks an "I got mine, who cares if you're okay" philosophy is admirable. For many years, Paul Ryan devoted himself to Ayn Rand's philosophy of selfishness as a virtue. It has shaped his entire ethic about whom he serves in public office. He even went as far as making his interns read her work.
July 18, 2020
丕賱賲乇丕噩毓丞 賴匕賴 鬲丨鬲丕噩 廿賱賶 賲噩賲賵毓丞 賲賳 丕賱丕賷囟丕丨丕鬲.
兀賵賱丕賸: 賮賴賲 賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲毓鬲賲丿丞 毓賱賶 賮賴賲 丕賱賲匕賴亘 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷 丕賱匕賷 鬲亘賳鬲賴 丕賱賲丐賱賮丞 賵丕賱禺賱賮賷丕鬲 丕賱賲毓乇賮賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賳胤賱賯 賲賳賴丕貙 兀賲丕 兀賳丕 賮兀丨亘 兀賳 兀賯乇兀 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 囟賲賳 賲爻賷乇丞 丨賷丕丞 丕賱賲丐賱賮丞 丕賱卮禺氐賷丞貙 亘丕賱胤亘毓 賱丕 兀丐賲賳 亘賲亘丿兀 賲賵鬲 丕賱賲丐賱賮 賮賷 賲賵丕囟毓 賰孬賷乇丞 賵賴匕丕 兀丨丿賴丕.
丌賷賳 乇丕賳丿貙 乇賵爻賷丞 睾丕丿乇鬲 丕賱廿鬲丨丕丿 丕賱爻賵賮賷鬲賷 賲毓 毓夭賲賴丕 毓賱賶 毓丿賲 丕賱毓賵丿 廿賱賷賴貙 賵賴賷 賱賲 鬲睾丕丿乇 丕賱廿鬲丨丕丿 丕賱爻賵賮賷鬲賷 賮丨爻亘 亘賱 兀乇丕丿鬲 兀賳 鬲睾丕丿乇 丕賱賲賳馗賵賲丞 丕賱賮賰乇賷丞 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賳卮兀鬲 賮賷 馗賱賴丕貙 賵賱匕丕 賳丨鬲 賴匕丕 丕賱賲賳丨賶 丕賱丨丕丿 賮賷 鬲賳丕賵賱賴丕 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷 賵丕鬲禺匕鬲 丕鬲噩丕賴賸丕 賲賮乇胤丕賸 賮賷 丕賱廿毓賱丕亍 賲賳 丕賱兀賳丕賳賷丞 賵丕爻鬲賯賱丕賱 丕賱賮乇丿.
賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賴賵 賲噩賲賵毓 賲賯丕賱丕鬲 亘丕賱廿囟丕賮丞 廿賱賶 賲丨丕囟乇丞 賱賱賰丕鬲亘丞 噩賲賷毓賴丕 鬲氐亘 賮賷 賳賯丿 賲匕賴亘 丕賱廿賷孬丕乇賷丞 丕賱禺賱賯賷貙 賵鬲毓賳賷 亘賴 丕賱賲丐賱賮丞 賲匕賴亘 丕賱廿賷孬丕乇 毓賱賶 丕賱賳賮爻 賵丕賱亘匕賱貙 賵鬲賯賵賲 亘丕賱爻禺乇賷丞 賲賳賴 賵賲丨丕賰賲鬲賴 賲丨丕賰賲丞 卮丿賷丿丞 鬲毓夭夭 賲賳 廿毓賱丕亍 卮兀賳 丕賱賮乇丿賷丞 賵鬲賯丿賷賲賴丕 毓賱賶 丕賱丕毓鬲亘丕乇丕鬲 丕賱兀禺乇賶貙 賵賴匕賴 丕賱賲丨丕賰賲丞 賱賲 鬲賰賳 賳夭賷賴丞 亘賱 卮丕亘賴丕 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丞貙 爻賵丕亍 賮賷 毓乇囟 丕賱賮賰乇丞 丨賷孬 鬲毓賲丿 兀丨賷丕賳丕 廿賱賶 毓乇囟 丕賱廿賷孬丕乇賷丞 亘兀賰孬乇 胤乇賷賯丞 賲賳賮乇丞 兀賵 亘鬲兀賵賷賱丕鬲 睾賷乇 氐丨賷丨丞 亘睾乇囟 鬲卮賵賷賴賴丕. 賮毓賱賶 爻亘賷賱 丕賱賲孬丕賱 賮賯胤: 丨賷賳 兀賵乇丿鬲 鬲毓乇賷賮 丕賱兀賳丕賳賷丞 毓乇賮鬲賴 亘兀賳賴丕 丕賱丕賴鬲賲丕賲 亘丕賱賲氐丕賱丨 丕賱卮禺氐賷丞貙 賵賱賰賳 賴匕丕 賱賷爻 賲賮賴賵賲賴丕 丕賱丿賱丕賱賷 毓賱賶 丕賱兀賯賱 賮賷 賲丕 兀賮賴賲賴 賲賳 賱睾鬲賷 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞貙 廿匕 兀賳 賲賮賴賵賲 丕賱兀賳丕賳賷丞 賱睾賵賷丕賸 賲丨賲賱 亘丿賱丕賱丞 爻賱亘賷丞 賱賷爻鬲 丿賱丕賱丞 丕賱鬲丿丕賵賱 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓賷 賮丨爻亘 賵廿賳賲丕 丿賱丕賱丞 噩匕乇 丕賱賲氐胤賱丨 賳賮爻賴 賱睾賵賷丕賸.
賵賮賷 爻賷丕賯 丨丿賷孬賴丕 毓賳 賰乇丕賴賷丞 丕賱氐賳丕毓賷 丕賱孬乇賷 亘乇乇鬲 兀賳 丕賱賳丕爻 鬲賰乇賴賴 賱賰賵賳賴 賷噩賳賷 孬乇賵丞 賱賳賮爻賴貙 賵賴匕丕 賲噩丕賳亘 賱賱氐賵丕亘 賮丕賱孬乇賷 丕賱賲賰乇賵賴 賴賵 丕賱孬乇賷 丕賱噩卮毓 丕賱匕賷 賷丨氐丿 丕賱賲丕賱 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 廿賳賴丕賰 丕賱賲賴賲卮賷賳 賵爻丨賯賴賲 ... 廿賱禺 賱賰賳 乇丕賳丿 鬲丨丕賵賱 丕禺鬲夭丕賱 爻亘亘 賰乇賴 丕賱兀孬乇賷丕亍 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱鬲賮爻賷乇 丕賱爻胤丨賷 賮賯胤.
賲賳 丕賱兀賲孬賱丞 賲丨丕賵賱丞 鬲賮爻賷乇賴丕 賱賱廿賷孬丕乇賷丞 亘兀賳賴丕 噩毓賱 毓賲賱 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賱賳賮爻賴 卮乇丕賸貨 亘賷賳賲丕 丕賱廿賷孬丕乇賷丞 鬲賯賵賲 毓賱賶 賲亘丿兀 丕賱亘匕賱 賵丕賱毓胤丕亍 兀賵 賲賮賴賵賲 丕賱廿丨爻丕賳貙 賵賷睾賷亘 賴匕丕 丕賱賲賮賴賵賲 賮賷 兀胤乇賵丨丞 丕賱賲丐賱賮丞 賱賰賵賳賴丕 鬲鬲禺匕 賲賵賯賮丕賸 賲毓丕丿賷丕賸 賱賱丿賷賳 賮賷 賮賱爻賮鬲賴丕.
賴賳丕賰 兀賮賰丕乇 賲賲鬲丕夭丞 胤乇丨鬲賴丕 丕賱賲丐賱賮丞 賰賳賯丿賴丕 賱賱乇賲丕丿賷丞 賵賲丕 胤乇丨鬲賴 賲賳 賵噩賵亘 丕賱鬲夭丕賲 噩丕賳亘丕賸 賮賷 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 賲丕 丿賲賳丕 賳乇丕賴 氐丨賷丨丕賸 賵兀賳 爻賱賵賰賳丕 賱賱丨賷丕丿 賮賷 賯囟賷丞 賲丕 賲毓 丕毓鬲賯丕丿賳丕 亘賵噩賵丿 丕賱丨賯 賮賷 兀丨丿 丕賱胤乇賮賷賳 賴賵 禺胤兀 賲丨囟.
亘賯賷 兀賳 兀毓賱賯 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞貙 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 賱賷爻鬲 賲賲鬲丕夭丞 賱賱兀爻賮
*亘賲丕 廿賳賳丕 賳鬲賰賱賲 毓賳 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 賮賷 兀賵賱 賲乇丕噩毓丞貙 賮乇兀賷賷 賴賵 兀賳 丕賱賯丕乇卅 賷丨賯 賱賴 賲丨丕賰賲丞 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 賵廿賳 賱賲 賷賲鬲賱賰 賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱賲鬲乇噩賲 毓賳賴丕 賱兀賳賴 賮賷 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 丕賱匕賷 賷賴賲賴 賴賵 兀賳 賷賯乇兀 賳氐丕賸 亘賱睾鬲賴 丕賱賲鬲乇噩賲 廿賱賷賴丕 丿賵賳 丕賱卮毓賵乇 亘賯乇丕亍丞 賳氐 賵毓乇 兀賵 賯賱賯*
兀賵賱丕賸: 賮賴賲 賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲毓鬲賲丿丞 毓賱賶 賮賴賲 丕賱賲匕賴亘 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷 丕賱匕賷 鬲亘賳鬲賴 丕賱賲丐賱賮丞 賵丕賱禺賱賮賷丕鬲 丕賱賲毓乇賮賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賳胤賱賯 賲賳賴丕貙 兀賲丕 兀賳丕 賮兀丨亘 兀賳 兀賯乇兀 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 囟賲賳 賲爻賷乇丞 丨賷丕丞 丕賱賲丐賱賮丞 丕賱卮禺氐賷丞貙 亘丕賱胤亘毓 賱丕 兀丐賲賳 亘賲亘丿兀 賲賵鬲 丕賱賲丐賱賮 賮賷 賲賵丕囟毓 賰孬賷乇丞 賵賴匕丕 兀丨丿賴丕.
丌賷賳 乇丕賳丿貙 乇賵爻賷丞 睾丕丿乇鬲 丕賱廿鬲丨丕丿 丕賱爻賵賮賷鬲賷 賲毓 毓夭賲賴丕 毓賱賶 毓丿賲 丕賱毓賵丿 廿賱賷賴貙 賵賴賷 賱賲 鬲睾丕丿乇 丕賱廿鬲丨丕丿 丕賱爻賵賮賷鬲賷 賮丨爻亘 亘賱 兀乇丕丿鬲 兀賳 鬲睾丕丿乇 丕賱賲賳馗賵賲丞 丕賱賮賰乇賷丞 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賳卮兀鬲 賮賷 馗賱賴丕貙 賵賱匕丕 賳丨鬲 賴匕丕 丕賱賲賳丨賶 丕賱丨丕丿 賮賷 鬲賳丕賵賱賴丕 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷 賵丕鬲禺匕鬲 丕鬲噩丕賴賸丕 賲賮乇胤丕賸 賮賷 丕賱廿毓賱丕亍 賲賳 丕賱兀賳丕賳賷丞 賵丕爻鬲賯賱丕賱 丕賱賮乇丿.
賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賴賵 賲噩賲賵毓 賲賯丕賱丕鬲 亘丕賱廿囟丕賮丞 廿賱賶 賲丨丕囟乇丞 賱賱賰丕鬲亘丞 噩賲賷毓賴丕 鬲氐亘 賮賷 賳賯丿 賲匕賴亘 丕賱廿賷孬丕乇賷丞 丕賱禺賱賯賷貙 賵鬲毓賳賷 亘賴 丕賱賲丐賱賮丞 賲匕賴亘 丕賱廿賷孬丕乇 毓賱賶 丕賱賳賮爻 賵丕賱亘匕賱貙 賵鬲賯賵賲 亘丕賱爻禺乇賷丞 賲賳賴 賵賲丨丕賰賲鬲賴 賲丨丕賰賲丞 卮丿賷丿丞 鬲毓夭夭 賲賳 廿毓賱丕亍 卮兀賳 丕賱賮乇丿賷丞 賵鬲賯丿賷賲賴丕 毓賱賶 丕賱丕毓鬲亘丕乇丕鬲 丕賱兀禺乇賶貙 賵賴匕賴 丕賱賲丨丕賰賲丞 賱賲 鬲賰賳 賳夭賷賴丞 亘賱 卮丕亘賴丕 丕賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱賲睾丕賱胤丞貙 爻賵丕亍 賮賷 毓乇囟 丕賱賮賰乇丞 丨賷孬 鬲毓賲丿 兀丨賷丕賳丕 廿賱賶 毓乇囟 丕賱廿賷孬丕乇賷丞 亘兀賰孬乇 胤乇賷賯丞 賲賳賮乇丞 兀賵 亘鬲兀賵賷賱丕鬲 睾賷乇 氐丨賷丨丞 亘睾乇囟 鬲卮賵賷賴賴丕. 賮毓賱賶 爻亘賷賱 丕賱賲孬丕賱 賮賯胤: 丨賷賳 兀賵乇丿鬲 鬲毓乇賷賮 丕賱兀賳丕賳賷丞 毓乇賮鬲賴 亘兀賳賴丕 丕賱丕賴鬲賲丕賲 亘丕賱賲氐丕賱丨 丕賱卮禺氐賷丞貙 賵賱賰賳 賴匕丕 賱賷爻 賲賮賴賵賲賴丕 丕賱丿賱丕賱賷 毓賱賶 丕賱兀賯賱 賮賷 賲丕 兀賮賴賲賴 賲賳 賱睾鬲賷 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞貙 廿匕 兀賳 賲賮賴賵賲 丕賱兀賳丕賳賷丞 賱睾賵賷丕賸 賲丨賲賱 亘丿賱丕賱丞 爻賱亘賷丞 賱賷爻鬲 丿賱丕賱丞 丕賱鬲丿丕賵賱 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓賷 賮丨爻亘 賵廿賳賲丕 丿賱丕賱丞 噩匕乇 丕賱賲氐胤賱丨 賳賮爻賴 賱睾賵賷丕賸.
賵賮賷 爻賷丕賯 丨丿賷孬賴丕 毓賳 賰乇丕賴賷丞 丕賱氐賳丕毓賷 丕賱孬乇賷 亘乇乇鬲 兀賳 丕賱賳丕爻 鬲賰乇賴賴 賱賰賵賳賴 賷噩賳賷 孬乇賵丞 賱賳賮爻賴貙 賵賴匕丕 賲噩丕賳亘 賱賱氐賵丕亘 賮丕賱孬乇賷 丕賱賲賰乇賵賴 賴賵 丕賱孬乇賷 丕賱噩卮毓 丕賱匕賷 賷丨氐丿 丕賱賲丕賱 賲賳 禺賱丕賱 廿賳賴丕賰 丕賱賲賴賲卮賷賳 賵爻丨賯賴賲 ... 廿賱禺 賱賰賳 乇丕賳丿 鬲丨丕賵賱 丕禺鬲夭丕賱 爻亘亘 賰乇賴 丕賱兀孬乇賷丕亍 賮賷 賴匕丕 丕賱鬲賮爻賷乇 丕賱爻胤丨賷 賮賯胤.
賲賳 丕賱兀賲孬賱丞 賲丨丕賵賱丞 鬲賮爻賷乇賴丕 賱賱廿賷孬丕乇賷丞 亘兀賳賴丕 噩毓賱 毓賲賱 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賱賳賮爻賴 卮乇丕賸貨 亘賷賳賲丕 丕賱廿賷孬丕乇賷丞 鬲賯賵賲 毓賱賶 賲亘丿兀 丕賱亘匕賱 賵丕賱毓胤丕亍 兀賵 賲賮賴賵賲 丕賱廿丨爻丕賳貙 賵賷睾賷亘 賴匕丕 丕賱賲賮賴賵賲 賮賷 兀胤乇賵丨丞 丕賱賲丐賱賮丞 賱賰賵賳賴丕 鬲鬲禺匕 賲賵賯賮丕賸 賲毓丕丿賷丕賸 賱賱丿賷賳 賮賷 賮賱爻賮鬲賴丕.
賴賳丕賰 兀賮賰丕乇 賲賲鬲丕夭丞 胤乇丨鬲賴丕 丕賱賲丐賱賮丞 賰賳賯丿賴丕 賱賱乇賲丕丿賷丞 賵賲丕 胤乇丨鬲賴 賲賳 賵噩賵亘 丕賱鬲夭丕賲 噩丕賳亘丕賸 賮賷 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 賲丕 丿賲賳丕 賳乇丕賴 氐丨賷丨丕賸 賵兀賳 爻賱賵賰賳丕 賱賱丨賷丕丿 賮賷 賯囟賷丞 賲丕 賲毓 丕毓鬲賯丕丿賳丕 亘賵噩賵丿 丕賱丨賯 賮賷 兀丨丿 丕賱胤乇賮賷賳 賴賵 禺胤兀 賲丨囟.
亘賯賷 兀賳 兀毓賱賯 毓賱賶 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞貙 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 賱賷爻鬲 賲賲鬲丕夭丞 賱賱兀爻賮
*亘賲丕 廿賳賳丕 賳鬲賰賱賲 毓賳 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 賮賷 兀賵賱 賲乇丕噩毓丞貙 賮乇兀賷賷 賴賵 兀賳 丕賱賯丕乇卅 賷丨賯 賱賴 賲丨丕賰賲丞 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 賵廿賳 賱賲 賷賲鬲賱賰 賲毓乇賮丞 丕賱賱睾丞 丕賱賲鬲乇噩賲 毓賳賴丕 賱兀賳賴 賮賷 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 丕賱匕賷 賷賴賲賴 賴賵 兀賳 賷賯乇兀 賳氐丕賸 亘賱睾鬲賴 丕賱賲鬲乇噩賲 廿賱賷賴丕 丿賵賳 丕賱卮毓賵乇 亘賯乇丕亍丞 賳氐 賵毓乇 兀賵 賯賱賯*
October 12, 2017
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 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...
May 24, 2008
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?
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?
March 18, 2020
These essays weren't far off from being complete and utter tosh.
Read just over half of them, ditched the rest.
50/50 as to whether I read Rand again.
Read just over half of them, ditched the rest.
50/50 as to whether I read Rand again.
September 29, 2020
La primera mitad del libro es una completa obra maestra de filosof铆a, explicada desde la ling眉铆stica 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 tir谩ndole al comunismo en todo momento (sumamente decepcionante esa parte).
April 11, 2009
Ayn Rand was one of the most controversial thinkers--and successful fiction writers--of the 20th Century. Her detractors would claim that there is little to distinguish her fiction from her philosophy: that both are the result of a fantasist's distorted perspective on the world, tainted by an extreme egoism and fueled by some rather profound delusions. Her supporters would claim that it is the world as we know it that is distorted, mostly through the insidious influence of the philosophy of altruism, and that Miss Rand's philosophy is the only antidote to a world gone mad and hurtling toward an orgy of self-destruction. (This kind of extreme, polemical speech is fairly common in Randian discourse, no matter which side you are on.) The truth, as in most cases, lies somewhere in the middle.
Miss Rand (as she is always referred to by her followers) was the founder of the philosophy of Objectivism. She presented that philosophy in a series of novels, the culminating magnum opus of which was Atlas Shrugged, a sprawling neo-scifi quasi-futurist melodrama that has become a perennial bestseller since its publication in 1957. (The Fountainhead, which I think is a far superior book from a strictly literary perspective, came out in 1943, and was intended, in her words, to be "a portrayal of the ideal man".) Critics savaged Atlas Shrugged almost immediately, but the public took a kinder view of it, and Miss Rand, after a period of depression caused by the lack of serious consideration of her work in academic circles, founded an organization (now known as The Ayn Rand Institute) to promote her philosophy. That organization published a monthly newsletter throughout the 1960's to explain the philosophy in greater detail; Ayn Rand's contributions (and those of her chosen heir, Nathaniel Branden) were then collected into a series of short books further explaining Objectivism in greater detail. The Virtue of Selfishness is one of those books.
And there is much to admire here. Objectivism is based on the belief that reality is real--"A is A"--and that alone is a welcome change from the gibberish that one often encounters in the more esoteric philosophical discussions. The problem is that Miss Rand believes that in life, regardless of the circumstances, A is always A, and it is her "A" which is the correct one. (There is a famous exchange she had during a Q & A on an episode of the Phil Donahue Show, where a guest asked her if she thought she was perfect. "In terms of adhering to my philosophy at all times," she said, "yes, I am." The crowd exploded in hoots of derision. She just laughed at them. And this was in the Felt Forum in Madison Square Garden, with an attendance in the thousands. Say what you will, the woman had guts.) And that's a crucial flaw in the philosophy: to use logic to always come up with the right answer, as though life were a math problem, one must always have all the facts--all the inputs--and in life that is rarely the case. Most of the time we spend in doubt, trying to guess what "A" really is, or going forward on the basis of our experience and intuition. Miss Rand would call this mysticism; most other people would call it "life".
There is a distinct lack of humor and compassion here, as well. Neither of those values have a place in Objectivism, because the standard in Objectivism is always the same: rational self-interest. Everything in Objectivism is self-referential; how one feels about--or what one does for--another individual is based solely on that individual's place in one's own hierarchy of values. It is anathema to the Objectivist to suggest that there is a moral obligation to help someone in, say, a foreign country, even if the means are available to do so. And it is certainly immoral to suggest that society as a whole (meaning, of course, government) has a moral obligation to provide a social safety net for those who have been born ill-equipped to face the challenges of living in a modern society, or into familial or social circumstances which render it nearly impossible to develop into fully contributory citizens. Perhaps worst of all, though, is the idea that any sense of humor about oneself--any form of self-deprecating wit, or sign of humility--is somehow a betrayal of one's very soul. (There is that extremism again.) It sometimes seems, in reading Rand, that she has modeled the perfect human on Dr. Spock of Star Trek fame, which is unfortunate, given that the good Doctor was an alien.
But there is, as always when dealing with Miss Rand, another side to the story. As much as professional philosophers ridicule her as being a crackpot--and there are, admittedly, some howlers in there--for most people (who, frankly, themselves would consider most professional philosophers to be crackpots) there is a great deal of practical appeal in Objectivism, and for good reason: as Miss Rand so succinctly puts it, Objectivism is a philosophy "for living life here on Earth". There is very little angels-on-pinheads speculation here, very little that is off the point. Her focus is always concentrated on the here and now, the reality of living as experienced by individuals every day, and as such there is a great deal of utility in reading her work. To adopt her philosophy wholly is, ironically enough, to abdicate one's individuality, since she always insisted that her philosophy was "perfect" and had to be accepted in its entirety, exactly as she promulgated it. (If you're wondering whether or not there is a high degree of cult-like devotion in the Randian world, the answer is yes.) But if one is willing to think for oneself there is value in reading her work, and The Virtue of Selfishness is a good place to start.
Miss Rand (as she is always referred to by her followers) was the founder of the philosophy of Objectivism. She presented that philosophy in a series of novels, the culminating magnum opus of which was Atlas Shrugged, a sprawling neo-scifi quasi-futurist melodrama that has become a perennial bestseller since its publication in 1957. (The Fountainhead, which I think is a far superior book from a strictly literary perspective, came out in 1943, and was intended, in her words, to be "a portrayal of the ideal man".) Critics savaged Atlas Shrugged almost immediately, but the public took a kinder view of it, and Miss Rand, after a period of depression caused by the lack of serious consideration of her work in academic circles, founded an organization (now known as The Ayn Rand Institute) to promote her philosophy. That organization published a monthly newsletter throughout the 1960's to explain the philosophy in greater detail; Ayn Rand's contributions (and those of her chosen heir, Nathaniel Branden) were then collected into a series of short books further explaining Objectivism in greater detail. The Virtue of Selfishness is one of those books.
And there is much to admire here. Objectivism is based on the belief that reality is real--"A is A"--and that alone is a welcome change from the gibberish that one often encounters in the more esoteric philosophical discussions. The problem is that Miss Rand believes that in life, regardless of the circumstances, A is always A, and it is her "A" which is the correct one. (There is a famous exchange she had during a Q & A on an episode of the Phil Donahue Show, where a guest asked her if she thought she was perfect. "In terms of adhering to my philosophy at all times," she said, "yes, I am." The crowd exploded in hoots of derision. She just laughed at them. And this was in the Felt Forum in Madison Square Garden, with an attendance in the thousands. Say what you will, the woman had guts.) And that's a crucial flaw in the philosophy: to use logic to always come up with the right answer, as though life were a math problem, one must always have all the facts--all the inputs--and in life that is rarely the case. Most of the time we spend in doubt, trying to guess what "A" really is, or going forward on the basis of our experience and intuition. Miss Rand would call this mysticism; most other people would call it "life".
There is a distinct lack of humor and compassion here, as well. Neither of those values have a place in Objectivism, because the standard in Objectivism is always the same: rational self-interest. Everything in Objectivism is self-referential; how one feels about--or what one does for--another individual is based solely on that individual's place in one's own hierarchy of values. It is anathema to the Objectivist to suggest that there is a moral obligation to help someone in, say, a foreign country, even if the means are available to do so. And it is certainly immoral to suggest that society as a whole (meaning, of course, government) has a moral obligation to provide a social safety net for those who have been born ill-equipped to face the challenges of living in a modern society, or into familial or social circumstances which render it nearly impossible to develop into fully contributory citizens. Perhaps worst of all, though, is the idea that any sense of humor about oneself--any form of self-deprecating wit, or sign of humility--is somehow a betrayal of one's very soul. (There is that extremism again.) It sometimes seems, in reading Rand, that she has modeled the perfect human on Dr. Spock of Star Trek fame, which is unfortunate, given that the good Doctor was an alien.
But there is, as always when dealing with Miss Rand, another side to the story. As much as professional philosophers ridicule her as being a crackpot--and there are, admittedly, some howlers in there--for most people (who, frankly, themselves would consider most professional philosophers to be crackpots) there is a great deal of practical appeal in Objectivism, and for good reason: as Miss Rand so succinctly puts it, Objectivism is a philosophy "for living life here on Earth". There is very little angels-on-pinheads speculation here, very little that is off the point. Her focus is always concentrated on the here and now, the reality of living as experienced by individuals every day, and as such there is a great deal of utility in reading her work. To adopt her philosophy wholly is, ironically enough, to abdicate one's individuality, since she always insisted that her philosophy was "perfect" and had to be accepted in its entirety, exactly as she promulgated it. (If you're wondering whether or not there is a high degree of cult-like devotion in the Randian world, the answer is yes.) But if one is willing to think for oneself there is value in reading her work, and The Virtue of Selfishness is a good place to start.
December 24, 2023
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.
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.
September 27, 2013
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: 鈥淓very man should desire for others the good which he seeks for himself.鈥� Spinoza recognizing humans flourish best with other humans argues it鈥檚 in a person鈥檚 self-interest, and makes a person happiest, when consequently people 鈥渁re just, faithful, and honourable in their conduct.鈥� 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.
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: 鈥淓very man should desire for others the good which he seeks for himself.鈥� Spinoza recognizing humans flourish best with other humans argues it鈥檚 in a person鈥檚 self-interest, and makes a person happiest, when consequently people 鈥渁re just, faithful, and honourable in their conduct.鈥� 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.
July 14, 2008
I could write an entire dissertation on the inconsistencies of Rand's philosophy and the arguments she makes, but I'll behave and limit myself to just one criticism: she flagrantly disregards the meaning of the term "ethics" and argues that a purely "selfish" approach (i.e. one that is concerned only with one's self) is not only a rational thing to do, but it is, in fact, an ethical approach to take.
The first part of her argument does make sense if you boil rationality down to a purely biological need to survive and function in this world. However, the latter part of her argument makes no sense and she makes relatively little effort to explain or justify her assertion. Instead, she chooses to assert over and over again the power of the individual and his or her rationality as supreme, and she develops the phrase "ethical egoism" in order to navigate around some obvious problems with her assertion. If one is unconcerned with the meaning of words and how they function, then they will have little problem converting into a "Randian". However, if one is like me and remembers what my buddy Ludwig Wittgenstein talked about in his linguistic philosophy, it's pretty much impossible to overlook how Rand essentially makes up new definitions for terms whenever it is convenient.
The first part of her argument does make sense if you boil rationality down to a purely biological need to survive and function in this world. However, the latter part of her argument makes no sense and she makes relatively little effort to explain or justify her assertion. Instead, she chooses to assert over and over again the power of the individual and his or her rationality as supreme, and she develops the phrase "ethical egoism" in order to navigate around some obvious problems with her assertion. If one is unconcerned with the meaning of words and how they function, then they will have little problem converting into a "Randian". However, if one is like me and remembers what my buddy Ludwig Wittgenstein talked about in his linguistic philosophy, it's pretty much impossible to overlook how Rand essentially makes up new definitions for terms whenever it is convenient.
June 11, 2018
My advice would be to spend your time on a more useful endeavour...
March 22, 2010
The star's for this: she writes a novel and then quotes one of the characters at length in this book. What chutzpah.
It's even better than the academics who cite things they haven't written yet.
Why have I picked it up? I'm sleeping badly. It made me closely examine what's in the bookshelf in the room in which I am generally living at the moment.
Oh yes. I see what's happened. Many years ago when I first moved into this house, I very sensibly put all the philosophy out in the spare bedroom where nobody would ever have to look at it. Kant. Heidegger. Rand. Nietzche. Machiavelli. Robert Audrey (yes, even worse, there is anthropology). There's Voltaire and Jung and Freud. There's Jerry Rubin, books on Jesus and books on drug communes. You get the drift.
Of course, guests would have to live with it, but at the very least it would ensure that they moved on at a decent pace. Little did I know it would be my place of residence later on.
Major reorganisation of bookshelves to take place. Novels. Poetry. Comics. Things to dream by.
It's even better than the academics who cite things they haven't written yet.
Why have I picked it up? I'm sleeping badly. It made me closely examine what's in the bookshelf in the room in which I am generally living at the moment.
Oh yes. I see what's happened. Many years ago when I first moved into this house, I very sensibly put all the philosophy out in the spare bedroom where nobody would ever have to look at it. Kant. Heidegger. Rand. Nietzche. Machiavelli. Robert Audrey (yes, even worse, there is anthropology). There's Voltaire and Jung and Freud. There's Jerry Rubin, books on Jesus and books on drug communes. You get the drift.
Of course, guests would have to live with it, but at the very least it would ensure that they moved on at a decent pace. Little did I know it would be my place of residence later on.
Major reorganisation of bookshelves to take place. Novels. Poetry. Comics. Things to dream by.
June 14, 2011
The title of the book is slightly misleading as most people have no true philosophical understanding of what is "selfishness", immediately thinking of the irrational blanket understanding of individuals acting in grotesque mockery of true self interest, often harming themselves in the process. Her contention is that such people are not selfish enough, for if they were truly selfish, they would have their true self-interest at heart and are therefor acting irrationally and not selfish at all. Think instead for the title of this book: "The virtue of rational self-interest" and you will understand it better. This means The ability to choose voluntary cooperation from a rational appraisal of value, along with its opposite or the freedom to not associate with people we do not value. This is the freedom of contract, and the Non-aggression principle coupled with a theory of value based judgment with your own life as the basis for that value. If you start with an end goal of a successful and rationally fulfilled life as the standard of your values, you will not seek anything which is not value, and therefor you will not seek those things which are irrational or conducive to your end goal. Rand explains the self defeating impossible contradiction inherent within all systems of ethics which start with Altruism, and how such philosophies contributed and continue to create the worst atrocities the world has ever witnessed, and that because the basis of their values is the irrational, they create impossible contradictions and seek to gain fulfillment by destruction. She explains that all men who seek to practice any form of altruism are walking time-bombs of emotional psychologically scarred and repressed schisms and how this ultimately irrational goal destroys the people who attempt it, dragging society along with them.
March 31, 2017
賳賲蹖 丿賵賳賲 賵丕賯毓丕賸 丕诏乇 賴賲賴 丕蹖賳 诏賵賳賴 亘卮賵賳丿 丿賳蹖丕 趩诏賵賳賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 賵賱蹖 賲賴賲 賳蹖爻鬲貙 賲賳 丕蹖賳 诏賵賳賴 賲蹖卮賵賲
July 9, 2021
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鈥檝e been living their life for another鈥檚 dream? That they married the man their parents wanted them to marry, even if they didn鈥檛 love him 鈥� 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 鈥� our Self 鈥� 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鈥檚 philosophy of 鈥榮elfishness鈥� 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鈥檇 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 鈥� 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鈥檚 size and the tiger鈥檚 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. 鈥楽ociety鈥�, 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 鈥榓ltruistic mentality 鈥� 鈥� the latter being the habit of regarding one鈥檚 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鈥檚 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 鈥� 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 鈥� 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鈥檚 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 鈥� sharp thinking, hard work, constant self-evaluation. Her worldview is admirably integrated; the more I read her nonfiction, the more I realize it鈥檚 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鈥檛 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鈥檚 nonfiction, and then offer a response to her worldview including my reservations. Philosophy: Who Needs It will be next, followed by The Romantic Manifesto.
Like many readers, my initial reaction to Rand鈥檚 philosophy of 鈥榮elfishness鈥� 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鈥檇 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 鈥� 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鈥檚 size and the tiger鈥檚 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. 鈥楽ociety鈥�, 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 鈥榓ltruistic mentality 鈥� 鈥� the latter being the habit of regarding one鈥檚 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鈥檚 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 鈥� 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 鈥� 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鈥檚 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 鈥� sharp thinking, hard work, constant self-evaluation. Her worldview is admirably integrated; the more I read her nonfiction, the more I realize it鈥檚 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鈥檛 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鈥檚 nonfiction, and then offer a response to her worldview including my reservations. Philosophy: Who Needs It will be next, followed by The Romantic Manifesto.
August 7, 2010
I found this book to be worth reading.After twenty one years of sacrificing my life and raising two arrogant teenagers who remain ungrateful for my efforts.I understand what Rand is trying to say.We cant always do all the giving because we will end up spent with nothing to show for it.We must nurture ourselves always, in this way we will have inner strength and the ability to get through life regardless what may come our way.
I disagree that her philosophy is founded on a Dr. Spok mentality.Her philosophy, while seeming extremely logical does have many valid points.
The principle that "One must never fail to pronounce moral judgement" is one that requires our intellectual as well as emotional ability to be able to discern what exactly we perceive as being right or wrong, and someone who is exercising this ability is to my understanding,very much in touch with their emotions,but I can understand why a lot of people would want to take her philosophy in small doses.Our American society is based on a degree of selflessness.Marked by many revolutions,however were not the founding fathers practicing Rand's philosophy when making a moral judgement by fighting for our rights to freedom from the Opressive British Crown? Were they biting the hand that fed them and being ungrateful? I suppose you can say that they were purely selfish in believing that they were worthy enough to have human rights.That is why we are a great nation.
Rand's "Virtue of Selfishness" seems to ring true in many respects for me.
I disagree that her philosophy is founded on a Dr. Spok mentality.Her philosophy, while seeming extremely logical does have many valid points.
The principle that "One must never fail to pronounce moral judgement" is one that requires our intellectual as well as emotional ability to be able to discern what exactly we perceive as being right or wrong, and someone who is exercising this ability is to my understanding,very much in touch with their emotions,but I can understand why a lot of people would want to take her philosophy in small doses.Our American society is based on a degree of selflessness.Marked by many revolutions,however were not the founding fathers practicing Rand's philosophy when making a moral judgement by fighting for our rights to freedom from the Opressive British Crown? Were they biting the hand that fed them and being ungrateful? I suppose you can say that they were purely selfish in believing that they were worthy enough to have human rights.That is why we are a great nation.
Rand's "Virtue of Selfishness" seems to ring true in many respects for me.
April 29, 2010
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.
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.
June 3, 2021
賰鬲丕亘 賲孬賷乇 賱賱噩丿賱貙 賯丿 賷爻鬲賮夭 丕賱亘毓囟貙 賵賷噩丿賴 丕賱亘毓囟 賲賯賳毓 賵賷爻鬲丨賯 丕賱廿卮丕丿丞
卮賻禺賿氐賽賷賸賾丕 丕爻鬲胤丕毓鬲 丌賷賳 乇丕賳丿 廿賯賳丕毓賷 乇睾賲 兀賳賳賷 賯丿 兀禺鬲賱賮 賲毓賴丕 賮賷 亘毓囟 丕賱鬲賮丕氐賷賱貙 賵賱賰賳 賮賷 丕賱賲噩賲賱 賲賳胤賯賴丕 賵毓賯賱賴丕 賷爻鬲丨賯 丕賱廿毓噩丕亘
乇睾賲 兀賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱兀賳丕賳賷丞 亘毓賷丿 毓賳 丕賱賲賮賴賵賲 丕賱卮毓亘賷 賵賷丨賵賱賴丕 賱賮賰乇丞 毓賯賱丕賳賷丞 賵賲賳胤賯賷丞貙 賵賱賰賳賷 丕爻鬲胤毓鬲 兀賳 兀賮賴賲 賰賷賮 賳卮兀鬲 賮賰乇丞 丕賱廿賷孬丕乇 賵亘賲丕匕丕 賷鬲氐賮 賲賳 賷鬲丨賱賶 亘賴匕賴 丕賱氐賮丞貙 賵噩丿鬲 兀賳賴丕 賯丿 鬲賰賵賳 賮賰乇丞 禺胤賷乇丞 賵賱賷爻鬲 賮囟賷賱丞 亘丕賱囟乇賵乇丞 禺氐賵氐丕 丨賷賳賲丕 賷鬲賲 鬲亘賳賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賲賮賴賵賲 丿賵賳 賵毓賷
賰鬲丕亘 賷爻鬲丨賯 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 亘賱丕 卮賰貙 禺氐賵氐丕 賱兀賵賱卅賰 丕賱匕賷賳 賷賯丿爻賵賳 賮賰乇丞 丕賱廿賷孬丕乇
卮賻禺賿氐賽賷賸賾丕 丕爻鬲胤丕毓鬲 丌賷賳 乇丕賳丿 廿賯賳丕毓賷 乇睾賲 兀賳賳賷 賯丿 兀禺鬲賱賮 賲毓賴丕 賮賷 亘毓囟 丕賱鬲賮丕氐賷賱貙 賵賱賰賳 賮賷 丕賱賲噩賲賱 賲賳胤賯賴丕 賵毓賯賱賴丕 賷爻鬲丨賯 丕賱廿毓噩丕亘
乇睾賲 兀賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱兀賳丕賳賷丞 亘毓賷丿 毓賳 丕賱賲賮賴賵賲 丕賱卮毓亘賷 賵賷丨賵賱賴丕 賱賮賰乇丞 毓賯賱丕賳賷丞 賵賲賳胤賯賷丞貙 賵賱賰賳賷 丕爻鬲胤毓鬲 兀賳 兀賮賴賲 賰賷賮 賳卮兀鬲 賮賰乇丞 丕賱廿賷孬丕乇 賵亘賲丕匕丕 賷鬲氐賮 賲賳 賷鬲丨賱賶 亘賴匕賴 丕賱氐賮丞貙 賵噩丿鬲 兀賳賴丕 賯丿 鬲賰賵賳 賮賰乇丞 禺胤賷乇丞 賵賱賷爻鬲 賮囟賷賱丞 亘丕賱囟乇賵乇丞 禺氐賵氐丕 丨賷賳賲丕 賷鬲賲 鬲亘賳賷 賴匕丕 丕賱賲賮賴賵賲 丿賵賳 賵毓賷
賰鬲丕亘 賷爻鬲丨賯 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 亘賱丕 卮賰貙 禺氐賵氐丕 賱兀賵賱卅賰 丕賱匕賷賳 賷賯丿爻賵賳 賮賰乇丞 丕賱廿賷孬丕乇
January 14, 2014
Ayn Rand is an event. She had one of the most astute and utterly confident minds of all time. Whether she's right about what she thinks is a different story. But make no mistake--Ayn Rand thinks about thinking. She is a true intellectual.
That said, I think "The Virtue of Selfishness" is not her strongest effort. For starters it has an uncharacteristically provocative title. Which is okay, but when a title is too sensationalistic (a la Ivan Boesky's "Greed is good.") I'm always skeptical. There are merits to the book, though. Anything written by Ayn Rand has substantial merits.
So is it good to be selfish? Read the book. (Just kidding.) Rand would say yes. But not simply or cavalierly but with sound reasons and substantial elaboration. Perhaps a better term for what Rand is calling 'selfishness' might be 'enlightened self interest.' But she's right on the money with much of her logic. In a chapter called "How does one lead a rational life in an irrational society" she examines the necessity to make choices that all people face and how to evade such responsibility is the true nature of evil. Her insights, as always, are razor sharp. For instance: "Indiscriminate tolerance and indiscriminate condemnation are not two opposites: they are two variants of the same evasion."
Rand addresses society's tendency to hold down, to make the hard-working, thinking, responsibility-taking person feel guilty, when in reality logic demands that the opposite should be the case. People should be proud of their efforts and what they've produced. Not say they are sorry for being a success. She is the ultimate free marketerian, believing a meritocracy is the only fair way of living in society.
She's a little myopic at times. In fact, her moral philosophy "objectivism" has not a few holes in it. But nevertheless her defense of her principles is based on reasons, not conjecture or belief. And I find that to be refreshing.
In her way she is a cheerleader for people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and make their lives happen. Witness this passage:
"Every achievement of man is a value in itself, but it is also a stepping-stone to greater achievements and values. Life is growth; not to move forward, is to fall backward; life remains life, only so long as it advances. Every step upward opens to man a wider range of action and achievement--and creates the need for that action and achievement. There is no final, permanent "plateau." The problem of survival is never "solved," once and for all, with no further thought or motion required. More precisely, the problem of survival is solved, by recognizing that survival demands constant growth and creativeness."
Have you worked hard to achieve something? Be proud of it. Were you well compensated for it? Enjoy it. You worked for it. You deserve it. This is Rand's philosophy, and if this is selfishness, than selfishness is indeed a virtue.
December 14, 2017
Note: Objectivism is deeply anti-Christianity, and anti-religion in general. You should not trust a politician that claims that he is both a Christian and a believer in the philosophies of Ayn Rand. He does not understand either Christianity or Objectivism, or possibly both, or he's a huge liar.
That said, this book isn't really what it sounds like. It's a collection of essays by Ayn Rand and Nathanial Branden that are not pro-heathenism per se. Rand and Branden try to explain how the philosophy of objectivism is that individuals need to think through their own rational system of morals and ethics. That's a good start. The problem is that a lot of the points in Rand's essays are either not logically sound or based on incorrect premises. (And I was pretty bored by Branden's sycophantic essays.) It's like swimming through mud.
For one thing, Rand refers a great deal to biological examples, and she repeatedly gets biology wrong. Obviously, she's not a biological scientist, and we know more today about biology than in the 1960s, but she premises her ethics arguments on the natural world- and her basis is incorrect. She believes that living creatures are driven primarily by continuing to live- that life (and the avoidance of pain) is the fundamental value of the natural world. That's only sort of true. The natural world is more driven by reproduction which means that animals regularly act on behalf of other related animals. Even on a cellular level there's the theory now that mitochondria used to be a separate free-living organism that combined with other organisms (endosymbiosis theory). Her idea that humans are emotionally and ethically tabula rasa when they are born isn't scientifically supported either. These are just a few examples, she gets a number of her points about science and animals either factually wrong or logically wrong. It reminds me of the absurd co-opting of evolutionary principals for political "Social Darwinism" nonsense.
As for her logical failures, (though I'm sure that some American Republicans agree with her) she makes no rational distinction between armed robbery, confiscation of all your property in a communist system, and taxation. She makes no distinction between altruism generally and complete self-sacrifice. Her views on love collapse into such total nonsense that arguing against them would require an entire treatise. She also incorrectly predicted many of the results of capitalism so this makes her arguments for unhindered capitalism look obviously foolish.
I do appreciate her condemnation of people's failure to engage in the pursuit of knowledge and reason. I also enjoyed her condemnation of communism.
That said, this book isn't really what it sounds like. It's a collection of essays by Ayn Rand and Nathanial Branden that are not pro-heathenism per se. Rand and Branden try to explain how the philosophy of objectivism is that individuals need to think through their own rational system of morals and ethics. That's a good start. The problem is that a lot of the points in Rand's essays are either not logically sound or based on incorrect premises. (And I was pretty bored by Branden's sycophantic essays.) It's like swimming through mud.
For one thing, Rand refers a great deal to biological examples, and she repeatedly gets biology wrong. Obviously, she's not a biological scientist, and we know more today about biology than in the 1960s, but she premises her ethics arguments on the natural world- and her basis is incorrect. She believes that living creatures are driven primarily by continuing to live- that life (and the avoidance of pain) is the fundamental value of the natural world. That's only sort of true. The natural world is more driven by reproduction which means that animals regularly act on behalf of other related animals. Even on a cellular level there's the theory now that mitochondria used to be a separate free-living organism that combined with other organisms (endosymbiosis theory). Her idea that humans are emotionally and ethically tabula rasa when they are born isn't scientifically supported either. These are just a few examples, she gets a number of her points about science and animals either factually wrong or logically wrong. It reminds me of the absurd co-opting of evolutionary principals for political "Social Darwinism" nonsense.
As for her logical failures, (though I'm sure that some American Republicans agree with her) she makes no rational distinction between armed robbery, confiscation of all your property in a communist system, and taxation. She makes no distinction between altruism generally and complete self-sacrifice. Her views on love collapse into such total nonsense that arguing against them would require an entire treatise. She also incorrectly predicted many of the results of capitalism so this makes her arguments for unhindered capitalism look obviously foolish.
I do appreciate her condemnation of people's failure to engage in the pursuit of knowledge and reason. I also enjoyed her condemnation of communism.
November 20, 2009
This book by novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand, (author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead") is an ethical treatise on her philosophy of Objectivism, which sets out the principles of rational egoism鈥攕elfishness鈥攁nd is the answer to thousands of years of the ethics of self-sacrifice鈥攁ltruism.
This morality is based on the needs of man鈥檚 survival, with one鈥檚 self as the standard of value, (hence selfishness,) and the pursuit of one鈥檚 own happiness as the moral ideal. Or, to quote Miss Rand: "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
This book contains many incisive essays on how American culture is inundated with primitive philosophical ideals, and needs nothing less than a moral revolution.
This morality is based on the needs of man鈥檚 survival, with one鈥檚 self as the standard of value, (hence selfishness,) and the pursuit of one鈥檚 own happiness as the moral ideal. Or, to quote Miss Rand: "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
This book contains many incisive essays on how American culture is inundated with primitive philosophical ideals, and needs nothing less than a moral revolution.
May 1, 2023
One star because we can't do fractions of stars.听 This was obviously a hate-read for me.听 As someone who thinks Objectivism is the purest, undistilled horse shit, forcing myself to get through even this slim 168-page volume was torture.听 The worst of Halloween tricks, The Virtue of Selfishness waited on my nightstand every day like a flaming bag of dog mess to be stomped every morning.听 I wouldn't read this book again if I was stranded on a desert island for the rest of my life and this was my only reading material.
Objectivism pretended to be something new.听 Rand obviously intended "The moral purpose of a man's life is the achievement of his own happiness," (p.56) to be outre and scandalous.听 Squares like us are supposed to be startled.听 How could she say such a thing?!?
What Rand offers is an inversion of the Golden Rule.听 Instead of Love Your Neighbor as Yourself, Rand instructs us to cut the middle man and just love yourself instead.听 To Rand altruism is evil and selfishness should be rewarded.听 A Medal of Honor winner who sacrificed his own life to save his platoon (my example) shouldn't be honored but criticized.听 According to Rand any such extravagant displays of self-sacrifice show only a lack of self-esteem, diminished respect for others, and proof of a tragic indifference to ethics.听 To Ayn Rand, Jesus Christ, held up by religious doctrine as sacrificing his life for the souls of everyone else, would be the ultimate sucker.听 Sad.
It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to turn everything upside down and inside out in an effort to create a whole new morality for mankind.听 Up is down and black is white.听 Rand says that love is a selfish value - the recognition of seeing one's values in another - and that selfless love is a contradiction in terms (p. 51).听 Helping others and relief of suffering should never be one's primary concern.听 Any help one gives another should be an act of generosity, never a moral duty.
Rand writes "If one wishes to advocate a free society - that is, capitalism..." showing that to her, they are the same thing (p.108).听 In fact, the terms are completely interchangeable.听 Objectivism and capitalism go hand听in hand.听 The implication of this book is that society would be better if we adopted Objectivist philosophy, though Rand rarely says so explicitly.听 She constructs grand straw men to prove that uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism is the best of all worlds.听 Socialist societies are "democratic absolute monarchy" that are "open to seizure of power by all comers, any ruthless climber, opportunist, adventurer, demagogue or thug." (p. 106)听 Rand warns that the apotheosis of socialism is the cutting out of a healthy man's eyes to give a blind person the power of sight.听 After all, if everything is community property, even one's own eyeballs would not be safe. (p. 98)听
Yet the only ruthless climber, opportunist, or demagogue I see is Ayn Rand herself.听 Like any malignant narcissist, she reveals much more about herself in what she writes than what she is trying to convey.听 The goal was never to create a better society.听 Rand hates society.听 The goal was to create a justification for the status quo.听 This fancy new philosophy that Rand worked so hard developing was only ever about creating a place in the world for Ayn Rand.听
(Case in point, Nathaniel Branden, who wrote five chapters in this book gets almost no credit. Since when is contributing 5 chapters out of 19 not coauthorship? Instead, we get a cryptic note at the end of the introduction that tells us that despite contributing to large portions of this book and the Objectivist philosophy Branden is "no longer associated me, with my philosphy or The Objectivist (formerly The Objectivist Newsletter).")
What we have here is a fancy doctrine that says that the people at the top deserve to be there.听 The point of Objectivism isn't to rattle cages and freak out squares, it听is about justifying the existing class structure.听 Rand knew that if she found a way to help rich people sleep better at night, she would be rewarded with her own creature comforts.听 Being a good Objectivist, Rand was concerned only with herself and her own problems.听 Ayn Rand was a selfish asshole.
Objectivism is a classic case of putting the cart before the horse.听 Rand starts with her conclusion and works her way back.听 The point of Objectivism is to reward selfishness and self-centeredness.听 Rich people don't just want to have all the money and power, they also want to be loved.听 The Western religious tradition, based in large part on Christ's message of self-sacrifice, has always made rich people feel bad about being rich.听 Ayn Rand saw an opportunity to ditch that old philosophy for something fresh that said, actually no, rich people are great.听 They are the best of us because they are the culmination of this new morality that says you should put yourself first.听
Rand seeks to take the economic arguments of the Austrian School and Milton Friedman's neoliberalism to their logical conclusion.听 She seeks to flatter capitalist society's听winners and tell them they deserve everything they can horde.听 This philosophy, like Neoclassical economics, is based first on property rights, "without property rights, no other rights are possible." (p.110)听 Rand's vision of a utopian ideal is a place where taxation (payment for government, she clarifies) would be "strictly voluntary." (p. 135)听 Just so.听 Good luck building a military with that.
But the philosophy that Rand concocts is nothing new.听 This is, in fact, the oldest philosophy in existence.听 It's so old that it's not even really a philosophy at all.听 It's called the Law of the Jungle.听 Might makes right.听 Bigger is better.听 It's a slight twist on social Darwinism that says those at the top of the social food chain belong there because they are the biggest, best, and meanest.听 To the victor go the spoils.听 There is nothing original or new about this idea.听听
Mankind is a social animal.听 There is a reason that the United Nations considers solitary confinement torture.听 People need others.听 There is truth to John Donne's sentiment that "No man is an island."听 Society only exists because people work together.听 The people who decide to lone-wolf it end up like Christopher McCandless, lonely, cut off, miserable, and dead.听 Like it or not, we need each other.
I think it is telling that Rand's worldview resonates with so many teenagers.听 In this self-centered worldview, everyone is out to get you, so you need to fight hard just to survive.听 A lot of teens feel this way.听 It is also telling that Rand died without ever having had children.听 In my own experience, having children made me grow beyond any selfish worldview I might have had as a young person.听 A baby is not going to wait for you to deal with your own personal headspace before you cope with their needs.听 Taking care of a family shakes a person out of their me-first attitude really quick and helps them see that there is more to life than one's own neuroses.听听
Human beings need each other.听 There is a reason that the world's great religions emphasize this.听 We need to take care of one another if we are going to survive.听 Putting oneself first, emphasizing the worst aspects of human nature, is no way to propagate the species.听 It's no way to build a society.听 It's no way to live your life.听 Please do yourself a favor and let Ayn Rand go fuck herself.听
Objectivism pretended to be something new.听 Rand obviously intended "The moral purpose of a man's life is the achievement of his own happiness," (p.56) to be outre and scandalous.听 Squares like us are supposed to be startled.听 How could she say such a thing?!?
What Rand offers is an inversion of the Golden Rule.听 Instead of Love Your Neighbor as Yourself, Rand instructs us to cut the middle man and just love yourself instead.听 To Rand altruism is evil and selfishness should be rewarded.听 A Medal of Honor winner who sacrificed his own life to save his platoon (my example) shouldn't be honored but criticized.听 According to Rand any such extravagant displays of self-sacrifice show only a lack of self-esteem, diminished respect for others, and proof of a tragic indifference to ethics.听 To Ayn Rand, Jesus Christ, held up by religious doctrine as sacrificing his life for the souls of everyone else, would be the ultimate sucker.听 Sad.
It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to turn everything upside down and inside out in an effort to create a whole new morality for mankind.听 Up is down and black is white.听 Rand says that love is a selfish value - the recognition of seeing one's values in another - and that selfless love is a contradiction in terms (p. 51).听 Helping others and relief of suffering should never be one's primary concern.听 Any help one gives another should be an act of generosity, never a moral duty.
Rand writes "If one wishes to advocate a free society - that is, capitalism..." showing that to her, they are the same thing (p.108).听 In fact, the terms are completely interchangeable.听 Objectivism and capitalism go hand听in hand.听 The implication of this book is that society would be better if we adopted Objectivist philosophy, though Rand rarely says so explicitly.听 She constructs grand straw men to prove that uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism is the best of all worlds.听 Socialist societies are "democratic absolute monarchy" that are "open to seizure of power by all comers, any ruthless climber, opportunist, adventurer, demagogue or thug." (p. 106)听 Rand warns that the apotheosis of socialism is the cutting out of a healthy man's eyes to give a blind person the power of sight.听 After all, if everything is community property, even one's own eyeballs would not be safe. (p. 98)听
Yet the only ruthless climber, opportunist, or demagogue I see is Ayn Rand herself.听 Like any malignant narcissist, she reveals much more about herself in what she writes than what she is trying to convey.听 The goal was never to create a better society.听 Rand hates society.听 The goal was to create a justification for the status quo.听 This fancy new philosophy that Rand worked so hard developing was only ever about creating a place in the world for Ayn Rand.听
(Case in point, Nathaniel Branden, who wrote five chapters in this book gets almost no credit. Since when is contributing 5 chapters out of 19 not coauthorship? Instead, we get a cryptic note at the end of the introduction that tells us that despite contributing to large portions of this book and the Objectivist philosophy Branden is "no longer associated me, with my philosphy or The Objectivist (formerly The Objectivist Newsletter).")
What we have here is a fancy doctrine that says that the people at the top deserve to be there.听 The point of Objectivism isn't to rattle cages and freak out squares, it听is about justifying the existing class structure.听 Rand knew that if she found a way to help rich people sleep better at night, she would be rewarded with her own creature comforts.听 Being a good Objectivist, Rand was concerned only with herself and her own problems.听 Ayn Rand was a selfish asshole.
Objectivism is a classic case of putting the cart before the horse.听 Rand starts with her conclusion and works her way back.听 The point of Objectivism is to reward selfishness and self-centeredness.听 Rich people don't just want to have all the money and power, they also want to be loved.听 The Western religious tradition, based in large part on Christ's message of self-sacrifice, has always made rich people feel bad about being rich.听 Ayn Rand saw an opportunity to ditch that old philosophy for something fresh that said, actually no, rich people are great.听 They are the best of us because they are the culmination of this new morality that says you should put yourself first.听
Rand seeks to take the economic arguments of the Austrian School and Milton Friedman's neoliberalism to their logical conclusion.听 She seeks to flatter capitalist society's听winners and tell them they deserve everything they can horde.听 This philosophy, like Neoclassical economics, is based first on property rights, "without property rights, no other rights are possible." (p.110)听 Rand's vision of a utopian ideal is a place where taxation (payment for government, she clarifies) would be "strictly voluntary." (p. 135)听 Just so.听 Good luck building a military with that.
But the philosophy that Rand concocts is nothing new.听 This is, in fact, the oldest philosophy in existence.听 It's so old that it's not even really a philosophy at all.听 It's called the Law of the Jungle.听 Might makes right.听 Bigger is better.听 It's a slight twist on social Darwinism that says those at the top of the social food chain belong there because they are the biggest, best, and meanest.听 To the victor go the spoils.听 There is nothing original or new about this idea.听听
Mankind is a social animal.听 There is a reason that the United Nations considers solitary confinement torture.听 People need others.听 There is truth to John Donne's sentiment that "No man is an island."听 Society only exists because people work together.听 The people who decide to lone-wolf it end up like Christopher McCandless, lonely, cut off, miserable, and dead.听 Like it or not, we need each other.
I think it is telling that Rand's worldview resonates with so many teenagers.听 In this self-centered worldview, everyone is out to get you, so you need to fight hard just to survive.听 A lot of teens feel this way.听 It is also telling that Rand died without ever having had children.听 In my own experience, having children made me grow beyond any selfish worldview I might have had as a young person.听 A baby is not going to wait for you to deal with your own personal headspace before you cope with their needs.听 Taking care of a family shakes a person out of their me-first attitude really quick and helps them see that there is more to life than one's own neuroses.听听
Human beings need each other.听 There is a reason that the world's great religions emphasize this.听 We need to take care of one another if we are going to survive.听 Putting oneself first, emphasizing the worst aspects of human nature, is no way to propagate the species.听 It's no way to build a society.听 It's no way to live your life.听 Please do yourself a favor and let Ayn Rand go fuck herself.听
July 11, 2016
袨 褍卸邪褋! 小写械谢邪泄褌械 屑械薪褟 褝褌芯 褉邪蟹胁懈写械褌褜! :) 袝褋谢懈 褝褌芯 "褎懈谢芯褋芯褎懈褟" (写邪 械褖褢 懈 "芯斜褗械泻褌懈胁懈蟹屑邪"), 褌芯 褌芯谐写邪 褟 - 袩邪锌邪 袪懈屑褋泻懈泄! 袝褋谢懈 写邪卸械 褝褌芯 懈 褎懈谢芯褋芯褎懈褟, 褌芯 "泻谢褞褔薪懈褑邪 写械谢邪谢邪" :((
1. 协褌芯 薪械 褎懈谢芯褋芯褎褋泻懈械 褌械泻褋褌褘, 邪 锌褉芯锌邪谐邪薪写邪 (薪褍 懈谢懈 锌褍斜谢懈褑懈褋褌懈泻邪-褝褋褋械懈褋褌懈泻邪 胁 谢褍褔褕械屑 褋谢褍褔邪械). 袙 褌械泻褋褌邪褏 褋谢锟斤拷褕泻芯屑 屑薪芯谐芯 褝屑芯褑懈泄 (芯褋芯斜械薪薪芯 薪械薪邪胁懈褋褌懈 泻 懈薪邪泻芯屑褘褋谢褟褖懈屑), 懈 褋谢懈褕泻芯屑 屑邪谢芯 褋褌褉芯谐芯泄 谢芯谐懈泻懈.
2. 袚谢邪胁薪邪褟 邪胁褌芯褉褋泻邪褟 懈写械褟 锌褉芯褋褌邪 泻邪泻 2褏2 : 褝谐芯懈蟹屑 (懈 芯褋薪芯胁邪薪薪褘泄 薪邪 薪褢屑 泻邪锌懈褌邪谢懈蟹屑) - 褝褌芯 褏芯褉芯褕芯 (褝褌懈褔薪芯), 邪 邪谢褜褌褉褍懈蟹屑 (懈 芯褋薪芯胁邪薪薪褘泄 薪邪 薪褢屑 褋芯褑懈邪谢懈蟹屑 谢褞斜芯谐芯 褌芯谢泻邪) - 褝褌芯 锌谢芯褏芯 懈 斜械蟹薪褉邪胁褋褌胁械薪薪芯.
袙褋械 邪胁褌芯褉褋泻懈械 写芯泻邪蟹邪褌械谢褜褋褌胁邪 褝褌芯谐芯 褌械蟹懈褋邪 屑芯卸薪芯 褋胁械褋褌懈 泻 芯写薪芯屑褍 谐谢邪胁薪芯屑褍: "协褌芯 褌邪泻 (懈 褝褌芯 褏芯褉芯褕芯), 锌芯褌芯屑褍 褔褌芯 褟 (褝谐芯懈褋褌) 褌邪泻 写褍屑邪褞, 懈 锌芯褌芯屑褍 褔褌芯 褝褌芯 褏芯褉芯褕芯 写谢褟 屑械薪褟". 袣褉褍谐, 泻邪泻 谐芯胁芯褉懈褌褋褟, 蟹邪屑泻薪褍谢褋褟 :(( 袣邪泻芯泄 褍卸 褌褍褌 "芯斜褗械泻褌懈胁懈蟹屑" :(.
袩芯 褋褍褌懈 褝褌芯 泻邪泻芯泄-褌芯 锌芯写褉芯褋褌泻芯胁褘泄 褔褢褉薪芯-斜械谢褘泄 屑邪泻褋懈屑邪谢懈蟹屑 (械褋谢懈 薪械 褋泻邪蟹邪褌褜 褉邪写懈泻邪谢懈蟹屑). 袚写械 邪胁褌芯褉 褋 锌械薪芯泄 褍 褉褌邪 芯褌褋褌邪懈胁邪械褌 褌芯谢褜泻芯 褋胁芯褞 褌芯褔泻褍 蟹褉械薪懈褟 懈 懈谐薪芯褉懈褉褍械褌 锌褉芯褌懈胁芯锌芯谢芯卸薪褍褞 褌芯褔泻褍 蟹褉械薪懈褟. 袛械谢芯 芯斜褋褌芯懈褌 械褖褢 褏褍卸械: 袗泄薪 袪褝薪写 褋邪屑邪 泻芯薪褋褌褉褍懈褉褍械褌-褋芯褔懈薪褟械褌 薪械泻懈泄 "褍卸邪褋薪褘泄 邪谢褜褌褉褍懈蟹屑", 邪 锌芯褌芯屑 胁芯胁褋褞 谢褍锌懈褌 锌芯 褝褌芯泄 械褞 卸械 褋芯蟹写邪薪薪芯泄 懈谢谢褞蟹芯褉薪芯泄 屑懈褕械薪懈. 袣邪泻-褌芯 褌褍锌芯 懈 薪械 芯褋褌褉芯褍屑薪芯 :((
3. 协褌芯 芯褔械薪褜 卸褢褋褌泻懈泄 锌芯写褏芯写 胁 谢芯谐懈泻械 "懈谢懈/懈谢懈" ("懈谢懈 褉邪写懈泻邪谢褜薪褘泄 褝谐芯懈蟹屑 - 懈谢懈 谢卸懈胁褘泄 邪谢褜褌褉褍懈蟹屑"), 懈 锌芯谢薪芯械 薪械锌褉懈褟褌懈械 锌芯写褏芯写邪 "懈/懈". 袧邪 褋邪屑芯屑 写械谢械 写邪卸械 薪邪 褍褉芯胁薪械 斜懈芯谢芯谐懈懈 (褝褌芯谢芯谐懈懈; 褋芯褑懈芯斜懈芯谢芯谐懈懈) "邪蟹斜褍褔薪芯泄 懈褋褌懈薪芯泄" 褟胁谢褟械褌褋褟 褎邪泻褌, 褔褌芯 写谢褟 谢褍褔褕械谐芯 胁褘卸懈胁邪薪懈褟 胁懈写邪 薪褍卸薪芯 袠 褝谐芯懈褋褌懈褔械褋泻芯械, 袠 邪谢褜褌褉褍懈褋褌懈褔械褋泻芯械 锌芯胁械写械薪懈械; 褔褌芯 胁 谢褞斜芯泄 锌芯锌褍谢褟褑懈懈 械褋褌褜 袠 褝谐芯懈褋褌褘, 袠 邪谢褜褌褉褍懈褋褌褘 懈 褌.写.
袦邪谢芯 褌芯谐芯, 胁 褉械邪谢褜薪芯屑 屑懈褉械 锌褉芯胁械褋褌懈 谐褉邪薪懈褑褍 屑械卸写褍 "写械谢邪褞 写谢褟 褋械斜褟" 懈 "写械谢邪褞 写谢褟 写褉褍谐懈褏" 锌褉邪泻褌懈褔械褋泻懈 薪械胁芯蟹屑芯卸薪芯. 袥褞斜芯泄 褝谐芯懈褋褌 褋芯褑懈邪谢械薪 懈 褋芯褑懈邪谢懈蟹懈褉芯胁邪薪, 懈 薪懈 胁 芯写薪芯屑 芯斜褖械褋褌胁械 (懈谢懈 褋褌邪械) 薪械胁芯蟹屑芯卸薪芯 胁褘卸懈褌褜, 械褋谢懈 薪械 "芯褌写邪胁邪褌褜" (褌.械. 械褋谢懈 薪械 斜褘褌褜 邪谢褜褌褉褍懈褋褌芯屑). 袪邪蟹褍屑薪褘泄 褝谐芯懈蟹屑: 写械谢邪褌褜 褏芯褉芯褕芯 褋械斜械, 薪芯 褋 褍褔褢褌芯屑 懈薪褌械褉械褋芯胁 写褉褍谐懈褏 谢褞写械泄, 懈 褌邪泻, 褔褌芯斜褘 斜褘谢芯 褏芯褉芯褕芯 薪械 褌芯谢褜泻芯 屑薪械, 薪芯 懈 芯泻褉褍卸邪褞褖懈屑. 袧芯 写谢褟 袗泄薪 袪褝薪写 胁械褉褋懈褟 褌邪泻芯谐芯 "褉邪蟹褍屑薪芯谐芯 褝谐芯懈蟹屑邪" 褋谢懈褕泻芯屑 屑褟谐泻邪褟; 胁 械泄 锌芯薪懈屑邪薪懈懈 "锌褉邪胁懈谢褜薪褘械" 褝谐芯懈褋褌褘 泻邪泻-褌芯 胁褋褢 斜芯谢褜褕械 褋屑邪褏懈胁邪褞褌 薪邪 锌芯屑械褋褜 褋芯褑懈芯锌邪褌邪 褋 褋芯褑懈芯褎芯斜芯屑 :))
4. 袙 褑械谢芯屑 邪胁褌芯褉褋泻懈泄 泻芯薪褋褌褉褍泻褌 "褝谐芯懈蟹屑邪" - 褝褌芯 泻谢邪褋褋懈褔械褋泻懈泄 锌褉懈屑械褉 褋褎械褉懈褔械褋泻芯谐芯 泻芯薪褟 胁 懈写械邪谢褜薪芯 褔褢褉薪芯屑 胁邪泻褍褍屑械. 袨写懈薪 (褌芯卸械 褎懈谐芯胁褘泄 褎懈谢芯褋芯褎))) 胁械褉薪芯 蟹邪屑械褌懈谢: "袞懈褌褜 胁 芯斜褖械褋褌胁械 懈 斜褘褌褜 褋胁芯斜芯写薪褘屑 芯褌 芯斜褖械褋褌胁邪 薪械谢褜蟹褟".
袪褝薪写 胁芯褋褏胁邪谢褟械褌 泻邪锌懈褌邪谢懈蟹屑 懈 芯斜褖械褋褌胁械薪薪褘泄 褋褌褉芯泄 小楔袗 泻邪泻 懈写械邪谢褜薪褍褞 锌芯褔胁褍 写谢褟 褝谐芯懈蟹屑邪 - 写谢褟 屑邪泻褋懈屑邪谢褜薪芯 褋胁芯斜芯写薪芯谐芯 懈薪写懈胁懈写褍邪谢懈蟹屑邪. 袨褔械薪褜 褋屑械褕薪芯 褝褌芯 褔懈褌邪褌褜, 褌.泻. 袥挟袘袨袝 芯斜褖械褋褌胁芯 - 褝褌芯 薪械泻懈泄 斜邪谢邪薪褋 屑械卸写褍 懈薪写懈胁懈写褍邪谢褜薪褘屑懈 褋胁芯斜芯写邪屑懈 懈 芯谐褉邪薪懈褔械薪懈褟屑懈 褋芯褑懈邪谢褜薪芯泄 袦邪褌褉懈褑褘 (谐芯褋.褉械谐褍谢懈褉芯胁邪薪懈械, 褋芯褑懈邪谢褜薪褘泄 泻芯薪褌褉芯谢褜, 褑械薪蟹褍褉邪 懈 锌褉芯褔.). 袩褉懈褔褢屑 褝褌懈 芯谐褉邪薪懈褔械薪懈褟 褋泻谢邪写褘胁邪谢懈褋褜 胁械泻邪屑懈, 懈 泻邪泻 斜褘 屑褘 薪懈 薪邪蟹褘胁邪谢懈 懈 薪械 褉械褎芯褉屑懈褉芯胁邪谢懈 芯斜褖械褋褌胁芯, 薪懈泻褍写邪 芯薪懈 薪械 写械薪褍褌褋褟. 袙 泻邪卸写芯屑 芯斜褖械褋褌胁械 褝褌懈 芯谐褉邪薪懈褔懈胁邪褞褖懈械 屑械褏邪薪懈蟹屑褘 褋胁芯懈, 懈 胁芯蟹屑芯卸薪褘械 "褋褌械锌械薪懈 褋胁芯斜芯写褘" 写谢褟 泻邪卸写芯谐芯 芯褌写械谢褜薪芯谐芯 褔械谢芯胁械泻邪 褌邪泻卸械 褋胁芯懈.
袗斜褋芯谢褞褌懈蟹懈褉芯胁邪褌褜 泻邪泻芯泄-褌芯 芯写懈薪 胁邪褉懈邪薪褌 (褔褌芯 写械谢邪械褌 袪褝薪写), 屑褟谐泻芯 谐芯胁芯褉褟, 薪械 褍屑薪芯 :(. 袩褉芯褋褌芯 褎邪薪邪褌懈蟹屑 泻邪泻芯泄-褌芯 :(( 孝械泻褋褌 锌芯谢褍褔邪械褌褋褟 褉械谢懈谐懈芯蟹薪芯-锌褉芯锌邪谐邪薪写懈褋褌褋泻懈泄, 薪芯 薪懈泻邪泻 薪械 褎懈谢芯褋芯褎褋泻懈泄.
5. 袙 褑械谢芯屑 褌邪泻邪褟 薪懈褑褕械邪薪褋泻邪褟 泻薪懈谐邪 写谢褟 屑芯谢芯写褘褏, 褋懈谢褜薪褘褏 懈 薪邪谐谢褘褏 芯褌屑芯褉芯蟹泻芯胁 :) 袙褋褢 褔褌芯 褏芯褔械褌 褌胁芯褢 协谐芯 - 褉邪蟹褍屑薪芯 懈 锌褉邪胁懈谢褜薪芯. 袠 胁 褉械邪谢懈蟹邪褑懈懈 褝褌懈褏 卸械谢邪薪懈泄 褌械斜械 薪懈泻褌芯 薪械 写芯谢卸械薪 屑械褕邪褌褜 (褌.械. 写芯谢卸薪邪 斜褘褌褜 屑邪泻褋懈屑邪谢褜薪邪褟 褋胁芯斜芯写邪 芯褌 芯斜褖械褋褌胁械薪薪褘褏 "写芯谢卸械薪褋褌胁芯胁邪薪懈泄" 懈 谢褞斜褘褏 褋芯褑懈邪谢褜薪褘褏 褉械谐褍谢褟褌芯褉芯胁). 袝褋谢懈 褌褘 泻邪泻-褌芯 褏芯褔械褕褜 锌芯屑芯褔褜 写褉褍谐懈屑, 褌芯 褝褌芯 褌芯谢褜泻芯 褌胁芯褢 写芯斜褉芯胁芯谢褜薪芯械 褉械褕械薪懈械 - 懈 薪懈泻褌芯 薪械 屑芯卸械褌 锌褉懈薪褍卸写邪褌褜 褌械斜褟 泻 褝褌芯屑褍 薪懈 褋谢芯胁芯屑, 薪懈 写械谢芯屑. 袧褍, 懈 褌.写. 懈 褌.锌.
袙 芯斜褖械屑, 褝褌芯 屑邪薪懈褎械褋褌 褌械褏, 泻褌芯 褏芯褔械褌 懈 屑芯卸械褌 褋邪屑 芯 褋械斜械 锌芯蟹邪斜芯褌懈褌褜褋褟 (懈 褔褌芯斜褘 薪懈泻褌芯 胁芯芯斜褖械 锌芯写 薪芯谐邪屑懈 薪械 锌褍褌邪谢褋褟; 懈 薪械 泻褉懈褌懈泻芯胁邪谢 褋锌芯褋芯斜褘, 泻芯褌芯褉褘屑懈 褟 褋胁芯懈 懈薪褌械褉械褋褘 褉械邪谢懈蟹芯胁褘胁邪褌褜 斜褍写褍). 袗 泻邪泻 斜褘褌褜 褋 褌械屑懈, 泻褌芯 薪械 屑芯卸械褌 芯 褋械斜械 锌芯蟹邪斜芯褌懈褌褜褋褟? 小 写械褌褜屑懈, 褋褌邪褉懈泻邪屑懈, 谢褞写褜屑懈 褋 芯谐褉邪薪懈褔械薪薪褘屑懈 胁芯蟹屑芯卸薪芯褋褌褟屑懈, 褋 锌芯锌邪胁褕懈屑懈 胁 褌褉褍写薪褘械 卸懈蟹薪械薪薪褘械 褋懈褌褍邪褑懈懈? 袩芯 胁械褉褋懈懈 邪胁褌芯褉邪, 褉邪写懈泻邪谢褜薪褘械 褝谐芯懈褋褌褘 褋邪屑懈 写芯谢卸薪褘 锌芯卸械谢邪褌褜 "锌芯写械谢懈褌褜褋褟" 褋 褝褌懈屑懈 谢褞写褜屑懈. 袧褍-薪褍... 袩褉褟屑 芯褔械褉械写懈 懈蟹 卸械谢邪褞褖懈褏 锌芯写械谢懈褌褜褋褟...
PS 小写邪褢褌褋褟 屑薪械, 褔褌芯 械褋谢懈 斜褘 褔械谢芯胁械褔械褋褌胁芯 胁 芯写懈薪 锌褉械泻褉邪褋薪褘泄 写械薪褜 褉械褕懈谢芯 斜褘 卸懈褌褜 锌芯 泻薪懈谐邪屑 袗泄薪 袪褝薪写, 褌芯 屑褘 斜褘 锌褉芯褋褌芯 薪械 胁褘卸懈谢懈.
1. 协褌芯 薪械 褎懈谢芯褋芯褎褋泻懈械 褌械泻褋褌褘, 邪 锌褉芯锌邪谐邪薪写邪 (薪褍 懈谢懈 锌褍斜谢懈褑懈褋褌懈泻邪-褝褋褋械懈褋褌懈泻邪 胁 谢褍褔褕械屑 褋谢褍褔邪械). 袙 褌械泻褋褌邪褏 褋谢锟斤拷褕泻芯屑 屑薪芯谐芯 褝屑芯褑懈泄 (芯褋芯斜械薪薪芯 薪械薪邪胁懈褋褌懈 泻 懈薪邪泻芯屑褘褋谢褟褖懈屑), 懈 褋谢懈褕泻芯屑 屑邪谢芯 褋褌褉芯谐芯泄 谢芯谐懈泻懈.
2. 袚谢邪胁薪邪褟 邪胁褌芯褉褋泻邪褟 懈写械褟 锌褉芯褋褌邪 泻邪泻 2褏2 : 褝谐芯懈蟹屑 (懈 芯褋薪芯胁邪薪薪褘泄 薪邪 薪褢屑 泻邪锌懈褌邪谢懈蟹屑) - 褝褌芯 褏芯褉芯褕芯 (褝褌懈褔薪芯), 邪 邪谢褜褌褉褍懈蟹屑 (懈 芯褋薪芯胁邪薪薪褘泄 薪邪 薪褢屑 褋芯褑懈邪谢懈蟹屑 谢褞斜芯谐芯 褌芯谢泻邪) - 褝褌芯 锌谢芯褏芯 懈 斜械蟹薪褉邪胁褋褌胁械薪薪芯.
袙褋械 邪胁褌芯褉褋泻懈械 写芯泻邪蟹邪褌械谢褜褋褌胁邪 褝褌芯谐芯 褌械蟹懈褋邪 屑芯卸薪芯 褋胁械褋褌懈 泻 芯写薪芯屑褍 谐谢邪胁薪芯屑褍: "协褌芯 褌邪泻 (懈 褝褌芯 褏芯褉芯褕芯), 锌芯褌芯屑褍 褔褌芯 褟 (褝谐芯懈褋褌) 褌邪泻 写褍屑邪褞, 懈 锌芯褌芯屑褍 褔褌芯 褝褌芯 褏芯褉芯褕芯 写谢褟 屑械薪褟". 袣褉褍谐, 泻邪泻 谐芯胁芯褉懈褌褋褟, 蟹邪屑泻薪褍谢褋褟 :(( 袣邪泻芯泄 褍卸 褌褍褌 "芯斜褗械泻褌懈胁懈蟹屑" :(.
袩芯 褋褍褌懈 褝褌芯 泻邪泻芯泄-褌芯 锌芯写褉芯褋褌泻芯胁褘泄 褔褢褉薪芯-斜械谢褘泄 屑邪泻褋懈屑邪谢懈蟹屑 (械褋谢懈 薪械 褋泻邪蟹邪褌褜 褉邪写懈泻邪谢懈蟹屑). 袚写械 邪胁褌芯褉 褋 锌械薪芯泄 褍 褉褌邪 芯褌褋褌邪懈胁邪械褌 褌芯谢褜泻芯 褋胁芯褞 褌芯褔泻褍 蟹褉械薪懈褟 懈 懈谐薪芯褉懈褉褍械褌 锌褉芯褌懈胁芯锌芯谢芯卸薪褍褞 褌芯褔泻褍 蟹褉械薪懈褟. 袛械谢芯 芯斜褋褌芯懈褌 械褖褢 褏褍卸械: 袗泄薪 袪褝薪写 褋邪屑邪 泻芯薪褋褌褉褍懈褉褍械褌-褋芯褔懈薪褟械褌 薪械泻懈泄 "褍卸邪褋薪褘泄 邪谢褜褌褉褍懈蟹屑", 邪 锌芯褌芯屑 胁芯胁褋褞 谢褍锌懈褌 锌芯 褝褌芯泄 械褞 卸械 褋芯蟹写邪薪薪芯泄 懈谢谢褞蟹芯褉薪芯泄 屑懈褕械薪懈. 袣邪泻-褌芯 褌褍锌芯 懈 薪械 芯褋褌褉芯褍屑薪芯 :((
3. 协褌芯 芯褔械薪褜 卸褢褋褌泻懈泄 锌芯写褏芯写 胁 谢芯谐懈泻械 "懈谢懈/懈谢懈" ("懈谢懈 褉邪写懈泻邪谢褜薪褘泄 褝谐芯懈蟹屑 - 懈谢懈 谢卸懈胁褘泄 邪谢褜褌褉褍懈蟹屑"), 懈 锌芯谢薪芯械 薪械锌褉懈褟褌懈械 锌芯写褏芯写邪 "懈/懈". 袧邪 褋邪屑芯屑 写械谢械 写邪卸械 薪邪 褍褉芯胁薪械 斜懈芯谢芯谐懈懈 (褝褌芯谢芯谐懈懈; 褋芯褑懈芯斜懈芯谢芯谐懈懈) "邪蟹斜褍褔薪芯泄 懈褋褌懈薪芯泄" 褟胁谢褟械褌褋褟 褎邪泻褌, 褔褌芯 写谢褟 谢褍褔褕械谐芯 胁褘卸懈胁邪薪懈褟 胁懈写邪 薪褍卸薪芯 袠 褝谐芯懈褋褌懈褔械褋泻芯械, 袠 邪谢褜褌褉褍懈褋褌懈褔械褋泻芯械 锌芯胁械写械薪懈械; 褔褌芯 胁 谢褞斜芯泄 锌芯锌褍谢褟褑懈懈 械褋褌褜 袠 褝谐芯懈褋褌褘, 袠 邪谢褜褌褉褍懈褋褌褘 懈 褌.写.
袦邪谢芯 褌芯谐芯, 胁 褉械邪谢褜薪芯屑 屑懈褉械 锌褉芯胁械褋褌懈 谐褉邪薪懈褑褍 屑械卸写褍 "写械谢邪褞 写谢褟 褋械斜褟" 懈 "写械谢邪褞 写谢褟 写褉褍谐懈褏" 锌褉邪泻褌懈褔械褋泻懈 薪械胁芯蟹屑芯卸薪芯. 袥褞斜芯泄 褝谐芯懈褋褌 褋芯褑懈邪谢械薪 懈 褋芯褑懈邪谢懈蟹懈褉芯胁邪薪, 懈 薪懈 胁 芯写薪芯屑 芯斜褖械褋褌胁械 (懈谢懈 褋褌邪械) 薪械胁芯蟹屑芯卸薪芯 胁褘卸懈褌褜, 械褋谢懈 薪械 "芯褌写邪胁邪褌褜" (褌.械. 械褋谢懈 薪械 斜褘褌褜 邪谢褜褌褉褍懈褋褌芯屑). 袪邪蟹褍屑薪褘泄 褝谐芯懈蟹屑: 写械谢邪褌褜 褏芯褉芯褕芯 褋械斜械, 薪芯 褋 褍褔褢褌芯屑 懈薪褌械褉械褋芯胁 写褉褍谐懈褏 谢褞写械泄, 懈 褌邪泻, 褔褌芯斜褘 斜褘谢芯 褏芯褉芯褕芯 薪械 褌芯谢褜泻芯 屑薪械, 薪芯 懈 芯泻褉褍卸邪褞褖懈屑. 袧芯 写谢褟 袗泄薪 袪褝薪写 胁械褉褋懈褟 褌邪泻芯谐芯 "褉邪蟹褍屑薪芯谐芯 褝谐芯懈蟹屑邪" 褋谢懈褕泻芯屑 屑褟谐泻邪褟; 胁 械泄 锌芯薪懈屑邪薪懈懈 "锌褉邪胁懈谢褜薪褘械" 褝谐芯懈褋褌褘 泻邪泻-褌芯 胁褋褢 斜芯谢褜褕械 褋屑邪褏懈胁邪褞褌 薪邪 锌芯屑械褋褜 褋芯褑懈芯锌邪褌邪 褋 褋芯褑懈芯褎芯斜芯屑 :))
4. 袙 褑械谢芯屑 邪胁褌芯褉褋泻懈泄 泻芯薪褋褌褉褍泻褌 "褝谐芯懈蟹屑邪" - 褝褌芯 泻谢邪褋褋懈褔械褋泻懈泄 锌褉懈屑械褉 褋褎械褉懈褔械褋泻芯谐芯 泻芯薪褟 胁 懈写械邪谢褜薪芯 褔褢褉薪芯屑 胁邪泻褍褍屑械. 袨写懈薪 (褌芯卸械 褎懈谐芯胁褘泄 褎懈谢芯褋芯褎))) 胁械褉薪芯 蟹邪屑械褌懈谢: "袞懈褌褜 胁 芯斜褖械褋褌胁械 懈 斜褘褌褜 褋胁芯斜芯写薪褘屑 芯褌 芯斜褖械褋褌胁邪 薪械谢褜蟹褟".
袪褝薪写 胁芯褋褏胁邪谢褟械褌 泻邪锌懈褌邪谢懈蟹屑 懈 芯斜褖械褋褌胁械薪薪褘泄 褋褌褉芯泄 小楔袗 泻邪泻 懈写械邪谢褜薪褍褞 锌芯褔胁褍 写谢褟 褝谐芯懈蟹屑邪 - 写谢褟 屑邪泻褋懈屑邪谢褜薪芯 褋胁芯斜芯写薪芯谐芯 懈薪写懈胁懈写褍邪谢懈蟹屑邪. 袨褔械薪褜 褋屑械褕薪芯 褝褌芯 褔懈褌邪褌褜, 褌.泻. 袥挟袘袨袝 芯斜褖械褋褌胁芯 - 褝褌芯 薪械泻懈泄 斜邪谢邪薪褋 屑械卸写褍 懈薪写懈胁懈写褍邪谢褜薪褘屑懈 褋胁芯斜芯写邪屑懈 懈 芯谐褉邪薪懈褔械薪懈褟屑懈 褋芯褑懈邪谢褜薪芯泄 袦邪褌褉懈褑褘 (谐芯褋.褉械谐褍谢懈褉芯胁邪薪懈械, 褋芯褑懈邪谢褜薪褘泄 泻芯薪褌褉芯谢褜, 褑械薪蟹褍褉邪 懈 锌褉芯褔.). 袩褉懈褔褢屑 褝褌懈 芯谐褉邪薪懈褔械薪懈褟 褋泻谢邪写褘胁邪谢懈褋褜 胁械泻邪屑懈, 懈 泻邪泻 斜褘 屑褘 薪懈 薪邪蟹褘胁邪谢懈 懈 薪械 褉械褎芯褉屑懈褉芯胁邪谢懈 芯斜褖械褋褌胁芯, 薪懈泻褍写邪 芯薪懈 薪械 写械薪褍褌褋褟. 袙 泻邪卸写芯屑 芯斜褖械褋褌胁械 褝褌懈 芯谐褉邪薪懈褔懈胁邪褞褖懈械 屑械褏邪薪懈蟹屑褘 褋胁芯懈, 懈 胁芯蟹屑芯卸薪褘械 "褋褌械锌械薪懈 褋胁芯斜芯写褘" 写谢褟 泻邪卸写芯谐芯 芯褌写械谢褜薪芯谐芯 褔械谢芯胁械泻邪 褌邪泻卸械 褋胁芯懈.
袗斜褋芯谢褞褌懈蟹懈褉芯胁邪褌褜 泻邪泻芯泄-褌芯 芯写懈薪 胁邪褉懈邪薪褌 (褔褌芯 写械谢邪械褌 袪褝薪写), 屑褟谐泻芯 谐芯胁芯褉褟, 薪械 褍屑薪芯 :(. 袩褉芯褋褌芯 褎邪薪邪褌懈蟹屑 泻邪泻芯泄-褌芯 :(( 孝械泻褋褌 锌芯谢褍褔邪械褌褋褟 褉械谢懈谐懈芯蟹薪芯-锌褉芯锌邪谐邪薪写懈褋褌褋泻懈泄, 薪芯 薪懈泻邪泻 薪械 褎懈谢芯褋芯褎褋泻懈泄.
5. 袙 褑械谢芯屑 褌邪泻邪褟 薪懈褑褕械邪薪褋泻邪褟 泻薪懈谐邪 写谢褟 屑芯谢芯写褘褏, 褋懈谢褜薪褘褏 懈 薪邪谐谢褘褏 芯褌屑芯褉芯蟹泻芯胁 :) 袙褋褢 褔褌芯 褏芯褔械褌 褌胁芯褢 协谐芯 - 褉邪蟹褍屑薪芯 懈 锌褉邪胁懈谢褜薪芯. 袠 胁 褉械邪谢懈蟹邪褑懈懈 褝褌懈褏 卸械谢邪薪懈泄 褌械斜械 薪懈泻褌芯 薪械 写芯谢卸械薪 屑械褕邪褌褜 (褌.械. 写芯谢卸薪邪 斜褘褌褜 屑邪泻褋懈屑邪谢褜薪邪褟 褋胁芯斜芯写邪 芯褌 芯斜褖械褋褌胁械薪薪褘褏 "写芯谢卸械薪褋褌胁芯胁邪薪懈泄" 懈 谢褞斜褘褏 褋芯褑懈邪谢褜薪褘褏 褉械谐褍谢褟褌芯褉芯胁). 袝褋谢懈 褌褘 泻邪泻-褌芯 褏芯褔械褕褜 锌芯屑芯褔褜 写褉褍谐懈屑, 褌芯 褝褌芯 褌芯谢褜泻芯 褌胁芯褢 写芯斜褉芯胁芯谢褜薪芯械 褉械褕械薪懈械 - 懈 薪懈泻褌芯 薪械 屑芯卸械褌 锌褉懈薪褍卸写邪褌褜 褌械斜褟 泻 褝褌芯屑褍 薪懈 褋谢芯胁芯屑, 薪懈 写械谢芯屑. 袧褍, 懈 褌.写. 懈 褌.锌.
袙 芯斜褖械屑, 褝褌芯 屑邪薪懈褎械褋褌 褌械褏, 泻褌芯 褏芯褔械褌 懈 屑芯卸械褌 褋邪屑 芯 褋械斜械 锌芯蟹邪斜芯褌懈褌褜褋褟 (懈 褔褌芯斜褘 薪懈泻褌芯 胁芯芯斜褖械 锌芯写 薪芯谐邪屑懈 薪械 锌褍褌邪谢褋褟; 懈 薪械 泻褉懈褌懈泻芯胁邪谢 褋锌芯褋芯斜褘, 泻芯褌芯褉褘屑懈 褟 褋胁芯懈 懈薪褌械褉械褋褘 褉械邪谢懈蟹芯胁褘胁邪褌褜 斜褍写褍). 袗 泻邪泻 斜褘褌褜 褋 褌械屑懈, 泻褌芯 薪械 屑芯卸械褌 芯 褋械斜械 锌芯蟹邪斜芯褌懈褌褜褋褟? 小 写械褌褜屑懈, 褋褌邪褉懈泻邪屑懈, 谢褞写褜屑懈 褋 芯谐褉邪薪懈褔械薪薪褘屑懈 胁芯蟹屑芯卸薪芯褋褌褟屑懈, 褋 锌芯锌邪胁褕懈屑懈 胁 褌褉褍写薪褘械 卸懈蟹薪械薪薪褘械 褋懈褌褍邪褑懈懈? 袩芯 胁械褉褋懈懈 邪胁褌芯褉邪, 褉邪写懈泻邪谢褜薪褘械 褝谐芯懈褋褌褘 褋邪屑懈 写芯谢卸薪褘 锌芯卸械谢邪褌褜 "锌芯写械谢懈褌褜褋褟" 褋 褝褌懈屑懈 谢褞写褜屑懈. 袧褍-薪褍... 袩褉褟屑 芯褔械褉械写懈 懈蟹 卸械谢邪褞褖懈褏 锌芯写械谢懈褌褜褋褟...
PS 小写邪褢褌褋褟 屑薪械, 褔褌芯 械褋谢懈 斜褘 褔械谢芯胁械褔械褋褌胁芯 胁 芯写懈薪 锌褉械泻褉邪褋薪褘泄 写械薪褜 褉械褕懈谢芯 斜褘 卸懈褌褜 锌芯 泻薪懈谐邪屑 袗泄薪 袪褝薪写, 褌芯 屑褘 斜褘 锌褉芯褋褌芯 薪械 胁褘卸懈谢懈.
November 9, 2021
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 鈥渟cience of ethics.鈥�
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, 鈥溾€he 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鈥攁nd, 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.鈥� But the rub is getting to the 鈥渞ational, objectively demonstrated and validated code of moral principles.鈥� 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鈥檛 get there in a rational and objective way.
An example of this is her selection of the title 鈥淭he Virtue of Selfishness鈥�. 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鈥檛 understand what selfishness means, stating that the dictionary definition of selfishness is, 鈥渃oncern with one鈥檚 own interests.鈥� Cross-checking this with Merriam-Webster, the current complete definition is: 鈥淎 concern for one's own welfare or advantage at the expense of or in disregard of others; excessive interest in oneself.鈥� 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: 鈥淥bserve, in this connection, the modern 鈥榖eatniks鈥欌€攆or 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鈥攚ith a kind of flat-footed hysteria鈥攁t projecting an air of the purposeless, the senseless, the mindless.鈥�
What is lacking in Rand鈥檚 description of objectivism is a dispassionate explanation of the structure of the philosophy, and instead offers what comes off as a contemptuous political polemic.
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, 鈥溾€he 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鈥攁nd, 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.鈥� But the rub is getting to the 鈥渞ational, objectively demonstrated and validated code of moral principles.鈥� 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鈥檛 get there in a rational and objective way.
An example of this is her selection of the title 鈥淭he Virtue of Selfishness鈥�. 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鈥檛 understand what selfishness means, stating that the dictionary definition of selfishness is, 鈥渃oncern with one鈥檚 own interests.鈥� Cross-checking this with Merriam-Webster, the current complete definition is: 鈥淎 concern for one's own welfare or advantage at the expense of or in disregard of others; excessive interest in oneself.鈥� 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: 鈥淥bserve, in this connection, the modern 鈥榖eatniks鈥欌€攆or 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鈥攚ith a kind of flat-footed hysteria鈥攁t projecting an air of the purposeless, the senseless, the mindless.鈥�
What is lacking in Rand鈥檚 description of objectivism is a dispassionate explanation of the structure of the philosophy, and instead offers what comes off as a contemptuous political polemic.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 825 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.