@DOWNLOAD E-PUB ó The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism õ eBook or E-pub free

It s a shock value title because the book is really about individualism vs collectivism, and if you ve read Atlas Shrugged or know about the Russia Rand immigrated from, you know where she stands on that issue.There were a couple of chapters I liked in particular I liked the discussion about the importance of property rights Rand asserts that there are no individual rights without property rights If people cannot claim the fruits of their labors as their own, they are completely at the mercy of the government There s also no incentive to accept responsibility if you don t have any rights or only limited rights to the results of your work I also liked the chapter on racism quite a bit Rand says that racism is a primitive form of collectivism She says that capitalism has done to eradicate racism than anything else, but as socialism creeps into societies, racism increases She says that the South lost the Civil War because it couldn t compete with the efficient, less racist, capitalist North In the middle of the twentieth century, racism took on a new form as oppression of certain races which obviously enslaves certain individuals morphed into quotas which also enslaves certain individuals The smallest minority of all is the individual, she says I like Rand s cool, clear logic, but I do have a couple of criticisms First, at the end of some of her chapters, her crisp logic gives way to a multiple paragraph emotional run up that ends with a dramatic metaphor about murder or destruction I know you re passionate, Rand, but get a hold of yourself Also, it seems a bit arrogant to repeatedly quote a person even if he is stunningly handsome and reportedly the smartest person in the world who is actually a fictional character of your own devising John Galt All in all, for a book on philosophy, I thought it was exceptionally interesting and well done If she s looking down on her beloved America right now, I m sure she s shaking her head and saying, I told you so. 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. @DOWNLOAD E-PUB ⚽ The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism ⚣ Ayn Rand Here Sets Forth The Moral Principles Of Objectivism, The Philosophy That Holds Human Life The Life Proper To A Rational Being As The Standard Of Moral Values And Regards Altruism As Incompatible With Man S Nature, With The Creative Requirements Of His Survival, And With A Free Society 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 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. 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 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 Just noticed this in Johan Hari s column from today s Independent 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 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 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. 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 This woman, Ayn Rand, is bizarre than bizarre can ever be Who in the big, wide world would be in his right mind and still write a book to praise selfishness As if to be self centered needs to be praised or called even virtuous And she calls that philosophy But with that spirit in which she praises selfishness you will find that a common theme in all of her writings Look at Emmanuel Levinas,a real philosophers who never ceases to assure us that the others are we and for others we are to be What kind of life is that when you live it, far and wide, praising selfishness But only Ayn Rand can do that and call that philosophy 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. Part II of multi part review series.Reading Rand reminds me of teaching freshman composition at university years ago There s not nearly as many spelling errors, but Rand s 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 In popular usage, the word selfishness is a synonym of evil 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 observe the fortunes made by insurance companies 49 as proof that catastrophes are the exception 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 No philosopher has given a rational, objectively demonstrable, scientific answer to the question of why man needs a code of values 14 Instead of citation to other writers, the text consistently cites Galt s speech 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 what are the values human survival requires 22 A third problem the text presents a continuous chain of non sequiturs Taking the previously cited bit, the immediately following sentence is So long as that question remained unanswered, no rational, scientific, objective code of ethics could be discovered or defined 14 Huh I suppose, therefore, that s 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 the world is now collapsing to a lower and even lower rung of hell 15 See also moral grayness as one of the most eloquent symptoms of the moral bankruptcy of today s culture 75 It s a joke, though, as acknowledged toward the end It 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 114 One wonders indeed If these conditions have obtained throughout history, then it s not really dire at all, and perhaps, maybe, shouldn t 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 t 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., it is the principle that no man may obtain any values from others without the owners consent 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 s irrelevant What matters is that heir now owns factory and does not agree to be taxed so that mooching looter disabled parasites won t 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, altruism, 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 34 Nevermind that no actual altruist text is cited for any of these propositions it s an ambiguous straw person, really the real problem is the aporetic invective against poorly defined collectivism while deploying without irony idealist collectivisms such as man, which is the barbaric way to refer to homo sapiens, one supposes That barbarism aside, it is incongruous that text suggests man as a collective has rights, whereas we later have an entire essay militating against group rights The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do So much for the issue of the relation between is and ought 17 which is beyond cavalier in handling Hume.In contrast with animals, humans have reason, the process of thinking an odd equation , a faculty that man has to exercise by choice 20 Lest this be confused The act of focusing one s consciousness is volitional 20 21 , against which we might lodge, inter alia, the critique of volition found in Ryle s The Concept of Mind 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 the process of thinking, 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 choose not to think or exercise the faculty of reason this latter is the fundamental point of departure for the text the no philosopher bit, supra.Text presents survival by imitating and repeating, like trained animals, the routine sounds and motions they learned from others as being a mental parasite 23 And yet, just prior to this uber producerist fantasy is the likewise unevidenced proclamation that the standard of value of Objectivist ethics the standard by which one judges what is good and what is evil is man s life that which is required for man s survival qua man 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 s illustrative of the poor conceptualization Similarly, looters are parasites incapable of survival id but you just said If 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 id emphasis added Without any rationale, the only proper, moral purpose of government is to protect man s rights NB collective rights holder , which boils down to without property rights, no other rights are possible 33 This pronouncement is made ex nihilo there is no presentation to warrant these two conclusions It s 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 one must never sacrifice one s convictions to the opinions or wishes of others 26 , which is the fascist s refusal to compromise There can be no compromise on moral principles 70.Just as rich people have self made wealth, objectivists are apparently self made souls 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 man chooses his values 28 , which strikes me as the worst sort of causelessness.We are given the pre capitalist trader as the emblem of justice a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved 31 None of the key concepts are given much content, such as earnings or desert, except, apparently, an unexamined and vulgar market value It s all very philistine.We are told that illness and poverty are not metaphysical emergencies 48 , so all of you dirty little poor persons can rest peacefully now.One of Rand s real defects is that she has no understanding of law That s one reason, incidentally, that the plot of The Fountainhead is so stupid We are told, e.g., that just 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 s 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 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 s case must fail, as the moving party s 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 philosophy 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 to be imposed by political means is equated with by force 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 protect property 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 expropriate the labor via taxation for the purpose of space exploration i.e., a project too risky for private capital to undertake , but fine, because voluntary, for the employer to expropriate the employee It is asserted, without any citation to any law or authority, that no human rights can exist without property rights 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 t ask Rand to understand any of this, though Rand s failure to read any law is on display, though, in such categorical assertions as rights are a moral concept 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 The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights 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 under socialism, the right to property is vested in society as a whole 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 What 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 88 It s amateurish, citing no actual socialist writings This parasite derives his illusion of greatness from the power to dispose of that which he has not earned 89 The comedy is unintentional, as I m 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 socialism is merely democratic absolute monarchy 91 , which reveals the total contempt for egalitarianism in this text By contrast, we are told that the US was the first moral society in history 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 the pattern of a civilized society which for the brief span of some hundred and fifty years America came close to achieving 95 What ended it America s inner contradiction was the altruist collectivist ethics, 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 slavery 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 s 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 Negro leaders are still villains, and the worst breach of property rights is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 134 No shit Further Onion article unilateral breach of contract involves an indirect use of force 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 s very cute.Overall, one of the worst books ever written Go read for comedy s sake, or if you suffer from chronic orthostatic hypotension and need to get your blood pressure back up.