You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by volbet
The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism by Ayn Rand
1.0
There are lots of issues with this collection of essays. Not the least of which is the way the classic is/ought distinction is discarded within the first ten pages of the book.
It takes some hubris to dismiss a problem that has plagued philosophers for millennia. Furthermore, the way its dismissed amounts to little more than an argument from nature. So much for owing anything to Aristotle.
But that leads us to the next issue: the way Ayn Rand removes humanity from its natural context.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with arguing from an anatural stance (see aforementioned argument from nature), but the way Miss. Rand goes about it is an outright denial of Man's naturalistic context. Arguing any philosophy out of this point takes skill and careful argumentation. Neither of which are displayed by Rand.
Third issue is the general mischaracterization of Rand's ideological opponents, pretty much amounting to sheer strawmaning. Something which is only made worse by the prevalent, unknown "other" that is said ideological opponents, since almost non of the opponents are named or cited. And the ones that are named are understood poorly and non of their actual work is quoted or referenced.
Fourth issue is the assumption that humans only affect one another through voluntary means or through illegitimate coercion. This dichotomy is not argued for, nor does it seem like a reasonable thing to assume. Humans aren't solitary islands that only meet once the parties agree to do so. We all affect each other through more or less direct means all the time.
Fifth, and last, issue is that it bases its deontological approach to ethics on an increasingly diffuse notion of "reason". There's no justification as to what reason is, why reason is objective nor if reason is a subject onto itself.
It's a part of a larger negation of meta-philosophical questions and just one step on Ayn Rand's removal of objectivism from the larger pantheon of philosophy and ideas. For an outsider, this mainly reads as an inability to engage with the larger ideological zeitgeist, rather than rejection of the need to engage. Essentially, Ayn Rand wants to define objectivism only in reference to itself, simply because anything else would lead to its destruction.
It takes some hubris to dismiss a problem that has plagued philosophers for millennia. Furthermore, the way its dismissed amounts to little more than an argument from nature. So much for owing anything to Aristotle.
But that leads us to the next issue: the way Ayn Rand removes humanity from its natural context.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with arguing from an anatural stance (see aforementioned argument from nature), but the way Miss. Rand goes about it is an outright denial of Man's naturalistic context. Arguing any philosophy out of this point takes skill and careful argumentation. Neither of which are displayed by Rand.
Third issue is the general mischaracterization of Rand's ideological opponents, pretty much amounting to sheer strawmaning. Something which is only made worse by the prevalent, unknown "other" that is said ideological opponents, since almost non of the opponents are named or cited. And the ones that are named are understood poorly and non of their actual work is quoted or referenced.
Fourth issue is the assumption that humans only affect one another through voluntary means or through illegitimate coercion. This dichotomy is not argued for, nor does it seem like a reasonable thing to assume. Humans aren't solitary islands that only meet once the parties agree to do so. We all affect each other through more or less direct means all the time.
Fifth, and last, issue is that it bases its deontological approach to ethics on an increasingly diffuse notion of "reason". There's no justification as to what reason is, why reason is objective nor if reason is a subject onto itself.
It's a part of a larger negation of meta-philosophical questions and just one step on Ayn Rand's removal of objectivism from the larger pantheon of philosophy and ideas. For an outsider, this mainly reads as an inability to engage with the larger ideological zeitgeist, rather than rejection of the need to engage. Essentially, Ayn Rand wants to define objectivism only in reference to itself, simply because anything else would lead to its destruction.