Create your own shelf sign up

Together we find better books

[−]
  • Search Conteggio caratteri ISBN valido ISBN non valido Codice a barre valido Codice a barre non valido loading search

The Virtue of Selfishness

By

Publisher: Blackstone Audiobooks

3.9
(56)

Language:English | Number of Pages: | Format: Audio CD | In other languages: (other languages) Chi traditional , French , Spanish , Indonesian , Polish , Portuguese

Isbn-10: 0786197668 | Isbn-13: 9780786197668 | Publish date:  | Edition Unabridged

Also available as: Paperback , Audio Cassette , Hardcover , eBook , Others

Category: Philosophy , Political , Social Science

Do you like The Virtue of Selfishness ?
Join aNobii to see if your friends read it, and discover similar books!

Sign up for free
Book Description
Sorting by
  • 3

    「對脅迫式辯論問題的正確答案,美國歷史上有人給出最好的範例:這個人博赤敵人的道德標準,並完全肯定自己的正直,他說:『如果這算叛國,那就把它搞大吧!』」
    ---1765年,派翠克‧亨利(Patrick henry)在維吉尼亞民眾議事會上,譴責英國對北美殖民地徵收印花稅。

    said on 

  • 5

    自由,啊,可貴的自由!

    蘭德入門應讀<阿特拉絲聳聳肩>,否則會覺得她真是個自私的混蛋。
    但若你真的讀通了,就會發現康德Kant以來最犀利的理性主義論點就在這裡了。

    said on 

  • 0

    以長篇小說《阿特拉斯聳聳肩》著名的小說家安•蘭德,終身都在提倡人應該以自己的生活與人生為出發點,規劃屬於個人的倫理學,不應該透過社會以及群體的價值觀,也不應該透過政治與學術的權威,更不應該透過無法驗證的宗教信念。
    她的思想精華收錄在本書當中,透過犀利而沉靜的口吻,她力圖闡釋,人一出生心靈就像一張白紙,價值觀都是外人所加。所以,我們應該運用自己的理性,不管身處哪個社會,不管身處哪個工作崗位,不管天份多高,都能在這個社會找到自己的幸福所在。

    said on 

  • 1

    只看完第一章就決定放棄了,照作者第一章批判利他主義的想法,那些天生殘疾、貧弱、窮困的人,接受社會福利的同時,就是在掠奪其他人的「犧牲」...

    作者一直強調的理性,結果自己在下一些定義的時候也沒那麼理性啊,把自己主觀的理想當成對的、善的...

    雖然給了一星的超低分,但到這本書是演講稿的集合,也許是因為篇幅的關係並沒有辦法深入,使我決定放棄,但書中引用的《阿特拉斯聳聳肩》的幾個片段卻似乎還不錯,也許有機會再來看她的其他書吧...

    said on 

  • 5

    Supremacy of Reason and of the Individual!

    In order to appreciate Ayn Rand’s ‘The Virtue of Selfishness’ one needs to accept three premises. Firstly: the Supremacy of Reason; the use of one’s mental faculties (which are reliable) and good judgment to gain an objectively reliable understanding of reality. Secondly: the absolute sovereignty ...continue

    In order to appreciate Ayn Rand’s ‘The Virtue of Selfishness’ one needs to accept three premises. Firstly: the Supremacy of Reason; the use of one’s mental faculties (which are reliable) and good judgment to gain an objectively reliable understanding of reality. Secondly: the absolute sovereignty of the individual. Thirdly: selfishness is not meant in the toxic ordinary way, the way of the ‘irrational brute’. Rand’s ethic, Objectivism, is built on these three things, and simply put, is the belief that the Individual should act in his or her own rational-self-interest, and by guided by their own values, reached and applied through Reason.
    Rand’s (and Nathaniel Branden’s) individualist philosophy formulates in opposition to the “sacrificial” and “altruist” ethics that have dominated history. These ethics, be they Christianity, monarchy, or socialism, all prescribe that something exists beyond the individual, something more power and something of greater worth, a “greater good” as it were. In Christianity this is of course God; the monarch in monarchy; or the state or ‘society’ in socialism. Objectivism does not value these things: Objectivism grants rights only to individuals, and not to the “irrationalities” – to a supernatural being, or traditionalist sentimentality.
    Rand’s style is frank. She unashamedly condemns all forms of collectivism: Nazism, Communism, Racism, Welfare-state-ism, all of which are branded as perverse and corrupting in so far as they reduce the Individual’s rights. The individual ceases to be an individual. Things other than individual rights matter, and so individual rights are sacrificed.
    Rand advocated Laissez-Faire capitalism, the belief that the State had little to no role to play in a free market. This philosophy is virtually extinct in the Western world, and is quite an extreme position, but a logical development of her core tenets: the individual is sovereign and, so long as he is governed by reason, will survive; the individual’s interest should not be sacrificed; that which is rational is good.
    Rand made sure to distinguish her work from that of nihilists such as Nietzsche and other subjectivists. Whilst there may be room for overlaps in what the nihilist and the objectivist consider ‘moral’, their process and their judgment of the morality of that process are quite different. The nihilist may advocate that action X is in one’s ‘interest’ because they feel it, without much, if any, rational justification. The objectivist relies solely on Reason to justify his or her action. Morality by ‘whims’ or ‘feelings’ or ‘mysticism’ are simply what compels the ‘irrational brute’.
    Furthermore, in opposing the irrational ethics and collectivist/sacrificial ethics which Rand damns as the cause of the world’s ills, Rand extols virtues which so often have been considered morally neutral, or vices. In particular Rand values Pride: the feeling one gets from being true to one’s values. A life dedicated to the Supremacy of Reason leads to: honesty (not presenting reality falsely); Integrity (staying true to one’s values); Pride and Self-Esteem (knowing that one is right, and is virtuous through reason).
    Rand’s work is controversial, very different to the ethics that dominate the world. The Supremacy of Reason and the Sovereignty of the Individual is certainly a philosophy to treasure.
    “Just as there is no such thing as a collective or racial mind, so there is no such thing as a collective or racial achievement. There are only individual minds and individual achievements” – Ayn Rand
    “An individualist is, first and foremost, a man of reason. It is upon the ability to think, upon his rational faculty, that man’s life depends; rationality is the precondition of independence and self-reliance” – Nathaniel Branden (contributor to the book)

    said on 

  • 0

    每個人都需要有自己的立場
    她讓我了解到美國資本主義發達的精神根基
    那追求絕對個人的自由和權利
    是一個(美國)資本社會追求的美好願景
    如同(被她所譴責)的社會主義國家一樣振振有詞
    令人神往
    當然充滿爭議
    但是 每個人都需要有自己的立場
    不透過思考和辯詰她的思路
    自己永遠也無法知道到底站在哪一邊
    比如說我同意她對個人主義的定義
    但我不太支持她對資本主義的所有闡釋
    當前提是絕對自由和平等的競爭關係
    這是可以同意的
    但社會永遠也不如此 以後也很難如此 ...continue

    每個人都需要有自己的立場
    她讓我了解到美國資本主義發達的精神根基
    那追求絕對個人的自由和權利
    是一個(美國)資本社會追求的美好願景
    如同(被她所譴責)的社會主義國家一樣振振有詞
    令人神往
    當然充滿爭議
    但是 每個人都需要有自己的立場
    不透過思考和辯詰她的思路
    自己永遠也無法知道到底站在哪一邊
    比如說我同意她對個人主義的定義
    但我不太支持她對資本主義的所有闡釋
    當前提是絕對自由和平等的競爭關係
    這是可以同意的
    但社會永遠也不如此 以後也很難如此
    因此他對黑人爭取特權的批評
    我不太接受
    正如把持特權的人在訴說特權的種種公平正義一般的
    難以下嚥

    said on