merjet Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 The person who introduced me to Rand’s work discovered it by seeing the title The Virtue of Selfishness in a bookstore, was intrigued enough to buy it, and (alert, cliché ahead!) the rest is history. But for that title, OL might be 4,199 posts the poorer. Do you believe this would not have happened if the title had been The Virtue of Self-Interest or The Virtue of Egoism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 The person who introduced me to Rand’s work discovered it by seeing the title The Virtue of Selfishness in a bookstore, was intrigued enough to buy it, and (alert, cliché ahead!) the rest is history. But for that title, OL might be 4,199 posts the poorer. Do you believe this would not have happened if the title had been The Virtue of Self-Interest or The Virtue of Egoism?From the way he tells the story: yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 The title was great, but then Rand immediately dropped the ball with her special, weak-kneed definition in the first few pages--after first insulting the reader.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Bissell Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 In re #27:From my experience, I'd say it would have worked that way with me, too. (If I hadn't already read the novels, especially TF and AS, and been prepped for her special take on "selfishness.")My response would have been along the lines: "Hmm. All my life I've been told that being selfish is *bad,* not virtuous. I wonder how she can say this?" Then I would have found out, and realized that there is a very nasty cultural-religious package-deal about the term, and that by clarifying it, a big prison door was opened for me.In re #28:I didn't feel insulted by the title, nor disappointed by her definition. I felt intrigued, then aha! so that's what they've been trying to get away with! It was yet another moment of Rand-delivered insight and liberation for me.But perhaps my experience would have been different if I hadn't already read the novels. I hear some people say they read the non-fiction first and got it right away. I think the fiction definitely paved the way for me by giving the "big picture," then the non-fiction really sharpened a lot of important points and details.REB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 "Rational self interest" is the proper term. "Selfishness" is 70% polemical, called for in the 1960s, much less so today. "Selfishness" as in the title of the VOS was like a re-enforced bow on an ice breaker. Rand herself as a person served much the same function.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Brant, Among others who understand all that is contained in "rational self interest", it works. For one's own purpose or as a quick explanation, it's fine, but what I think is really under debate is how individuals outside our circle will/do perceive it. And how one can 'sell' it. Making the concept in any way 'easier' to others is eventually self-defeating I believe.On the one hand, one will superficially find agreement from many, the economically self-interested, self-responsible, decent people -- but from very different premises.On the scale's other end, there are those to whom, not knowing (nor wanting to know) what is "rational", what is "self", nor "interest" - rational self-interest will be taken to mean their justification to be 'logically'-self-serving. That type of person who would instantly take to a perverted notion of rational self interest, will claim, "True. If I want and need something - it is logical - that I must take it or be given it." A cynical pragmatist or prudent predator who sacrifices others to himself, and insensibly also self-sacrifices in the process.Nathaniel Branden called it "subjective egoism" (egotism). It may be initially startling to people, but a "rational selfishness" - a rational, objective, egoism - as morality, is which should be upheld, I think (although a quick explanation isn't possible). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 I like "rational selfishness." It's got its own kind of one-two punch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now