Negative Positive
Title: Sheer demagoguery
Review: No, nobody ever found the dictionary that Rand used to define "selfishness" - because it never existed. She didn't redefine it at all; she meant by it exactly what everybody else means by it, and it's not a virtue.All she did in this series of "philosophical" essays was try to rationalize self-absorption by "proving" that it wasn't really harmful after all. But she couldn't even accomplish *that* task competently; if it's true, as she argues in the essay another reviewer cites, that there aren't any real conflicts of interest among rational people, then why bother to distinguish "selfish" from "unselfish"?No, Rand's "ethics" is just a thinly disguised rationalization of her own utter inability to care about anyone other than herself. She was exactly like her fictional "hero," Howard Roark: other people just weren't *real* to her, except as props for her own vastly overinflated and terminally unhealthy EGO. And this book is supposed to explain why that's okay.It isn't.
Is the review positive or negative? 