pre·ten·tious - adj. - Pronunciation Key (pri-ten-shus)

Cleaning out the desk over the weekend, I came across an unredeemed gift certificate from audible.com for a couple of free books. I've had this thing for almost a year.

I've never been a big fan of books in audio format; I'm a visual learner. I like to grasp something tangible, smell either the newness or the mustiness of the pages as I flip them.

When I was in college, I checked out a few books-on-tape every once in a while from the public library. Their selection was miserably inadequate so I always seemed to be in possession of Richard Nixon's Six Crises. Seeing that today is August 9th, I found it an unamusing but timely coincidence worthy of telling.

Anyway, I redeemed the gift certificate over the weekend. That was not the issue. Determining which books I should get from the thousands of choices I had seemed daunting, almost intimidating. So, I made a top 10 and then whittled down from there. Essentially, I erased the titles of books I desire to own some day. Of the remaining, I sampled for a few minutes to see if I was further intrigued or if listening would be a chore. I then made my choices.

I ended up with two books - The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand and Howard Hughes: The Definitive Biography of The First American Billionaire by Richard Hack. Oh yeah, neither am I big fan of fiction.

I'm listening to Rand's book first. I've only read one of her works before - Anthem. Even though I read it multiple years ago, rarely does a week go by that I don't re-learn a lesson from it. Essentially, the moral of the book is that the self is the most important unit in society. Losing one's identity for the common good (either through force or sacrifice) will ultimately cause that society to cease to function in an orderly manner.

I chose the The Virtue of Selfishness because for the past several weeks, I've been perfectly content focusing on my own personal interests and not letting outside interests adversely influence mine. I was interested in why I've spent so much time lately in introspection and stubbornly refusing external influences and thoughts to permeate my own. It's a mild but temporary case of indifference.

In context, Rand doesn't mean selfish in that hoarding, amoral, and inconsiderate manner in which it's usually thought.

It's a different perspective - a more rational and organized approach to daily life. It seeks to isolate contradiction and whimsy; it seeks to create a hierarchy of conscious virtues and then to mold one's actions according to what is valued the highest; it's through this that non-religious morality is attained.

To a great extent, I think most people already do this - make value judgments and then act according to those values for our own self interest. Most of the time.

I can't say I agree with her philosophy completely - it virtually eliminates the idea of sacrifice, which I believe is essential for religious morality. Also, I don't agree government should divorce itself from its own economic structure and interests.

At times, Rand comes off as cruel and intentionally mean-spirited. It takes a while to figure out she's not - she's just so married to the idea of self-identity and self-preservation that she takes the ideas of liberty and freedom to a near extreme.

Now, I really do hate theory. The quickest way to bore me is to start talking political theory or philosophy; it's generally worthless. I prefer to see the utility instead of the abstract.

Which leaves me in a quandary. I'm watching the Yankees game right now. Cano was on second and advanced to third when Bernie hit a ground ball to the left side. A "Sacrifice". However, it was in his self-interest to advance the runner on the bases. So, it's a misnomer.

I wonder how Rand would score it.