If this autobiography were fiction, I'd say Carnegie reminds me of Mother Courage, as both show an incredible blindness to the others around them, solely focused on their net gains. Upon reading Carnegie ask "what is money but dross to the true hero?" (244) I was set on putting down the book. However, as the reading progresses, Carnegie's superego/ guilty conscience brings him back to reality.
While he spends many pages explaining his philanthropic work, I still see him as a man who looks out for himself first. He is very image oriented, and gains a certain satisfaction from being called "Saint Andrew," or accepting an offer to be president of the Peace Society. Does Carnegie speak so highly of his friends to elevate his own status by was of association? Part of me would love to say he was a man who made a few mistakes during his lifetime, and redeemed himself in his later years. Anyone can write a book and make himself seem honest and genuine; I certainly have a bias against Carnegie- maybe he did have a change of heart, but I don't see it.
Carnegie certainly felt some guilt for what had happened while running his corporation, but there was more to his philanthropy than he tells the reader. He has always been fueled by recognition, not money- we discussed this in class as one of his "good" qualities; I see it as one of his flaws. It was probably easy for him to donate libraries and build a university- he was getting his name put out there. He needed acknowledgment, and he has sought it for most of his life.

I think I should go back to my Mother Courage reference, because they are not exactly parallel characters. The final 90+ pages helps Carnegie's cause. This is the only change I saw in him through the reading- he began to marginally consider the situation of others, not merely how they would benefit him. I may be judging Carnegie too harshly, it's not easy to be a self-made man of that status and have an entirely clean slate...