RSalar

The above can then be distilled to: Thinking rationally and working for material gain is central to a happy life.

Actually I believe they do think and do have free will -- they then perform a sex act for money. It seems as though you think they are too stupid to make that choice.

Not at all --- just having some fun at your expense. Time to get back to being productive ....

I was referring to a hooker --- hence the "happy ending." I am saying that an Objectivist is a capitalist and should seek the best value for his money. It's a mutual exchange between willing adults --- what immoral about it? They are! I agree -- that's why I like strippers and hookers. It's an honest and open trade--unlike the woman who marries for money.

Where can this "entire core" of her philosophy be found? Before one can "agree" with it in its entirety one would have to understand it in its entirety. Do you know anyone who fits this description? And I believe the application is as important as the understanding/agreement—because Ayn did not recognize the mind-body dichotomy. So now you not only have to understand and agree but you must also apply it consistently in your life. (I do not think there is anyone alive who fits that description.)

I don't believe "Objectivist" is even a proper concept--I have never seen anyone clearly state all of the essential attributes. And if one could state these, the result would imply that only Ayn Rand had them. (IMO)

I think she meant this: The central (dominate and controlling) purpose of a rational man’s life is his productive work, i.e., the rationally directed (purposeful) acquisition, integration, and refinement of knowledge that can be and then is used to change the physical world into that which is intended to ultimately fulfill his rational self-interest. Why do I think this? Because (all bold emphasis mine): 1) She said (Galt’s speech): “Productive work is the process by which man's consciousness controls his existence, a constant process of acquiring knowledge and shaping matter to fit one's purpose, of translating an idea into physical form, of remaking the earth in the image of one's values.” 2) She said (Letter to Robert Anderson): I hold that intellectual work is the root of any other kind of work, and that every kind of productive work includes both an intellectual and a physical component. 3) She said (The Objectivist Newsletter, May 1964): “Every type of productive work involves a combination of mental and physical effort: of thought and of physical action to translate that thought into a material form. 4) She continues (VOS): “Productive work" does not mean the blind performance of the motions of some job. It means the conscious, rational pursuit of a productive career. In popular usage, the term "career" is applied only to the more ambitious types of work; but, in fact, it applies to all work: it denotes a man's attitude toward his work. The difference between a career-man and a job-holder is as follows: a career-man regards his work as constant progress, as a constant upward motion from one achievement to another, higher one, driven by the constant expansion of his mind, his knowledge, his ability, his creative ingenuity, never stopping to stagnate on any level. A job-holder regards his work as a punishment imposed on him by the incomprehensible malevolence of reality or of society, which, somehow, does not let him exist without effort; so his policy is to go through the least amount of motions demanded of him by somebody and to stay put in any job or drift off to another, wherever chance, circumstances or relatives might happen to push him.” 5) And to tie all this together she said: Productive work is the central purpose of a rational man's life, the central value that integrates and determines the hierarchy of all his other values. Reason is the source, the precondition of his productive work—pride is the result.

Would you mind telling us how you would define (what you mean by) the word "cheating"? -- Thanks RS

I smoked pot once but I didn't inhale.

It’s not capitalized. She uses matter and earth synonymously. The principle is that something physical must change (improve) by your purposeful actions.

Makes sense --Thanks

In my research to find Ayn Rand’s meaning of the phrase “productive work” the following question has occurred to me: Since Ayn Rand authorized Peikoff’s lecture course on The Philosophy of Objectivism can we (should we) use OPAR as if it were an “authorized” presentation of Ayn Rand’s philosophy (even though it is a “rewrite” of the original lecture material and not the actual original authorized version)? In other words does it carry as much weight as the original lecture course in terms of its accuracy? Does it carry any weight? Perhaps we should only use it as a supplemental resource when it helps to support her original text? Taken from The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. IV, No. 3 January-February 1976, A Last Survey--Part II: “I call your particular attention to Leonard Peikoff's lecture course on The Philosophy of Objectivism. This course does not start until September, but it is to be a memorable event. It will be a systematic presentation of my philosophy, from metaphysics through esthetics, intended for informed students of Objectivism, given by a teacher who has demonstrated a matchless ability to present ideas clearly and dramatically. Until or unless I write a comprehensive treatise on my philosophy, Dr. Peikoff's course is the only authorized presentation of the entire theoretical structure of Objectivism, i.e., the only one that I know of my own knowledge to be fully accurate.” Taken from Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, Preface: “In 1984, eight years later and two years after her death, I began to revise the lectures for publication. I soon found that many of their formulations could be made more precise. I found arguments that I could now develop more cogently, examples that I could make more eloquent, and crucial new integrations that I only now understood. Above all, I found that the ideas required a more logical order of presentation. All these improvements changed the nature of the project. My task became not to edit, but to rewrite the lecture material.”

I know of a great strip club in Florida where affluent men and women go to dine. It is not cheap but the dry-aged steaks are the best around. Young and middle-aged guys belly-up to the raised dance floor while couples of all ages dine at nearby linen covered tables. Beautiful young naked dancers, silk-suited businessmen, and white haired ladies all in the same room—it’s a very interesting contrast (as sinful as it may be).

One good reason why an Objectivist should not go to a strip club in the pursuit of sexual pleasure is that strippers will just tease him. He will get a better value at a massage parlor where he can get a good erotic bath, a relaxing rub down, and a happy ending for about the same money he would have spent on strippers.

My mistake, I should not have used the word "definition." Instead I should have said we that need to establish what she meant by these terms (so that we can all discuss them from a common understanding). I am still working on my final formulation of her meaning of “productive work” but I have established beyond a reasonable doubt that the product or result must be a material gain to the worker—a spiritual value alone (despite what other have posted here) is not a sufficient return to classify the causal action as “productive work.” I present this quote as evidence: “Productive work is the process by which man's consciousness controls his existence, a constant process of acquiring knowledge and shaping matter to fit one's purpose, of translating an idea into physical form, of remaking the earth in the image of one's values.” From Galt’s Speech Note that the act of acquiring knowledge in and by itself is not “productive work” in this context. Productive work must include the acquisition of knowledge AND the shaping of matter. So it is not true that doing something for the spiritual value alone (like studying archeology) is considered “productive work” in this context. At this point I have identified three essentials of “productive work” (I remind you that this is a first draft): 1) it starts with purposefully acquired knowledge, 2) it must change the shape of matter, and 3) it must shape matter in the image of rational values (i.e., the physical form of matter must be purposfully changed to the benefit of the worker). She also uses the word "career" synonymously with productive work in some cases but I have not found an instance where she uses "profession" to describe productive work. Is she implicitly making a destinction between career and profession? I need to do more work before making that determination.

Actually I had (prior to your post) checked out what you do and intend to do further research. I think it is fascinating!

Why then do you in the very next paragraph provide me with Ayn Rand’s unique definition of the word, “value”? You say: “A value is that which one acts to gain or keep.” That is not the dictionary definition. At least my dictionary does not have that definition of value, nor have I ever heard anything close to that in everyday usage. The way she uses the word (the meaning she gives it) is unique in that not only does she say, “a value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep.” She also goes on to clarify by saying “The concept ‘value’ is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible.” Her “definition” (I know it is more than a definition—it is a description of the meaning of the concept in the way she is using it) totally eliminates the possibility of values being intrinsic. The dictionary does not provide this clarity--as illustrated below: val·ue -- noun Abbr. val. 1. An amount, as of goods, services, or money, considered to be a fair and suitable equivalent for something else; a fair price or return. 2. Monetary or material worth: the fluctuating value of gold and silver. 3. Worth in usefulness or importance to the possessor; utility or merit: the value of an education. 4. A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable: “The speech was a summons back to the patrician values of restraint and responsibility” (Jonathan Alter). 5. Precise meaning or import, as of a word. 6. Mathematics. An assigned or calculated numerical quantity. 7. Music. The relative duration of a tone or rest. 8. Color. The relative darkness or lightness of a color: “I establish the colors and principal values by organizing the painting into three values—dark, medium . . . and light” (Joe Hing Lowe). 9. Linguistics. The sound quality of a letter or diphthong. 10. One of a series of specified values: issued a stamp of new value. Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V., further reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved. My experience is quite different from yours—I have found that although she does not actually redefine words, she definitely uses them differently than most of us are accustomed to (and the dictionary is of little or no value in determining what she meant—IMO). So if I can’t get sufficient clarity from the dictionary and we all know I can not depend on the common usage of the words in question, how else shall I determine what she meant other than looking to her published work? I would also like to remind you that a dictionary misled Ayn Rand. I quote from her introduction to the 25th anniversary addition of The Fountainhead: “The error is semantic: the use of the word "egotist" in Roark's courtroom speech, while actually the word should have been "egoist." The error was caused by my reliance on a dictionary which gave such misleading definitions of these two words that "egotist" seemed closer to the meaning I intended (Webster's Daily Use Dictionary, 1933). (Modern philosophers, however, are guiltier than lexicographers in regard to these two terms.) Note that she says her error was caused by her reliance on a dictionary “which gave such misleading definitions of these two words …” Now, if Ayn was mislead by a dictionary and she sometimes uses “different” definitions than those we hear used daily, how do you expect me (or anyone else) to be able to determine what she meant by the use of certain very key words and phrases? I really don’t think my suggestion that we need to know (and try to understand) what Ayn meant by these words is out of line. And further more, in the time it takes to discuss why we don’t need specific evidence as to her meanings, we could have been working on determining exactly what she did mean. Why is it so bad to try to determine what she meant? And BTW it is not that obvious, not that easy, not that clear cut—it takes time and energy (at least for me) to figure out what she meant by sentences like: “Productive work is the central purpose of a rational man's life, the central value that integrates and determines the hierarchy of all his other values.” If "productive work" is the "central purpose" of our lives then it is worth a little time to determine, not what we think she meant--not what we feel she must have meant, but what she did IN FACT mean. I am beginning to formulate a hypothesis but I am far from ready to state emphatically what she meant by "productive work" and "central purpose." I will post my "definitions" for review and critique when I have them worked out.

They are trying to improve their sex lives. She wants to do a striptease for him--they go together and watch. She wants to learn what turns him on. He's impotent in his relationship-- so as an experiment they decide that he should go to a strip club and “oogle.” He is writing a novel and needs to find out what goes on in there. Etc etc etc Maybe you should try it --- you might like it!

What if the woman in the relationship agrees (for whatever reason --- and I can think of several “good” ones) that it is okay for her man to go? It’s up to the two people in the relationship to decide what each partner “should” or “should not” do. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with going to a strip club. It is wrong to violate a relationship but the relationship “agreement” can have whatever terms the two partners decide is in their rational self-interest.

Did he decide to stop going because he doesn't want to pay for it, or because it makes you uncomfortable? Also Note: Not all "Objectivists" share the same values—that is to say that not all Objectivists are Objectivists! Sounds silly but if you read through the posts you will find a vast array of views, opinions, and interpretations of Objectivist Ethics. This could be a very interesting (although probably too controversial) topic for a new thread.

Shouldn't the partners involved in the relationship decide for themselves what is and what is not acceptable behavior? If consenting adults decide that it is OK for their partner to go to strip clubs, have affairs, and do whatever -- then who are we to say that X behavior is wrong for them? If you don't like the way your partner behaves, why not dump him/her and find someone who shares your values?

That might seem like a relatively simple question but the first problem I ran into when I began looking for happy people is that I have only their outward appearance to go by. I cannot know how happiness feels to another person. I saw what appeared to be a very happy person. He was smiling and talking in a joyous manner, then I found out he was mentally ill. I have a 99 yr old grandmother who appears to be happy all the time—she spends all of her waking time sitting in a wheelchair in a nursing home and can’t remember what you said 3 minutes after you tell her. I see teenagers driving in old beat up cars driving down the highway listening to loud music and laughing and smiling and singing merrily along. Then I see a man in a business suit driving a Mercedes pass them. He looks stern and not very happy at all. I have a friend who works 6:30 to 3:00 then plays golf and goes to bars and smokes cigars—he’s always in a good mood—the funniest person you ever want to meet. He’s a lot of fun—but he works for money then uses that money to go have fun. He goes from one fun thing to the next—is he happy? You tell me how to identify happy people and I will try to figure out what it is that makes them happy. I don't know what she meant. That's why I have asked the question. Can you present some evidence (like a quote from her published material) that would indicate what she meant?

Regarding quote 1): I am interested only in what Ayn Rand meant by these word(s) and or phrases. (BTW – phrases can represent single concepts and single words can subsume multiple concepts. But that’s beside the point. ) Many people have expressed what they think she meant. And not that a consensus is important but there have been a wide variety of opinions on the matter. When Ayn Rand said "productive work" did she mean any work that creates a value? If so did she mean material as well as spiritual values? Since man cannot live on spiritual values alone, one would think she meant material values -- but many here have suggested that the spiritual values that result from productive work by themselves are enough and even if nothing of material value is produced the work is still productive because of them. My suggestion that we need definitions for the terms she used was meant to mean that we need to know what she meant by them when she used them—I’m not looking for a dictionary definition (I have one), and I am not looking for opinions (I have one of those too), I am looking for some evidence that would strongly indicate exactly what SHE meant. 2) In communication the important matter is that we both know what each other is referring to by the words we use. When I talk to some people I know that when they say "selfish" they are referring to the inappropriate actions of bad mannered people who take more than they deserve. They have never stopped to think that bad manners are not in one’s rational self-interest. In other words they mean something different when they selfish than when I say selfish. I’m sure you have noticed this phenomenon in reality. How many times have two people argued hotly about something only to finally realize that they were both saying the same thing! This can be prevented by making sure you really understand what the other person is saying—and sometimes you have to ask what they mean by certain words. That’s all I am trying to establish here—a common understanding of what she meant by the word(s) and phrases in question.

So you think inventing new types of steel is more alluring (i.e., desireable)? Why? Is it because you think steel is a greater value to society? You may be focusing too much on what other think: "There were always those who thought I wouldn't make it, and that it would prove too difficult for me - for a very long time they were wrong and I enjoyed proving such." Think about why you like to prove "to others" that you are good. This isn't about what value society gets from what you do. It is not about proving yourself to anyone. It's about doing what you enjoy and doing it well. It sounds like you really love your work --- pursue it! Become the best horse trainer you can become. I can see how this could make a very rewarding career. Maybe someday your services will be so highly demanded that you can name your price--and choose those few luck customers who get to own a Rational Mind horse.

It depends on what he does when he goes to the strip club. Some clubs are classy places where you can go to watch beautiful woman dance. Other clubs allow "full contact" lap dances, etc. What kind of club does he go to and what does he do when he gets there? Why don’t you go with him and see for yourself? I can't think of any good reason why an Objectivist shouldn't go. What does "go to a strip club," mean to you? What assumptions are you making?