RSalar

This may be a new topic but I do not see how anyone can look for examples of something when he doesn't know what he is looking for. "Central purpose" is not the same as “purpose.” I would think she meant it as "having dominant or controlling power or influence" So our "central purpose" in her view should be our "career." So this could mean that everything in your life should somehow be influenced by your career --- or --- she may have meant that the one purpose (other than a person's career--like carpentry, writing, etc) that does unify all the things you do including what you normally call your career is your Career i.e., your “central purpose.” I use big C Career here to denote the central purpose career--not to be confused with career in the common usage of "the work you do for money." SoftareNerd, would you be able to search for examples in reality of Simplitarianism for me and report back? I am interested to get your views on it. Do you think Simplitarianism is a controlling force in world politics? Again how can you look for something until you know what it is you are looking for? That is the purpose of definitions. Since Ayn Rand is known for coming up with "unique" ways of defining words I think it is critical that we understand what she meant by the terms we are discussing. Think about the word “selfishness,” and imagine looking for examples pre-Rand. I looked for an example in reality for “productive work” and I saw a guy building a birdhouse. He seemed to be producing something. Was he engaged in "productive work" or a hobby? I couldn't tell so I asked him. He told me he was an electrician by trade. So I said, "Oh so this is a hobby of yours?" He said that it used to be a hobby but now he was building them to sell in a friend's yard sale. So I thought to myself -- "Sounds like "productive work" because he intends to make money. I asked him how much he was asking for the birdhouses. He said, "Oh I don't know what my neighbor will ask for and have no idea what he will end up getting for them. I am donating them to him because he just lost his job." "Hmmm," I thought, "Is this altruism?" I then started to ask him about his hierarchy of values … whereupon he punched me in the nose! Can you see why definitions are important in this case?

If you mean by dichotomy: "Division into two usually contradictory parts or opinions," I must disagree. In fact the complete opposite is true--my work is everythig I do to support my life goals. I understand that I need money in the same way I need water. I need money to stay alive and pursue my values. I also need food and water. I need shelter and I need to do chores around the house to maintain that shelter. I don't "need" to play golf in order to survive. I don't need to see my kids in order to survive. These higher values are obtained by the means of the money I earn, the chores I do, the relationships I nuture, the reading and thinking I do, etc. My work is everything I do in order to obtain the values I choose--it is not just my career. It sounds to me like you are the one who views your work as a separate and distinct task--you view your work as your career--the thing you do in order to earn money. My work is everything I do in order to achieve my ultimate spiritual values. Maybe we would be better off (you and I) if we kept the discussion here about ideas as abstractions that each of us can use as we see fit in our own lives. I wonder if anything is gained by looking at the specific concretes in each of our lives. This isn't a contest to see which one of us is doing it right--I am here primarily to clarify in my mind Ayn Rand’s ideas.

Check out this quote. I provide it as food for thought in the context of this discussion: (Taken from Ayn Rand’s letter to Leonard Read written February 28, 1946) "A man does not exist merely in order to earn a living; he earns a living in order to exist. His economic activities are the means to an end; the kind of life he wants to lead, the kind of purpose he wants to achieve with the money he earns determines what work he chooses to do and whether he chooses to work at all. A man completely devoid of purpose (whether it be ambition, career, family or anything) stops functioning in the economic sense. That is when he turns into a bum in the gutter. Economic activity per se has never been anybody's end or motive power. " ---------------------------- Also I think we need definitions for: productive work, career, and central purpose.

The question that still remains unanswered is: Why is it important to make money when you do not need any more money? Money equals material value. Productive work equals producing something by ones effort. Can the "something" be of spiritual value only? You say, no -- you should enjoy your work AND make money. Why does money have to be part of the equation? What purpose does the money serve when you don't need more? Money, i.e., material value, is either an essential part of the equation or it is not essential. If it is essential then tell me why. If it is not essential then why is this activity called "productive work" and/or a "consciously chosen career?" Many other activities and pursuits can and do yield spiritual rewards so why is “productive work” used to describe this desirable activity? Does productive work yield a particular kind of spiritual reward that no other activity can yield? Someone said this particular spiritual reward is pride. So is productive work the only activity that yields pride? Perhaps … (more thought required—TBC)

"Broader ...." hmmm ... I’m trying to determine if are you saying that a person should work even when he does not need money and/or when there is no material gain (i.e., unproductive work). It’s confusing because you either think she was saying that a person should have a productive career or she was saying that one should have a career that may or may not be productive—just have a career. It can’t be both—it must be one or the other. Either you should be productive, i.e., produce something of material value (and all material value can be converted into money and vise-a-versa) or it doesn’t matter if you are productive. If by “productive” she meant gain some value either material or spiritual then I wonder what the advantage that work has over play—because play yields a spiritual value. Productive MUST mean "for material gain." If you "should" work at a career even when you do not need or want to gain any material value then the only purpose that this work could possibly serve is for spiritual gain. To spend time working when you gain nothing—no money and no emotional satisfaction (spiritual gain)—would be sacrificing valuable time and we all know that is immoral. So this "broader" concept of career (that you think she had) must mean that one can have a career that produces no material gain for one's effort—just spiritual gain. Is that how you define, "productive work?" If so then playing a round of golf with your buds on Sunday morning is productive work if and when you gain the spiritual benefit of having fun. She couldn't have meant that! This is not as simple as you make it seem when you say: "Your response leads me to believe you didn't even read his and my posts quoting at length.” So in other words if I had read your posts it would be clear to me by now? Isn’t that a bit presumptuous? Isn’t it conceivable that I did read your posts and remain phlegmatic? Please be advised that I’m not asking you to sacrifice your time for me. If you are getting nothing from this exchange then let someone else try to explain (if they so desire). If no one wishes to respond I will not be injured. “I’m OK—You’re OK”

Are you trying to say that you think she meant a career and productive work could/should be done for free (for no material gain)? I'll have to consider that but it seems preposterous.

Two points: 1) Mankind needs to be productive but reality does not require all men to be productive, and 2) regarding your item "line of endeavor" --this means career. Although many posts in this thread have tried to change this to "creative activity" or "productive work" or making money, she clearly means "career." To quote her again:"'Productive work' does not mean the unfocused performance of the motions of some job. It means the consciously chosen pursuit of a productive career ..." A productive career ... plain and simple -- nothing else. She said that our central purpose, as rational human beings, is a productive CAREER. Maybe this is an old fashioned belief. A man’s career used to be his defining trait: Jake the blacksmith, Joe the barber, Dan the basket weaver, Jack the carpenter, Doctor Smith, Professor Bullwinkle, Attorney Harris, Ayn Rand—author, etc. So a man’s career defined who he was—it was his central purpose. But is this still true today? What about the millionaire dotcom kid who retires at age 25 and decides to spend his remaining years pursing hobbies like astronomy, archeology, biophysics, mountain climbing, and chasing solar eclipses? These are not careers, he does not do them to earn money, he has no use for more money—it would be silly to think that he needs to “pursue a productive career” in order to be moral! (And he doesn’t need a productive career to have self-esteem. He is proud that he can afford to retire and pursue other interests.) Times change—there was a time when man had to work from sunup to sundown, then generations later there was time when he had a little free time, but now it is possible to have a lot of free time. I think the pursuit of happiness should be a person's central purpose. A productive career is a means to that end—but there are times when a productive career is a foolish waste of time. (Unless the word career could mean any rational pursuit ...?)

You make a lot of sense and I agree with you 100% -- And it would be great if I loved my work (meaning career) but I think that even if I loved furniture building (and I do by the way) and started a furniture building business (which I could -- I know how to run a successful business and I know now to build furniture) the love I have for woodworking would be lost. Now one of my relaxing past times would become something I have to do every day in order to earn a living. There would be pressure to produce a certain volume of a certain type of furniture. I would have employees to deal with, book keeping to do, paperwork regarding nonsensical government regulations to file, etc., etc. My relaxing hobby just became a royal pain in the butt. If I became a professional bass fisherman I would have to trade in an evening of paddling around a quiet pond in my Old Town wood and canvas canoe for a 200 hp Mercury propelled sparkly silver rocket boat. I would have to travel to competitions every weekend instead of spending time with my kids when they come home from school. And most likely these fun hobbies that I turn into careers would not earn me the kind of money that I now earn. Likely I would not be able to afford to send my kids to good schools. Likely I would not be able to afford to own an airplane and spend days flying to places like Martha's Vineyard, Cape Cod and the coast of Maine. I would be tied to my dust filled woodworking shop sweating over a lath trying to meet a deadline for some guy who is out having fun. If Rand had said that we should use our minds to figure out how to obtain the things we want in life (to pursue and achieve our values) while respecting the rights of others, I would not have need to start this thread. But she said what she said and it doesn't matter how many people try to turn what she said into something that they wish she had said-- she still said that a productive career is the central purpose of a rational man's life. Well it's not my central purpose so either I'm not rational or she was wrong. My central purpose is to enjoy life to the fullest—to accomplish this I must earn a decent income (way more than average), so I work at a career that allows me to make a lot of money in the fewest number of hours a week. (You don’t need to feel sorry—I love my life as a whole. And as far as KendallJ’s, “Well, I'm not sure how many times, I have to explain myself.” – I read you loud and clear.) Ayn Rand spent many hours locked up in a room typing—while she was in that room she could have been doing many other things. Maybe she was a “workoholic” or had no other interests (yes I know she collected stamps), I don’t know but that was her life and we all have ours.

Let's get focused. 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.” And she said:"'Productive work' does not mean the unfocused performance of the motions of some job. It means the consciously chosen pursuit of a productive career, in any line of rational endeavor, great or modest, on any level of ability. It is not the degree of a man's ability nor the scale of his work that is ethically relevant here, but the fullest and most purposeful use of his mind.” So we can substitute "consciously chosen pursuit of a productive career" for "productive work." The new sentence becomes: A consciously chosen pursuit of a productive career is the central purpose of a rational man's life, the central value that integrates and determines the hierarchy of all his other values. Simply put she is saying that your career should be the central purpose of your life. Obviously we have to earn a living. We all want to be self-supporting. No one here is saying that they would rather be a leech. But beyond supporting yourself, paying your own way, having all the things you want, and having saved enouph for retirement -- then what? The career has served its purpose--it has provided you with the things you need to survive and to be happy. Now you want more--you want to learn about the mysteries of life and enjoy the products of your labor. You no longer have to depend on your career, you have become independently wealthy, but according to Rand your career remains your central purpose so you have to continue to work at it until you die. Are we drones? Do we have to continue to work and be productive long after we have achieved financial independence? If so ... why? To what end does this serve?

Not only is it possible to work and not make money but it is possible to work and lose money. Have you ever been self-employed? I have and let me tell you it is a lot more fun to make money than to lose money--even when the work part is exactly the same (doing the same tasks). Sometimes the market is not ready for your product (slow ecconomy, etc.) and sometimes the market gobbles up your product. So work and money are different and very seperate. I do not think the hypothetical is a non-sequitir and I believe my question is legitamate. PS: I love money!

"So I'm wondering, at what point does it make sense for a person to definitively know that they are in love? " Wouldn't it make sense to know that you are definately in love as soon as possible? My question is: Can you be in love and NOT know it? I have also noticed that I used to fall in love very easily, now as I appoach 50 it takes a lot before I "fall."

1) If you did not get paid for the work you do would you still love it and not ever want to stop? 2) The problem I am facing is not productive work, it is Rand's view that my work should be my central purpose. I do not work for the sake of working, I work to make money which I then use for the purpose of enjoying life. If work were my only enjoyment then I would work more, but I have many interests--and I think that is a good thing. Question: Could it be that during Ayn Rand's era people had to work much harder just to earn a living--so anyone who only worked 20 hours a week and took summers off would be considered a lazy bum? Times have changed and we now have the luxury of more free time. I say that is a good thing, and if you have to work 40-50 hours a week to earn a living then you do but if I can do it in 20, hurrah for me.

[Merged with an earlier thread on purpose. sN] Ayn Rand states in The Virtue of Selfishness (p. 27) (bold emphasis mine): “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.” “The virtue of Productiveness is the recognition of the fact that productive work is the process by which man's mind sustains his life, the process that sets man free of the necessity to adjust himself to his background, as all animals do, and gives him the power to adjust his background to him-serf. Productive work is the road of man's unlimited achievement and calls upon the highest attributes of his character: his creative ability, his ambitiousness, his self-assertiveness, his refusal to bear uncontested disasters, his dedication to the goal of reshaping the earth in the image of his values. "Productive work" does not mean the unfocused performance of the motions of some job. It means the consciously chosen pursuit of a productive career, in any line of rational endeavor, great or modest, on any level of ability. It is not the degree of a man's ability nor the scale of his work that is ethically relevant here, but the fullest and most purposeful use of his mind.” Does this mean that she thought that our purpose here on earth is to work? So work/career is an end it itself? I know she worked a lot --- maybe she enjoyed work, but what if I enjoy other things more? It seems almost crazy to think that work is our purpose. I thought our purpose was to pursue happiness -- meaning to enjoy life, i.e., walking in the woods, swiming naked, eating fine foods, reading, learning, exploring --- just experienciing the wonders of life. Wouldn't it make more sense to figure out how to make the most amount of money in the least amount of time? Work less--enjoy more! You've heard that old question: How many people, while lying on their death bed, thought, "I wish I had worked more"? Think about it. If work is our central purpose then we should work as much as possible --- 50, 60, 70, 80 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, every year, year in year out ... until we die. Yuk!!

Two quotes from The Virtue of Selfishness (p.27) – Note emphasis (mine): “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.” “The virtue of Productiveness is the recognition of the fact that productive work is the process by which man's mind sustains his life, the process that sets man free of the necessity to adjust himself to his background, as all animals do, and gives him the power to adjust his background to him-serf. Productive work is the road of man's unlimited achievement and calls upon the highest attributes of his character: his creative ability, his ambitiousness, his self-assertiveness, his refusal to bear uncontested disasters, his dedication to the goal of reshaping the earth in the image of his values. "Productive work" does not mean the unfocused performance of the motions of some job. It means the consciously chosen pursuit of a productive career, in any line of rational endeavor, great or modest, on any level of ability. It is not the degree of a man's ability nor the scale of his work that is ethically relevant here, but the fullest and most purposeful use of his mind.”

The point being made in the Grizzle Man comparison was in regards to the statement: "If Irwin believed that 'he had some mystical shield,' then he would have been dead long ago." What I meant was that if the quoted statement were true then the Grizzly Man would also have been dead long ago. In other words, just because a man manages to escape death for a period of years does not mean that his beliefs are not irrational. If Irwin was such an expert and knew all about how animals respond in particular situations then he would have had to know that there was a possibility (regardless of how remote) that a stingray could react in the manner that it did. If he didn't know that a stingray could do what it did then he was not the expert that some would like to believe. In addition it should be noted that either wild animals are predictable or they are not. They cannot be both predictable and unpredictable at the same time. If they are predictable then Irwin should have known how they would respond in particular situations. If they are unpredictable then Irwin should have known that some possibility did exist that he could be killed even if he were as knowledgeable as humanly possible. If Irwin were in fact rational and very knowledgeable about wild animals then he would have fully accepted the risks and the consequences that ultimately led to his death. I’ll give him that much and as I stated he certainly had the right to dispose of his life his way, but he should not have ever placed his child or any other unsuspecting person at risk. That was wrong and yet we know he did it—and that is why I believe he thought he had a “mystical shield” that protected him and those people who he placed in harms way. This “mystical shield” was his evasion of the actual risks involved in dealing with wild animals. It is what Irwin and the Grizzle Man had in common--and it is why the comparison is appropriate.

Would it follow then that he should have known the cause and effect of the stingray's spike?

Consider what happened to Timothy Treadwell (the Grizzly Man) in the same context and let us know why you think he managed to live as long as he did.

It was his life, he lived it his way, and died doing what he loved. That part is ok but to me it seemed that he believed he had some mystical shield that enabled him to remain safe while in close proximity to dangerous animals. Why else would he risk the life of his own baby by holding it while feeding raw meat to a huge, dangerously quick, and unpredictable crocodile? Luckily he only got himself killed by his irrational beliefs.

I think you will find Julian Jaynes has an interesting hypothesis regarding the origin of religion. Some of his articles can be found here: http://www.julianjaynes.org/articles.php After you have read about his bicameral mind theory I would be interested in your reaction.

I appreciate your thoughts on this but if we only discuss the most important topics here there would not be very much interest (look at all the thread topics--are they all the most important?). This is not about the fact that there may be something else that has a greater importance; it is about the meaning of a concept that gets used repeatedly on "Objectivist" forums. Maybe the term “Objectivist” does not represent a proper concept. Wouldn’t it be ironic to learn that to call yourself an Objectivist is to admit that you do not use objectively formed concepts? That would mean that anyone who calls himself an Objectivist is not one! My question is: Why would anyone who is sincerely interested in Objectivism not want to look objectively at this concept?

Thank you. I attempted to do what you suggested -- read through the threads about induction -- and WOW! How does one separate the wheat from the chaff? How about a good book on the subject? I thought that induction was basically the process of taking observed individual occurrences and making a broad true statement about them.

Astronomers Confident: Planet Beyond Solar System Has Been Photographed By Robert Roy Britt Senior Science Writer posted: 10 January 2005 04:32 pm ET SAN DIEGO -- Astronomers are highly confident that they've taken the first photograph of a planet outside our solar system. Make that two photographs. A new image from the Hubble Space Telescope confirms with a high degree of confidence a picture made previously by astronomers at the European Southern Observatory (ESO) and reported by SPACE.com in September. The planet -- still just a candidate, actually -- is an odd duck in many respects. It does not orbit a normal star, and it is much more massive than the largest planets in our solar system. Still, if confirmed, it represents a landmark in astronomy along the road to the ultimate goal of finding and photographing Earth-like planets around other stars. The entire article can be found @ http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/aas_...net_050110.html

The question was asked, I answered it honestly and stand by my words.

Let me see if I understand. This objective standard (which can't be defined) is only to be applied by oneself on oneself? So, before I am an Objectivist I must first determine if I understand Objectivism (a complex philosophical system that some very intelligent people study for 30 years or more to grasp) and then after I have determined that I do in fact understand it, I must decide if I agree with all of it. Based on that standard I doubt that anyone can honestly say that he is an Objectivist. By the time you have it all figured out you have forgotten some of the stuff you thought you knew. I think it is possible to boil down the essence of what an Objectivist is. I believe that there is a fundamental difference in the way an Objectivist thinks that makes him an Objectivist. I do not think he has to understand everything there is to know about Objectivism. I don't even think he has to agree with everything Ayn Rand wrote. I also believe that there are Objectivists out there who do not even know they are Objectivists.

Are you saying there is no objective standard? See post #3.