Love versus career choice (as values)?

[iouswuoibev]

it is higher than, say, a romantic relationship because a proper relationship can't exist without your CPL.

That doesn't follow. I asked you to explain why this is and you've merely repeated your argument.

[BurgessLau]

First, Todd, if you choose to quote me, please give me credit (or blame!) for being the source -- by including the credit line at the top of the quotation. Also please include the switchback arrow in at least one of the quotations so that your readers can go back to check the context for the quoted statements.

Second, your last post, from which I have made a few excerpts below, raises many puzzles -- too many to address in one post. I will concentrate on the first paragraph, for now.

Third, I have a question for anyone: For this discussion, what is the distinction, if any, between a purpose, a value, and a goal? I have been assuming they are basically synonymous, but perhaps with a different emphasis on some aspect in one or the other. For example, tentatively I would suggest that "purpose" emphasizes focus of the mind on the achievement of something. "Value" emphasizes the something itself. "Goal" emphasizes the something in relation to intermediate steps (the "objectives" or "milestones").

Can you suggest another way of classifying these terms/ideas?

I understand the value inherent in having such relationships, [...]

There is no value "inherent" in my friendships. The value comes from my identification of the nature of my friends and of our relationship as other selves, so to speak. The value is objective, not intrinsic ("inherent"). (Peikoff, OPAR, p. 239, neatly identifies the value of friendships.)

[...]but should one necessarily define them as a purpose?

My first puzzle here is the term/idea of "necessarily"? If you mean "without any other choice," then the clause is contradictory. There can be no shoulds when there are no options. Perhaps you meant something else.

My second puzzle is the term/idea of "define." Do you mean "identify" or "assign"? In other words, are you asking if one should make friendships, in general and in particular, a purpose (at some level in the hierarchy of one's values, purposes, goals)?

If yes, then I would say, "Of course!" Friendships bring enjoyment, which contributes to my happiness -- which is my ultimate purpose in life. I make friendship, as such, a purpose just as I make friendship with my friend Marianne a purpose. The first is abstract, and the other is very particular. My purpose of wanting to maintain and nurture my friendship with Marianne supports the more abstract purpose of achieving friendship, which supports my most abstract, that is, ultimate purpose, which is happiness.

Any purpose, central or otherwise, denotes "reason for existing"; therefore, [...]

In the first place, why are you speaking of denotations rather than essentialized meanings? In the second place, even granted its use, your denotation is far too narrow. If my purpose in turning around on my swivel chair is to pick a book off a shelf, then my turning for the book is not a "reason for [me] existing."

A "purpose" in conventional usage (as noted by dictionaries) can be a "reason" for doing, as well as a reason for being (raison d'etre?). To concentrate only on "being" would be to commit the fallacy of frozen abstraction.

Besides, in "reason for existing," the term/idea "reason" is merely a synonym for "purpose." Thus "reason" here doesn't explain anything. Purpose for existing means the same as reason for existing, in the way these terms/ideas are usually employed.

[...] defining certain relationships with others as one's "reason for existing" (even if partially so) is contradictory to being an individual.

Your premise is incorrect, so your conclusion is also incorrect. Besides, you are making another error: context dropping. The reason, purpose, value, goal for me doing anything (including seeking out and maintaining friendships) is to be happy. I set the establishment and maintenance of friendships as a purpose in order to contribute to my happiness. That is the context, a context set by my ultimate purpose in life.

I am running out of time. Perhaps tomorrow I can attempt to examine another paragraph in your post.

[acapier]

That doesn't follow. I asked you to explain why this is and you've merely repeated your argument.

A person loves another when his/her primary values correspond with the other (reason, purpose, self-esteem), and s/he falls in love with the other when s/he knows that the other is exactly what s/he wants in another person. A person gains his/her primary values through his/her productive work (which should correspond with his/her central purpose), so one must have clear, concise goals already laid out before a relationship can even be considered. That is not to say that you must be at your end goal, but you must be working towards it. If you're not, then you aren't achieving your primary values, and one cannot have a proper relationship when one doesn't have those. Since one must already have this all in place, it is the higher value because without it the other is not objectively possible.

[Ayn Rand] regarded love as an extremely selfish emotion.  It was a response to your highest values in the person and character of another person; so, you had to know them well, and they had to, in all essentials, be exactly what you wanted in another human being.  If so, it was one of the greatest of all values.  But it was not the top value; she regarded career as the top value because she felt if you tried to base a life exclusively on your relation with another person, however wonderful or however much in love, it's going to end up being a relationship of dependence.  Each person has to have their own creative goal, and they must be like two individuals travelling on the same journey, but happen to find that they're going on the same journey together; and then love is a fantastic supplement to their individual creativity.

[acapier]

First, Todd, if you choose to quote me, please give me credit (or blame!) for being the source -- by including the credit line at the top of the quotation. Also please include the switchback arrow in at least one of the quotations so that your readers can go back to check the context for the quoted statements.

My apologies, and I will do so in the future.

There is no value "inherent" in my friendships. The value comes from my identification of the nature of my friends and of our relationship as other selves, so to speak.

This is true, and I should have said "objective value".

My first puzzle here is the term/idea of "necessarily"? If you mean "without any other choice," then the clause is contradictory. There can be no shoulds when there are no options. Perhaps you meant something else.

Again, wrong choice of words. Let me rephrase by taking "necessarily" out of the question: "should one define relationships as a purpose?"

My second puzzle is the term/idea of "define." Do you mean "identify" or "assign"?

Yes, and I will clarify to say that relationships are things that you act to gain/keep, therefore they are a value to one's life, not a purpose.

If my purpose in turning around on my swivel chair is to pick a book off a shelf, then my turning for the book is not a "reason for [me] existing."

Why not? You exist, the book (presumably yours) exists, and you are there to make the action (an action that you reasonably want to do). Every action one performs had an action before it that led to it; and there will (hopefully) be more actions after. As real as I am typing this right now, I exist to type it and it's a reason for me to exist. Every action I performed before it led up to this moment. If this is not a reason for me to exist, then I should stop now and go do something else.

[BurgessLau]

From Post 28:

A person loves another when his/her primary values correspond with the other (reason, purpose, self-esteem), and s/he falls in love with the other when s/he knows that the other is exactly what s/he wants in another person.

Wait a minute. Are you saying that If Mr. A meets Miss B and they both have the same cardinal philosophical values -- reason, purpose, and self-esteem -- they should or inevitably will fall in love?

What happens if Mr. A meets three women -- for example, at an Objectivist conference -- whose primary philosophical values are reason, purpose, and self-esteem? Will he fall in love with all three?

A person gains his/her primary values through his/her productive work (which should correspond with his/her central purpose), [...]

Can you please explain to me how you gain the primary value of reason through your work? If you don't already have reason as a primary philosophical value, how on earth could you possibly do any particular productive work as a personal value?

[BurgessLau]

Yes, and I will clarify to say that relationships are things that you act to gain/keep, therefore they are a value to one's life, not a purpose.

Using Ayn Rand's words, you have defined value as that which one acts to gain and keep. Now, how would you define purpose? What essential characteristic(s) distinguishes it from value?

Second, what do you see as the relationship between value and purpose?

[BurgessLau]

And, in respect to relationships, one does not accomodate work to a relationship, but a relationship to his/her work [...]

Howard Roark and Henry Cameron were friends. That is a form of relationship. When Heny Cameron was dying, did Howard Roark say, "Sorry, I am busy with my work. It is my highest value, so if I took time away from work to be with you in your last hours or days, I would be betraying my highest philosophical value" -- or did Howard Roark indefinitely set aside his work to be with his dying friend?

[acapier]

From Post 28:

If Mr. A meets Miss B and they both have the same cardinal philosophical values -- reason, purpose, and self-esteem -- they should or inevitably will fall in love?

They may fall in love, but as to whether or not they should (and to whom) is their decision. The odds of finding two or more individuals that fit exactly into one's idea of an ideal mate are not that good (it's hard enough to find just one), and if that does happen only one can earn it.

Can you please explain to me how you gain the primary value of reason through your work?

No, I can't, and I see the error in what I said. Your work is your reason in action, so one must possess reason beforehand.