Purpose and Productiveness in Life

[ex_banana-eater]

Which Objectivist publications do you recommend to learn about a central purpose in life? Will OPAR be sufficient?

My present task is to incorporate Objectivist ethics into my life, since I never really practiced an Objectivist "sense of life" before.

Thanks,

Bryan

(By the way, I have OPAR but haven't cracked it open yet since I bought alot of Ayn Rand's books along with it).

[Chumley]

Which Objectivist publications do you recommend to learn about a central purpose in life? Will OPAR be sufficient?

(By the way, I have OPAR but haven't cracked it open yet since I bought alot of Ayn Rand's books along with it).

I've read OPAR twice, many years ago, and cracked it a few times since to look up a specific topic. I don't recall reading about a "Central Purpose of Life" in it. In fact, the only place I've heard of a "C.P.L." is in this forum.

The Ayn Rand Bookstore has this lecture by Tara Smith that talks about purpose:

The Value of Purpose

I have not listened to this so I don't know if it's what you're looking for, but it looks close. In fact I'm going to consider buying it for myself.

[jedymastyr]

In the chapter Virtue, in the section on the virtue of productiveness, you'll find a couple pages worth of writing on it. If you're in general at least somewhat familiar with the Objectivist virtues, you shouldn't have to read all of OPAR to get that. It's just a few pages--I recommend reading just the section on productiveness if that's all you're looking for.

I don't know of any other places where you could find a longer or more in-depth description of it in the literature, though BurgessLau has provided a lot of useful and explanatory information on the subject in some of his posts.

[Thoyd Loki]

OPAR pages 297-303. Better to read the entire section on productivity (of which this is an aspect) for context. But be sure to read the entire book for a thorough grounding.

If you want to experience a central purpose in life, read The Fountainhead, although that is not specifically its theme, the hero is certainly the clearest presentation of it.

jedymastyr,

Whereabouts in Tucson do you live? I grew up there. Still love that place. Only city I ever lived in where all the city streets were north to south or east to west, non of this stupid NW, SE crap they have all over Seattle here!

Edit: Ooops I answered too late! Oh well!

[Chumley]

In the chapter Virtue, in the section on the virtue of productiveness, you'll find a couple pages worth of writing on it.

Thanks, jedymastyr, for the reference - I just re-read it. I didn't pick up on this from reading OPAR before.

I also just ordered the Tara Smith lecture from ARB. I have been thinking about my own purpose in life, and this is something I need to learn more about.

[BurgessLau]

Which Objectivist publications do you recommend to learn about a central purpose in life? Will OPAR be sufficient?

My present task is to incorporate Objectivist ethics into my life, since I never really practiced an Objectivist "sense of life" before.

I have two comments. First, for resources, objectively study (not just "read," as some do) the following.

1. The Ayn Rand Lexicon has entries for "Happiness," "Productivity," and "Purpose."

2. Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, has an excellent six page discussion of purpose. Be sure to study at least the whole chapter, for part of the context.

3. Dr. Edwin Locke has produced an audiotape lecture on goal setting, available from The Ayn Rand Bookstore. I and others I know have found it to be very helpful. Dr. Locke presents his material clearly and simply. He is not a theoretician primarily. His field is business psychology and similar studies. He has lots of advice to offer for putting objective ideas into practice.

Second, there is no Objectivist "sense of life." Two Objectivists can have different senses of life. Objectivism is a philosophy, not a sense of life. Look up "Philosophy" and especially "Sense of Life" in The Ayn Rand Lexicon. As you have done so well here, ask questions on ObjectivismOnline.

The Ayn Rand Lexicon is the most important single-volume work you can find for the study of Ayn Rand's whole philosophy, Objectivism. OPAR comes next, as a close second.

P. S.. -- For those who do not know how to study objectively, I highly recommend Dr. Locke's Study Methods and Motivations (if I recall the title correctly), available through The Ayn Rand Bookstore. (I have the first edition, which has a different title.) The first half, on methods, was the most important half for me.

[Bryan]

I have two comments. First, for resources,  the following.

P. S.. -- For those who do not know how to study objectively, I highly recommend Dr. Locke's Study Methods and Motivations (if I recall the title correctly), available through The Ayn Rand Bookstore. (I have the first edition, which has a different title.) The first half, on methods, was the most important half for me.

I second this recommendation. Dr. Locke's book provides insight for anyone who has a desire to learn through reading.

...

objectively study (not just "read," as some do)

....

Exactly! The first few chapters of Study M&M address this specifically. Dr. Locke defines "reading" and identifies the differences between perceptual "reading", concrete-bound reading (just reading), abstract reading, and abstract integrative reading (objective "studying").

[damZway]

I second this recommendation.  Dr. Locke's book provides insight for anyone who has a desire to learn through reading.

Exactly!  The first few chapters of Study M&M address this specifically.  Dr. Locke defines "reading" and identifies the differences between perceptual "reading", concrete-bound reading (just reading), abstract reading, and abstract integrative reading (objective "studying").

Ayn Rand speaks of central purpose in her Playboy interview.

Playboy Interview

[ex_banana-eater]

Thanks for the advice everyone. I will study the selections in OPAR right away. One last question, has anyone purchased "Chewing the Objectivist Virtues" by Gary Hull? What is your review of that product?

[Betsy]

My present task is to incorporate Objectivist ethics into my life,

Then I would suggest Dr. Peikoff's "Understanding Objectivism" course. It is all about integrating Objectivist ideas and applying them to your own life.

[Betsy]

One last question, has anyone purchased "Chewing the Objectivist Virtues" by Gary Hull? What is your review of that product?

I took the course when he gave it live at a conference. "Understanding Objectivism" is orders of magnitude better.

[BurgessLau]

Gary Hull's "Chewing the Objectivist Virtues" has a much more narrowly focussed scope, doesn't it -- the virtues?

Leonard Peikoff's series of lectures, "Understanding Objectivism," offers many benefits for approaching the key point of Objectivism: objectivity. The main value I got from UO was learning to detect rationalism (in myself and others) and learning how to begin the long process of replacing it with objectivity. Nevertheless, UO covers a lot of other ground too -- as its title implies. You will find material there that you might not find elsewhere. For me, the most important lectures were the first seven or so, if I recall correctly from many years ago.

[RSalar]

[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!!

Edited October 3, 2006 by softwareNerd

[Vladimir Berkov]

I agree, and I have had the same problem with Rand's conception of work myself.

Ideally, for instance, it would be preferable to have a perfect melding of professional and personal interests. For instance, if your greatest and only love in the world is writing, and you are a successful writer, then you have the ideal and best job for you which you should devote all your energy to.

However, most people have complications. For instance, they may have multiple discrete interests not easily combinable into one remunerative job. Or they may desire things in a job which a job based on their personal interests can't provide.

Thus most people have to balance a work life with a personal life, and striking the proper balance between the two is often one of the biggest questions in that person's life.

Simply put, most poeple are not Roark's, Dagny's or Reardon's in terms of their careers. While they may love their work, they also will likely have interests which compete with their career for their time and energy.

[IAmMetaphysical]

You guys are confusing "Productivity" with "work" especially the notion that "more work" means harder less fun work.

"work less make more money" means to be more productive with your time. If I can make 400 dollars an hour and work one hour, I am being more productive than if I worked 40 hours for 5 dollars an hour.

The purpose of your life is to sustain it. Enjoying recreation is a way of refueling your mind, which is your basic tool of survival, but recreation can not be your main focus of your life. Why not? Because it does not(usually) produce enough to sustain your life. Take your examples for example.

"walking in the woods, swiming naked, eating fine foods, reading, learning, exploring "

Walking in the woods as such will not give you the food you need to eat or you'll die, neither will swimming naked. Eating fine foods will sustain your life, but fine food is not found in nature, it must be produced. Reading, learning and exploring are ways of making oneself more productive, more efficient, as ends in themselves they are pretty lame.

[DavidOdden]

Does this mean that she thought that our purpose here on earth is to work? So work/career is an end it itself?

No; see p. 27 "The Objectivist ethics holds man's life as the standard of value—and his own life as the ethical purpose of every individual man." (emphasis added), then a little below that "Man must choose his actions, values and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man—in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life". There are many ways to be productive, and especially in the contemporary capitalist world, "the job" has become vastly less important for basic survival, given the dramatic increase in production over the past 50-75 years. You can now spend more of your life pursuing other productive goals such as learning philosophy, painting, picking up a hobby.

Pursuing happiness, per se, is just a confused view of life. How do you achieve happiness? What is happiness? Happiness is the emotional state that results from the integration of your actions and your purpose, knowing that those actions suit that purpose. How then can happiness be one's central purpose?

Of course, if you hate the line of work you've gotten into, that's sad. A rational man would act accordingly, and quit his day job in order to pursue a line of employment that is consistent with (and not contradictory to) his nature. I will probably work about 48 weeks a year until I die, though the specifics will change and I won't always be teaching classes or going to meetings (yuck). I really love doing what I do, so why should I ever want to stop? Maybe the problem that you're facing is not productive work, but the nature of your job.

[RSalar]

I really love doing what I do, so why should I ever want to stop? Maybe the problem that you're facing is not productive work, but the nature of your job.

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.

[KendallJ]

1) If you did not get paid for the work you do would you still love it and not ever want to stop?

I always wonder why people ask questions like these. Why do you so badly want to separate the making money part from that which is work? Many times I think people make these sort of comparisons from some sort of "money is base" philosophy, maybe mind-body dichotomy?. "I work just to make money". I think the real question is, given the myriad of ways that you can be productive in today's division of labor society, why would you do something you love and not make money at it, when for less effort than maintaining a separate living, you could do something you love and make a living at it? Your hypothetical is a non-sequitir.

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.

It sure sounds like your central purpose to me. Most people spend 1/3 of their time at work, so let's both admit that do spend this much time doing something you hate, just so you can earn money is foolish. If you work only to make money, then I feel sorry for you, but yet, when you describe it this is just he way you describe it. You drop that context so you can make work less than it is. (or make it what it really is...) You do not ascribe the personal value that work has for you.

Edited September 12, 2006 by KendallJ

[RSalar]

I always wonder why people ask questions like these. Why do you so badly want to separate the making money part from that which is work?

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!

[RationalBiker]

Not only is it possible to work and not make money but it is possible to work and lose money.

Yes, but here you are making a possible distinction between productive and unproductive work. If you hate making widgets and nobody buys your widgets, you are not being productive are you? When you just say "work", you drop the context that Rand was talking about, the part about the work being productive. I would offer that work is not productive if it does not further or support your life in some manner, which ties productive work significantly to making money in most instances.

Also, I wouldn't get hung up on assigning a number of work week hours to defining "central purpose". Unless a person is born into a substantial inheritance, it's quite likely the "productive work" will be necessary to allow the person to engage in other pursuits that provide other types of fulfilment to their life. Either that, or they must live as leeches off the work of other people.

Edited September 12, 2006 by RationalBiker

[Olex]

Now, this is just missing the point of the money.

First of all, about working and losing money: there is a big difference between philosophical value and monetary value. One is made by those who understand reality the best, thus capable of better judgement, then the other side, society, which gives its own value. These two are not the same, and must not be mixed together.

Second, work does not equal earning money. One earns money through trade. If you have nothing to offer or no one trades with you, you get no money.

[KendallJ]

Also, I wouldn't get hung up on assigning a number of work week hours to defining "central purpose". Unless a person is born into a substantial inheritance, it's quite likely the "productive work" will be necessary to allow the person to engage in other pursuits that provide other types of fulfilment to their life. Either that, or they must live as leeches off the work of other people.

RB, I agree here.

Rsalar, I think the answer to your concern is answered in the original quote that you didn't really draw out much.

By central purpose, Rand meant that, "it integrates and determines the hierarchy of all his other values." You are taking "central" a bit to literally, as though it must be his only focus, or his greatest focus. You seem to have missed the rest of her characteristics.

a. consciously chosen pursuit

b. any line of endeavor, great or modest

c. any level of ability

d. purposeful use of his mind

There is an awful lot of flexibility here.

Reality requires that man must earn his way in the world, i.e. be productive. This is central. It is fundamental. Now maybe you can earn your way in the world on only 10 hrs of "work" a week. But what Rand is saying is that the way in which you approach that 10 hrs, will determined how you view the rest of your life.

Most people get that Roark, Dagny, and Rearden loved their jobs. But most poeple miss that they also took time off for other pursuits, and to relax. The examples are there, but most poeple come away thinking they were workaholics. That's because the way they view their work strikes most today as odd. It is their view of their work and its relation to the rest of their life that is different.

I think the question that draws this out the most is, if you were somehow freed from the necessity to work, what would you do? What you would choose to do might not be productive work, but certainly, what you would choose to do would be highly integrated with your view of productive work.

If you despised work altogether and wished others to work for you, then you'd become the idle rich.

If you though of productivity as drudgery, then you'd become the self-absorbed hobbyist.

If you though of work as a necesary evil, something to be freed from, then you'd pursue "purer interests" maybe become a philanthropist (this view if rife with mind-body dichotomy).

Or if you thought of work as something good, and right, and rewarding, then you might take more time to pursue non-productive interests, but you would probably still want and need to be productive in some way.

This last is what Rand thought was the proper view of purpose.

[Vladimir Berkov]

Kendall, I am afraid I don't see how your view of work is consistent. Perhaps it is because of your use of terminology which is confusing.

You state that productivity concerns "earning," essentially relating it with a monetary gain. This is essentially what work is.

Then you go on to state that a man with a proper view of his purpose would want to be productive (earn money) even though he had no need of money. You contrast such a man with the "idle rich" or "self-absorbed hobbyist" who you state are non-productive.

What you have done is essentially state that a person should want to earn money even when they have no need of money.

How can this be? Money cannot be a goal in an of itself because by definition it is only a means to an end. Money is only useful because of its purchasing power in purchasing useful or desireable things. Why should a man who has enough money to purchase anything he finds useful or desires "want and need" more money?

I contend that a better view of purpose is simply the four factors you listed earlier in your post. This actually will include many of the "idle rich" and "self-absorbed hobbyists" you seem to distain. There is nothing less purposeful about a purposeful hobby rather than work. The only difference is that one involve remuneration and one does not. And as I said, remuneration alone cannot be a moral difference here.

[KendallJ]

Vladimir, it could be the terminology. The phrase "earn your way" was meant casually. Let's see if I can clarify.

Kendall, I am afraid I don't see how your view of work is consistent. Perhaps it is because of your use of terminology which is confusing.

You state that productivity concerns "earning," essentially relating it with a monetary gain. This is essentially what work is.

This is probably the key confusion. I meant this as a reference to the original Rand quote, "The virtue of Productiveness is the recognition of the fact that productive work is the process by which man's mind sustains his life...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."

In that sense, boiling down work to monetary gain fails to recognize all else that it is. This is where people start when they think "I work to make money so I can do the things I really want to do..." Without recognizing the exercise of man's highest attributes in the process, you remove what is essential about Rand's characterization.

Then you go on to state that a man with a proper view of his purpose would want to be productive (earn money) even though he had no need of money. You contrast such a man with the "idle rich" or "self-absorbed hobbyist" who you state are non-productive.

What you have done is essentially state that a person should want to earn money even when they have no need of money.

How can this be? Money cannot be a goal in an of itself because by definition it is only a means to an end. Money is only useful because of its purchasing power in purchasing useful or desireable things. Why should a man who has enough money to purchase anything he finds useful or desires "want and need" more money?

I don't accept your intial premise so this equation you assert I have commited is incorrect. A man who "calls upon the highest attributes of his character: his creative ability, his ambitiousness, his self-assertiveness, [....etc]" will want and need to continue to do so even if all of his needs are already taken care of.

I contend that a better view of purpose is simply the four factors you listed earlier in your post. This actually will include many of the "idle rich" and "self-absorbed hobbyists" you seem to distain. There is nothing less purposeful about a purposeful hobby rather than work. The only difference is that one involve remuneration and one does not. And as I said, remuneration alone cannot be a moral difference here.

hmmm. The idle rich eliminates a and d. Every single hobby is included? Some would claim debauchery a hobby, and that would not contain attribute d. "Self-absorbed hobbyist" to me says to the exclusion of real values, such as family.

I interpret Rand as saying values outside of work must still conform to a life-affirming heirarchy of values. A life affirming heirarchy of values in all aspects of your life, derives from the fact that sustaining (in all the richness of its meaning, monetarily, emotionally, socially, etc...) your life is your fundamental value. So, yes, you can retire from work, but retiring from work and then adopting a heirarchy of values that is life negating (such as debauchery, altruism, etc) is inconsistent.

This is also why people who do not understand work, cannot enjoy true relaxation. You must be of life-sustaining character to be able to rest from something. I think this was specifically mentioned by Roark in the Fountainhead. (I'll go looking...)

[RSalar]

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?