Purpose and Productiveness in Life

[Ifat Glassman]

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 enough 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?

I am going to give my own answer, which is not an interpretation of what Ayn Rand said, but probably a result of things that I learned from her philosophy:

A basic psychological need, which is also a high value for every man, is pride.

How does one gain pride? By becoming good at something, exercising one's abilities to the maximum, and achieving something worthy and useful with one's mind. A man that can look at what he has created and know that it is good is (should be) proud.

Now normally, if you are good at something, and able to create something useful, someone should be interested in it, and interested in paying you for it.

Suppose nobody is interested in what you can create - does this mean that you should choose another occupation and focus on it as your main purpose in life? of course not. If your case is the unfortunate case that I've mentioned, I suggest to look for the easiest way to make the money you need to use the rest of your time to do what you enjoy and that brings you pleasure and pride.

The main purpose of a career, as I see it, is to satisfy your need of pride, intellectual challenge, and pleasure of creation. The second purpose is to make a living. Normally, those two should not collide.

You stated that one of your hobbies is to read books and gain knowledge about things. While this is enjoyable, think of how it would make you feel if this was your career. Nothing to create by yourself, no new conclusions of your own to write about: just sit down all day and read. Kinda... not satisfying, right? That's because satisfaction comes from some sort of creation, something that would make you think of your achievement and be proud.

There are other enjoyable things in life, but if you try to break it down, I think you will find that even a walk in a beautiful wood can only be enjoyable if you are proud of yourself, if you know you have done enough and are now free to enjoy other things. And it is also only possible to enjoy it when you know that your survival is secured. Both needs (pride and money) normally should be achieved by your career.

Edited September 13, 2006 by ifatart

[KendallJ]

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?

Well, I'm not sure how many times, I have to explain myself.

You are equivocating on "purpose". What do you mean by "purpose"?

At the beginning of your post, you seem to want to take Rand's description of purpose, "the central value that integrates and determines the hierarchy of all his other values", but once you get done with your rationalistic algebra, you seem to want to say that central purpose is [i won't quote, but you imply] the single activity which one engages in throughout his life.

Peikoff has a whole section on this, both defining purpose and central purpose in OPAR. I'll quote a bit, but you should read the whole thing. After spending 2 pages on the concept of purpose, he then discusses the idea of central purpose. (apologies for spelling..)

A central purpose is the long-range goal that constitutes the primary claimant on a man's time, energy, and resources. All his other goals, however, worthwhile, are secondary and must be integrated to this purpose. The others are to be pursued only when such pursuit complements the primary, rather than detracting from it.

A central purpose is the ruling standard of a man's daily actions. In the philosophy of ethics, one must formulate an abstract standard of value to enable one to assess the various claimants to the title of "value". Similarly, in daily action, one needs a specific purpose as a standard to enable one to assess the various endeavors pressing themselves upon one as "important." The man wihtout such a purpose has no way to tell what is important to him. However sincere he may be at the start, he has nto end up as a whim-ridden, erratic, directionless, i.e., as irrational. The man who defines his purpose, by contrast, knows what he wants from his time on earth. Since his concerns are hierarchically organized, his days add up to a total.

...

The activity of productive work (if approached rationally) incorporates into a man's daily routine the values and virtues of a proper existence. It thus establishes and maintains his spiritual base, the fundamentals that are the precondition of all other concerns; the right relationship to thought, to reality, to values.

...

Nothing can replace productive work in this function. In particular, neither social relationships nor recreational pursuits can replace it.

...

The fundamental validation of productiveness is a man's need of material values. But , as should now be apparent, this is not hte only reason why a man must be productive. Work is necessary not only materially, but also spiritually or psychologically.... Work is essential not only to wealth, but also to the three supreme values that are implicit in man's life as the moral standard; it is essential to reason, purpose, and self-esteem.

Even if a man has already made fortune, therefore, or inherits one or wins one in the a lottery, he needs a productive career. A rich man may choose, if he has a legitimate reason, to pursue a kind of work that brings him no money. But he still must work. A bum is not a person living man's life, even if he has no trouble paying his bills.

...

In evaluating an individiual's productiveness morally, one must judge not by form or results, but by volitional essentials.... The moral issue is: how do you approach the field of work given your intellectual endowment and the existing possibilities? Are you going through the motions of holding a job [a drone?], without focus or ambition, waiting for weekends, vacations, and retirement? Or are you doing the most and the best that you can with your life?

If ... yes, then you are totally virtuous in regard to productiveness, whether you are a surgeon or steelworker, a house painter or a painter of landscapes, a janitor or a company president.

Emphases mine.

A central purpose fundamentally functions by setting the heirarchy of values. This is what all my "unfocused" posts have been trying to tell you. You can retire from your job, you can do things (if you are wealthy) from which you don't earn money (say finding out the "mysteries of life"). But you can't be aimless.

[Vladimir Berkov]

Kendall, I still see a central problem here of definitions.

Both the authors quoted and other posters here seem to have quite different conceptions of "work" and "productive." This is in part because these words have multiple acceptable definitions.

To me, "work" as used in this context necessarily includes the element of monetary gain. Thus volunteering at a soup kitchen isn't work, although serving soup at a school cafeteria IS work. This seems to be the definition Peikoff uses, since he ties it to the idea of a "career."

But it is far from clear why "work" in this sense is necessary to all men. Mankind must work, a man may not have to. This is the issue of the inherited fortune/retired man Peikoff mentions.

I simply don't see how "productive work" (ie paying work or its equivilant) is the only solution to the requirement that a man needs a central purpose in life. For a man who has no need of money, any good central purpose or goal regardless of its productivity or remuneration would seem to be fine.

Perhaps an example best illustrates my point, compare the following men:

a.) A man with vast inherited wealth who is a champion and gifted yachtsman, winning sailing races around the world even though there is no monetary prize for winning.

b.) A man who is the president of his own company who works hard and needs his paycheck, but enjoys the challenge and doesn't mind the effort at all.

I don't see how one man is morally distinct from the other, even though by his statement Peikoff would seem to. Each has a purpose, each uses reason and each leads to self-esteem. The only difference is that one is "work" and the other a mere "recreational pursuit."

It would seem that a better word than "work" would be something more akin to "activity."

[Inspector]

Actually, I think the word that most needs definition is "productive." Or, more specifically: producing what?

I think the confusion here is that people assume that the "what" is in fact "money." It isn't.

What life requires that one produce is values. Your values. What a man with inherated wealth requires for his happiness is that he produce values. To be able to say "I made this" or "I did this." To achieve something.

He could spend all the money in the world on luxuries, but this becomes empty without the ability to affirm: "I have earned this. I have produced things of value."

[DavidOdden]

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

Of course. More to the point, I will not stop, even after I retire from the job. I picked my line of work because it is what I want to do with my life: I didn't pick it because it was the only job I could get, or because it was the best way I could think of to acquire a lot of money.

I do not work for the sake of working, I work to make money which I then use for the purpose of enjoying life.

I'm sorry to hear that. Of course you known your own situation best, but if you have a realistic choice, I think it's always better to pursue work that you enjoy doing.

I think you're inverting the work / purpose relationship. Let's suppose you really enjoy making wood furniture, and that you are good at it. That would naturally lead to the conclusion that you should try to integrate your requirement to survive and your knowledge of your own nature, arriving at the conclusion that you should make your living by building furniture. Now then, why would you not want this to be your central purpose? BTW, also remember that "central" does not mean "exclusive" -- you can enjoy bass fishing as well. But if you spend so much time bass fishing that you neglect your furniture business and you loose all of your customers (and your income), that would be irrational. If it turns out that you are really more productive as a bass fisherman and that you really do not enjoy making furniture, then your identification as "master chair-builder" was mistaken, and you should integrate this new knowledge into your life-plan -- become a professional bass-master.

Yes, your career should be your central purpose in life -- you should not be mindlessly, mechanically going through the motions at work, and you should not let your minor hobbies destroy your ability to do what you really enjoy doing and are good at. You should select the line of work which is suited to your nature, which will nourish your wallet and your mind.

[RSalar]

Of course. More to the point, I will not stop, even after I retire from the job. I picked my line of work because it is what I want to do with my life: I didn't pick it because it was the only job I could get, or because it was the best way I could think of to acquire a lot of money.I'm sorry to hear that. Of course you known your own situation best, but if you have a realistic choice, I think it's always better to pursue work that you enjoy doing.

I think you're inverting the work / purpose relationship. Let's suppose you really enjoy making wood furniture, and that you are good at it. That would naturally lead to the conclusion that you should try to integrate your requirement to survive and your knowledge of your own nature, arriving at the conclusion that you should make your living by building furniture. Now then, why would you not want this to be your central purpose? BTW, also remember that "central" does not mean "exclusive" -- you can enjoy bass fishing as well. But if you spend so much time bass fishing that you neglect your furniture business and you loose all of your customers (and your income), that would be irrational. If it turns out that you are really more productive as a bass fisherman and that you really do not enjoy making furniture, then your identification as "master chair-builder" was mistaken, and you should integrate this new knowledge into your life-plan -- become a professional bass-master.

Yes, your career should be your central purpose in life -- you should not be mindlessly, mechanically going through the motions at work, and you should not let your minor hobbies destroy your ability to do what you really enjoy doing and are good at. You should select the line of work which is suited to your nature, which will nourish your wallet and your mind.

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.

[KendallJ]

Kendall, I still see a central problem here of definitions.

Both the authors quoted and other posters here seem to have quite different conceptions of "work" and "productive." This is in part because these words have multiple acceptable definitions.

To me, "work" as used in this context necessarily includes the element of monetary gain. Thus volunteering at a soup kitchen isn't work, although serving soup at a school cafeteria IS work. This seems to be the definition Peikoff uses, since he ties it to the idea of a "career."

But it is far from clear why "work" in this sense is necessary to all men. Mankind must work, a man may not have to. This is the issue of the inherited fortune/retired man Peikoff mentions.

I simply don't see how "productive work" (ie paying work or its equivilant) is the only solution to the requirement that a man needs a central purpose in life. For a man who has no need of money, any good central purpose or goal regardless of its productivity or remuneration would seem to be fine.

Perhaps an example best illustrates my point, compare the following men:

a.) A man with vast inherited wealth who is a champion and gifted yachtsman, winning sailing races around the world even though there is no monetary prize for winning.

b.) A man who is the president of his own company who works hard and needs his paycheck, but enjoys the challenge and doesn't mind the effort at all.

I don't see how one man is morally distinct from the other, even though by his statement Peikoff would seem to. Each has a purpose, each uses reason and each leads to self-esteem. The only difference is that one is "work" and the other a mere "recreational pursuit."

Vladimir, thanks for the challenge. I think ultimately we are inching a bit closer in understanding.

I think in specific instances, they are NOT morally distinct from one another. Evaluate the instances by volitional essentials. Is the rich yachtsman, a brilliant mind, making use of only a fraction of his efforts in order to attain his status as champion, and then spending the rest of his time idly? Does he do nothing else? If so, then he is idle rich. Or instead, does all his energy go into the effort? You have the right idea here. Becoming a world sailing champion is not a recrational pursuit for most. Watching a world sailing champion compete is a recreational pursuit for almost everyone. Don't confuse the two.

Volunteering at a soup kitchen is work, if you throw yourself into it, and have little capacity for much else than manual labor, and have other means to support yourself. Volunteering at a soup kitchen is not work, if you're the president of a company, and could run the non-profit which runs the soup kitchen, in your spare time. Then it's a hobby. If you are independantly self-made wealthy, and decide to retire and start and manage a non-profit foundation, well then, that could be considered a career. It is all in the context.

Productive work in this context does not necessarily imply the pursuit of monetary gain. Monetary gain is a contextual and even when necessary, an insufficient characterization. But it is what always hangs people up. The centrality of the purpose or productive work is because of work's spiritual component. Because, as such, it defines the proper heirarchy of value for the rest of your activities in life.

[Inspector]

(Guys, ix-nay on the excessive quoting. Please trim it down to just the parts you are actually referencing. Or use an ellipse.)

/netiquette

[Vladimir Berkov]

Vladimir, thanks for the challenge. I think ultimately we are inching a bit closer in understanding.

I think in specific instances, they are NOT morally distinct from one another. Evaluate the instances by volitional essentials. Is the rich yachtsman, a brilliant mind, making use of only a fraction of his efforts in order to attain his status as champion, and then spending the rest of his time idly? Does he do nothing else? If so, then he is idle rich. Or instead, does all his energy go into the effort? You have the right idea here. Becoming a world sailing champion is not a recrational pursuit for most. Watching a world sailing champion compete is a recreational pursuit for almost everyone. Don't confuse the two.

I don't see how you can assert they are morally distinct in any way based on the hypothetical, however. Nowhere does it state one puts more effort into his activity than the other. Why does whether the yachtsman does anything matter? The quantitative result of "work" or even the quantity of jobs has never been held by any of the authors quoted to matter at all. It is all contextual to the person involved. Working 40 hours a week is no more intrinsicly moral than working 20 hours a week.

[KendallJ]

I don't see how you can assert they are morally distinct in any way based on the hypothetical, however. Nowhere does it state one puts more effort into his activity than the other. Why does whether the yachtsman does anything matter? The quantitative result of "work" or even the quantity of jobs has never been held by any of the authors quoted to matter at all. It is all contextual to the person involved. Working 40 hours a week is no more intrinsicly moral than working 20 hours a week.

There is not enough data provided to assess the situations based upon volitional essentials, as Peikoff states is the proper method for judging - see my quote of his passage.

The context is necessary. You are correct that the absolute quantities are not at issue, but the quantities relative to each man's "endowment and the possiblities" are at issue.

I'm not really talking about time and maybe my concretes seem to imply it. In the yachtsman example, I am more interested in the volitional aspects of his effort. But then if we're getting down to examples of yachtsmen who can win sailing races around the world on 10 hrs of effort a week, then we're getting into non-reality. Competition will inherently require that he increase his time spent to something more encompassing if he is to be a champion.

(Guys, ix-nay on the excessive quoting. Please trim it down to just the parts you are actually referencing. Or use an ellipse.)

/netiquette

Sorry, will do.

[Ifat Glassman]

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.

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.

Raising kids is also a sort of a creative job. Since nobody is going to pay you to do it though, it does justify choosing another job that would bring you the most money in the least time.

The point is: You have to have some creative activity in your life, that will call upon your special abilities and potential (intellectually).

I think that this creative activity should be the purpose of your life, and not necessarily a paying job, though ideally, if there were no annoying forms and government regulations, you should aspire to get paid for what you love to do. I don't see how deadlines would necessarily be a bog-down if you love what you're doing. Your business, you make the deadlines.

Man can only have fun if he is first proud of himself, and he can only be proud of himself if he creates something worthy. This is why work should be the main purpose in man's life. The purpose of work is to fulfill the deepest psychological need, on which all other emotional pleasures depend upon: your pride.

Try thinking of how it would feel like to spend an evening with your wife, if you cannot look at yourself and be proud of things you have achieved, or how much fun it would be to visit those places, if you never created anything by yourself your entire life (but just used the money you got from someone else).

Pride is such a basic emotion, or recognition, that nothing else can exist without it.

If you have any other method to gain pride other than creative activity that is aimed at achieving the best you can do - please let me know.

You might ask, why should that need be satisfied in just one career, why can't I just create in many small fields (like designing and building furnitures every once in a while, investing in the stock market sometimes, write an essay once a month, and educate my kids part-time). The only answer I can think of is that this doesn't allow you to achieve anything great at one field, but just small achievements in many fields, which would probably be less satisfying, but I don't see anything bad about it.

So in fact my answer is that even in your current lifestyle you probably are acting according to the principle of Ayn Rand that you quoted here, only your job and creative activity that gives you pride are not the same thing.

And if the society is rational enough and the country free enough, it would be irrational to do something else for a living than what challanges you and interests you. One cannot base one's life on trips and walks on the beach alone, since the basis of the pleasure from those things is pride.

[RSalar]

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.

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 ...?)

[KendallJ]

Again, equivocating career with a job for money, when several times people have pointed out to you that wealthy people need not make money with their career.

You keep bringing up this dot com fabulously wealthy playboy. Got some examples of some happy ones doing nothing but playing at hobbies? Are any of these role models for yourself? What do you want to do when you retire, and why do you think Rand is against it?

Astronomy, archeology, biophysics, mountain climbing. All can be careers. None need provide you money if you already have plenty. I've pointed you to the particular discussions of these topics by Objectivists where the specific ideas are address, and you seem to want to fit the few sentences you pulled from Rand into your own definition of what she said.

Instead of just asserting that Rand meant this, could you please take the material you've been provided, and integrate it into your assertion that Rand meant a job for money.

Two points: 1) Mankind needs to be productive but reality does not require all men to be productive,

A man who does not create at least enough value in the world to sustain himself is a bum. Could you please point me to an example of a man who is happy and was never productive?

[softwareNerd]

I thought I would throw in this quote, taken from "The Ayn Rand Letter" (Vol III, No.26, Sep 23, 1974), "From My 'Future File' "), as the parenthetical note indicates that Miss Rand had origininally intended it to be part of the main essay in VoS, but cut it.

It throws some more light into the concept of "career", as Ayn Rand was using it:

"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.

In this sense, a man of limited ability who rises by his own purposeful effort from unskilled laborer to shop-foreman, is a career-man in the proper, ethical meaning of the word—while an intelligent man who stagnates in the role of a company president, using one-tenth of his potential ability, is a mere job-holder. And so is a parasite posturing in a job too big for his ability. It is not the degree of a man's ability that is ethically relevant in this issue, but the full, purposeful use of his ability. (Cut from "The Objectivist Ethics." Written in 1961. See my book The Virtue of Selfishness.)

[RSalar]

Again, equivocating career with a job for money, when several times people have pointed out to you that wealthy people need not make money with their career.

Instead of just asserting that Rand meant this, could you please take the material you've been provided, and integrate it into your assertion that Rand meant a job for money.

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.

[KendallJ]

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.

Nope, I'm saying she thought the concept career was broader than just the necessity of working for money.

And, I'm not "trying to say", softwarenerd and I pointed you to direct evidence of the fact. Your response leads me to believe you didn't even read his and my posts quoting at length.

[softwareNerd]

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)?

No, the ideal situation is for someone to be able to enjoy what he does and make millions doing it: as Ayn Rand herself did. The crucial element is: ambitious purpose. One has to think of the link between purpose and happiness. One has also to think of the link between the "quality" of purpose (e.g. how ambitious one is in one's intent -- in terms of stretching oneself or planning a series of actions over a long span of time) and the "quality" of the happiness that results from acheiving that purpose. [When I say "think about", I don't mean to start with a proposition and see if you can reach these links; rather, look at examples in the real world to see if there is evidence of a connection between ambitious purpose and happiness.]

I'm sorry this post is incomplete. I hope to post more on this at some point, but the post I drafted was becoming an essay, so the above is not a full response to your post, but more of a hint to a response that I hope to make later.

[RSalar]

Nope, I'm saying she thought the concept career was broader than just the necessity of working for money.

"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”

[RSalar]

No, the ideal situation is for someone to be able to enjoy what he does and make millions doing it: as Ayn Rand herself did.

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)

[KendallJ]

"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”

I'm not trying to be presumptuous, rsalar. I am not taking issue with your understanding or lack of understanding of the concept, in general. Simply with your specific continued use of the point that Rand, must have meant X, when there's evidence to the contrary. I apologize if I am not making myself clear or if I am burying the important material in a longer quote. Let me see if I can pull the specific sections I am referring to.

Work is necessary not only materially, but also spiritually or psychologically.... Work is essential not only to wealth, but also to the three supreme values that are implicit in man's life as the moral standard; it is essential to reason, purpose, and self-esteem.

Even if a man has already made fortune, therefore, or inherits one or wins one in the a lottery, he needs a productive career. A rich man may choose, if he has a legitimate reason, to pursue a kind of work that brings him no money. But he still must work. A bum is not a person living man's life, even if he has no trouble paying his bills. - OPAR

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 Ayn Rand Letter

These are both direct refutations of your assertions or questions about what she meant, here in this post and this post.

So, a rich man who works at something that earns him no money is still working. He is still different from a "bum".

Work is necessary, spiritually, as well as psychologically, as well as materially. That does not mean anything that fulfills a spiritualy need is work. Recreation may fulfill a spriritual need, but it cannot fulfill the one that work does.

One quote from one of your previous posts intrigued me. I don't know what you do for a living, but you have an interesting view of work in general.

nd 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. - Rsalar

Is work to you only "something you have to do every day in order to earn a living"? Is there no way to parlay something you love to do into a productive career? Or is work to you, by definition, "a royal pain in the butt"?

Now, if this is the case, I can certainly understand why you are questioning Rand's assertion of central purpose. But also consider that there may be some connection between work and "supreme values that are implicit in man's life as the moral standard" that either you are missing, or we all think is there when it isn't.

I have a family and a ton of hobbies, and enjoy my free time as much as anyone, but I cannot imagine a world that consisted only of those things. My work gives relaxation meaning. Yes, I work to support my family, but I am not chained to my work. The two integrate without the apparent dichotomy that you seem to hold.

[Inspector]

Does productive work yield a particular kind of spiritual reward that no other activity can yield?

BINGO!

[Inspector]

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.

But not the same kind of spiritual value as work. And the kind of value gained in play is useless without the one gained from work.

Productive MUST mean "for material gain."

That's the premise you must (and I see are starting to) check.

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?"

Yes.

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!

No, that doesn't make golf (necessarily) productive work. All elephants are gray but not everything gray is an elephant. All productive work produces spiritual values but not all spiritual values indicate productive work.

[RSalar]

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.

[RSalar]

Yes, I work to support my family, but I am not chained to my work. The two integrate without the apparent dichotomy that you seem to hold.

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.

[softwareNerd]

Also I think we need definitions for: productive work, career, and central purpose.

Definitions are helpful, but can sometimes impede the process by being abstract. With this topic, I would suggest "concretization".

Search for concrete examples in reality, starting with the question: is purpose related to happiness? If you already hold that relationship as being "obviously true", as something for which you can present countless examples, then fine -- my mistake.

However, if you do not yet see that such a relationship is very real in the "real world", then it'll be tough to proceed to "productive career" or "central purpose", which build on the basic observation about the value of purpose. (BTW: This is not to say that one cannot be happy simply hanging out and relaxing. It does means that one cannot be happy if the primary thing one does in one's life is void of any progression of events toward some goal.)