Purpose and Productiveness in Life

[RSalar]

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.

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?

[Maarten]

I do not think that a central purpose in life is the same as a career. Your central purpose in life is something you need to determine yourself. It should be the one thing you love doing the most out of every activity you can imagine, and something that has the potential to challenge you and to allow you to keep improving yourself until the day you die.

Your career should be something that helps you achieve your CPL, but it is quite possible to switch careers at some point if you find that your current career does not give you enough opportunities to grow anymore, when it starts impeding your progress by not being challenging enough anymore.

A central purpose in life is an abstraction, though. It could basically be anything you can imagine, I think, as long as it fulfills those criteria I mentioned above.

For example: one's CPL could be "to teach the philosophy of Objectivism to others". There are many paths you could take to fulfill that purpose, and there are multiple possible career options for you that will serve your CPL.

A CPL is the broadest possible way to state your purpose. Underneath that you have your career, which is a related series of jobs that should be going from less challenging to more challenging, and underneath that you have the particular job you are holding at a certain point in time.

The most important thing to keep in mind is probably to integrate all these different aspects so that they are actually helping you achieve your CPL.

[DavidOdden]

Can you see why definitions are important in this case?

How would you determine that you had the correct definition? Or do you consider definitions to be completely arbitrary? Indeed, what are you trying to define?

If you were speaking of some concept, then concepts have referents -- and you could point to some of the concretes that the concept refers to. You may also provide a formal definition of the concept, but that definition is not primary. If you are mistaken in the definition which you propose for a concept, that error can be identified by using reason to see what concretes the definition implies, and compare that to the concretes that the concept actually does subsume (if they don't match, the definition is in error). The concretes are primary and the definition is secondary: that's why we want a concretization rather than a definition. Indeed, arguing from definitions is the short road to hell.

However, "central purpose" and "productive work" are not actually concepts, they are combinations of two concepts, "purpose" and "central", or "productive" and "work". I don't see a reason to look upon these expressions as having any special meaning. "Central" doesn't imply exclusivity, it implies a "special position", primarily, where other things (which are secondary) are considered in relation to it. "Work" doesn't mean "acting so as to get a paycheck" -- this has been covered adequately, I think.

"Productive" does not mean "resulting in cash". It means "creating something". The thing that you create might be directly consumable by yourself to sustain your body (for example, growing potatoes), or you might take the excess production (more than you can yourself consume) and trade it to someone else for something that you can consume (or use as the basis for a further trade, ad nauseum). At some point, I may produce something which is not marketable this week or this year, or even next year. I've actually got a handful of papers of that variety, ones which may not be marketable in the money-making sense. Still, it was productive work because I created something that did not exist before -- I produced something -- and it furthermore relates and promotes to my central purpose in life. I've gained value, even though I may not gain cash from it.

BTW the referents of "selfish" are the same both before and after Rand: the only difference is the connotation -- being selfish is now recognized as a virtue.

[softwareNerd]

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. ...Can you see why definitions are important in this case?

I agree with David's response, and would add my own elaboration; but, I think we should do a separate thread for that.

For now, I'd like to ask this: from what you observe about people, do you think that purpose/purposefulness is related to human happiness?

[hunterrose]

I then started to ask him about his hierarchy of values … whereupon he punched me in the nose!

Sorry, but you were getting on my nerves

I would define "productive work" as actions that obtain a valuable result.

Depending on one's premises, some types of results are definitely not productive/valuable. If my life is my ultimate value, then slitting my wrists isn't productive work regardless of how much pleasure it might bring or how much money it may win me in a bet. If I hold the premise that it is impossible (or otherwise improper) to gain a value from acting on arbitrary premises, (assuming that this itself is not an arbitrary premise) then building an altar to Artemis in order to gain her blessings isn't productive work.

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?

Offhand, I don't think that money is an essential part of the conception of productive work.

If defining productive work was so important, you should also define "spiritual", which I assume to be something along the lines of "not resulting or done for the purpose of a monetary/material gain." If you're operating with a similar definition, I think some types of spiritual work would be examples of productive work. The question of which spirtual work is productive is probably more problematic, but I imagine the concensus here would be that work that results in

• not only no material gain, but no gain whatsoever
  
• an "imagined gain" or "intrinsic gain"
  

is not productive.

It's (a bit) more debatable whether gaining anything (that doesn't detriment higher values/ conflict with higher premises) makes a particular work productive, but if nothing is gained, then it obviously isn't productive.

[RSalar]

1) How would you determine that you had the correct definition? Or do you consider definitions to be completely arbitrary? Indeed, what are you trying to define?

2)BTW the referents of "selfish" are the same both before and after Rand: the only difference is the connotation -- being selfish is now recognized as a virtue.

Regarding quote 1): I am interested only in what Ayn Rand meant by these word(s) and or phrases. (BTW – phrases can represent single concepts and single words can subsume multiple concepts. But that’s beside the point. ) Many people have expressed what they think she meant. And not that a consensus is important but there have been a wide variety of opinions on the matter. When Ayn Rand said "productive work" did she mean any work that creates a value? If so did she mean material as well as spiritual values? Since man cannot live on spiritual values alone, one would think she meant material values -- but many here have suggested that the spiritual values that result from productive work by themselves are enough and even if nothing of material value is produced the work is still productive because of them.

My suggestion that we need definitions for the terms she used was meant to mean that we need to know what she meant by them when she used them—I’m not looking for a dictionary definition (I have one), and I am not looking for opinions (I have one of those too), I am looking for some evidence that would strongly indicate exactly what SHE meant.

2) In communication the important matter is that we both know what each other is referring to by the words we use. When I talk to some people I know that when they say "selfish" they are referring to the inappropriate actions of bad mannered people who take more than they deserve. They have never stopped to think that bad manners are not in one’s rational self-interest. In other words they mean something different when they selfish than when I say selfish. I’m sure you have noticed this phenomenon in reality. How many times have two people argued hotly about something only to finally realize that they were both saying the same thing! This can be prevented by making sure you really understand what the other person is saying—and sometimes you have to ask what they mean by certain words. That’s all I am trying to establish here—a common understanding of what she meant by the word(s) and phrases in question.

[hunterrose]

When Ayn Rand said "productive work" did she mean any work that creates a value? If so did she mean material as well as spiritual values? Since man cannot live on spiritual values alone, one would think she meant material values...

But man cannot live on "material values" alone either... so why think she only meant material values? Why can't material and "spiritual" values be considered productive?

[RSalar]

For now, I'd like to ask this: from what you observe about people, do you think that purpose/purposefulness is related to human happiness?

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

You tell me how to identify happy people and I will try to figure out what it is that makes them happy.

But man cannot live on "material values" alone either... so why think she only meant material values? Why can't material and "spiritual" values be considered productive?

I don't know what she meant. That's why I have asked the question. Can you present some evidence (like a quote from her published material) that would indicate what she meant?

[softwareNerd]

You tell me how to identify happy people and I will try to figure out what it is that makes them happy.

It sounds like you're debating; that's not my intent. So, I'll simply add that I wish you well in your search, and hope you find the happiness you're looking for.

[hunterrose]

I don't know what she meant... Can you present some evidence (like a quote from her published material) that would indicate what she meant?

Sounds like too much work. I've haven't read everything in this thread, but of the quotes sN offered in post#27 and you used in #36, I see nothing that definitively places money/material gain as central to the concept of productive work.

I think the pursuit of happiness should be a person's central purpose.

I personally agree with this last statement, but I don't think this explicitly conflicts with Objectivism.

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 ..."

I think that quote is in the context of her making a statement about a particular type of productive work, and that this is not meant to encompass every type of productive work. She could have just as easily said (in another context:)

'Productive work' does not mean the unfocused pursuit of alliances with random strangers. It means the deliberate seeking of men who are worthy of friendship.

Here, working to find true friends is productive, but it's not meant to say that only this qualifies as productive work.

If you want to make it interesting, use examples instead of waging a interpretive quote war. Was Mother Theresa productive? How about that hot-dog eating champion guy? If one earns just enough money to pay bills, does spending all one's free time learning every language in the world, or building mosques, or becoming the world's best video game player, qualify as productive work?

[DavidOdden]

Regarding quote 1): I am interested only in what Ayn Rand meant by these word(s) and or phrases.

That suggests that you think she would have had a special meaning -- I don't assume that. I think that -- in general -- she follows the ordinary meaning of words.

When Ayn Rand said "productive work" did she mean any work that creates a value?

I have no reason to think otherwise -- that is what "productive" means. (As you know, "value" presupposes an answer to the question "to whom?").

If so did she mean material as well as spiritual values?

Now I need to ask what you mean by "material" -- at any rate, I don't see any reason at all to think that values can't be material.

but many here have suggested that the spiritual values that result from productive work by themselves are enough

Wait, enough to do what? Nobody here, as far as I know, has suggested that man can eat spiritual values. If, through some other means, you have sufficient capital that the acquisition of cash in order to feed and shelter yourself is not a rational concern, then there is no reason whatsoever that your career cannot be the production of spiritual values. That has to be determined with reference to the value-haver -- what is a great value to me may be of negligible value to you, and vice versa (e.g. I doubt you would give a fig about what I'm producing on the topic of prosody and laryngeal properties in Saami).

My suggestion that we need definitions for the terms she used was meant to mean that we need to know what she meant by them when she used them—I’m not looking for a dictionary definition (I have one), and I am not looking for opinions (I have one of those too), I am looking for some evidence that would strongly indicate exactly what SHE meant.

My suggestion is that you just need a dictionary, and probably you don't even need that. It is not my general observation that Rand is in the habit of redefining the meanings of words. However, it is also my observation that she does not give in to connotative redefinitions as practiced by others, for example, people who embellish the definition of "selfish" to add implications that are not properly there. This is, or was, a metric of good lexicographic practice -- whether the compilers were able to weed out the attitude stuff. For example, in your characterization "the inappropriate actions of bad mannered people who take more than they deserve", this is quite divergent from the standard definitions found in the OED, Webster's 2nd or 3rd, or the AHD for instance. The definition of "selfish" is "concerned exclusively with oneself: seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others", which you notice does not suggest that there is some amount of socially pre-distribution of stuff into "shares" so that there is an amount "what you deserve"; and it doesn't even mean that being selfish is "bad mannered". Now I don't disagree that when somebody misuses the word "selfish" in some way, you should do something about it, but I disagree that you should ask for their definition of the word. You should simply use the word correctly, and if what they say is false because of their redefinition of the word, challenge them on the basis of the fact that their claim is false. Do not assume their error, the fallacy of redefinition, and force them to admit that they are engaging in that fallacy, if you can.

But we're not talking about other people who think that words can be arbitrarily redefined on a whim: we're talking about Ayn Rand, who is notorious for her literalism. Given that, it seems strange to worry about a definition. Earlier in this thread, you made the equation of "material value" and "money". But that doesn't follow in any way from the meanings of "material" or "value". A value is that which one acts to gain or keep; "material" means "tangible". Then it follows that potatoes are a material value -- assuming you want potaoes in the first place -- and thus producing potatoes is producing material value, without producing cash. And it follows from the meaning of "value" that values can be tangible (material) or not tangible (spiritual).

Look at it this way: if you argue that we don't know what Rand meant by her words until we have really compelling evidence that she meant words to be used literally, then you can never have that evidence, which would just come in the form of more words which, ex hypothesii, have no known meaning. That would be ridiculous: so I think all you need, in case you are uncertain, is a good dictionary. And even then, I question the need for a dictionary unless you really don't know the word. I think a dictionary would tell you that "material" doesn't refer just to cash.

[RSalar]

My suggestion is that you just need a dictionary, and probably you don't even need that. It is not my general observation that Rand is in the habit of redefining the meanings of words.

Why then do you in the very next paragraph provide me with Ayn Rand’s unique definition of the word, “value”? You say: “A value is that which one acts to gain or keep.” That is not the dictionary definition. At least my dictionary does not have that definition of value, nor have I ever heard anything close to that in everyday usage. The way she uses the word (the meaning she gives it) is unique in that not only does she say, “a value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep.” She also goes on to clarify by saying “The concept ‘value’ is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible.”

Her “definition” (I know it is more than a definition—it is a description of the meaning of the concept in the way she is using it) totally eliminates the possibility of values being intrinsic. The dictionary does not provide this clarity--as illustrated below:

val·ue -- noun

Abbr. val.

1. An amount, as of goods, services, or money, considered to be a fair and suitable equivalent for something else; a fair price or return.

2. Monetary or material worth: the fluctuating value of gold and silver.

3. Worth in usefulness or importance to the possessor; utility or merit: the value of an education.

4. A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable: “The speech was a summons back to the patrician values of restraint and responsibility” (Jonathan Alter).

5. Precise meaning or import, as of a word.

6. Mathematics. An assigned or calculated numerical quantity.

7. Music. The relative duration of a tone or rest.

8. Color. The relative darkness or lightness of a color: “I establish the colors and principal values by organizing the painting into three values—dark, medium . . . and light” (Joe Hing Lowe).

9. Linguistics. The sound quality of a letter or diphthong.

10. One of a series of specified values: issued a stamp of new value.

Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V., further reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

My experience is quite different from yours—I have found that although she does not actually redefine words, she definitely uses them differently than most of us are accustomed to (and the dictionary is of little or no value in determining what she meant—IMO). So if I can’t get sufficient clarity from the dictionary and we all know I can not depend on the common usage of the words in question, how else shall I determine what she meant other than looking to her published work?

I would also like to remind you that a dictionary misled Ayn Rand. I quote from her introduction to the 25th anniversary addition of The Fountainhead: “The error is semantic: the use of the word "egotist" in Roark's courtroom speech, while actually the word should have been "egoist." The error was caused by my reliance on a dictionary which gave such misleading definitions of these two words that "egotist" seemed closer to the meaning I intended (Webster's Daily Use Dictionary, 1933). (Modern philosophers, however, are guiltier than lexicographers in regard to these two terms.)

Note that she says her error was caused by her reliance on a dictionary “which gave such misleading definitions of these two words …”

Now, if Ayn was mislead by a dictionary and she sometimes uses “different” definitions than those we hear used daily, how do you expect me (or anyone else) to be able to determine what she meant by the use of certain very key words and phrases? I really don’t think my suggestion that we need to know (and try to understand) what Ayn meant by these words is out of line. And further more, in the time it takes to discuss why we don’t need specific evidence as to her meanings, we could have been working on determining exactly what she did mean.

Why is it so bad to try to determine what she meant? And BTW it is not that obvious, not that easy, not that clear cut—it takes time and energy (at least for me) to figure out what she meant by sentences like: “Productive work is the central purpose of a rational man's life, the central value that integrates and determines the hierarchy of all his other values.”

If "productive work" is the "central purpose" of our lives then it is worth a little time to determine, not what we think she meant--not what we feel she must have meant, but what she did IN FACT mean. I am beginning to formulate a hypothesis but I am far from ready to state emphatically what she meant by "productive work" and "central purpose." I will post my "definitions" for review and critique when I have them worked out.

[RSalar]

(e.g. I doubt you would give a fig about what I'm producing on the topic of prosody and laryngeal properties in Saami).

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

[DavidOdden]

Why then do you in the very next paragraph provide me with Ayn Rand’s unique definition of the word, “value”?

Well, my reason was to be emphatic -- I assumed you were aware of what a value is. Now I should say, having weakly extolled the virtues of dictionaries, that they are fallible (for example, sense 9). But notice that the sense that Rand is using (and there are multiple concepts) is basically senses 2-5 in that listing. What Rand does is distill out the underlying principle where the AHD gives 3 perspectives on the one concept. If you'll recall, I've denied that "definition" is important to this argument. Knowledge of referents is what matters. The theory of values (nicely worked out in Smith's book Viable Values) is not part of the "definition" of value, so whether value is intrinsic or objective is something you have to get from studying the concept "value", and that is where one comes to see that the concept "value" becomes empty if you think of value as being intrinsic.

My experience is quite different from yours—I have found that although she does not actually redefine words, she definitely uses them differently than most of us are accustomed to (and the dictionary is of little or no value in determining what she meant—IMO).

Well, if you're talking about word connotations, I won't disagree. What that means is in order to correctly understand what she is saying, you ought to interpret her words literally rather than metaphorically.

Now, if Ayn was mislead by a dictionary and she sometimes uses “different” definitions than those we hear used daily, how do you expect me (or anyone else) to be able to determine what she meant by the use of certain very key words and phrases?

I suppose you first look to see whether she has repudiated a lexical choice later in life when she learned more about the meaning of English words, but generally speaking I think you should assume that there aren't very many "egotist"-type problems. I think the real problem is not understanding the words that she uses, but understanding the ideas that she is conveying. I agree that it isn't childsplay to fully understand the consequences of the "productive work" passage on p. 27, but this isn't because of anything about word definitions. One cause of confusion could be the mistaken belief that "work" refers only to employment, or that "productive" only means "generating cash".

I suppose we'll have to wait and see what you think she was referring to in speaking of "productive work" and, especially, why you think it is that in particular. However, I think it if misguided to think that this has something to do with definitions. It does have to do with integrating the whole of Objectivism, so if certain actions are seen as not being "productive work", that probably has little to do with the definition of "productive" or "work", and more to do with the nature of man.

[RSalar]

If you'll recall, I've denied that "definition" is important to this argument. Knowledge of referents is what matters.

My mistake, I should not have used the word "definition." Instead I should have said we that need to establish what she meant by these terms (so that we can all discuss them from a common understanding). I am still working on my final formulation of her meaning of “productive work” but I have established beyond a reasonable doubt that the product or result must be a material gain to the worker—a spiritual value alone (despite what other have posted here) is not a sufficient return to classify the causal action as “productive work.” I present this quote as evidence:

“Productive work is the process by which man's consciousness controls his existence, a constant process of acquiring knowledge and shaping matter to fit one's purpose, of translating an idea into physical form, of remaking the earth in the image of one's values.” From Galt’s Speech

Note that the act of acquiring knowledge in and by itself is not “productive work” in this context. Productive work must include the acquisition of knowledge AND the shaping of matter. So it is not true that doing something for the spiritual value alone (like studying archeology) is considered “productive work” in this context. At this point I have identified three essentials of “productive work” (I remind you that this is a first draft): 1) it starts with purposefully acquired knowledge, 2) it must change the shape of matter, and 3) it must shape matter in the image of rational values (i.e., the physical form of matter must be purposfully changed to the benefit of the worker).

She also uses the word "career" synonymously with productive work in some cases but I have not found an instance where she uses "profession" to describe productive work. Is she implicitly making a destinction between career and profession? I need to do more work before making that determination.

[hunterrose]

“Productive work is the process of remaking the earth in the image of one's values.”

Note that the act of acquiring knowledge and shaping matter in and by itself is not “productive work” in this context. Productive work must include the remaking of earth. So it is not true that acquiring knowledge and shaping non-earth matter is considered “productive work” in this context.

[RSalar]

Note that the act of acquiring knowledge and shaping matter in and by itself is not “productive work” in this context. Productive work must include the remaking of earth. So it is not true that acquiring knowledge and shaping non-earth matter is considered “productive work” in this context.

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

[RSalar]

I suppose we'll have to wait and see what you think she was referring to in speaking of "productive work" and, especially, why you think it is that in particular.

I think she meant this: The central (dominate and controlling) purpose of a rational man’s life is his productive work, i.e., the rationally directed (purposeful) acquisition, integration, and refinement of knowledge that can be and then is used to change the physical world into that which is intended to ultimately fulfill his rational self-interest.

Why do I think this? Because (all bold emphasis mine):

1) She said (Galt’s speech): “Productive work is the process by which man's consciousness controls his existence, a constant process of acquiring knowledge and shaping matter to fit one's purpose, of translating an idea into physical form, of remaking the earth in the image of one's values.”

2) She said (Letter to Robert Anderson): I hold that intellectual work is the root of any other kind of work, and that every kind of productive work includes both an intellectual and a physical component.

3) She said (The Objectivist Newsletter, May 1964): “Every type of productive work involves a combination of mental and physical effort: of thought and of physical action to translate that thought into a material form.

4) She continues (VOS): “Productive work" does not mean the blind performance of the motions of some job. It means the conscious, rational pursuit of a productive career. In popular usage, the term "career" is applied only to the more ambitious types of work; but, in fact, it applies to all work: it denotes a man's attitude toward his work. The difference between a career-man and a job-holder is as follows: a career-man regards his work as constant progress, as a constant upward motion from one achievement to another, higher one, driven by the constant expansion of his mind, his knowledge, his ability, his creative ingenuity, never stopping to stagnate on any level. A job-holder regards his work as a punishment imposed on him by the incomprehensible malevolence of reality or of society, which, somehow, does not let him exist without effort; so his policy is to go through the least amount of motions demanded of him by somebody and to stay put in any job or drift off to another, wherever chance, circumstances or relatives might happen to push him.”

5) And to tie all this together she said: Productive work is the central purpose of a rational man's life, the central value that integrates and determines the hierarchy of all his other values. Reason is the source, the precondition of his productive work—pride is the result.

[hunterrose]

[The word "earth" is] not capitalized. She uses matter and earth synonymously. The principle is that something physical must change (improve) by your purposeful actions.

Now is not the time to abandon your dictionary

Lower-case "earth" also refers to our third rock from the sun - lack of capitalization proves nothing.

And how can she be using matter and earth synonymously, when there are instances of matter that do not qualify as earth under any definition (e.g. the gaseous substance of Jupiter is matter, but is not earth)?

If we must be monomaniacally meticulous on this, you can't simply put forth the interpretation that makes sense or assume Rand meant the logical thing, right? Right?

Edited September 20, 2006 by hunterrose

[RSalar]

The central (dominate and controlling) purpose of a rational man’s life is his productive work, i.e., the rationally directed (purposeful) acquisition, integration, and refinement of knowledge that can be and then is used to change the physical world into that which is intended to ultimately fulfill his rational self-interest.

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

[DavidOdden]

You've done a good job of collecting quotes, but not all of them support the essential position (as I understand it) that you are advocating, namely that work is not productive unless it takes a tangible physical form. Quote 2 does not address the nature of the product, nor do quotes 4 or 5. However, the first and third quotes especially with emphasis on "shaping matter to fit one's purpose, of translating an idea into physical form, of remaking the earth in the image of one's values” do indicate that in her view, intellectual effort isn't productive work until it is physically manifested (as a lecture or a book, for example) -- and her explicit separation of the intellectual and the physical does make it clear that she does not consider intellectual effort to be a kind of physical action. I'm actually quite puzzled why she would consider a physical manifestation to be a further requirement of the concept "productive", for example why solving a philosophical puzzle isn't productive until you get it published. But that's what my dean has been telling me, so I suppose it must be true.

[RSalar]

I'm actually quite puzzled why she would consider a physical manifestation to be a further requirement of the concept "productive", for example why solving a philosophical puzzle isn't productive until you get it published. But that's what my dean has been telling me, so I suppose it must be true.

Why would it have to be "published" to take physical form? Wouldn't transforming a blank sheet of paper into one that has words on it (namely your thesis) meet the physical manifestation requirement? The more important issue might be: Is this one copy of your paper a material value to you?

The problem that I am now wrestling with is this: Career A produces X material gain for my effort. Career B produces X + Y material gain for the same effort. Assuming I potentially could pursue either career (i.e., I have the physical and mental ability – and both careers are available in the marketplace), is the amount of material value I produce (or could potentially produce) a significant factor in determining the morality of my choice? If it is not, then productive work for me could produce very little material gain (like paintings that never sell), even though my work is good according to my highest standards. It would be possible to imagine a “productive career” that produces so little material value as to not even allow my continued existence on this planet. Since the purpose of productive work is to allow me to exist and to ultimately find happiness the amount of material gain has to be an important consideration. Since the amount of material gain is important then the question becomes: how much is enough? And this brings me full circle to where I was at the beginning of this thread. Why not work hard for 20 hours a week, make lots of money (even if you do not enjoy your work) and then spend the rest of your time pursuing things that do bring joy and happiness? In this scenario the independently wealthy man could research and solve philosophical problems without any concern for material gain—and be very happy in the process. But his "productive work" would no longer be his central concern.

Happiness without a career being the central purpose ... Oh Boy!!

[DavidOdden]

Why would it have to be "published" to take physical form? Wouldn't transforming a blank sheet of paper into one that has words on it (namely your thesis) meet the physical manifestation requirement? The more important issue might be: Is this one copy of your paper a material value to you?

I didn't literally mean published. The fact that the typed paper doesn't (necessarily) have a value to me is what is problematic for me. Insofar as part of my career is to persuade other people of the truth of my ideas, the typed paper is a value, but supposing that the persuasive element were not part of what I value, then the only reason I would have for putting this stuff on paper is to pro forma satisfy a productivity requirement, which does not make sense to me.

is the amount of material value I produce (or could potentially produce) a significant factor in determining the morality of my choice?

Certainly: it would be irrational to accept a lesser value.

If it is not, then productive work for me could produce very little material gain (like paintings that never sell), even though my work is good according to my highest standards. It would be possible to imagine a “productive career” that produces so little material value as to not even allow my continued existence on this planet.

This is nicely covered by the principle of choosing the greater value. If you die from hunger because you can't buy food, because you elected to be a lousy artist rather than an accountant, then you've immorally embraced a contradiction. You've chosen to pretend to live while acting to die. You have a fundamental choice, of living or not living. If you've chosen life over death, then that choice becomes your standard for evaluating other choices. Art or accounting? If art leads to death and accounting leads to life, it is immoral to chose art.

In the modern American economy, the "minimum material gain" threshhold is easily met. If you're living in the sticks of Tanzania, there can be real concerns over making that minimal material gain needed to avoid death, but otherwise, not. Beyond that easily met threshhold, you are no longer to avoid death, you are working to "be alive", i.e. to flourish, and the requirements for that depends on your nature.

[hunterrose]

Career A produces X material gain for my effort. Career B produces X + Y material gain for the same effort. Assuming I potentially could pursue either career, is the amount of material value I produce a significant factor in determining the morality of my choice?

In an absolute sense, I'd say no. This would depend, everything else being equal, on whether Y material gain is beneficial (it may not be for some rational man e.g. taxes.)

Relative to one's values (which you don't seem to mean) I'd say yes.

...then productive work for me could produce very little material gain, even though my work is good according to my highest standards. It would be possible to imagine a “productive career” that produces so little material value as to not even allow my continued existence on this planet.

In the absolute (and dictionary) sense, producing anything is productive. In the relative (and I presume Objectivist) sense, producing some things is not productive. Cutting off one's finger or creating an unstoppably homicidal robot is productive in the absolute sense (it produces something; pain and likely death) but not productive in the relative sense of gaining/keeping one's values.

Since the purpose of productive work is to allow me to exist and to ultimately find happiness the amount of material gain has to be an important consideration.

Sure. But existing and finding happiness also requires "spiritual" (non-material?) gains. Offhand, I don't think there is ever a time when one gain is infinitely more important than the other, but depending on the state of one's attainment of values, sometimes material gain is more important (e.g. when you're starving or a tiger's chasing you) and sometimes spiritual gain is more important.

How much is enough?

Depends on your values and current circumstances?

And this brings me full circle to where I was at the beginning of this thread. Why not work hard for 20 hours a week, make lots of money (even if you do not enjoy your work) and then spend the rest of your time pursuing things that do bring joy and happiness? In this scenario the independently wealthy man could research and solve philosophical problems without any concern for material gain—and be very happy in the process. But his "productive work" would no longer be his central concern.

The only problems I have with this is 1) the idea that non-material gain is not productive, which is just as stupid silly as an idea that non-earth gain is not productive 2) the implication that one ought to do things that make a lot of money even if one does not enjoy them.

[DavidOdden]

In an absolute sense, I'd say no. This would depend, everything else being equal, on whether Y material gain is beneficial (it may not be for some rational man e.g. taxes.)

Relative to one's values (which you don't seem to mean) I'd say yes.

I don't even know what it would mean for there to be a gain in "absolute value": that would imply that value is intrinsic to objects and identical for all beings.

The only problems I have with this is 1) the idea that non-material gain is not productive, which is just as stupid silly as an idea that non-earth gain is not productive

Well, the idea/claim is not that non-material gain is not productive, but rather that gain which is exclusively non-material is not productive.