Purpose and Productiveness in Life

[RSalar]

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.

By "your nature," do you mean RSalar's or Man's nature?

By the above do you mean that it does matter how productive you are after the "minimum material gain" threshold is met or that after it has been met then the amount of production is not important?

Let's say that X career is being a doctor in a small town in Alaska where at best I will earn $80,000/yr and X+Y career is being a doctor in NYC where I could make $800,000/yr: Based on material value alone the NYC location is my obvious choice but I love the recreation that Alaska offers and I hate big cities. (NYC= BIG MATERIAL/small spiritual value. Small Town Alaska=BIG SPIRITUAL/small material value) If I base my decision on Objectivist Ethics do I work in NYC or in small town Alaska?

[DavidOdden]

By "your nature," do you mean RSalar's or Man's nature?

I mean "the nature of you, the individual". If you're RSalar, then I mean him (or you).

By the above do you mean that it does matter how productive you are after the "minimum material gain" threshold is met or that after it has been met then the amount of production is not important?

I am referring to the fact that in modern America, "basic survival" is not such a problem, so any scenario based on actual death is omitting something important: the irrationality of the person putatively dying of starvation.

I can't give you advice about deciding between NYC and Alaska as your place to set up medical practice, without more information. You need to tell me more about why you decided to become a doctor. For example, if you a large part of your interest in medicine has to do with treating polar bear bites, I would suggest picking Alaska; but if you love treating fresh rat bites, probably NYC is the better choice.

What you'll notice is that I ignored the irrelevant points about salary and traffic, and focused on the central question "What is it about this chosen career that is relevant to your nature?; does your venue have an impact on how well you can realize your purpose?". I'm not saying that salary and living environment are irrelevant, but they are not, for a rational man, the most important considerations. If being a doctor is, for you, a completely arbitrary choice and it could just as well be replaced with being a hod-carrier or being a bookkeeper, then I think you've made an error in career choice, by not thinking about what it is in your nature that bring you to the practice of medicine.

[RSalar]

What you'll notice is that I ignored the irrelevant points about salary and traffic, and focused on the central question "What is it about this chosen career that is relevant to your nature?; does your venue have an impact on how well you can realize your purpose?". I'm not saying that salary and living environment are irrelevant, but they are not, for a rational man, the most important considerations. If being a doctor is, for you, a completely arbitrary choice and it could just as well be replaced with being a hod-carrier or being a bookkeeper, then I think you've made an error in career choice, by not thinking about what it is in your nature that bring you to the practice of medicine.

I was asking the question as it relates to material gain being an essential part of a man's "central purpose." The NYC -vs- Small Town, AK is a hypothetical case. I was wondering if, because material gain is an essential part of her formulation, one should consider the amount of material gain over the non-essential spiritual considerations. According to the, "thinking rationally and working for material gain is central to a happy life," theory (my distillation of her formulation) one must engage in 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. " The Small Town job does not provide this--it provides "spiritual values" instead. I believe these other spiritual values are as important (and sometimes more important) than the income and the challenge, but it appears to me that she was strictly referring to material gain alone.

[DavidOdden]

I think it's pretty obvious that acquisition of material wealth cannot be the highest value for man. Imagine the most disgusting, degrading (but not physically damaging) thing that can be done to you. Now imagine being subject to such degradation publically, on national television -- for a million dollars. Consider the alternative of working as a doctor in Rosalyn, Alaska for a mere $80,000. Take the doctor job, not the degradation job. Just because material gain is a factor does not mean that it is the primary factor.

You haven't established that the doctor in the small town does not receive higher value by way of the constant expansion of his mind, knowledge, ability and creative ingenuity. Now if you are saying that the doctor is faced with a choice between a highly rewarding career that constantly expands his mind and also rewards him financially with lots of cash, versus a totally dull and mechanical job where his mind atrophies and he also gets just enough cash to survive -- that the only difference is whether he's living in a barren Arctic wasteland that looks pretty, vs. lives in a huge city -- then the doctor has made a serious, self-destructive mistake by heading north. The supposed spiritual values that he claims to be getting are, I believe, misidentified -- instead, he suffers from a latent hatred of life, and hasn't mustered the courage to efficiently realize his ultimate goal.

[RSalar]

There are other ways to expand your mind other than your chosen career. Why not work in Small Town, earn your living by treating flue symptoms and delivering babies, for 1/10 of what you could earn in NYC. Then once your doctor workday is over spend rewarding time studying the life cycle of the Arctic mole and photographing landscapes. In this hypothetical scenario your central purpose is not doctoring for maximum material gain, instead it is to experience and enjoying the people, topiary and fauna of Alaska. Now, since your career (productive work) is not your central purpose, it fails the Objectivist Ethics test standard.

Edited September 21, 2006 by RSalar

[softwareNerd]

Now, since your career (productive work) is not your central purpose, it fails the Objectivist Ethics test standard.

And now -- after all the research into quotes and the other discussion in the thread -- what further inference do you draw? That Objectivism is wrong in its prescription? Or something else? Edited September 21, 2006 by softwareNerd

[RSalar]

And now -- after all the research into quotes and the other discussion in the thread -- what further inference do you draw? That Objectivism is wrong in its prescription? Or something else?

Thank you for asking, softwareNerd. So far I know I agree with John Galt when he said: "This much is true: the most selfish of all things is the independent mind that recognizes no authority higher than its own and no value higher than its judgment of truth."

[softwareNerd]

That does not answer my question. Let me elaborate:

I am not sure which of the following you are implying:

• That Ayn Rand was wrong in saying that Purpose was a fundamental value that leads to human happiness? or,
  
• That she was wrong when she identified the link between Purpose and Productive Work ? or
  
• That she was close to the right idea on being productive, but did not explain it well when she started talking about career? or,
  
• something else?
  

My guess is that you'd say "something else", and I'm interested to know how you would sum up the truth, as you see it.

Edited September 22, 2006 by softwareNerd

[hunterrose]

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.

By "absolute" I mean that the rational decision can't be determined absolutely (i.e. entirely) by the fact that, ceteris paribus, one job pays a greater salary.

I don't think I actually used the phrase "absolute value", nor would I have.

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.

This is RSalar's claim? I wouldn't agree with it, at least as stated. Surely a non-material gain that has material applications is productive, even if one hasn't yet applied it?

“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

If I am not being productive at the exact instant that I am not shaping matter, does it not equally follow that I am not being productive at the exact instant that I am not acquiring knowledge?