Love For One's Work

Work, Careers and Money
1

How is it that someone could work just to gain a comfortable income, without loving the work for its own sake?

What is it that causes some people to tire of their work beyond the basic needs of rest, physical fuel (food) and spiritual fuel (arts, etc.)?

A few things to keep in mind:

  1. I am exluding the possibility that the person in question is simply “in the wrong line of work” and has not discovered his true talents. This may cover many cases, but not all.

  2. I am aware that, within Objectivism, such an attitute towards work is not *moral*: that is clear from the passage on the virtue of Productiveness (Galt) and related writing.

What I’m trying to discover is how it is *possible*, even when one has studied Objectivism. Bad premises? If so, what/where could they be?

2
  1. I am aware that, within Objectivism, such an attitute towards work is not *moral*: that is clear from the passage on the virtue of Productiveness (Galt) and related writing.

What I’m trying to discover is how it is *possible*, even when one has studied Objectivism.  Bad premises?  If so, what/where could they be?

The ideas that were accepted, both explicitly and implicitly, in the years of living prior to discovering Objectivism, do not instantly and magically disappear if they are in conflict with the philosophy that is now consciously held. Such earlier conflicting ideas and views are stored in the sub-conscious and one must root them out by identifying them consciously and re-evaluating the premises they imply. One also needs to learn how to act on the new, better premises.

In the situation you describe, regarding work, it is easy for young people to acquire a view towards work as that which one reluctantly does to earn a living, and one’s preference would be to go the beach instead each day. I say easy to acquire in the sense that the playboy attitude towards life, or the nihilist approach, can be picked up almost by osmosis from the cultural milieu. I offer that as one possibility.

Regardless of the particular source and the form, your description implies some views that are still held subconsciously and are in conflict with the Objectivist principles that the person now holds as conscious convictions. The process I described, of identifying the conflicting premises and integrating the new ones into one’s life, can sometimes be difficult work for a person to do on their own, especially if the person is repressed or, in general, not too much in tune with his own feelings. In such cases a good psychologist can be of enormous help in accelerating the process of identification and integration.

3

Another cause of not loving one’s work – in addition to all those already mentioned in this thread – is psychological: emotional repression.

Emotions provide fuel. Even if a man has objectively chosen a central purpose in life, and he pursues it, but without the occasional joy that arises from successes, then his motor will run dry.

I know from experience that getting rid of emotional repression can take a long time, even with a lot of introspection and with competent professional help from a psychologist. But the price is well worth it.

P. S. – An objective choice of central purpose in life involves not only considering one’s own nature, but also the nature of the society in which one lives. Objectivists are not martyrs. They do not pursue careers unless those careers offer the probability of success – in some form. One may objectively chose poetry, for example, even if it never pays off with a full-time income. But, to choose architecture in a world that bans any structure above the level of a mud hut would be self-sacrifice.

4

Thanks for the replies.

Emotions provide fuel. Even if a man has objectively chosen a central purpose in life, and he pursues it, but without the occasional joy that arises from successes, then his motor will run dry.

Do you mean that you would not *allow* yourself to experience the joy that comes with accomplishment? That sounds interesting, but I don’t think that’s what my problem is.

In the situation you describe, regarding work, it is easy for young people to acquire a view towards work as that which one reluctantly does to earn a living, and one’s preference would be to go the beach instead each day. I say easy to acquire in the sense that the playboy attitude towards life, or the nihilist approach, can be picked up almost by osmosis from the cultural milieu. I offer that as one possibility.

I am not making a conscious choice to live only for recreation. In fact, I *am* making a conscious choice to put work first. My problem is that I get bored with it so easily, and joys are few and far in between, even when the problems I have overcome were difficult.

I am aware that this is not a place to seek counseling, so stop me if I ever ramble. I posted this question to see if others out there have or had similar problems.

5

I am not making a conscious choice to live only for recreation.  In fact, I *am* making a conscious choice to put work first.  My problem is that I get bored with it so easily, and joys are few and far in between, even when the problems I have overcome were difficult.

Although I don’t know much about such problems, I think the only reason work can seem boring is when it is not intellectually stimulating or challenging. When you don’t feel as if you are really making a difference in the actual world. For example, I am bored with and hate school because all you have got to do is memorize. It is not exciting. But that doesn’t mean I don’t love my work. I love science and I intend to pursue it as a career.

6

Thanks for the replies.

I am aware that this is not a place to seek counseling, so stop me if I ever ramble.  I posted this question to see if others out there have or had similar problems.

Your original question was put so abstractly, I didn’t realize it was at all personal. I don’t mind answering any question such as this. Could you be more concrete?

I have too much personal experience with this sort of thing. I’ve been slogging it spiritlessly in kitchens for 20 years while I write…no, paint…no write…play guitar…play piano…no sculpting! Right now I’m on writing, and I’m trying hard not to remember those beautiful paint brushes I saw at Michael’s the other day.

7

Your original question was put so abstractly, I didn’t realize it was at all personal

That was the idea :confused:

Could you be more concrete?

One problem is tedium. Is it a necessary element in work, no matter how intellectually stimulating the work?

Another is that, when I am working on difficult problems, sometimes, for short periods (and sometimes longer) I just stop caring. Perhaps like Dan Conway, but with less opposition than he had.

“Your work is the process of achieving your values, and to lose your ambition for values is to lose your ambition to live,” says John. Sometimes I do indeed feel that I am “losing my ambition to live,” “live” in the Objectivist sense.

Disclaimers

  1. I am not suicidal; even when my will to live is sapped, I never lose a love for life.

  2. I am not bipolar (although I tried to convince a psychiatrist once that I was.) Philosophy and psychology are what I need, not meds.

Like I said, I don’t want this to sound like I’m feeling sorry for myself, because I don’t. I want to hear of others’ experiences with these problems.

8

For example, I am bored with and hate school because all you have got to do is memorize. It is not exciting. But that doesn’t mean I don’t love my work. I love science and I intend to pursue it as a career.

It is great to hear a young person express his love for a field. But, even though you are bored with your high school work, I hope you are learning the material well-enough to be able to get into a really good college for learning science. A good university will certainly keep you from getting bored with your studies.

9

In fact, I *am* making a conscious choice to put work first.  My problem is that I get bored with it so easily, and joys are few and far in between, even when the problems I have overcome were difficult.

In your first post you excluded the possibility of being in the wrong line of work, but your description above suggests otherwise. Do you actually feel that you love the work you do?

10

Thanks for the replies.

Do you mean that you would not *allow* yourself to experience the joy that comes with accomplishment?  That sounds interesting, but I don’t think that’s what my problem is.

…

I am aware that this is not a place to seek counseling, so stop me if I ever ramble.  I posted this question to see if others out there have or had similar problems.

No, in my original post (September 22, 2004, 618 am), I said emotional repression can be a reason why some individuals do not feel joy from their work, even assuming that they have objectively and correctly chosen a central purpose in life.

Do you know what emotional repression is?

If not, I suggest asking about that, either in this thread or in another one.

Another issue I would explore with anyone who is a friend and says he feels no joy from his work is this: Exactly what is your central purpose in life? Is your statement of it clear and concise, so clear and so concise that you have been able to integrate it into your daily work for the long-term, that is, for the rest of your life? Do you see it as a passionate purpose that guides your actions at the core of your life?

Randrew, what is your central purpose in life? Answering might help keep this discussion from floating, by providing an example.

Further, how does your current work integrate with your CPL?

11

In your first post you excluded the possibility of being in the wrong line of work, but your description above suggests otherwise. Do you actually feel that you love the work you do?

Randrew, what is your central purpose in life? Answering might help keep this discussion from floating, by providing an example.

Hmmmm…as to Objectivism’s answer to a “central purpose” for one’s life, I’ve never thought much deeper than Roark’s reply to Wynand: “The material the earth offers you and what you make of it” (i.e. your work.)

So what great passions have I had that could have been careers? I’ll make this as brief as possible:

  1. In high school my dream was to be a pianist. I did fairly well in competitions, but I quickly realized that being a professional musician as such requires a lot more than just hard work. So I moved on without too much regret.

  2. In college I explored my love for Mathematics, and I also discovered Philosophy. In the early stages, I was very idealistic about becoming an inspirational Philosophy professor. I gradually became disenchanted with modern philosophy (this is all prior to my discovery of Objectivism) and started to feel a drive to do something with more tangible results.

  3. So I focused on pure (abstract) mathematics. This subject is a lot of fun for me, but it is very easy to get overwhelmed and, eventually, stop caring about the achievements I can make with it, since they are in the form of abstract theorems. (I think it no coincidence that the professor in Atlas Shrugged who looked sadly at Francisco and said “He has so much capacity for joy, while there is so little opportunity for it in the world” was a professor of mathematics.)

I’m now in a graduate program of Applied Mathematics. There is plenty of opportunity for achievement and personal triumph in this field, but it is also possible to just focus on the job skills I need and not worry too much about taking on monumental problems. Ergo, I am at something of a cusp in my life.

Do you know what emotional repression is?

No. Please elaborate, for it sounds interesting.

Further, how does your current work integrate with your CPL?

By the reasoning I used earlier, it seems that they would have to be one and the same. Achievement, creation, a job well done. But when, even after these, something is still missing from my life and I begin to seek fantasy worlds more and more, it becomes harder and harder to be an Objectivist.

12

Hmmmm…as to Objectivism’s answer to a “central purpose” for one’s life, I’ve never thought much deeper than Roark’s reply to Wynand: “The material the earth offers you and what you make of it” (i.e. your work.)

…

By the reasoning I used earlier, it seems that they would have to be one and the same.  Achievement, creation, a job well done.  But when, even after these, something is still missing from my life and I begin to seek fantasy worlds more and more, it becomes harder and harder to be an Objectivist.

Here are my brief comments on the various questions your responses raise. Please ask for elaboration on any point. These issues are crucial.

Here in summary is what I have learned from Ayn Rand on this subject.

The ultimate purpose in life for all rational individuals is happiness. (See “Happiness” in the Ayn Rand Lexicon for a start on studying that subject.) Thus all individuals share the same UPL.

A central purpose in life is an action that basically pays our way through life. It is our chosen, loved work. (There are other key purposes in life such as friends and favorite leisure activities.) Everyone should have some objectively chosen CPL. But each person’s CPL will be different. Ayn Rand’s might have been to portray the ideal man in fiction. The fictional Howard Roark’s was to design and build buildings. Mine is to tell success stories from history.

Note that a CPL is an abstraction wide enough to span a lifetime, and thus serve as an integrator so one’s life is not just a heap of experiences. A CPL is not a job. It is not even a career (which is a ladder having many rungs, that is, stages, jobs). (See ARL for “Purpose” for a beginning of study on this subject.)

So, a CPL is one of the highest personal values that leads to your UPL. I think of it as the main tent pole that holds up the whole tent of my life. But it is not the only one.

P. S. Emotional repression, in my layman’s learning, is the process of squashing emotions back into the subconscious when they are too painful to bear – which is often the case for kids who suffer at a time when they have no cognitive or other psychological skills. After awhile the process of squashing becomes automatized and the sufferer is no longer aware of the process. The result is a sort of deadening or flattening of emotion.

“How do you feel about X, Bob?”

“Okay, I guess.” (repressed)

“Disgusted” or “Elated!” (unrepressed answers, when the values involved are strong)

You should ask about this in a separate thread that will attract psychologists – if you think this might apply to you. It took me about 30 years to derepress. Now I can cry when I read a sad novel, or jump with joy when I see something exhilirating. Every CPL – including Ayn Rand’s – involves exhiliration, boredom, pleasure and agony. Don’t miss them!

13

  1. In college I explored my love for Mathematics, and I also discovered Philosophy.  In the early stages, I was very idealistic about becoming an inspirational Philosophy professor.  I gradually became disenchanted with modern philosophy (this is all prior to my discovery of Objectivism) and started to feel a drive to do something with more tangible results.

  2. So I focused on pure (abstract) mathematics.  This subject is a lot of fun for me, but it is very easy to get overwhelmed and, eventually, stop caring about the achievements I can make with it, since they are in the form of abstract theorems.  (I think it no coincidence that the professor in Atlas Shrugged who looked sadly at Francisco and said “He has so much capacity for joy, while there is so little opportunity for it in the world” was a professor of mathematics.)

I’m now in a graduate program of Applied Mathematics.  There is plenty of opportunity for achievement and personal triumph in this field, but it is also possible to just focus on the job skills I need and not worry too much about taking on monumental problems.  Ergo, I am at something of a cusp in my life.

No.  Please elaborate, for it sounds interesting.

By the reasoning I used earlier, it seems that they would have to be one and the same.  Achievement, creation, a job well done.  But when, even after these, something is still missing from my life and I begin to seek fantasy worlds more and more, it becomes harder and harder to be an Objectivist.

Coming from a mathematics background myself, I have a first-hand understanding of how rationalism operates in certain personal contexts.

While still sorting out my own issues, I would advise that you, whenever possible, get a copy of Dr. Peikoff’s “Understanding Objectivism” course where he addresses in detail this problem, the symptoms of which you seem to be showing.

I thought I knew Objectivism really well until I bought this course. Now I’m sure I only know it quite well. There’s still a lot of work to be done.

14

So I focused on pure (abstract) mathematics.  This subject is a lot of fun for me, but it is very easy to get overwhelmed and, eventually, stop caring about the achievements I can make with it, since they are in the form of abstract theorems.  (I think it no coincidence that the professor in Atlas Shrugged who looked sadly at Francisco and said “He has so much capacity for joy, while there is so little opportunity for it in the world” was a professor of mathematics.)

Some time after Andrew Wiles presented his final proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem, PBS did a show on him called The Proof. At one point in the show Wiles paused to fight back the tears when he was talking about the monumental meaning to him of what he had accomplished. Wiles acknowledged how wonderful it was “to pursue in my adult life what had been my childhood dream.” Over the many years that he worked to solve the problem that had stumped the greatest mathematical minds for centuries, he never really stopped caring.

I’m now in a graduate program of Applied Mathematics.  There is plenty of opportunity for achievement and personal triumph in this field, but it is also possible to just focus on the job skills I need and not worry too much about taking on monumental problems.  Ergo, I am at something of a cusp in my life.

Okay. But the question I asked was, do you actually love the work that you do?

15

Okay. But the question I asked was, do you actually love the work that you do?

No. I *like* it in the sense that it is interesting and doing it gives some purpose and direction to my life, but I don’t *love* it in the sense that it is my central purpose in life and gives me the greatest joy. I have not found any one thing that gives me a joy that lasts for very long. It is possible that I have not found “the right thing” yet (despite what I said earlier), but I don’t think that’s the problem. I think I might need to “create” the joy somehow.

At one point in the show Wiles paused to fight back the tears when he was talking about the monumental meaning to him of what he had accomplished. Wiles acknowledged how wonderful it was “to pursue in my adult life what had been my childhood dream.”

Yes, this is the way to survive as a pure mathematician: the few triumphs one experiences are (or should be) great enough to balance out the great struggles that seem to go nowhere. I was merely saying that it’s much easier to succumb to the depression of failure while working in that field (no pun intended.)

get a copy of Dr. Peikoff’s “Understanding Objectivism” course where he addresses in detail this problem, the symptoms of which you seem to be showing.

I’m interested, although $265 is a pretty hefty price for a student. Tell me, though: what kinds of things would I learn in this course that I couldn’t get from OPAR or Rand’s writings? (That is, things that would make it worth the price.)

The last work I purchased from aynrandbookstore.com was Bernstein’s “Primacy of Conciousness vs. Objectivist Ethics.” It was interesting enough, but it contained little that I couldn’t have figured out on my own with a little research. And it cost $55.

Emotional repression,

I understand now. No, this is not my problem, but thanks for the suggestion.

16

I’m interested, although $265 is a pretty hefty price for a student.  Tell me, though: what kinds of things would I learn in this course that I couldn’t get from OPAR or Rand’s writings?  (That is, things that would make it worth the price.)

The last work I purchased from aynrandbookstore.com was Bernstein’s “Primacy of Conciousness vs. Objectivist Ethics.”  It was interesting enough, but it contained little that I couldn’t have figured out on my own with a little research.  And it cost $55.

With no disrespect intended towards Dr. Bernstein, I think it is wiser for you - or anyone for that matter - to first concentrate on the work of the leading Objectivist philosophers, i.e., Drs. Peikoff and Binswanger – and then try to cross-check your own understanding of Objectivism against theirs. If one is essentializing properly, as Objectivism teaches, this would be the obvious course of action. If a person seeks to understand a philosophy at root, he should focus on epistemology, which is the essential branch of philosophy. And the leading epistemologists are Drs. Peikoff and Binswanger.

Although Miss Rand’s work and Dr. Peikoff’s systematization of it in OPAR are written in plain English, the truths contained therein are not at all self-evident but took many, many years of thought by perhaps the world’s greatest ever genius to discover. If you don’t hold the view that the work of the greatest mathematicians can be “figured out” by yourself (after all, you’re in a graduate program in math, aren’t you?), why would you think so about the work of the greatest philosopher?

Many students of Objectivism, being usually very bright and possessing intellectual self-confidence, tend to think they can “go it alone” in the study of philosophy. Objectivism contributes to this confidence: most of us feel ready to take on any non-Objectivist in almost any field given a basic grasp of Objectivist epistemology and a basic knowledge of whatever specialized topic is being discussed.

But, this self-confidence can be dangerously misleading.

Just as you might study leading experts in mathematics, you should also seek to study the leading experts on Miss Rand’s work.

Before I bought the “Understanding Objectivism” course, I had already read virtually everything in the Objectivist corpus (some books many times over). I had discussed epistemology at length with my very brilliant brother (also a student of Objectivism) and some other students of Objectivism. I had read several supporting histories of Western civilization in different contexts, to ensure that Miss Rand’s assertions in her various essays were not floating abstractions, and had just about immersed myself in every area of life, excepting marriage and children, referred to in her work. Friends, sex, love, work - in a dictatorship, in freedom - you name it. Yet, each course I bought from the Ayn Rand bookstore taught me something new (aside of the professors named above, I’ve also bought work by David Harriman and Edwin Locke).

But, before I bought any courses, just from reading Ayn Rand’s work, I already knew what rationalism was; but you didn’t, according to one of your earlier posts. So, obviously, you have quite a lot of “figuring out” to do.

I say all this not to intimidate you, but to underscore the fact that the full scope of Ayn Rand’s achievement is not easily graspable. And perhaps only a study of history can impress this upon you in good measure.

The “Understanding Objectivism” course, graciously recommended to me by Mrs. Speicher, deals with a phenomenon common amongst Objectivists: a tendency to hold some or many of the truths of the philosophy as a system of floating abstractions which they can deduce principle-to-principle, e.g.,

Existence exists;

Every existent exists possessing identity;

Some existents possess consciousness; some don’t;

Living things exist possessing consciousness;

Life is self-generated, goal-directed action;

Life requires a specific course of action;

Life is an end in itself;

Man is a living thing;

Man possesses a volitional consciousness;

Since man must make choices in value pursuit, he requires a code of values;

A code of values requires a standard;

Only a thing which is an end in itself can be a standard of value.

Since man is a living thing, and life is an end in itself,

Man’s life is the standard of value.

and there’s a lot more where that came from.

What Dr. Peikoff does in this course is address the case of a student of Objectivism who employs this method - in some area of his life - and then, after some time, finds that he can’t live as an Objectivist (something which you mentioned in an earlier post). Many of the best young Objectivists have experienced this problem in some form, he says. He then describes, at length, the methodology he used, over a period of 12 years, to overcome this problem in his own life. In doing so, he clarifies several key points of Objectivism.

Now, his ordering of the Objectivism hierarchy is pre-OPAR and you will have to do some reviewing on your own. But the most value, by far, is in the method he used.

There’s more in the course, but in the spirit of the fight against rationalism, I enjoin you to look at reality and find out for yourself by buying the tapes.

17

No.  I *like* it in the sense that it is interesting and doing it gives some purpose and direction to my life, but I don’t *love* it in the sense that it is my central purpose in life and gives me the greatest joy.  I have not found any one thing that gives me a joy that lasts for very long.  It is possible that I have not found “the right thing” yet (despite what I said earlier), but I don’t think that’s the problem.  I think I might need to “create” the joy somehow.

I am not a psychologist, and it is really hard to tell whether you just have not found the work to love, or whether you do not devote yourself entirely enough, and for long enough, to reap the longer-term benefits that accrue from a concentrated career. Or, perhaps something else. I suspect you might benefit from the assistance of one of the number of psychologists who have been mentioned many times on this forum.

Yes, this is the way to survive as a pure mathematician: the few triumphs one experiences are (or should be) great enough to balance out the great struggles that seem to go nowhere.

Some fields of work require a longer-term perspective than others. If you do not have that perspective then the short-term building blocks will not be felt for the value that they are.

18

How is it that someone could work just to gain a comfortable income, without loving the work for its own sake?

What is it that causes some people to tire of their work beyond the basic needs of rest, physical fuel (food) and spiritual fuel (arts, etc.)?

One thing that could do this is a misidentification of “work”, for example: work is that activity which earns money. Perhaps you could broaden your understanding some, and come to see that work as that activity which produces value.

You might want to see if there are any “networking” groups in your area. These are groups of people - in my area there are a lot of high-tech people who’ve been layed off - who not only share job leads, but also discuss things like what makes work satifying ? How do I know if I’m in the right career ? and practical issues like where can I get good health insurance after my COBRA runs out ? etc. The ones I’ve been involved with are all-volunteer, so it won’t cost you anything. Many of the participants are middle-adged, so they have quite a bit of valuable life experience (but not always the greatest philosophies, of course).

Your local unemployment office should have lists of these (get something back from all those taxes !) Many of them are associated with churches, and this raised resistance in me, but I found that in most cases, there was actually less evangilism there than from people at work or school. I think they pride themselves (but they can’t admit it since pride is a sin) on reaching out to the poor sinning atheists, and being tolerant and helpful even if you don’t believe. Of course, there is the occasional zealot who tries to get you to pray for guidance or something, but like I said, in my experience this is rare.

One of the suggestions I got from one of those groups is the book Do Whay You Are. I just got it from the library and haven’t had a chance to read the whole thing, but it looks good so far. It has a cheapo technique for doing the Meyers-Briggs personality assesment on yourself, takes a good look at what brings satisfaction to people at work, then gives you suggestions about what types of work have been found satisfying to people of your personality type.

BTW-

Has anyone here had a chance to dig into the idea of “value slant” that Peikoff mentions in his DIM hyphothesis material ? I’m thinking that knowing your Meyers-Briggs personality type indicator could be helpful in identifying your value slant.

19

Thanks for the suggestions, everyone.

Zeus: I will look into Peikoff’s course sometime, budget permitting.

Also, when you say “rationalism,” I think of the modern-philosophy “Rationalists vs. Empiricists” battle. Do you mean “rationalizing?” I’m not quite sure what you’re talking about.

20

Zeus: I will look into Peikoff’s course sometime, budget permitting.

Also, when you say “rationalism,” I think of the modern-philosophy “Rationalists vs. Empiricists” battle.  Do you mean “rationalizing?”  I’m not quite sure what you’re talking about.

The best place to start, as usual, is with The Ayn Rand Lexicon. A brief excerpt (from For the New Intellectual) on rationalism appears under that title on p. 405.

I do second Zeus’s recommendation of a slow study of the Understanding Objectivism tapes, at least in the first half or two-thirds where rationalism is discussed. They helped me, but the process was iterative. I had to work on it in the usual spiral of learning. The tapes were part of my “therapy.”

Here is my understanding of rationalism. It is the epistemology which holds that all knowledge must be logically coherent and hierarchically structured – but that the starting points are arbitrary or “intuitive” or God-given – that is, coming from anywhere but sense-perception of entities in reality.

The psychological product of this epistemology is the approach to problems of starting with givens without looking around at reality. The looking at reality, of course, should occur repeatedly – originally when one is starting on a problem, and subsequently when one is trying to validate (or not) an idea by tracing it back to concretes.

I am not a mathematician but I would think that the field of mathematics – like the field of philosophy – would tend to attract rationalist types. Empiricists tend to be drawn into engineering and biology, for example, in my obsevation.