My conclusion using what I learned from this video - The ultimate purpose is to achieve and mantain a life as a thinker. - Thinker is a human who has his reason always active ("think constantly") during waking hours. - The good is any action or goal that is a means to achieve the ultimate purpose.
That is not quite the same idea. Rand never says "growth" she says "productiveness", which may or may not imply gowth. You can maintain yourself at a bare minimum and still be productive, because you are producing that minimum at least.
@@PoLanka65 It can also be argued that that over the course of any one’s career they continue to gain more experience, skill, competence, and knowledge. All of which contributes to an individual’s greater enjoyment of life. Contentment with state of one’s current standing in life doesn’t imply that a person isn’t growing anymore. Do you not grow when you pursue a hobby? Do you not grow when you raise a child? Do you not grow when you exercise? Growth is not limited to the realm of one’s chosen career.
@@coggnus9656 But that is not the question. The question is wether growth is the essence of a human life or not. I don't think Rand and Burroughs are on the exact same page in that regard.
@@PoLanka65 When you say essential for human life, Rand doesn’t consider doing the bare minimum living. In atlas shrug she made a point that wanting to live is not the same as not wanting to die. Anyone can do only enough to obtain a home, secure their meals, and only work as much a needed to maintain the former, but that alone wouldn’t be considered living. In order to truly live by the parameters of objectivism one must have a desire to be productive, which in turn implies growth. I don’t consider working only enough to keep your body alive a desire to be productive. Unless your definition of essentials is different from what I think you mean?
Now consider this in the context of mass AI redundancies and UBI. The nature of work and productivity has always been and should always be extensive, as she alludes to here, and should never be purely delimited to economic output, wages, salaries, contracts. This would debase the souls of people and result in menticide.
Think of Steve jobs , he used natural intelligence to create the iPhone. Now you have the same opportunity to be Steve jobs with a lower cost of entry due to AI.
Can someone imagine a situation where one is not thinking at any point of time....and does thinking always resolves the most complicated oroblems or is it something beyond thinking ...is creativity an outcome of thought process ? .. Wealth is needed to create an eco system but there is no gurantee that wealth by itself is responsible for creativity ...??
"greater and greater control over reality" and this equivocation of productivity and amassing wealth when taken "literally" as she advocates is a great example of why people might find her ideas harmful. Her philosophy would be great in some kind of infinite expanse of resources but seems increasingly inappropriate for application on a single planet.
You must be joking. Listen and think again. Is not what she is saying EXACTLY how man must conduct himself under scarcity and finite resources? 🙂 Try to kill the rampant prejudice against her ideas you picked up somewhere and use your own judgement. Surely you can see it then.
If you somehow had more money than you knew what to do with, you would still have the spiritual need for a purpose to your life. Most wealthy people do not stop working, even if they shift from business to charity.
What's the difference between her morality and the morality of protestants who work like crazy since success is a proof of your election in the heart of god. Both are based on faith, and both lead to hardwork constantly. I therefore don't understand her rejection of faith and religion.
I'm still seeing her advocate for a world we can't afford to live in. In an actual finite world, the equivocation of wealth accumulation and productivity, and advocacy to gain greater and greater control, seem like exactly the bad ideas I thought they were. I'm trying to take this seriously but it just seems like some kind of religion, or like she's a motivational speaker or something.
@@someonenotnooneJust chill and try re-listening to this reply by Rand. Realise that she is speaking in terms of timeless and universal principles that would apply in any socioeconomic system whatsoever. With the singular exception of one that would literally, forcibly forbid people from engaging this reality she is speaking of. Oh yes, such an abomination IS possible.
I don't understand this aspect of her philosophy. Productive work entails suffering. A man seldom gets paid good money enjoying himself for 8+ hours a day, because high levels of production typically require high levels of mental and/or physical effort. If I managed to build something worth 10 million dollars, I'd probably sell it and stop working, allowing myself 200K a year for the following 50 years. I'd rather spend my life doing what I'm passionate about with the people that I love, than focus on further production , status, or power. No one will pay me to read books or sail away. How is it not in my self-interest to do these things and enjoy my life instead of doing productive work? How exactly will my mind stagnate and cause me to suffer throughout a life of adventure, enjoyment, and financial security?
Productive work should NOT entail suffering. If it does you picked the wrong career. I have had several different careers and I have thoroughly enjoyed each of them. I usually picked careers that interested me and learned them to the best of my ability. When you are amongst the BEST at what you do you are rewarded richly.... but THAT is not the primary motivator. I love my life. I enjoy my life. I enjoy being productive and being very good at what I do. I am rewarded for doing it well.... both monetarily AND intellectually. I will NEVER retire. I'm having too much fun.
Productive work entails struggle, rather than suffering. Mental and physical strain don't have to be painful. Every virtue within Objectivism has to be seen in the context of the long-term and your own well-being. If you work hard in way which leads to a burn out in a couple of years, you're not productive in the Objectivist sense. Ultimately you're ending up with destruction, not growth. As for retiring when having acquired enough money: That's not a problem and could be a completely valid path to choose in life. Productiveness isn't only related to making money. You can choose to devote your time to family and hobbies if you derive more happiness from it, than that any kind of job can give you. The only thing is that such a lifestyle isn't an excuse to slack off mentally. Even when you retire, you should be dedicated in a productive way towards your daily activities, so you won't end up 'dead spiritually'.
@@johnnynick6179 That's great for you, but what if the things that I like to do are not of great value on the free market? I currently make good money with my mind doing something I'm good at, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't do it for the money. Even the parts that I like, I wouldn't do for 40+ hours a week just for the sake of it. Who would? I suffer mentally at work because the money allows me to do things that I actually love doing, which entail consumption rather than production. For me, working is like going to the gym. The process of actually lifting weights engenders physical suffering, but what you gain from it in terms of long-term well-being makes it worth the cost. Work engenders mental or physical suffering as well, but the value that you produce can be exchanged for value that you want to consume.
@@leeuwbama9433 I agree with most of what you said, but I think that one of your premises is wrong. Mental strain IS a form of suffering, and as such, it's painful by definition. Suffering is a fundamental part of life, and I'm not advocating for its avoidance. I'm merely saying that it tends to be tightly coupled with productive work. Ultimately, my disagreement with Ayn Rand probably has to do with her assertion that a man's self-interest lies in production rather than consumption. Production can be an end in itself, but more so than anything else, it's a means to an end. It's a virtue that indirectly grants you value, rather than a value itself, and that's ok.
@@CPUtech101 My bad, I thought experiencing strain and extolling effort where similar in meaning. What I meant is that effort or struggle doesn't automatically involve pain.
You see the contradiction here ? This is an argument against her own philosophy....and libertarian philosophy in general that private wealth accumulation is a necessary condition for a productive economy. But it is not. Working - according to her - is a necessary condition for intellectual well being and happiness .... Even without excessive external awards one has to be productive for his own self interest ...
Both wealth and spiritual vitality are a value to a rational man. That is why if you secure the first, one should remain productive to maintain the second. I don't see a contradiction here?
3:21 "In order to survive properly, man has to think constantly"
My conclusion using what I learned from this video
- The ultimate purpose is to achieve and mantain a life as a thinker.
- Thinker is a human who has his reason always active ("think constantly") during waking hours.
- The good is any action or goal that is a means to achieve the ultimate purpose.
“When you stop growing, you start dying”- William S. Burroughs
what a poor example to humanity Burroughs was!
That is not quite the same idea. Rand never says "growth" she says "productiveness", which may or may not imply gowth. You can maintain yourself at a bare minimum and still be productive, because you are producing that minimum at least.
@@PoLanka65 It can also be argued that that over the course of any one’s career they continue to gain more experience, skill, competence, and knowledge. All of which contributes to an individual’s greater enjoyment of life. Contentment with state of one’s current standing in life doesn’t imply that a person isn’t growing anymore. Do you not grow when you pursue a hobby? Do you not grow when you raise a child? Do you not grow when you exercise? Growth is not limited to the realm of one’s chosen career.
@@coggnus9656 But that is not the question. The question is wether growth is the essence of a human life or not. I don't think Rand and Burroughs are on the exact same page in that regard.
@@PoLanka65 When you say essential for human life, Rand doesn’t consider doing the bare minimum living. In atlas shrug she made a point that wanting to live is not the same as not wanting to die. Anyone can do only enough to obtain a home, secure their meals, and only work as much a needed to maintain the former, but that alone wouldn’t be considered living. In order to truly live by the parameters of objectivism one must have a desire to be productive, which in turn implies growth. I don’t consider working only enough to keep your body alive a desire to be productive. Unless your definition of essentials is different from what I think you mean?
A real producer never truly retires.
Yes
What a brilliant analysis.
What a load of excrement.
Back of those days the word man must've meant human. Back in those days everyone knew the answer to, "what is a woman?"
Great mind !
Her brain was no more "greater" than anybody else's.
Her emotions controlled Rands life, reason or logic .
Awesome
Now consider this in the context of mass AI redundancies and UBI. The nature of work and productivity has always been and should always be extensive, as she alludes to here, and should never be purely delimited to economic output, wages, salaries, contracts. This would debase the souls of people and result in menticide.
Think of Steve jobs , he used natural intelligence to create the iPhone. Now you have the same opportunity to be Steve jobs with a lower cost of entry due to AI.
Can someone imagine a situation where one is not thinking at any point of time....and does thinking always resolves the most complicated oroblems or is it something beyond thinking ...is creativity an outcome of thought process ? .. Wealth is needed to create an eco system but there is no gurantee that wealth by itself is responsible for creativity ...??
Right she is
"greater and greater control over reality" and this equivocation of productivity and amassing wealth when taken "literally" as she advocates is a great example of why people might find her ideas harmful.
Her philosophy would be great in some kind of infinite expanse of resources but seems increasingly inappropriate for application on a single planet.
You must be joking. Listen and think again. Is not what she is saying EXACTLY how man must conduct himself under scarcity and finite resources? 🙂
Try to kill the rampant prejudice against her ideas you picked up somewhere and use your own judgement. Surely you can see it then.
3:32
If the person is rich, can live on income. In this case, work is option.
If you somehow had more money than you knew what to do with, you would still have the spiritual need for a purpose to your life. Most wealthy people do not stop working, even if they shift from business to charity.
@@VinnyBloo I agree. We need a purpose. But the purpose can be fun, knowledge and culture.
The work cult is mad.
The progress is finite.
@@VinnyBloo Many people want to live on income.
The unexamined life is not worth living.
What's the difference between her morality and the morality of protestants who work like crazy since success is a proof of your election in the heart of god. Both are based on faith, and both lead to hardwork constantly. I therefore don't understand her rejection of faith and religion.
This is for those who think that Ayn Rand boils down to "money is everything", or some such nonsense.
I'm still seeing her advocate for a world we can't afford to live in. In an actual finite world, the equivocation of wealth accumulation and productivity, and advocacy to gain greater and greater control, seem like exactly the bad ideas I thought they were. I'm trying to take this seriously but it just seems like some kind of religion, or like she's a motivational speaker or something.
What did Rand's life boil down to?
@@someonenotnooneJust chill and try re-listening to this reply by Rand. Realise that she is speaking in terms of timeless and universal principles that would apply in any socioeconomic system whatsoever.
With the singular exception of one that would literally, forcibly forbid people from engaging this reality she is speaking of. Oh yes, such an abomination IS possible.
I don't understand this aspect of her philosophy. Productive work entails suffering. A man seldom gets paid good money enjoying himself for 8+ hours a day, because high levels of production typically require high levels of mental and/or physical effort. If I managed to build something worth 10 million dollars, I'd probably sell it and stop working, allowing myself 200K a year for the following 50 years. I'd rather spend my life doing what I'm passionate about with the people that I love, than focus on further production , status, or power. No one will pay me to read books or sail away. How is it not in my self-interest to do these things and enjoy my life instead of doing productive work? How exactly will my mind stagnate and cause me to suffer throughout a life of adventure, enjoyment, and financial security?
Productive work should NOT entail suffering. If it does you picked the wrong career. I have had several different careers and I have thoroughly enjoyed each of them. I usually picked careers that interested me and learned them to the best of my ability. When you are amongst the BEST at what you do you are rewarded richly.... but THAT is not the primary motivator. I love my life. I enjoy my life. I enjoy being productive and being very good at what I do. I am rewarded for doing it well.... both monetarily AND intellectually.
I will NEVER retire. I'm having too much fun.
Productive work entails struggle, rather than suffering. Mental and physical strain don't have to be painful. Every virtue within Objectivism has to be seen in the context of the long-term and your own well-being. If you work hard in way which leads to a burn out in a couple of years, you're not productive in the Objectivist sense. Ultimately you're ending up with destruction, not growth.
As for retiring when having acquired enough money: That's not a problem and could be a completely valid path to choose in life. Productiveness isn't only related to making money. You can choose to devote your time to family and hobbies if you derive more happiness from it, than that any kind of job can give you. The only thing is that such a lifestyle isn't an excuse to slack off mentally. Even when you retire, you should be dedicated in a productive way towards your daily activities, so you won't end up 'dead spiritually'.
@@johnnynick6179 That's great for you, but what if the things that I like to do are not of great value on the free market? I currently make good money with my mind doing something I'm good at, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't do it for the money. Even the parts that I like, I wouldn't do for 40+ hours a week just for the sake of it. Who would? I suffer mentally at work because the money allows me to do things that I actually love doing, which entail consumption rather than production. For me, working is like going to the gym. The process of actually lifting weights engenders physical suffering, but what you gain from it in terms of long-term well-being makes it worth the cost. Work engenders mental or physical suffering as well, but the value that you produce can be exchanged for value that you want to consume.
@@leeuwbama9433 I agree with most of what you said, but I think that one of your premises is wrong. Mental strain IS a form of suffering, and as such, it's painful by definition. Suffering is a fundamental part of life, and I'm not advocating for its avoidance. I'm merely saying that it tends to be tightly coupled with productive work. Ultimately, my disagreement with Ayn Rand probably has to do with her assertion that a man's self-interest lies in production rather than consumption. Production can be an end in itself, but more so than anything else, it's a means to an end. It's a virtue that indirectly grants you value, rather than a value itself, and that's ok.
@@CPUtech101 My bad, I thought experiencing strain and extolling effort where similar in meaning. What I meant is that effort or struggle doesn't automatically involve pain.
You see the contradiction here ?
This is an argument against her own philosophy....and libertarian philosophy in general that private wealth accumulation is a necessary condition for a productive economy.
But it is not. Working - according to her - is a necessary condition for intellectual well being and happiness ....
Even without excessive external awards one has to be productive for his own self interest ...
You haven't studied her philosophy.
@@VinnyBloo Just try me.
She didn't say wealth is not an incentive for productivity. She said something deeper than wealth motivates a productive individual.
Both wealth and spiritual vitality are a value to a rational man. That is why if you secure the first, one should remain productive to maintain the second. I don't see a contradiction here?
@@RogerFusselman Isn't that equivalent ?