Rand wrote in “The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 32
Value has two meanings. Value(v) which is to value something. Value(n) which is to have that value.
Let say Bob values(v) productivity. However, Bob is unproductive. Couldn't Bob still feel love toward Jane if Jane has the value(n) of productivity?
The quote by Ayn Rand pertains to valuing oneself. If Bob is unproductive but nevertheless values productivity, then (a) how can that be, since valuing something means acting to gain and/or keep it, and (b) why would it necessarily mean that he does not value himself?
Point (a) is worth elaborating further. The terms "productive," "unproductive" and "productivity" are not precisely equivalent to the terminology in TOE. TOE uses the term "purpose" for one of the three cardinal values for man's life qua man, and "productiveness" as the virtue (action) by which to achieve purpose in life, in conjunction with rationality and five further virtues. TOE and Galt's Speech differentiate between "value" and "virtue" as follows (see "Virtue" in The Ayn Rand Lexicon):
“Value” is that which one acts to gain and keep, “virtue” is the action by which one gains and keeps it.
"Productive work" in TOE apparently is the bridge between the value of purpose and the virtue of productiveness. In discussing the value of purpose, TOE states:
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.
(From TOE, Chap. 1 in VOS, p. 27 in the Signet paperback edition. The TOE paragraph preceding this TOE excerpt names self-esteem as one of the three cardinal values for man's life qua man, with pride as the virtue most directly leading to self-esteem.)
In discussing the virtue of productiveness, TOE states:
The virtue of Productiveness is the recognition of the fact that productive work is the process by which man's mind sustains his life, the process that sets man free of the necessity to adjust himself to his background, as all animals do, and gives him the power to adjust his background to himself.
In TOE terminology, productiveness means engaging in productive work in order to gain and/or keep the value of purpose, i.e., a central productive purpose in one's life. To claim to value purpose without acting to gain and/or keep it (by engaging in productive work) is a contradiction. One does not actually value purpose if one doesn't act to gain and/or keep it, contrary to anything that one might claim about one's alleged "values." (See also "Productiveness" in The Ayn Rand Lexicon.)
In ordinary usage, one who conscientiously tries to be productive, but fails due to conditions beyond his control, may be described as "unproductive." The question, however, doesn't indicate that "Bob" is making any effort to be productive. Absent such effort, he cannot properly be described as "valuing" productive work.
Regarding love, a comment asks if love is primarily a process of "valuing," or primarily an emotion. Objectivism says yes, it is. I.e., it's both. Objectivism identifies the fact that emotions are caused by one's values, by way of automatic evaluations of stimuli in terms of previously (volitionally) automatized patterns of valuing and acting. (Refer to the topic of "Emotions" in The Ayn Rand Lexicon.)
Update: Awareness of Context
In the comments, the questioner asks about "people who value health but they take no effort to exercise." In order to know whether or not a person truly values his health, one will need to know more of the full context of the person's actions. The expression, "effort to exercise," appears to refer to an exercise regimen of some kind that is separate and distinct from any exercise that one will get naturally in the course of performing other actions needed for living and enjoying life. This can be referred to as "supplemental exercise." Is supplemental exercise really necessary for health? The exact health benefit of additional exercise beyond ordinary exercise from working, i.e., supplemental exercise, may be popularly assumed today to be beneficial for health, but is it? Perhaps the popular belief is mistaken or misguided. Perhaps the individual in question disputes the connection. Perhaps basic nutrition and personal hygiene are vastly more important for health and long life than supplemental exercise. The value of supplemental exercise also depends on how much exercise, and what kind, a person actually receives from working (and what kind of productive work he performs, how sedentary or physical his work is). Simple stretching exercises (without high impact or high aerobics) may be all that most people really need, if they are following proper nutrition and hygiene (and proper ergonomics while sitting or standing for long periods).
More abstractly, it can be asked: if actions 'A', 'B' and 'C' are beneficial for value 'H', does failure to perform 'C' mean that the person doesn't actually value 'H'? One can't answer that without knowing the full context; specifically, one needs to know whether or not the person is performing actions 'A' and/or 'B', and whether he is performing them for the implicit or explicit goal of remaining healthy (and alive).
The foregoing expresses a very fundamental epistemological principle in Objectivism that I refer to as "awareness of context." It is often referred to in Objectivist literature as "holding the context." It is actually implicit in the formulation, "Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses." Identifying sensory-perceptual material means looking at reality and relating what one observes to what one already knows, or distilling new knowledge if the concretes that one observes don't readily fit one's existing knowledge. Reason begins with observation of concretes in reality, observation of the context. In general, awareness of context means knowing, or finding out as fully as possible, where one is, what one is doing, how one came to be doing it, what is happening around oneself, and why. The fallacy of the "stolen concept" depends, at root, on context dropping.
Update: Awareness of Context Regarding "Value"
As explained above, "awareness of context" is a crucial principle in Objectivist epistemology. That includes awareness of the context in which Ayn Rand was expressing her formulations, if one wants to understand clearly what she meant. For the original question, "awareness of context" includes understanding what Ayn Rand meant by "value."
Ayn Rand explains what "value" means (and depends on) in the same article from which the question's quoted excerpt was taken, namely, TOE in VOS Chap. 1. Moreover, the key excerpts on "value" are available in the topic of "Values" in The Ayn Rand Lexicon, and the three sentences excerpted in the original question can be found (in a fuller context) in the Lexicon topic of "Love."
Yet a comment following Eric's Answer states:
A simple, common dictionary definition of "value" is "to regard or esteem highly" ... This use of the word "value" is not at all what Rand meant, of course, but this is not at all clear on its face.
I do not see a fundamental conflict between Ayn Rand's usage of "value" and the common dictionary definition. Ayn Rand's usage is simply more essentialized, for greater clarity of discussion. Remember that in Objectivism, "value" is just "that which one acts to gain and/or keep." For example, acting to gain and/or keep something implies that one values it.
If the commenter's basic thesis is that one must know the context in order to understand the meaning of a statement, I certainly agree. Moreover, the three quoted sentences together actually do a good job of indicating and reinforcing Ayn Rand's usage of "value," even if one hasn't made the effort to examine the context further.
Update: Further Issues and Clarifications
The comments have raised some additional philosophical issues that I find worth clarifying further.
If Bob claims that he "feel[s] love toward Jane" (quoting Humbug's original question), one really can't argue with him.
"Feel" here probably refers to an emotional response. Emotions are automatic responses to one's values, i.e., automatic bodily expressions of one's evaluations of stimuli according to one's values. Refer to "Emotions" in The Ayn Rand Lexicon. It's one's values that are chosen (either immediately or over time through automatization); one does not directly choose one's emotional responses to one's evaluations of stimuli, except by way of volitionally reaffirming one's values or not, and/or reaffirming or revising whatever thinking was involved in one's evaluations.
Ask 10 people if they think money is important.
"Important" refers to one specific type of value, namely, metaphysical values. Refer to "Metaphysical Value-Judgments" in The Ayn Rand Lexicon.
Also, Objectivism challenges popular thinking (and academic thinking, too) that is confused, contradictory, concrete-bound (not well integrated), or otherwise deficient. Confusing "importance" with generic "value" is one example.
[Ayn Rand's sentences make sense] ... but only if you really take your time and think about them (or if you're already well acquainted with Objectivism).
Yes, exactly. Nothing in my own Answer should be taken to imply differently. Objectivism urges people to think. Objectivism regards thinking and productive work as "the two essentials of the method of survival proper to a rational being." (Quoted from TOE.)
I have to admit, I have not read the extensive answer and many comments in depth, because they seem to diverge from the quotation of Rand in pursuit of the questioner's subsidiary questions. However, I think the questioner's subsidiary questions are somewhat off-base with regards to the quote.
The meaning of the statement "The man who does not value himself, cannot value anything or anyone" seems clear on its face. What I presume the questioner is really asking for is an explanation of how this is true, rather than what the sentence semantically means. There is at least one reason why Rand's statement is true that I wanted to briefly point out (I'm sure there are other reasons as well, which I will leave to others to discuss).
If you do not value yourself, you will have no motivation to value anything or anyone else. Valuing is not something that happens to you out of the blue beyond your control, like catching a cold or being struck by lightning. You do not just wake up one day and find yourself valuing something. Instead, valuing is an active process of consciously pursuing things or maintaining them if you have them--when you have consciously decided to take actions to pursue something or to maintain it, you value that thing. But all human action must be motivated--you will not act to gain and/or keep something (i.e., you will not value something) unless you have a motivating reason to do so. But if you do not value yourself, what possible motivation could you have to do anything? You and your own life are the root of all value and value pursuit.