"How a human being lives is by coming up with a life for himself that consists in the pursuit and achievement of a kind of constellation of values, a constellation of goals, which things then cohere *to help him stay alive as somebody pursuing that constellation of things."* Spot on, and something that goes completely over the head of critics of Rand's ethics. Once you admit that things have identities/natures, the Humean is/ought distinction is irrelevant. This is the human identity, the human nature - to be just this sort of creature. And _that's_ what is being "kept alive" (what the life-preservation is aiming at), not as mere life in the "eat food, heart still beating" sense, but as a life that has a particular identity and nature, of being a goal directed creature with goals that help preserve the life of a goal directed creature with just the goals it has (which may go beyond self-preservation as that sort of thing, but must include at least that).
"Why live?" is another question, the questions being answered here are why live life ethically, and what does the ethical life consist in. "Why live" is totally up to you, your choice, you can choose to die if you want. That's why Rand talked about the difference between all other life and human (or more broadly sentient, if there are aliens) life. All other life acts to preserve the thing it is through time _automatically,_ but, lacking such an automatic pursuit of the preservation of our own lives (as the things we are), humans have the perpetually-active _choice_ to live or die; but if you choose to live (which if taken, is _necessarily_ a choice to live as the kind of being you are), then you _must_ live ethically (otherwise you won't be able to live _as the kind of thinking, choosing being you are_ - to speak poetically, you'll be "dead inside," even if the merely biological aspect of your life were to be preserved). Again, the difference between this and the way it's standardly thought about in modern (post-classical) philosophy (with the is/ought dichotomy), is the idea (taken from Aristotle) of a thing (in this case animals, and human beings) having specific natures. "Life" and its preservation or non-preservation, is not detachable conceptually from the type of thing each thing is, it's always "life-as." So it's up to you whether you live or die, but if you do choose to live, that comes with certain "musts", because of the "musts" that are bound up with your identity and nature (as being an entity that must use reason to live *as* a reasoning being, which is the kind of being it is).
I mentor 10-year-old children in China as part of my business. They could easily grasp this material when simply presented. So can Americans but...then...they would not need the authoritarian leaders. Is this why they and the Chinese are not taught this? They are not taught this because, subconsciously, authoritarian politicians and parents, do not want children to learn it: that is, to reason? And, consider this, it is in my self-interest to encourage others to be self-interested. There is no contradiction but really a basis of reason and cooperation.
"How a human being lives is by coming up with a life for himself that consists in the pursuit and achievement of a kind of constellation of values, a constellation of goals, which things then cohere *to help him stay alive as somebody pursuing that constellation of things."*
Spot on, and something that goes completely over the head of critics of Rand's ethics. Once you admit that things have identities/natures, the Humean is/ought distinction is irrelevant. This is the human identity, the human nature - to be just this sort of creature. And _that's_ what is being "kept alive" (what the life-preservation is aiming at), not as mere life in the "eat food, heart still beating" sense, but as a life that has a particular identity and nature, of being a goal directed creature with goals that help preserve the life of a goal directed creature with just the goals it has (which may go beyond self-preservation as that sort of thing, but must include at least that).
"Why live?" is another question, the questions being answered here are why live life ethically, and what does the ethical life consist in. "Why live" is totally up to you, your choice, you can choose to die if you want.
That's why Rand talked about the difference between all other life and human (or more broadly sentient, if there are aliens) life. All other life acts to preserve the thing it is through time _automatically,_ but, lacking such an automatic pursuit of the preservation of our own lives (as the things we are), humans have the perpetually-active _choice_ to live or die; but if you choose to live (which if taken, is _necessarily_ a choice to live as the kind of being you are), then you _must_ live ethically (otherwise you won't be able to live _as the kind of thinking, choosing being you are_ - to speak poetically, you'll be "dead inside," even if the merely biological aspect of your life were to be preserved).
Again, the difference between this and the way it's standardly thought about in modern (post-classical) philosophy (with the is/ought dichotomy), is the idea (taken from Aristotle) of a thing (in this case animals, and human beings) having specific natures. "Life" and its preservation or non-preservation, is not detachable conceptually from the type of thing each thing is, it's always "life-as." So it's up to you whether you live or die, but if you do choose to live, that comes with certain "musts", because of the "musts" that are bound up with your identity and nature (as being an entity that must use reason to live *as* a reasoning being, which is the kind of being it is).
Excellent work thank you very much!
I mentor 10-year-old children in China as part of my business. They could easily grasp this material when simply presented. So can Americans but...then...they would not need the authoritarian leaders. Is this why they and the Chinese are not taught this? They are not taught this because, subconsciously, authoritarian politicians and parents, do not want children to learn it: that is, to reason? And, consider this, it is in my self-interest to encourage others to be self-interested. There is no contradiction but really a basis of reason and cooperation.