Integrating the choice to focus and the choice to live

[rameshkaimal]

Hello all,

In OPAR, Dr. Peikoff discusses 2 meta choices, namely, the choice to focus and the choice to live.

The first is a primary choice in epistemology because it precedes all thought and the second is a primary choice in ethics because it precedes all action.

So I was wondering whether these 2 choices are really 2 different perspectives on one and the same choice.

In other words, is the choice to live implicit in the choice to focus and vice versa? Or does the choice to focus (hierarchically) precede the choice to live?

Regards,

Ramesh Kaimal

[Pianoman83]

If you want to live, then you must focus so you can think (i.e. employ your means of survival).

[SpiralTheorist]

There's a value in considering the choices separately, but they are certainly deeply connected. Speaking off the top of my head - so not speaking with certainty - I'd say they seem a lot like the same thing to me. The choice to focus and the choice to live are essentially the same, only the first emphasizes the role of consciousness and the second the role of existential action.

Think of some instances of the choice to focus. You may allow your mind to drift, pursuing an easy girl who isn't a very good match, or you may keep your romantic values firmly centered in your mind and pursue a more elusive girl who is a better match. You may allow chance connections and random opportunities drive you through an unchosen career path, or you may exert the effort to branch off, to explore new options, to make opportunities where none were offered. You might turn on the television, zone out, and let it aimlessly babysit your mind, or you might flip on your mental light switch and watch Dollhouse.

(Sorry, preemptive plug. Had to happen.)

Now think about those same choices from the perspective of action. Now, rather than focusing on your choice to use your mind or not, you're focusing on your choice to pursue life-sustaining values or not. All the instances are the same, because both choices ultimately refer to the same alternative: the acceptance of reality, or its rejection. Do you focus your mind, learn what your life and happiness demand, and pursue those values, or do you allow your mind to drift and let the values pass you by? The difference is only in emphasis: when you consider your choices from the perspective of focus, you consider them from the perspective of your cognitive responsibilities, whereas when you consider them from the perspective of the choice to live, you consider the choices from the perspective of their existential consequences. The choice to live *is* the choice to pursue values, which *is*, essentially, the choice to focus.

That's the best case I can make for that position, anyway, which I think is probably correct. I'd be interested to know if anyone can make a case that there's a bigger difference between the two.

--SpiralTheorist--

[rameshkaimal]

Hello all,

The choice to focus precedes every other choice Man can make. It precedes even human motives such as the desire to live because what one desires depends on one's values and one cannot value anything including one's life unless one's in focus. Besides, if one's not in focus, how would one know what one's desires or values are?

Once one's in focus, one can then choose to live by discovering the things one's life requires and taking the actions necessary to obtain them. As an example, even a caveman makes the choice to live by realizing meat can satisfy his hunger and hunting wild animals for food.

In other words, the choice to live involves choosing not only to know the requirements of one's life but also to do the things to meet those requirements. But one can't really make this choice if one's not already in focus.

A person could first choose to focus and discover the things his life requires. But if, after doing that, he chooses to evade what he knows about them by not doing what he should do to obtain them, he's clearly failing to make the choice to live.

Regards,

Ramesh Kaimal

[softwareNerd]

The choice to focus precedes every other choice Man can make. It precedes even human motives such as the desire to live because what one desires depends on one's values and one cannot value anything including one's life unless one's in focus. Besides, if one's not in focus, how would one know what one's desires or values are?

At that young age, the child is not thinking in abstract concepts of choosing to live or to focus. So, the best we can do is to describe a process that is wordless. The way I would see it, at that age, the choice to live or to focus is the same choice; we could describe it either way. A child trying to make sense out of his environment is making a choice not to be a vegetable, i.e. to live as a human being, i.e. to focus. The choice to live is the choice to focus, at that young age. Edited March 9, 2008 by softwareNerd

[BrandonMV]

At one time I did not grasp the distinction between the choice to focus and the choice to live. Then, when considering the ethical status of suicide, I could not figure out how it could be regarded as anything but immoral (rather than amoral, as Ayn Rand held). My reasoning was: If the two choices are the same, then the Objectivist ethics would apply as soon as one focuses. And since suicide, in virtually all cases, isn't a matter of going out of focus, but pursuing one's death (which itself requires focus), how could one amorally focus to pursue death when the very act of focusing is choosing to live? It would be impossible and necessarily immoral.

I eventually realized that this is false. Choosing to live (choosing to value) must come after the choice to focus. And choosing death is not valuing death (one can not value a nothing), but disvaluing life.