ShareIt seems to me that some ideas succeed not because they are true, but because the audience attracted to the idea will by its composition be inclined to agree. An example is a statement that Plato ascribes to Socrates, that “The unexamined life is not worth living.”
Socrates meant that he must be free to examine the wisdom of his actions, without the restrictions Athenian voters wished to place upon him, or he would not find it worth living (thus the drinking of the hemlock). That’s certainly a point of view that may be widely shared, although different people and cultures would disagree as to what level of restriction on thoughts or speech might make life not worth living.
While Socrates’ decision is defensible, subsequent philosophers tend to take Socrates’ statement a bit further. They conclude from his statement that it is the process of examining life that gives life its value. Of course philosophers find value in examining the wisdom of ideas and lives, and feel their study of the matter gives them special insights. A philosopher who was unwilling to examine life is a bit of a contradiction in terms. That Socrates was willing to die rather than give up his right to examine his own life has made philosophers sing his praises ever after.
Personally, I have found great value in examining the wisdom of many acts in my life, yet there are many types of people in this world, and if some do not ponder the wisdom of their actions much at all, must we (or particularly they) conclude their life is less worth living? It seems awfully condescending. The people who don’t examine their lives much probably aren’t examining Socrates statement. If they did, they might object to the interpretation with which it is adopted by philosophers.
A less strongly phrased statement might be, “Until you examine your life, you are ignorant of whether it is worth living,” but is even that statement true? Perhaps life is always worth living because of something innate, because of the experiences even an unexamined life gives, or because of the effects a life can have. We ascribe a value to the life of a pet regardless of how unaware the pet is of itself or the wisdom of its own actions.
Whether a life is worth living is a subjective judgment imposed by an observer, not an objective fact. Given the many attributes that might make us conclude a life is worth living, to rest all of a judgment on whether the life is “examined” seems rather excessive. That may be what gives Socrates’ statement its power, but it may also be what robs it of some important truth.
In the spirit of Socrates, here’s a bit of parting wisdom (but even without it I bet your life is worth living): Never trust the admiration of an audience who are made more self important by their admiration.
I think that what that quote can be interpreted to mean is that to blindly follow a path without examining why you are doing what you are doing or if it is even what you want to be doing is to live a life that is nowhere near as fulfilling as it can be. I look at friends who have married only because they assumed it was the next step to take in life, who have had babies because it is what comes next after marriage, who have never once questioned why the want what they want for themselves and if they really want it or if they have bought into what society, their family, their friends and peers expects of them. Obviously the personal interpretations will all vary but that’s just my two cents.
If Socrates said "If you have the wisdom to correctly examine your life and you fail to examine your life you may make mistakes that you later regret" I would agree with your interpretation of his statement. On the other hand if someone doesn't examine their life at all perhaps their life has more worth to them then if they do start examining it. If someone is unwise in how they approach examining it perhaps they'd be better off not starting on such an examination. A flaw in what Socrates said is that every human life is examined to some extent. What I really think he meant was "If I am not allowed to teach the examination of life in the manner I consider wise then my life is not worth living." If that is what he meant, the statement is definitely vague and ill written in terms of communicating an idea. Vague statements are fodder for scholars to ponder, so it certainly hasn't hurt his brand any. But as I suggest that may have more to do with philosopher's receptivity to the statement then its actual truth.
It seems to me that some ideas succeed not because they are true, but because the audience attracted to the idea will by its composition be inclined to agree. An example is a statement that Plato ascribes to Socrates, that “The unexamined life is not worth living.”
I came across your website shortly after I emailed you and found your piece on “the unexamined life” thought provoking. I, for one, am in that group of “philosophers” who believes this dictum- the unexamined life is not worth living- to be absolutely true. I realize your points in the context of Socrates own situation, and the seemingly irrational claim that a person’s life can be deemed not worth living, if they choose not to examine it. However, I think there is a deeper quality to Socrates statement that is escaping your argument. Your premise against his final oration hinges on the treatise: if some do not ponder the wisdom of their actions much at all, must we (or particularly they) conclude their life is less worth living? What Socrates, and those philosophers who subscribe to the belief of an examined life meant to conclude, I believe, was not simply an analysis of one’s own actions, but the examination of a fundamentally personal scaffolding, if you will, to each person’s life, that is deeply personal, and often times unconscious, that creates the unique architecture of each individual, and opens awareness to the motivation behind these actions you speak of.
A life governed outside of one’s own personal postulations of the very fabrication of themselves, would, I believe, lead to a life only of stringed events, redundant actions without cause or meaning. To live a life such as this, would be “not worth living” as there is no life, spirit, meaning, realization, pathos, etc. behind this. It would be like going through the motions without really understanding why. How long can any of us do that without abandoning the activity that leads us to this state of apathy in the first place? Working on a chain gang, assembly line, or dead-end jobs, engaging in unfulfilling activities or staying in burnt out relationships is reflective of this sort of meaningless repetition without motivation or meaning. And more often than not, one hears people in these situations say “I feel dead inside.” This is the life “not worth living” that I feel Socrates was referring to.
For example, Carl Jung, in his work The Undiscovered Self, explores the idea of ‘mass-mindedness’ and the obliteration of the individual to the influence of collective thought and oftentimes propaganda. Media manipulation, the overwhelming bombardment of population based opinion, the false-sense of achievement with possession of meaningless product and the engenderment of the individual toward group-think, rather than their alignment with a distinctly personal point of view, creates an environment whereby individuality becomes subordinate to societal decision and the popular vote. “The bigger the crowd, the more negligible the individual.” (Jung, The Undiscovered Self Now, does that mean one needs to be a philosopher to examine their life? Absolutely not.
But I would argue this. Outside of our day to day artifices of what we do, is who we are. When one defines who they are by what they do, where they live, who they are married to, etc . . .they have, in my opinion, lost a sense of who they are. There is an undercurrent to the storm-viewed waters of our lives, a subtle electricity that vibrates to individual frequency and is different from one person to the next. To never tap into what that is, is to do a great disservice to no one else but ourselves, in this our one lifetime. To simply state that we are products of our upbringing, environment, birth-rite, is too simple. As I believe, it is too simple to say, by examining our actions, we have examined our lives.
As a physician, I see all too often. People who come face to face with death, and if granted the chance to reverse a grim prognosis, change their lives because of it. This comes from a deep recognition, nearing the time of death, that the life lived was not as significant as once thought before being admitted for terminal diagnosis X,Y, or Z. Colloquially we say, they are “soul searching.” Weighing out their priorities, reassigning their values, redistributing their emotions, perhaps Socrates would say “examine their lives.” This exercise in self-discovery often leads to places of extreme spiritual renewal and new founded establishments of who that person really is. The deep exploration, and recognition of one’s own structure, motivation, raison d’etre, if you will, and on some level, a subconscious connection to the divine, is a crossroads which, I believe, everyone comes to at one point or another in their life, and it is often at a time near death. However, Socrates, in his foresight of impending death, already realized to wait until a forced crisis to begin thinking of these constructions of one’s life, is equivalent to death itself. The examination of one’s life, must be a lived experience from day to day. This requires a certain silence, that within the noise of mass influence, cannot always be heard.
Victor Frankl, in Man’s Search for Meaning , which chronicles his survival through an Auschwitz concentration camp, reiterates my point above, “When we are no longer able to change a situation—just think of an incurable disease such as inoperable cancer—we are challenged to change ourselves” (Frankl, Man’ s Search for Meaning).
That change in ourselves can only manifest itself in an operative shift from a re-examination of oneself in the face of such extreme life alteration. Until one is faced with death as a reality in this lifetime, the question of “self” often goes unexamined. At the end of Frankl’s heroic survival through the horrors of Nazi Germany, he emerges almost resurrected in self and spirit, a metamorphosis, which he himself declares, may never have happened outside of this adversity. Socrates too, facing hemlock or exile, realizes to stay trapped in abandonment without the ability to relate to and explore the human condition, and thereby have no mirrors for the examination of himself, chooses death instead. Frankl echoes this idea.
“It did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us. We needed to stop asking about the meaning of life, and instead to think of ourselves as those who were being questioned by life—daily and hourly. Our answer must consist, not in talk and meditation, but in right action and in right conduct. Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual. Man is capable of changing the world for the better if possible, and of changing himself for the better if necessary.” -Frankl
And there was Nietzsche. Nietzsche was not a huge fan of Socrates, or the Socratic method, however, the following passage from this Genealogy of Morals, ironically aligns him with Socrates statement in discussion to the examination of one’s own life. His revelations here, crystallize the statements and references I have made above. The spirit of his argument; that in spite of man’s achievement, discovery and pioneership, the one frontier that is often left untraveled, are beyond the borders that lead to ourselves.
“We are unknown to ourselves, we men of knowledge–and with good reason. We have never sought ourselves–how could it happen that we should ever find ourselves? It has rightly been said: ‘Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also’ [Matthew 6.21]; our treasure is where the beehives of our knowledge are. We are constantly making for them, being by nature winged creatures and honey- gatherers of the spirit; there is one thing alone we really care about from the heart–’bringing something home.’ Whatever else there is in life, so-called ,’experiences’–which of us has sufficient earnestness for them? Or sufficient time? Present experience has, I am afraid, always found us ‘absent-minded’: we cannot give our hearts to it–not even our ears! Rather, as one divinely preoccupied and immersed in himself into whose ear the bell has just boomed with all its strength the twelve beats of noon suddenly starts up and asks himself: ‘what really was that which just struck?’ so we sometimes rub our ears afterward and ask, utterly surprised and disconcerted, ‘what really was that which we have just experi- enced?’ and moreover: ‘who are we really?’ and, afterward as aforesaid, count the twelve trembling bell-strokes of our experience, our life, our being–and alas! miscount them.–So we are necessarily strangers to ourselves, we do not comprehend our- selves, we have to misunderstand ourselves, for us the law ‘Each is furthest from himself’ applies to all eternity–we are not ‘men of knowledge’ with respect to ourselves.” – Nietzsche
Perhaps, I have stabbed myself in the foot here with my argument that one does not need to be a philosopher to examine ones own life, and then promptly go on to reference some big-gun philosophers, but the idea of self-realization and discovery is a very ancient, if not human one. Above the doorway to the gates of the Oracle at Delphi in Athens the words “gnothi seauton” Greek for “know thyself” lays carved in gold. Ironic since it was the Oracle who was mythicized to tell your future. But appropriate, for despite what any god or man could ever predict or tell of oneself, it was nothing compared to what one could garner of themself in their own rite and capacity..
Socrates chose death. He chose death over exile. He chose physical death over an existential one. A bold, yet perfectly appropriate choice for him. So in conclusion, I would ask you to expand your view to not simply an examination of one’s own actions as a conclusion of the examination of one’s own life, but rather to deepen it to a core examination of the motivation behind them. This, in my opinion, is the life worth living, and the self worth realizing.
We only have one lifetime to “get it.” Do we not owe it to ourselves to endeavor this exploration? I humbly appreciate any rebuttal or reply to this. Thank you for your time.
Regards,
Anita Sircar, MD
Thanks for your extensive thoughts Anita. There's two issues I'll tackle. The first is what Socrates really chose between. The second is what role examination has in determining worth.
As you mention, what Socrates really chose was death via hemlock over exile. Arguably he saw exile as being deprived of the right to teach the examination of life in the manner he thought wise to the community he wanted to belong to, and saw this as worse than choosing death. By choosing death he could transform himself in the minds of his philosopher student community into the protector of the community's ideals. He would also be proving to his society and all future persons the strength of his conviction. The small irony is he could still have examined his life all he wanted, while in exile. He would have lost the ability to teach his current students in his current society. He would also have lost his halo of respect to the like minded community of philosophers that have followed him in time. To Socrates staying loyal to his community was very important, even at the cost of death. I think that's the real choice Socrates made.
To my mind, worth is in the eye of the beholder. If you don't examine yourself at all, you could assume your self worth and you could have worth to other people in your life. What Socrates said wasn't "If you have the wisdom to correctly examine your life and you fail to examine your life you may make mistakes that you later regret or you may not have as rich a life." What he said (according to Plato) is "The unexamined life is not worth living."
It seems to me some people examine their lives hardly at all, but still have worth to their families, their friends, themselves. Many animals don't appear to examine their own lives, but they are ascribed worth by others. A plant doesn't appear to examine its life, but it is ascribed worth.
Socrates statement has a potent ring, but its vagueness has left it open to a myriad of interpretations. Self examination is how we may define self worth, but a person may define great self worth with even a cursory self examination or an unexamined belief. We may feel they are wrong, but that's our judgment of their worth. The point I'm making is that worth is not defined just by self examination. It can actually be assumed without any examination at all.
To pretend that it requires great self examination is really an unexamined statement put forth by philosophers. I do think unexamined statements may have worth. They could have worth because they are actually right or because they have meaning to those who fail to examine them. The point I'm making is that worth is a value judgment, so the statement "The unexamined life is not worth living" is only true to those who want it to be true. To everyone else, it's false. Philosophers have interpreted Socrates' statement as if it is universally true, and that can't be right. To them it has worth, and to me it doesn't.
I enjoy what you post Dr. Anita. As what you said we just live one life so why we can’t enjoy it, its us who can make our life enjoyable or miserable. It is very hard to live as a routine every day the same thing we will not go and investigate who comes or born first the hen or the egg we need every day to or at least try to add something different in our life that we can feel we live for something its our freedom to choose not to have some one else to choose for us. Same as we can elect our President, senate we make the choice because we believe we make the good choice it can be wrong for the others but not for us so from all above to make our life to be worth to live we need have a meaning for our life first.
Socrates statement can be summed up like this: If you don't truly know anything, do you think you can be happy? Take something much less complicated than philosophy. Say, friendship. If you don't know who your friends truly are, do you think you'd be happy? The statement is the opposite of the poor sentiment "Ignorance is bliss."
Since we can't actually read each other's minds, arguably none of us really knows who our friends truly are. We rely on a belief that our friends are our friends, backed up by some circumstantial evidence, which we'd perhaps prefer not to test, to help maintain our happiness. I get your point though that examining the strength of your friendships at an early stage successfully would be useful to maintain happiness later when life throws you a curveball and the friendship comes under stress. But I'm not sure that really is analogous to the link between self examination and self worth. Do you have to live a moral life to have a life worth living? Do you have to know you lived a moral life to have a life worth living? A lot of people find great worth in their pets, and I'm not really sure their pets are that self aware. Does a person who is in too much pain to examine their life have a life no longer worth living? Do you have to be happy to have had a life worth living?
Ranjit –
Damn, Dude, you hit it right on the head. Life IS always worth living. Who the h3ll says Socrates gets to decide the worth of a life?
Clearly Anita and others have completely missed the moral dilemma you've uncovered. "A life not worth living", as you point out, is really just a different way of saying "it would be better if that life had never been lived at all". The question is…why would Socrates say such a thing?
Well, maybe the answer to that question also answers your dilemma….it's possible that Socrates never said "The unexamined life is not worth living." Another English translation is "The unexamined life is not to be lived". Read that way, you could interpret more of a "Repent!" than "Damnation!" intent, couldn't you? I know I can.
So, if you believe that Socrates was a decent, moral human being…as you and I clearly do…then this alternative translation is a little easier to swallow, no? Otherwise, we're all left rationalizing the "better off dead" implication, which does nothing but lead us all out into the tall weeds where we're left to wander aimlessly about with Anita, Nietzsche and the rest of the Immoral Elitists.
Great job, I love that a guy from India has no compunction about throwing huge haymakers at one of Philosophy's most Sacred Cows…Socrates the Martyr. Kudos!
BTW…if you're interested, here's a paper written by a scary-smart philosophy guy with a bunch of Ph.D.s who delves into the same muck and seems to strike serious pay dirt:
Richard Kraut
"A companion to Socrates"
Chapter 14, page 228
"The Examined Life Examined"
you can find and read a free preview here online:
http://books.google.com
Cool blog, thanks for the interesting read.
Regards,
SchwingBlade
Since we can't actually read each other's minds, arguably none of us really knows who are friends truly are. We rely on a belief that our friends are our friends, which we'd perhaps prefer not to test, to help maintain our happiness. I get your point though that examining the strength of your friendships at an early stage successfully would be useful to maintain happiness later when life throws you a curveball and the friendship comes under stress. But I'm not sure that really is analogous to the link between self examination and self worth. Philosophy, if it is anything, should be exact in its use of words. Do you have to live a moral life to have a life worth living? Do you have to know you lived a moral life to have a life worth living? A lot of people find great worth in their pets, and I'm not really sure their pets are that self aware. Does a person who is in too much pain to examine their life have a life no longer worth living?
Thanks for pointing out that interpretation of Socrates' statement, for mentioning Kraut's interesting book and for the praise of my thoughts on the topic. One of the reasons I phrased my essay the way I did is that this is the common English translation of what Plato said about what Socrates said. That does introduce multiple potentials for errors.
I'm therefore more about criticizing the statement itself, the way it is parroted, than really criticizing Socrates himself, who seemed like a great chap to have a chat with, and who may have intended to say something different. Since he could have kept examining his life in exile from Athenian society, what he may have been saying is that it was his life's work to teach others in his society how to examine their lives, and if he was denied that right by Athenian authorities, than he would use his conscious choice of death as a final lesson to his society of how much worth he ascribed to what he was trying to teach.
That sentiment I find interesting, kind of a judo move on the society in which he lived that has lasted in the minds of philosophers ever since. But the actual statement that the "unexamined life is not worth living" I don't think is right, for all of its resonance through the ages. I think that just because a statement resonates with our minds doesn't make it true. In fact I'd argue that a lot of great ideas that have resonated at times in history have been fundamentally flawed.
Arguably Socrates also understood this point, as he saw his understanding of his own ignorance as the source of his wisdom. Which is why I've always thought it strange that the statement "the unexamined life is not worth living" is translated in that fashion, attributed to him and itself left unexamined.
I don't believe I've ever seen this statement used to judge another man's life as valueless, if you have seen it interpreted this way then you should definitely correct them. I have always understood the statement to mean that one should spend time exploring, understanding and arguing a belief before truly calling it your own, and not to go through life believing what has been spoon fed to you. This is also, I believe, the way it is commonly understood.
While one could interpret "the unexamined life is not worth living" as "the unexamined belief is worth examining" it strikes me as being pretty far from the literal meaning of the words. But I'm not sure that even "the unexamined belief is worth examining" is a true statement. Should a person consider whether their mother loves them, or should they just accept it unexamined? Certain unexamined beliefs may be useful to examine, but that doesn't mean they all must be examined, or that a person can't live a happy life without examining them. So even if we examine this interpretation, I'm not sure it is true.
Hi
I’m going to think about this more. What first springs to mind though, is the definition of “examined”. Perhaps it need not be as “deep” as one thinks?
Another comment I’d like to make is on your final sentence. It does make me think of the practice of commenting on blogs to get traffic to one’s own site…
Thank you for the thoughts.
Juliet