An Unexamined Life Is Not Worth Living

Categories: Happiness Philosophy Socrates

Essay, Pages 7 (1601 words)

Views

192

The assertion by Socrates that an unexamined life is not worth living was a product of an examination, based on certain experiences, aspirations, and reflections that culminated into this philosophy. According to Socrates, every living human has a basic obligation to seek an absolute sense of self-knowledge and understanding, through which one attains the ability to make sense of the various purposes for which they exist. In this case, the philosopher sounds to encourage humanity that each person is on a mission, a journey that must end at the most desirable destination as the only way one would claim success for the time they ever lived on the earth.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get your custom essay on

“ An Unexamined Life Is Not Worth Living ”

Get custom paper

NEW! smart matching with writer

Reflecting on the circumstances under which Socrates asserted that an unexamined life is not worth living, and the reality of the fact that each life has a purpose, it is agreeable that each person needs a chance to engage in constructive meditation, and determine not only the purpose for their existence, but also the strategy to achieve it.

The statement by Socrates regarding the circumstances under which death is permissible communicates a significant aspect of his understanding of death. It also communicates, in this context, his level of commitment to the process of investigating to understand the statement of the Pythia. In his understanding of Pythia's response to Chaerephon's question, Socrates perceived it as a communication that originated from Apollo, the god, an understanding that translated into his prime directive (raison d'etre). At this time, faced with a choice between exiling, which would have to separate him from elenchus and prevent him from his process of investigating the statement, and death, Socrates appears to choose the latter.

Using his religious understanding as a source of confidence and hope for the biblical life after death, he chooses to forgo a life on earth that denied him a chance to seek the truth. While choosing death as a punishment, he communicates a sense of confidence in his choice and philosophy that it is possible to die, and find a second chance to pursue this truth in another life. This forms the basis of his philosophy that it is better to die and leave the earth, if one’s life does not guarantee an absolute chance to think, reflect, meditate and contemplate as one seeks the truths of life.

Subjecting Socrates’ assertion to a rigor of scrutiny, it is evident that his statement continues to sell in the market place of ideas. Human beings, by their very nature, are social creations whose content of character, as well as the totality of their success is often a product of the influence from the environment. This environment, in most cases, consists of both biotic and abiotic components, with an interaction that delivers the final taste of influence to shape up a person. Consequently, the nature of the environmental components and their interactions inform the chances of success or failure of an individual person occupying such spaces. Socrates, while alluding to the possible dangers of living without self-examination, postulates that such a life is predisposed to all the dangers resulting from external dictates, and devoid of personal wisdom. It is possible that people who does not examine their own lives may live other people’s lives, and ignore the original purpose for which they were created.

Even though Socrates’ philosophy of life examination as a way of gaining the requisite self-understanding and realization has attracted significant acceptance, it has also elicited major debates in which people have contested this position. There is a section of those whose school of thought contradict the common belief that an unexamined life is not worth living. Part of the logic presented in such cases is that there is a lot more that contribute the wholeness of an individual’s life, than the mere act of examination to determine the purpose and live to fulfil such purposes. Opining that the art of self-examination is an absolute route to self-realization and actualization is unrealistic, untrue, illogical and inadequate, this stand suggests that a person’s happiness and overall well-being is actually a product of a more close-knight relationship with the environment, where each of the components plays a role.

In tandem with this position is Epicurus philosophy on happiness, which unlike Socrates’ that roots for just one thing (constant examination), outlines three aspects that makes a person happy. These include good companionship, which is a product of the company one keeps from within and outside their immediate environment. In addition to the good companion, Epicurus’ philosophy also suggests freedom as the second aspect that contributes to an individual’s happiness. In this case, the philosopher refers to the freedom from everyday life politics and ability to attain a sense of self-sufficiency. Thirdly, the philosopher also believes that one needs an analyzed life to gain the requisite sense of happiness, adding that everyone needs a personal time and space to think matters through as they occur. This third component bears an ideological similarity with the Socratic position, except the fact that Epicurus combines it with the need for freedom and good companionship.

However, Epicurus’s concept fails to establish a reliable clarity on the nature of the freedom from politics, especially when there are individuals whose happiness and passion originates from the practice of politics. For instance, if there is a politician who derives happiness from engaging masses of people in public addresses, seeks and wins elective positions and leads in policy formulations to derive self-satisfaction, claiming that the need for freedom from literal practice of politics is invalid. It is further agreeable that there are large masses of people who derive happiness from involvement with political activities, and a possible alienation could be a potential threat to the idea of happiness.

It is also worth noting that there is a major distinction between Socratic and Epicurus’ ideas of analyzing life. Epicurus would stand against one opting to spend money to acquire a sense of relief from a bad experience such as a bad day, with a philosophy that advocates for taking time to reflect, contemplate and strategize to win in the next experiences. While Epicurus reduces the idea of self-examination to just a third of what constitutes a person’s happiness, the Socratic understanding believes that if one cannot to engage in a routine act of self-reflection and meditation, it is not worth living. His message is pegged at the importance of each person finding time to seek the truth regarding the purpose for their existence, a process he believes, is most achievable under routine practice of self-examination.

Having argued out the two conflicting philosophical perspective on the role of self-examination in helping people achieve happiness and a general sense of worthiness of life, it is also important to take a neutral perspective to conclude the discussion. In this case, a religious perspective would suffice, recognizing the fact that God created each person with a mission for which He shall be pleased to see accomplished. The call of Prophet Jeremiah in the Bible (Jeremiah 1:5) are God’s own words, in which He is asserting His authority over the creation and existence of Jeremiah. God informs Jeremiah during the call that even before his formation in his mother’s womb, God did not only know him (Jeremiah), but had also set him apart.

It is this divine act of God to set Jeremiah apart, that positions him to acquire his position as great prophet that would deliver God’s message to the people. It is also important to note the circumstances under which God called Jeremiah, which require that as an anointed prophet of God, he had an obligation to reflect upon his life and determine the moist suitable way to fulfil God’s desire in his call. During his life, Jeremiah is often seen to engage in constant acts of meditation and prayers while offering petitions to God during his journey to proclaiming the message of God to the Jews. He is seen to visit God’s presence to take instructions as visions during which he is sent to deliver particular messages by God. This is a replica of the Socrates act of self-examination, in which Jeremiah, also examines his life to attain a worthier state to proclaim the message of God, warning the sinful land of Israel against the impending judgment of God.

God further reminds Him that He had appointed Jeremiah to be a prophet of the nations. From the story, it is important to recognize that God mentions His role in setting Jeremiah apart, as a way of ensuring he shall be able to carry out the prophetic mission for which He was created for. Jeremiah is set apart from the rest, which to a larger extent, can be likened to the Socratic idea of selfness when examining oneself as a way of achieving the worthiness of life. Jeremiah’s life would only be worth living if he accepted to be set apart from the rest to accomplish his prophetic mission. From God’s own words, it is agreeable that for one to accomplish most important missions, it is important to set aside from crowds, and seek God’s strength as the creator who understands the nature of the mission for which He created everyone. As such as, staying in an environment where one is exposed to external influence may turn detrimental to the possibility if success owing to unhealthy distractions.

Bibliography

McElwain, Hugh. 'Socrates’“The Unexamined Life is not Worth Living”: Exploring the' Examined Life' Through an In-depth Analysis of the Dominican Virtues of Love/Compassion and Truth/Knowledge.' (2013).