The unexamined life is not worth living. Is it really?

Drumpot · 25-05-2019 11:05am #1

Maybe I have misinterpreted the meaning somewhat but it sounds like this suggests that we should constantly strive for truth. Striving for this truth in itself can be fun but equally can be frustrating and in some cases quite depressing (even demoralizing) as the truth is not always more appealing then the lies we tell ourselves. I find that in many regards , the truth infuriates people and that many actually despise or reject it favoring ignorance thus isolating the truth seekers. Truth seekers are not always objectively right but in the process of trying to find truth can be mocked or vilified. This is not always a question of intelligence either as some of the most intelligent people I know are quite blind to certain truths they hold dear.

As somebody who has to strive for truth for health reasons, I have perhaps a more bias view of this particular nugget. (This does not imply I know more about it or have more wisdom on this topic, more my views are heavily influenced from life events). Striving for truth was imperative for me personally , to see the lies I told myself and how these lies damaged me and those around me. But at some point, many years now recovered, I can find it frustrating to the point of being demented at times, dissecting all things before me like a scientist constantly dissecting atoms to infinity. It can be difficult watching and accepting other people’s lies , many people aren’t ready or prepared to be challenged so silence is usually my more rewarding response.

When I was younger I could be the life and soul of a party. I knew, and still do to be fair, how to work a room. Now I find it harder to find the energy to engage in this sort of ritual. I used to be great at banter with fellow fans or people with fellow interests in things like movies and sport but I find these engagements boring and get quite angry with what I perceive to be not very insightful discussions. I now more often then not give up trying to make a point or engaging altogether.

There is a point, that when examining everything becomes not just a chore but a struggle. I’ve been listening and reading things on philosophy and perfectionism (again maybe I’m going off topic, apologies) and I feel that in extreme cases the wisdom of examining everything ventures into the realm of perfectionism that I see as mostly a toxic trait that people suffer. It can lead to wonderful things but there is a massive price to be paid for this perfectionism, isolation, loneliness and the destruction of relationships come to mind.

I find it harder and harder to engage people the more I have interest in philosophy. The modern interests of most people are very shallow and my deeper interests are best kept to myself. This makes it less interesting for me to go out and meet friends/ family. There are only a very few people I can talk to about these sorts of things.

I think of this philosophical gem like the matrix red pill , blue pill conundrum. I take one of these pills and live in blissful ignorance. I take the other pill and see the world for what it is warts and all. Is truth really meaningful? Is the pain and loneliness that comes with that truth really what makes our life worth living? Maybe it’s the way I look for truth or how I store or share this truth but I don’t always find examining the world always worthwhile.

A lot of time can be wasted in over examining life, like a scientist constantly doing experiments, there is a cost and a loss. I regular wonder would my life be more nourished if I could go back to ignorance which is where I believe most people reside. Not complete ignorance but a conformed acceptance to most things that don’t require much energy/thought , which is what most people appear to enjoy.

I reject a lot of things in society and to a large degree feel our species is fundamentally/hopelessly self absorbed, narcissistic and quite delusional on the true reality. We allow atrocities, rampant corruption (banks, politicians etc) and all sorts of double standard bullsh*t thrive out of not seeking the truth and telling ourselves a lie so we can live with the fallout.

Logically it would stand to reason that an easier life would be to accept (or ignore) this truth for what it is and choose instead to fit in and just pretend like it’s all grand. Is this life not worth living? I find this personal trait makes my job harder and my life feel like I’m an alien on a planet of people I mostly can’t relate to and I don’t know if I feel like it’s making my life more worthwhile then those who don’t give most things a second thought.

ILoveYourVibes · 25-05-2019 3:25pm

You sound like a wonderful person that would be fascinating to know.

I don't think i will answer your question philosophically. But rather from a historical and personal perspective if that is ok.

The dictum was uttered by Socrates at his trial at which he was sentenced to death 'for corrupting the youth' under a corrupt govt.

Socrates was a philosopher he came up with the Socratic method of cross examining and argument of disproof. Its used in every legal court in the world today still. He came up with the idea of using method to define things like virtue or justice.

Think for a moment if Socrates had lived a unexamined life, there would be no Plato, no Aristotle. Socrates and Thales contributed greatly to the Pythagoreans as did Aristotle and Plato later. Areas like physics and law would be much poorer. All science owes him.

What would the world be like if Socrates had said nah.....i will continue to be a sculpture.

At his trial people were saying he was corrupting the Youth to doubt the existence of gods and question the justice system. And he was he was shaking things up as he always had.

He was sentenced to death by hemlock.

People were saying it would have been better if he had no challenged the govt and led a quiet life.

It was his response to them. It would not have been worth living that way.

If you are a singer you have to sing. If you are a scientist you have to examine.

And it would have been a selfish life. We are much the richer for his examined life.

It was his statement at the end when his friends were trying to get him to walk around quicker to get the hemlock to work fast to ease his pain.... 'The unexamined life is not worth living'. I did it my way and i wouldn't have done it any other way.

Maybe you understand now.

[Deleted User] · 25-05-2019 3:34pm

I believe one should be possessed of an innate curiosity, whether to ascribe a label to one who doesn't have a thirst for knowledge is another matter. We're all unique, with different value systems. Ignorance doesn't necessarily enter into it. Personally, new experiences are a significant driver in augmenting my horizons and meeting the criteria of a life experienced to the fullest extent.

Drumpot · 25-05-2019 5:30pm

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

You sound like a wonderful person that would be fascinating to know.

I don't think i will answer your question philosophically. But rather from a historical and personal perspective if that is ok.

The dictum was uttered by Socrates at his trial at which he was sentenced to death 'for corrupting the youth' under a corrupt govt.

Socrates was a philosopher he came up with the Socratic method of cross examining and argument of disproof. Its used in every legal court in the world today still. He came up with the idea of using method to define things like virtue or justice.

Think for a moment if Socrates had lived a unexamined life, there would be no Plato, no Aristotle. Socrates and Thales contributed greatly to the Pythagoreans as did Aristotle and Plato later. Areas like physics and law would be much poorer. All science owes him.

What would the world be like if Socrates had said nah.....i will continue to be a sculpture.

At his trial people were saying he was corrupting the Youth to doubt the existence of gods and question the justice system. And he was he was shaking things up as he always had.

He was sentenced to death by hemlock.

People were saying it would have been better if he had no challenged the govt and led a quiet life.

It was his response to them. It would not have been worth living that way.

If you are a singer you have to sing. If you are a scientist you have to examine.

And it would have been a selfish life. We are much the richer for his examined life.

It was his statement at the end when his friends were trying to get him to walk around quicker to get the hemlock to work fast to ease his pain.... 'The unexamined life is not worth living'. I did it my way and i wouldn't have done it any other way.

Maybe you understand now.

Thanks for that (and the compliment!), I thought it was more that you should examine and challenge your every belief/thought. Is it more that life is not worth living unless you stay true to who you are and the examined truths you hold dear?

Its funny you should mention singing as I love music. I dont think of myself as artistic on any level but I absolutely love music and how it can inspire emotions in me that not many things can. I can sing a bit, havent in a while mind you, but I have been avoiding an offer from my brother in law to over to his house and sing with him. Hes a musician who follows his passion and I really admire it, but I have put it off for fear of not meeting my own expectations.

Deleted User wrote: »

I believe one should be possessed of an innate curiosity, whether to ascribe a label to one who doesn't have a thirst for knowledge is another matter. We're all unique, with different value systems. Ignorance doesn't necessarily enter into it. Personally, new experiences are a significant driver in augmenting my horizons and meeting the criteria of a life experienced to the fullest extent.

I agree with you but your point on ignorance has peaked my interest. I hope it didnt sound like I was insulting people who just dont agree or think like me, that was not my intention. I don't presume that ignorance is necessarily always a negative or a bad trait. In many regards I think we are all ignorant on different levels because we need to be frugal when apportioning our thoughts/energy and in some cases its a necessity (like bereavement process or getting over traumatic events).

Simple example is 3rd world countries or global warming. Both horrible situations with potentially devastating consequences for hundreds of million of men, woman and children. I have a basic understanding of both but choose to not spend much time or money on either. I may throw a few quid to a charity from time to time but I feel too inconsequential to make a difference and prioritize the people I care about within my own universe.

I do goto a support group where I hopefully help others but its not much to be honest. Some people allow charity to become their life and can ignore other aspects of their lives as a result. Do we all not make active choices to ignore certain things for a multitude of reasons ? (doesn't make us good/bad people, I think its just human nature).

Its interesting you mentioned new experiences because for a few years I was trying out all sorts of different things. Acting, singing, different exercises, Philosophy, reading, meditation, religion, sports and I am still a little lost for passion. I haven't worked out where or how to channel my curiosity.

I find modern society has sold its soul to the money gods. Its ironic when you see so many people desperate to see the fall of religion and yet they fail to see the rising tide of the church of economics that now controls our lives no less then the devotion to the church. We have replaced priests with business men in suits. To me that's complete surrender of curiosity and a drive for knowledge because its just swapping one all conquering power for another. Perception is what drives the economy's, companies and politics of the world , more so then intrinsic value or value systems. The same could of been said of the church at one time.

The richest people in the world, financially, are more then likely to be investors or criminals or people with quite flexible morals/ethics, not innovators or overly intelligent or people who drive our species forward. The value we place on truth and intelligence seems remarkably pathetic and many of us tell ourselves a lie so we dont have to truly reflect on the long term ramifications of the society we choose to not really challenge.

We are animals making sh*t up as we go along, congratulating ourselves when we surprise ourselves by doing something positive but possibly heading to global annihilation. We rely on fear to drive so many things , including starting stopping or preventing wars , its absolutely nuts. Sorry to go off in a tangent but at the root cause of many of our instincts is a untrue story that we tell ourselves. That story determines how I view and interpret the world which is not necessarily the truth. So did I take the red pill or the blue pill ? Or a bit of both ? I feel sometimes like Im taking crazy pills when I sit back and really reflect on the state of the world. .

Joe1919 · 27-05-2019 12:05am

'The unexamined life is not worth living' in my view mainly refers to internal self examination rather than about truth or knowledge of the world. In the 'Apology' Socrates also refers to the 'Oracle of the Delphi' whose famous slogan was 'know thyself'. Socrates himself claimed that he was ignorant but in knowing that he was ignorant, he was wiser than others, who were not aware of their own ignorance.
Socrates is often seen as a skeptic. He thinks all we see are like shadows on the wall of a cave.

Drumpot · 27-05-2019 12:55am

Joe1919 wrote: »

'The unexamined life is not worth living' in my view mainly refers to internal self examination rather than about truth or knowledge of the world. In the 'Apology' Socrates also refers to the 'Oracle of the Delphi' whose famous slogan was 'know thyself'. Socrates himself claimed that he was ignorant but in knowing that he was ignorant, he was wiser than others, who were not aware of their own ignorance.
Socrates is often seen as a skeptic. He thinks all we see are like shadows on the wall of a cave.

Sounds very much like the vigorous moral inventory alcoholics are suggested they carry out with another person in steps 4 and 5. The other person is a kind of cheque and balance to help filter out delusions and false impressions we have on ourselves , others and our lives. But this step is about shattering the lies that prevents true clarity. Only by seeing our true self can we change into who we were meant to be, preferably the best version of ourselves.

The unexamined life is not worth living. Is it really?

Comments