2007-03-15 05:55:22 · 9 answers · asked by Subconsciousless 7 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
This is nonsense. And I'll tell you why:
This statement comes up when Socrates tries to defend his existance. He argues that by questioning his countrymen, he is providing a valuable service for them. If people did not reflect on what they were doing or why, they may very well be pursuing the wrong things and doing the wrong things to get what they pursue. He argues, therefore, that without such examination people are essentially acting randomly and thus are wasting their lives.
But even if we assume that he's absolutely correct - that nobody can instinctively sense what they should be doing and why - does it really follow that everybody's life will be wasted?
Sure, if someone attends an archery course, he is far more likely to hit the bullseye on a target. He knows what he is shooting at and how best to do it. But will a total novice NEVER hit the target? Or course he will... just not as much. To correspond to Socrates' assertions, we can even blindfold the novice. Even so, we can expect through sheer chance or repetition that eventually he'll get a bulls-eye that matches or even exceeds the results that even the most skilled archer might produce.
So if archery is an apt analogy for life, and people live randomly without examination, it is still reasonable to believe that some lives - by sheer chance - will be rewarding and beneficial.
I'll grant that this is probably not as high a number as those examined lives. But it's probably not as low as it might seem, either... Socrates himself argues in a later work that knowledge is intrinsic so there could arguably be MANY people who DO intrinsically know all those things that we assumed they wouldn't in the beginning. I think this matches with observation, too: some people DO seem to do the right things without reflecting on them.
So it goes. Peace.
2007-03-15 07:54:08 · answer #1 · answered by Doctor Why 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well how I was given the quote by Socrates is "the unexamined life is not worth living." I agree with both.
If a life is not examined it simply means it is not looked upon it is not assessed by anyone - and this includes the self - and when we look for such examples, where do we find them - how many people that really say, "I don't care about my life" end up in college? How many of them stay in school long enough to have matriculation requirements for college? Obviously, if you don't care about your life and has achieved alot it says that someone was looking out for you and looking at you to tell you what to do, thus makes your life examined.
In essence I am saying that life is of value, and the unexamined life is one which makes a mockery of everything good about oneself. Such a life really is wasted and really isn't worth living.
2007-03-15 07:32:27 · answer #2 · answered by purrrfix 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think living with your head in the clouds and never reflecting upon your life and your affect on others is foolish. and you will never really learn or grow as a person by doing this. but at the same time, people over-examine/over-analyze things and that's not really productive either.
but in general, yes, i believe that an unexamined life is wasted indeed.
2007-03-15 06:19:46 · answer #3 · answered by turkeybacon 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes I agree, because there are a lot of things in life that you can't appreciate fully without reflecting on them. Also, when Socrates said that, he was asserting people's responsibility to examine their lives as an alternative to living a life of complacency. I think we all have a responsibility to think about what we say, do, and think. If we do not have good reasons for what we think and do, then we are not as entitled to do them as someone who does. Our decisions should not be arbitrary, but should be based on reasonable thought, logic, and examination.
Aristotle would add that philosophical thought or examination is one of the most fulfilling activities that a person can do, and that a person is not living up to their full potential as a reasoning being if they do not do it.
2007-03-15 06:17:45 · answer #4 · answered by IQ 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I agree. When people just live day to day and don't make an effort to improve themselves, they are living unexamined lives.
Most people stay in one area, do the same things day in and day out, never take chances, never try anything new. To me, these people are not living, but just existing.
2007-03-15 06:01:41 · answer #5 · answered by Nepetarias 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I used to think so. But there are some people who simply derive no pleasure from examining themselves. So why should they be told their lives are wasted b/c they are not as intellectually curious as I am? Why am I the standard? Or whoever said that quote?
2007-03-15 07:33:12 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, I don't agree, because a person could still have a positive effect on others, and/or the world at large, without "examining" their life.
2007-03-15 06:00:36 · answer #7 · answered by Todd W 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree. It is a life without depth or understanding. Just skimming the surface - existing rather than living.
2007-03-15 16:03:36 · answer #8 · answered by concernedjean 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
depends on whom is doing the examining and why they are examining it, don't you agree? the IRS or the DEA isn't the same as a philosophy class
2007-03-15 06:03:08 · answer #9 · answered by BANANA 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋