Do you think it boils down to ethics again? How so? — Shawn

You would need to have some familiarity with the existentialists and phenomenologists to understand what it could mean to fail to live your life. You strike me as someone who has read little philosophical literature and on account of that fails to show much nuanced understanding, and is thus given to making inapt comments.

The idea of the "examined life" is that is is examined by particular criteria, but which are not universal. — baker

The most universal criteria for examining whether or not you are living your life is the question of whether or not you have the courage to own your fears and failings, and do your best to overcome them. It is, as Jaspers put it, "the loving struggle to become who you are".

That is a tough measure. But there it is.

Should you be determining whether some life, other than your own, is worth living or not, examined or not? — Harry Hindu

You would need to have some familiarity with the existentialists and phenomenologists to understand what it could mean to fail to live your life. You strike me as someone who has read little philosophical literature and on account of that fails to show much nuanced understanding, and is thus given to making inapt comments. — Janus

So it is your position that existentialists and phenomenologists are the ones that determine whether any life is worth living? Is this who examines your life to make this determination?

I think reading too much philosophical literature is a waste of time, as most of it is just obfuscating for the purpose of selling books. I find that thinking logically is all that is needed and for that, reading computer programming books and trying your hand at computer programming would do you well, or else you fail to show much reasonable understanding, and thus given to asking silly questions.

I find that thinking logically is all that is needed and for that, reading computer programming books and trying your hand at computer programming would do you well, or else you fail to show much reasonable understanding, and thus given to asking silly questions. — Harry Hindu

Ohhhkay. This confesses much. :zip:

It's more of a statement than a confession. Computer programming uses computer languages. Learning a computer language helps you use your native language in a more consistent manner without the need to embellish or obfuscate your meaning. If learning a computer language is a form of programming, as you are implying, then learning a language of any sort would be a form of programming, as you are implying. :roll:

The fact that you are disagreeing with logic as necessary component of reasonable discourse, or conflating the use of logic and being programmed, confesses much.

Your complete misread of what my remark is symptomatic of a profoundly misplaced (ass backwards) preference of computer programming (formal syntactics) to the exclusion of philosophical discourse (natural semantics) as a model, or ideal, of reasoning.

...the examined life is of importance to Socrates in that it may lead to various terms that lead to a better life. Such terms can be called, "enlightened", "rational", "virtuous".

Yet, without context these terms are ambiguous in terms of living an examined life. If we to take what Socrates said as important to ourselves, then what does it mean to live an examined life, as surely it is to our benefit to do so?

Do you think it boils down to ethics again? How so?

Or more technically, what kind of analysis or even methodology should a person incorporate when doing this examination? Isn't it really psychoanalysis?

Contemplation seems to be the natural arising thought in regards to the issue. So, what kind of contemplation? — Shawn

Well I hate to bring up a methodology by name being hammered out (upon) elsewhere, but the examination (contemplation) of ordinary thresholds and procedures (criteria) in contexts, for, as an example: an excuse, teaches us about ourselves (our actions) and how we take responsibility and avoid it, etc. The further argument, by Wittgenstein among others, is this makes one a better person, or able to see (be enlightened as to) where our part comes in (what virtue is). Socrates, unfortunately, was only looking for one (kind of) answer, rather than necessary for each practice (concept) in its own way.

Your complete misread of what my remark is symptomatic of a profoundly misplaced (ass backwards) preference of computer programming (formal syntactics) to the exclusion of philosophical discourse (natural semantics) as a model, or ideal, of reasoning. — 180 Proof

And your misread of the post you were replying to stated that not reading to much, as opposed to not reading at all, philosophy is a good thing. My point, that your post doesn't address, is that philosophy itself has made the assertion that most of the problems in philosophy are the result of a misuse of natural semantics.

"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language."
Wittgenstein
https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/09/take-a-wittgenstein-class-he-explains-the-problems-of-translating-language-computer-science-and-artificial-intelligence.html

Its the thought that counts. — DingoJones

Tell that to yourself next time when you're hungry.

The most universal criteria for examining whether or not you are living your life is the question of whether or not you have the courage to own your fears and failings, and do your best to overcome them. — Janus

This sounds like something out of an American self-help book, and certainly not universal.

Your "point" is irrelevant and amounts to a hasty generalization fallacy, typical of philosophically sub-literate spaghetti coders.

In another thread about the importance of psychology, I stated that the examined life is of importance to Socrates in that it may lead to various terms that lead to a better life. Such terms can be called, "enlightened", "rational", "virtuous".

Yet, without context these terms are ambiguous in terms of living an examined life. If we to take what Socrates said as important to ourselves, then what does it mean to live an examined life, as surely it is to our benefit to do so?

Do you think it boils down to ethics again? How so? — Shawn

I'm taking a snippet from the Apology that you're referencing:

What should I fear? That I should suffer the penalty Meletus has assessed against me, of which I say I do not know whether it is good or bad? Am I then to choose in preference to this something that I know very well to bean evil and assess the penalty at that? Imprisonment? Why should I live in prison, always subjected to the ruling magistrates the Eleven? A fine, and imprisonment until I pay it? That would be the same thing for me, as I have no money. Exile? for perhaps you might accept that assessment.

I should have to be inordinately fond of life, gentlemen of the jury, to be so unreasonable as to suppose that other men will easily tolerate my company and conversation when you, my fellow citizens, have been unable to endure them, but found them a burden and resented them so that you are now seeking to get rid of them. Far from it, gentlemen. It would be a fine life at my age to be driven out of one city after another, for I know very well that wherever I go the young men will listen to my talk as they do here. If I drive them away, they will themselves persuade their elders to drive me out; if I do not drive them away, their fathers and relations will drive me out on their behalf.

Perhaps someone might say: But Socrates, if you leave us will you not be able to live quietly, without talking? Now this is the most difficult point on which to convince some of you. If I say that it is impossible for me to keep quiet because that means disobeying the god, you will not believe me and will think I am being ironical. On the other hand, if I say that it is the greatest good for a man to discuss virtue every day and those other things about which you hear me conversing and testing myself and others, for the unexamined life is not worth living for man, you will believe me even less.

What I say is true, gentlemen, but it is not easy to convince you. At the same time, I am not accustomed to think that I deserve any penalty. If I had money. I would assess the penalty at the amount I could pay, for that would not hurt me, but I have none, unless you are willing to set the penalty at the amount I can pay, and perhaps I could pay you one mina of silver. So that is my assessment.

Plato here, gentlemen of the jury, and Crito and Critobulus and Apollodorus bid me put thepenalty at thirty minae, and they will stand surety for the money. Well then, that is my assessment,and they will be sufficient guarantee of payment.

What do you gather from that about the unexamined life?

What do you gather from that (the Apology) about the unexamined life? — Moliere

The lesson I take away, in contrast to an unexamined life (of common sense), is that the "examined life" isn't worth living for a poor man who also lacks the good sense to shut up and ignore his voices when it's appropriate – wise – to do so (re: good sense e.g. Aristotle fled Athens, Galileo recanted before the Holy Inquisition).

The examined life is both an examination of life and a life of examination. It is both theoretical and practical. It is a critical examination of what I think, and say, and do. It is an examination of desires, and goals, choices, and values. But since we do not live in isolation, it is also about what others think, say, do, and so on.

:up:

The examined life is both an examination of life and a life of examination. It is both theoretical and practical. It is a critical examination of what I think, and say, and do. It is an examination of desires, and goals, choices, and values. But since we do not live in isolation, it is also about what others think, say, do, and so on. — Fooloso4

This is very general. You could say this same thing about Hitler and about Mother Theresa, for example. Or the Dalai Lama. They all live(d) examined lives.

You could say this same ... — baker

You could, I wouldn't.

This sounds like something out of an American self-help book, and certainly not universal. — baker

Note I said "most universal" not 'only or absolutely universal'. I meant universal in the sense of general. Do you have a criticism of those criteria, instead of a caricature? Can you outline alternatives that are as or more universal?

I had or have a lot of sympathy for the idea that Socrates was simply too idealistic, but I think I have become more sympathetic to Socrates, over time. After all, if you are an old man who has no money and knows you will continue to aggravate the youth against the established order, no matter where you go -- and you know that silence, on your part at least, is not attainable (cuz the gods/goods told ya it's good to talk about what's good) -- then perhaps it is better to die, because you realize that no matter which city you go to you will end up the same. Might as well die now, as a martyr, than later, as a prisoner.

There's a term in Indian philosophy, 'viveka' which means 'Sense of discrimination; wisdom; discrimination between the real and the unreal, between the self and the non-self, between the permanent and the impermanent; discriminative inquiry; right intuitive discrimination; ever present discrimination between the transient and the permanent' 1 . This is strongly reminiscent of the discussion of the discernment of the Forms in the Phaedo. — Wayfarer

Viveka in the Greek tradition is diakrisis.

In Plato’s Sophist it is compared to the acts of “sifting”, “straining”, “winnowing” and “separating” and it is the basis for purification of body and soul:

Stranger
Then since there is, according to my reckoning, one art involved in all of these operations, let us give it one name.
Theaetetus
What shall we call it?
Stranger
The art of discrimination.
….
Stranger
And yet, in the instance of discrimination just mentioned there was, first, the separation of worse from better, and, secondly, of like from like.
Theaetetus
Yes, as you now express it, that is pretty clear.
Stranger
Now I know no common name for the second kind of discrimination; but I do know the name of the kind which retains the better and throws away the worse.
Theaetetus
What is it?
Stranger
Every such discrimination, as I think, is universally called a sort of purification.
Theaetetus
Yes, so it is (226c-d).

For Socrates (and Plato), the examined life is a constant examination of our beliefs and actions for the purpose of establishing what is true, good, and just.

Awareness of justice or righteousness (dikaiosyne) enables the philosopher to always act in ways that are good for himself and others.

And the faculty by which one distinguishes between what is right and what is wrong is diakrisis, “judgement”, “discrimination”, “discernment”.

Both “righteousness” and “discrimination” passed into the Christian tradition. The Church Fathers taught that “discrimination is a kind of eye and lantern of the soul”, “mother of the virtues and their guardian”, “queen among the virtues”, etc.

:up: :clap:

The "examined life", as Socrates put it, is about putting down facts next to one's weltanschauung and checking if they cohere. Essentially, does one's worldview match reality, a quintessentially scientific enterprise that ultimately, through a iterative process involving hypotheses, observational testing, reworking, and so on, until one arrives at a model of the real world that best captures reality. In the end, it's about truth, how close to it one can get without getting burnt! :chin:

Your "point" is irrelevant and amounts to a hasty generalization fallacy, typical of philosophically sub-literate spaghetti coders. — 180 Proof

:rofl:
I was simply reiterating a point made by a philosopher, something that you say that I need to read more of. So you're saying that Witt is making hasty generalizations, when other philosophers, like Russell, praised Witt's statement that I quoted as
"the most perfect example I have ever known of genius as traditionally conceived, passionate, profound, intense, and dominating."

So now Russell and Witt are philosophically sub-literate spaghetti coders? Who needs to read more or less philosophy again?

"I think everyone should learn how to program a computer because it teaches you how to think".
-Steve Jobs

I leave it to you argue with the likes of Wittgenstein, Russell and Jobs because you simply can't be depended on to be consistent and intellectually honest.

For Socrates (and Plato), the examined life is a constant examination of our beliefs and actions for the purpose of establishing what is true, good, and just.

Awareness of justice or righteousness (dikaiosyne) enables the philosopher to always act in ways that are good for himself and others. — Apollodorus

Then it begs the question of what is truth, morality and justice? That is something that needs to be examined. If they are subjective aspects of our consciousness then it is impossible to always act in ways that are always good for yourself and others. What you consider good might not be examined and interpreted in the same way as someone else. Just the fact that there are so many people in the world that believe that their personal examinations of their life indicates that it would be good and righteous to tell others how to live their lives and define for others what is good and righteous. Many people aren't happy unless they are able to dictate to others how to live their lives.

Philosophers make a lot of statements that sound nice, but fall apart when examined and integrated with the rest of what we know and don't know. I think Dennett calls them "deepities".

Then it begs the question of what is truth, morality and justice? — Harry Hindu

Good point. The Eleatic Stranger in the Sophist says:

However, the method of argument is neither more nor less concerned with the art of medicine than with that of sponging, but is indifferent if the one benefits us little, the other greatly by its purifying. It endeavors to understand what is related and what is not related in all arts, for the purpose of acquiring intelligence; and therefore it honors them all equally and does not in making comparisons think one more ridiculous than another, and does not consider him who employs, as his example of hunting, the art of generalship, any more dignified than him who employs the art of louse-catching, but only, for the most part, as more pretentious. (227a-b)

The Stranger does not care about what is good or just. His concern is only with regard to how these things are the same or different. He neglects what Socrates considers the most important distinctions. Such indifference makes the philosopher indistinguishable from the sophist. And yet, the Stranger himself frequently makes the same distinctions he says of are no concern.

Then it begs the question of what is truth, morality and justice? That is something that needs to be examined. If they are subjective aspects of our consciousness then it is impossible to always act in ways that are always good for yourself and others. What you consider good might not be examined and interpreted in the same way as someone else. — Harry Hindu

Well, doing what is good for oneself and for others is the general idea. What this means in practice remains to be determined in each particular instance.

However, to begin with, it means acting in accordance with established custom, laws, etc. Athens had a legal system. Murder, theft, adultery, perjury, slander, blasphemy, etc., were punishable by law. So, moral conduct was not subjective.

Examining your beliefs and actions would mean first of all looking into whether your actions are in accordance with law and custom, that is, in accordance with what is generally held to be right, just, or good. Beyond that, everyone has to use their intelligence, knowledge, and power of discrimination to decide on a case to case basis.

The alternative to acting in ways that are good for yourself and for others is either (1) to act selfishly or (2) act in ways that are bad not only for others but also for yourself.

The problem of the Stranger's method of diakrisis in the Sophist is addressed in the Statesman:

... you rated sophist, statesman, and philosopher at the same value, though they are farther apart in worth than your mathematical proportion can express. (257b)

The Stranger's method abstracts from value, it treats such differences as the same. Socrates too uses this method, but Socrates' divisions are not the same as the Stranger's. The method of division can treat different things as the same as well as things that are the same as different. The question then is in what way these things are the same or different and with regard to what?

What the method cannot do is evaluate. It cannot distinguish good from bad, just from unjust, noble or ignoble. The examined life requires more than a method of division. In fact, without consideration of the good and just and noble, division itself can lead to doing what is bad and unjust and ignoble.

After all, if you are an old man who has no money and knows you will continue to aggravate the youth against the established order, no matter where you go -- and you know that silence, on your part at least, is not attainable (cuz the gods/goods told ya it's good to talk about what's good) -- then perhaps it is better to die, because you realize that no matter which city you go to you will end up the same. Might as well die now, as a martyr, than later, as a prisoner. — Moliere

I agree. But I think Socrates' problem was not so much aggravating the youth as was annoying the old :smile:

Haha, yeah you're right. Had one word in my mind, and spit out the other.