You could say this same ...
— baker

You could, I wouldn't. — Fooloso4

Why not? I summon you to clarify your criteria for what type of examination counts as proper examination, and what doesn't.
Because your earlier formula is too general, it applies both the likes of, say, Hitler, and to the Dalai Lama.
You need to be more specific, so that your formula cannot be applied to what would generally be considered cases of psychopathology.

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. — Fooloso4

Exactly.

Now, the question is, what in particular is good, just, and noble.

Correct. You need to start from a general principle that you then apply on a case-to-case basis to particular situations as evaluated on their own merits.

Socrates (or Plato) chose to start from the idea of the Good from which flow truth, order, justice, beauty, etc. This isn't a bad start, if we think about it. It certainly isn't "skepticism" or "nihilism".

I summon you — baker

You summon me?

You need to be more specific, so that your formula cannot be applied to what would generally be considered cases of psychopathology. — baker

Socratic philosophy is not formulaic. It is about the development of phronesis.

Now, the question is, what in particular is good, just, and noble. — baker

And that is why it cannot be reduced to a formula. Each case, each particular, must be examined as to whether it should be regarded as such. But this cannot be done with also questioning what the good, and just, and noble are. Socrates was not satisfied with what is said to be good, just, and noble, he spent his life inquiring about such things.

I think its pretty straight forward, “unexamined” means thoughtless, unreflective…life isnt worth living unless it is given thought, contemplated, otherwise you might as well be an inanimate object. — DingoJones

I agree.

BTW, I am new here and I wanted to "upvote" your comment, so I clicked the flag icon, thinking I would be asked something or select an option. Nothing of all that. It just geyed out! I searched the place to find its meaning but in vain. What is it used for? I hope it does not mean something bad!

The flag is used to bring a post to the attention of a moderator, for when you notice someone breaking forum rules.

Socratic philosophy is not formulaic. It is about the development of phronesis. — Fooloso4

:100:

The flag is used to bring a post to the attention of a moderator, for when you notice someone breaking forum rules. — DingoJones

Ah, finally! Thanks. So it is a "bad" thing, i.e. a report on something considered bad!
I clicked on it only to see what it is and hopefully upvote your post. I expected to be asked something and be able to cancel it if it was a mistake! And the effect was the opposite! And it was too late. I couldn't "unflag" it! Horrible! They don't even mention anything about flagging anywhere! What administration is this?
Can you tell me please how can I remove/cancel this stupid and false flagging?
Thanks again.

Dont worry about it, it just brings a post to mod attention so they will have seen my flagged post and most likely ignore the flag after reading the post and seeing no rules breaches.

Dont worry about it, it just brings a post to mod attention so they will have seen my flagged post and most likely ignore the flag after reading the post and seeing no rules breaches. — DingoJones

Thanks. That's better!
Now, since, as I understand, you are a moderator, how can one upvote a post (topic or comment)? I mean just upvote, w/o replying/commenting.

Im not a moderator. I think the up vote feature has been disabled.

OK. Thanks, @DingoJones!

I imagine Hitler, for example, spent quite a bit of time in self-examination.
Why shouldn't his count as an "examined life"?
What are the assumptions based on which it is assumed that someone like Hitler did not live an examined life?

And that is why it cannot be reduced to a formula. Each case, each particular, must be examined as to whether it should be regarded as such. But this cannot be done with also questioning what the good, and just, and noble are. Socrates was not satisfied with what is said to be good, just, and noble, he spent his life inquiring about such things. — Fooloso4

I want you to spell out the assumptions you're working with. Ie. your assumptions about what it is that makes a life "examined".

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? — Janus

I see now you meant 'universal' in that sense, not as in 'most present in various lists of criteria for how to examine one's life'.

Those seem to me to be two different questions. I do not think I can enumerate the assumptions I am working with, but they include the assumption that questions take priority over any answers that come up with and that both the questions and answers should remain open to revision. What makes a life examined is the continued practice of examination and the correction or amendment my thoughts and actions and attitudes when it seems appropriate.

What makes a life examined is the continued practice of examination and the correction or amendment my thoughts and actions and attitudes when it seems appropriate. — Fooloso4

Appropriate to what, by what standards?

What are the assumptions based on which it is assumed that someone like Hitler did not live an examined life? — baker

Unfortunately, I don't know anything about Hitler's methods of self-examination. Assuming that he did spend quite a bit of time in self-examination as you say, it may perhaps be concluded that his self-examination was either insufficient or otherwise in some ways deficient. I would be unable to say more at this point without additional info, and I don't want to make things up.

So, the case may be that his life was not unexamined per se but only not rightly examined. That's the whole point of dikaiosyne or righteousness in Plato, to do things, including self-examination, rightly and in tune with the Just and the Good.

At any rate, the statement, "each case, each particular, must be examined as to whether it should be regarded as good, and just, and noble, and this cannot be done without also questioning what the good, and just, and noble are", sounds pretty nonsensical to me.

If you were to start questioning what the good and the just are every single time you had to think, say, or do anything, you would probably run the risk of developing a severe case of schizoaffective disorder or something of that nature.

Socrates' philosophy may not be formulaic, but when you spend all your life "inquiring about the good, the just, and the noble", then I think you must come to some conclusions, however provisional, and you must develop some principles and guidelines of proper conduct. Otherwise the whole enterprise would be a total waste of time if not worse.

Unfortunately, I don't know anything about Hitler's methods of self-examination. Assuming that he did spent quite a bit of time in self-examination as you say, it may perhaps be concluded that his self-examination was either insufficient or otherwise in some ways deficient. I would be unable to say more at this point without additional info, and I don't want to make things up. — Apollodorus

I picked Hitler as an extreme example of someone who, by popular opinion, went horribly astray, but who, at the same time, cannot be said to be someone who was merely a robot without any self-awareness. For example, he carefully prepared his speeches and public appearances, and we can infer from that that he examined his life.

So, the case may be that his life was not unexamined per se but only not rightly examined. That's the whole point of dikaiosyne or righteousness in Plato, to do things, including self-examination, rightly and in tune with the Just and the Good.

But the Nazis did believe that what they were doing was good, just, and noble.

At any rate, the statement, "each case, each particular, must be examined as to whether it should be regarded as good, and just, and noble, and this cannot be done without also questioning what the good, and just, and noble are", sounds pretty nonsensical to me.

If you were to start questioning what the good and the just are every single time you had to think, say, or do anything, you would probably run the risk of developing a severe case of schizoaffective disorder or something of that nature.

Socrates' philosophy may not be formulaic, but when you spend all your life "inquiring about the good, the just, and the noble", then I think you must come to some conclusions, however provisional, and you must develop some principles and guidelines of proper conduct. Otherwise the whole enterprise would be a total waste of time if not worse.

Exactly. In the examination of one's life, there must be constants and variables, there can't be only variables. And the constants must not be mere meta things or generalities, in order to serve as a meaningful basis for self-examination.

Socrates (or Plato) chose to start from the idea of the Good from which flow truth, order, justice, beauty, etc. This isn't a bad start, if we think about it. It certainly isn't "skepticism" or "nihilism". — Apollodorus

Yes. The eternal search for truth, beauty, goodness. I agree.

imagine Hitler, for example, spent quite a bit of time in self-examination.
Why shouldn't his count as an "examined life"? — baker

I've read a number of biographies of Hitler (whatever that's worth) and it does appear clear that Hitler spent many thousands of hours contemplating the classic themes - hence his obsession with culture, art, music, architecture, health, nobility, race. He might have been less than assiduous when it comes to reflecting upon 'goodness' but I believe he thought that this plans would lead to a greater good.

he thought that this plans would lead to a greater good — Tom Storm

It would be strange for a person to pursue what they genuinely believe is bad. It's not clear it's even humanly possible to deliberately pursue the bad for the sake of the bad (to be differentiated from doing some bad things in the pursuit of the greater good).

Totally agree.

It is not a matter of standards, but of consideration of the consequences for the well-being of myself and others. There is, however, always the possibility that I get it wrong, that what I thought would be of benefit caused more harm than good.

In order to measure these things empathy, compassion, and care are needed. In addition, self-knowledge is essential. Self-knowledge requires being honest with myself, knowing what I want and expect from myself, what I value, and what my motivations are.

Exactly. In the examination of one's life, there must be constants and variables, there can't be only variables. And the constants must not be mere meta things or generalities, in order to serve as a meaningful basis for self-examination. — baker

Absolutely correct. This is why I do not believe for a moment that Socrates was a "skeptic" or "nihilist" and I believe that the likes of Leo Strauss and other anti-Platonists are simply delusional. On the contrary, I think what emerges from the dialogues is the image of a principled man who knew exactly what was right and what was wrong and always acted in accordance with what is good, as far as possible.

As for the Nazis, they may have believed that what they were doing was right, and some of the things they did may even have been right. But at the end of the day it is a matter of balance. Socrates believes in divine judgement in the afterlife and punishment or reward in accordance with one's actions as explained in the Phaedo. So what matters is the balance of your actions. If they were more bad than good, then you get judged and punished accordingly, period.

This is why for Socrates the first and chief concern in life should be for the highest welfare of the soul.
The soul must be made pure, virtuous, and wise, and this is done by ignoring material things as far as practicable and by developing the virtues of self-control, courage, prudence, righteousness, discernment, etc. And this means acting according to certain moral principles.

When you need to act, you act according to some principles, guidelines or rules. You don't act according to doubting and questioning unless there is something wrong with you. You act according to what you and your fellow citizens believe to be right. It may still turn out to be wrong, but that's the best you can do. You use right opinion (orthe doxa), reason (episteme), and personal experience (gnosis) to determine the best course of action. And hope for the best :smile:

He might have been less than assiduous when it comes to reflecting upon 'goodness' but I believe he thought that this plans would lead to a greater good. — Tom Storm

Yes. I think the main reasoning there was political rather than ethical. And if it is true that Stalin was preparing to invade Germany, then the German leadership was in a very difficult situation indeed. True, he did declare Jews and others enemies of the state, but Stalin did exactly the same with anyone that disagreed with him or that he suspected, rightly or wrongly, of disagreeing with him. It doesn't make sense to condemn one evil and condone another. This itself would be an unexamined thing to do according to Socrates and Plato.

In the examination of one's life, there must be constants and variables, there can't be only variables. — baker

Socrates did not frame it in terms of constants versus variables but of knowledge versus opinion. We do not have knowledge of the just, noble (beautiful), and good, we have opinions. We must act on our opinions. The mistake that Socrates sought to correct was in assuming that one's opinions are not opinions but knowledge, and thus not subject to critical examination or correction.

We do not have knowledge of the just, noble (beautiful), and good, we have opinions. We must act on our opinions. The mistake that Socrates sought to correct was in assuming that one's opinions are not opinions but knowledge, and thus not subject to critical examination or correction. — Fooloso4

:up:

The problem that leaves me with, is whether anyone knows anything at all. If all anyone has is opinions, then where is the lodestar?

I also had the idea that opinion, doxa, concerned mainly the sensible realm whereas knowledge, noesis, concerned the realm of the ideas. Am I mistaken in so thinking?

If all anyone has is opinions, then where is the lodestar? — Wayfarer

Not only that, but if all opinion, including opinion about opinion, is to be perpetually doubted, questioned, and inquired into, no criteria are available on which to do that, and all results or conclusions are to be doubted, questioned, looked into, and dismissed as "opinion", then is there any point in pursuing this supposedly "examined life" or are we on the road (or shortcut) to a situation where we need to be examined by others?

I imagine Hitler, for example, spent quite a bit of time in self-examination.
Why shouldn't his count as an "examined life"?
What are the assumptions based on which it is assumed that someone like Hitler did not live an examined life? — baker

I think some of the confusion comes from zeroing in on "examined" -- and that said confusion is, if not resolved, at least addressed by the apology. The examined life is something pursued by Socrates, so the life of Socrates gives us the context within which we can infer what might be meant by the examined life.

Correct. Plato's dialogues provide plenty of pointers as to what an examined life may amount to in practice. The problem seems to stem from some people's insistence that everything is worthless or at least questionable opinion, and that "Socrates knows nothing" and "Plato says nothing".