There is an endless row of examples from human culture where one person's bad is another person's good. — baker

Correct. But this is what examination of one's thoughts, words, and actions is for.

Can we be reasonably sure that he wouldn't support Trump? Or Hitler? Remember, in ancient Greece, they practiced selective infanticide; unfit or unwanted babies were removed from society. And that was deemed good. — baker

Perhaps we can't be sure that he wouldn't. But we can't be sure that he would either. Personally, I doubt that Plato would have supported Hitler or Stalin. None of them sounds like the ideal philosopher-king to me. Besides, this is all speculation.

Selective infanticide was practiced in Ancient Greece? So, female infanticide is not practiced in Modern India? And abortion is not being practiced all over the world?

There is an endless row of examples from human culture where one person's bad is another person's good.
— baker

Correct. But this is what examination of one's thoughts, words, and actions is for. — Apollodorus

To what use, to what end?
Unless one is omniscient, or gifted with enormous self-confidence, then how can one possibly know what is truly, objectively good?

Perhaps we can't be sure that he wouldn't. But we can't be sure that he would either. Personally, I doubt that Plato would have supported Hitler or Stalin. None of them sounds like the ideal philosopher-king to me. Besides, this is all speculation.

We don't know, exactly, and there is just too much at stake to open ourselves up to a philosopher from a past time and take him as our spiritual master.

Selective infanticide was practiced in Ancient Greece? So, female infanticide is not practiced in Modern India? And abortion is not being practiced all over the world?

We aren't talking about taking Hindus or some other people as our spiritual masters.

To what use, to what end?
Unless one is omniscient, or gifted with enormous self-confidence, then how can one possibly know what is truly, objectively good? — baker

Well, if you work on the premise that what is good for some is bad for others, then either (a) nothing is truly good or (b) you just have to decide which option is the best in any given situation and act according to that and to your best abilities.

What other option would you suggest?

We don't know, exactly, and there is just too much at stake to open ourselves up to a philosopher from a past time and take him as our spiritual master. — baker

There is no need to take Plato as our spiritual master. He is only a guide that suggests one path out of many. If people know a better path, they are free to take it.

But the true master is the nous, our own intelligence. Our task is to learn to listen what it has to communicate to us. This is the meaning of self-examination.

Unless one is omniscient, or gifted with enormous self-confidence, then how can one possibly know what is truly, objectively good? — baker

This is the fundamental problem of Socratic philosophy. We do not have knowledge of the good itself. And yet, we all desire what is good for us, even if we do not know what that is. (Republic 505d) The Socratic task is to the best of our abilities to determine what is best knowing that what seems to be best may not be what is best.

Plato puts a great deal of emphasis on the nature of a person. But this alone is not enough:

the best natures become exceptionally bad when they get bad instruction (491e).

To this end, the education of the guardians of the city, from which the philosopher-kings will be found, is primarily in gymnastics and music. (376e)

The question of the good is best addressed, to the extent it is possible, by becoming good, that is, by the development of a soul that is just and beautiful (well proportioned). But, of course, we do not have the standard by which to measure the extent to which we are good. The desire to know the good in order to be good and live a good life, seems to be the best guide available to us.

Well, if you work on the premise that what is good for some is bad for others, then either (a) nothing is truly good or (b) you just have to decide which option is the best in any given situation and act according to that and to your best abilities.

What other option would you suggest? — Apollodorus

There is at least one further option, namely, that God is a tribalist, has a chosen tribe, and the objectively good is what is good for that tribe. This is what Jehovah is like, for example. And so that if one has had the misfortune of not being born into that tribe, then one is just doomed to bad things. If such is the case, then your option b above cannot apply.

Other than that, the issue at hand is the resolution of a person's fundamental moral (and other) doubts, which is a complex topic.

There is no need to take Plato as our spiritual master. He is only a guide that suggests one path out of many. If people know a better path, they are free to take it.

But the true master is the nous, our own intelligence. Our task is to learn to listen what it has to communicate to us. This is the meaning of self-examination.

This reminds me of a phenomenon we can readily observe among Western Buddhists. Namely, there are Western Buddhists who believe that the Buddha said this

“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and common sense.”

and that if they act accordingly, they are acting in line with the Buddha's instructions and are on the path to enlightenment.
If, however, one were to inquire about the matter from actual Buddhists, esp. the Asian ones, and from the Early Buddhist texts, they would make it clear that the Buddha never said such a thing, nor that acting in line with that slogan makes for Buddhist practice.

Similarly, I suspect that simply acting in line with one's intelligence is not what Plato would applaud.
For one, it's inevitable that everyone acts in line with one's intelligence, so the idea is a non-starter to begin with.
For two, it's too general. I don't know the details, but I think it's is likely that just like the Buddha mentioned above, Plato, too, actually had very specific activities in mind and had a very specific moral system, and that only acting in line with that particular moral system would count as living an examined life, but not with others.

The question of the good is best addressed, to the extent it is possible, by becoming good, that is, by the development of a soul that is just and beautiful (well proportioned). But, of course, we do not have the standard by which to measure the extent to which we are good. The desire to know the good in order to be good and live a good life, seems to be the best guide available to us. — Fooloso4

But when you put it this way, it's so vague that it includes Hitler and Mother Theresa, anyone and anything.

Other than that, the issue at hand is the resolution of a person's fundamental moral (and other) doubts, which is a complex topic. — baker

Correct. So, ultimately, it is for the individual to work out a solution. With or without help from others, as the case may be. I think the main thing would be to be honest with oneself and make an informed effort to do one's best.

I suspect that simply acting in line with one's intelligence is not what Plato would applaud.
For one, it's inevitable that everyone acts in line with one's intelligence, so the idea is a non-starter to begin with. — baker

But according to Plato the nous does not exist in a vacuum. If we consider that it possesses latent knowledge of the Forms or is otherwise in contact with higher forms of knowledge or aspects of reality, then I think we begin to get a different picture.

I think it's is likely that just like the Buddha mentioned above, Plato, too, actually had very specific activities in mind and had a very specific moral system, — baker

Of course Plato had a moral system. In the first place, there were general guidelines of ethical conduct many of which were reflected in Greek custom and law, e.g., injunctions against murder, theft, adultery, perjury, slander, disrespecting the Gods and your parents, etc.

This was followed by the cultivation of the four cardinal virtues, self-control, courage, wisdom, and righteousness.

The acquisition of higher knowledge came after a period of moral and intellectual training that enabled the philosopher to understand what he was doing and what the way forward was.

In fact, this was the standard procedure in most Greek (and other) traditions and was later adopted by Early Christianity.

The focus is on oneself, on self-examination. One cannot do more than they are willing and capable of doing. Self-deception is a problem and includes a lack of awareness of the deception.

The examined life is not prescriptive. One can follow some set of rules or standards, but what is their origin? Is there a realm of moral truths? Did you discover them on your own? If so, how? Can you know you got it right? Or are they what you are told by some authority? Is obedience to them a rejection of the examined life? Doesn't the examined life include an examination of standards? Does that examination come to an end when one is satisfied that they now have the answer? Or should that satisfaction be examined too?

The examined life is not prescriptive. — Fooloso4

And yet all ideas of the "examined life" are prescriptive. There exist lists of questions one _should_ ask oneself in order to "examine one's life".

So, ultimately, it is for the individual to work out a solution. — Apollodorus

I doubt Plato or Socrates would ever say such a thing, at least they wouldn't mean it in the general sense that your sentence suggests.

And yet all ideas of the "examined life" are prescriptive. — baker

If the examined life is prescriptive then there is no need to examine, just do what is prescribed. And yet, some will ask about what is prescribed - Is what is prescribed what is best? Are there other prescriptions that are at odds with these?

There exist lists of questions one _should_ ask oneself in order to "examine one's life". — baker

There are? What is on those lists? Where can they be found? Are the questions unquestioned?

I doubt Plato or Socrates would ever say such a thing, at least they wouldn't mean it in the general sense that your sentence suggests. — baker

But, Baker, if we bear in mind that in Platonism the true individual is the nous, etc. as explained above, then I think there should be less doubt about it.

Unless you have a better suggestion ....

There are? What is on those lists? Where can they be found? Are the questions unquestioned? — Fooloso4

Some examples:

The Catholic examen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination_of_conscience

Naikan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naikan

The questions/items in the High Performance Planner
https://www.highperformanceplanner.com/

The millions of self-help books like this:
https://www.amazon.com/Question-Yourself-Questions-Explore-Reveal/dp/B089J17DN5/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&qid=1631040204&refinements=p_27%3ADave+Edelstein&s=books&sr=1-1&text=Dave+Edelstein

But, Baker, if we bear in mind that in Platonism the true individual is the nous, etc. as explained above, then I think there should be less doubt about it.

Unless you have a better suggestion .... — Apollodorus

It's not about me having a "better suggestion".

I can't quite put my finger on it, but I have a nagging suspicion that people like Plato would dismiss me as living an unexamined life. While I think that I lead an examined life, I seriously doubt they would. I know Christians and some other religious/spiritual people who tell me, with great ease and a considerable dose of contempt, that I "barely know myself", that I "don't know how things really are", that I "should sit down and finally look at myself", that I'm "not honest with myself (or others)", and so on.

I know first hand what people who advocate "to look inside" tend to be like, and it doesn't fill me with enthusiasm for the project of "self-examination". Too often, I've seen the proponents of the "examined life" simply championing their ideology, and dismissing everything else as "unexamined life". So I've become rather bitter and distrustful for the project of "self-examination".

This is not to say that every proponent of the "examined life" is like this. At this point, I'm just not sure there is an objective, ideologically neutral way to "examine one's life". But that instead, "living an examined life" goes hand in hand with embracing a particular ideology.

In the first sentence of the Examination of Conscience:

... conformity with, or deviation from, the moral law.

Here the moral law is established. The examined life for Socrates does not assume an established moral law. It inquires as to what one should do.

Naikan is about another person not oneself.

The High Performance Planner. Looks like slick marketing to get with the program and become successful.

According to the Introduction of Question Yourself Questions:

Questions give you a chance to find your own answers. I make no pretense that the questions in this book are a complete guide to anything. They are the first step ...

The questions asked in the book may be helpful but it is no substitute for living the examined life.

Naikan is about another person not oneself. — Fooloso4

It's peculiar you'd say that. The Naikan questions are about what one did to others, so they are very much a matter of self-examination.

From the link you provided:

The practice is based around asking oneself three questions about a person in one's life:

What did I receive from this person?
What did I return to this person?
What troubles, worries, unhappiness did I cause this person?

This is not a list of questions

one _should_ ask oneself in order to "examine one's life". — baker

although it can be a part of the examined life, I think Socrates would have many questions to ask in return, including why the examined life should be focused on "this person". One the one hand, he might ask about people in general or the community or city, and, on the other, about oneself - how I live, what I think, what I value.

I can't quite put my finger on it, but I have a nagging suspicion that people like Plato would dismiss me as living an unexamined life. While I think that I lead an examined life, I seriously doubt they would. I know Christians and some other religious/spiritual people who tell me, with great ease and a considerable dose of contempt, that I "barely know myself", that I "don't know how things really are", that I "should sit down and finally look at myself", that I'm "not honest with myself (or others)", and so on. — baker

Well, personally, I tend to take the opposite view. Some (most) people do not do enough examination and others too much. Examination (exetasis) must be practiced in moderation and using one’s better judgement, in order to prevent it from developing into something that we don’t want. In other words, examination needs to be individually calibrated and ideally with a bit of guidance from someone that has some experience and is in a position to offer advice.

Socrates does appear to be an extreme case, but I think this is a false impression caused by his elenctic method and apparent questioning of everything. However, I think this serves the primary purpose of educating others which also seems to be Plato’s objective in the dialogues.

To be perfectly honest, you do not sound like someone who lives an unexamined life, maybe more like a bit of a (self-)doubter, in which case I think Plato may advise you to take it easy :smile: At the end of the day, it is impossible to be absolutely certain of everything at all times and in all places. We cannot live on doubt alone, we need some degree of certitude or even “ideology” or “dogma”, as well as faith and hope (all in moderation).

Socrates himself appears to take the advice of priests, priestesses, poets, and others whenever he thinks that what they say makes sense. And, of course, he listens to the inner daimonion, the “sign” and “voice” that arise in his mind and offer him guidance, for example, by advising him against a particular course of action.

As stated before, the ultimate decision belongs to the nous, to that aspect of the soul that knows and understands and that has an intuition or recollection of what is true, beautiful, and good.

And whenever the soul gets a specially large share of either virtue or vice, owing to the force of its own will and the influence of its intercourse growing strong, then, if it is in union with divine virtue, it becomes thereby eminently virtuous, and moves to an eminent region, being transported by a holy road to another and a better region (Laws 904d).

The purpose of examination is not an end in itself, but only a means of reconnecting us with that higher knowledge within us that has direct access to truth. It must lead to introspection and to an inquiry into who or what we are.

This may or may not make sense in the beginning and may not be fully attained in this life (or ever), but with practice a degree of clarity, discernment and insight begins to take hold, like an inner conversion or transformation that leads to a new experience of life and of ourselves. And this in itself makes it worth the effort.

You are very kind.

I know first hand what people who advocate "to look inside" tend to be like, and it doesn't fill me with enthusiasm for the project of "self-examination". Too often, I've seen the proponents of the "examined life" simply championing their ideology, and dismissing everything else as "unexamined life". So I've become rather bitter and distrustful for the project of "self-examination".

This is not to say that every proponent of the "examined life" is like this. At this point, I'm just not sure there is an objective, ideologically neutral way to "examine one's life". But that instead, "living an examined life" goes hand in hand with embracing a particular ideology. — baker

:up:

To me this is also the dark side of philosophy. 'I care about truth more than you.' Socrates can be grating, a self-righteous, falsely modest clown. But maybe that's the game, and we're stuck doing versions of it. Virtue-signaling might come in every flavor but none, which is not to say that all flavors are equal.