I think he has a list of pre arranged one liners. "Nice try." ''Try harder.'' ''Is this the best you can do?''
Despite the foreseeability of the pattern, it can be amusing when people take the bait.
(He is gonna use a similar response to this post, and I won't bother replying.)
A man builds. A parasite asks 'Where is my share?'
A man creates. A parasite says, 'What will the neighbors think?'
A man invents. A parasite says, 'Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God... '
I can't speak for others but for myself, the phrase "The unexamined life is worth living" holds true. Maybe its because I'm so introspective- always thinking about who I really am and what I want or don't want for myself that I can't imagine living any other way. I know some people who not at all like this. Some jump from impulse to impulse without taking time for reflection. Others live by the external expectations of others, not questioning if it really suits them. I don't think these people are necessarily any more or less happy than I am or living a better or worse life. I just know that personally, I would not be happy living a life without some introspection.
5w6 or 9w1 sp/so/sx, I think
I am interested in what your friend meant about it being unethical, is it unethical because Socrates does not appear to affirm life no matter what? If he made a simple unqualified "life is worth living" statement would that be ethical and anything short of that unethical?
Socrates wouldnt have wanted to live an unexamined life, that's for sure, his manner of dying is testamony alone to that.
My friend thinks such a statement begs unanswerable questions. Like a wild goosechase. I disagree with him.
I think he's: Religious, stubborn, easily manipulated, hypocrite, and pretty dumb + ignorant.
I'm guessing he's a XSTJ 1w2.
Edit: Please notice that I'm not implying every religious person is like this, much less every 1w2 STJ. I believe stupidy comes in many flavors, and this flavor is pretty peculiar. He has every right to disagree with the statement, but the fact he called it ''unethical'' instead of ''illogical'' tells me a lot. He probably feels like his beliefs are being offended by that statement.
Haaaaaaaaaaaaahaha you have no idea who this person is.
@Peguy : My friend is minoring in philosophy. You could say he's dissilusioned with "Platocrates" because of the consequences that phrase has had and the ripples it's sent through the whole history of philosophy. He's borderline nihilistic; and I find that nihilists tend to lack intellectual honesty when they start moralizing about how people ought not to have morals or moralize themselves. This person in particular is just having problems being honest with himself but we all have our foibles. In fact the contradiction reminds me of your signature. Sometimes holding conflicting beliefs brings comfort rather than cognitive dissonance.
Socrates said, "The unexamined life is not worth living". A friend of mine thinks this was the most unethical statement a man has ever made. What do you think about it?
After sitting through all four horrible pages of this thread, I definitely must say that this was a bad way to start one. What's the point of asking people, "What do you think about that?" if you have provided almost zero exposition? As someone else pointed out, it would've been best if you had first explained why your friend believes the statement in question to be "unethical." From there, we could anaylze whether or not his claims make any sense. But to just ask people, "Do you think this statement is unethical?" just leads to boring discussion about a seemingly ambiguous statement with literally no context. Hence, people can interpret the damn thing anyway they want, so that many people could believe the statement to be unethical for many different reasons. Or, they can believe it to be "satisfactory" based on various interpretations.
So it really would be best if you explained (a) how your friend interprets this statement and (b) why he holds it to be unethical.
From there a much more meaningful and thought-provoking discussion could take place.
And I know you, later in thread, tried to explain what your friend thinks, but it was rather limited.
My friend thinks such a statement begs unanswerable questions. Like a wild goosechase.
This answer is incredibly too concise. Your explanation here begs questions itself, such as "Why does he think the statement begs unanswerable questions?" Or, "How is it like a wild goodchase?" Or, "Why does he think they are necessarily "unanswerable?" In short, if the audience has to ask these questions, you really didn't provide a satisfactory answer.
Lastly, I'm not entirely sure Socrates himself ever really said, "The unexamined life is not worth living." Mostly, it's a statement from one of Plato's dialogues, so that there's a chance that this thought is essentially Plato's own, with Socrates merely serving as a literary mouthpiece, so to speak. So perhaps it would be best to just go ahead and attribute this idea to Plato instead (as many people now do for these very reasons). Given the "Socratic problem," it's just much more prudent.
Consider a mentally impaired person, who is none-the-less, happy, but unable to examine his/her own life.
Is that life then not worth living?
If hir nature precludes examination then it is not hir eudaimonia. Therefore this statement doesn't apply to hir as the assumptions made on the nature of man in the metadata of the quote does assume 'healthy humans'.
Now I am not going to go into an ethical debate about what makes one human and so on but you have to admit that in any given generation and for as long as long as human societies have been documented there have been hints at the capacity for metacognition.
For example traces of cannibalism in early societies or tribal rites tend to indicate (except if the reality of it would be quite bizarre) the ability for abstraction and essentialism.
ps: because hunter gatherers generally had no reason to feed of human flesh other than in an attempt to absorb some of their properties into themselves. Which requires the capacity for abstract thinking.
So the claim that contemplation and self-examination in pursuit of the good life is unethical sounds rather silly to me. Gingko may have to add more details on what his friend meant. Although it probably is related to a common modern presumption of the priority of action over contemplation.
Personally I find the OP simply did not provide enough information to be answered directly so I went directly to the meaning of the sentence rather than give my opinion based on extremely incomplete information. As you did I suspected it was based on the assumption you mentioned. The idea that a preference for action is laudable and the general idea that the freedom to choose one's way in life makes any statement about 'the way one should behave' unethical as long as we arent talking about behaviors harmful to others.
But then again couldnt we say that a lack of thoughtfulness can lead to negative consequences for others and is only considered as 'fine' because the consequences are generally not directly visible but rather influence society at large.
Also about the preference for action I dont think it is as much a modern theme as a Western theme.
Expression of the post modern paradox : "For the love of god, religions are so full of shit"
Theory is always superseded by Fact...
... In theory.
“I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring.” Richard Feynman's last recorded words
"Great is the human who has not lost his childlike heart." Mencius (Meng-Tse), 4th century BCE