"The Unexamined Life..."

[Sniffles]

It sounds like a royal dose of F and P vs. T and J.

How so? In terms of type, Socrates is often classified as ENTP as I've seen - and so is Aristotle(ENTX at least). I don't know what typology has to do with this.

 

[Lark]

I probably give this more thought than I should.

On one level I've got a gut reaction to say that life is worth living no matter what, I seriously revere life and reject death under almost all circumstances, I respect Socrates but complying with the sentence to drink the Hemlock is not something I would have done (perhaps this is an age and stage of development thing but anyhow). I am also more inclined to anger than despair so resignation under conditions of oppressive stress is unlikely too. So, difficult to conceive as it is, if somehow the opportunities for an examined life where limited or withdrawn, and this is difficult because even if its only personal introspection and internal dialogue its still possible, I could persist in living.

There is the other side of the equation, the hedonist who is sensually driven rather than cerebrally challenged or someone who is driven by their feelings and implusive, in so far as either of those things prevent self-mastery I could see Socrates condemning them. I would share that judgement. Its difficult to see how or in what guise this could be introduced and made to work on someone who consciously is on guard against it or perhaps is not on guard but is just living with a set of norms which are unreceptive to hedonism or emoting. However, if somehow that happened, like during a life crisis or as a result of trauma or head injury or brain injury, I would still consider life worth living.

There is a sense in which if you took this edict seriously it would become a sort of living will, as in DNR or if I'm brain injured "just euthenise me". Short of that, because I dont accept that, at least not for me personally, I can accept Socrates value judgement that thinking and judging are better ways to be and routes to self-mastery or a design for life.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Who gave either person the right to be the final arbiter on what makes a life worth living, or to claim what is the most unethical statement a man has ever made? Two peas in a pod.

I want to know who needs to be granted the authority to make such an arbitration.

 

[Lark]

How so? In terms of type, Socrates is often classified as ENTP as I've seen - and so is Aristotle(ENTX at least). I don't know what typology has to do with this.

It is perhaps not typology in the shape of what you are in so much as traits he felt should be an objective for personal growth and development.

The implication of what he's saying seems to be TJ good and FP, not so much.

 

[kyuuei]

Geeze, I wonder what Jaguar will do with the population of people willing to play his games shrinking by the day

In this circumstance, if Jaguar didn't point it out, I probably would have.. The way the post was worded, there is little differentiation between him insulting the entirety of those types based on his experience with them and.. well.. I can't think of how else he meant it honestly. Even if he did mean it another way, the wording is so off that there isn't much to go by except talking-down-to and insults.

 

[Rasofy]

In this circumstance, if Jaguar didn't point it out, I probably would have.. The way the post was worded, there is little differentiation between him insulting the entirety of those types based on his experience with them and.. well.. I can't think of how else he meant it honestly. Even if he did mean it another way, the wording is so off that there isn't much to go by except talking-down-to and insults.

It was never my objective. Just edited it to clarify:
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52738&p=1753169&viewfull=1#post1753169

 

[Jaguar]

Geeze, I wonder what Jaguar will do with the population of people willing to play his games shrinking by the day

I don't play games, Larky. You do.

 

[Sniffles]

Well so much for the discussion about Socrates.

 

[Rasofy]

Geeze, I wonder what Jaguar will do with the population of people willing to play his games shrinking by the day

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.)

 

[King sns]

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.)

Better luck next time.

 

[Lark]

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.)

Could be a bot?

 

[Rasofy]

Could be a bot?

Quite possible.

Better luck next time.

Nice try.

 

[Jaguar]

Could be a bot?

Bots abound.

the above made you sound like an anti-homosexual bigot.

Or are you just a socialist bigot

 

[Such Irony]

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.

 

[Ginkgo]

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.

 

[swordpath]

Sounds like a valid claim to me.

 

[Ginkgo]

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.

------------

[MENTION=4212]Peguy[/MENTION] : 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.

Ramble ramble ramble.

 

[IntrovertedThinker]

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.

Good luck.

 

[Stanton Moore]

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?

 

[EcK]

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.

[MENTION=4212]Peguy[/MENTION]

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.