The dictum “unexamined life is not worth living”, is a famous dictum uttered by ancient Greek Philosopher, Socrates, during his trial for corrupting the youth and impiety, for which he became subsequently sentenced to death. The quote was reported by Plato in his Apology, which is a recollection of Socrates’s speech with the jury during Socrates trial. It is regarded as a resolution of Socrates to choose death rather than escape to exile in Thessaly or commit to silence, to live. The Socratic attitude in the dictum can be traced back to the statement of the oracle Phythia at the Delphi. His friend by the name Chaerophon went before Phythia to ask if there was any man who was wiser than Socrates at that time in Greece. Phythia answered that although Sophocles was wise, and Euripedes was wiser, it was Socrates who was the wisest of all men. Socrates understood this statement from the oracle as a communication from the god Apollo. The god Apollo was thus to become the prime directive of his reason of being. Socrates believed that a wise man was the one who believed that he knew nothing: this kind of a man has to live by examining himself and others always. In this way, his study and practice of Philosophy was godly destiny. Believing that his study and practice of philosophy was guided by a daimonic voice, disobeying god by committing to silence was worse than death (Plato 2-7).
The general interpretation of the Socrates’s dictum is that it represents a noble choice, when faced with many alternatives including daunting ones. Socrates believed that Philosophy, “the love of wisdom”, as defined by him, was the most important pursuit for humans. Specifically, pursuit for wisdom through logical arguments and questioning, by thinking and by examining was the most important of all pursuits. In short Socrates concluded that a life with no philosophy, unexamined life, was not worth living. Unexamined life is hence the life without self- reflection and self-scrutiny. The argument of the dictum in its strongest sense affirms a concern for individual autonomy. A person who is autonomous reflects and scrutinizes upon his own life without merely going through motions ignorantly. In case one does not scrutinize and reflect upon his own life to resolve courses of his actions autonomously, but live by merely “going through motions” by pressures determined by others, then he will be like an animal or a machine at its extreme level. That life will not be his: if one cannot question his or her own drives and action so that he or she can mould them in the right direction he cannot claim to be the author of his own life. Such a life is not worth for the agent to continue living (Plato 7-15).
At an individual level, as it is the most part of Socrates defense, certain personal aspects of life such as studying Philosophy and practicing religion should be autonomously decided. In a secular world, individuals’ deliberations to give themselves certain moral religions should not receive any injunctions of others. The same should be the case with studying Philosophy; this should be taken as an individual’s pursuit of self-mastery in knowledge. According to Plato, humans as rational beings, become satisfied or happy when they are self-sufficient. Self-sufficient in knowledge and other facets of life are therefore important ingredients of human happiness. In Apology, Socrates is a religious man who has devoted his life in studying philosophy because he believes that his devotion has a divine calling. It is by this that he has been accused of busying himself in studying matters below the earth and the sky. Further, by his dialectical arguments of Philosophy, he is also accused of making arguments that seem to overturn older bad beliefs and make good beliefs turn bad. The Socrates’ argument to take the noble course of death and prison in defense of personal right of religion and self-mastery through studying Philosophy is right (Plato 2-7).
At individual level too, one has to examine himself and maintain or defend what is only good or moral. Socrates saw that going to exile or accepting his “mistake” and committing to silence would mean that everything that he had done in life was illegal. It was thus most wise to continue defending his propositions to the end without caring about threats of imprisonment or execution. Socrates had spent the whole of his life teaching philosophy to anybody who would listen to it. Believing that unexamined life is not worth living, he endeared himself by asking questions to his audience, probing answers to eliminate weaknesses and examining their logic to strengthen arguments before arriving to the truth. In this way, his listeners became granted with epistemological tool of thinking about themselves. As a divine job, he was more interested in making individuals improve their souls and minds rather than thinking about wealth. Therefore, to defend his teaching Socrates was not to fear facing the deaths, for he had been put to death on immoral grounds. It was also his duty to obey the law and make defense in court, because although substantive procedures of the law had been made, it was the ruling that was immoral (Plato 6-11).
Examinations of accounts of those people that are likely to affect one directly especially for spousal and parental relationships can be warranted at individual level. This is illustrated in the Apology, when a goddess mother examines and warns the son of Thetis that he should not kill Hector to avenge for his friend Patroclus. He would die immediately if he had done otherwise (Plato 7-12). One has to examine a partner’s character content before marriage.
However, Socratic argument can be erroneous or too radical when it means even investigating matters concerned with others. Socrates narrates that it was his systematic investigation of poets, sophists, craftsmen, writers of tragedies and politicians that resulted in his current sorrows. Although he did this while attaching the greatest importance to his god’s oracle, his examination of others quickly made him popular. For instance, when he visited certain poets, he noted that they were bystanders who could explain meanings in their poems clearly: the writers of the poems did not even understand themes in them clearly. He proved that all people interviewed in those categories were not wise, because they believed that they were the wisest in their professions when they were not. Given that he was the only man in the city who believed that a wise man believed that he knew nothing and therefore his life was always subjected to investigations, he was the wisest of them all. He thus, proved this to all Athenians by relating to what oracle Phythia at Delphi had communicated to him through Chaerophon. This newly discovered wisdom made people, especially the youth, to follow him everywhere he went. However, it did not settle down well with people in the aforementioned categories. Despite conspiring that Socrates violates divine rules by studying “everything” below the earth and in the sky, they accuse him of being pestilential by “corrupting” the youths. It should be noted that these people in the categories of professions such as poets and politicians depended very much on the people especially the youths. They saw Socrates teaching as pestilential to their careers: they had therefore to plan for slanders to live. Socrates could avoid such like bad consequences; one has to seek permission, outlining the purpose and likely consequences or benefits of carrying out investigations on others’ account before starting investigations on them (Plato 2-9).
At the social or national level, autonomous examination cannot be warranted because it will be promoting pernicious tendency of human individuality. At social or national level, there are laws destined to ensuring individual compatibility and dependency for mutual goodness. In such a case, an individual has to act upon the laid down rules emanating from social wisdom. Socrates himself illustrates this statement by hailing soldiers such as heroes who died at Troy. In such a case he believes that they accomplished their noble course of a soldier, by defending the society of Athens in the danger of death. For the soldiers, as was the son of Thetis, it was no noble course to live cowards than dying at once. In the civil service, Socrates urges that if a person signs to take up a position in the public service, he should do what he is best at regardless of danger or deaths, rather than living in disgrace (Plato 6-11).
However, it does not mean that one cannot examine morality of national laws or the society before taking oath. The oath of serving the community should only be taken when the actions to be carried out are themselves legal. For wisdom cannot beget or begotten by illegal laws. During the period when Socrates’ tribe of Antiochis was presiding over Athens, as a member of the Council, he refused to vote for the trial of ten generals that had absconded their duty of picking up survivors of the naval battle. He was the only who voted against it because it was immoral, as there was a very dangerous storm that could not allow it. When the oligarch of Thirty Tyrants was established, he was told to go to Salamis to bring Leo for execution. He refused, because the harsh Thirty Tyrants were completely on a scheme of power consolidation. It should be noted that taking these noble courses earned him grater respects despite threats of being prosecuted (D'Amato 5-10).
Precisions in examining life depend on one’s level of consciousness. Infants and toddlers can only focus their awareness on space and time. They are more concerned with biological survival than morality or ethics. Individuals at such stage cannot derive satisfaction because of their rightful doings. Moreover, they cannot be held responsible for their wrong doings since they have no awareness of ethics and morality. For life examinations to be possible, humans have to be mature in their mental events first. They have to espouse sensations, intentions and thoughts, which are properties determined by one’s soul. Thus, while an individual at higher conscious level will find it easy to examine himself critically and choose a noble course from alternatives, the one with little consciousness cannot. A highly conscious individual gains satisfaction when he takes and accomplishes a noble course. In the Socrates’s dialogue, his accusers seem to be more at lower levels of consciousness that guarantee awareness of the body more than that of the mind. Such individuals would want to protect their income sources, or any means that enables their biological survival, without caring about morals and ethics. They just accused Socrates because his students had been interrogating them on more complex matters that require one to be clean in mind and the soul. Being clean in mind and the soul is a higher order consciousness that requires individuals to a choose noble courses that uphold ethics and morality only, even if it means to sacrifice basic needs for biological survival or face death. For others who engage in serial killing, their levels of existential consciousness are still low. They feel left out of the whole group and do not know that they have to depend on others. This limits the motivating factor for daily interaction; at its height one may take a weapon to harm or kill others. Some people especially those with deadly conditions want to live unexamined life. They prefer to live in passivity without caring about self-examination: they can get drunk to forget about it and remain happy. This passivity only guarantees false happiness and unexpectedness. One has to involve in examinations to gain exact remedies and develop his capacities (D'Amato 5-10).
In conclusion, self examination depends on the level of consciousness and rational levels. At individual level, self examination involves the individual examining himself to make noble choice. One can also examine those individuals that could have direct effects on him like the family. Individual examinations may bring problems, especially if their aims and benefits are not well communicated. Community life examinations are done by individuals at community level, and individual decision due to his examination cannot be binding to everyone. However, one can refuse to act on illegal rules of the community, and demand re-examination in the right channel.
Infants and toddlers cannot examine themselves on moral or ethical grounds because they lack mature moral events. Higher levels of consciousness are supposed to ensure adherence to higher standards of morals and ethics. Adults who compromise noble courses to take daunting ones still have low levels of consciousness. They cannot examine themselves to realize those courses that can produce greater eternal satisfaction, because they are more biologically conscious than they are mentally and spiritually.
Works Cited
D'Amato, Anthony. Obligation to Obey the Law: A Study of the Death of Socrates. Faculty of
Working Papers, 111(2010).Print.
Plato. Apology, trans. G.M.A. Grube. Pp. 112.130 in Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy:
