According to Socrates, an unexamined life is not worth living.Footnote 1 This view is controversial. Is the unexamined life worth living or not? Most philosophers disagree about the answer. While some argue for the worthlessness of an unexamined life, others support the superfluity of self critical examination. In his recent article, Jamison pooh-poohed the claim that an unexamined life is not worth living. According to Jamison, not only is an unexamined life worth living; the rigorous examination of life should not be encouraged due to its possible negative effects on the participants and the entire society.Footnote 2 In Jamison's view, a consistent and unregulated examination of human life produces a feeling of ecstasy (a specie of spiritual feeling) in those who engage in it. The feeling, if allowed, could endanger both the thinker and the entire society. For Jamison, “once you get a taste of this kind of thing, you do not want to give it up”.Footnote 3 Someone who engages in self-critical examination eventually becomes entangled with it. Socrates became entangled in dialectics, became unpopular, was accused of corrupting the youth and eventually sentenced to death.
Robert Gerzon holds a different view. In his article “Is the unexamined life worth living?”, he argues that the method of self-critical examination is salutary. Gerzon is of the view that a critical examination of life is rewarding because it leads to self awareness.Footnote 4 According to Gerzon, “examining our life reveals patterns of behaviour. Deeper contemplation yields understanding of the subconscious programming, the powerful mental software that runs our life. Unless we become aware of these patterns, much of our life is unconscious repetition.”Footnote 5 The critical examination of life prevents possible future regrets. The kind of dialoguing Socrates recommends reveals “those blind spots we cannot see by ourselves”.Footnote 6
Whose position is more plausible, Jamison's or Gerzon's? I focus on Jamison's arguments since the position I defend strengthens Gerzon's. As a matter of fact, Jamison's position has a lacuna. He (Jamison) never rejects the method of self-critical examination. He recommends a form of social regulation whereby only a very few individuals are allowed to embrace the method. In his words, “there is no doubt in my mind that it is important for a community to have members that engage in critical thinking, and the examined life, but I also think it important to point out that it is not good for a community to have too many members doing this.”Footnote 7
There are at least two problems here. First, the criteria for selecting the active participants in self-critical examination are not stated. Second, Jamison does not state how both the participants and the non-participants in rigorous examination of life would relate in actual human society. What are the principles for regulating the basic social and economic institutions populated by thinkers and non-thinkers? Anyway, my initial reaction is to accept Jamison's arguments. The arguments are persuasive and, in my view, could be strengthened. Is the unexamined life worth living or not? Is there a price to be paid for not engaging in rigorous examination of life? As hinted above, Jamison's position could be strengthened with further arguments.
First, Socrates' claim seems too inclusive. The human rational capacity is limited. Only the omniscient God is unlimited and all-knowing. An unexamined life might be worth living under certain conditions. ‘Ought’ presupposes ‘can’. The life of those with little or no capacity for self- reflection may be worth living. The life of a little child is worth living though usually unexamined.
Second, contrary to Gerzon's view, the rigorous examination of life, in the Socratic sense, is not always reliable. As mentioned above, the human capacity for self examination varies and, in fact, is limited and imperfect. The possibility of error while critically examining our life cannot be ruled out. The consequences of a life wrongly examined could be more devastating than the consequences of an unexamined life. So, an unexamined life could be better than a life wrongly examined. If we accept the last point, then in agreement with Jamison, the demand for the critical examination of life should be taken with a pinch of salt.
How are the possible outcomes of rigorous self examination to be evaluated? The rigorous examination of one's life does not always yield positive results. The outcomes vary. For Jamison, the outcome is the feeling of ecstasy (a specie of spiritual feeling). However, the ecstatic feeling is not the only possible outcome. At present, there is no evidence that those who engage in critical examination of life feel fulfilled after the activity. It is possible for someone to examine his or her life critically and, at the end of it all, conclude that, after all, an unexamined life is far better that the examined. I suspect this experience might have influenced Jamison's argument.
Third, the method of rigorous examination of life is open-ended. As a matter of fact, there is no end to any genuine philosophical enquiry. Philosophy is, as a discipline, tasking and time consuming too. A philosophical enquiry is comparable to a journey without a fixed destination. If so, why should anyone embark on a journey without destination? Besides logic and critical thinking, human life is equally regulated by emotion, psychology, religion, cultural beliefs and various forms of social interactions. If the last point is accepted, a fulfilled life (whatever it is) is possible without rigorous philosophy. The knowledge of philosophy is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for a happy family life or becoming materially wealthy. As a matter of fact, it is possible for someone to flourish financially without engaging in self-critical examination. Not only that the good things of life (whatever they are) could be achieved without the capacity for critical examination of life, the capacity is no guarantee of a fulfilled life, in case we know what a fulfilled life is. Now, how germane are the points? Is the unexamined life worth living or not? Though the arguments against Socrates' dictum are weighty, the dictum is salvageable.
First, Socrates could not have argued that the life of a little child without the capacity for critical examination is worthless. In the Apology, Socrates' targets are intellectual braggarts like politicians, poets and artisans who parade themselves as the epitome of knowledge when they, in actual fact, know little. Socrates would definitely agree that the life of a little child is, though unexamined, worthy of living.
Second, the point about the possibility of error is equally weak. Ordinarily, a philosophical enquiry, like a scientific enquiry, is a fact-finding mission. Its primary goal is the detection of errors in human thinking. If so then the possibility of wrong examination of life is not enough for the discontinuation of Socrates' dialectics. Rather, the possibility of error should encourage thinkers to persevere. The possibility of error should encourage vigilance while critically examining life. The mere fact that it is possible for a swimmer to drown does not mean that no one should swim. Similarly, no one argues that because a student may fail an examination then he or she should not bother to take the exam. The antidote for error is, whenever it occurs, more forceful examination.
Furthermore, the open-ended nature of philosophy is not sufficient for rejecting the Socratic method. Ordinarily, no one has the knowledge of how or when his or her life will end. No one terminates his or her life abruptly just because he or she is ignorant about how or when their life will end. Despite the current advancement in science and technology, human beings still lack the knowledge of many things about nature. No one argues that scientific enquiry should stop just because no one has the knowledge of the possible results of scientific researches. Therefore, the open-ended nature of philosophical enquiry is a plus for it and sustains it too.
The fourth argument is a red herring. Ordinarily, Socrates would not deny human emotional or psychological properties. The point about the insufficiency of philosophy for obtaining certain good things in life is equally weak. No discipline is sufficient for obtaining the good things in life. One does not need to be a physician or an engineer or, even, an outstanding university scholar to lead a fulfilled life (assuming we know what a fulfilled life is). Are the counter arguments strong enough to salvage Socrates' dictum? Is the unexamined life worth living or not? Why is Socrates' demand for the critical examination of life rejected by many, even today? The answer is simple.
Philosophy is basically a method. The method of critical examination is resisted even today, like in the days of Socrates, because it is too tasking. The primary method of philosophy is unattractive, tasking and time-consuming; not many people are ready for it. The conception of philosophy as logical and conceptual examination of life is quite challenging. Socrates became unpopular and, subsequently, was accused of corrupting the youth, because not many are prepared to undergo the rigour of philosophy. The Socratic conceptions of philosophy as rigorous analysis, critical examination, questioning, scepticism, argument, disagreement and open-ended demand for certainty are overwhelming and too demanding. These are things many of us are not always prepared for. As hinted above, critical examination of life may not be what we need in all situations, but this in itself is not enough to deny the importance of critical examination.
Philosophy is a product of wonder: How should we live? What is the nature of human beings? Are human beings free or determined? What is the goal of human beings on earth? Are values universal or cultural? How can we be good? What are our rights? Are we morally obligated to non-community members? Is it morally incumbent on all of us to always keep our promises? What does a person's right to life mean? Does a right to life mean a right not to be killed unjustly or a right to the basic life-sustaining material and non-material goods? What is the value of my right to life if I do not have a right to the basic material and non-material needs essential for sustaining life? What does someone's right to be voted for really mean if he or she has no financial capacity to purchase the nomination form? The critical examination of life provides the opportunity to reflect on the questions and, if possible, revise our original decisions about them. The critical examination of life is one of the essential tools for social dynamism.
Furthermore, critical examination of life is a good recipe for creativity. Creativity leads to new material and non-material inventions. New inventions lead to different species of development; political, economic, social, scientific, technological, cultural and even intellectual. A community of men and women with the capacity for critical reflection may witness growth and development faster than a community without such men and women.
Contrary to Jamison's view, a community ought to encourage most of its members to engage in critical examination of life. Jamison's call for a community with just a few thinkers is almost strange and dangerous. The few thinkers in Jamison's suggested community would dominate, oppress and possibly victimize others. Francis Bacon says knowledge is power. Shared values or unexamined consensus among community members no longer satisfactorily defined a community. A community properly understood is “one in which there is argument, even conflict, about the meaning of the shared values and goals and certainly about how they will be actualized in everyday life … community is not about silent consensus; it is a form of intelligent, reflective life…”Footnote 8 According to Friedrich Waismann, “the great mind is the great questioner.”Footnote 9
The critical examination of life may not be the ultimate method, but it is still one of the methods central to human flourishing. A world without questioning, disagreement, rigorous analysis of issues and concepts, critical examination, scepticism and argument could be boring and uninteresting. The politicians, the poets and the artisans Socrates confronts in the Apology are, unbeknown to them, wallowing in the poverty of knowledge. No one prefers ignorance to knowledge. Philosophy as rigorous and critical examination of life is the solid rock upon which scholarship and intellectualism rest.
