Meaning of Socratess Claim - Essay Example

Socrates Socrates makes a strong, unequivocal ment, “the unexamined life is not worth living”. This statement is a clear representation of the deeply principled arguments that are rooted in philosophical life. The claim holds that there is great meaning and value in striving to fully understand and know ourselves, our lives and the meaning and value of our life. This is statement is a representation of the innate human will and desire to discern and be known. Meaning of Socrates’ Claim The key to unravelling the meaning to the claim made by Socrates, one has to comprehend that the statement is targeted to those who take part in human being (the ‘being’ form which is unique to humans). Socrates holds that a human being has the aptitude to rise above emotions, desires and instincts so as to make a conscious, informed and ethical decision. Desire, emotions and instincts have the capability of influencing and/or shaping an individual’s life (Plato and Church, The trial and death of Socrates : being the Euthyphron, Apology, Crito and Phaedo of Plato). This is because these three facets do shape and influence an individual’s decision making process. However, there is an undeniable and unmeasured need to have boundaries, limits and rules to govern and guide one’s decision making process to surpass a human’s mere fundamental instincts. An individual can make a decision based on the conviction, faith and certainty that the particular act is fundamentally wrong. Socrates, in his claim, holds that, an individual can never realize a life that they fully experience being human unless they examine their lives. This statement can be represented in two main ways; At the Individual Level In order for one to fully comprehend one’s self, relative to the world, it is pertinent that self-examination and self-questioning of one’s life and its foundations. In the case that one chooses not to examine one’s life, they relinquish critical thinking and remain ignorant to their own though process, behaviors and emotions (Rudebusch). This creates a situation where individuals become merely a passive receiver of experience as opposed to an engage and active exegetist of experience. At the individual level, one has to fundamentally question the very foundations values that one has inherited from society so as to critically analyze the validity of the basis or foundations of these norms and cultures (Strauss). This requires the deconstructing all the values that one holds, stripping them down to the source, purpose, advantages and disadvantages of the given value. Depending on the conclusion of these results, the value, norm and/or culture can either be discarded, modified or upheld as it was initially. At the Social Level When one lives an unexamined life at the social level, they have no one to observe the individual’s evolutionary process. This is the isolation of man that is damaging to experience. This is because, man is naturally tuned to socialize and interact with members of his/her own species. Individuals are bound to express themselves, relate, connect and wish to be understood. This means that it is essential that human beings not only examine oneself, but also examine others and allow other to examine them. The lack of this cycle of eternal and self-examination may potentially lead to the rise in emotions of alienation and invisibility. At the social level, it is essential that cultural values are evaluated so as to fully realize the experience of being fully human, this is because society has an integral role in shaping human experience (Brickhouse and Smith). Human experience is almost definitely defined by the environment around them. However, individuals have the opportunity to shape their environment to suit their needs through using self-evaluation and collective-evaluation. Validity of Socrates Claim Socrates was right in making this claim. This is because in this claim, he was stating his devotion to the truth. Socrates is convicted by a jury for pursuing philosophy. However, he defied this and sort after the truth I all matter even after his wrongful conviction. He was given two options as penalties; exile from Athens or silence. He refuses any of these options and holds that the discussion of critical issues in life cannot be withheld. This is because these critical issues are essential in evaluating one’s own life through their experiences. He made this claim as evidence of his unrivaled devotion to seeking the truth of life. Socrates’ claim is validated by the fact that his claim was aimed at helping individuals realize genuine self-knowledge (Strauss). The Socratic interrogation was aimed at revealing the true methods of Sophists. He was able to expose the techniques employed by Sophists to validate their reasoning without providing a valid and concrete basis and/or foundation for their arguments. He reveals how Sophists use logic nit-picking to create illusions about what ought to be true. Ignorance is Bliss ‘Where Ignorance is bliss, tis folly to be wise’ is a conceptual framework employed in human thinking that states that what one does not know would not kill or harm them. Ignorance is fundamentally a state of being uninformed, unaware or uneducated. A critique may defend this a way of thinking by claiming that instead of gaining information on a given subject, that may be unpleasant, it is better to generally ignore this information and evade the prospects of worrying about the given subject. This is a way of protecting oneself from worry and conflict. This intentionally creating an illusion that everything is okay and whatever the topic of contention is, it can be wished away by choosing to ignore it. It is fundamentally the creation of one’s own reality, parallel to the existing one, a reality in which everything can be altered according to the when one desires. A good example is found in the following statement; “I wish the media would stop bombarding us with the dangers of eating red meat. It seems ignorance is bliss” (Rudebusch) In the statement above, the individual clearly understands that the information he and the rest of the public receive about red meat is unpleasant. This is because, they clearly enjoy eating red meat. Owing to the fact that this information would cause them to have internal conflict on whether to derive maximum pleasure by continuing eating red meat, or, choosing to live a healthy lifestyle by reducing the amount of red meat that they take. To justify prejudice against the topic of the dangers of eating red meat, the individual would rather ignore the information. An individual would readily justify ignorance is bliss owing to the fact that at times, life can become disheartening because one knows too much. When on is consciously aware of the numerous flaws that exist within society, life loses the exciting and interesting idealistic facet. An individual’s desire and need to experience a life that is idealistic and free from worry, one chooses to intentionally disregard some of these issues. “Ignorance is bliss” is founded on a fallacy that appeals to ignorance. A good example is the tenth-percent myth. This myth states human beings only use 10% of the myth. During this semester, I came across numerous articles and media claims to this effect. This statement is not only false but it also a fallacy. This is a fallacy of logic that appeals to ignorance. The true origin of this myth, fallacy, is unknown. However, its endurance of this has been propagated by its adoption by psychics and other individuals who claim to have answers to the development of psychic powers. The argument is pegged on the notion that psychic powers originate from the 90% of the brain that is predominantly unused and those with psychic abilities have found a way of tapping into this vast unused neurological resources. I saw this while watching the This myth is founded on the logical fallacy of the argument that is instigated by ignorance. In the ten-percent myth, the claim is supported by a lack of proof of the position for which the fallacy claims. There is no valid statistical information to back the claim that human beings use only 10% of their brains. It is important to consider the logical conclusion of this claim; if indeed human beings do use only 10% of their brains, then it would be logical to say that if the other 90% were to be removed, then a person would still be left functioning normally and at the optimum level. This obviously not true, for it has been proven that even a small portion of the brain were to be extracted, the person in question would not function optimally. Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) and Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scans depict the brains being fully functional and that 90% of it does not lie unused. Complex tasks use multiple sections of the brain. This fact nullifies the ten-percent myth as a logical fallacy of the argument that is instigated by ignorance. Works Cited Brickhouse, Thomas C and Nicholas D Smith. Socrates on trial. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989. Print. Plato and F J Church. The trial and death of Socrates : being the Euthyphron, Apology, Crito and Phaedo of Plato. London: Macmillan, 1886. Print. Plato and William Watson Goodwin. Socrates. New York: C. Scribners sons, 1879. Print. Rudebusch, Goerge. Socrates. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Print. Socrates. Socrates : selected writings from Plato: Charmides, Lysis, Laches, Symposium, Apology, Crito, Phaedo with Aristophanes: The Clouds, Xenophon: Symposium. London: Collectors Library, 2004. Print. Strauss, Leo. Xenophons Socrates. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1972. Print. Read More