Jim Faulconer has a great discussion of Socrates' famous dictum, "an unexamined life is not worth living." I have to admit that I'm more sympathetic to that saying that I am to many others. Still I must confess that it is nearly on par with Polonius', "to thine own self be true." One need not think long to realize that being true to your self may not always be a good thing. I much prefer a Nietzschean notion of overcoming ones own self. While you need not read Socrates as opposed to such a notion, I think many read Socrates in a manner akin to Polonius. The idea is that it is better to seek to find out what you are, no matter the consequences, than anything else. In Socrates case, even to the point of giving up his life.
The problem is that if life isn't a static thing then these sayings make little sense. For instance, what if one develops ones life as an ever unfinished process? There is no "life" to be true to or even to examine. Rather one is creating it. That's not to say that examining ones life is a bad thing. However the way that Socrates carries it via his skepticism and questioning probably is. When I hear these sayings, I can't help but think of that movement back in the 60's where people went out to find themselves. It rarely worked and I always thought that the people who went off to make something of themselves ended up happier in the long run - assuming their goals were good ones.
Jim's critique is a little different. He critique is more that these sayings consider life in terms of mental discovery. (Well, Socrates anyway. But I'm sure he'd make similar statements about Polonius) In a sense he reads Socrates as adopting a kind of proto-Cartesian epistemological approach to life. (As I read him anyway) The problem is that this epistemological approach places knowing above doing. Indeed it makes doing parasitic on knowing. This is what we find in Cartesian dualism. Those of you familiar with Heidegger's critique of Descartes in Being and Time recognize the approach Jim is taking.
If instead of the traditional modernist approach to philosophy we adopt a more Heideggarian approach then we end up with a very different view of life. Embodied actions using things that are ready to hand becomes more fundamental than entities that are present to me. Yet typically we don't think in terms of actions or processes but in terms of things. This leads to all sorts of problems when we try to "cure ourselves" through a mental introspection. We assume that it makes sense to do this the way an engineer puts parts of a machine together. Yet it rarely works. In a sense actions are more fundamental than the mind. Even figuring out whether Heidegger thought it useful to think of mental properties isn't straightforward -- I've seen people take opposing positions on it. I bring this up not because I think Heidegger somehow more appropriate to follow. Merely to show that perhaps the assumptions in these sorts of quotes can be problematic.
I'd encourage everyone to read Jim's post. It's one of his better ones.
I'm sorry, but given the type of person and character Polonius was, I've often wondered if the author was engaged in satire at that point.
Something I discovered very early in life, when I was 17 and the school had all of the incoming freshmen read Walden Pond, is that for most people, works of philosophy and aphorisms are Rorschach Inkblot Tests. To discuss them is not to discuss what is written or meant, but to discuss generally inchoate beliefs held by the other person.
I think the phrase "the unexamined life is not worth living" falls into that category. The most ironic part about that phrase is that most of the people who use it tend to use it in context, or with mental framing that makes it obvious that they have not challenged the culture and environment they move in, but merely accept its implications and dogmas.
RevThom over on Times and Seasons was such a classic example, it made me smile, and even better, he made a perfect foil for the discussion, so that no one could begrudge him his stereotypical views, paragons and false gods.
Moving on, to address an important point you make, when we "cure ourselves" through a mental introspection. we usually lack all of the necessary parts, knowledge or perspectives to do so. We are seriously hampered by being eternal beings in a finite world, from having a frame of reference bounded by time when the reality of God is outside of time.
You do come to a point I agree with. We define ourselves and become ourselves through being ourselves -- which means doing rather than talking and seeking. At the great day, when the sheep and the goats are divided, I don't recall the prophecy being that Christ will keep those who are literate, fun, fit well in spacious buildings and know how to dress and discuss things. He divides on how we help the least of our brethern.
By the doing. He who loses his life for Christ's sake will find it.
I definitely think Shakespeare didn't intend the comment to be taken the way most do. After all Polonius was a rather superficial person who wasn't true to much. There is a great deal of irony in the statement. On the other hand Shakespeare wrote in such a way that his speeches can be presented in numerous, often incompatible ways. Tom Stoppard did a fantastic play partially based upon that recognition (ironically based on Hamlet) called Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead.
I'm not sure I agree with your comment about philosophy and how people react to it. Perhaps many do that, but ideally philosophy is about challenging ourselves, I think. Which is where Socrates' comment is helpful. Indeed in a certain way that comment ushered in philosophy. However, as I think Jim pointed out, it ushered it in following a certain approach that may not be helpful.
I've closed comments in order to avoid spam since I don't check this older blog as much anymore.
and Theology
Number of unique visitors:
Blogged by Clark Goble