The Unexamined or Examined Life: How Important is This for You?

[JackDaydream]

I think there are in the main two types of questions to which there cannot be any response. The first type (of which philosophy forums are most familiar) relates to meaning, value and purpose interminably discussed as given by virtue of being human. It's of a genre completely devoid of ever eliciting a response beyond what imagination and wishful thinking provides; because it doesn't provide for anything useful it remains useless, a morbid symptom of a skewed subjectivity forever pondering itself.

The 2nd type is much more potent in being rhetorical. It doesn't expect a response which finalizes a question. It remains forever open as an element of awareness causing thought to move forward, the question(s) themselves being its dynamic more powerful than any possible resolution.

Perhaps that's what Goethe meant in the final line of Faust...

Das Ewig Weibliche Zieht Uns Hinan

...if mystery were regarded as a feminine force in the psyche never thoroughly inclusive though perennially gravitating toward it.

It does seem to me that the nature of philosophy is a mixture of understanding meaning and values, as well as something else. Some of the explanations may be searched for in the empirical world, but knowledge is limited as Karl Popper acknowledged in his understanding of the scientific model. One remark which Einstein made which is relevant to the rhetorical consideration of some aspects of life is, 'The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious'. I am not suggesting that explanations in terms of logic and rationality should not be sought, but there may be aspects which defy this, and can only be thought about as mysteries, for grasping in rhetorical thought and contemplation. That doesn't mean that explanations can never be found but such explanations cannot be forced or they are likely to be inadequate.

[Sy Borg]

I have always felt that it was important to lead an examined life but, as a reflexive navel-gazer, I would think that, wouldn't I?

Being on the spectrum, there appear to me to be millions, maybe billions, of people who seem more functional in their society than I am, and many of them don't seem to bother with the great questions, let alone questioning themselves. Those to seem to do best in life - whose funerals are most keenly attended - seem to commit to something, be it a cause, a grand project, a field of learning, a family, a religion.

I smiled at your reply about functionality because it is essential to coping with life, but, sometimes, overvalued as the only thing which matters. The problem with my own CV may be that the various studies and work which I have done may demonstrate my pursuit of the examined life rather than skills to be paid for. Maslow's hierarchy of needs points to the importance of the various needs, ranging from the physical and emotional ones to self- actualisation. The art may be to gravitate to the higher ones without losing the essential needs, because human life is about the needs of the body and mind. Perhaps, philosophy examination can embrace this intricate balance in understanding oneself and others in the fullest ways possible.

According to the world at large, functionality in vocation and relationships are all that matters. But the world would have that attitude, wouldn't it? Society wants useful cogs just as we want our cells to be competent and team players. What society wants most of all are specialists, and certainly not people who think too much about what is happening in that society, other than that which is spoon fed to them via the media.

The world does not reward generalists unless they are CEOs or filthy rich via other means. So philosophy, as the ultimate generalist activity, is not encouraged. We are supposed to leave the serious thinking to the experts, right? If it comes to medical advice, environmental analyses or piloting planes, certainly. The point I am labouring is that society, both wittingly and otherwise, discourages the living of an examined life. It prefers fecund, productive lives, with spare time occupied with bread and circuses.

Given that leading an examined life means swimming against the stream, I'm not sure that those who lead examined lives have much choice in the matter, and vice versa. If one is compelled to dig, one digs.

[JackDaydream]

I have always felt that it was important to lead an examined life but, as a reflexive navel-gazer, I would think that, wouldn't I?

Being on the spectrum, there appear to me to be millions, maybe billions, of people who seem more functional in their society than I am, and many of them don't seem to bother with the great questions, let alone questioning themselves. Those to seem to do best in life - whose funerals are most keenly attended - seem to commit to something, be it a cause, a grand project, a field of learning, a family, a religion.

I smiled at your reply about functionality because it is essential to coping with life, but, sometimes, overvalued as the only thing which matters. The problem with my own CV may be that the various studies and work which I have done may demonstrate my pursuit of the examined life rather than skills to be paid for. Maslow's hierarchy of needs points to the importance of the various needs, ranging from the physical and emotional ones to self- actualisation. The art may be to gravitate to the higher ones without losing the essential needs, because human life is about the needs of the body and mind. Perhaps, philosophy examination can embrace this intricate balance in understanding oneself and others in the fullest ways possible.

According to the world at large, functionality in vocation and relationships are all that matters. But the world would have that attitude, wouldn't it? Society wants useful cogs just as we want our cells to be competent and team players. What society wants most of all are specialists, and certainly not people who think too much about what is happening in that society, other than that which is spoon fed to them via the media.

The world does not reward generalists unless they are CEOs or filthy rich via other means. So philosophy, as the ultimate generalist activity, is not encouraged. We are supposed to leave the serious thinking to the experts, right? If it comes to medical advice, environmental analyses or piloting planes, certainly. The point I am labouring is that society, both wittingly and otherwise, discourages the living of an examined life. It prefers fecund, productive lives, with spare time occupied with bread and circuses.

Given that leading an examined life means swimming against the stream, I'm not sure that those who lead examined lives have much choice in the matter, and vice versa. If one is compelled to dig, one digs.

You are right that the examined life is 'swimming against the stream.' I probably came to it by default because I don't come from a rich family. If I had found a job when I left school I probably wouldn't have gone down that direction but as it was I managed to get funding for most of my studies. When I became out of work during lockdown, philosophy and the examined life seemed to be the basics which I fell back upon.

I do wish to go back to work but struggle with being 'productive' in the way which so many employers wish for 'cogs'. It also seems to me on the basis of people who I knew who do seem to live more of an examined life it is often because they find it hard to fit into mainstream society. Philosophy exploration tends to be more of a fringe interest, or arty misfits. It also leads me to think of Colin Wilson's book, 'The Outsider', especially the introduction to the revised edition, in which he describes how he spent time living on Hamstead Heath. Also
sometimes, I have found myself getting chatting to rather unusual people in libraries who seem to be be in the territory of the examined life.

I don't know how you see your own sense of being productive or unproductive, although it seems that you worked in admin. Actually, I think that being a psychiatric nurse is the most conformist aspect of my life. When I was a student I did know a fairly well known British poet, UA Fanthorpe. She had worked in hospital admin for a while but spoke of how she became 'a middle aged dropout' in pursuit her poetry.

In a way, creative pursuits and the examined life often seem like they are barely chosen but arrived at as the only foreseeable option. I really don't know how most people who have a quest for self knowledge and philosophy see it. I would imagine it may be different for those who follow academic careers but on the basis of people who I know who seem to be on some kind of inner quest it appears that it may be difficult or unusual life experiences which lead to it. But, I don't wish to make sweeping generalisations... It would be interesting if someone read this post and said that they lead an examined life but see themselves as not on the 'edge', or outside of the mainstream at all.

[Tegularius]

I think there are in the main two types of questions to which there cannot be any response. The first type (of which philosophy forums are most familiar) relates to meaning, value and purpose interminably discussed as given by virtue of being human. It's of a genre completely devoid of ever eliciting a response beyond what imagination and wishful thinking provides; because it doesn't provide for anything useful it remains useless, a morbid symptom of a skewed subjectivity forever pondering itself.

The 2nd type is much more potent in being rhetorical. It doesn't expect a response which finalizes a question. It remains forever open as an element of awareness causing thought to move forward, the question(s) themselves being its dynamic more powerful than any possible resolution.

Perhaps that's what Goethe meant in the final line of Faust...

Das Ewig Weibliche Zieht Uns Hinan

...if mystery were regarded as a feminine force in the psyche never thoroughly inclusive though perennially gravitating toward it.

It does seem to me that the nature of philosophy is a mixture of understanding meaning and values, as well as something else. Some of the explanations may be searched for in the empirical world, but knowledge is limited as Karl Popper acknowledged in his understanding of the scientific model. One remark which Einstein made which is relevant to the rhetorical consideration of some aspects of life is, 'The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious'. I am not suggesting that explanations in terms of logic and rationality should not be sought, but there may be aspects which defy this, and can only be thought about as mysteries, for grasping in rhetorical thought and contemplation. That doesn't mean that explanations can never be found but such explanations cannot be forced or they are likely to be inadequate.

Not unlike the way I see it as well!

[Sy Borg]

It would be interesting if someone read this post and said that they lead an examined life but see themselves as not on the 'edge', or outside of the mainstream at all.

There are plenty to who think more deeply about life than they let on. I'm not sure it's easy for busy human minds to avoid existential questions, especially when calamity falls.

[Tegularius]

One examines one's life best by its consequences not by any psychoanalytic mumbo jumbo, especially when practiced on oneself. Knowing oneself in the Socratic sense is highly overrated and usually leads to no conclusion or the wrong one. It amounts to nothing more than a self-image based on a hypothesis that everything which amalgamates to create a person can be known. The only thing possible to know is the skin, far less what lies underneath.

If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid with regard to external things. Don't wish to be thought to know anything; and even if you appear to be somebody important to others, distrust yourself. For, it is difficult to both keep your faculty of choice in a state conformable to nature, and at the same time acquire external things. But while you are careful about the one, you must of necessity neglect the other., Epictetus, "The Enchiridion"

You seem to be lumping all psychology and self-help under the heading of "psychoanalytic mumbo-jumbo". Certainly there is plenty of nonsense out there pretending to be psychology, including perhaps psychoanalysis as compared to psychotherapy. Just as clearly, there is great value in things like cognitive behavioral therapy and Alcoholics Anonymous. These activities often take place with others, and the interaction is valuable, but I would not discount the necessity and value of self-discovery and self-help.

The point was that putting oneself on the couch, becoming in effect one's own psychoanalyst in terms of "knowing oneself", is not anywhere near as potent as knowing oneself by your effect on others and your surroundings and not least, on yourself in a third person perspective...in a way, becoming your own confessor. Cognitive behavioral therapy and suchlike techniques are rightfully employed in establishing and ameliorating the conditions in the examination of one's life becoming most apparent by its negative features.

[JackDaydream]

It would be interesting if someone read this post and said that they lead an examined life but see themselves as not on the 'edge', or outside of the mainstream at all.

There are plenty to who think more deeply about life than they let on. I'm not sure it's easy for busy human minds to avoid existential questions, especially when calamity falls.

I do agree that there are more who think about the examined life than let on. Sometimes, I am out reading in public places and all kinds of people come up and talk to me about deep aspects of life, including those who work on building sites and do maintenance jobs. It certainly doesn't seem to be only those from academic backgrounds, which is good because it stops the examined life being elitist. It may be that a lot of people don't have time for such thinking because they are busy..

Funnily enough, when I was working I used to try to give myself a few minutes reading time before I went to work, which was difficult if I was working early in the morning. Some people seem more easily able to hide their inner questing than others. I don't look very philosophical and people often come up to me and start talking about football, but they soon realise that doesn't interest me. It is probably great to be able to put on a front and I would be glad to do a mundane job, like work in a supermarket to support myself, but I think that I would do so badly at it that I would get the sack within a week for not being fast enough.

I am definitely not in favour of elitism or grandiosity about the examined life. As it is, philosophy is not highly ranked and I often feel that when I speak about being interested in it some look at me as though I am a 'weirdo'. What is interesting though is how psychology is so highly viewed, especially the career of clinical psychologist. When I was working in mental health, I came across so many care assistants who had a degree in psychology and were pursuing the path to becoming a clinical psychologist, which is extremely competitive. It may be that clinical psychology is the esteemed or even 'glamorous' side of the examined life.

Of course, there aren't many jobs in philosophy but it may be that the picture of philosophy and the philosopher are not 'trendy' in an image driven society, and it is in disagreement with consumer materialistic goals and values.

[JackDaydream]

One examines one's life best by its consequences not by any psychoanalytic mumbo jumbo, especially when practiced on oneself. Knowing oneself in the Socratic sense is highly overrated and usually leads to no conclusion or the wrong one. It amounts to nothing more than a self-image based on a hypothesis that everything which amalgamates to create a person can be known. The only thing possible to know is the skin, far less what lies underneath.

If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid with regard to external things. Don't wish to be thought to know anything; and even if you appear to be somebody important to others, distrust yourself. For, it is difficult to both keep your faculty of choice in a state conformable to nature, and at the same time acquire external things. But while you are careful about the one, you must of necessity neglect the other., Epictetus, "The Enchiridion"

You seem to be lumping all psychology and self-help under the heading of "psychoanalytic mumbo-jumbo". Certainly there is plenty of nonsense out there pretending to be psychology, including perhaps psychoanalysis as compared to psychotherapy. Just as clearly, there is great value in things like cognitive behavioral therapy and Alcoholics Anonymous. These activities often take place with others, and the interaction is valuable, but I would not discount the necessity and value of self-discovery and self-help.

The point was that putting oneself on the couch, becoming in effect one's own psychoanalyst in terms of "knowing oneself", is not anywhere near as potent as knowing oneself by your effect on others and your surroundings and not least, on yourself in a third person perspective...in a way, becoming your own confessor. Cognitive behavioral therapy and suchlike techniques are rightfully employed in establishing and ameliorating the conditions in the examination of one's life becoming most apparent by its negative features.

It is likely that putting oneself on the couch is extremely different from the lessons of life. At one stage, I did literally have therapy on the couch and it was such an unusual position and perspective. It made me feel so much more helpless and lacking in control than in sitting within therapy. An important part of psychodynamic therapy is based on the transference, involving learning in the context of the relationship with the therapist. Also, group therapy involves learning in the context of group dynamics. But, it is likely that so much can be learned from life experiences and it is simply that therapy does it in a focused way, just as reading philosophy involves thinking in a more focused way than simply thinking oneself.

[Tegularius]

One examines one's life best by its consequences not by any psychoanalytic mumbo jumbo, especially when practiced on oneself. Knowing oneself in the Socratic sense is highly overrated and usually leads to no conclusion or the wrong one. It amounts to nothing more than a self-image based on a hypothesis that everything which amalgamates to create a person can be known. The only thing possible to know is the skin, far less what lies underneath.

If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid with regard to external things. Don't wish to be thought to know anything; and even if you appear to be somebody important to others, distrust yourself. For, it is difficult to both keep your faculty of choice in a state conformable to nature, and at the same time acquire external things. But while you are careful about the one, you must of necessity neglect the other., Epictetus, "The Enchiridion"

You seem to be lumping all psychology and self-help under the heading of "psychoanalytic mumbo-jumbo". Certainly there is plenty of nonsense out there pretending to be psychology, including perhaps psychoanalysis as compared to psychotherapy. Just as clearly, there is great value in things like cognitive behavioral therapy and Alcoholics Anonymous. These activities often take place with others, and the interaction is valuable, but I would not discount the necessity and value of self-discovery and self-help.

The point was that putting oneself on the couch, becoming in effect one's own psychoanalyst in terms of "knowing oneself", is not anywhere near as potent as knowing oneself by your effect on others and your surroundings and not least, on yourself in a third person perspective...in a way, becoming your own confessor. Cognitive behavioral therapy and suchlike techniques are rightfully employed in establishing and ameliorating the conditions in the examination of one's life becoming most apparent by its negative features.

It is likely that putting oneself on the couch is extremely different from the lessons of life. At one stage, I did literally have therapy on the couch and it was such an unusual position and perspective. It made me feel so much more helpless and lacking in control than in sitting within therapy. An important part of psychodynamic therapy is based on the transference, involving learning in the context of the relationship with the therapist. Also, group therapy involves learning in the context of group dynamics. But, it is likely that so much can be learned from life experiences and it is simply that therapy does it in a focused way, just as reading philosophy involves thinking in a more focused way than simply thinking oneself.

Again I agree. To know oneself allows for the input of others to enable that kind of examination and then deciding for yourself what is true and valid. A "revelation" by its very definition, requires an external catalyst to create an internal act of knowing to come full circle. We have an "inner & outer" the two being always in collusion. If the two are barely communicating, neither rebalancing the other what typically ensues is usually some unobstructed form of fanaticism that can be deadly in its consequences.

[LuckyR]

I have always felt that it was important to lead an examined life but, as a reflexive navel-gazer, I would think that, wouldn't I?

Being on the spectrum, there appear to me to be millions, maybe billions, of people who seem more functional in their society than I am, and many of them don't seem to bother with the great questions, let alone questioning themselves. Those to seem to do best in life - whose funerals are most keenly attended - seem to commit to something, be it a cause, a grand project, a field of learning, a family, a religion.

I agree with your observations, though I have tried to live a hybrid approach. Namely, to get paid to assist others in whichever way they prefer, Examined or Unexamined. Yet in my personal time (unpaid, of course) to lead an Examined life which, coming full circle, makes me better at helping others, regardless of their personal outlook.

[Sy Borg]

I have always felt that it was important to lead an examined life but, as a reflexive navel-gazer, I would think that, wouldn't I?

Being on the spectrum, there appear to me to be millions, maybe billions, of people who seem more functional in their society than I am, and many of them don't seem to bother with the great questions, let alone questioning themselves. Those to seem to do best in life - whose funerals are most keenly attended - seem to commit to something, be it a cause, a grand project, a field of learning, a family, a religion.

I agree with your observations, though I have tried to live a hybrid approach. Namely, to get paid to assist others in whichever way they prefer, Examined or Unexamined. Yet in my personal time (unpaid, of course) to lead an Examined life which, coming full circle, makes me better at helping others, regardless of their personal outlook.

Makes sense to me. Medicine is a field that lends itself to philosophical thought. Life is ultimately about balance and is, ultimately, returned to something closer to equilibrium.

[Vita]

How do you see the idea of the examined life and how important do you regard this?

I see the examined life as a possible means of “living life to the fullest”. An unexamined life consists of living like dogs. Dogs have sensual pleasure, but that is soon forgotten. They do not care that they are unique life forms, and just live. Which is fine, until you die and just pass worthlessly from this world to the next. It is fine to be immortal and have monuments, but I would trade all the monuments and palaces in the world to live realizing that I am alive.

[JackDaydream]

How do you see the idea of the examined life and how important do you regard this?

I see the examined life as a possible means of “living life to the fullest”. An unexamined life consists of living like dogs. Dogs have sensual pleasure, but that is soon forgotten. They do not care that they are unique life forms, and just live. Which is fine, until you die and just pass worthlessly from this world to the next. It is fine to be immortal and have monuments, but I would trade all the monuments and palaces in the world to live realizing that I am alive.

It does seem that a large part of the examined life is about reflection about living as opposed to mindless living, just going through life caught up in the stream of events. It may be partly a learned aspect in the sense that people develop habitual ways of coping and responding to what happens. Some people are more inclined to stop and reflect on internal thoughts whereas others are more reactive. But, it probably varies in each individual. It is likely that many have blindspots,and areas which are more difficult to explore. Also, it may take time to be able to reflect on combinations of experiences. Generally, I find writing down reflections useful, but sometimes it can be hard to do that in the midst of difficult experiences.

[Ecurb]

I see the examined life as a possible means of “living life to the fullest”. An unexamined life consists of living like dogs. Dogs have sensual pleasure, but that is soon forgotten. They do not care that they are unique life forms, and just live. Which is fine, until you die and just pass worthlessly from this world to the next. It is fine to be immortal and have monuments, but I would trade all the monuments and palaces in the world to live realizing that I am alive.

Wittgenstein wrote, "Denn lebt er ewig, der en der Gegenwart lebt." "So he lives forever who lives in the present."

Dogs live in the present, and live unexamined lives. So, in a sense, they are immortal. To quote more German, Rilke wrote, "Der Tod ist gross." "Death is huge." By obsessing about it, we fail to live in the present, and forfeit our immortality.

[Vita]

I see the examined life as a possible means of “living life to the fullest”. An unexamined life consists of living like dogs. Dogs have sensual pleasure, but that is soon forgotten. They do not care that they are unique life forms, and just live. Which is fine, until you die and just pass worthlessly from this world to the next. It is fine to be immortal and have monuments, but I would trade all the monuments and palaces in the world to live realizing that I am alive.

Wittgenstein wrote, "Denn lebt er ewig, der en der Gegenwart lebt." "So he lives forever who lives in the present."

Dogs live in the present, and live unexamined lives. So, in a sense, they are immortal. To quote more German, Rilke wrote, "Der Tod ist gross." "Death is huge." By obsessing about it, we fail to live in the present, and forfeit our immortality.

What is the point of living forever in the present? Obsessing about death is useless and depressing. However, there is no point to living in the present because the sensual pleasure of the present is forgotten in that moment. Happiness can be achieved by thinking, by observing, by simply listening to your own breath, but no human can gain happiness only from animal pleasures.