I have been reading about Socrates and have finally come to the texts Crito and Apology. In the latter, Socrates utters the line “The unexamined life is not worth living,” which has always made me wonder. It is a popular line, so much so that it seems as though its meaning should be straightforward, yet the more I think about it, especially in the context of the Apology, the more confusing its point becomes.
Typically, in non-Ancient Greek times, the line is mentioned in light of encouraging people to live more meaningfully, that is in a manner of more habitual and necessitated contemplation perhaps? But see here:
The context is Socrates’ trial. In this trial, his life is being, in a way, examined. Socrates’ way of living is put into contemplation by Socrates himself but also by the rather misguided scrutiny of others. The life is examined but done in two contradicting ways. Maybe Socrates’ way is that of contemplation and the jury of… the opposite of contemplation? The question then becomes: would life still be “worth living” if it were examined in the way of the latter?
Would that be sufficient in making a “life worth living”? Granted, that does not seem to be the case at all since it can be taken that, obviously, a “life worth living” is that of a good, virtuous life, and that the ways of Socractes’ accusers are not even close to true virtue.
The other curious thing that follows then is: if Socrates’ life is “worth living” then why did he accept his unjust death sentence?
Is life being worth living not sufficient in needing to live this life? Hence, the main point of reflection: what does it mean for [a] life to be “worth living”?
Does this mean fighting for such a life? Does it mean accepting something or doing any particular thing that means to show worthiness in living? Is there a specific manner that this comes with? When life is worth living, how should the person live it?
Maybe another curious/confused point: did Socrates value his life? Did he really believe that his life is worth living?
Perhaps he did but not in a way that its value exceeded other things (e.g. the law)—but even so, what does that entail for the supposed value of his life?
On the dialogue with Crito: this one I found to be quite consoling. Here we have a friend of Socrates desperately trying to persuade him to reconsider giving up his life and instead to escape from his imprisonment and death sentence. Crito brings up arguments that I think may even be considered [in contemporary times and toward particular cultures especially] to be highly regarded: Crito says that he must think of what others would think, not only of Socrates himself but of his friends as well who would be affected by whatever would happen to him. Crito acknowledges that the situation may be ill-perceived, particularly by those unfamiliar with the details of the context, hence, they would find it difficult to properly understand the nuances of Socrates’ reasoning. Instead, outsiders might simply see a group of rich friends “letting” their wise teacher die without having done anything, seemingly without having learned from the said teacher. Consequently, they would think negatively of them and question their characters.
But who are these people? What exactly can they do? Crito insists that these people, the other majority, have the power over life and death—exactly how they got to put Socrates to jail with the most severe punishment. Crito naturally worries that by Socrates accepting their verdict, he is tolerating (or worse, encouraging) such a way of dealing with things which might be dangerous for others (and for the love of knowledge/virtue/this “life worth living” thing) as well.
Essentially, Crito is trying to persuade Plato to be an example and run away. That way he can stay alive, continue being their wise teacher, and even bring up and educate his own children instead of leaving them to the care of these rich students who could not do anything to stop their teacher’s death.
Yet Socrates says that they must take up this matter with reason and so brings up the many consequences that escaping would entail which Crito, out of perhaps his “emotionality and desperation,” leaves out of his logic. Socrates reminds Crito that it is not as simple, not as easy. For one, even if he were to escape, say to Thessaly, matters of logistics would prove to be too complicated and even morally questionable. Yes, he would be free again, but always as a fugitive of sorts. He might be able to tell stories of his thrilling escape, but what would that say about his values, about the things he teaches—would he still be able to teach the same things he used to profess? He might not even be able to really take care of his children either, as either he would have to leave them anyway still (going to Thessaly instead of the afterlife) or he would have to “deprive” them of Athenian education and citizenship if he were to bring them along with him.
Furthermore, similar to these aforementioned points, he would have to go against everything he had said at the trial—all his promises and oaths, not just to the law during the trial but throughout his life saying if he had never agreed with Athenian law, then why did he not more elsewhere any other time in the past? Moreso, why did he never really leave even for vacations? It would seem that he greatly loved the city, so why then should he turn his back from it for just a few more moments of this life?
Yet on top of all of these—
Okay, I now have a lot more thoughts and questions (questionings…?). The last few paragraphs were notes from when I first read Crito in July, and past-me found it consoling that “not only do Socrates’ actions have a properly logical conceptual/hypothetical framework, but more that he truly chose to follow through it with joy and genuine enlightened acceptance” which present-me no longer understands/agrees with.
Another case in point, past-me says next that “Socrates having had gone through all this with a positive attitude and in a truly philosophical manner becomes an example and a source of hope for anyone going through afflictions. Some others may experience something similar or the exact same but have no privilege or support or resources he had. Yet somehow he chose to do away with those things, and so he is now a viable example that even at one’s lowest, there may still be some sort of diving hope that all is fine. One’s life will always be of virtuous value if one lives by the teachings of philosophy.” And I get that. Quite stoic actually (note: reflect also on Socrates, Plato, and Stoicism). But I do not completely agree. Maybe this stoic “enlightened acceptance” is instead Socrates’ way of coping with his “emotionality and desperation”—he is after all the one about to be killed.
How should a proper human approach their death, especially one of an unjust nature?
Is life worth living even if its unjust end is simply accepted?
Death can mean other sorts of deaths too: accepting that one cannot become something that one wants to be what one “needs” or “has” to be—is this virtuous?
…
There are no citations in this post because most of these are from notes from months back and somehow I wasn’t able to note anything, but all of these are thoughts from reading Crito and the Apology, both in the public domain and also that I need to reread soon. In any case, these are notes, a personal journal entry at best, and so it would be best to simply read the texts in whole and let these thoughts fly over the clouds of wonder.
While looking up some words as I write at this very moment, I came across this interesting article which, like the two books, I ought to read [soon] as well. I haven’t read it yet but I will, somehow, and so I am putting the link here so I can make sure I can access it in the future.
…
Initially, I was thinking of this as a way to break out of the frameworks of education and knowledge I have been primarily working on in the past few months, but honestly, they seem to all just be one big circle of knowing and living and Being all the time. Somewhere there (in the pile of notes) is the value of life and its ties with meaning and the question of what meaning is and how it could be conceptualised; somewhere in the knowledge and education piles is the idea of human existence and living in such a way that one becomes more human and of more “humanly” value.
So that is fun. Hahaha.