Introduction
Philosophers tried to find the meaning of life throughout history, and there is no unanimous opinion on this issue even nowadays. As Socrates claims in Plato’s “Apology,” “the unexamined life is not worth living”. This perspective articulated by Socrates emphasizes the importance of knowledge and cognition in finding the meaning of life. This paper discusses and analyzes the argument that Socrates used to foreground his claims and possible objections to them. The discussion of Socratic ignorance and the Oracle of Delphi, the description of philosophy as a heroic quest, and the role of the philosopher in the formation of the worldview of people support the argument. The objections to this argument are connected with the limited abilities of human reason and the neglect of emotional life. It is possible to hypothesize that Socrates succeeded in defending the idea that the examined life is the best type of life to lead because his claims are logically foregrounded, but this opinion is restricted.
Discussion
Socrates believed that his reason for living was the search for wisdom, which determined his worldview and opinion on the examination of life. The philosopher regarded reason and rational cognition as the main distinction that made humans different from animals, whose needs were entirely determined by physical needs and instincts. As Socrates stated in his speech, logical thinking was the only way to reduce the level of ignorance and to become different from an animal. It is possible to illustrate this hypothesis with the example of Socrates’s discussion of the Oracle of Delphi and his view on his ignorance. The philosopher heard that the Oracle of Delphi called him the wisest person living in Athens, and Socrates could not agree with this opinion because he knew that his knowledge about life and the world was limited. Plato writes in “Apology”: “Socrates: This man, on the one hand, believes that he knows something, while not knowing [anything]. On the other hand, I – equally ignorant – do not believe [that I know anything].” In other words, Socrates understood that initially, people have a worldview restricted by ignorance, and learning everything is above human abilities.
Socrates regarded philosophy as a heroic quest reflected in his attitude to life and death. In his speech during the trial, he said, “A man who fights for justice must lead a private, not a public, life if he is to survive for even a short time.” These lines show that Socrates considered his activity as a philosopher and the person who spreads knowledge in society dangerous. The trial and the subsequent execution of Socrates proved the idea that telling people the truth that destroyed their convenient views on life and themselves was a heroic action. His words about the need for rational cognition of the surrounding reality made Socrates the outcast in the Athenian community, and he was accused of ruining old traditions and corrupting the minds of the young population. Thus, the attempts to change the widespread opinions concerning the essential things in life were connected with the risk of public accusation for the philosopher and reminded the heroic quest.
The critical detail is that Socrates was accused of impiety and corrupting the youth due to his attempts to spread this knowledge among people. It shows that society was not ready to understand his claims at that moment and regarded the philosopher’s position as the sin that led to social disobedience. Therefore, Socrates had the role of the “gadfly” that disturbed the minds of ordinary people, trying to promote his views on the importance of “care of the self” and examination of life. It allows us to assume that the originality of thoughts articulated by the philosopher made him opposed to society and led to the cautious attitude to his ideas.
As was already mentioned, Socrates was accused of impiety during the trial, resulting in a misunderstanding between most Athenians and the philosopher. Socrates had an original view of religion and gods that was distinct from the standard view of most community members. For instance, he believed that God was the perfect being whose wisdom and moral purity are ideal, and these qualities are based on rationality. Therefore, it is possible to learn God’s wisdom using rational thinking and trying to understand the surrounding reality using reason.
Most Athenians, in turn, believed that gods were similar to human beings and had weaknesses, making them not ideal. As a result, these gods did not personify the superiority of reason and rationality for most contemporaries of Socrates. Their gods were emotional and human-like, which explained the existing misunderstanding between the philosopher and his contemporaries’ views that led to the dispute.
Socrates believed in God, even though the court tried to prove that he was impious and did not honor gods. The philosopher believed in reason and a rational God, which is reflected in the following lines from Apology”:
“Men of Athens, I honor and love you; but I shall obey God rather than you, and while I have life and strength I shall never cease from the practice and teaching of philosophy… Understand that I shall never alter my ways, not even if I have to die many times.”
This excerpt shows that Socrates did not change his opinion even when he understood that he would be sentenced to death for his thoughts. Therefore, he decided to end his life even though he had the opportunity to end his days in exile if he would publicly acknowledge that he was wrong. Socrates said that the unexamined life was not worth living at the moment when the jury proposed to him the choice between exile and death. The philosopher proved with his decision that for him, there was no sense in existence if he could not pursue the rational cognition of reality.
Objection
The opinions of Socrates are consistent with his actions because the philosopher does not refuse his words to save his life. At the same time, his perspective is restricted only by rational thinking and reason, which derives from Socrates’ view on the rational nature of God. The philosopher refuses to discuss emotional cognition and the importance of feelings and personal perception, which are also critical in forming an adequate worldview. The reason is connected with logic that is the same for everyone, but emotions and personal feelings are different for every person. Therefore, measuring and evaluating them is impossible, making the emotional experience subjective. Though emotions are vital in the formation of the individual and the balanced development of the personality, the ability to feel complex emotions makes people different from animals. This idea emphasizes the restrictions in the rational approach articulated by Socrates.
The second point is the limited abilities of the human mind that cannot grasp all details of the surrounding reality and interpret them objectively. Moreover, the objectivity of the conclusions is also doubted because human reason cannot explain many things in the universe. For instance, even modern scholars cannot give an objective answer about the evolution or creation of the universe. They can only describe different theories with rational evidence, but still, there are not enough pieces of evidence that allow them to state that there is the only correct answer to these questions. As a result, the human mind’s abilities do not allow people to understand everything, which makes a point of view articulated by Socrates slightly incomplete.
Conclusion
Socrates defended the perspective that philosophy or the examined life is the logical choice of the life strategy. He presented arguments supporting the superiority of reason and cognition over feelings, instincts, physical needs, and emotional experience. Moreover, it is easier to classify and structure rational knowledge compared to emotions, making the scientific approach to the discussed philosophical question possible. Socrates died for his view on reality, which showed that the philosopher truly believed in the rational approach to cognition and did not think he was guilty of impiety and corrupting the minds of young Athenians. He preferred death to exile because he did not see meaning in life without rational investigation and further attempting to understand its essence. These actions illustrate the philosopher’s claim to make people improve their lives by thinking critically, a disturbing process that makes individuals oppose wisdom.
References
Cohen, Mitchell. 2018. Princeton Readings in Political Thought: Essential Texts since Plato -Revised and Expanded Edition. Princeton University Press.
Marshall, Laura A. 2017. “Gadfly or Spur? The Meaning of ΜΎΩΨ in Plato’s Apology of Socrates.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 137: 163–74. Web.
Plato. “Apology.” The Internet Classics Archive, n.d. Web.
Pucci, Pietro. 2022. “Plato’s Apology: Questioning the Prosecution’s Knowledge and Wisdom (Σοφία).” In Philodorema: Essays in Greek and Roman Philosophy in Honor of Phillip Mitsis, edited by David Konstan and David Sider, 1–42. Parnassos Press – Fonte Aretusa.