The Unexamined Life 587.1
Today, Socrates is thought of as one of the world’s great philosophers, but to the leaders of Greece he was considered annoying and dangerous.
Claiming “the unexamined life is not worth living,” he roamed the public places of Athens asking relentless questions that challenged assumptions and beliefs and demanded that people think about social justice and personal worthiness.
“My friend,” he would ask, “are you not embarrassed by caring so much for money, fame, and reputation, and not thinking of wisdom and truth and how to make your character as good as possible?” Socrates wasn’t trying to make people feel bad; he was encouraging them to be better.
In the end, he was sentenced to death for his subversive ideas. He refused an opportunity to escape since it would violate his principles.
Socrates was an optimist about human nature. He believed wickedness is the result of ignorance and those with true knowledge will act rightly. Socrates’s question about priorities is relevant today, yet it takes courage and integrity to examine our motivations and goals and to measure our attitudes and conduct in relation to our principles.
Are you trying to make your character as good as possible?
Are you as honest as you should be?
Do you treat everyone with respect, even those you don’t like?
Are you accepting responsibility for your choices?
Are you fair?
Are you doing what you can charitably?
Are you doing your share as good citizens?
This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.
Comments
I always enjoy reading about "the Gadfly of Athens," but Michael, I don't see how the fact that "Socrates was an optimist about human nature" needs to fit into your other points here. Kierkegaard, who greatly admired Socrates, spends some time in his "The Sickness Unto Death" debunking the the very idea that "wickedness is the result of ignorance and those with true knowledge will act rightly." Of course, Kierkegaard held that humans are corrupted by the desire to sin, which often overrides the sentiment that they know better. It seems to me Socrates's fall underscores that many people will choose to act as if they are ignorant (even if they are not) when given the choice to act according to true knowledge.
Otherwise, I appreciate the message here -- one must have true knowledge to act rightly (thus the importance of the examined life), but just because someone has that knowledge doesn't mean he/she will act rightly.
Posted by: Brandon | October 10, 2008 9:50 AM
Socrates did not escape because he said we have the obligation to abide by the laws of our country. Were those laws just? Can anyone tell me the names of the judges who conducted the trial and sentenced him? Why do we not celebrate them as ethical models, those who sentenced someone who would subvert the then gods of their state in his dialogues with the younger generation? The alternative he offered them was his "daemon," what we nowadays call our "conscience." Has it really changed that bad states have laws that punish, extradite, and eliminate those who have a conscience?
Posted by: Katharina Gutsche | October 11, 2008 2:43 AM
The point, it seems, that Josephson would like us to take away from this message is simply that, during CC! week next week we should be asking ourselves these questions and through our answers "annoy" ourselves into becoming re-inspired to live a more integrity-driven life. Perhaps by our own example we can inspire someone else to be better. Perhaps this close to a national election, we need to examine our candidates using this magnifying glass and decide whether our vote will be for a more optimistic America or an America that is "wicked" due to either innocent ignorance or ignorance by choice. Anyway, such things are personal growth issues worth thinking about. One thing for sure is that next week my student reporters will be out and about at lunch time asking their middle school peers these questions. Socrates would be pleased, I think.
Posted by: Shari Lyon | October 15, 2008 1:43 PM