At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
All life is worth something in it's own ecosystem, how ever large, small, sort or long it might be.
At the trial of Socrates in Athens, 399 BC, Socrates has already been found guilty of impiety and corrupting the young men of Athens. In other words, he has criticized the government, and the leaders don’t like it. There is no prescribed sentence for these crimes. Instead, there is now a penalty phase of the trial, and Socrates has to propose his own sentence. Then court decides between Socrates’ proposal and that of the prosecutor, which is death. The court probably would have expected him to propose exile from Athens, and they very likely would have accepted that. Socrates is speaking, as recorded by Plato: Apology 37-38 "Now here is the most difficult thing to make some of you believe. For if I say that such conduct would be disobedience to the god and that therefore I cannot keep quiet, you will think I am joking and will not believe me; and if furthermore I say it is the greatest good for a man to talk every day about virtue, and the other things about which you hear me talking and examining myself and others, and that the unexamined life is not worth living, you will believe me still less. This is the truth, gentlemen, but it is not easy to convince you." -Socrates Based on the context, it's not a determination that life itself isn't worth living if it's unexamined but that for someone who has spoken of viture and examined their lives (what it mean to be human) to have to continue their lives while renouncing futher examination would not be worth living. It would be like having to give up a part of your identity, the part that tells you who you are and gives you the hope that you will never stop growing and learning in your life. You would have to give up your self-consciousness...If I were in that position, I would honestly have to consider that he was right and that such a restrained life may not be worth living. If a man/woman is to be free in their lives then they must be free thinkers along the way.
Like a true jackass I will answer with a question: "What life has not been examined?" i.e. all life known and unknown have some type of intelligence (GOD, higher power, cosmic spaghetti monster) perceiving it, therefore your question is invalid.
Also your question states "...worth living...", how can you determine anything about an unexamined object or living being If you have not examined it; you cannot begin to attribute worth or value to it without examination.
8r4n3...you ask a good question, "What life has not been examined?". The argument you offer though doesn't fully support your perspective. If every life has been examined by some higher power (provided that higher power exists to examine it) that still doesn't prove that the person is evaluating their lives. It's as theoretically possible that someone could spend their entire lives with no self-evaluation as it is that there is a higher power that always evaluate a life. His point, and that's what her question is based on, is that those who evaluate themselves have the chance to understand themselves ("I say it is the greatest good for a man to talk every day about virtue..."-Socrates) differently than those who do not and those who do, based on his experience, have richer inner lives. If the question is invalid then his point is invalid. I can understand where you're coming from with your second point, however, just because you have examined your life and someone else's and you have come to the conclusion that "an unexamined life" isn't 'worth' living, that doesn't mean they've examined themselves and that is still maintained in Socrate's statement. His point was that since he's examined his life, he now has the contrast to understand what it's like to be someone who hasn't examined their life. He's making a statement on the value of self examination and that if that evaluation were taken from him (and those that do not examine take the opportunity from themselves) then that life, his life, would not be worth living. In fact, that is what he died for. To maintain the fact that such a life that could no longer be evaluated was worse that death. Her question is valid in as much as the statement it was based on is valid.
Tell me how there isn't an intelligence "perceiving" existence when design involves a certain understanding to produce anything tangible within our reality. And as far as quoting a dead guy, come on I can do the same thing - "Life is a dream for the wise, a game for the fool, a comedy for the rich, a tragedy for the poor." -Sholom Aleichem Also - "do you believe that the UNEXAMINED LIFE IS NOT WORTH LIVING??" the question was - "Do I believe... yada yada." And get off Socrates, you refer to him too often. It seems like you're riding the coat tails off a dead man, dude.
Tell you how there isn't an intelligence perceiving existence (outside of human consciousness?)...and who said anything previously about such an intelligence designing anything? Are you referring to creationism as proof of intelligent design and therefore have proof that every life has been examined by said intelligence? Even if you're right, that still doesn't prove that any one individual examines their lives. Unless they get feedback from that intelligence about its' examination of them, they still haven't examined themselves and the question remains. Of course you can quote a dead guy, who can't? That's not the point, the question was based on a dead guy's statement, if the question is to be understood doesn't the context of the statement need to be understood? And sir, I have my own 'coat tails' (so do you) and I don't need to ride someone elses. However, I do understand the value of what others have understood throughout history and that the existence of our entire generation, culture and civilization is founded on the 'coat tails' of others. If we don't understand that history, how can we clearly percieve our present?
How could you understand a history put out by design to misinform?! HAHAHA and to think that a great portion of intellectuals out there that are not religious actually believe in a higher intelligence could be wrong. As far as "intelligent design", one does not necessarily mean creationist BS or belong to the ID movement. I am using the term to relay the idea that design by definition requires intelligence to achieve. de·sign 1. to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), especially to plan the form and structure of: to design a new bridge. 2. to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully. 3. to intend for a definite purpose: a scholarship designed for foreign students. 4. to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan: The prisoner designed an intricate escape. 5. to assign in thought or intention; purpose: He designed to be a doctor. "If we don't understand that history, how can we clearly percieve our present?" dig for truth and keep trying, as far a clear perception of your reality, sorry man, you seem to be wearing rose tints. Oh and also alternate living to better suit human nature, go join a commune.
I agree, our history as a civilization has been badly mishandled and is full of misinformation, but that doesn't mean we're beyond being able to understand it for what it is and establishing a more accurate rendering of history. Being willing to question our mythologies and cultural histories is a start to that. If we can't question that misinformation and correct it, what hope does any future generation have for survival? As for ID, i'm not debating the portion of intellectuals that see a higher intelligence in the creation and the design of earth/the universe. Their educated opinion doesn't prove ID nor do other intellectuals disprove it...they both have valid points on both side of that particular argument. For the sake of our discussion, am I correct in understanding that since we have a creation/world that seems to have a definite design, then there must be a designer (higher intelligence) and that designer examines individual lives and that therefore invalidates the question since, as you said, every life is examined from that perspective (even though the individual human may have never indulged in self examination)? In regards to my perception of reality, please don't assume to question it like that. I appreciate your thoughts and your debate on this and have enjoyed it, but please don't make that assumption. Neither you nor I fully understand each others views on the world and history that we've been born into, there's much we don't know about each others experiences. But, like you, I'll continue to dig and search and seek for the things that are true that we haven't been taught, that have been kept out of the history books. And if moving to a commune were of any lasting benefit, we would have seen that experiment come to fruition in the 60's and 70's. It was close, communes did provide for the needs of human nature better than general civilization (much like tribes did and still do). But it's not the communal lifestyle that's the answer but what a people believe about themselves based on the culture that has been passed on to them and the lifestyle they build from that.
Do you know David Hume? That dead man may shed some light for you. I agree we have differing opinions, so I will stop the slander. As far as communes, I did not just mean American hippy communes, those where half baked. What I meant was an actual commune. i.e. Kommunes (Germany), Kibbutzs (Israel), Mir Communes (Russia), and even in countries like Venezuela. Actual working communes that for the most part where well thought out.