5
”The unexamined life is not worth living.”
The meaningful examination of life and the reinvention of belief
“The unexamined life is not worth living.” - Socrates (470-399 BCE)
In the ancient Greece, a radical thought started to shake the ground of the entire human world; a
movement of radical thinkers shook the ground of our ancestral culture; people started to think
critically. In an era of myths being made up as explanations to any question people were not
immediately capable of explaining themselves, the ancient philosophers started a radical movement
of critical thinking, today known as philosophy. A clear turning point is the study of the human
intellect, the virtue Sophia, of Socrates and his successors. As seen in the works of Plato, Socrates
famously stated: “The unexamined life is not worth living.” This quote not solely characterizes
Socrates, an intellectual martyr, it is the very essence of all western philosophy and culture in
general.
Stating that “The unexamined life is not worth living.” is a homage of humanism; an appreciation of
radical thinking; a worship of the virtue Sophia. Historically this mindset is seen in the intellectual
movement from mythos to logos, from religiosity to secularism, from despotic governance to a
constitutional freedom of thought. Socrates wanted people to think critically, as well as simply not
to believe anything that did not seem reasonable. Beside the fact we ought to wonder and question
the unproven, human being is actually meaningless if we do not. Though these thoughts famously
are presented to us in the works of Plato, the development of the approach is fulfilled by the
methodical doubt of the later French thinker, René Descartes. In my discussion of the characteristics
of examining life, my starting point will be that of René Descartes. To discuss the problem of the
worth of living, I will refer to the 20th century existentialist philosopher of Jean Paulle Sartre.
Succeeding his groundbreaking mathematical inventions, the intellectual goal of Descartes was to
simply doubt everything; to examine every tiny bit of his life. He would prove the unproven wrong,
to see if something could be proven right. This method is, what Descartes named, the methodical
doubt. At first Descartes comes up with three arguments, proving that everything he knows could be
possibly wrong. I will neither bother you, my dear reader, with an outline of these arguments, nor I
will spend too much time on the conclusion that even if Descartes was tricked by some evil demon,
at least something was tricked. The conclusion is incarnated in the sentence, cogito ergo sum. A
problem occurs when Descartes tries to link ontology and epistemology. To determine your own
being, ontology, you need a criteria of truth, epistemology. And again, before even determining
what you are able to determine, you must determine your own being. Ontology precedes
epistemology, and epistemology precedes ontology. This fundamental cause of effect, found when
trying to examine life, is a circle, later dubbed the Cartesian circle. Descartes solves this problem
unsatisfactory by involving an ontologically, absolute god as the ontological foundation of
everything; god defines a human ontological essence not even Descartes was able to think radically
1/3
5
”The unexamined life is not worth living.”
enough. Since Descartes as well as any other thinker neither have a satisfactory proof of the
existence of an absolute god, ontology, nor a satisfactory proof of the human capability of proving
an absolute god, epistemology. This means that there in all philosophy is a vacuum; something that
cannot be proven right. At first, it seems like only philosophy can prove the legitimacy of
philosophy in a philosophical manor, and that philosophy therefore is meaningless. In others
worlds, thinking critically leads you to a dead end where you are neither capable of determining
your own human existence nor your intellect. If critical thinking, the examination of life of Socrates
and the methodical doubt of Descartes destroys the foundation of thinking critical, thinking critical
seems rather meaningless to me.
Almost half a millennium later, the atheistic existentialists of France started to wonder about the
meaning of life. Proceeding two world wars and a dominating scientific world picture, god seemed
pretty dead. They were secularized and instead of focusing on god, metaphysics and objectivity,
they wondered how the individual would find meaning in its own life. According to Sartre, a human
being is defined in its ability to choose. The choice, the existence, is prior to any ontological
essence. In opposition to his compatriot Descartes, there is no god to determine this essence. Sartre
distinguishes between two kinds of being - être-en-soi and être-pour-soi. Etre-en-soi characterizes
the being of things - a book cannot choose to be anything but a book. Its essence is prior to its
existence. Etre-pour-soi characterizes the human being - if a carpenter wants to be a philosopher, he
buys a book and starts to think. The human existence is prior to our essence, and that is the key to
break the problem of the Cartesian circle. The être-pour-soi is to me exactly the same as choosing to
examine life. The choice is therefore the link between ontology and epistemology, the foundation
of critical thinking. Choosing to not think critical is not impossible. Considering a problem too big
to think about it critically, is critical thinking; trying to avoid critical thinking is trying postponing a
choice; trying to postpone a choice is what Sartre would call bad faith, and that is simply
meaningless escapism.
So, how can a choice make up the foundation for critical thinking. How is a human being able to
choose to be a human being. It is made possible by choosing to believe in one’s critical thinking
human being. Neither to believe in god nor in mythological metaphysics, but to believe in radical
thinking; in pure logic. One could ask how belief and logic could be combined. It is possible
because this belief is in no way irrational - if I like Descartes doubted everything but the existence
of me as an object, believing in myself - all I have got - is way more rational than believing in a
god. Instead of letting god give provide a ontological foundation for critical thinking, I put my faith
solely in critical thinking. This is a reinvented belief, not the same bad faith that lead to the belief in
mythology and irrational metaphysics. The logical belief is linked to the être-pour-soi, while the bad
faith is linked to the être-en-soi.
Though this might justify logical thinking, the problem of the Cartesian circle still exists. By
choosing to believe in my own human being as a critical thinker, I make the Cartesian circle a
rationally manageable problem.
2/3
5
”The unexamined life is not worth living.”
As a reaction to the unproven, irrational mythology back then considered knowledge, Socrates
stated that living could only be meaningful, being critical. In the eyes of Socrates, one would need
to examine his own life. Examining life is ultimately approached by the methodical doubt of
Descartes. A problem occurs as ontology and epistemology fundamentally are in conflict, since
they are dependent on each other. Descartes solves this problem by involving an ontologically,
absolute god, that provides the human being with its ability to think logically. As Descartes cannot
give an account of the existence of god, he is not capable of legitimate his own critical thinking
essence. This philosophical vacuum, today known as the Cartesian circle, reflects itself in the
atheism of the later existentialist. To them people are not characterized by an essence, but by their
choices and by their very existence. For that reason, by choosing to believe in your own human
critical thinking, a manageable solution to the Cartesian circle is found. The makes it logical to
think logically, and reasonable to be reasonable.
One could say, that belief is a foundation too fragile. Therefore I will have to distinguish between
bad faith and logical belief. Thinking critically and believing in an ontological and rational
epistemological foundation of human being, is a logical and manageable choice. Not making this
choice, and therefore not examining your life, is meaningless nonsense. Though, it is of high
importance to remember the fact that the choice of belief is the very foundation of human being and
self-examination. That is undeniable. On this foundation, all western culture and thinking is made a beautiful work of art. On the other hand, the unexamined life is a foolish denial; it is bad faith and
simply escapism. Therefore, the unexamined life is in no way worth living. As a matter of fact, the
unexamined life is not living.
3/3