Reexamining the Unexamined: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » Reexamining the Unexamined » Reexamining the Unexamined

Reexamining the Unexamined

~E
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Oct 04, 2004
Location: Japan

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 162

Posted 11/28/04 - 05:34 AM:	#1
Most of us have noted (with approval?) that philosophical canard: “The unexamined life is not worth living,” attributed to Plato, and perhaps generalized it to one of our fundamental tenants: An unexamined belief is not worth holding. Never-the-less, nearly all people, and hence probably the vast majority of those with unexamined lives and/or beliefs, resist losing them to the last breath, which is arguably evidence of their worth to an expert intimately in contact with the nuances of those lives and beliefs. Doesn’t this give the upper hand to the counter thesis?
Our current ulterior motive is to recruit philosopher/adventurer/investigator/avenging angels, for whom we have four remaining equipment grants if they are not already equipped with NWN, to visit the on-line game world of Amia and make sure their policy isn't still encouraging Batman-Robin Greek cyber tells. Sure, we agree that's been part of every world from way back when, yet must we actively foist it on our innocent kids during game play?

Morrandir
Ich habe mich aufgehoben

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 19, 2004
Location: The Finnest Land

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 2968

Posted 11/28/04 - 05:51 AM:	#2
~E wrote: Most of us have noted (with approval?) that philosophical canard: “The unexamined life is not worth living,” attributed to Plato, and perhaps generalized it to one of our fundamental tenants: An unexamined belief is not worth holding. Never-the-less, nearly all people, and hence probably the vast majority of those with unexamined lives and/or beliefs, resist losing them to the last breath, which is arguably evidence of their worth to an expert intimately in contact with the nuances of those lives and beliefs. Doesn’t this give the upper hand to the counter thesis? Well, I think those sentences are sort of ways for the knowledgeable and learned to justify their learning, and to think that their lives have actually been better than of those who spent that time partying - as we often hear that we should "live a little" or similar. Of course, as always, there is a seed of truth in both of those, but to take it as far as to say practically: "anyone who does not live an examined life desires suicide" is pretty off. In fact, we have faced severe problems in the whole idea, because it seems that most people who have not lived an examined life are never fully conscious of that! This makes the statement seem more and more subjective. It is a statement uttered by someone who thinks he has lived an examined life and looks upon those that have not in distaste. I value examined life, and think it is the most important thing for me to do, but I do not see myself in any position to judge those that have taken a different path either. Moreover, I don't think the fact that they live and want to continue doing so is a counterargument against Plato's statement, just because the statement itself is something that is said NOT by the unexamined person, but by the examined one. The ignorant do not understand their ignorance and would not see it as such a bad thing - and thus hardly would want to die because of it. What comes to that unexamined belief, a similar line of argumentation emerges. How many of us have "examined" that the world is round? (Or insert similar example). Still we consider it a belief worth holding that it is. Why? Because it is the right belief, so we think. Again this is actually directed at the ignorant from the perspective of the learned. Knowledge is power is something that is intrinsic here. The learned think that the masses or the ignorant are easily manipulated by the learned, because they do not question their "common knowledge" - and they are most probably right. But this does not take away the worth of having such a belief. Many beliefs we have are unexamined, but still worth it. It is only when the belief happens to be wrong that we run into trouble. I think these statements are both one-eyed (solely from the perspective of the learned) and too strong. But then, we could say that your point that the ignorant wish to live on is a counter-argument against these statements when they are interpreted strongly. They should be instead interpreted in a more weak manner, remembering where they come from. ~Morrandir~
Philosophy is disciplined bewilderment. A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty. http://www.beyondappearances.com

~E
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Oct 04, 2004
Location: Japan

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 162

Posted 11/28/04 - 06:13 AM:	#3
Sorry, Morrandir, I temporarily lost access to the Philosophy Forums server, so the poll didn't appear until after your reply. May I assume you'd have checked #10? Or . . .
Our current ulterior motive is to recruit philosopher/adventurer/investigator/avenging angels, for whom we have four remaining equipment grants if they are not already equipped with NWN, to visit the on-line game world of Amia and make sure their policy isn't still encouraging Batman-Robin Greek cyber tells. Sure, we agree that's been part of every world from way back when, yet must we actively foist it on our innocent kids during game play?

Morrandir
Ich habe mich aufgehoben

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 19, 2004
Location: The Finnest Land

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 2968

Posted 11/28/04 - 06:36 AM:	#4
~E wrote: Sorry, Morrandir, I temporarily lost access to the Philosophy Forums server, so the poll didn't appear until after your reply. May I assume you'd have checked #10? Or . . . Well, it doesn't really matter, ~E, so cheer up . I could vote on the poll even after replying, not that I often do. Well, anyway, the last one seems the nicest, so perhaps I will just check it to make you feel better . Sorry about my fingers. They are quick from time to time, yes. ~Morrandir~
Philosophy is disciplined bewilderment. A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty. http://www.beyondappearances.com

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003

Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 11/28/04 - 06:46 AM:	#5
~E wrote: Most of us have noted (with approval?) that philosophical canard: “The unexamined life is not worth living,” attributed to Plato, and perhaps generalized it to one of our fundamental tenants: An unexamined belief is not worth holding. Never-the-less, nearly all people, and hence probably the vast majority of those with unexamined lives and/or beliefs, resist losing them to the last breath, which is arguably evidence of their worth to an expert intimately in contact with the nuances of those lives and beliefs. Doesn’t this give the upper hand to the counter thesis? I don't understand why you believe that those who strongly resist changing their views in the light of new evidence have given evidence of the merit of their views, nor do I understand what you mean by the question you ask in your final sentence. You might want to read about "cognitive dissonance" as psychologists call it, a term coined by the psychologist, Lewis Festinger. http://www.dmu.ac.uk/~jamesa/learning/dissonance.htm

~E
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Oct 04, 2004
Location: Japan

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 162

Posted 11/28/04 - 07:36 AM:	#6
Gassendi1 wrote: I don't understand why you believe that those who strongly resist changing their views in the light of new evidence have given evidence of the merit of their views, nor do I understand what you mean by the question you ask in your final sentence. I merely state (and believe) that most people resist changing their beliefs to the last breath irregardless of evidence. Perhaps you chose #7 in my poll? Restated w/o the double negative my question is, “Perhaps lack of examination is unrelated to one's evaluation of worth of self and beliefs?” You might want to read about "cognitive dissonance" as psychologists call it, a term coined by the psychologist, Lewis Festinger. I learned that Festinger’s theory is saying or doing one thing while believing another creates a "cognitive dissonance" to change one or the other; however, I personally find this idea difficult to square with all the hypocrisy at large in the world.
Our current ulterior motive is to recruit philosopher/adventurer/investigator/avenging angels, for whom we have four remaining equipment grants if they are not already equipped with NWN, to visit the on-line game world of Amia and make sure their policy isn't still encouraging Batman-Robin Greek cyber tells. Sure, we agree that's been part of every world from way back when, yet must we actively foist it on our innocent kids during game play?

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003

Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 11/28/04 - 07:41 AM:	#7
I learned that Festinger’s theory is saying or doing one thing while believing another creates a "cognitive dissonance" to change one or the other; however, I personally find this idea difficult to square with all the hypocrisy at large in the world. I think you "learned" wrong. F's theory has nothing to do with hypocrisy. It has to do with what people do when their strong beliefs meet up with what seems to be counter-evidence. Read the site I linked.

~E
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Oct 04, 2004
Location: Japan

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 162

Posted 11/28/04 - 08:38 AM:	#8
Gassendi1 wrote: I think you "learned" wrong. F's theory has nothing to do with hypocrisy. It has to do with what people do when their strong beliefs meet up with what seems to be counter-evidence. Read the site I linked. It's not so much that I learned "wrong" as that my knowledge has become outdated. Thanks for this update. I'm accomodating my beliefs to Neighbor's extension of Festinger's thesis. The link you provided was a great read. Just the phrase "intellectual flatulence" to describe the principle that "the more obscure and convoluted the subject, the more profound it must be. This has of course been exploited for years to persuade us of the existence of the emperor's clothes, particularly by French 'intellectuals.'" Makes it well worthwhile. N.B. For more information on Cognitive Dissonance, see.
Our current ulterior motive is to recruit philosopher/adventurer/investigator/avenging angels, for whom we have four remaining equipment grants if they are not already equipped with NWN, to visit the on-line game world of Amia and make sure their policy isn't still encouraging Batman-Robin Greek cyber tells. Sure, we agree that's been part of every world from way back when, yet must we actively foist it on our innocent kids during game play?

YadaYada
fool

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Location: in the past

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 324

Posted 11/28/04 - 10:34 AM:	#9
Cognitive dissonance serves to conserve the integrity of one's self, attitudes, beliefs, and self concept. When these are sound, then cognitive dissonance is a protective mechanism. When one holds illogical or unsound beliefs, has a negative self concept, has negative attitudes, then cognitive dissonance interferes with learning and psychological well being. Here's a more thorough review: http://www.apa.org/books/4318830s.html
{}{}{}{ . . . }{}{}{ . . . }{}{}{}{}{ . . . We may assume the superiority ceteris paribus of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates ~ Aristotle

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.