Free Speech History and Campus Censorship

For the most part of history freedom of speech has been suppressed, with governments often criminalising unpopular and provocative opinions. A prominent, early example of this occurred in the times of the Ancient Greeks, when Socrates, who was one of the first known martyrs of freedom of speech, went about challenging his fellow man, spreading truth and wisdom throughout the city. Socrates explained that it was his duty assigned by the Gods to act as a ‘gadfly’ in the city of Athens, ‘God has assigned me to this city, as if to a large thoroughbred horse which because of its great size is inclined to be lazy and needs the stimulation of some stinging fly.’ (Plato, Tarrant and Tredennick, 2003, p.57.) In 399BC, Socrates was put on trial before a jury for ‘corrupting the minds of the youth’ and for ‘believing in supernatural things of his own invention instead of the gods recognised by the State.’ (ibid, p.48.) During the trial, Socrates argued that he would rather be sentenced than be silenced:

Suppose that… you said to me, ‘Socrates, on this occasion we shall disregard Anytus and acquit you, but only on one condition: that you give up spending your time on this quest and stop philosophizing. If we catch you going on in the same way, you shall be put to death.’ Well … I should reply, ‘Gentlemen, I am your very grateful and devoted servant, but I owe a greater obedience to God than to you; and so long as I draw breath and have my faculties, I shall never stop practising philosophy and exhorting you and indicating the truth for everyone that I meet’… ‘I am not going to alter my conduct, not even if I have to die a hundred deaths.’ (ibid, pp.55-56)

Socrates was found guilty by the jury, and was sentenced to the death penalty by drinking hemlock poison. Likewise, Jesus Christ was famously crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate after preaching his message which contradicted the Roman authorities.

A similar case transpired in the early part of the 17^th century, when Italian astronomer and physicist Galileo Galilei was condemned for believing in Heliocentrism, which is the idea that the Sun is the centre of the Solar System, and the Earth and planets revolve around the Sun. Galileo was put on trial by the Roman Catholic Inquisition in 1633. He was found guilty of heresy, and was sentenced to formal imprisonment, later altered to house arrest, in which he remained under for the rest of his life. In addition to which, his book Dialogue was outlawed, and the publication of any of his works were prohibited (Finocchiaro, 1989).

Around this time, governments across Europe enjoyed widespread control over the printing press, with the fear that widespread distribution of information was dangerous and harmful to society. Individuals were required to obtain an official state license in order to trade and produce any books or papers. In response to this control, John Milton wrote his 1644 pamphlet Areopagitica, which made a passionate case against licensing, regulations and government controls. It was Milton who introduced the idea of ‘the marketplace of ideas’ as a rationale for free speech, and his works turned out to be one of history’s most fervent and influential defences of free speech and freedom of the press (Morehouse, 2009).

By the 18^th century, with the age of the enlightenment, the notion of freedom of speech was largely discussed by thinkers all over the Western world (Stearns, 2012, p.62). In 1770, the popular French philosopher Voltaire supposedly wrote the famous phrase: ‘I disapprove of everything you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’ And in 1791, the First Amendment to Constitution in the United States was adopted, which bluntly states: ‘Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.’ The changes in attitude can be highlighted, for example, when Charles Darwin released his book ‘On the Origin of Species’ in 1859. The book introduced the theory of evolution, which largely contradicted common thought at the time. Although he was initially faced with hostility, he was never punished for his views. Instead, the political and theological implications of his theories were intensely debated, eventually leading to the general acceptance of the theory of evolution among scientists and the general public.

Perhaps the most prominent and influential defences of the right to freedom of speech came from British philosopher John Stuart Mill, who wrote the classic essay On Liberty in 1859. Mill was a significant figure in the development of the liberal philosophy, and his essay outlined the essential components of a free society. His view was that without freedom of speech the progress of science, law and politics would be stifled. Furthermore, Mill argues that freedom of expression acts as a marketplace of ideas, in which, ultimately, the truth outcompetes falsity, and so we need not worry about opinions that are false (Sanders, 2003, pp.66-67). However, Mill did recognise that there are limits to free speech. According to Mill: ‘the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others’ (Mill, 2003, p.8). This is known as the ‘Harm Principle’, which means that the freedom of speech of individuals should only be restricted to prevent harm to others. According to the Harm Principle, only speech which directly causes harm or incites violence, are illegitimate forms of speech; mere offensiveness does not constitute harm, therefore offensive speech is permissible (Brink, 2001, p.120). Although Mill wrote his classic in the 1850’s, his writings often remain the starting point for discussions on free speech.

A triumph for free speech occurred in 1948, as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was passed, which included the right to freedom of speech. Article 19 states: ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.’ The Declaration was adopted by the General Assembly by a vote of 48 in favour, none against, and eight abstentions, and remains the world’s most translated document (Guinness World Records, 2009).

The counterculture movement of the 1960s and 1970s in Britain and the United States, saw a significant rise in the number of politically progressive movements advocating freedom, tolerance and equality. Great advancements were made in the civil rights movements for ethnic minorities; the feminist movement for women’s rights; the gay rights movement for homosexuals; and the anti-war movement for peace. All of which provided a fight back against the cultural norms of the time, and all of which led a staunch defence for free speech in the advancement of their cause (Kersch, 2003, pp.142-151). For example, Martin Luther King (1967) said: ‘Curtailment of free speech is rationalized on grounds that a more compelling American tradition forbids criticism of the government when the nation is at war…Nothing can be more destructive of our fundamental democratic traditions than the vicious effort to silence dissenters.’ Furthermore, whereas first-wave feminism of the 19th and early 20th centuries fought for increased free speech in terms of the right to vote, second-wave feminism of the 1960s to 1980s aimed to challenge cultural and gender norms, promoting equality and arguing that women were just as capable as men. These movements were seen most prevalently on college and university campuses, most famously at the University of California in Berkeley, were a strong student protest, named the ‘Free Speech Movement’, fought back against university bureaucrats who were strictly limiting free speech and political organisation on campus, between 1964 and 1965 (Kersch, 2003, pp.148-151).

However, despite the United Kingdom having a rich history in the promotion of free speech, more recent times have seen increased measures to censor. In 1986, section 5 of the Public Order Act was passed, making it an offence if a person ‘(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting’ (Parliament of the United Kingdom, 1986). In 2012, a campaign was launched to reform section 5, urging for the use of the word ‘insulting’ to be removed as it is seen as a violation of free speech. A number of high-profile activists supported the campaign, such as comedians Rowan Atkinson and Stephen Fry; politicians David Davis and Nigel Farage, and many others. Atkinson argued that language or behaviour that is merely ‘insulting’ should never be criminalised because of the difficulty in interpretation. ‘Criticism is easily construed as insult. Ridicule is easily construed as insult. Sarcasm, unfavourable comparison, merely stating an alternative point of view can be interpreted as insult. And because so many things can be interpreted as insult, it is hardly surprising that so many things have been’ (Reform Section 5, 2012). In January 2013, the government announced that it would accept the amendment, and the word ‘insulting’ was dropped.

Around the time of the Public Order Act 1986, with Britain becoming a more tolerant and multicultural society, the incentive to protect certain groups increased. A drive to censor offensive speech emerged within society, particularly among left wing progressives. Toleration for speech deemed racist, sexist or prejudice diminished (Kersch, 2003, pp.151-153). This mind-set seems to have filtered into the university campus. Now, speech on campus that could potentially offend a students’ race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation is being forbidden. Guest speakers, events, societies, newspapers and songs have all been banned at some point by many UK universities, more specifically in most cases, the student unions.

Deanna Garrett (2002) claims that for students at universities, the implications of being offended are particularly significant. Her reasoning is that students cannot grow and develop if they are forced to study in hostile environments. Students who are busy worrying about their emotional safety have no time or energy to participate in university activities, therefore universities should be obligated to ensure a safe environment for students. In other words, universities have a right and duty to provide an educational environment, where all students can learn and live free from bigotry (Mitchell, 1992, pp.822).

However, this is condescending attitude towards students, treating them as young children that cannot be exposed to certain ideas or criticisms, and who are in need of ‘swaddling in safety blankets’ (Hume, 2015, p.121). According to O’Neill (2015, p.120) it reinforces the ‘poisonous idea’ of inherent human weakness and incapacity; that students are fragile and therefore speech and interactions must be monitored and policed. In this view, the best way to empower individuals is for them to become immune from offence, for students to develop a thicker skin. As Atkinson put it:

The best way to increase society’s resistance to insulting or offensive speech is to allow a lot more of it. As with childhood diseases, you can better resist those germs to which you have been exposed. We need to build our immunity to taking offence, so that we can deal with the issues that perfectly justified criticism can raise. Our priority should be to deal with the message, not the messenger (Reform Section 5, 2012).

In addition, being offended is a subjective experience. Almost anything can cause irritation and exasperation of some individuals. And, furthermore, there could be many different reasons one may give as to why they are offended. For example, it could be either the sound of the word that offends; the meaning of the word that offends; the historical use of the word which carries offensive baggage; and so on (Shoemaker, 2000, pp.575-581). Making a widespread decision, law or policy based on something so subjective is unwise and impractical.

According to some, universities should aim to instil values of ‘human decency’ within the students, such as respect, equality, diversity and tolerance. The idea is that by working to improve students’ ‘spiritual and moral growth’, a new generation of ‘more caring, more globally aware, and more committed to social justice’ will be created (Astin and Astin, 2015, p.73; Mitchell, 1992, pp.822). Some go even further, advocating that the central work of the university teacher is to push towards a ‘fully multiculturalist, postcolonial’ university (Matsuda, 1993, p.14). However, Bloomberg (2014, p.256) argues that the role of universities is not to teach students what to think, but to teach students how to think. Although diversity of gender, ethnicity, and orientation is important, Bloomberg argues, the role of universities is not to promote an ideology, it is to provide scholars and students with a neutral forum for researching and debating issues. It should not repress unpopular views, or favour one particular political ideology, otherwise the university, and those who conduct its research, will lose credibility (ibid).

To conclude, the achievement of freedom of speech is one of humanities greatest, and hard fought accomplishments. Dating back to the times of Socrates and Ancient Greece, the fight for free speech has had a long history. It was not until the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in the West that the notion of freedom of speech was largely discussed in philosophical circles and put into law by policy makers. Perhaps most notably, it was John Stuart Mill that produced the strongest defence of free speech in his influential book On Liberty. By the early twentieth century, freedom of speech was largely accepted and adopted as a universal human right. By the middle of the twentieth century, greater freedom, tolerance and equality was brought about for certain marginalised groups within society who fought hard for free speech. However, the later twentieth century saw an increasing movement to limit certain speech. Speech which were deemed offensive were now outlawed, and the Public Order Act 1986 law was passed in the UK, which banned ‘insulting’ words. This mentality spread across society, including on university campuses, leading to a culture of political correctness and campus censorship. Although there are people who hold abhorrent views who we would prefer not to engage with, the best way to deal with controversial opinions is to confront and debate them freely and openly, exposing their falsehoods and shortcomings with reason and evidence, rather than simply censoring and pretending they do not exist.

 

References

Astin, A. and Astin, H. (2015). Achieving Equity in Higher Education: The Unfinished Agenda. Journal of College and Character, 16(2), pp.65-74.

Bloomberg, M. (2014). Not to Teach Students What to Think, But to Teach Students How to Think. Vital Speeches of the Day, 80(8), pp.254-257.

Brink, D. (2001). Millian Principles, Freedom of Expression, and Hate Speech. Legal Theory, 7, pp.119-157.

Finocchiaro, M. (1989). The Galileo affair: A Documentary History. Berkeley: University of California.

Garrett, D. (2002). Silenced Voices: Hate Speech Codes on Campus. [online] The University of Vermont. Available at: http://www.uvm.edu/~vtconn/?Page=v20/garrett.html [Accessed 20 Jan. 2016].

Guinness World Records, (2009). Most translated document. [online] Available at: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/most-translated-document/ [Accessed 22 Oct. 2015].

Hume, M. (2015). Trigger warning: Is the Fear of Being Offensive Killing Free Speech? London: William Collins.

Kersch, K. (2003). Freedom of Speech: Rights and Liberties under the Law. ABC-CLIO.

King, M. (1967). The Causalities of the War in Vietnam. Los Angeles, California. [online] Available at: http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/progress/King1.pdf

Matsuda, M. (1993). Words that wound. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.

Mill, J. (2003). On Liberty (Dover Thrift Editions). New York: Dover Publications Inc.

Mitchell, C. (1992). The Political Correctness Doctrine: Redefining Speech on College Campuses. Whittier Law Review, 13(3), pp.805-829.

Morehouse, I. (2009). Areopagitica: Milton’s Influence on Classical and Modern Political and Economic Thought. Libertarian Papers, [online] 1(38), pp.1-14. Available at: http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/article/2009/lp-1-38.pdf.

O’Neill, B. (2015). A Duty to Offend. Connor Court Publishing Pty Ltd.

Plato, Tarrant, H. and Tredennick, H. (2003). The Last Days of Socrates. 5th ed. Penguin Classics

Reform Section 5, (2012). Rowan Atkinson’s speech at Reform Section 5 Parliamentary reception. Available at: http://reformsection5.org.uk/2012/10/rowan-atkinsons-speech-at-rs5-parliamentary-reception/ [Accessed 22 Oct. 2015].

Sanders, K. (2003). Ethics & Journalism. London: Sage.

Shoemaker, D. (2000). “Dirty Words” and the Offense Principle. Law and Philosophy, 19(5), pp.545-584.

Stearns, P. (2012). Human rights in world history. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Plato’s view of Education presented in The Allegory of the Cave

The influence of Plato’s literature has undoubtedly been significant, with his words and ideas spanning across centuries. Plato and his student Aristotle are generally considered to be the most influential theorists on Western philosophy and tradition. Perhaps Plato’s best-known work to date was The Republic, which, as is often the case in Plato’s writings, is presented in the form of a dialogue between Socrates and different interlocutors, yet it is likely that Plato used the character of Socrates as a mouthpiece of his own ideas.

In his book, Plato outlines his ideal society based on his philosophical beliefs. Consequently, The Republic has had a tremendous impact upon political philosophy. The book also contains metaphysical, epistemological and ethical content. Amongst other things, Plato discusses the meaning of justice, the role of the state and the structure of education. Ultimately, Plato advocates for a society that is ruled by ‘philosopher-kings’ who would rule out of duty and obligation rather than out of desire for power and personal gain. The goal of education then, for Plato, is to harvest these so-called ‘philosopher-kings’, only then will there be a just and happy society. As Socrates explains, the just and utopian society that Plato advocates will not exist ‘till philosophers become kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers’ (Plato, Republic, 473d). This view holds that philosophers are incorruptible and capable of handling power; running counter to the common liberal view, expressed best by Lord Acton, that ‘power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’

Plato devotes a large portion of The Republic delineating what the curriculum ought to be in order to produce these philosopher-kings. However, before he does so, he presents the ‘Allegory of the Cave’, in Book VII, which is intended to compare ‘the effect of education and the lack of it on our nature’ (ibid, 514a). Described as ‘haunting’ by Davis and Williams (2003, p.253), the allegory of the cave presents Plato’s philosophy of education metaphorically in a remarkable fashion. Socrates describes a scene that goes as follows:

Imagine an underground chamber like a cave, with a long entrance open to the daylight and as wide as the cave. In this chamber are men who have been prisoners there since they were children, their legs and necks being so fastened that they can only look straight ahead of them and cannot turn their heads. Some way off, behind and higher up, a fire is burning, and between the fire and the prisoners and above them runs a road, in front of which a curtain-wall has been built… Imagine further that there are men carrying all sorts of gear along behind the curtain-wall, projecting above it and including figures of men and animals made of wood and stone and all sorts of other materials, and that some of these men, as you would expect, are talking and some not (Plato, Rep. 514a-515a).

As Glaucon points out, this is an odd image that Socrates has described, with fairly strange prisoners; yet, Socrates says that ‘they are drawn from life’ (ibid, 515a). What he means is that the prisoners represent a particular group of the population, namely the non-philosophers or the uneducated. The darkness of the cave represents the state of ignorance. For the prisoners, the only reality they are aware of is the shadows from the figures cast by the fire’s light. They talk about these shadows as if they were real; however, they are just figures of men and animals made out of wood and stone. As Socrates puts it, the prisoners ‘would believe that the shadows of the objects we mentioned were the whole truth,’ (ibid, 515c) yet, of course, they would be mistaken.

Next, Socrates asks us to suppose that one of the prisoners is freed and then physically forced to turn, look at and walk towards the fire. We can assume that this would be an uncomfortable and somewhat painful experience for the prisoner, as he is dazzled by the brightness of the fire. Despite this initial discomfort, the prisoner would be a step closer to the truth, as he realises that the fire and figures are more real than the shadows he previously saw. This part of the story displays one particular aspect of Plato’s idea of education. To be precise, it tells us that education is not a pleasurable experience. In fact, it can be quite a painful one. We are led to believe that we would naturally recoil from education, just as we naturally recoil from physical pain. In practical terms, a child may show reluctance towards receiving new information. It may be confusing and uncomfortable, especially considering that it could make them realise how little they know.

The story continues with the prisoner being ‘forcibly dragged up the steep and rugged ascent and not let go until he had been dragged out into the sunlight’ (ibid, 515e-516a). Again, this demonstrates that education is painful and uncomfortable. The prisoner would be objecting to it, yet he is being brought closer and closer to the sunlight. The light clearly represents truth, knowledge and understanding. The prisoner would initially find the brightness of the surroundings overwhelming; however, after some time he would grow accustomed to it all. ‘First he would find it easiest to look at shadows, next at the reflections of men and other objects in water, and later on at the objects themselves’ (ibid, 516a-b). As the prisoner sees the real objects, the real trees, flowers and animals, he would realise that they are more real than the figures made of wood, and much more real than the shadows of the figures deep inside the cave. Eventually, he would come to be able to look directly at the sun itself, concluding that it is the sun that is responsible for everything. The sun can be interpreted, of course, as God; and metaphysically speaking, the outside of the cave represents the higher world. It is at this stage that the person can be considered a ‘philosopher-king’, capable of ruling society, as he has reached a stage of adequate knowledge and understanding. As Heidegger (1998, p.170) notes ‘the essence of ‘education’ is grounded in the essence of ‘truth.’’

In practical terms, the person is sufficiently educated enough to become a teacher. And so, the allegory continues with the prisoner, or former prisoner now, returning back into the cave to tell the other prisoners of what he knows. He does this as he feels a sense of pity for his fellow prisoners, therefore he feels obligated to inform them of what he knows. This coincides with the idea that philosopher-kings rule out of a sense of duty. This means that a teacher should not be motivated by self-interest. You should not become a teacher because of the satisfaction felt from teaching a student a new skill, or the enjoyment from communicating with children and so on. Rather it should be primarily out of a sense of obligation.

When returning to the cave, the freed prisoner has difficulty being able to see in the darkness of the cave. He starts bumping into things and falling over, subsequently making a fool of himself in front of the prisoners. The prisoners would say that ‘his visit to the upper world had ruined his sight, and that the ascent was not worth even attempting’ (Plato, Rep. 517a). This signifies the difficulty that an educator or philosopher faces when trying to communicate with students or the uninformed masses. The teacher must present his or herself in a certain manner, or else the majority of students will completely reject what he or she has to say. ‘So when he sees a mind confused and unable to see clearly he will not laugh without thinking’ (ibid, 518a).

According to Plato (518b-c):

We must reject the conception of education professed by those who say that they can put into the mind knowledge that was not there before – rather as if they could put sight into blind eyes…Capacity for knowledge is innate in each man’s mind… the organ by which he learns is like an eye which cannot be turned from darkness to light unless the whole body is turned; in the same way the mind must be turned away from the world of change until its eye can bear to look straight at reality, and at the brightest of all realities which is what we call the good.

Here, he means that education is not as simple as just telling students information. As said above, educators must conduct themselves in a certain manner. An uninformed mind simply cannot process complex and outlandish information. The teacher must hold the capacities of students in high regard. When Plato uses the word ‘turning’, Losin (1996) points out the significance of this word, ‘this notion of orientation [or turning] is central to Plato’s idea of education: he later describes real education as the art of orientation.’ This turning, according to Plato, requires the use of force or coercion. ‘Our job as lawgivers [or educators] is to compel the best minds to attain what we called the highest forms of knowledge, and to ascend to the vision of the good as we have described, and when they have achieved this and see well enough, prevent them behaving as they are not allowed to’ (Plato, Rep. 519c-d). This demonstrates another key part of Plato’s philosophy of education, which is that education requires an authority figure who must force content on students in a top-down manner. Just as the prisoner was physically forced out of the cave, the educator must compel the student to learn for the greater good. Today, this view seems somewhat outdated and illiberal. Although compulsory education does still exist, the use of physical force in schools is strictly outlawed. According to liberal philosopher Karl Popper (1957), Plato’s utopia is more of a totalitarian dystopia due to the approval of coercion and the lacking of democracy that Plato endorses, ultimately to a degree being responsible for the fascist and communist regimes of modern times.

To conclude, in The Republic, Plato portrays his ideal society, in which the citizens are ruled by philosopher-kings. These philosopher-kings have both a sufficient level of knowledge and a love of wisdom. They are also incorruptible by power, ruling out of a genuine sense of duty to help the people and promote justice throughout the city. The education system, therefore, should be arranged in such a fashion, which best harvests these philosopher-kings. Plato demonstrates his philosophy on education metaphorically in Book VII of The Republic. ‘The Allegory of the Cave’ presents a number of points about education. Firstly, that the process can initially be a painful and uncomfortable experience, however if persistent, it is extremely beneficial as it brings one closer to the truth. Secondly, a student requires an authority figure to force him to learn, often by means of compulsion. This is to account for the resistance a student may show to acquiring new information. Thirdly, those who reach an adequate level of knowledge and capability have a duty to enhance the lives of others, in order to improve society. He should not teach based upon self-interested motives. Finally, teaching is more complex than simply passing on knowledge. The teacher must attempt to ‘turn the soul’ of the student in order to maximise education.

Overall, ‘The Allegory of the Cave’ is an extraordinary piece of literature that still holds a significant influence today. A possible reason for this is because the story is relatable and can be interpreted in many different ways. The darkness of the cave signifies ignorance and unknowing, and the light from the sun signifies knowledge, truth and understanding. Despite the criticisms of Plato’s ideal society, we can all appreciate the allegory of the cave.

Bibliography

Davis, A. and Williams, K. (2003). Epistemology and Curriculum. In: N. Blake and P. Smeyers, ed., Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Education, 1st ed. Blackwell Publishing.

Heidegger, M. (1998). Plato’s Doctrine of Truth. In: W. McNeill, ed., Pathmarks, 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.155-182.

Losin, P. (1996). Education and Plato’s Parable of the Cave. Journal of Education, 178(3), pp.49-65.

Plato, Lane, M. and Lee, D. (2007). The Republic. 3rd ed. Penguin Classics.

Popper, K. (1957). The open society and its enemies. London: Routledge & K. Paul.

John Locke on Personal Identity

Personal identity is an interesting philosophical topic that raises a number of thought-provoking questions regarding existence, such as: who am I? What am I? Does life exist after death? What is it to be a person? What has a person got that a non-person does not? And so on. The main enquiry that this paper, and the personal identity topic in general, attempts to answer is the question of what it is that makes a person the same person over time. Sameness and time are concepts relating to the theory of personal identity, along with persistence and change. Identity can be symbolised by the equals sign (=) as it is a relation between a thing and itself. A typical identity statement would go as follows: Barack Obama is the President of the United States; Paul McCartney is a musician; the Earth is globular etc. In these statements the word is can be easily interchanged with the equals sign (=).

17^th Century, British philosopher John Locke was a major influence in the personal identity discussion. Locke’s account for personal identity was revolutionary and is still of interest today. The discussion on personal identity took place in Book II Chapter XXVII of An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689) and was remarkably profound, which is particularly impressive considering he played a large role in the invention of the topic. The chapter, which is titled “Of Identity and Diversity” remains one the most significant chapters in the whole of the essay. The essay itself outlined Locke’s empiricist philosophy, providing a groundwork which influenced future empiricists such as David Hume and George Berkeley.

One may ask why the personal identity topic is important, and why should we care about it? Well, one reason is because personal identity has a major legal importance. If someone commits a crime, yet legitimately cannot remember doing so, is he/she still responsible for committing that crime? Likewise, if a surgeon places your brain into someone else’s body, who would be responsible for the following actions? Identity is important because it is related to justice and moral responsibility. Only persons can act freely, and as a result be accountable morally and rationally for their actions. You are responsible for your own actions – but who is you? Are you your body or your mind or something else? In addition, personal identity has a role to play in ethical debates regarding controversial issues such as abortion and euthanasia.

The following paper will address the topic of personal identity, firstly by delineating what is known as the persistence question, which is the question of what is necessary and sufficient for a past or future being to be you. Three different approaches to the question are addressed: one approach is the Cartesian view which identifies a person with an immaterial soul; another approach is a materialist view which identifies a person with their body; and the final approach is a psychological one which relates personhood to the mind. Locke takes a psychological approach, in which he considers a person to be defined by his consciousness. Locke’s whole conception of personal identity will be outlined and examined, along with his criticisms of the other approaches to personal identity.

Persistence question

There is a problem with personal identity which many philosophers attempt to answer, and it is known as the persistence question. The persistence question asks what is necessary and sufficient for a past or future being to be you. Is a person in one point in time the same person as in a later point in time? And if so, what is it that makes it the same person? Am I the same person as I was when I was a baby? A lot has changed since I was a baby – I have grown taller, I weigh more, and I have a lot more cognitive ideas in my head. Despite these changes, it is generally accepted that I am the same person now as I was when I was a baby. Similarly, if, all of a sudden, a previously healthy person gets hit by a car damaging his brain and leaving him in a vegetative state – is he the same person as he was previously? What is it exactly that constitutes sameness over time? According to Olson (2010) the persistence question goes as follows: under what possible circumstances is a person who exists at one time identical with something that exists at another time?

In order to avoid confusion, it is imperative to make a key distinction between numerical identity and qualitative identity. In regards to the persistence question, we are talking about numerical identity. When two things are one in the same, they are said to be numerically identical, i.e. I am one in the same person as that baby years ago, and Paul McCartney today is one in the same person as the Paul McCartney that was a member of the Beatles fifty years ago. Qualitative identity, on the other hand, is when two things have similar qualities – they are qualitatively similar, i.e. they are more or less the same in appearance and have various properties in common. Identical twins are a good example to demonstration this distinction. Identical twins are qualitatively similar, in that they look more or less the same and probably have similar personality traits; however they are not numerically identical as there are two of them. This distinction allows us to realise that the persistence question is not about what it takes for a past or future being to be qualitatively similar to you. On the contrary, it is about what it takes for a past or future being to be you, as opposed to someone or something like you. Qualitatively I am not identical to as I was when I was a baby, but numerically I am.

The Soul approach

The traditional conception of personal identity, prior to Locke, was the soul approach. According to this view personhood is related to an immaterial soul that was implanted in the body by God. The soul theory is associated in particular with Plato, Descartes and numerous of the world’s religions. According to Descartes the soul is a non-physical, thinking substance that is distinct from the body. It is the soul that makes up a person, thus sameness of person over time is the sameness of soul over time. If it is the same soul, it is the same person. If it is a different soul, it is a different person. I am the same person as that baby, insofar as I have the very same soul as the baby. In this view the sameness of the body is irrelevant, bodies are contingent and are not necessary for personhood. The relation of person and soul allows for the existence of an afterlife, which Yaffe (2007) argues is the reason why this view is allied with Christianity.

For Locke, however, this view on personal identity is simply not plausible. Although Locke was a committed Christian who believed in the existence of the afterlife, he did not believe that personhood is defined by the existence of souls. In considering the soul theory, Locke identified two questions that must be answered: Is it possible to have different souls yet the same person? Which he answers “yes”. And, is it possible to have the same soul yet different persons? Which he also answered “yes”. Locke presents this in the following thought experiment:

Let any one reflect upon himself, and conclude, that he has in himself an immaterial Spirit, which is that which thinks in him, and in the constant change of his Body keeps him the same; and is that which he calls himself: Let him also suppose it to be the same Soul, that was in Nestor or Thersites, at the Siege of Troy, (For Souls being, as far as we know any thing of them in their Nature, indifferent to any parcel of Matter, the Supposition has no apparent absurdity in it) which it may have been, as well as it is now, the Soul of any other Man: But he, now having no consciousness of any of the Actions either of Nestor or Thersites, does, or can he, conceive himself the same Person with either of them? Can he be concerned in either of their Actions? Attribute them to himself, or think them his own more than the Actions of any other Man, that ever existed? (E II.xxvii.14: 339)

The point that Locke is making is that by having Nestor or Thersites soul does not necessitate that you have concernment towards their actions (Yaffe, 2007, pp. 208-209). Locke assumes that it is possible for you to have Nestor or Thersites soul without ever being concerned for what they did. In addition, according to Locke we cannot exclude the possibility that our souls can switch at a point in time. Suppose when you went to bed last night, either God or an evil demon destroyed your soul during the night and replaced it with a different soul. Suppose this new soul has all same beliefs, memories and desires as the previous soul, thus when you wake up the next day you feel no different and have no way of knowing that your body contains a different soul. So now, according to the soul view, you are a different person to the one before you went to bed last night. We cannot exclude the possibility that this switching of souls occurs every single night in fact, or every hour, or every minute. There is simply no way of knowing that the soul has been switched. This is too big of a jump to make for Locke, and so he rejects the soul approach, concluding that it is an inconceivable theory on personal identity.

The Body approach

An alternative theory on personal identity is the body approach. Whereas the soul approach states that sameness of soul is key to personal identity, the body approach states that sameness of body is key to personal identity. This theory is also known as the somatic approach, and is commonly associated with materialism. The general thesis is that identity over time consists in some brute physical relation. If it is the same physical body, then it is the same person. If it is a different physical body, then it is a different person. Here, sameness of soul is irrelevant, as is sameness of mind. I am the same person as that baby, insofar as I have the same physical body as the baby. Unlike the soul approach to personal identity, the body approach does not allow for an afterlife – when your body shuts down and decomposes, you as a person are dead. If a person has an accident and loses all mental capabilities, a supporter of the body approach would not accept that that person has ceased to exist. Its advocates state that we are only people contingently (Olson, 2006).

There are problems with this theory however. As human beings, our bodies age and grow, replacing old cells with new cells, causing us to lose and gain matter. Does this mean that I am a different person simply because I consist of different matter than before? Locke proposed a similar scenario concerning a sock which gets a hole. If the hole where to be patched, would it still be the same sock? How about if two patches where added, or three patches or four and so on until all the material of the original sock has been replaced (Cohen, 2010). Surely now it is a different sock? Moreover, another problem with this theory is when considering the example of brain transplants. Suppose a surgeon transfers one person’s brain, let us call him John, into another person’s body, call him George. We are left with John’s brain inside George’s body, thus George’s body contains all the thoughts, memories, beliefs and character traits of John. Although George looks identical to how he did before and has the exact same physical body, it seems wrong to say he is exactly the same person as before. John could have had a polar opposite set of beliefs, personality type and cognitive functioning to George, and so this new person behaves in a completely different way to how George would have done previously. Can we still say that George is the same person as before, simply because he has the same physical body? It would seem wrong to say so.

John Locke’s conception

So, Locke rejects both the soul approach to personal identity, and the body approach to personal identity. And so, he comes up with his own theory which, in a way, bridges the gap between the two schools of thought on the subject. Locke takes a psychological approach to personal identity. According to Locke, identity of person is defined by identity of consciousness: “[T]he same consciousness being preserv’d, … the personal identity is preserv’d” (E II.xxvii.13: 338). Locke goes about answering the persistence question by bringing things down to a fundamental atomic level. He says that a single particle of matter, i.e. an atom, continues in existence for as long as it remains self-identical. Atom a at one point in time, and atom b at a later point in time, are the exact same particle, insofar as there is a continuous trajectory leading from one to the other.

Let us suppose an atom, i.e. a continued body under one immutable superficies, existing in a determined time and place; it is evident, that, considered in any instant of its existence, it is in that instant the same with itself. For, being at that instant what it is, and nothing else, it is the same, and so must continue as long as its existence is continued; for so long it will be the same, and no other. (E II.xxvii.3: 330)

Next, he moves on to address bodies of matter – also known as composite objects. The thing that constitutes the identity of a composite object is dependent upon the identity of the particles that constitute it. The body of matter is the same body of matter if, and only if, it is the same group of particles, even if they are differently arranged. For example, if you sit on a bean bag causing it to squash; that bean bag is still the same bean bag, despite the particles being differently organised.

[I]f two or more Atoms be joined together into the same Mass, every one of those Atoms will be the same, by the foregoing Rule: And whilst they exist united together, the Mass, consisting of the same Atoms, must be the same Mass, or the same Body, let the parts be never so differently jumbled: But if one of these Atoms be taken away, or one new one added, it is no longer the same Mass, or the same Body. (E II.xxvii.3: 330)

Locke makes a strict rule that if just one atom is added or taken away, it is no longer the same composite object. This rule could potentially be seen as overly strict, especially when considering the paradox of the heap. If you have a heap of sand and just one grain of sand is taken away, is it now a different heap of sand? According to Locke “yes”.

Locke moves on to address living organisms. He recognises that he cannot apply the strict rule that he imposed on composite objects to physical organisms. A plant or animal is not a mere collection of matter, he describes them as “an organisation of parts in one coherent body, partaking of one common life” (E II.xxvii.4). And so the identity of an organism over time is constituted by a continuous history of such an organised life. Bodies of living organisms are constantly changing overtime, and it is an essential component of being a living thing that we lose old matter and gain new matter. As long as there is a continuous history linking them, we can say that there is a single organism.

An oak, growing from a plant to a great tree, and then lopped, is still the same oak; and a colt, grown up to a horse, sometimes fat, sometimes lean, is all the while the same horse; though, in both these cases, there may be a manifest change of parts; so that truly they are not either of them the same masses of matter. (E II.xxvii.3)

Following this, his next job is to define what a person is. According to Locke a person is:

A thinking intelligent Being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider it self as it self, the same thinking thing in different times and places; which it does only by that consciousness, which is inseparable from thinking, and as it seems to me essential to it: It being impossible for any one to perceive, without perceiving, that he does perceive. When we see, hear, smell, taste, feel, meditate, or will any thing, we know that we do so. Thus it is always as to our present Sensations and Perceptions: And by this every one is to himself, that which he calls self. (E II.xxvii.9: 335)

And so, Locke conception is that consciousness constitutes personal identity. Sameness of person overtime is sameness of consciousness over time. If it is the same consciousness, it is the same person. If it is a different consciousness, it is a different person. Locke’s answer to the persistence question is that it is memory that preserves personal identity. Memory is what mediates the linking of continuous history. If Paul McCartney can remember being a member of the Beatles fifty years ago, then he is the exact same person. This raises a number of questions and criticisms of Locke’s theory. If one cannot remember what he had for breakfast the day before, is he a different person? According to Locke “yes”. Thomas Reid famously raised an objection to Locke. He pondered that a retired general can remember what he did as a young lieutenant in the army, but cannot remember being a child. If memory constitutes personal identity then the lieutenant is one in the same person as the child and the general is one in the same person as the lieutenant, but the general is not the same person as the child. According to Reid, this is a contradiction. Importantly, Locke distinguishes a person from a human being. A human being is a living organism like others, but a person is a thinking intelligent being.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there are typically three ways of approaching the personal identity topic. The traditional view is the soul theory, which states that persons are immaterial souls, and it is sameness of soul that constitutes sameness of person. The problem with this theory is that there is no way of proving the existence of souls, and you cannot exclude the possibility that souls can be switched at a point in time. For Locke, this view is simply not plausible.

Another approach is the body theory, which states that persons are physical bodies, and it is sameness of body that constitutes sameness of person. The problem with this view is that our bodies change all the time, and so are we different persons because of this fact? The body theory also has major problems with the challenge of brain transplants.

Locke rejects both of these views, and so brings in consciousness as the solution. A person is there consciousness, and sameness of person over time is constituted by sameness of consciousness. This is dependent upon memory. If we can remember what we did yesterday, then we are the same person. If we cannot remember, then we are not the same person. This view on personal identity has been criticised, yet it does not take away the significant influence of Locke on the topic.

 

Bibliography

Cohen, M. (2010). Philosophy for Dummies. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Korfmacher, C. (2015). Personal Identity. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [online] Available at: http://www.iep.utm.edu/person-i/

Locke, J. (1959). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. New York: Dover Publications.

Olson, E. (2006). Is there a Bodily Criterion of Personal Identity? University of Sheffield.

Olson, E. (2010). Personal Identity. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter 2010 Edition. [online] Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal

Uzgalis, W. (2010). John Locke. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter 2014 Edition. [online] Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/supplement.html

Weinberg, S. (2011). Locke on Personal Identity. Philosophy Compass, 6(6), pp.398-407.

Williams, B. (1956). Personal Identity and Individuation. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 57, pp. 229 – 252.

Yaffe, G. (2007). Locke on Ideas of Identity and Diversity. In: L. Newman, The Cambridge Companion to Locke’s ‘Essay Concerning Human Understanding’, 1st ed. Cambridge University Press, pp. 192 – 230.

Aristotle on Friendship, Virtue and Eudaimonia

Introduction

It has been said that Aristotle’s most influential and historically significant work is Nicomachean Ethics, in which he outlines and defines his ethical theory, addressing major topics such as virtue and happiness, moral education, the doctrine of the mean, the unity of the virtues, the importance of friendship and the life of contemplation. The following paper will examine Aristotle’s conception of friendship, including the definition and importance of friendship, the different kinds that exist and the grounds of friendship, all of which he addresses in books VIII and IX of the treatise. The words and arguments Aristotle puts forward are essentially about human relationships which still hold true today, despite being written thousands of years ago.

One thing that Aristotle’s ethical theory places a major significance upon is character and virtue. For Aristotle eudaimonia, which is translated as true happiness or human flourishing, is the highest goal in life[1] and one must be virtuous in order to attain true happiness. “A contented, fulfilled and flourishing life with added serenity and lots of activity”[2] is a good way of summing up what is meant by eudaimonia. Aristotle ties friendship very closely to virtue and this document will observe whether or not he is correct in doing so; however the terms virtue and friendship must be defined before the discussion begins. A virtuous person is someone who has ideal character traits. Aristotle defines virtue as a disposition to act in the correct way and as a mean between extremes of deficiency and excess, which are known as vices.[3] Take, for example, the virtue of ‘courage’; having an excess of courage is known as ‘rashness’ and having a deficiency of courage is ‘cowardice’, both of these are vices, and the point of greatest courage lies not exactly in the middle, but at a point which is sometimes closer to one extreme than the other depending upon the situation. It is known as the Doctrine of the Mean, and the mean is relative and determined by a rational principle. According to Aristotle virtue is not inherited or acquired through reasoning or instruction. Virtue is learned primarily through habit, training and practice, and training comes from example, so if you are set the wrong example, then virtue does not develop.[4]

Aristotle defines friendship, or philia, as love and affection. When you have a friend, you have a loved one, or a philos. A friendship, for Aristotle, is “justice in the fullest sense”[5] and includes the act of loving, more so than the act of being loved. Friendships are purposeful, goal-directed and designed for a particular function. A good friendship demands certain necessary features, comprising mainly of wishing each other well, mutual affection and awareness; therefore an inanimate object (e.g. wine) cannot be counted as a friend because “there is no return of affection and no wish for the good of the object.”[6] Therefore, a friendship involves a reciprocal feeling of goodwill between two individuals.

Why is friendship important?

At the very beginning of the chapter, Aristotle establishes the axiom that friendship not only is important, but is a necessity for living.[7] As previously mentioned, true happiness is the goal of life and virtue is required in order to achieve true happiness; friendship is a kind of virtue, or implies virtue, thus friendship is a necessity.  In other words, friendship is one of the greatest goods in life, so it is impossible to achieve perfect happiness without friends. It is important to note here that he is referring to ‘true’ friendships, not superficial ones, as an insincere friendship is not a virtuous one. Aristotle says “nobody would choose to live without friends,”[8] although this is a general statement to make, it is a fairly reasonable one.

Another doctrine Aristotle draws is that you can only have a few true friends. It could be argued that it is better to have many friends, but Aristotle would maintain that there is a limit to how many close friendships someone can sustain. This is because if you have many friends, there is a tall chance that a lot of the perceived friendships are shallow; it is more desirable to have a few intimate friends, than many. It is not possible to have perfect friendship with many different people, even if you lived in city full of virtuous people, mainly because perfect friendship takes such a long time to build and maintain; however it is possible to have many friends based on usefulness or pleasure. It would be safe to assume that Aristotle would surely agree with the proverb that: ‘you can count your true friends on one hand.’

Friendship is important for everybody, but there are different reasons why, for different types of people. Friends help the young in keeping them from mistakes and they help the old in caring for them when they are weak. For people living in poverty or deprivation friends can be their only refuge. Also, those that have wealth and power have a special need for friendship, it is pointless having such prosperity if they cannot share it with friends. Furthermore, wealth does not equal happiness, and friendship is essential for achieving happiness. So, as we have seen friendship is important for everybody from all walks of life. Without having real relationships, or friendships, there is a greater chance of feeling loneliness and achieving eudaimonia becomes impossible.

Three kinds of friendship

According to Aristotle, there are three kinds of friendship that exist: friendship based on utility, friendship based on pleasure and friendship based on goodness. A friendship based on utility occurs when two people derive some kind of benefit from each other, happening most frequently between the elderly and in business and professional relationships. A friendship based on pleasure occurs when two people are drawn to each other’s wit, good looks, and pleasant qualities; this occurs most commonly between the young, especially if it’s an erotic relationship. Finally friendship based on goodness is where two people admire each other’s virtue and help each other in striving for perfect goodness, according to Aristotle this is the only ‘true’ kind of friendship. A reason being because the first two kinds of friendships have several drawbacks.

One drawback is that the first two types are brief and short-lived because pleasures and needs are subject to change over time, if one no longer finds pleasure or utility in the other then the friendship disbands. Friendships based on pleasure tend to break down simply because tastes and affections change, especially with advancing years. Friendships based on utility have the most problems because utility is an impermanent thing and circumstances change most frequently, for example you could change jobs or location meaning that the other person is no longer useful to you. Two people who are friends because of utility don’t particularly spend much time together, possibly because they may not even get along with each other, and they are only together when in circumstances where they are mutually useful to each other. Another significant drawback of the first two kinds of friendship is that they are both motivated by self-interest rather than a genuine concern for one another. It is only when it is in ones best interest do they wish the other person well, an example being in a work environment, one person may hope their friend gains a promotion but only because they can then have a chance of taking their friend’s previous job role.

Alternatively, friendships based on goodness are long-lasting and genuine, they involve honesty and decency. They are the best kinds of friendship because they are the most virtuous. Although they are rare and take time to develop, they are the most rewarding because they involve both utility and pleasure, and also goodness. Only good people can achieve this kind of friendship because they are not motivated by self-interest, rather a genuine concern for the other’s well-being. “It is those who desire the good of their friends for their friends’ sake that are most truly friends, because each loves the other for what he is, and not for any incidental quality.”[9] These friendships are enduring for as long as both people remain virtuous; if one becomes more virtuous than the other, the friends could grow apart, however this is very unlikely because with virtue comes stability.

Aristotle also points out a different kind of friendship that occurs, involving affection between two people of unequal standing.  An example being friendship between ruler and subject, or between parent and child. These relationships require a different kind of love from each person, as the two friends give and receive different things; also the amount of love or affection ought to be proportional to the virtue of each person.

Aristotle argues that all friendship is rooted in self-love (philautia), and one must love himself more than he loves others.[10] It is important to note that he does not mean for someone to be a narcissist, as this would be an excess of self-love. What he means is that good men should take joy in being true to their own values, and the love of virtue should be expressed. It is only when one has a love of himself and his virtues that he can acquire a virtuous friendship with another, similarly virtuous and good person. Aristotle argues that “it is right for the good man to be self-loving, because then he will both be benefited himself by performing fine actions and also help others.”[11] However, it is not right for bad men to have self-love because he will harm himself and others around him.

Conclusion

To conclude, Aristotle has a fundamental view that human beings are social beings and we need virtuous friendships because the ultimate goal is to be truly happy. Things like wealth and fame and so on, could not possibly lead to a happy life. Even an individual who is virtuous but has no friend with similar virtue to share, will struggle in achieving true happiness. It is only morally good men that can attain perfect friendship, morally bad men can never acquire it because they are primarily motivated by their own self-interest, and they do not genuinely care about the other. The morally bad can only gain friends on the basis of pleasure or usefulness, which are not true friendships. Friendship is essential for everybody in achieving eudaimonia, regardless of gender, age or wealth etc. Also, a morally good man should have self-love because other people will benefit. A good person who expresses virtue can be a good role-model for other people to aspire to. And the spread of virtue among a community will undoubtedly have positive consequences, leading to more friendships based on virtue, thus more people achieving the highest goal of life – true happiness.

[1] Aristotle. The Nicomachean Ethics. 1095a20/pp.6-7

[2] Woodfin, R., Groves, J. and Appignanesi, R. (2010). Introducing Aristotle. Pg.120.

[3] 1105b20/pp.38-40

[4] 1103a25/p.31

[5] 1155a28/p.201

[6] 1155b28/p.203

[7] 1155a2/p.200

[8] 1155a5/p.200

[9] 1156b10/p.205

[10] 1168b11/p.243

[11] 1169a12/p.245

 

Bibliography

Annas, J. (1977). Plato and Aristotle on Friendship and Altruism. Mind, New Series, 86(344), pp.532-554.

Aristotle, Thomson, J., Tredennick, H. and Barnes, J. (2004). The Nicomachean ethics. London: Penguin.

Cooper, J. (1977). Aristotle on the Forms of Friendship. The Review of Metaphysics, 30(4), pp.619-648.

Fortenbaugh, W. (1975). Aristotle’s Analysis of Friendship: Function and Analogy, Resemblance, and Focal Meaning. Phronesis, 20(1), pp.51-62.

Helm, B. (2005). Friendship. [online] Plato.stanford.edu. Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/friendship/ [Accessed 17 Dec. 2014].

Woodfin, R., Groves, J. and Appignanesi, R. (2010). Introducing Aristotle. New York: Totem Books.

“An unexamined life is not worth living” Socrates

Introduction

In 399 BC, Socrates was put on trial “because he corrupts the youth and does not believe in the gods the state believes in.”[1] The account for the trial was written by Plato in a dialogue called Apology, in which Socrates gives his defence speech to the jury. The Jury finds Socrates guilty, and when giving his proposal for his sentence, Socrates uses the phrase “the unexamined life is not worth living,”[2] At the end of the trial, Socrates is sentenced to death by drinking Hemlock poison, which takes place a month later.

Early in the speech, Socrates tells the Jury that some years ago the Oracle at Delphi, on behalf of the god Apollo, informed Chaerephon, a friend of Socrates, that no one was wiser than Socrates. Socrates disputed the claim, believing that he was not wise at all, and proceeded to go on a mission attempting to disprove the Oracle by finding someone wiser. He searched widely, questioning politicians, poets and craftsmen, only to find that the oracle was right, he was indeed wiser. Socrates realised that although they did have an understanding of their particular craft, none had any knowledge of what Socrates considered ‘higher things’ and important matters, despite laying claim to do so. Socrates concluded that the mere fact that he had awareness about his lack of knowledge, which the others did not have, made him wiser – “I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know.”[3]

The process of interrogation, cross-examination and refuting others made Socrates exceedingly unpopular among the community, which Socrates saw as the root cause of his predicament; however Socrates continued as he felt it was his god-given duty to do so: “the god gave me a station, as I believed and understood, with orders to spend my life in philosophy and in examining myself and others”.[4]

The trial and death of Socrates is a significant event in history, because not only does Socrates give a strong defence of himself, he also expresses his fundamental idea of philosophy. Throughout the dialogue, Socrates attempts to answer key philosophical questions such as – what is the right way to live. He outlines the aims, nature and function of philosophy, known as Metaphilosophy – the philosophy of philosophy, which can be attributed to the reason why Socrates says “the unexamined life is not worth living”[5].

1. What is an ‘unexamined’ life?

Despite Socrates never precisely defining what is meant by the phrase; we can interpret what he said by exploring the metaphilosophy given throughout the text. For example, Socrates says: “I go about doing nothing else than urging you, young and old, not to care for your persons or your property more than for the perfection of your souls.”[6] What he is saying is that one should prioritise “perfection of the soul” above anything else. Perfection of the soul is perhaps up for debate, but it is assumed he means self-improvement.

Another example is when Socrates asks: “[Are you] not ashamed to care for the acquisition of wealth and for reputation and honour, when you neither care nor take thought for wisdom and truth?”[7] Socrates is encouraging others to think about more important things such as truth and wisdom, as opposed to trivial things like the attainment of wealth. The attainment of truth and wisdom ought to be placed above fame, reputation and honour, as truth and wisdom is more important for achieving perfection of the soul.

Socrates felt it was his duty as a philosopher to “examine myself and others”[8], which is what he did; and it was his job to do so, thus he could not act otherwise. Socrates believed that the right way to live is to live a philosophical life, which is one in which you constantly examine yourself, your values and your actions. Therefore, an unexamined life is not a philosophical one. It does not attempt to perfect the soul, thus is not worth living. An unexamined life is one in which the person does not introspectively examine his/her self, they do not place the perfection of the soul as the highest priority, they get distracted by the less important things and have little motivation to acquire self knowledge and self improvement.

2. Socratic method of argumentation (Elenchus)

Throughout the Apology, Socrates attempts to answer the fundamental philosophical question of: what is the right way to live? We gathered that he believes in examining yourself; however to really live the life guided by philosophy requires an understanding of certain key moral qualities, for example temperance, justice, courage, piety etc. The reason being is because Socrates believed that if one understands moral qualities; it will be reflected in his/her actions. For Socrates, if one were to learn what courage is, they could then become courageous; like someone who learns music could become a musician.

Socrates himself confessed to a lack of knowledge about moral qualities, and he knew that those that lay claim to have it were not credible. So Socrates would question and rebut those who lay claim to knowledge by following a particular pattern of argumentation, known as Elenchus, which goes as follows:

1. Socrates would ask the so-called expert ‘What is X?’
2. The expert would proceed to list instances of X.
3. However this is no good, Socrates is looking for the essence of X. What is the common feature that all instances of X share? What is it that makes something an instance of X?
4. The expert then offers a definition which Socrates shows to be untrue.
5. Eventually the end-result is the confession of aporia (perplexity).

Socrates is shown to use this method in a number of different dialogues. Such as in Meno Socrates asks ‘What is virtue?’, only for Meno to list people who are virtuous. In Laches Socrates asks ‘What is courage?’, and Laches answers ‘Endurance’. Socrates then asks if a person who shows endurance in spending money wisely would be considered courageous, which Laches assuredly denies.

Similar situations are also seen in Euthyphro and Charmides dialogues, and in each case the end-result is the interlocutors being in the state of perplexity. Leading one to wonder what the value of living a philosophical/examined life if it leads to aporia rather than knowledge? However Socrates argues that it is better to be in a state of perplexity than to lay-claim to knowledge that one does not have.

In Apology he asks himself whether he would rather be “neither wise with their wisdom nor ignorant with their ignorance – or posses both qualities as they did”[9] and concluded that “it was best for me to be as I was.”[10] Also, in Meno Socrates speaks of the process of aporia, and says that “it shows someone who merely thought he knew something that he does not in fact know it and instils in him a desire to investigate it.”[11] Furthermore, in Theaetetus Socrates says that when you are aware of your ignorance or lack of knowledge, “you will be less harsh and gentler to your associates, for you will have the wisdom not to think you know that which you do not know.”[12] To conclude, perplexity is good because it is good for the soul, in that it is cathartic; it involves humility and brings one closer to the truth.

Conclusion

To sum up, Socrates’ philosophy is that of the examined life; which is an individual pursuit of knowledge regarding how one should live. Although the acquisition of knowledge is important, the search in itself has great value in that it is better to seek knowledge and come away uninformed but aware, rather than claim to know something that you do not.

An unexamined life is one in which individuals do not seek to acquire knowledge and wilfully remain ignorant. They regard self-knowledge and self awareness as unimportant compared to materialistic things and claim knowledge to things that they do not in fact know.

Socrates’ teachings have been highly influential not only on fellow Greek philosophers, such as Plato and Aristotle, but also on students and philosophers today. Socrates lived by his principles, which ultimately cost him his life. He was willing to die for what he believed shows an inspiring level of commitment and honour.

References

[1] Plato, Apology 24b

[2] Ibid. 38a

[3] Ibid. 21d

[4] Ibid. 28e

[5] Plato, Apology 38a

[6] Ibid. 30a-b

[7] Ibid. 29d-e

[8] Ibid. 28e

[9] Plato, Apology 22e

[10] Ibid. 22e

[11] Plato, Meno 84a-c

[12] Plato, Theaetetus 210c

[13] Plato, Apology 38a