# The Unconsidered Life



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Most of you will probably be familiar with the Socratic saying that the unconsidered life is not worth living - in other words, a life that is spent without thought on what is good and bad, on how to live well and better oneself, is a waste.

I might not go so far as to say that an unconsidered life is not worth living, but recently I have been very interested in different types of people who do and do not live considered lives - those who ask themselves the big questions of origins, morality, and ethics, and the vaster number of people who never contemplate these questions.

My first assumption is that people are simply born with different capacities for different levels of outlook and introspection. The simplest of these is one where no consideration is entered into at all. Life is for the consumption of food and entertainment, and for procreation. Even the thought of politics, poverty, or other social issues is beyond this person's interests. It sounds a little bit stuck-up for me to describe such a person, but I'm not judging here, and my description is merely through experience with my own family.

Then, of course, we enter a spectrum where people mix and match varying degrees of living without thinking, and stopping to reflect. Through personal experience again, I know of people who occasionally think about where humans come from, and how the universe works, with flirtations with superstition and non-denominational religious belief, but never really commit to anything and never let these brief ruminations impact on the way they live.

And, at the higher end of the spectrum, there are the true introverts - those concerned daily with these philosophical questions. I think it's probably the case as well that these people with a higher impetus for self-examination are more likely to suffer from depressive illnesses and feel social detachment.

_If_ I am right about this (and I'm not at all sure and would like to hear your opinions about the general make-up of people and society in this regard), I don't think any group should be judged as better or worse than another. The first group is open to a greater amount of manipulation by authority figures, but they don't operate by the rules of the third group so why should they be judged by them?

The more pressing consequence of this is that I think that some people - many people - will _never_ be open to discussions about even the most basic philosophical ideas because they simply fall outside their horizons of thought. More numerous are probably those who would briefly entertain such ideas, but not really care for them and not believe that they should impact upon the way society works. So we talk about mainstream culture and ideas, and how we can break through to the masses on the virtues of science, art, philosophy and culture, but I think it is a losing battle, and these will always be esoteric endeavours, the achievements of which the larger population will no doubt take advantage of in the future without recognition of where they came from. I think some people just innately will never care or want to care, and we just have to hope that these people don't rule our countries.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

I agree and disagree. The part where I disagree is that those who live their lives contemplating deep philosiphical questions are doomed to suffer from depression and social isolation. Not true at all. Take, for instance, Bertrand Russell, one of the most brilliant philosopher/mathematicians of the 20th century. He lived a long and happy life, having multiple affairs with multiple women that came from some of the wealthiest families in the world, all of this while simultaneously solving the most complex mathematical problems. Furthermore, Einstein, Feynman, and many other great thinkers of the last century were notorious casanovas. So, you see, it's all about having a healthy balance between philosophy and fornication.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Dodecaplex said:


> I agree and disagree. The part where I disagree is that those who live their lives contemplating deep philosiphical questions are doomed to suffer from depression and social isolation. Not true at all. Take, for instance, Bertrand Russell, one of the most brilliant philosopher/mathematicians of the 20th century. He lived a long and happy life, having multiple affairs with multiple women that came from some of the wealthiest families in the world, all of this while simultaneously solving the most complex mathematical problems. Furthermore, Einstein, Feynman, and many other great thinkers of the last century were notorious casanovas. So, you see, it's all about having a healthy balance between philosophy and fornication.


Well then you don't quite disagree, because that's not what I said.  I don't at all think such people are "doomed", but although I don't have any primary research right at hand, I don't think it's off the wall to suggest that there's a higher incidence of depression among this group of people.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Life is for the consumption of food and entertainment, and for procreation.


sounds like my plan for the weekend


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

Philip said:


> sounds like my plan for the weekend


Oh *Philip* you cheeky :devil: you! :lol:


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Dodecaplex said:


> [...]
> So, you see, it's all about having a healthy balance between philosophy and fornication.




I can recommend just about any story by Jim Harrison, for an entertaining examination of that lifestyle.

-balance-

I feel duty bound as a humanist to inform our younger members that this 'healthy balance' may become difficult to maintain on the downhill slope of life - so the advice to 'gather ye rosebuds while ye may' could modify your notion of balance.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I feel duty bound as a humanist to inform our younger members that this 'healthy balance' may become difficult to maintain on the downhill slope of life - so the advice to 'gather ye rosebuds while ye may' could modify your notion of balance.


Well, it certainly wasn't difficult to maintain for Mr. Russell. Then again, being from the richest family in all of Wales might have had something to do with it. Although, then again, that wouldn't explain how Einstein got to maintain the balance.

But thanks for the advice.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Dodecaplex said:


> Well, it certainly wasn't difficult to maintain for Mr. Russell. Then again, being from the richest family in all of Wales might have had something to do with it. Although, then again, that wouldn't explain how Einstein got to maintain the balance.
> 
> But thanks for the advice.


Einstein was very, very wealthy - just not monetarily.


----------

