September 26, 2006
-
A Life Well Lived
This week's Socrates Cafe question is: What is a life well lived? As this may be the last week of discussion in the Cafe, at least at Simone's site; I think it is notable that this is one of Simone's final questions for discussion.
A life well lived must be viewed from both personal and public perspective.
From the personal viewpoint, a well-lived life must be one which gives you much personal satisfaction, is lived with personal integrity according to your personal values, and is filled with continual curiosity and intellectual development. Such a life should also be filled with Love, Joy, and Happiness, both yours and those you relate to.
From the public perspective, a well-lived life should be admirable - a model for others - considered one that contributed to society in a meaningful way. Such a life should also spread joy and happiness to others as well as made their life better in some way.
How many of us can, in your opinion, say we have lived such a life?
Comments (7)
"How many of us can, in your opinion, say we have lived such a life?" This is a work in progress, however, I have made my career choices (teacher, journalist) based on what I can contribute to society, and I will continue to do so. However, ideally, I come away from the feeling I have done something "good" and thus my choices have not been entirely selfless. There is the selfish desire to feel good about myself thru my contribution.
My Socratic question is this: What constitutes a meaningful or "good" contribution to society when contributions are based subjective as they are based on perceptions and beliefs, faith, personal goals etc.? For example, Bin Laden contributes enormously in the countries that he has lived in, i.e., medicine, hospitals, social welfare, schools, etc., but we all know him to be a dangerous man with ulterior and catastrophic agenda. Yet to those people who depend on his charity, he is a savior.
Philosophers have argued and debated the concept of "absolute good" as we have here. The only conclusion they have agreed upon is that absolute good includes the concept of absence of harm; and they quibble over that.
Bin Laden is a pretty good example of the "Unprincipled Idealist". That is a person who believes his agenda overrides any harm to individuals it may do because his ultimate goal is good. History is full of such monsters all of whom have some kind of "The end justifies the means" principle at the base of their philosophic viewpoint. The end NEVER justifies such means in my opinion.
I read your other site I hope things get better for your wife. It must be painful for her. You should post some of your paintings I would love to see them.
I take the mirtazapine also, I also have problems at times with ending up in a heap. Mine is caused though from when my thyroid isn't working right it causes some sort weird thing I will be standing and the next second I fall hard. I have never broken a bone from it though. I broke a finger once I feel for your wife.
Please come to a meeting of the Socrates Cafe Board.
Personally, I agree the end never justifies the means. However, that is my view, and views are that something is “good” or well is subjective to who you are, what your education is, what your needs are, etc. Apparently he is very well liked in these countries because of all the money gives the needy. It’s amazing to think of how much we hate him in America, and loved he is in Pakistan or Afghanistan for his donations. Is his life well-lived to them, regardless of what he has done to Americans, since they don’t care about America, and about their own existence alone? Poverty doesn’t enable them to think so much about how others live, they may not always have the luxury of the peace of mind to think and reflect on such matters. Bin Laden isn’t a good person, but can the charitable acts he has done be considered good? Or does that depend on your perspective of what’s good? Is there no universally defined “well-lived?”
I think a current American political problem is the unwillingness of our present administration to either face reality in its dealings with Islamic Middle Eastern countries or to make any attempt to see other viewpoints - even to the extent that this post would/will get me called a "Cut and Run" lover of evil, fascist, "unchristian*" terrorists.
*Unchristian is about the worst label you can get in their minds - IMHO, a thoroughly unchristian attitude.
Any thoughts about how this can be changed on November 7th?