Do I think an unexamined life is not worth living? Well of course I do, but that's because I've experienced something more than that already. I have already begun to examine my life and make my own decisions. Of course, there are still things that I believe for no reason other than my parents telling me, but I believe that's subconsciously embedded in me.
Even though I would not want to live an unexamined life, I could see how someone currently in that situation would still consider their life "worthy". It is very possible that they're still having fun, livin' it up. Life is probably easier for them too; sometimes thinking about deep, intricate ideologies about society and people, is hard work. Sometimes it can be negative, but I believe that it's always worth it. An examined life is enlightening. New ideas about the world are introduced and the mind is stimulated. These are reasons that I enjoy learning more about life; more about how to look at life. An unexamined life doesn't realize the options offered by the world. That's why I wouldn't be able to live so shallowly.
Many unexamined people walk around as if they know how the world works and what's best for everyone. This is most likely not true, and if it is, they did not come up with these ideas on their own. Somebody planted them in their mind, meaning that that person is not original. Personally, I couldn't live an unoriginal life. I wouldn't see the excitement in it, but somebody that hasn't been introduced to as many things as I may be extremely stimulated by acting like everyone else. There are some people out there that don't know any better than what they're living right now, and they can still be perfectly content with their life.
Unexamined people are also necessary to society. The enlightened ones need people to learn from, and they need people to teach. Even if these unexamined people don't have their own opinions, they still believe in something, and they probably want to announce their beliefs to the world. If everyone can keep an open mind, these ideas will still have some effect on the examined one, and they will be introduced to yet another new concept. So even though I wouldn't want to live the unexamined life, I don't not believe that it's not worth living.
"Social gadfly, a person who upsets the status quo"
Even though many people want to upset the status quo, there are few people out there that can back up their reasoning to do so. Lupe Fiasco, however, is not one of those people. Many people may say that his music is simply a social commentary, I would have to agree. But his music touches on so many social issues that are so relevant to today's society, such as advertisement control and poverty stricken cities. He also touches on issues such as the choice to vote and freedom. Lupe is very against voting because he doesn't support the government system as a whole. His opinions are voiced through his music ans constantly over his twitter. I would consider Lupe Fiasco a gadfly because many people don't have the guts to speak against the American system like he does. He also doesn't care if people don't agree with him, his opinions will still be voiced.
I partially agree with your statement that unenlightened people are necessary for society. Sure, they can be unenlightened for a time, but then something or someone should be able to force them to do some introspection. I thought it was interesting that you came to the conclusion that an unexamined life is not worth living personally for you, but it may not be true for others. It is refreshing to not hear someone assume that because something is true for them, it must be true for everyone.
ReplyDeleteI somewhat agree with your examples, but do those people really stand up to society like Socrates did. When I wrote about this topic I said that there was nobody today who ridiculed society like Socrates. While Mr. Fiasco may talk down about society in his music, Socrates went up to the leaders of the society and spoke ill of it to their faces.
ReplyDeleteI believe that if Lupe Fiasco got the chance to air his opinions, he would. In fact he does. He has been on several interviews on NPR that I have heard, and however minute twitter is, it's still him broadcasting his opinions to the world.
ReplyDeleteYour point that unexamined people are necessary to society may be conclusively correct, but not intrinsically based on the evidence you've given. You say that unexamined people are necessary because those that are enlightened need someone to learn from and teach. However, I contest that the result of this exchange will be much better if enlightened people, who you've defined as those who examine themselves introspectively, are learning from and teaching other enlightened people. Just because two people have examined their lives introspectively doesn't mean that they hold the same beliefs. Knowledge grows much more when interaction between the enlightened and the unenlightened is replaced by interaction between enlightened people. Therefore, I'd argue that unenlightened people aren't necessary for those reasons at all. In fact, necessary is not a relevant word in this discussion because enlightenment is an educational process. Unenlightened people are an unavoidable reality that stems from the psychological development that's a part of human nature. In other words, humans aren't born enlightened. Therefore, unenlightened people will always exist as long as the human species continues to exist. Because I consider introspection and self-knowledge a crucial part of life, I take the stance that unenlightened life, or life without self-examination, is not worth living. To live without understanding one's effect on the world around him/her as well as the world's effect on him/her is to act without truly comprehending the consequences of those actions. To not understand the consequences of one's actions directly implies that one does not properly understand the reasons behind his/her actions. To not understand the reasons for one's actions is to act without a true grasp on cause or purpose. To live without purpose, in my opinion, is to not live at all. Therefore, an unexamined life is not worth living at all.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the point about Lupe Fiasco, I am strongly incredulous about the results his methods of enacting change will bring. The standard response to Lupe's refusal to vote is that he cannot hope to enact change without participating politically. I'm sure Lupe would respond by saying that voting is futile and pointless in today's system. My question, then, is how does Lupe plan on uprooting the modern American political system? To discuss his beliefs through his music and via his twitter account are all well and good, but what results do they bring? Perhaps these communicative devices are overplayed and are no longer effective means of enacting societal upheaval. Sure, groups like Public Enemy and N.W.A. brought about a change in society's mentality through their music in the late 80s and early 90s. But the power of their message was much more pertinent to the sentiments of their audiences. Since then, music with relevance and meaningfulness to society is few and far between. Lupe's message does not hit home with many people who listen to his style of music. Based on the success of other musicians in the genre, I would argue that Lupe needs to find a different way of presenting his message. One of the most successful means of attracting attention to the topic discussed in music can be seen with that of Chief Keef. By directly addressing the culture of violence, sex, and money, Chief Keef has brought national attention to the turmoil in Chicago. The other route Lupe might find much more successful in enacting societal change is to be much more subtle and indirect with his message. A great example of this is the music of OutKast. The songs "Ms. Jackson," which includes a narrative verse from Big Boi implying the flaws in the child support system, and "Rosa Parks," which includes verses about the alternative creative revolution Dre and Big Boi will lead musically, are great examples of this device in use. While Lupe does indeed comment on society in much of his art, his methods aren't nearly as effective as the two aforementioned alternatives.
ReplyDelete