Explanation for theses #1:

Socrates died from criticizing the sophists who refuse to examine their lives and think they’re

wise on their own (Plato, 1997). This leads us to ask, how important is examining our lives? What if we

don’t? From Socrates persuading people to value virtue and wisdom over possessions, it’s clear that

Socrates wants us to reflect on things “beyond” the usual. Examining our lives begins with the simplest

questions, and leads to pondering about the uncertain. This leads to the examined life being one of

self-honesty, since it entails realizations about one’s own life, about motivations of actions from

questioning oneself about both what one knows and doesn’t know.

What then will these realizations lead to? Socrates says that it's the greatest good for a man to

discuss virtue everyday. When we discuss virtue, we ask why we and other people do certain things, we

contemplate upon things we do not yet know, this act of acknowledgement is a sign of self-honesty, that

we accept that the world does not revolve around us.

With self-honesty, we realize how uncertain the world is, but isn’t that a bad thing? While we can

never change the uncertain nature of the world, people, and relationships, acknowledging this truth sparks

our interest to answer why, leading to an enlargement of the self (Russell, 2001). Nagel says that the

ultimate goal of searching for these answers is to obtain an objective viewpoint, albeit impossible,

constant aspiration through radical speculation for the view from nowhere is the only way to have

candidates for the truth (Nagel, 1989). But why aim to answer grand questions if all we can really achieve

are candidates for the truth?

 You may have noticed that I’ve been asking questions, which lead to some answers, not really

definite answers, but more questions. This is what examining your life leads to, why is this so? The

human life is not to be constrained to a list of do’s and don’ts to be rich, a human life is an inexhaustible

mystery constituted by its relationships to other similarly vivid lives (Young, 1997). Examining your life,

finding candidates for the truth, will eventually accustom your mind to freedom and impartiality, which,

in action, is justice, and, in emotion, is love. Love given to all, enlarging not only our thoughts, but our

world (Russell, 2001).

Socrates, by examining his life, had courage and hope even at the face of death, as he had lived a

human life full of virtue already, devoid of wickedness (Plato, 1997). I argue that Socrates didn’t just live

once, instead, he lived every day, and died only once. This is what examining reminds us of, a life is

meant to be lived.

Examining your life is the only way to give meaning and value to it. We ask questions about our

life because the human person is transcendent, there’s always a desire for us to go beyond ourselves, what

does this mean for us? That’s up to each to discover and rediscover.
 Explanation for theses #5:

The neighbor is a character exhibited by anyone who encounters the other in a profound and

immediate manner, without regard for social mediations (Ricoeur, 1997). Society today is becoming

increasingly organized and social structures springing up ubiquitously, this gives rise to the socius

persona as one that is displayed more evidently. The socius character, anyway, is appealing since it gives

order to public systems and institutions. The socius tries to remove vulnerabilities, it even protects the

private life, that homes and families, places where neighbor relationships are fostered, rely on.

But what does the socius miss out on? What awakening of consciousness does the neighbor do?

Ricoeur says that the social bond from the socius can never be as profound and comprehensive as the love

of the neighbor; the socius calls us to fulfill our social roles, but the human person can never be

completely objectified and boxed into personas, which the neighbor, in turn, recognizes.

Ricoeur asks us to be charitable in being a socius and neighbor persona, but he acknowledges that

we cannot fully know its impact to other persons. All we know is that the socius begets justice through

social order, while the neighbor begets love through the human person, both with the intention of charity.

Russell (1965) said that philosophic contemplation also leads to justice and love, while Socrates (1997)

said that examining one’s life and discussing virtue is wise and just. These philosophers agree that

reflection on the uncertain is necessary and human.

If I ask any person, even without having read a single philosophy text, what is more beautiful, to

love only when you’re sure of being loved back, of complete, symmetrical reciprocity; or to love despite

uncertainty? I am certain that the latter would be chosen as more beautiful, even without people having a
universal measure of love and beauty. In actuality, the former may not be love at all, but merely

commercial exchange (Young, 1997). Love is born of the asymmetrically reciprocal nature of the human

person. We did not choose how we were thrown into this world and came to have different irreversible

temporalities and positions, when we recognize this applies to all, we develop respect and understanding

across differences and become a neighbor to others.

I argue that the act of transcending itself is an act of love. To transcend is to have humility and

value things beyond the self. To impose self-assertion, looking at the world as a means to your end, and

assimilating the universe to yourself, is to live the life of a practical man just avoiding death (Russell,

1965).

Death reminds us that we will turn into dust someday, and so motivates us to transcend ourselves.

The transcendent human is one which refuses to live in futility, one which keeps on striving to value the

uncertain, to value the other, despite certain death.

Ultimately, since the nature of the human is to transcend into the uncertain, then it is the nature of

the human to love.

References:

Nagel, Thomas. 1989. Introduction. In The View from Nowhere. Oxford University Press.

Plato. 1997. "Apology" trans. GMA Grube. In Plato: Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper. Hacket

Publishing Company.

Ricoeur, Paul. 1965. "The Socius and the Neighbor." In History and Truth. Evanston: Northwestern

University Press. 98-109.

Russel, Bertrand. 2001. The Value of Philosophy. In The Problems of Philosophy. Oxford University

Press.

Young, Iris Marion. 1997. "Asymmetrical Reciprocity: On Moral Respect, Wonder, And Enlarged

Thought". Constellations 3.3: 340-363.