There is an interdependence between theory and behavior; intellect and living well.

Introduction

I am not very good at many things. If my DNA was replicated in almost any historical situation and location other than this one, my chances of survival would be quite slim.

As a defense mechanism, I’ve developed a bit of an obsession with understanding the world as much as possible. While intellectual rigor, learning, and downright nerdiness have become a sort of pastime, I have, of recent, become much more concerned with the practical manifestation of knowledge.

There is an adventure of exploring the world so we can best live in it.

I’ve heard many a philosopher articulate their role as midwifing ideas into the world. I like that and, while I love the ideation side of the human journey, I think even more emphasis could be put on midwifing growth — change and progress and ethics and the practical identities that comprise our humanity.

As a result, I’ve come to value the symmetry between philosophy and ethics — of discovering and understanding the world so that we can live accordingly.

Part One — A Lesson From Socrate’s Last Words

Doing this is not easy. Nor does it appear to be a natural inclination of our cultural consciousness. Alas, there is a bit of an art form in obtaining a proper balance of philosophy and ethics.

The case to be made is that understanding the world — knowing the best way to do something — is a prerequisite to actually doing it. Therefore, if your understanding is limited, then your possibilities are limited. Depending on the social circle you inhabit, there is a chance that intellectualism is a moral compromise. Saying information matters may even result in your chastisement. On the other side of the spectrum lies the enigma of the uninformed who, according to many a cultural trope, are the backward, provincial, rednecks of society.

The spectrum before us is of two poles — the constant examiner and intellectual (who is good at thinking about living, but doesn’t do much with it) and the down to earth ethicist (who lives efficiently and effectively, but has a certain apathy towards examination). It’s the old adage of academia versus common sense.

There is a cornucopia of directions we could go to flesh this out. From Marshall McLuhan’s discussion on media ecology and the importance of being aware of the water we swim in or Leonardo Da Vinci’s obsession with examining every possible concept — including the famous example of the woodpecker’s tongue — or simply by scouring various religious traditions to see their explicit precursor of understanding (such as Anselm’s definition of theology in Christianity, for example); there is a common thread in human thought that philosophy and ethics are best realized when intertwined.

The most inspiring example, however, comes from the philosopher who may be most responsible for the very consideration of an interplay between these two ends of the apparent spectrum — Socrates.

Particularly, the story of Socrates’ death is a case in the point of such a disposition. In fact, this very case seems to be why Socrates willingly allowed his own execution.

Around 404 BCE the Peloponnesian War ended. An oligarchic period sometimes referred to as the 30 tyrants — which included an obscene amount of genocide — was overthrown by Athens and democracy was restored. Two years later, Socrates finds himself on trial. This was par for the course in an environment where dissidents were taken very seriously. Socrates, who was 70 years old at the time, had a reputation for being quite annoying, relatively lowly, and absolutely eccentric. Being so different while also permeating a sense of superiority, the leaders of Athens had to put Socrates in his place.

He was charged with corrupting the young and denying the gods of the state while introducing new gods and, as the trial begins, Socrates does nothing to defend himself. This is a bit ludicrous, something his friends lament before he is killed, because the charges were falsified just to get Socrates to calm down in the social scene. It appears that none of the democratic leaders wanted Socrates to be executed. Yet, by not defending himself, he was flipping the script and, thereby, making a point.

As the trial continues, Socrates informs the Athenians that they should thank him and, while the commentary is silent as to the reason why, the intent seems to be that — as opposed to the Athenians putting Socrates in his place — Socrates was instead forcing an issue with the culture of Athens itself.

Eventually, the council votes that Socrates is guilty. They kind of had to because no defense was given. The punishment then needed to be decided and, traditionally, the accused gets a say in the matter. Socrates proposes that his punishment should be to be fed for life at Athens’ expense (a reward often offered to Olympians). With anger now roused in the council, the death penalty was voted on and, to show just how much Socrates had pissed these people off, more people voted for the death penalty than had voted him guilty. Then, in the right to give last retorts, Socrates expressed his point:

That the people of Athens, to Socrates, were stupid — not because they didn’t know anything, but because they had stopped developing their understanding of the world and, therefore, would never live rightly. As Socrates gives a spiel about knowledge he begins emphasizing that virtue is the goal of life and, in order to live well, you have to understand the world you live in.

For Socrates, knowledge is tied to morality and ethics. He saw himself as midwifing ideas into the world so that humanity could live better. And, having shown the debt of Athens’ virtue, while embracing his imminent death, Socrates gave his last words:

“There is one good: Knowledge; and there is one evil: Ignorance.

The unexamined life is not worth living.”

And then he was killed.

Part Two — Accruing a Toolbox to Live By

This line of thinking is best reflected in the classical notion of philosophy and its three pillars — metaphysics, physics, and ethics.

Metaphysics is the unquantifiable understanding of existence; ontology, cosmology, epistemology. It deals with logic and rationalism and things like mystery, consciousness, and the nature of the world. Simply put, metaphysics is “beyond the natural” or, beyond physics (as described below).

Physics is more aptly referred to as science in the modern world. It is about examining the natural, physical world — the things we can observe with our senses.

The idea is that philosophy is about gaining knowledge through metaphysics and physics to have wisdom and, by knowing how the world works, it can appropriately manifest in how you live. See, the goal was ethics and it is only by properly seeing the world in all of its forms that you can then live accordingly.

This is why Aristotle — in expressing that there is only one way to live — said that you would get there by properly knowing the truth of how everything worked. Such knowing would produce a goal, destination, or direction — which he called “living well” or “the real good.” Achieving this virtue required you to know what was good.

Or we could look at the Stoics and their emphasis on humanity’s unique ability to reason. We must use our reason, then, to inform virtue; we should understand the nature of things so as to live by that nature.

But even the Eastern traditions were articulating something very similar. Confucius argued that humans are designed to choose what is good. If one chooses poorly, it leads to a lack of ethics and a lack of ethics, therefore, is the result of a lack of understanding.

The notion of spurning philosophy, theory, and intellect — at least from the theme of Socrates’ trial and the majority of cultural insights from ages past — appears to directly implicate the ability to live well in the world. Further, if seeking understanding is neglected, there will still be some form of information that dictates how you will live. Essentially, you will still make decisions based on something — it is just something that you have chosen to remove your agency from as much as possible, leaving you to be directed by a perspective you have garnered via apathy.

In considering the connection between philosophy and ethics, maybe the choice isn’t whether or not you will be philosophical — but whether you will be responsible or irresponsible with the perspective that shapes how you live.

We need both theory and practice; perspective and behavior. We need to astutely understand the world as much as possible and we need to ethically embody that understanding in the very real world in which we live. 

If I want to be a good parent and I approach parenting with the tactic of, “Whatever happens, happens,” or if I just use my limited experience of parenting and replicate it — my parenting might be good, but it also might be terrible. What is certain, however, is that it will not be the best. Yet, if I take the time to understand my context, my children, child psychology, family dynamics, communication practices, and healthy lifestyles — I’ll be able to practice better parenting than I would have otherwise.

Whether it is parenting, marriage, or even something like cooking or art — you only have the tools to work with that you have. The supposedly intellectual side of the spectrum is about increasing your toolbox. You can’t just will optimal practices into action. You have to know what they are. The invitation of living involves the continuous adventure of learning and asking questions so that you can live better. If you don’t, you will just drift toward what is convenient, easy, and comfortable (which is rarely what is best) or you will only ever enact the limited knowledge that you have. At best, living well will be a stroke of luck. At worst, your apathy will be destructive.

But you also have to use the tools that you acquire.

When it comes to this constructed differentiation of philosophy and ethics, we might do well to see that they are a singular, mutually interdependent process of understanding the world as much as possible so that we can best live in it.

Philosophy and ethics, we could conclude, are dance partners.

It is then that the examined life is possible.

And the examined life is one worth living.