Bertrand Russell and Socrates

Bertrand Russell's statements of "The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in its prejudice derived from common sense, from habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the cooperation or consent of his deliberate reason" and "Through the greatness of the universe which philosophers contemplate, the mind also is rended great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes the highest good" will be examined and compared with Socrates' statement that "the unexamined life is not worth living". I agree with all of these statements with the exception of the part of Socrates' statement "not worth living". I will be examining both of Russell's statements and Socrates' statement. After comparing and contrasting Russell's and Socrates' statements I will be explaining my reasoning for agreeing or disagreeing, followed by a summary of points.

Russell's first statement should be viewed as support of his previous statement that "The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty". Russell explains that "Those questions which are already capable of definite answers are placed into the sciences, while those only to which, at present, no definite answer can be given, remain to form the residue which is called philosophy". With these statements it shows that to be only concerned with the common sense questions with definite answers, hinders the mind to the point where, as Russell states "Unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected". This hindrance of the mind is what Russell is referring to when he speaks of being imprisoned.

Russell states that without philosophy we are "imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense". The common sense that these prejudices are derived from comes from, as Russell mentions, "The practical man, as this word is often used, is one who recognizes only material needs". These material needs are completely based on sciences that will yield definite answers. Philosophy being the residue from these sciences where there are no definite answers, then must focus on the things that are non-material, non-habitual, and not for any physical gain. Russell states that "In contemplation, on the contrary, we start from the not-self, and through its greatness the boundaries of self are enlarged".

Russell's second statement directly deals with the not-self. By contemplating with the not-self Russell asserts that "The boundaries of self are enlarged, through the infinity of the universe the mind which contemplates it achieves some share in infinity". This share in infinity is partly what Russell is alluding to when mentioning a union with the universe. Russell also states "Thus contemplation enlarges not only the objects of our thoughts, but also the objects of our actions and our affection: it makes us citizens of the universe". This is the freedom from imprisonment that Russell is aiming for. Russell states "In this citizenship of the universe consists man's true freedom, and his liberation from the thralldom of narrow hopes and fear". Russell further states that "philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions, since no definite answer can, as a rule, be known true, but rather for the sake of the question themselves: because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible". This is a core understanding of philosophy, one that Socrates himself believed in.

Socrates believed in the value of philosophy so deeply that when faced with the ultimatum of death or stopping his philosophical ways he simply stated that "the unexamined life is not worth living". Many people across history have died for freedom, Socrates died because he refused to be imprisoned in common sense. Socrates considered the examined life so important that to live a life without its examination would leave life without value. Perhaps all that separates animals from intellectual humans is this freedom to examine life.

Socrates' statement about unexamined life falls directly in line with Russell's statement of imprisonment. Socrates above all other things was a teacher and through philosophy he intellectually enlightened many people. Russell would agree with Socrates in many areas of philosophical enlightenment, Russell states that "[philosophical questions] enrich our intellectual imagination, and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation". In many ways Socrates' much shorter statement corresponds with Russell's relatively longer statement. While Russell's statement is grounded in intellectual imprisonment, Socrates' statement is simply an answer that can be better clarified by Russell's statements. Socrates' statement never alludes to universal unions as Russell's does. Here Russell advances past Socrates' statement of freedom to an intellectual freedom that as Russell states "enlarged, through the infinity of the universe". Socrates being faced with his ultimatum shows some signs of thinking, as Russell would call, with his self. Socrates being rather on the spot simply responded to the situation, where Russell had time to examine his stance on philosophy in its entirety.

I agree with all the points of Russell's statements. If we allow ourselves to be only completely concerned with the tangible and definite answers, we will shut ourselves out of possibilities and intellectual growth. This intellectual growth may be one of the few things that sets humans apart from animals. Animals concern themselves only with the physical world and definite answers such as whether a river is safe to drink from. As for Russell's statements about universal union, I fully agree that by being philosophically active we will only make ourselves and mankind ready for universal answers, it will also make those universal answers possible. I partially disagree with Socrates, not on his theory but more on his terminology. In Socrates' statement I disagree with the later half about life not being worth living. There are many reasons to live life, whether it be examined or unexamined. To Socrates the unexamined life was not worth living, but I can not, on Principle, say that this is true for every man, woman, and child. To do so would be imprisoning myself from all possibilities. If a man wishes to live a life unexamined that is his choice of free will, to never examine this possibility would be to leave this stone unturned, thereby intellectually imprisoning myself.

Russell's statement about imprisonment is closely related to what philosophy is about. Russell also makes statements linking philosophy to the importance of thinking on the universal level. These statements fall in line with the base importance behind Socrates' teachings. Socrates himself valued the importance of philosophy above life itself. Even though I disagree with Socrates in saying that a life left unexamined is not worth living, I fully agree with Russell's statements. Russell's outlook of philosophy is not only important to the individual, but to the human race as a whole.