Socrates vs. Becker
Socrates philosophically stated, “unexamined life is not worth living”. In contrast, Becker contradicts this in-line with human progress. Then, who is right? This study examines the two arguments to identify most appropriate. To begin with is Socrates’ argument. Indeed man should be able to examine the world around at individual level in order to make it a better place. Commonly, most people shun leading an examined life not because they can’t make it nor have time, but dynamically avoid self-evaluation needed for human progress. A self-examined individual thinks about where he is, knows who he is, and has a sense of belonging to the universe.
Such a person can gauge the context in which all elements of life can fit together. For instance, take two people one with a map, and the other without. Who finds his destination with much ease? An examined life, (map) is an avenue to one’s destination. At the destination, one sets goals, chooses the right path thus control over life. Eventually, one becomes whom they want to be. Additionally, unexamined life lacks a questionable rationale thus not prized past face value. (Palachuk, 2001). It’s deficiency of nature, reality and motivation thus a wasted living experience and unworthy living.
Contrally, Becker postulates that pursuit of self-esteem is in itself a motivation, give- (Surname, year)-of source provided. Child development is a change from maintaining self-esteem to the symbolic acquisition of self-esteem cataleptic denial intensely influences human behavior notably hatred and violence but later dignified altruistic striving. However, cultural formulation, and institutional channeling shape human life. Thus much concentration on self-examination underpins chaos. Here, sibling rivalry is not viciousness but an avenue to heroism. However, cooperation and all-inclusive progress is compromised. This study identifies Socrates argument appropriate as it provides a conducive environment for both individual and collective development.