Always look on the illuminated side of life (you won't be able to see otherwise)

In recent times, I've been dwelling on the famous Socratic statement,

"The unexamined life is not worth living."


I wondered to what extent this is true. John Stuart Mill appeared to concur with the ancient Greek philosopher when he stated,

"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied."

I saw an alternative view aired - "The unlived life is not worth examining." There is merit in this statement also, but given it was entered in the realm of an on-line forum, to what extent was the author 'living' their life at that point? Surely all in life is subjective. Is there a God? Is there an after-life? Is there any inherent meaning in 'this' life? If so, what is that meaning? Does life have a specific purpose? If so, what is that purpose? And so on, ad infinitum. Which then, for me at least, raises the question to what extent should we examine our lives and life in general.

I've been reading a book ('What's It All About?' by Julian Baggini) which attempts to tackle this subject, and on the definition of success (and the subsequent pursuit), there was a quote from Jean-Paul Sartre,

"Man is nothing else but the sum of his actions, nothing else but what his life is."

Interestingly (to my mind at least), I interpret this as meaning everything I have done/achieved in my life is simply that. It has no other significance. It is not success or failure - it is what it is. In a similar vein to Eckhart Tolle in 'A New Earth' suggesting, "Who I AM, is who I am" - the view here being that I'm not defined by anything, whether it be actions I take (or don't), what functions/roles I fulfil (or don't) or what possessions I own (or don't) - to do so gravitates away from who I REALLY am. Ergo, to define my life as a success or failure based on what I have done or possess, shifts the focus. Baggini goes on to further quote Sartre,

"The genius of Racine is the series of his tragedies, outside of which there is nothing. Why should we attribute to Racine the capacity to write yet another tragedy when that is precisely what he did not write?"

and then,

"No doubt this thought may seem comfortless to one who has not made a success of life."

With this last quote, Sartre appears to contradict what he has previously stated. To my understanding, there is a suggestion that success is nothing but a subjective interpretation and therefore is conceptual rather than being based in reality. But that could get me started on the question of, 'What is reality?'! Surely 'success' and 'failure' only exist where measures are created. Even when the lion is stalking prey, a kill may be interpreted as 'success'. But the absence of a kill could also be deemed a 'success' if the lion learns something from the 'failed' attempt. Indeed, from the lion's perspective, there may be no such thing as 'success' or 'failure'. I believe it is simply a human creation, rather than having an innate existence. In his book, Baggini cites further examples of the interpretation of success (in relative and absolute terms) using Frank Capra's film 'It's A Wonderful Life' and Chekhov's play 'The Seagull'.

So I could claim my life has been an unmitigated success. Or failure. Or a mixture of the two. Maybe I'll just stick with, 'It is what it is.'

But to lighten things a little, have a 'butcher's' at this:

http://www.opendemocracy.net/arts/article_1780.jsp

Irrelevant of my views on the subject, it made me chuckle.