Thanks Andrew! I started with Disqus, but Wordpress bought IntenseDebate so I bet that'd be better long term.

Thanks for pointing out that interpretation of Socrates' statement, for mentioning Kraut's interesting book and for the praise of my thoughts on the topic. One of the reasons I phrased my essay the way I did is that this is the common English translation of what Plato said about what Socrates said. That does introduce multiple potentials for errors.

I'm therefore more about criticizing the statement itself, the way it is parroted, than really criticizing Socrates himself, who seemed like a great chap to have a chat with, and who may have intended to say something different. Since he could have kept examining his life in exile from Athenian society, what he may have been saying is that it was his life's work to teach others in his society how to examine their lives, and if he was denied that right by Athenian authorities, than he would use his conscious choice of death as a final lesson to his society of how much worth he ascribed to what he was trying to teach.

That sentiment I find interesting, kind of a judo move on the society in which he lived that has lasted in the minds of philosophers ever since. But the actual statement that the "unexamined life is not worth living" I don't think is right, for all of its resonance through the ages. I think that just because a statement resonates with our minds doesn't make it true. In fact I'd argue that a lot of great ideas that have resonated at times in history have been fundamentally flawed.

Arguably Socrates also understood this point, as he saw his understanding of his own ignorance as the source of his wisdom. Which is why I've always thought it strange that the statement "the unexamined life is not worth living" is translated in that fashion, attributed to him and itself left unexamined.

Since we can't actually read each other's minds, arguably none of us really knows who our friends truly are. We rely on a belief that our friends are our friends, backed up by some circumstantial evidence, which we'd perhaps prefer not to test, to help maintain our happiness. I get your point though that examining the strength of your friendships at an early stage successfully would be useful to maintain happiness later when life throws you a curveball and the friendship comes under stress. But I'm not sure that really is analogous to the link between self examination and self worth. Do you have to live a moral life to have a life worth living? Do you have to know you lived a moral life to have a life worth living? A lot of people find great worth in their pets, and I'm not really sure their pets are that self aware. Does a person who is in too much pain to examine their life have a life no longer worth living? Do you have to be happy to have had a life worth living?

Yes, my blog post was based on the Trevor Corson book The Zen of Fish, The Story of Sushi, from Samurai to Supermarket

The discussion of how medical services should be funded (private by wealth and desire, public by majority rule coercing resources from all, some hybrid or out of the box approach) and delivered (competitive providers, monopoly provider, etc.) often does involve a discussion of whether capitalism or socialism or something else is better, but to my mind those terms are fairly crude and vague, and really are about how you organize the effort to get to the goal, rather than a goal itself. The goal, what I called the just society, is for everyone to be healthy, which surely includes receiving a certain amount of basic services. How that can best be created is worth discussing.

It's a fact Google simply wouldn't hire most of the people at a Walmart skill level. I don't disagree that Google gives the people it hires a very high level of pay and perks (including 20% time to work on self directed projects), but that doesn't mean they give any perks or pay to people that Walmart will hire and give pay and benefits to.

In pointing out that Google is very profitable my intent was not to say it is evil for making a profit, but to point out the criticisms of Walmart relating to its dominance, market share, mind share, profit per employee, etc., pale in comparison to that of Google.

With respect to your point about Walmart treating its employees badly, my point is that Google treats those same people worse (not offering them a job, pay, or perks). I actually think it is fantastic that someone figured out a way to utilize workers at a low level of skill profitably.

I do think it is terrible that such workers aren't given more opportunities to obtain higher levels of skill, which I hope my essay makes clear.

Some people do seem to get bored by their loving relationships, and craving excitement, do self harmful things... I suppose it varies by individual and context how much "novelty" matters.

Thanks for your extensive thoughts Anita. There's two issues I'll tackle. The first is what Socrates really chose between. The second is what role examination has in determining worth.

As you mention, what Socrates really chose was death via hemlock over exile. Arguably he saw exile as being deprived of the right to teach the examination of life in the manner he thought wise to the community he wanted to belong to, and saw this as worse than choosing death. By choosing death he could transform himself in the minds of his philosopher student community into the protector of the community's ideals. He would also be proving to his society and all future persons the strength of his conviction. The small irony is he could still have examined his life all he wanted, while in exile. He would have lost the ability to teach his current students in his current society. He would also have lost his halo of respect to the like minded community of philosophers that have followed him in time. To Socrates staying loyal to his community was very important, even at the cost of death. I think that's the real choice Socrates made.

To my mind, worth is in the eye of the beholder. If you don't examine yourself at all, you could assume your self worth and you could have worth to other people in your life. What Socrates said wasn't "If you have the wisdom to correctly examine your life and you fail to examine your life you may make mistakes that you later regret or you may not have as rich a life." What he said (according to Plato) is "The unexamined life is not worth living."

It seems to me some people examine their lives hardly at all, but still have worth to their families, their friends, themselves. Many animals don't appear to examine their own lives, but they are ascribed worth by others. A plant doesn't appear to examine its life, but it is ascribed worth.

Socrates statement has a potent ring, but its vagueness has left it open to a myriad of interpretations. Self examination is how we may define self worth, but a person may define great self worth with even a cursory self examination or an unexamined belief. We may feel they are wrong, but that's our judgment of their worth. The point I'm making is that worth is not defined just by self examination. It can actually be assumed without any examination at all.

To pretend that it requires great self examination is really an unexamined statement put forth by philosophers. I do think unexamined statements may have worth. They could have worth because they are actually right or because they have meaning to those who fail to examine them. The point I'm making is that worth is a value judgment, so the statement "The unexamined life is not worth living" is only true to those who want it to be true. To everyone else, it's false. Philosophers have interpreted Socrates' statement as if it is universally true, and that can't be right. To them it has worth, and to me it doesn't.

If Socrates said "If you have the wisdom to correctly examine your life and you fail to examine your life you may make mistakes that you later regret" I would agree with your interpretation of his statement. On the other hand if someone doesn't examine their life at all perhaps their life has more worth to them then if they do start examining it. If someone is unwise in how they approach examining it perhaps they'd be better off not starting on such an examination. A flaw in what Socrates said is that every human life is examined to some extent. What I really think he meant was "If I am not allowed to teach the examination of life in the manner I consider wise then my life is not worth living." If that is what he meant, the statement is definitely vague and ill written in terms of communicating an idea. Vague statements are fodder for scholars to ponder, so it certainly hasn't hurt his brand any. But as I suggest that may have more to do with philosopher's receptivity to the statement then its actual truth.

burning hydrogen in the sense you're using it (eg, not referring to reactions inside a star) is another name for oxydization. so you burn hydrogen by adding adding oxygen to it, forming water. this releases some energy. splitting water also takes energy, which for plants comes from light (photons). the point of this blog post is that you can use less energy than before by using a catalyst. the amount of energy obtained from burning hydrogen or used up in splitting water depends on the specifics of how each is done. notice that according to the law of conservation of energy, the energy doesn't disappear... it always goes somewhere, just perhaps in a different form.