Compare and contrast Nozick and Socrates

There are some concepts and ideas that are pretty clear-cut and easy to discuss. This is often because the concepts at hand are definite, at least fairly black and white and so forth. However, there are other things that are a bit more abstract and nebulous. Beyond that, there are concepts that are subject to disagreement and rancor when they are discussed. Certain pieces of art and the value (or lack thereof) is a good example. Another example is the definition of value and meaning in one's life. Socrates was quite famous for his treatises on the subject and Robert Nozick certainly took up that mantle during his time. While Mr. Nozick certainly added a great perspective and prism to the value and meaning paradigm, to suggest that he (or even Socrates) are the final word on the subject is less than accurate.

The focal point of the research and analysis in this report that relates to Nozick is found in the chapters relating to knowing and meaning (Nozick 162). Nozick's banter on the subject starts with a rather peculiar proclamation, that being "the notion of value is not simply some vague laudatory term". It is peculiar because some may argue that while value is a real and present concept, it is something that is not defined the same way to all people. Even so, his words about things having a basic value and/or an intrinsic value is pretty spot-on. Nozick does seem to assuage people that might disagree by stating that nature, for example, has a natural order of things, ranging from the rocks to the plants and beyond (Nozick 163). Nozick also explains that there is the concept of unity in diversity. That as well is by no means uniform because some people (including many scientists) seem to be less than willing to be open to other ideas and suggestions out of fear, it would seem, that the concept or idea is supposedly "settled" or that no further debate is needed, for whatever reason. Beyond the above, Nozick wisely invokes the words of Descartes, who was noted as speaking about the difference between mind and matter and how they are not remotely the same thing. Nozick concurs with this line of thought but also insists that the two are inextricably linked and thus they generally cannot be considered separately (Nozick 165).

Nozick explains a bit more and then says that something has intrinsic value when it is "organically unified" and that said unity is its value (Nozick 164). Nozick later notes that meaning and value are strongly linked and that they can "interweave over time" (Nozick 168). At the same time, Nozick says at the end of the value and meaning chapter that value and notion also tend to be rather broad and expansive in meaning or scope. Nozick asks himself and others in his text whether value and meaning, by themselves, could or should be the "end all" when it comes to assessing one's self, one's life, one's works and one's relations with other people (Nozick 169). This provides a nice segue into Nozick's next topic, that being importance and weight in the sixteenth chapter. His use of chess in terms of the abstract and visible ideas and manifestations that can be seen in that game is illuminating (Nozick 170). Just as value and meaning are linked together, Nozick does the same with importance and weight. This would seem to be prescient because value and meaning have to be further defined and given context by the importance and weight that a person places on an idea, a practice or a detail. After all, some people are scared of thunderstorms while others love them. Importance may be high for both but the weight, value and meaning can all vary quite a bit (Nozick 171). Nozick weaves together the four ideas and concepts discussed in this report on the bottom of page 179. He forms a matrix that has four fields, arranged in a two by two table. From left to right and from top to bottom, there is value, meaning, weight and importance (Nozick 179). Nozick was apparently not content to leave value and meaning as the only two lenses and considerations, and he is surely wise to do so because leaving a static or singular definition of value and meaning would not be workable (Nozick 181).

Nozick was clearly a person who derived what he felt and thought from Socrates, at least in part. Indeed, Socrates himself had a treatise that was called Apology: The Examined Life. Within the work that seemingly provided the namesake of Socrates and his work, much of the same themes are there as are within the work of Nozick, but the overall perspective and ideology in play is clearly different. Indeed, concepts that Socrates focused on within the work noted include ironic modesty, questioning habit, devotion to truth and dispassionate reason. Rather than keep things rather high level and overview-like in nature, Nozick himself was clearly exercising the last of those. Dispassionate reason seemed to be something that Nozick was clearly focused on. This is a clear departure from the wider scope of what Socrates had to say and perhaps Socrates had a better idea of how to use value, meaning, weighting and importance even if he didn't always use those words. Rather than keep things vague, Socrates was clearly asserting that modesty, using logic and reason and so forth were cornerstones of assessing things like meanings in life (Kemerling).

Socrates himself was jailed and persecuted for what he had to say and this nonetheless did not sway him from his modus operandi. Even after he was convicted, Socrates clearly refused to abandon what he held to be true and right. It is obvious that Socrates clearly put a lot of weight on his integrity, his core values and the meaning of his life and what was happening within the same. Many people in that same position have and would abandon their values and convictions if it meant saving their proverbial skin. Socrates, on that other hand, would not do so even when it became clear he would die via execution for his perceived sins. Of course, the plight faced by Socrates is not faced by many people, especially in the modern day. Even so, there are many people that have faced that dilemma over time. Some have stuck to their ideals and values while others have conceded and tried to save themselves. Socrates was a man who truly laid down the gauntlet when he said that "an unexamined life is not worth living" (Kemerling).

Even with the profoundness and beauty of such a belief, it is not a profile of value or meaning (let alone weight or importance) that many people would have. Beyond that, such ideas and variations are on a spectrum. Some people will keep the same profile and way of living no matter what falls before them. Others will be more like chameleons and will shift or adjust their approach based on what is happening. There is value with both approaches but there are also perhaps situations where it is not the best way to move forward. However, Socrates clearly felt that his core values and concept of meaning was what should define his life, no matter what may come. Indeed, value and meaning will tend to vary from situation to situation. Most situations and choices will be mundane and basic while others will have very divergent solutions with different tradeoffs and opportunity costs involved. When it comes to the most important and significant traits and parts of life, Socrates clearly felt that logic, reason, morality and justice as he defined it was something that could not be forsaken or disregarded. Even with Socrates' stance, there are some people that engage in martyrdom and otherwise altruistic acts for rather dubious or silly reasons. Socrates, though, was seemingly aware of such a possibility and clearly noted that even though he himself could be ignorant and under-informed when it came to certain subjects, he was wise and modest enough to admit when that was the case rather than feigning that he knew everything or that nobody else could top on everything. For the things he did know and understand to be true, he was sure and stuck to what he had figured out. For things that he was not knowledgeable or sure about, he was willing to admit as such. It is clear that the latter was not the sort of thing going on when his mortality was on the line and he was completely fine with that (Kemerling) (Lander).

Perhaps every generation of philosophers and thinkers says this in one way or another, but there is a rather warped sense of value and meaning in today's society. So often, people shift their core values, definition of meaning and weighting based on who will get credit, who will supposedly be put to shame and so forth. Honest debate is often stunted and shunned in favor of violence, vitriol and so forth. It is not to the point of putting people to death in most situations around the world but even countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, just to name two, are seeing some rather nasty trends when it comes to how values are created, enforced, discussed, weighted and defined. Just one good example would be the recent violence and invective seen at UC Berkeley in California. The duality that exists whereby right-wingers and left-wingers are often hurling insults is not anything remotely new but what used to be the "cradle" of free speech and the free flow of ideas has devolved into a morass of depravity and violence that would surely make Socrates rather dour.

Even with this being the case, this in no way negates what Nozick and Socrates had to say on the subject. Just as the people that persecuted and killed Socrates were wrong, so are the people that fight fascism with fascism and violence (e.g. Antifa) and so are people that change their ethical and ideological stripes to fit the mood, the opinion polls and who will get credit. After all, one political side speaking for Wall Street banks and such for six figure deals is either wrong all of the time or it is wrong none of the time, generally speaking. Military action without Congressional approval is either wrong all of the time or it is wrong none of the time, generally speaking. If one goes to a more personal and first-person level, one can see similar trends. Some artists thrive and get famous on being provocative. It is to the point that some people do it on purpose so as to get publicity and fame, not to mention money and power. The meaning of such a life and the meaning of the lives of those that glom onto those sorts of people is diminished and sad. The term "first world problems" comes to mind, and for more than one reason. It is hard to see any value in what people like the Kardashians bring to the proverbial table. This is not to say that people like that never do anything good for others, because that is not true. However, the value and meaning that people assign based on the trends and examples of society is not very good a lot of the time right now. The manifestation was also bad in the case of Socrates but there should come a point where people make it a point to progress, learn and try to maximize the utilitarian and/or similar benefit for as many people as possible while at the same time encouraging accountability, learning, growing, responsibility and introspection. The last of those in particular is something that Nozick and Socrates both pounced on but the latter had a much better idea, at least if one is using the two Nozick chapters as a focal point.