Imagine a single point or node that exists in space. Every time you face a question, that node is connected to two other nodes, forming a binary tree. In one of the new nodes, your assumption is correct (T). In the other node, your assumption is incorrect (F). With every assumption you make the tree grows exponentially. Each leaf in this tree is a new reality, a "world" formed from a series of True/False statements.
To live, you must choose one world. It is impossible to live in multiple. So, you blindly run around this tree of possibilities, hoping that your path is correct. But is this the correct path? Do you end up with the correct leaf/worldview? Does a correct leaf even exist?
For Socrates, there is one obvious path in this tree. The power of a true philosopher stems from the ability to destroy the hypothesis. Socrates leisurely strolls through the tree, knowing which way to turn at every moment, peacefully arriving at Truth.
Unfortunately, I am not Socrates, or any other person who can walk so painlessly across the tree of possibilities. So, in order to reach any conclusions, I am forced to make assumptions. The way to avoid this and participate in a truthful conversation about "how to live" is to take a brute force approach (or examine every possibility). In the following essay, I will examine three distinct "worlds" and determine the correct life to live in each one. In other words, I plan on walking every path in the tree of assumptions and at the end of each one, determine the correct life to live.
These worlds/parts are constructed based on answering the following logical questions:
Note: Because of this structure, each part of the essay will have a sub-thesis (bolded). The overarching essay does not have a thesis or conclusion.
This essay should address every possible situation created from our assumptions. Additionally, I hope to use it as a reference on how to live based on my current perspective/assumptions. When I find myself lost in life, this essay should be able to give me the directions back home.
Proposition: Objective Truth does not exist (A is true and B is irrelevant)
When making the assumption that objective truth doesn't exist, The Life of Pleasure is the most reasonable option. This life is defined as the prioritization of pleasure over anything else.
First, contrary to the other lifestyles, the life of pleasure doesn't require any stable, universal truth for direction. To live the ideal political life, one must act in accordance with True Justice or follow the orders of a Philosopher-King (Republic, 520a-b). In a world where Truth doesn't exist, there is no True Justice, and so the Political Life is incomplete. The contemplative life is defined by Socrates as a search for "something of the being that is always and does not wander around" (Republic, 485b). In this world, there is no unmoving truth, and consequently, the philosopher's search is meaningless. (Although, it may not be worthless. Either way, it loses much of its appeal.)
The Life of Love may still be a possibility. However, the main ethos of the Life of Love is its spark of divinity. As one sees a lover, their "memory is carried toward the nature of beauty and sees it once more" (Phaedrus, 254b). This rather moving statement, that Love is a reminder of a greater power/form, makes no sense when we assume that there is no "greater power."
Additionally, in a world with no Justice or Truth, you manage to get all of the benefits from a life of pleasure without many of the downsides. It remains easy to obtain and natural. Yet, many of Socrates' critiques of a life of pleasure are no longer relevant. For instance, Socrates' argument that there are false pleasures and that these pleasures are inherently ungodly or bad (Philebus, 39b-40d) makes no sense if there is no objective truth. Something cannot be false if there is no Truth. In other words, in this world there are no Gods and no Justice and so pleasure cannot be "more just" or "more holy" if no Truth exists.
It should be recognized that this form of hedonism is slightly different from Protagorian hyper-relativism. In this world, there is no Objective Good/Truth, but it isn't clear if knowledge is perspective. For instance, Protagoras claims that man "is the measure of all things" (Theaetetus, 152a), or that individual perception defines what each person knows is true. Socrates responds to this by claiming that if most people believed that Protagoras was false, and (by his philosophy) each opinion is individually true, then he would be contradicting his own claim (Theaetetus, 171b). Another rebuttal to Protagorean thinking is that if everything is changing, then perception doesn't exist. Thus, the claim perception is knowledge is no different than non-perception is knowledge (Theaetetus, 182d). These arguments, and many of Socrates' other refutations still are applicable in a world where there is no objective truth.
Ultimately, if objective truth doesn't exist, all other lives are incomplete. Additionally, The Life of Pleasure offers far more benefits than downsides. Therefore, The Life of Pleasure is the best life in this situation.
Propositions: Objective Truth exists and philosophers know this truth (A and B are True)
The second world we will consider is one where objective truth exists and philosophers know this truth. In this situation, there are two possible lives: a Philosophic Life and a Pious Life. The Philosophic Life is reserved for the "true philosophers" in this society. In Plato's Republic, Socrates describes how those with a philosophic nature desire true knowledge (Republic, 485b). Additionally, he argues that a Philosophic man lives "729 times more pleasantly" than a tyrant and exists above all other lives (Republic, 587d). Therefore, living a Philosophic Life seems to be an obvious choice for a philosopher; it is the only life that will fulfill their craving for truth and is most pleasant.
Perhaps the most appealing aspect of the Philosophic Life is the eventual realization of The Forms, or eternal truths. In the Republic, Socrates likens a philosopher's search for truth to a prisoner escaping a cave (Republic, 514a). Once reaching the Sun, a representation of objective Truth, philosophers are compelled to return to the cave and direct the masses. A benefit for learning objective truth would be that Philosophers would know the truth about "how to live" — essentially answering the question that defines this entire essay.
It should be recognized that there are some downsides to living a Philosophic Life, particularly before one reaches objective truth. Socrates mentions some of these in Theaetetus. A pre-truth philosopher's contemplative nature prevents them from understanding basic societal norms. Socrates recounts a story about Thales, an ancient Greek astronomer. Gazing at the heavens, Thales accidentally falls into a well, drawing the ridicule of a Thracian servant girl (Theaetetus, 174A). Both Thales and pre-truth philosophers fail to recognize their own reality due to their fixation on more heavenly ideas. Nevertheless, once they reach eternal truth, they likely care little for ridicule.
Learning the Forms and understanding all Truth > Being laughed at for falling into a well
For the non-philosopher in this society, the Pious Life is the most reasonable choice. A Pious Life is an interesting mix between a Philosophic Life and a Life of Love. You must love learning truths, similar to philosophers. Additionally, you must express a fervent, almost mad love toward those with knowledge of the forms, feeling "awe as before a God" (Phaedrus, 251d). The Pious Life can be understood as a strict religious life, and philosophers would be comparable to prophets. There is a dual devotion to both idols and scripture.
In each case, someone who knows all truth teaches the ignorant and shows them directly how to live. Philosophers know how to live — they know true Justice, Life, Death, Fear, Love, etc. So, it only makes sense to devote oneself to the doctrines of philosophers. This is identical to the model of rule established in the Republic: Philosopher Kings become absolute leaders and everyone else must follow. The only difference between a Philosopher-King and a Tyrant is a philosopher's good nature and disinterest in power (Republic, 485d). Socrates' Allegory of the Ship (Republic, 488a) illustrates this: the stargazer philosopher, seemingly useless to other sailors, is actually the best leader due to his knowledge. In our imagined "pious" society, this stargazer becomes the pilot, and the sailors are wholly devoted to him and his wisdom.
There are counterarguments: philosophers might suffer in a ruling position, or perhaps they learn that the ideal life does not involve leadership. Another counterargument is that non-philosophers cannot truly recognize whether someone is a genuine philosopher.
In conclusion, for philosophers in this world, the Philosophic Life is ideal since it fulfills their craving for knowledge and provides a path to understanding life. For non-philosophers, the Pious Life is ideal, since living according to philosophers' teachings is the only way to live truthfully.
Propositions: Objective Truth exists but we cannot understand it (A is true but B is false)
In this last scenario, objective truth exists but human reason cannot obtain it. The only option is intuition. In Phaedrus, there is evidence of this intuition. After Socrates' second speech, Phaedrus notes "how much more beautiful" it was than the earlier one (Phaedrus, 257c). Phaedrus recognizes quality before understanding logic. Socrates later explains why it was better, but what matters is that Phaedrus felt something higher. He felt Truth.
This is astounding — intuition can guide us where reason cannot. We may feel something is more just but can't explain it, or feel that one triangle is more perfect without an exact reason — this is intuition.
The Life of Love is a perfect example of living based on this divine feeling. We get close to divinity, to Truth. Forget Socrates' logical explanations — in this world, nobody can explain the feeling. Socrates describes how seeing a beautiful face makes one "shiver" (Phaedrus, 251a) and how a lover sees beauty and, "letting the water of longing pour in," reaps the "greatest pleasure" (Phaedrus, 251e). This is pure feeling — no logic. The madness exists without clear explanation.
This is why the Life of Love is perfect when truth exists but is unreachable. Love reminds us of something heavenly. It is a life devoted to intuition, closest to the divine.
My heart aches, and a drowsy numbness pains
My sense, as though of hemlock I had drunk,
Or emptied some dull opiate to the drains
One minute past, and Lethe-wards had sunk:
'Tis not through envy of thy happy lot,
But being too happy in thine happiness,—
That thou, light-winged Dryad of the trees
In some melodious plot
Of beechen green, and shadows numberless,
Singest of summer in full-throated ease.— John Keats, "Ode to a Nightingale"