Diogenes vs. Socrates: a Life of Worth
Ezra Hochman
Wednesday/Friday 12:25-2:05
Diogenes vs. Socrates: What is a life of worth? One can either write the story of their own life, or let other people and circumstances write it for him. Too often do citizens of the world follow the assumptions of society, as personal independence can seem frightening or uncomfortable. Both Socrates and Diogenes were of the mind that the purpose of human life is to constantly better one’s self by way of personal and spiritual growth. We are unable to grow toward greater understanding of our true nature unless we take the time to examine and reflect upon it.
Material wealth and social status are imaginary assets. True value is found in questioning the standard and pursuing virtue through education and self-discipline. Philosophers Diogenes and Socrates both have commentaries on what it means to live with values, and though their holistic philosophies on life are very similar, their outlooks on this specific topic are poles apart. In this paper, I will contrast the beliefs of Diogenes and Socrates in regards to the evaluation of a life of worth.
The major underlying difference between Diogenes and Socrates is the measurement of conviction in their beliefs. Diogenes’s opinions stand erect and extreme, whereas Socrates hovers on the moderate side of the spectrum. This discrepancy in policy comes to be the major factor in the differences between the two philosophers, especially when regarding the idea of a life of worth.
One thing that separates Diogenes and Socrates is their respective stances on public relations; that is to say, Diogenes has one, and Socrates does not. Diogenes believed that a life of worth started with outward action, as opposed to reclusive thought. Being asked what the most beautiful thing in the world was, he replied, “Freedom of speech.” Diogenes was known to be a voracious lecturer. As one of the chief founders of cynicism, Diogenes had a lot to say and had no problem offering public rebukes to
Wednesday/Friday 12:25-2:05
Diogenes vs. Socrates: What is a life of worth? One can either write the story of their own life, or let other people and circumstances write it for him. Too often do citizens of the world follow the assumptions of society, as personal independence can seem frightening or uncomfortable. Both Socrates and Diogenes were of the mind that the purpose of human life is to constantly better one’s self by way of personal and spiritual growth. We are unable to grow toward greater understanding of our true nature unless we take the time to examine and reflect upon it.
Material wealth and social status are imaginary assets. True value is found in questioning the standard and pursuing virtue through education and self-discipline. Philosophers Diogenes and Socrates both have commentaries on what it means to live with values, and though their holistic philosophies on life are very similar, their outlooks on this specific topic are poles apart. In this paper, I will contrast the beliefs of Diogenes and Socrates in regards to the evaluation of a life of worth.
The major underlying difference between Diogenes and Socrates is the measurement of conviction in their beliefs. Diogenes’s opinions stand erect and extreme, whereas Socrates hovers on the moderate side of the spectrum. This discrepancy in policy comes to be the major factor in the differences between the two philosophers, especially when regarding the idea of a life of worth.
One thing that separates Diogenes and Socrates is their respective stances on public relations; that is to say, Diogenes has one, and Socrates does not. Diogenes believed that a life of worth started with outward action, as opposed to reclusive thought. Being asked what the most beautiful thing in the world was, he replied, “Freedom of speech.” Diogenes was known to be a voracious lecturer. As one of the chief founders of cynicism, Diogenes had a lot to say and had no problem offering public rebukes to