I recently published an article on the Socratic Method and how it can be used to create a hypertrophic state for your mind. I want to elaborate more without going into an infinite tail chase of impasse. As people, we tend to like results or an endgame to virtually everything. We want to see the final score of a football game, or the nail-biting results of an election. The juxtaposition with philosophical doctrines like the Socratic Method is that we don’t always reach finite conclusions; indeed, the endgame tends to be an impasse, we simply question things until we’re blue in the face.
I don’t necessarily look at this as a flaw. I think the issue with some doctrines of philosophy is that they don’t reach finite conclusions. We cannot function by constantly chasing our tails; nothing would ever get done. My argument is that finite endings create stagnation, while openness to growth fosters true order. I want to be careful not to tie into fallibilism, as that is a much different fork in the road.
Eudaimonia
We need to look at an endgame as less of a finite end and more of a process in flux (I am sure there is an oxymoron somewhere in there.) There is no direct Greek translation for the state of happiness; the closest term is eudaimonia, which more accurately means “good spirit.”
Just as the Socratic Method never truly “arrives” at a final answer, eudaimonia is not a singular achievement but a continuous process of growth. This aligns with my earlier stance that our minds should always remain in flux. I pity those so entrenched in their beliefs that defending their position becomes an exhausting endeavor. Imagine if we devoted the same energy to challenging our own fallacies and embracing growth. I can only hope that more will engage with the doctrines I have outlined. But find what works for you.
What it Means for Me
I close this short jotting in the hopes of creating a solid definition of what this translation means for me. It may vary from person to person, and that is ok. In contemporary times, I believe that only engaging with things that are inside of your control is the key to all of this. Marcus Aurelius tells us that:
When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: The people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous, and surly. They are like this because they can’t tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own—not of the same blood or birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine. And so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel angry at my relative, or hate him. We were born to work together like feet, hands, and eyes, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower. To obstruct each other is unnatural. To feel anger at someone, to turn your back on him: these are obstructions. (Meditations, 2.1)
Choosing what can and can’t hurt us leaves room for what actually matters and I believe that is a state of eudaimonia (again, this may look different for you.) Perhaps think of it as a pillar of what we can control.
I’ve practiced Stoicism since late 2019, and it has been a game-changer. While I sometimes stray from its principles, I always find myself returning. I’m eager to explore the teachings of Socrates and Aristotle, but ultimately, they all seem to share a common theme: the real disturbance to our minds comes not from external events but from our internal response to them. It may seem somewhat fatalistic, but that’s part of the beauty of ancient philosophy—no single school of thought reigns supreme over the others.
tl;dr: Rather than a finite ending, look for the process and willingness to be open to new ideas.
Leave a Reply