Descartes knew that if he could find one immovable truth, he could build further truths and beliefs on it.  One or two self-evident truths would lead him to genuine truths.  One of his layers of doubt was that God could be an evil deceiver; this would make all of his thoughts false, but at least Descartes realized that for the event of him being deceived to occur, he must exist.  Instead of “I think, therefore I am” – as he had stated earlier in his Discourse – he said “I am, I exist.”  It is more fundamental than the argument “I think, therefore I am”, as it does not include the word therefore and is thus not an argument.  It is a more simple statement, and the solution to his skepticism.

I think that death is an interesting philosophical problem because we humans cannot figure it out – it is beyond our knowledge and (most likely) always will be.  Philosophy is all about conjecturing and musing, and the mystery of death is one of the best examples of a philosophical question that will remain as such.  Many philosophers have pondered what happens after death, including Socrates; he, unwilling to give a single answer because he claims to know nothing, gave two options of what will happen after death: either the soul will migrate or it will go into eternal sleep.  No matter how hard any philosopher can contemplate this problem, we cannot truly know what will happen to our soul after we die and should therefore, as Epicurus argues, not fear it – after all, we cannot change the fact that we will someday die, and will not have control over what happens to us afterwards.

When our motive is to learn something, rather than to reap the benefits of the knowledge, we can gain wisdom.  Knowledge with intrinsic value yields better consequences in the long term than knowledge for extrinsic value.  Wisdom, since it is gained through knowledge, should therefore also be pursued for its own sake.

Socrates believed that human wisdom could never be useful in attaining the most important pursuits, such as knowing how to live the good life and what is good and true.  He thought that human wisdom was worth little or nothing, and that those who claim to be wise are the least wise.  Aristotle, on the other hand, believes that when wisdom is pursued for its own sake, it can be sufficient for humans.  He thinks that a wise man should be able to lead those still attempting to gain wisdom, while Socrates would not agree with this view, because he does not think anyone should claim to be wise

I saw only brunettes there.

No blonds or redheads go to the gym.

Socrates therefore claims that he knows nothing.  Possessing human wisdom is not going to get one very far in knowing the ‘most important pursuits’, so nothing that humans know is going to be very helpful.  Socrates states that true wisdom is in knowing that you know nothing; this knowledge of human ignorance is called Socratic ignorance, or learned ignorance.  Socrates sees all these Athenians boasting that possess more knowledge or wisdom than they really do have, and recognizes that their false fronts are ridiculous.  Socrates owns up to knowing very little; he realizes that his wisdom, being less than that of the gods and therefore unable to distinguish what is good and moral, is worth “little or nothing.”

Another interpretation of the “pious being loved by the gods because it is pious,” is that one works hard to earn the love of the gods by acting holy.  One would then have to understand what the gods’ supposed ideas of piousness entailed in order to carry them out and garner their love.

These questions and issues raised by the original inquiry are evidence to the philosophical impact of the question.  Its lack of clarity and a distinct answer make the question a philosophical one –one that does not belong in any other science but is open to a wide variety of theories.  The philosophical depth to this question can be an indicator of the depth and vagueness of philosophy itself, and how exploring things from a philosophical standpoint can assist in figuring out one’s own beliefs.