Hinduism in Greece?

While reading the passage in Phaedo that talked about the immorality of the soul, the thought that immediately came to my mind was the religon Hinduism and reincarnation.  The discusion of the soul descendng to death and back into a differnt body highly resembles the process of reincarnation where a human soul returns to earth in another body.  In fact, Socrates seems to be describng the main process of reincarnation when he discussed the idea of good or bad works determining whether the soul inhabits the body of a certain animal.  My question is whether Socrates was knowingly referring to th religion of hinduism or if he came to this idea himself.

My question over this text is, could Socrates have taken the concept of learning as recollection a different direction and ended up with a different conclusion than reincarnation and the immortality of the soul? I think yes in some respects. Beginning at the concept of learning as recollection, you could chase the trail of intuition and recollection being equated to one another, and then intuition leading to the consistency of a moral compass. This essentially will lead you to the probability of there being an ultimate supreme something. This takes the argument of reincarnation and immortality of the soul in a little bit of a different direction, where you are pursuing a higher source to our knowledge and understanding, rather than the eternality of our souls.


I commented on Sierra's and Wendy's!

Body and Soul

Does the body truly constrict the soul? Our temptations and desires that make us human also hold us back, so death is a release. Socrates looks forward to the moment that he will be able to separate himself from the body that confines him so greatly. This also points to the idea that there is life after death that we are able to obtain greater knowledge.

P.S.: I commented on Charis's and Dallas's Posts.

Different Perspective

    When I first started the read, it was a little strange to me that he was put into a cell with other people. Why would they do that if do not not want him sharing his beliefs? In my opinion, putting him in a cell with other "criminals" was a good way to get his teachings to stop. Even if the other men in the jail believed what he was saying, its not like any of them were going to get out anytime soon.


I commented on Ty and Charis's post

Ironic

I personally found the fact that Sophocles was imprisoned in his last days so that he could no longer teach, but he was surrounded by others who were imprisoned too, and he was able to teach them his thoughts and ways. Imprisoning him there seems very counter productive and ironic in several ways. His teaching was still passed on through others, but it was in a way that most would not expect it.
You'd figure that the ones who sent him to prison would'e thought to put him alone so that he couldn't influence others.

I commented on Wendy and Chris' posts.

Sophocles and the Irony of His Situation

   This story takes place in Sophocles' final days, in his prison cell. I find it ironic that though the council did not want him influencing others around him with his differing beliefs, yet by putting him in a cell with other people surrounding him, he was practically given a classroom. I do not know if all of these men were condemned to die- but if they were not, once they got out of prison, they could spread the word of what they had learned from Sophocles. By killing one philosopher, the city potentially created many. He expressed his beliefs about life after death- and no doubt they differed from the beliefs of the people in his time. To his last moments, he was still spurring the minds of those around him, pushing them to question their beliefs and dig deeper for a clarity in truth.


Ps- I commented on Sierra and Noah's posts!

Pain and Pleasure

A passage that grabbed my attention in particular is on page 97, where Socrates relates pain and pleasure. He connects the two different feelings/concepts through the explanation of his leg being in bondage (bringing him pain) and then the “pleasure that seems to [follow]” when he is freed from the bonds. This comparison I understand and agree with. I also agree with his statement that one “cannot have both [pain and pleasure] at the same time.” I cannot think of an instance where both can be experienced at the same time other than at a funeral where one is both mourning the death of a friend, but also celebrating their life. However, I do not agree with his argument that pain and pleasure are like “two creatures with one head” because pain and pleasure are not always so intricately connected. One can enjoy the pleasure of eating a good sandwich, but that does not mean that he automatically will have to endure pain simply because he experiences this form of pleasure. This passage can be argued and reasoned out at length, making for an interesting discussion.

I commented on Ollie and Daniel’s posts!

Phaedo

Christianity isn't one of many equally valid world views or philosophies that you can choose. There are philosophies that stem from Christianity, but that's just it- they stem from the already existing faith, it isn't the other way around, the faith isn't created out of the philosophy. So in Socrates case, he has beliefs that are similar to Christian ideas, but for him to claim something like what he says on page 339 "he who has lived as a true philosopher has reason to be of good cheer when he is about to die, and that after death he may hope to receive the greatest good in the other world" without the back up of Christianity is merely a bold statement he's made with no real solid basis or platform. It doesn't matter how close he is to Christianity if they are not actually based off of the Christian faith.

Pure Soul

Phaedo is my favorite work we have read by Plato by far. Socrates is getting ready to die, yet he explains before his death exactly why it is he is happily departing. The whole concept of the soul and striving to disassociate oneself with one's own body is exactly why Socrates says he is welcoming death. Death is the one thing that can free himself of the physical pleasure the body desires, but are not beneficial to the soul. Socrates speaks of the soul saying:
          If it is pure when it leaves the body and drags nothing bodily with it, as it had no willing                     association with the body in life, but avoided it and gathered itself together by itself and always           practiced this, which is no other than practicing philosophy in the right way, in fact, training to           die easily.   (119)
Socrates is saying that philosophy is ridding one's soul of the body. My question is, can one ever really accomplish this task? He says the polluted soul is when nothing seems to exist except the physical, but one must attend to the body to survive. In a sense, this concept of controlling how much our physical desires rule us relates to Christianity. One could say that in Christianity, if one is controlled solely by the flesh, then their soul can be compared to Socrates definition of a "polluted soul".

Socrates addresses the polluted souls after death and how they become a visible object like the body. This theory was interesting to me because this is how he explains what phantoms are. These souls are "inferior men" to whom are "forced to wander" and are "paying the penalty for their previous bad upbringing" (120). Socrates contradicts himself almost because at first he says that souls are the invisible, and bodies are the visible; yet, souls can turn to the visible?

I commented on Briana and Nate's post.

Recollection of Death

Socrates brings up an interesting idea when pertaining to the theory of recollection. He says this theory relies upon our inherent ability to recall actions and beliefs based on proper questioning and diagnosis. Where would this stop? If the soul were eternal and moved from a former body to the next, shouldn't Socrates be able to recall his soul's previous death? Or rather because his soul has now learned how the body of Socrates will die that it will be able to recall the death from the correct string of questions? It creates an odd spectacle in which the theory is almost immediately proven false by the simple fact that no one can recall their soul's previous death. Just Socrates questioning the abilities and limitations of the soul raises the question: does the soul even know its own capabilities? The soul could be recalling events from past experiences, but it can never be so precise as to say where it is from. So when a soul recalls information, it possess an infinite memory; meaning that it can remember from far back in previous lives, regardless of details. However, the soul also possesses a finite memory in that it cannot recall between lives, but just happens to retain and "remember" information from those lives.

This is why we need professional thinkers. To answer my questions; the only TRUE questions.

(I did a comment on Darby's and Natalie's posts.)

Pleasure/Pain

"What a strange thing that which men call pleasure to be, and how astonishing the relation is has with what is thought to be it's opposite, namely pain! A man cannot have both at the same time. Yet if he pursues and catches the one, he is almost always bound to catch the other also, like two creatures with one head." - page 97

This is interesting to think about. The way Socrates explains this comparison makes so much sense to me. Initially I thought, pleasure and pain do not go together?? Being in pain is not pleasurable??? But the example that Socrates gives with his legs clarifies his idea of pleasure and pain going hand in hand. Socrates has his legs removed from their binds and realizes the pleasure of having them released from the bindings. The pleasure from being released from the binds is related to the pain from before. This post is very shallow compared to many of the other ones this week, but I found pleasure/pain interesting.

I commented on Francesca's and Hannah's

Keep the Faith...Or Lack Thereof

Socrates, the father of the "philosophical trinity", displays the art of holding to one's beliefs even in the face of extreme persecution. Yes, he speaks of the immortality of the soul throughout Phaedo, but the most powerful part of the entire dialogue is Socrates' continued belief in the ideals of philosophy. He dies with honor. He does not go against his beliefs, nor does he regret any of his decisions. He uses his death to leave his friends and pupils with comfort. He gives one last lesson to any who are there to listen. Socrates dies a man of his philosophy. He dies for his cause, a true philosopher.

P.S. I commented on Briana Batdorf and Daniel Stephens' posts.

The Central Idea of Life After Death

Okay so the whole time I was reading Phaedo I couldn't help but think about the ultimate fate of Socrates. Yes he drinks the poison and dies, but as Christians we believe that there is Heaven and Hell and if you don't accept God then you are going to Hell. So what do we do with those who have never even heard the gospels? The whole time Socrates is so certain that when he dies he is going to go down to the underworld and meet all his lost friends and dwell forever in Hades. However, as Christians we know that he is in for one huge wake up call.
That being said, how to we ourselves know? There is always that nagging, blasphemous question in the back of my mind, "How do we know?" How do we really and truly know where we will end up in the afterlife?  Are we not also as confident as the Greeks were that there is Heaven and Hell and we will go to one or the other?

I commented in Natalie Schuler's and Daniel Stevens.

Root of Gnosticism?

It sounds like Socrates may be one of the earliest believers in gnosticism. He thinks that the body is evil and the the soul is good. He says that the soul tries to escape the evils of the body. That is why he believes that true philosophers do not partake in the pleasures of the flesh. He did not completely follow all of what gnosticism became in the first and second century, but he definitely believed in the foundational values of that religion. His life revolved around gaining knowledge and wisdom and helping others to do so as well. Did Socrates start gnosticism or did he get it from someone else? He certainly passed his views on to Plato, who is considered a source of the religion.

I commented on Francesca and Natalie's posts.

Fear not Death

It is true that we, as living human beings, fear death. It is an unknown frontier that we cannot, despite any technology we develop or heights we reach, can explore. It is the fear of an ultimate end, and the fear of the unknown. However, according to Socrates, death isn't something to fear. It is natural to do so, but from Socrates point of view, death sheds away the body, leaving the soul in its fullness, unbound by the needs of the human body. It is a difficult idea to get your head around, as we tie our body to our very existence, as limiting as the body can be. Socrates acknowledges the weakness of the body, and sees the death of the body as stepping stone to the truest truth. The truth one can only reach by being able to surpass the needs of the physical, which can only come through death.

I commented on Natalie and Ethan's posts.

The Theory of Forms in Phaedo

This entire Dialogue is devoted to the idea that death should be a borderline pleasant experience because it releases what really matters--the soul--from what hinders it--the body/earthly things. This is a common idea called the Theory of Forms. The Theory of Forms is laid out at the top of page 103. Although Socrates was not a polytheist in the traditional way, I argue that he wasn't a Christian, either. All of the characteristics that most mistake as him being a Christian actually point to what turns into Platonism (with a few tweaks). In the second and third century, these same ideas (that the body only hinders the soul) is adopted by the Gnostics. It's not an idea that is solely held by Christians. That being said, I can see why people think Plato was a Christian-before-Christ, but I don't think Socrates was. Thoughts?

I commented on Darby and Francesca's posts.

Holding on to the things of this world

"I am afraid that other people do not realize that the one aim of those who practice philosophy in the proper manners to practice for dying and death."

"In fact, Simmers, he said, those who practice philosophy in the right way are in training for dying and they fear death least of all men"

It greatly surprised me when Socrates made this claim. It really does make me look at the many different aspects of which philosophy addresses. In this case, it seems to lend itself to a belief of greater things to come after life ends on earth. Socrates' outlook on his situation is such a good reminder of how we don't need to fear death. We have the promise of living in Heaven one day. When questioned about how he could be okay with his situation, he calls out people who spend their life looking for wisdom, yet fear when wisdom is found through death. We won't know certain things until we are apart from sin and all the things of this world that keep us tethered to the physical realm. 

P.S. I commented on hannah's and Francesca's posts

Affinity and Christianity

In Phaedo Socrates brings up a Argument of Affinity which discusses about how the body and soul are two different forms yet are intertwined as the soul lives in the body. The soul is divine and in the Christian worldview it is where we internalize what is right or wrong, the truths of this life, and our faith. Alot of worship songs personify's the soul saying ' my soul longs for you' . It is own and is set apart from the body. The body, as Socrates explains, holds back the soul from reaching its full potention as it yearns for mortal and inconstancy confusing the soul. This is parallel with how sin can taint and confuse our soul as we strive for better yet always end up short because of our imperfections. Socrates enlightment may have been a gift from a God greater than the greek ones as I have now seen many examples where his thinking and Christianity are similiar.


I commented on Darby's and

The BIG questions

To me, in Phaedo, Socrates and his followers are asking and trying to answer the Big questions of life. Questions like "What happens when I die?", "Should I fear death?", "Do greater things happen when I Die?". The men sit and ponder on a variation of each of these questions. What puzzles me is that Socrates says only philosophers can really look death in the face and not be frightened, because they live their life as though they are dying. True philosophers don't give in to the temptations the body desires. But why does this make a difference? I also feel like he is making a reference that there is a greater being out there by saying "I have a good hope that some future awaits men after death" (100). This means he thinks there is hope after death. But, maybe I am just digging for something that isn't there.  What also confused me is the fact that these men think our lives come from being dead??? I do not understand that. That "our souls exist in the underworld" (108)? Such confusion there. Is he saying that if our souls don't proceed to live into the underworld, that our life here on earth is pointless????



I commented on Hannah Atkin's and Daniel Stephen's.

No Fear in Death

“Therefore, it is fear and terror that make all men brave, except the philosophers.”

               As Socrates considers his coming death, he instructs those around him to examine the motives behind bravery. His claim is that philosophers look forward to the separation of their body and soul because it is the body that hinders the pursuit of further knowledge. He says that other men only face death with bravery for fear of something worse. To him, there is a much greater goal in death than avoiding the consequences of living. Death is transformed from an evil into a pursuit, as a true philosopher lives as close to death as he is able. In many ways, his thoughts resemble Christian ideology. Christians look forward to deeper communion with God, and many face death in their earthly pursuit of following Christ. In the same way that Socrates sought wisdom unto the death, Christians are to pursue the will of Christ unto their own death. There is no fear in death for those in a growing relationship with God.

I commented on Ethan and Francesca's posts

Can Holiness Exist Without a Holy God?

The main topic of Euthyphro is piety. What is pious? In the Christian faith we believe that our God is holy but, in Greek mythology this book brings up an interesting topic. Did the Greeks believe their gods were holy? Throughout Greek literature we can see that the gods are fickle in their actions. They may say they are holy throughout the text but, we can also see that this doesn’t line up with their actions. I would argue that none of the gods in Greek literature are holy. Which brings up the argument, can holiness exist without their being a holy god? If this is true, then there is no rule for holiness. Therefore, there is no way to determine right from wrong.

P.S.: I commented on Hannah's and Sierra's posts.

Objective Truth and the Test of the Question

Throughout the course of this dialogue Plato has recorded between Socrates and Euthyphro there is one clear theme that Socrates pushes Euthyphro to answer- the question of what is piety (holiness/righteousness). However we see by the end of the dialogue, Euthyphro huffs away from Socrates, tired of his little game of questions, and consequently, leaving Socrates (and us) with no answer to the original question, and most likely with even more questions. Can we say something was accomplished in this particular dialogue? I think yes. There was in fact eliminations made in the questioning of piety. We now know that what is loved by the Athenian gods is not holiness (piety), but what is holy (pious) can be loved by the Athenian gods. Because the Athenian gods contradict themselves again and again through their moral inconsistency, we can see this proven true. Extending this to other religions is another question though. Say the Judeo-Christian God for example. Is not what is loved by Him holiness? He is Love, so is He not also Holiness? This sounds like simple truth in this context, but when we apply it also to the more practical application of murder and killing, it is another question. If Yahweh is just, say He were to ask you to kill someone, would you do it? In this context, is that morally wrong? Or is it just? As the theoretical falls away, and the application comes to head, the question becomes more and the truth seems vague. Can Truth be proven objective and will it stand the test of question? I say yes.

P.S. I commented on Dallas' and Francesca's

good talk

The dialogue at times moves in a circle, criticizing and analyzing in order to understand the question, “what is piety,” rather than answering it specifically. Is there really an answer to this, or did Socrates manage to find so many flaws that there is no true definition? Another interesting question gets raised in the dialogue: “Is an act holy because the gods love it or do the gods love it because it is holy?” This leads us to question if an act is intrinsically right or wrong, or if the act is simply perceived to be right or wrong, based on the perceiver. Who makes the rules here?

 I commented on Abigail Brock's and Hannah Atkins!

 

We All Need A Socrates

Socrates approaches Euthyphro with these questions, seemingly hoping to learn from this supposed expert. However, once the questioning begins, Euthyphro's answers are disassembled, not by any attack or direct contradiction from Socrates, rather simply from more questions. Questions, where in giving his own answer, contradicts a prior answer, leaving Euthyphro to again, justify something he had thought already justified. In my opinion, we all need a Socrates. I'd use the phrase devil's advocate but that typically implies that the person you're in discussion with is already in agreement with you and in the end, whether you've adequately argued your case or not, will agree with you. That's probably an adequate role, but the idea of having someone to question you in such a strategic way as to cause you to contradict yourself unless you're answers and reasoning's are rock solid. This experience in any one's life, but especially a Christian's is vital in strengthening one's faith. What good is it to have beliefs if you don't know the reasons why you have them? The point of an experience like this may not always be to be proven wrong so you go and completely change your beliefs, rather, to make certain you know the reasons why you believe what you believe. Socrates shows his wisdom is that he doesn't have to argue anything in order for Euthyphro's case to be dismantled, instead, with a series of well thought out questions can make Euthyphro poke holes in his own answers. What better way to win an argument than to make the one you're arguing with prove themselves wrong?

I commented on Briana's and Francesca's!

The 5 kinds of Piety

The amount of definitions we were given for "Pious" and "Impious" was overwhelming to me. You have 1: what Euthyphro is doing; prosecuting wrong doers whoever they are. (Which is really just an instance of piety) 2: What is dear to the gods. 3: What is loved by all the gods. 4: The part of justice that is concerned with the care of the gods. and 5: saying and doing what is pleasing to the gods at prayer and sacrifice. (so, really just repeating what is loved by the gods). Socrates of course questioned every answer of defining what is "Pious" by Euthyphro. He even switched his question from "How do you know what is pious?" to "What is Piety? Define it." Here's what I got from it, or what I found that they can agree on: 1. All gods understand what is pious 2. All gods love any action that is pious, because they love and understand piety.

P.s. I commented on Darby's and Ethan's

An Unquestionable God

Socrates, in Euthyphro, brings out through his debate a question that many theologians and religious philosophers have failed to completely answer. Is that which is morally right correct because it is, in itself right, OR is it right because a higher power (God) ordained it as such?

To pose this question is to ask whether morals are objective (innate) or subjective (based on approval). The Christian answer to this actually comes as a surprise to many: Morals are subjective, that is, to God's will. To say that morals are completely objective in and of themselves is to assert a higher power than that of the one true God.

So, why is this a big deal? Many Christians ask the question, "How can a good God allow this to happen?" when faced with pain, yet in asking this question, they assert that God is held to a higher standard. Even the Biblical heroes Job and Abraham do this (see book of Job and Genesis 18). If what God does can be judged by man or by another standard, is He truly God? 

I guess there's a reason that Plato is considered "a Christian before Christ" as in this dialogue, he discusses a topic that is still debated to this day, even among outspoken believers.

(I commented on Darby and Daniel's posts) 

Who is the wiser?

I thought this dialogue was very interesting. Even though, I didn't understand it fully, I thought it was very enlightening. To me, this was a contest to find out who the wiser person was out of Euthyphro and Socrates. Euthyphro claims to be the wisest when it comes to knowing what is pious and impious. But does he really? Because Socrates brings up good counter arguments and questions that make Euthyphro change his claim many times. The question I was asking myself was, "how do either of them know really what is pious or impious?" They go back and forth so many times that I think "pious" loses some of it's meaning. Is the whole question of this dialogue "what makes something pious" or something else? I questioned Euthyphro many times, but one specific time when Socrates was bringing up the gods and whether or not if they loved something did that make it pious or impious because they loved it???? Such confusion right there. But then Socrates goes on to say later on that same page that "then the god-loved is not the same as the pious... nor the pious the same as the god-loved..."(13). So, is pious a thing of its own now?

I commented on Abigail Brock's and Dallas Dodson's!

Plato--The Ancient Dante

     This Dialogue reminds me of Dante's Inferno. Dante pretty much used the Inferno to justify his opinions and friendships, and in the Euthyphro, Plato does the same for Socrates. He uses the Dialogue to get subtle points across about Socrates. In particular, I love how he uses it to poke digs at Meletus (my favorite being his lack of beard). Instead of being straightforward and mocking Meletus, he does it in a way that covers his tail as well as keeps Socrates from being held completely responsible for the comments/conversation.

(I commented on Charis and Wendy's posts.)

Daedalus

I have already read "Euthyphro" before, but one thing stuck out to me when reading it for a second time. Socrates mentions Daedalus, the father of Icarus, who crafts statues that can move themselves. Socrates keeps moving the conversation forward at every reply that Euthyphro gives, and Euthyphro wishes the discussion to remain the same. Socrates goes as far to say that he is wiser than Daedalus because Daedalus can only make the things move that he has created. Rereading this makes me appreciated the craftsmanship that goes into an intellectual discussion. Socrates says, "but I can make other people's things move as well as my own" (14). Socrates proves this by how he sways Euthyphro's statements throughout the story. Everything that Euthyphro believes to be true, Socrates can cut down.

I commented on Dallas and Daniel's.

Holy by Love, or Love of Holiness

Socrates asks the question, "Is an act holy because it is loved by the gods, or is it loved by the gods because it is holy?" What he is discussing here is whether or not the holiness of an act is intrinsic or circumstantial. For example, did Christ say that we should serve the lesser because that is a holy act, or is it a holy act because Jesus said to do it? I personally think the former, because anyone could have said to be charitable, and we would likely see it as a holy act. I'm not completely certain, but I'm pretty positive that those of all religions (or lack thereof) view charity as a morally sound act. The ones who have never heard of Jesus, or atheists who do not believe in Him still likely believe charity to be a moral work, thus proving that acts do not need to be loved by gods to be holy.

P.S. I commented on Charis and Daniel's posts.

What is True?

This civil debate between Euthyphro and Socrates intrigues me as they try to find the true meaning of piety or righteousness. The main point started with why they were there and concluded with what is moral for the gods and for men. One line that stuck out to me is on page 19 Socartes says , " I prefer nothing , unless it is true." Just like this converstaion if we question everything to the core of our ethics and morals then we will always question and never have answers. All of their thoughts are self-determined and have no clear eveidnece as Socrates continues to ask and think when will Euthyphro will give a example. They question the difference of something be loved and something being loving and the intertwine of fear and shame. Which with all the wording made me go back over it a million times. Yet Socrates and Euthyphro do as well because there is no absolute source except for their own thoughts.
So how can we take this and apply it? We have to find a base for what determines what is pious and what is impious. For many it is Christianity or another form of religion. These religions have a main text that explains the rights and wrong and how one should judge. There are other bases such as media, different culutures, and etc. We have to find the truth or nothing is what we will be stuck with just like Socrates.

I commented on Ethan's and Charis's post.

Contradiction

I find it very interesting just how similar the corruption in the Athenian society at the time can be related to today's culture. Many times we can see the law protect one group, yet deny another rights. It can attack one group, and lift one high. In today's world, we see such a thing occur in many hot social topics. Without causing debate, I will say that many times, we see society push certain movements. This is fine, yet many times the very group that instituted it are the first to cry against it once a different group attempts to share in the non discriminatory rights it says it stand for. One cannot say a law must be upheld at all times, only to shift its meaning when someone else calls upon it. The fact that they clearly state what is to be done in the situation of murder and once Euthyphro follows the law, he is criticized for it. I commend him on his upholding of the law. Granted, I'm not saying that the law is perfect and beyond a close examination in a courtroom. I find law fascinating, once wanting to be a lawyer, and I find myself enthralled in all the angles that the law is interpreted from different societies, and different times and positions  that said society finds itself in.

P.S. I commented on Hannah and Briana's posts.

P.P.S. Speaking about the social topics. Take a very conservative, Christian viewpoint of it, and you have my side and opinion.

The Virtue of Virtue

To live in virtue is to live without worrying about doing something wrong. You cannot hurt anyone or offend anyone by being virtuous. The truth will set you free, correct?
As Socrates and Euthyphro discuss their opinion of what virtue is, Socrates seems to turn it into a test of Euthyphro's prudence- for Euthyphro seems to pride himself in his knowledge. 
   At this time- Socrates is facing legal allegations (as we talked about after reading the Apology) and is saying that he's basically clueless and hardly wise to any extent. In this conversation, he discovers that Euthyphro is also faced with legal issues pertaining to his father. He is charging his own father with murder- pushing his belief that a crime should have justice no matter who did it. Even if it is your own family.
I am in favor of this type of virtue. Sin shouldn't go unpunished, or the world would go to crap. What do you guys think? Would you turn in someone you loved if you knew they committed a crime?

P.S.-I commented on Daniel Stephen's post

The Virtue of Virtue

To live in virtue is to live without worrying about doing something wrong. You cannot hurt anyone or offend anyone by being virtuous. The truth will set you free, correct?
As Socrates and Euthyphro discuss their opinion of what virtue is, Socrates seems to turn it into a test of Euthyphro's prudence- for Euthyphro seems to pride himself in his knowledge. 
   At this time- Socrates is facing legal allegations (as we talked about after reading the Apology) and is saying that he's basically clueless and hardly wise to any extent. In this conversation, he discovers that Euthyphro is also faced with legal issues pertaining to his father. He is charging his own father with murder- pushing his belief that a crime should have justice no matter who did it. Even if it is your own family.
I am in favor of this type of virtue. Sin shouldn't go unpunished, or the world would go to crap. What do you guys think? Would you turn in someone you loved if you knew they committed a crime?

P.S.-I commented on Daniel Stephen's post

The Virtue of Virtue

To live in virtue is to live without worrying about doing something wrong. You cannot hurt anyone or offend anyone by being virtuous. The truth will set you free, correct?
As Socrates and Euthyphro discuss their opinion of what virtue is, Socrates seems to turn it into a test of Euthyphro's prudence- for Euthyphro seems to pride himself in his knowledge. 
   At this time- Socrates is facing legal allegations (as we talked about after reading the Apology) and is saying that he's basically clueless and hardly wise to any extent. In this conversation, he discovers that Euthyphro is also faced with legal issues pertaining to his father. He is charging his own father with murder- pushing his belief that a crime should have justice no matter who did it. Even if it is your own family.
I am in favor of this type of virtue. Sin shouldn't go unpunished, or the world would go to crap. What do you guys think? Would you turn in someone you loved if you knew they committed a crime?

P.S.-I commented on Daniel Stephen's post

So. . . where does this leave Euthyphro's father?!

      I must dive deep within my suke and find some bravery, for I wish to be honest with you all and just say that I honestly have not the slightest idea what was going on for most of Socrates argument with Euthyphro. The only time that I understood what was going on was on page 15 when Socrates was referring to the poem and saying that you can have fear without shame but that to have shame requires a certain kind of fear. That made sense. The rest of whatever he was trying to say on pages 12-14 was undecipherable for me.

      I will say, however, that I do like this line of questioning in general. I particularly like Socrates style of questioning where he asks a question and simultaneously answers it by forcing the questioned into a corner and working and weaving them into a trap via their own questions and replies. I like circular questions particularly because of my own gnawing and nagging question of fate vs free will. All in all I am very much enjoying Plato/Socrates.

I commented on Daniel Stevens and Dallas Dodson  

The Question of Piety

Socrates is always a joy to read, and Euthyphro is one of my favorites. With any work of Plato on Socrates, he asks a question. This one is of what makes an action or event pious in the eyes of the Gods. And after reading through the passage, that question remains strong and without answer. This seems the case in any age of thought, for we all think we know the answer but, no matter how sure of the truth, we don't actually know what the true answer is. Socrates points this out in his own way, but cannot supply an answer anymore than any he questions. So we have to ask "What is piety?" There are many answers out there, but as Socrates examined, we often talk and think in circles on what piety actually is and means. Are we even capable of answering this question, as we are but flesh and not of the divine? I don't know, and neither does Socrates.

I commented on Hannah Atkin's post.

How does Socrates make his point?

I enjoy reading Socrates' questions. He does not always ask a question just because he wants to know the answer. He makes his whole argument for something just with questions. He does this to make sure that the person he is talking to understands his point and if they agree or disagree. He also uses questions to point out the flaws in another persons argument. We see this clearly in Apology and Euthyphro. I liked how Socrates got Euthyphro to realize that he was saying that the gods hate the same things that they love, and how Socrates questions that. (pg. 9-10) I also enjoyed the fact that Euthyphro kept repeating, "That is true."

P.S. I commented on Hannah and Abigail's posts.

Holiness?

               In Socrates’ encounter with Euthyphro, it becomes clear that Euthyphro, who believes he is teaching Socrates, is actually being taught. He is so sure of his knowledge of the gods that he is willing to bring a charge against his own father. Socrates began poking holes in Euthyphro’s argument by simply questioning his definition of holiness. If something is holy because it is approved of by the gods, then what makes the gods deem it such? The definition is insufficient and leads to a circle of further questions. The conversation ends almost abruptly, with no actual conclusion concerning what holiness is. To me, this reflects the nature of the changing gods they worshipped. They are fickle like humans, and this calls into question whether they can be the standard for true holiness or not. And if there is no solid standard for holiness or justice besides the changing gods, then how can any form of justice be trustworthy in that scenario?

I commented on Dallas and Briana's. 

what is the right answer?

I dont know if this is already been stated but the discussion between Euthyphro and Socrates on what is pious or impious is eerily familiar to the arguement in The Orestia on whether Orestes should be punished for killing his mother.  In The Orestia, Orestes is being tried for the murder of his mother, Clytemnestra.  His reasoning for killing his mother is because she killed his father Agamemnon and the only way to restore honor to him is to get revenge and murder Clytemnestra.  In "Euthyphro" of The Five Dialogues, he is prosecuting his father for killing a man under him who murdered another servant which leads Socrates to ask him the meaning of Pious.  In both works the arguements seem to be never ending and even going in circles sometimes.  However, in Orestes case there was a verdcict.  In Euthyphro's case, he could not answer socrates's question.

Old and New

A the end of the play when Athena announces that Orestes will go free because of the split votes, the Furies become furious. They want to tear Orestes to shreds, they believe that he is guilty for killing his mother and that his actions are in no way justified. Anyone can tell that the Furies are upset and they don't seem to be letting go of their anger very easily. However, as soon as Athena offers them honor and to stay in Athens, their attitude completely changes. They are no longer angry, actually, they are quite content with their situation.

I believe that this portrays the relationship between the old gods and the new gods. The new gods (Athena) give the old gods (Furies) enough honor and respect to keep them happy. The fact that Athena's vote decided Orestes fate and the Furies had no say, also shows the rising power of the new gods.

I commented on Jessica's and Brax's.

The Eumenides

I cannot seem to side with either the Furies, or Apollo/Orestes because they are both at fault for allowing murders and crimes of passion. Although I can see both perspectives and motivations, they are still in the wrong because they committed murder. I believe that the Furies’ argument in saying the murder of Clytaemnestra’s husband was more acceptable than the murder of Orestes’ mother. Murder is murder, bottom line. Blood lines and marital ties should not determine which murder is worse. I do appreciate the end of the play and how it ended peacefully – Athena resolved the issues fairly well, leaving both sides of the dispute content.

I commented on Darby’s and Travis’s posts!

Everybody is Wrong

Orestes shouldn't have killed him mom, but Clytaemnestra shouldn't have killed Agamemnon. While both were in the wrong, it would have just continued a cycle of evil had Orestes been convicted. The best case scenario, in my opinion was exactly what happened. Although, the Furies felt as though it was unfair to them for Orestes to be acquitted, once they accepted Athena's offer to live in Athens they became benevolent and Orestes got to go free. Everybody got to live happily ever after.

I commented on Morgan's and Briana's.

Hell Hath No Fury, Like A Fury

The old gods a.k.a. the Furies felt overlook sand disregarded. They were no longer being worshipped as divine deities but had been pushed aside in favor of the younger gods, mainly Zeus and Athena. They were angry and hurt and bitter at the factory they were forgotten goddesses of old laws ( Page 266 verse 792- 805).
The Furies decide they want to curse the earth to find their own justice against the mortals who no longer shewed them blessings. Athena pleaded with them. Their anger was boiling over against her, Zeus and the mortals but she wanted them to calm down and reconsider their rightful judgement if they got what they wanted. Praise, adoration worship, and recognition things every god wants but very few get ( page 267 verses 812-819). She had to calm them down with a lure that would make their fury wax cold. Athena promised to worship them and shower them with praise and to the Furies liking they changed their tune. They went from wanting to destroy the earth with a horrible curse to blessing every foul, beast, and man across the earth (page 272-277). Athena had to stroke the ego of the Furies. They were angry about being forgotten and they wanted justice for all the pain they felt. Athena probably sympathized with the Furies and came to the conclusion to give them what they wanted to feel special, cared for, and loved again. In the end Athena's plan worked to appease the old gods and keep the order as it was because nothing changed as far as the powers of the young gods. They still could do what the want but the acknowledgement of the old gods was necessary in order to keep the peace. the

The New Order

Towards the end of The Eumenides, Athena offers the Furies a place of honor if they put aside the actions they want to pursue after they hear the verdict. In a way they are succumbing to Athena’s beliefs in order to receive popularity. In this, we can see the underlying tensions of the new gods and goddesses versus the old order.  Through this we can see that the new order is trumping the old order. This could be an allegory for what the Greeks are facing in their lives at the time this was written. This could show that the Greeks ideas about fate and free will are changing. They are started to believe that there are lives being controlled less by fate and more by their choices.


P.S.: I commented on Darby's and Ty's posts.