Euthyphro and Socrates

Since our discussion Wednesday I have been thinking a lot about the blessing of naivety. There are many instances in life in which lacking knowledge is more of a blessing than a curse. There seems to be a common belief among our society that the more knowledge a person has the better off he is and, therefore, we should always seeking further knowledge. However, I don't think that is always the case. For example, Euthyphro felt he had all the knowledge he needed in life. He was perfectly content with his present situation. That was, of course, until Socrates began to argue with him and demonstrate the lack of knowledge Euthyphro actually possessed. Socrates crushed Euthyphro, not only in the argument, but also in the sense of his confidence in himself. By the end of their discussion Euthyphro was begging for an excuse to get away from Socrates and save any last scrap of dignity that remained. Had Euthyphro remained in the dark about his lack of knowledge he would have maintained his confidence and continued to live a content life. However, now that he has realized he does not have all the answers, he may begin to question other things in his life. He may realize that he really does not, like most people, have any answers. We all may just be living in naivety, hoping that our eyes are never opened to the truth like Euthyphro's were, because if that occurs we may receive the same devastating blow to our sense of life and the world.

"Socrates and Abraham Walk into a Bar..."

So during class Nathan played upon the two men walk into a bar joke to help us compare the views of Socrates and Abraham on religion and piety. While I found this statement very humorous, I can't help but sit and actually wonder what would the two men have discussed.

I believe it is true, as I think Carrie said, Abraham appears to be so strong in his faith that he would be able to provide a stronger argument for Socrates. Abraham worships only one God, so that would eliminate Socrates' first challenge to the definition of piety. Abraham might actually be able to persuade Socrates that piety is what God loves and the opposite is what he hates. Abraham would be able to back up this theory because he has actually conversed with God. From the view of Abraham his argument seems plausible.

Unfortunately I believe Socrates is too intelligent to ever allow himself to give in to defeat. I believe that he would attack Abraham's statements that he talked to God. Abraham can never prove that he actually talked to God. How can Abraham be sure he wasn't talking to the Devil or that the voices he heard were not a figment of his imagination? He cannot, and because of this, Socrates will have the opening he needs to go in for the kill.

Socrates is at a distinct advantage both against Euthyphro and Abraham. Socrates must simply sit back and wait for the other men to disclose a flaw in their arguments. Once they do so, he can pounce and make a fool of them. Socrates himself does not need to provide any definitions. Many people assume that Socrates has already come to his own conclusions about the topics he asks others about. I, however, am not convinced. I believe that Socrates may have questions just like the rest of society and he actually is interested in collecting data to formulate his own conclusions as he goes along.

The questions that Socrates asks are always so broad and influenced by opinions and beliefs that it is almost impossible to establish one solid definition. There is always room for interpretation and change.

Definitions and Examples

So on Friday Nathan asked us to explain the difference between an example and a definition. This question really stuck with me. It seems so simple, yet, when I really sat down and tried to think about it, I found myself struggling.

As a class we seemed to come to a consensus that a definition is a universal truth that describes all scenarios while an example relates to one case. I agree with this statement but I still feel like it might be a little vague. I have been sitting here thinking about it and I want to add to what we have already come up with. I believe that a definition is used to provide everyone with a general picture or understanding of something. Once this general knowledge has been acquired, examples are necessary to elaborate and clarify any remaining questions.

After coming to this conclusion, I am left with another question. Must definitions be presented before examples to provide the best explanation? Or is it possible to gather enough information from an assortment of examples to lead one to a sufficient definition? Which is better? Which is faster? Are there certain situations in which one way is better than the other? All of these questions lead me to believe that I still do not fully comprehend the difference between a definition and an example.

Action vs. Intent

In this blog I want to bring together the topic of intent that we were discussing last class. We never came to any conclusion about whether a person should be judged on his intentions or his actions. Originally, I felt that a person should be judged on his intentions. I always believed that motives showed a person's inner-self; its harder to hide yourself in your motives than in your actions. However, after partaking in our discussion on Monday, I am beginning to think that what matter more, at least here on Earth, is your actions. A person's intentions, whether good or bad, never directly influence the world. Rather, your actions always make some impact on the world, no matter how big or small. So even if some has horrible intentions but ends up doing something good through them it is better than someone who has good intentions but ends up doing nothing, or even worse, something bad with them. You always here people saying I meant to send you a birthday card, but I forgot, or I really meant to work out today but I never had time. It is true that they had good intentions, but those intentions led to nothing. Only through actions can a person better himself or others.

After reading Socrates and Euthyphro's discussion on piety, I began to wonder how Socrates and Euthyphro would feel about our discussion of intent versus action. I would like to try to discuss in class exactly how we think both men would respond to our discussion. I have made some of my own conclusions but I don't have a textual evidence to support them, so I want to wait until a class discussion, if we are able to have one, to make any claims.

Ramblings on Noah

I'm not sure if this actually made sense to anyone. In my head it made sense but I don't think I was able to fully collect my thoughts and accurately transcribe them into this blog. So good luck to anyone who tries to decipher what this actually says...

Last class we spent a great deal of time discussing the story of Noah cursing his son after he saw him in his drunken/naked stupor. I know that we came to many conclusions about the reasons why Noah cursed his one son and not the other two. But I am still stuck on the fact that Noah was simply mortified about what he had done and angry that his son had exposed his actions to his other two sons. Had Noah's son simply never acknowledged Noah, I believe Noah would have been less embarrassed and not taken his anger out on him.

I also really liked Anton's point about the significance of vision. There is a distinct difference between simply knowing something is happening and actually witnessing the same event. The visual effect makes it more real, once something is seen its existence can no longer be questioned. If someone only hears about something happening, there is always room for error and/or interpretation. However, once it has actually been witnessed that room for error or interpretation is lost. I believe that this is why Noah was so angry at his son. Had his son simply avoided Noah and pretended not to see what was going on, Noah would have been able to comfort himself, however false the comfort may have been, on the fact that his son may not have actually seen what was going on. Once the visualization took place there was no way Noah could deny what he had done nor could his son deny what he had seen. The fact that his son saw it made Noah have to acknowledge the reality of his actions.

Difficulties...

Since I am someone who always feels the need to be/hates to admit weaknesses, I sat, staring at this computer screen, for a half hour before I could even think of what to write. When I finally figured out what to say, I came to the conclusion that the actual reading of the Biblical texts was not a problem for me. I knew the stories well enough, so that even though the translations were different it did not affect the content for me. When I say that it did not affect the content I think it is easy to see where my difficulty in reading these pieces came from. I already have so many preconceived notions and beliefs about these texts that I really struggled to pull myself away from them and reread the chapters from a different viewpoint. I tried to focus on critically reading the content to gain a different perspective on the subjects, but it was like watching a movie you have seen a million times. You know it so well that you no longer focus on the minute details, you simply see what you expect to be there.
Because I have essentially been skimming the texts I don’t think that I have gotten as much out of the readings as some other people. I know Alex discussed in class how the readings have not changed her beliefs, but they have made her think about things in a new way. I have not even gotten that far yet. I really need to focus on actually reading the documents if I want to gain any insight to contribute to our discussions. So for now, I will maintain my beliefs, but, who knows, if I actually reread the documents with a critical eye, things could be different.

My Two Cents

I find it sad that it took a CIE lesson for me to actually sit down and examine a penny. This object, along with all other monetary forms, have such value in our society that one would imagine each individual would constantly be scrutinizing it. I should not have been shocked to realize that you could actually see Lincoln in his monument on the back of the penny nor should I ever forgot how dashing Lincoln appears in his bow tie. It is almost pathetic how little I truly knew about an object that I have seen/used almost everyday of my life. How are we supposed to be able to learn about other cultures in this manner if we can not even take the time to learn about our own culture?

This activity that we did demonstrated how difficult it is to examine one artifact from a culture in hopes of gaining an understanding of such culture. Yes, we may have been able to come up with some decent insights, but that is because we could never truly separate ourselves from the background information that we all possess. Having to attempt such an activity with Gilgamesh or some other ancient text will prove to be more challenging. We will be less likely to make as in depth and "risky" claims about the society because we do not have the background knowledge to support our assumptions. It is difficult to gather information about the culture and the beliefs, morals, and values of the time period from one text. Try as we may, I believe we may be forced to take things out of context and make assumptions that we can not necessarily defend.

Take into account a modern day example. If, in 2000 or so years, someone came across a Michael Moore documentary, he may assume that this is how our culture viewed the truth, simply because it is title a documentary. Many people would be led to make such an assumption, leading them to conclusions about our culture and society that are far from the truth.

Keeping this in mind, I believe that it is necessary to read Gilgamesh with the utmost caution to prevent yourself from making too many assumptions that can lead to false impressions of the society we are studying.

The First Post...

After completing the assigned Genesis reading and reviewing the other posts that people have left I have developed some questions. First off, I, like Alex, consider myself a religious person; I too have grow up with these stories and I am relatively familiar with everything that we have read so far.

When reading the text there was one passage on page 28 that really stuck with me. It read "And the Lord regretted having made the human on earth and was grieved in the heart." This statement contradicts everything I have ever been taught about Christianity. The passage does not follow with the context of the rest of the reading nor does it make much sense. Even when God made the Flood happen he did not say such things. I don't know if it was just the translation (because there was such a long introduction dealing specifically with the translation) or what, but that really stuck out to me. I think we should possible discuss how the translation of an ancient text can alter the meanings of the original manuscript because this point is relevant with all texts we will read in this class.

There were also some very sharp similarities between Gilgamesh and Genesis. The most obvious one, to me at least, were the flood stories. The two stories were almost identical, down to the manner in which both men were warned of the coming floods. It is necessary to discuss these similarities within our discussions this week. Some of the other similarities that we should also look at are the similar creation between man and Enkidu, the cultural similarities between the two texts, and the role mortality/immortality play within the texts. What influences were there in both societies that made these texts so similar? What roles did other myths/legends play in the development of the stories we find in both texts? How can one text, which I personally believe in, be so similar to another that is considered fiction?