Euphora's Mistake

“By The Waters of Babylon” is a short story written by Stephen Vincent Benet that explores the innate behaviors of human beings and describes the aftermath of a nuclear war. In the beginning of the story, the narrator, John, introduces a taboo that is normal amongst his tribe,“The Hill People.” This indigenous law states that it is forbidden to cross the great river and to look upon the Place of the Gods, for it was greatly populated with spirits and demons. As a manifestation of John’s step towards adulthood or priesthood, John embarks on his curiosity voyage to the Place of the Gods, defying the well established rule within their tribe. Upon his arrival, he stumbles on an elusive and isolated setting with advanced technologies, which he deemed magical. Due to John’s expedition, he accumulated a plethora of knowledge and soon realized that the Place of the Gods was only a superstition and it was, in fact, a city of men.

“Beneath the gore and smoke and loam, this book is about the evanescence of life, and why some men choose to fill their brief allotment of time engaging the impossible, others in the manufacture of sorrow. In the end it is a story of the ineluctable conflict between good and evil, daylight and darkness, the White City and the Black.” (xi) This shows the contrast between the White City and the Black City. One, perfect, beautiful, magical, the other dark, filthy, evil. The two work together yet against each other in the battle to win over the hearts of the people who visit, and those who decide to stay

Does morality stem from God? Or does it exist independently of his presence, not subject to arbitrary decisions? The first discussion over these questions appeared in Plato's Euthyphro, in which Plato chronicles the proceedings of a highly repetitive argument between Socrates and Euthyphro, a prophet and holy man, over the nature of piety and holiness. The questions produced in this dialogue have been expanded to remain relevant even in a modern religious context. It has achieved so much fame that the core question presented in this dialogue is now known as the Euthyphro Dilemma. In the dialogue, Socrates presents Euthyphro with a choice, "Is what is holy loved by the gods because it is holy, or is it holy because it is

Socrates is known to be a very wise man and speaks from the heart. Whenever he talks to a person he questions their answers. By asking several questions to test their knowledge and to see if they know what they’re talking about. He feels that people should think outside the box and theirs more than what the Gods think. People should be able to give out their opinion even if they are right or wrong. But living in Athens everyone believes in the Gods. If you do wrong the Gods will be angry and they will turn their back on you. 
 In the chapter Euthyphro, he was surprise whenever he seen Socrates in the courthouse. Meletus did a lawsuit against Socrate because his been corrupting the youth by teaching them not to believe in gods. They

Interpretive essay for Euthyphro Euthyphro, a priest in Plato’s dialogue, strives throughout the reading to teach his religion to Socrates. Since Euthyphro portrays himself to be the most intelligent human to mankind, Socrates believes that he must know every words meaning and that guides Socrates to ask him about a word he is curious about; piety. Piety is something he is very curious about and asks Euthyphro many questions about it. Euthyphro gives five intricate versions of piety, but one of them is peculiar and brings to my attention.

In Euthyphro, Socrates discusses with Euthyphro about what the “piety” is. The conversation leads to what most modern philosophers now define as Euthyphro’s dilemma. It is stated that” Is something pious because the gods love it or the gods love it because it is pious?” This dilemma is also known as the “Divine Command Theory”, which has puzzled many Christian philosophers throughout the years. Socrates’ account seems to disagree with Euthyphro’s. This paper will argue against the dilemma in Socrates’ account.

In the Euthyphro, Socrates and Euthyphro discuss the concept of piety/holiness. This essay will not only test my ability to recognize and engage philosophical concepts and analysis, but also brings me into the dialogue as a participant, asking me to create my own definition of holiness. I explain how the concept of holiness emerges in the dialogue and why it takes a prominent position in the conversation between Socrates and Euthyphro. I present the three definitions that Euthyphro uses in his response to Socrates, and then present Socrates’s refutation of each of Euthyphro’s definitions. I develop my own

Euthyphro’s dilemma stems from his conversation with Socrates about the definition of piety. After agreeing that piety and the gods’ love are intertwined, Socrates asked whether the pious thing is pious because it is pious to start off with and that’s why the gods love it or because it is loved by the gods and that makes it pious. Through this question, and with the assumption that what the gods love is what they command mortals to do, Euthyphro has to consider whether the gods are either irrelevant or arbitrary based on if something can be intrinsically pious or if piety requires the gods’ love first.

I didn't have any questions on parts of the text that I found difficulty some much as I am curious other people's perspectives on a specific part of Socrates' defense in the apology. On page 28, section 25b, Socrates enters into a line of questioning with his accuser Meletus. However, this line of questioning seems to be somewhat different to the line of questioning we saw in the Euthyphro. In the Euthyphro, Socrates seemed to be trying to get to the truth, or maybe trying to show that Euthyphro knew less than he claimed to know. I the Apology, though, it looks like Socrates is simply trying to win an argument. He goes from a philosopher to a rhetorician. When questioning Meletus, he answers himself before Meletus even has a chance to answer.

If anyone were capable of having complete protection and exclusion from the law or any other type of consequence, they would abuse their power, even if they perceived themselves to be the most just, reasonable, or trustworthy. Going back to the Socratic dialogue, The Euthyphro, it explains the conflict of moral relativism, concluding that this concept makes it unclear to ultimately agree to what distinguishes a person as being “good” anyway. The reason it is likely that a “just” person could potentially fall into the temptation of abusing their power is due to the certainty that what they may consider a reasonable act to commit, even under the influence of the Ring of Gyges, might oppose what another person may ruminate. In fact, it is hard to even name a historic individual as an example of a person who has had access to this type of power and has not used it for anything selfishly in any way.

Skepticism drives a never-ending search for the truth. One simply is not satisfied with straightforward answers, leading to further investigation of the fundamentals of many disciplines. Skepticism questions the logic behind reason, reflecting on given information to find the unspoken reality. However, it is genuinely difficult to pinpoint an exact answer or understanding of a topic as skepticism leaves you with a field of branched possibilities and ever more inquiry. We see a great deal of this in Plato’s dialog, Euthyphro. In Euthyphro, Socrates, a relatively powerless individual in a society molded by a religious hierarchy, finds great fault in their system. The community

uthyphro claims that while gods quarrel just like human beings do, especially in the law of courts, there are topics both gods and humans will agree upon. In specific, Euthyphro believes that the gods and humans will agree upon whether or not a person who kills someone unjustly must pay the penalty, he says they will all agree that the person deserves punishment. The main issue with this argument is that in order for there to be an agreement, the gods must all believe that what the person has done was unjust. Gods with different pasts and experiences will have different views of what is just and unjust, especially when it comes to judging those they care for.

A blinding light shone before them, forcing them to cover their eyes lest they be burnt from their skulls. But fear they didn't feel at such an appearance, they felt warmth and love and deep compassion. A voice spoke to them that could only be described as the voice of a loving mother; it told them to hate not for what had been done to them, but to accept their circumstances and to not seek revenge. The voice took form of a shining lady of light, with a loving face, and kind eyes. She shared love and understanding with them in their time of despair, and let them mourn in her warm embrace. After they had cried all that they could she gave them a quest, but not just any quest, one of the utmost importance. To spread love to this war torn world, to teach the hateful people of these lands to love one another again. To complete this quest she gave them a gem, a very large pim gem with gold seams that swirled with magic power; when one held this gem they felt peace not know to any mortal ever before. “Go,” She said with a warm smile, to forget the wrongs committed against them and love all that they met. That was their quest and they would not fail their Lady of

As Isocrates put it, knowledge is passed and learned through dialogue. As relevant as that statement was two thousand years ago, that can still be applied today. The questions that Socrates asked, such as the nature of being good or better at being a good speaker, and what to consider as just, can still very much be applied to the same questions asked by people today. Perhaps the only difference would be the medium. Technology plays a much bigger role, more people can write than back then, and most people can post online. At most, the medium would adapt to the times, however, the message would still remain the same: the necessity of having dialogue to ask questions and to persuade others to learn from it.

Agamemnon returns from Troy, a victorious general, bringing home spoils, riches and fame. He is murdered on the same day as he returns. Clytemnestra, his adulterous wife, has laid in wait for her husband's homecoming and kills him whilst he is being bathed after his long journey. During the Agamemnon, large proportions of the Queen's words are justifications for her action, which is very much concerned with the sacrifice of Iphigenia to the gods, in order for the fleet to set sail for Troy. Aegisthus, the new husband of the Queen Clytemnestra, and partner in the conspiracy to murder the war hero, had reasons, which stemmed from the dispute between the Houses of Atreus and Thyestes. Was the