Let me grant your prayers. Come, listen to me” (Sophocles, line 290). Oedipus does not follow his people’s custom of submitting his will to the gods. He feels he is equal, or even superior, to the gods, as if his people should only rely on him because he had overcome the Sphinx and rose to power on his own. Creon views the gods differently.
We can easily observe a serious competition between the gods in the creation of human beings. There were also big violence and conflicts, like when Marduck destroyed the primeval Goddess Tiamat and created the heavens and earth from her body. Similarly to the nature, Mesopotamian gods were unpredictable. People considered the unpredictable river floods and weather changes as punishments from the gods. Because of these pessimistic beliefs, people believed that there is no life after death and human beings were created to serve Gods.
The Odyssey has made clear that the Greek gods have majority of power in the decisions that affect the lifestyles of the people. What is considered right and wrong that make up today’s moral framework would have little effect on the gods’ decision in The Odyssey. The Greek gods are known to lash out with what they feel is ‘just’ behavior on a rampaging impulse of current emotion. Because justice is demonstrated as the whim of the Greek gods, it is clear that justice does rule over the human society in The Odyssey. The gods in The Odyssey, though they are Greek gods, lash out with anger and make irrational decisions, their actions have life-threatening effects on civilizations.
He also shows that the people cannot know what is good for them in the long run and will only chose politicians and laws that seem a good idea at the time, without considering the consequences. Plato also illustrates this flaw in politicians and the people in simile of the powerful beast. He describes the
His fickle favor toward his servants, and not to mention his family, proves his inconsistency and instability. Although appointed by the gods, his reign has exposed the abused and misused privilege of representing the gods in his earthly position. King Creon’s irrational edict stated that any man who dares to bury Polyneices would suffer death by stoning. Is it a mere human’s prerogative to determine another man’s eternal fate? Because Antigone had nothing left to live for, while knowing the sentence of stoning, Antigone defied King Creon’s edict in order to fulfill her duty.
Socrates uses a rather elaborate argument to show this definition is also insufficient. If the gods approve of something because it is holy, their approval cannot be what makes it holy, he says. If an act is holy because the gods approve of it, we still do not know what makes it holy or why the gods approve. It seems that any attempt to define holiness by the will or approval of the gods is bound to fail. Even in contemporary society, we tend to associate morality with some kind of divine will, but through the Euthyphro, Socrates seems to suggesting we think along another line altogether.
Is what Socrates says in Crito about the obligation to obey the laws inconsistent with what he says in Apology? In Crito, Socrates’ view of one’s obligation to obey the state-mandated law was profoundly inconsistent against the view he fervently expressed in his defense in Apology, in which he argued that divine law is inherently superior to the law created by men. These two opposing interpretations are problematic and largely contradicting and therefore could not be reconciled given by the strong objections he presented in Apology and throughout his defense and the necessity to obey the city laws in Crito. This paper would elucidate his inconsistent views in Crito and Apology and argue in which law should he follow given his stance on what’s constitute piety and harm. “Men of Athens, I am grateful and I am your friend, but I will obey the god rather than you, and as long as I draw breath, I shall not cease to practice philosophy (Apology, 29d).” He made an emphatic hierarchical distinction between these two laws in which he argued that divine law should dictate one’s moral compass and must take precedence over the laws mandated by men.
The issues with this option mainly deal with the definition of a theistic God. If morality is independent of God and God’s commands only exist because the moralities of actions are predetermined, then God is no longer sovereign. If morals are independent of God’s commands then God is not sovereign over morality. This goes against the definition of a theistic God which defines God as the creator and ruler over everything. It also puts limits on God’s power.
Djabir Yaya Professor Cindy Linden Legacy of Western Society 9/21/2012 Iliad Essay Homer uses some poetic devices to demonstrate that praising a hero can do nothing, but lead to excessive pride and result in violence. Although, sometime people do things that are above normal standard, but we do not need to glorify them since this lead to conflict in our society. There are many ways we tend to glorify individual; sometime we give them trophies while other time we just considered them as an outliers and heroes. Homer uses simile and metaphor to demonstrate the superiority of his main character Achilles to human being, but make it difficult for modern readers to understand his point. Homer uses metaphor with the purpose of showing his main character arrogance by
(Lawhead 2011:15-16). However, the pre-Socratic philosophers brought about change through discrediting the accepted mythical thinking that all things can be explained by means of the nature of the Greek gods. They went about removing the negativity surrounding knowledge at the time in order to facilitate human beings to determine truth for themselves instead of blindly believing explanations of a blind nature. This opened up a consideration for knowledge from a naturalistic standpoint (Curd & Graham 2008:8). The theories of the pre-Socratic philosophers were generally characterised by their link to perception.