Creon views the gods differently. “Be sure, I would have done this had not I wished first of all to learn from the God the course of action I should follow.” (Sophocles, line 136-138). Creon has faith in the gods and refers to them before making any drastic decision, like when Oedipus begged to be killed when realizing about his major fault. He values their opinions and looks to them for solace. Throughout the play, Oedipus is shown to overreact when faced with opposition or disaster.
“I shall make a proclamation, speaking as one who has no connection with this affair, nor with the murderer”(Sophocles 14). The perceived meaning of this is that to Oedipus, he has no relativity to the death of Laius or to his murderer, but the unperceived meaning is that Oedipus does have all the connection there is to have with both because he is the murderer of Laius. “Insult me, go on-but that, you will find, is what makes me great”(Sophocles 30). The intended meaning is that Oedipus doesn’t care if Tiresias insults him because he believe he has already saved Thebes and believes he will rid the city of Laius’ killer, but the unintended meaning is that the insults are actually the truth of Oedipus, that they are the answers which he is looking for which ultimately dooms Thebes because Oedipus doesn’t realize he is Laius’ murderer. “If it turns out that he tells the same story as you-then I, at least, will be cleared of responsibility”(Sophocles 58).
Influenced by the belief of Brutus disliking Caesar, some may think that the idea of assassinating Caesar is for selfish reasons, or that Brutus has a personal enmity against Caesar. Referring to his original motives, he particularly says, “I know no personal cause to spurn at him, but for the general” (II.i.11-12). Brutus displays no personal intention to ambush Caesar, except to do what was favorable for the well being of Rome.
Euthyphro responds by insisting that holiness is what is approved or loved by the Gods; where impiety is whatever is disapproved of by the Gods. However, as Socrates points out, the question poses a dilemma for those who believe in certain Gods. “And what is loved by the gods appears also to be hated by them”(13). In essence, each person along with each God has their own belief. This results in people believing in a certain God and only that God, for the other Gods don’t appeal real to them.
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.
One of these journeys involves a Cyclopes whom Odysseus out smarts, but wasn’t aware of the fact that the Cyclopes, Polyphemus was the son of Poseidon. Allowing his curiosity to get in the way of what would’ve been the best decision, he decides to make an instant halt at the Cyclopes’ island. On contact with Polyphemus, Odysseus gives him a false name. Once the men escaped the crisis Polyphemus had awaiting them, Odysseus gives the now blinded Cyclopes his real, birth given information stating with high self-esteem, “ Odysseus, raider of cities, /took your eye: Laertes’ son, whose home’s on Ithaca!” (Homer 1.459-460). Cursing Odysseus, Polyphemus prays to his father asking punishment of Odysseus.
The way he describes everything is full of detail and vivid description that can really almost make one feel as if they were experiencing what he was describing. His hopes were that people would read it and realize what will happen to them if they did not convert. The types of words he used were blunt and to the point. They were harsh and real, not skimping out on the detail. This frightened the people of the time because no one knows exactly what will happen in the end of it all, when you die, but no one wants to live a life of hell, pain and torture.
This speech is different from the others in that he uses very vivid and disturbing images when he is trying to convince the governor to surrender his city. Although this speech does use Henry’s same rhetoric he isn’t leading anyone in a sense. He actually says that if the city doesn’t surrender he will lose control of his army and they will go off and do whatever they want. Henry says, “ your infants spitted upon pikes”(38) which draws a not so pleasant image. It almost leads us to question Henry’s morals if he is willing to kill infants.
He then leads up to his main objection of this definition by means of stating that even though men and gods love that which they think is noble and good, and hate that which is opposite to those things, not everyone thinks this way about all things (Plato, 7). This being in the nature of things that are considered to be good by a group of people, can be hated by others, and this would also apply to the gods, for not everyone thinks the same. Socrates then uses a good example concerning the gods to better prove his reasons. He states that even though Euthyphro's decision to proceed against his own father may seem agreeable to Zeus, but not to Cronos or Uranus, and that there may be other gods who have these differences of opinions (7). Concerning
First, when Euthyphro defines piety as “doing as I am doing”, Euthyphro is meaning that holiness is prosecuting religious offenders. Euthyphro feels that in prosecuting his father that he is following the example of the gods, and particularly Zeus, the most just if all gods. Socrates seems to find the first definition unsatisfying, he points out that the gods often quarrel, so what is agreeable to one might not be agreeable to all. Socrates then asks Euthyphro to again define piety. The second argument, Socrates has is that piety and impiety are opposites, and that the gods are always in a state of discord.