while the just are alive they seem to be the once who suffer. The Gods have plan for them, because the unjust can never fully triumph. Since the Gods know everything they would not leave the just man unrewarded. One might wonder why somebody would choose to live an unjust life? Socrates believed that it was ignorance that led the unjust.
Ellis believed people developed psychological disorders due to their beliefs about “insane thoughts” and “dogmatic associated feelings.” That it is not point “A” that upsets us but point “B”, the consequence or reaction. REBT was developed by Ellis because he was frustrated with the outcome of psychoanalysis; it did not work for all clients. Learning that one cannot change the past and not to dwell on past actions helps to teach self-acceptance. Accepting oneself with good or poor achievement, not rating oneself and loving oneself with or without approval is unconditional self-love and acceptance. This is rare and very tough to instill in ourselves.
They continue to bring up the topic of pious and unpious actions. Euthyphro claims “the pious is to do what I am doing, to prosecute the wrongdoer…not to prosecute is impious.” Then, Socrates exclaims he is the defendant in his case because he believes it is difficult to accept the common knowledge the people believe about the goods, since there is no plausible evidence. As the dialogue continues, Socrates claims that “different gods consider different things to be just…for they would not be at odds with one another unless they differed about these subjects…(page 9, 7e)” Then the same things would be both pious and unpious. Simply, the nature of Socrates is to question and further complicate matters by counter arguments. Then Socrates states that the matter is finding who the wrongdoer is rather than how he must be punished.
He says that “ The things and the men that are pleasing to the gods are pious, and the things and the men that are displeasing to the gods are impious.” Socrates approves of this definition because it is of a very generalization. But he also states that Euthyphro’s definition has flaws because the gods would disagree on what is considered pleasing. Socrates’ case is that the gods are very irrational when it comes to arguments and disagreements. Normal rational people would find answers and come to a settlement on the correct answer, but when it comes to the gods any slight disagreement causes them to become enemies and angry towards each other. Socrates goes on to
According to what Meletus is saying, Socrates is guilty, yet not guilty and therefore, does not deserve punishment. Clearly, Meletus does not understand what he is talking about, and he doesn’t understand the implications of the statements he has been making towards the
There is an arrogant kind of sarcasm to this argument. He shows that indeed others do not know anything at all but they think they do. In fact this is what made the accusers mad enough in the first place to put Socrates on trial. To Socrates this is wicked because those who are wise know that they know nothing. “To fear death, gentlemen, is no other than to think oneself wise when one is not, to think one knows what one does not know (Apology 29).” This goes back to his statements that he is only wise in that he knows that he knows nothing, while others profess knowledge about things they know nothing about.
The human race is a slave to sin and under the power of it. Yet even in our fallen state, there remains a measure of rationality and an innate awareness of morality. This inner consciousness is not sufficient to save, nor is it adequate to produce faith apart from the introduction of grace. Human intellect should not be trusted as “an impartial arbiter capable of standing outside the influence of the ego and returning a perfectly objective judgment.” Nevertheless, it is an indication of the creative handiwork of God. Paul describes the problem of sin as pervasive in Romans; indeed, he indicates it is universal.
This essay will analyze the dialogue between Socrates and Euthryphro that takes place before Socrates’ trial with the gods of Athens. Though there were many concepts that were shared throughout the dialogue, I chose to discuss Socrates’ argument of piety, love, and what is just and unjust. Socrates’ dialogue with Euthryphro is one of many forms of tedious arguments that Socrates’ is able to present to his peers. This argument is a pivotal question in Socrates’ philosophy. It teaches us the meaning of free will and being able to independently decide what is truly pious or impious based on personal beliefs.
After the examination Socrates concludes that the act of escape would be just and he would be morally unjustified and committing the act. The first argument that Crito presents to Socrates brings up the issue of what the majority think. Crito says, “Many people who do not know you or me very well will believe I might have saved you had I been willing to give money, but that I did not care to do so.” (Grude, Pg 47) Crito’s argument is clearly concerned with his own reputation, especially with what the majority
The significance of this analogy is to convey that one must only listen to the ones with more knowledge. Socrates thinks that wrongdoing damages the soul and that cirtue benefits the soul. According to Socrates our soul is more important than our body. Socrates thinks our soul is the most important thing because it is what we are and it will continue on after our bodies die. Socrates says that "one must never willingly do wrong" because wrongdoings damage the soul.