Wise Men

Euthyphro is one of those people that thinks so highly of himself, that defeat is really, really hard to accept. Even after Euthyphro has been morally wounded for life, he tries to maintain his ego (though he fails miserably at this attempt). He continues to answer Socrates, even once it is obvious his vast knowledge (very vast according to him) does not cover the area of defining piety. I don't Euthyphro could ever accept the fact that something does not have an answer or that piety cannot be defined. He is the guy who has the answer to every question, no matter the topic.

"nor would Euthyphro be any different from the many human beings, if I didn't know all such things precisely." Euthyphro is just so much better than every one else and his intelligence level is so much higher than everyone's, I do not see how he walks the streets with these people. Clearly Euthyphro, alone, is bettering the society through all of actions.

I would say this is pretty much how Euthyphro views himself. This is why he continues to try to answer the question Socrates has asked. He thinks that he possesses the answer, and that Socrates legitmately needs his help. I do think that after a bit, Euthyphro realizes he has been tricked, but still tries to make the best of the slightly embarrassing situation.

Abraham Visits Socrates

First, I would like to point out that Euthyphro isn't actually that religious. Everyone has their own version of religion, and to them it is perfect. Euthypohro epitomizes this. He seems to think that how he views his piety to the Gods is the way that everyone should do it. Euthyphro is confident in how he shows his piety as well. The pompous little man tries to teach Socrates (who he MUST know is a great mind) how to be a pious soul.

So if Abraham met Socrates, what would go down? Would Socrates even waste his time trying to make Abraham see piety in a different light? Does Socrates think anyone is a lost cause for learning? And what in heck would Socrates think about Abraham taking his son up a mountain to kill him? In the Bible, piety is described in kind of a one tract mind. I don't think that Socrates would deal well with the mind set of a man like Abraham. I wonder if Socrates could make Abraham break down like Euthyphro or if he would just give up on the lost cause. At least Euthyphro tries to reason with Socrates ideas, since they are clearly valid. But some people become very blunt during intellectual conversations. The more I think about how Socrates would react, the more I think he would just be in awe about Abraham's somewhat crazy ideas.

Euthyphro Continued

Can I just say that after reading the text one more time, the discussion between Socrates and Euthyphro seems almost useless. Socrates knows what he wants Euthyphro to say, he even admits it. So why not just save some time (and Euthyphro the energy) and explain his theory on piety?
I understand that Socrates wants Euthyphro to teach him so that Socrates gets out of his little indictment (which seems like it is a common occurrence). Anyways, onto how a I think Euthyphro answers Socrates never-ending question.
First, Euthyphro compares piety to righting the wrongs of a society. In this context, it really makes sense since they are both going to trial for something. But who says that it was Euthyphro's job to make the society the perfect place to live? What if it only makes the society the perfect place for him? I think Euthyphro is very bias when he gives his first example/definition of piety.
The society in which Socrates and Euthyphro live clearly does not separate church and state like the more modern countries of today. The remaining three definitions all involve abstract ideas that are impossible to sum up in one sentence, let alone in the presence of a great mind like Socrates.
After failing miserably at his first attempt, Euthyphro makes his job even harder by defining pious using undefinable things like love and gratification. Poor Euthyphro.... he looks even dumber the longer he talks (he looks stupid to begin with I think...he's persecuting his father!)

Euthyphro

Wow... the first of four texts on Socrates has really scared me away from wanting to read the rest. I could grasp the first 10 (ish) pages, though not fully. After that, I think I was a lost cause.

I think that Euthyphro is a prominent (though not as important as he thinks) member of the society. Socrates clearly knows him well enough to confuse the hell out of him. Socrates must have conversations like these quite often, because he is pretty skilled and quick at making people concede their defeat. But back to Euthyphro. What could he possibly gain from persecuting his own father. If he doesn't speak out against him, disgrace will come to his family, but people can separate father from son. If he does persecute his father, he viewed as an arrogant jerk in case that has some strange twists (to say the least).

Euthyphro thinks he is being pious to the Gods. I think he was just looking for a really good excuse, and instead, ends up fighting Socrates over what piety is. I cannot figure out what Socrates is trying to prove about Euthyphro actions by discussing piety. I think being pious is one of many reason Euthyphro is persecuting his father. Socrates takes piety to a whole new level of reason (that I can't exactly understand).

I'll write more later after I re-read the text and figure out the four places where Euthyphro tries to explain exactly what he thinks piety involves. I am betting that his explanation is a lot easier and more compact than Socrates explanation on piety.

Intentions or Actions

I think the prompt that was brought up in class about how we judge people based on either intentions or actions was too deep for a Monday morning. Actually, without prior thought that is a tough question to answer.

In Genesis, God bases his judgement of Noah and Abraham on their actions. God makes Abraham nearly burn and slaughter his own son like a common animal. If God could tell in Abraham's heart that he was this devout to God, why would he make him do this in the first place? If God knew in that Eve would consider disobeying him one day, why did he even bother to wait? The all powerful, all-knowing God changes from Genesis to the book of Matthew.

In Matthew, even lusting after a women in your heart, not even committing adultery seems like a rash way to judge a human race. I enjoyed the discussion in class on Monday, because so many interesting topics were brought up, which raised some questions in my mind. Who were all the different authors that skewed Gods word in this way? Or, was this way that God intended to judge the human race throughout time? And why did his mind change after Jesus came to Earth?

The Genesis Debate

I am fascinated by the stories of Noah in general. Both the stories of the flood and the wine growing make me wonder about Noah's status with God.

In Gilgamesh, when Utnapishtim escaped the wrath of the Gods (the flood), he became immortal. Noah seems to be able to get away with whatever he pleases. God established a covenant between himself and Noah. But Noah's end of the deal just involved repopulating the Earth. And since Noah dies, apparently he was not immortal (at least in the Earthly sense). There seems to be the understanding between God and Noah that Noah will be left alone, to do as he pleases with his huge family. (On a random note, I really dislike that only the sons names are mentioned when various families are discussed.) I guess the gift from God for keeping his own creations alive, was keeping Noah himself alive by telling him about the flood. I think that the characters of Gilgamesh expect more from their many, temperamental Gods.

The scene with Noah drinking too much wine carries a lot of meaning and discussion in the ten lines that discuss the situation. For Ham seeing Noah's nakedness, his one of his son's lineage is punished eternally. I think this whole situation is very weird. In the Garden of Eden, God did not care that Adam and Eve say each other naked since they had no knowledge that they were in fact naked. On the other hand, he is mad that they cover themselves since they figured out that they were naked. There are very few themes that reoccurred like this in Genesis. What was author trying to tell us about nakedness? How are knowledge and sight so different, when knowledge is portrayed as sin in Garden of Eden?

Why CIE Rocks!

Okay, so I am too scared to swear in the title of my blog entry that a teacher will read but anyways. I just want to reflect on my CIE experience so far and discuss why, in fact, CIE does rock.
First, each one of the 16 people our CIE class had at least a slightly different background. Even though some people have all gone to church each Sunday, they too have had different experiences. This is part of what makes CIE so great. Every person's background makes every one's interpretation a little different. But also, I think that our class is particularly accepting of others ideas. This is not to say that we all come to some agreement at the end of class, but I think that everyone respects the thoughts and opinions of others. It is very important in a class to respect others opinions as much as your own. It may be a different story if all of us had grown up together and some managed to still interpret the stories this differently. I hope that by the end of the semester, the creativity of the class will not decline at all since we will all know each other quite a bit better. On the same note, I hope that the tension in our class doesn't increase too much. Overall, I just love CIE. I also think that our fairly cool teacher makes class better. I think that Nathan offers great points of discussion without pointing us in only one direction. Tangents aren't a bad thing after all. (I love math references) Also, I've heard some of my friends talk about their CIE professors (who shall remain unnamed) who only allow them to talk about one train of thought for an exact amount of time. I usually love lots of structure to classes, but I think that our class has the perfect amount of loose structure.

First, I think it is hard to separate experiences in your mind without meshing the ideas. Trying to separate what is preached in church versus critically reading Matthew and Exodus is very difficult. I think this plays a role when the whole class analyzes the literature. First, each person has SOME perception of the Bible before they entered the classroom. I doubt that anyone is completely in the dark about all the aspects of the Bible. Probably every person in America has come in contact with some form of the Christian religion, whether it be a sermon in church or on TV, or hearing a friend talk about one part of the Bible. Thus, I think this background information changes how each person first interprets the text the first time around. But hearing classmates interpretation can change or just tweak your views. Overall, I think it is fascinating to hear how others interpret five pages of Biblical reading.

The thing I find hardest to understand is the God's message and behavior. It is the same problem I had in Genesis. God tells man in Matthew not to be a hypocrite, and see yourself clearly. Yet God himself fails to do this. He tells man he is jealous god. Admitting fault is a good first step, but God insists that man corrects these faults. I cannot grasp how a man so powerful cannot be a better model for man. And if Jesus is God in the human form, does Jesus have these same faults? But is he not described as the perfect man?

When I did read this in a critical way, a good message did come through in the text; however. The morals that I try to live by each day were personified in an eloquent way. However; I think that the text flows better in the poem form. It is easier read, and can be followed as a story. Also, some of the verses are meant to be read as one sentence or thought. When these are broken up, it becomes difficult to grasp the same understanding as when the lines are all together as in the Bible. However; the new format does allow for easier interpretation, as breaks are automatically given for extra thought.

On the whole, I think that message sent in the readings from Matthew and Exodus is great, but the story is hard to understand since God's words about himself seem contradictory to the message.

A Penny for My Thoughts

If Gilgamesh gives insight to us about the Babylonian culture and society, what does a penny say about American culture? Its really hard to take yourself away from the situation and regarding a penny as just that, a penny. I find it really difficult to NOT use background information for once. Prior knowledge is what any student or person uses to assess situations, ideas, and actions of others. It is basically pounded into your to make connections with other areas of your knowledge every day. But what I would really like to discuss is a hypothetical situation.



What if in 5000 years, archaeologists dug up the remains of America (acting like it was destroyed and kind of built over in various places as Babylon was). My first thought was, what if Harry Potter turned into an Epic. If archaeologists dug up various copies of only these books, what would it tell them about our society? We would look ridiculous! On a more realistic if I had to chose one specific story for archaeologists to find in 5000 years, I would chose a children's story. These stories show the morals we value and what Americans love most about life.



In 5000 years, I would want archaeologists to learn about our civilization but how would they learn about the superficial things we love? What about our cars and homes that we cherish and spend too much money on? It makes you think about what should be important in your life. I would want our society to be remembered for its greatness, not consumerism. This is all off on a big tangent, but, seriously, how would you like to be remembered?

Overall, I really enjoyed looking closely at something that just flies in and out of peoples pockets each day.

Genesis: The Beginning

I would like to start by evaluating Adam and Eve and coming of knowledge and mortality to humans. There are two trees (one of life, immortality, and one of knowledge). God specifically says to ADAM that he may not eat from the tree of knowledge. Once God creates Eve (referred to as woman) no one other than the serpent told her about the trees of knowledge and life. The temptation would be too great for any human. Every has the desire to discover, learn about something. I don't think Eve should be blamed for the serpent's trickery. It is human nature that caused her to do so. But on the other hand, some view it that human nature developed from the knowledge. I think that the door swings both ways. In some aspects, Eve must have had some knowledge about her curiosity, but more knowledge also invokes curiosity.

Moving on in the book, sin is not mentioned, but murder certainly is! If God created man in the image of himself some questions come to mind including the following: Shouldn't all humans choose the correct path when temptation arises? (I guess not since Eve and Cain did not do so) Does this particularly exclude women or does God classify man as both men and women as some new interpretations think?

The most important thing I took from these chapters includes God's erratic behavior. First, he wants to kill all humans with a huge flood (real original by the way). Then, he proceeds to save enough animals and humans to repopulate the earth. And how did God choose Noah in the first place? I'm sure others had been just as devout and innocent as Noah. Also, God forces confusion upon the world by creating different languages, it is almost as though he fears humans will become too powerful for their own good. (They have knowledge, what could be next?) And destroying Sodom, is that entirely necessary. But again, God changes his mind for a few souls, when even more could have been innocent. The whole erratic behavior makes me feel as though could potentially be diagnosed with some mental disorder (Okay, its a bit of humor, not to be taken too seriously!)
A whole chapter of a blog could be devoted to Sarah and her one son. First, God refuses to let Sarah have any children at all. So Abraham sleeps with some slave girl at Sarah's command. Then after all the fighting and awkwardness of having a child by a different mother, God decides that maybe after Sarah reaches 100 years of age, she could bear children. But the child God essentially created is forced onto a burning alter by his father at the will of God. Could it get any more dramatic. I never realized the Bible could almost be a soap-opera.

Overall, I am really fascinated by the style of writing and the content of Genesis. All the people have different encounters with a different type of God it seems. It is very hard to get a clear image as to what God wishes his followers to act like when he changes his mind and never clearly develops one idea.

Gilgamesh: Power, Wisdom and a Tragic Hero

When I reviewed my notes from this week I decided to write about the two most common topics of the CIE class. First, I would like to say that I think Gilgamesh relates in some ways to the modern world, but over-analyzing the whole book makes these connections hard to see sometimes. I think you definitely have to accept the fact that Gilgamesh was written so long ago, that some of the cultural ideas won't be acceptable today. For example, treatment of women and the way in which men rule has changed in 3000 years (obviously). Seriously, entire species evolved over the period of time since the poem was written.
On the other hand, I think the attitudes and ideas about wisdom (from women?) and power can be very relate-able to today. Even if these attitudes aren't exactly the same as they are today, doesn't the book still have value since it deals with power and wisdom in different ways? I think new ideas are great and force you to take them into consideration, even if you don't want to so. Wisdom seems to have a general evil theme in both Gilgamesh and Genesis (more on Genesis after Monday's class). It is as though the maturing and realization of wisdom results in the downfall of both Enkidu and Gilgamesh. After Enkidu gains wisdom of civilization from the women (that is what I think occurs at least) he is destined to die. And Gilgamesh finally does something worthwhile as a ruler and then dies too.
This brings me to the tragic hero part. Exact tragic hero definition: a literary character who makes an error of judgment or has a fatal flaw that, combined with fate and external forces, brings on a tragedy (Dictionary.com). I think Gilgamesh's fatal flaw is his pride since he disobeys his fate. By doing so he automatically puts himself in the line of fire of the gods, even though he attempts to avoid his fate through many adventures (which helps Uruk by obtaining cedar lumber, getting rid of evil mountain monsters, and making the city pretty wealthy). Gilgamesh also gives up the thing most important to him, Enkidu, when he angers the gods with all of his nonsense with that Bull of Heaven. (Yea, never make a goddess really angry). Overall, I have to say I really enjoyed all the discussion on Gilgamesh and can't wait to get to Genesis.