Take Home Exam#1
Name:
Institution:
Take Home Exam#1
Question 1: Thales’, Heraclitus’, and Parmenides’, Accounts on the Nature of Reality
Thales would answer, “Water is the material principle of everything, since everything’s food is moist, and moisture is the source and prerequisite for the life of warmth itself CITATION TZL85 l 1033 (Lavine, 1985). Water is, therefore, the basic element (arkhé) of all existing things, and is the principle from which all matter is generated, and the principle from which all things are dissolved. The Earth also floats on water and is as immobile as a piece of wood. The world behaves like a bubble immersed in the primeval sea and the earth floats on this bubble. By studying seashells, one understands the watery origins of the earth. Water is a fluid element and principle and can adapt to any soil. Water is both a principle and an element, that is, the water you see here flowing, that we use to drink and to clean in this physical reality, also has a basis in realms beyond the physical senses. This water you observe here in the river is cyclic in nature, that is, the sun sucked out water from such a source and converted it into water vapor. The water vapor was in part fed fire and in part fell down as rain. The rain transformed into earth and afterward turned into clouds, dew, springs, and river like this one. This cycle repeats itself continuously. Water is vital to life and without it, life cannot be perpetuated. Water is the primary element linking God to plants and animals but it is also independent of God. God does not provide water, it just exists, as a physical natural principle.
Heraclitus would answer, “Just like the river flows, so does everything. Everything is fluid; it flows from an infinite source. Even objects that may appear static possess some inner dynamism or tension. Hence, “on those who step into the same rivers, different and different waters flow,” We both step and do not step into the same rivers; we both are and are not” and ‘It is not possible to step into the same river twice” CITATION TZL85 l 1033 (Lavine, 1985). Everything in the world is continually changing; things are created then disintegrate, grow then decay. Even the things that human beings find permanent such as monuments, all wear down with time. Due to change, things assume opposite characteristics; warm things become cold; warm things cool, dry things become wet; and the wet dry. Constant change is unstoppable, as things go about assuming opposing tendencies. However, logos gives all things unity. Despite the fact that the flowing river is constantly changing by gathering and scattering, logos gives it unity and structure, and we recognize it as a river, instead of a series of chaotic and opposing events. The ordering structure of logos is fire. The cosmic role of fire is to create an ordered universe, ignited and extinguished in measure. Fire provides structure to the world and is also the primary element from which everything is made. When compressed, fire becomes water, and when compressed more, it becomes earth.
Parmenides would answer, “This River has always existed and is part of a single, undifferentiated and unchanging thing, ‘the One’ CITATION TZL85 l 1033 (Lavine, 1985). It must have always existed since it cannot have come into being without coming from something or from nothing. But it cannot have arisen from nothing because there is no nothing and it cannot have arisen from something because there is nothing else than what is. Nor can anything else besides the river itself come into being as there is no empty space for it to do so. Is it or is it not? If it is, then it is now and all at once. Ex nihilo nihil fit. The river also reminds me of one of the three elements of authentic ontology: stillness. Just like the stillness of the river, human beings should perform meditation and incubation to live a great life characterized by reality rather than illusion. Other elements of authentic oncology are longing and logic.”
Question 3: Euthyphro’s Account of the Holy
Euthyphro offers various definitions of piety (holiness) and is confident that his actions are pious as they appeal to the gods. However, he does not show why the gods would approve of his actions. First, Euthyphro states that the pious is what he himself is presently doing, that is, prosecuting a wrongdoer, despite his relations to him. This argument fails because Euthyphro does not give a concrete definition, but rather a mere example of what he considers holy (if in fact, it is). Examples cannot be recognized as instances of a subject unless one already comprehended the subject already.
Euthyphro’s second definition is that “the holy is what is loved by the gods while the unholy is what is detested by the gods.” This definition fails because the Athenian (Greek) gods were often in conflict with one another and therefore did not love or detest similar deeds. Therefore, some acts can be both hold and unholy at the same time and can be termed as reductio ad absurdum arguments. For instance, if Zeus loves it but Athena hates it, it is both holy and unholy! Holiness is an abstract noun and cannot, therefore, me measured by measurement, like you would measure the height of a child, but which requires value judgment such as kindness or beauty.
Euthyphro adds that one can be sure that their actions are not unholy because the gods would approve, as the gods love holiness. This answer assumes that all holy actions are god-beloved; the gods love the actions because they have the property of being holy. This means that the gods must recognize an action as holy before they love it. Therefore, being god-beloved is just but one of the qualities of being holy. The complete nature of this person or action includes being loved by the gods but is not completely determined by this factor. This answer, therefore, explains one property of holiness (being god-beloved).
Euthyphro tries another approach of defining the holy. Socrates asks him to use the genus and species definition, by first fitting holiness into a general class and then finding a distinguishing feature. For instance; a chair is in the general class of (furniture) and is used for sitting. Euthyphro states that holiness is a form of justice or rightness and it attends to the gods. But this can be refuted by the fact that gods cannot be bettered (improved). Euthyphro then states that holiness is that form of justice that provides service for the gods. This claim is refuted by the fact that gods do not need any services (benefits) from mere mortals. The next definition that Euthyphro provides is that holiness is that form of justice that pleases the gods. This definition takes the discussion back to the third definition that Euthyphro gave, that, holiness is what the gods love.
All of Euthyphro’s arguments about holiness fail because he is keen on appealing to the gods’ judgment without comprehending why the gods would judge in that manner. Why is holy, holy to the gods? Greek polytheism raises some issues because a holy action can be unholy to another. Moreover, Euthyphro does not understand right and wrong.
Question 5. Crito versus Socrates
Crito arguments convinces Socrates that he should escape the punishment handed to him by the state, and therefore, he produces three reasons for his arguments. In his first argument, Crito tells Socrates that if he does not escape, then he will hurt Crito into ways; One of the ways is that Crito will lose a very close friend in the event if Socrates does not escape as he will die. The second way is that Socrates will hurt Crito’s reputation. Crito’s reputation will be ruined in that people will not be aware that Socrates chose to remain in jail, but they will think that Crito had the chance to help Socrates out of jail but could not do it since Crito was not willing to spend his money and Crito will be blamed for caring more of his money rather than his friend. Crito thinks that friendship is more important than money and but at the same time thinks of how the people are going to talk about him if he fails to rescue his friend from jail.
The second argument in Crito’s favor is the speculation of why Socrates does not want to escape. Crito says that Socrates fears that if he escapes from jail, he will be putting his friends in trouble for their assistance in fleeing him, but this does not warrant an excuse as; his friends are willing to risk letting him escape, and therefore they can even do more than that for him. Besides, it is very easy and cheap to pay off the guards as well as anybody else who might be willing to provide any information on Socrates, and therefore, there will be fewer risks for Socrates’ friends.
The third argument has more gravity in that Crito cites Socrates responsibility for his family especially for his children. Socrates being their father, has the responsibility to see that his children do not suffer and that they are brought up in a good way and as well get educated. Crito argues that Socrates cannot do this if he does not escape the punishment as he will die. Through this argument, Crito appeals to Socrates principles that are more important, as according to Socrates, doing good is what Socrates professes to lead his life, and that a good person should never let and neither see his children suffer, especially if he cared about them. According to Crito, staying in jail is easy, but escaping the prisons requires courage, and for this case, the right thing is to be brave for the sake of his children to look after them in future.
Socrates, on the other hand, argues against Crito’s reasoning. In his counter-argument, Socrates makes several considerations; for one he considers why the majorities’ opinion is not more significant, evaluates the consequences of his escape for the city of Athens and as well whether escaping is unjust and there would be a probability of harming his soul. According to Socrates, the opinion of an expert matters most than the opinion of the majority to whom Crito considers to talk about his reputation. Socrates argues that the opinion of the majority has the power to put one on death, but Socrates considers living a good life as what is important terming that living is not the most important thing. Following the majority’s opinion does not warrant living a good life. He, therefore, says that the aspect of paying off the guards is not among his principles and does not warrant living a good life.
By escaping, Socrates contemplates of the consequences of his action to the city of Athens claiming that the city and its laws would be destroyed if he escaped from prison. Socrates claims that the legal judgements would lose their force if the private citizens nullified them. Socrates claims that a city is maintained by laws and therefore a city without laws does not have any future. Besides harming the society, he also feels that he would be harming his soul as well by escaping in that he would harm the city as well as being responsible for harm to others as well would cause harm to his soul. Socrates had made an agreement to follow the laws of his city and going against them would cause suffering to his soul.
According to the argument, Socrates should take the hemlock as he justifies it. In my opinion, I would rather escape to live with my children as even my friends are in support of the same decision, laws are made, and this means that they can be broken. The laws are not important than the life of a person and therefore, breaking the law does not justify the reason for death, and neither is he responsible for the fall of the city as he will not be the only one to have broken the law.
References
BIBLIOGRAPHY Lavine, T. Z. (1985). From Socrates to Sartre : the philosophic quest. New York: Bantam Books.
Plato, B. (1927). Crito. Cambridge University Press.
