I am going to attempt to blog about Philo. No particular reason except i want to see how organised my thoughts are.

In Philosophy, we learn about concepts and values through the "Three Dialogues by Plato". However, as of now, i am only taught up to Euthyphro.

Well... in Euthyphro, the main ideas basically revolve around Euthyphro's case of prosecuting his father for "murder". Socrates comes into the picture as someone accused of corrupting the youth by introducing new gods into Athens.

So Socrates met up with Euthyphro and their conversations brought up several interesting points to ponder about.

Firstly, Euthyphro explained his case that his father caused the death of a servant, who was a murderer himself. So you see... the question is brought up: Is it RIGHT to murder/kill a murder? Then, the next question, should a son prosecute his own father?

Well, factors such as being filial, and all the time and effort the father took to bring up the son come into play... and you start wondering... okie... so you need to debate between what is morally right as a personal self and what is "acting" right in the society. Imagine prosecuting your father. All your relatives are going to come after you... as in a normal situation... are you going to protect your kin and hide his crime because you "owe" your upbringing to him?

So what is right and wrong?

Next, the question on 'holiness' is brought up. What is holiness? Oh by the way, holiness is linked very much to piety and it is impious for a son to prosecute a father for murder. And Euthyphro thinks his knowledge of the divine, of holiness and unholiness is very accurate, thus he is merely acting what he deems as holy.

So Socrates asked him to define what is holiness. "Definition" is one of the main topic here as Socrates felt that in order to have a fair ground of argument(or maybe not to have one), a standard definition of everything is needed.

Like Prof Holbo said in lecture, "What is a chair?" And everyone starts giving definition of a chair. A chair is something to sit on. Yea... you can sit on a table too. And ya... you get my drift... and it's much easy to define objects, things you can actually see. But imagine this, try defining courage or holiness or even "necessary". What is courage? Handing up an empty piece of paper during exam is courage? Saving a damsel in distress is courage? Jumping from 5 stories down is courage? Well... no one can actually have a clear definition of stuff like that...(that's why to me much of what was said was kind of bullshit)

I mean courage is courage... like when you do brave stuff, you are courageous in a way.

But for Socrates, only knowing the true intrinsic nature will lead to the "action" being shown. Thus when it reached here, i thought i am losing it. Like so being courageous is like you got to DO EVERYTHING BRAVE? I mean everyone's different and this guy here is looking for the perfectly good life. And that's why he's going around irritating the shit out of everyone by asking them questions after questions in order to get the perfect answer he wants. There can never be a flaw, if not he will go back to the beginning again.

And imagine this, if he really did find out all the definitions of leading a good life, he would be busy saving everyone, donating to charity till he's broke, making everyone happy and stuff like that. So what's the point?

Ok i digressed. Euthyphro then said "what the gods love is holy; and what is unloved by them is unholy".

Problem is, according to the Greek history, the gods are not exactly very friendly to each other. In fact, the gods go to war with one another, and there are hateful rivalries and battles between them.

So, what they love and unlove are not exactly the same. Thus this awkward consequence occur: some things will be BOTH holy and unholy.

Until now, it's quite a lot for me to take in considering how unreligious i am.

Actually i was thinking of something this morning. I was wondering in the end it kind of came down, whether the gods were there first or whether the morals and everything else were there first? You know... like the egg and chicken story...

So God created the world? Or so it seems... then so he must have made morals and virtues and everything else... right?

But Socrates asked, "Is the holy loved by the gods because it is holy, or is it holy because it is loved by the gods?"

Now the Orders of explanation come in. So it gets pretty roundabout. Like HUH.

I feel that Socrates asked too many questions. He lumped too many things into the picture and confused everyone. Like ok... you can say bird makes you think of wings and wings make you think of a plane and plane makes you think of passengers and passengers make you think of luggage. BUT you cannot link bird closely to lugguge~!!! You get my point?

Seriously... He make the gods sound like men. There was this particular part which got me really O_O. He said men prayed and doing things of holiness are service to the gods. Then he asked so what result is it that the gods achieve when they employ us as servants. So in a way, he was saying that man being holy was of service to the gods, but he asked so what do the gods receive from men?

S: "What they give us is obvious enough; there is no good we enjoy that does not come from them. But how is their lot improved by what they receive from us? Or have we gotten so much the better of them in our barter that we get all their blessings, while they get nothing back in return?"

E: "What else, indeed, except for honor, reverence, and that thing i mentioned just now, gratitude?"

S: "Holiness, then, is pleasing to the gods, Euthyphro, but not beneficial or dear to them?"

It's quite duh right? Like ok... we are being... generally morally right... and i am sure the gods seeing us like that would be happy, because that is their aim?

Like for God's sakes, why is Socrates seeing men being holy as something that needs to bring benefits to the gods? I mean, gods are gods. They are almighty and ermmm... ya you get my point... why do they need benefits from us? Ok maybe i don't know about this... but ya...

Now suddenly i feel maybe i have gotten all the wrong ideas. Maybe i am the dumb one. Like crap. But now a thought hits me. What if i post that up in the Philo blog? I am sure it reflects a few student's thinking about Philo. Well... at least for mine, Boon Hua and Cass. Then Prof Holbo will come after me.

Oh well... i've tried my best for this post...

Cheers~